Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Anyone

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 12:21 a.m. EST by WakeUp (-1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Ever read Ayn Rand books - Altas Shrugged or the Fountainhead? Any opinions on those?


http://the53.tumblr.com/archive

113 Comments

113 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Every day someone comes in here to rub in our faces the unmitigated self-interest of Rand; her demonization of altruism, her treatment of non-supermen (the 99%) as leeches, her simplistic social darwinism.. I just don't have the energy for it tonight, so I'm pasting my comment from another thread:

The only parallel I see is the ascendancy of the sociopathic superman ideology in the public sphere, the work of Rand used as a cudgel against the social contract and the last remnants of the middle class.

...

No Kool-Aid here. The stuff I drank was Rand herself, in high school. That was the closest I ever came to indoctrination. Here I was being given permission to be a cold-hearted antisocial ubermensch, and reject all my quaint views on morality and, basically, my mother's love - the value of things like empathy and altruism. Seriously. My rejection of this worldview was the outcome of a process of hardcore introspection and self-taught philosophy through the reading of people like Kant, Sartre, James, Mill, Locke, Rousseau, and Rawls.

The liberal professor stereotype is well-overplayed. I was more liberal than most of my professors.

I apologize for my snark. There has been so much Randalizing around here lately that my nerves are raw. I find it evil, and evil makes me angry.

What you call the theft of property I call the social contract. That our funds are being used to fight foreign wars and bailout banks, instead of promote the general welfare, is a failing of the social contract, and a product of our abdication of civic duty; addressing this failing is a prime purpose of OWS.

All the evidence i need that there's too much Rand and not enough Rawls in the public sphere is: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/us/census-measures-those-not-quite-in-poverty-but-struggling.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

...while the right screams in anti-socialist fury at any policy that is deemed remotely egalitarian. We are going down a very dangerous path. We need to rebuild the middle class and focus on a better society, before it is too late.

By the way, thank you for your service.

You wanted opinions.

From: http://occupywallst.org/forum/think-atlas-shrugged-is-fiction-look-around/#comment-435922


"Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history." -Noam Chomsky

[-] 5 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Ayn Rand, Welfare Queen: Living High On Government Assistance?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/06/ayn-rand-welfare-queen-living-high-on-government-assistance.htm

"Ayn Rand's philosophy is not one that any sane, rational adult can live by consistently any more than it's a philosophy that any successful, prosperous society could adopt. Ayn Rand wasn't insane so as soon as it was plain what her real choices were she chose to path of government support and abandoned her own failed philosophy. She just didn't have the courage to admit how much of a failure her philosophy was before she died."

"There is another interesting parallel to be drawn from this: Ayn Rand's behavior tracks disturbing well with the behavior of so many religious leaders. How many of them preach one thing from the pulpit then do something else behind closed doors? How many priests inveigh against homosexuality before their congregation while their male lovers wait for them in some motel room? How many priests promote the virtues of abstinence and chastity just after molesting an altar boy? How many preach the gospel of Jesus then at the end of a hard day drive their luxury car to their multi-million dollar mansion?"

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Well the same is true of all here; all are hypocrites.

[-] -3 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

First off - linking Ayn Rand to child molesting priests is a tactic used by someone with a weak argument to subconsciously associate her name with something utterly disgusting.

She addressed this, stating quite truthfully that she took much less gov't money (I'm pretty sure mostly just social security) than she had paid into over her lifetime. Also, how does that have anything to do with the impact of her work

[-] 11 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Why?

She openly advocated rape and collected government assistance after a lifetime of railing against it.

Meanwhile, the impact of her work was to simply spread the psychopathic capitalist doctrine of Social Darwinism.

[-] 1 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 12 years ago

Plus, her favorite TV show was Charlie's Angels, which she called 'the only true Romantic narrative of our time"' or some such.

That talentless, witless yenta should have just stayed at home watching her "stories" like the rich welfare witch she was.

Her efforts to write political beliefs into narrative form are laughable at best.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

"true Romantic narrative"

LMAO!

[-] -1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Are you saying Darwin was wrong?

[-] 4 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Darwin would have been apalled at social darwinism. You know who else were social darwinists? Oh, nevermind.

Human society has a choice to exceed nature. And because we can, we must - morally.

[-] -1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Why must we? Being to moral would lead to over population because no one would die and I'm sure someone's mentioned that on this site.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

The lesson of places like India and Africa (and indeed, look at the west) is that the biggest factor in overpopulation is a lack of education. As people are educated - especially women - the growth rate approaches zero. We can be humane and sustainable.

No one can answer for you why we must be moral. Hopefully one day you can answer that for yourself. Don't let Ayn Rand subsume your humanity or that day may never come.

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

She was human. I can argue that her ideas were completely human. If it came from her head it can't be inhuman can it? I think she was ahead of her time and thats why none of you agree with her.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

She was literally a sociopath (read about her praise of Hickman). Her writings tend to bring that out in others - especially youths high on their own Galt hormones of invincibility, narcissism and solipsism.

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Never claimed to be invincible

[-] 3 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

He was right about biology, but his ideas have no place in the realm of economics. Certainly not as a pretext for greed and avarice.

If anything, Darwin would be disgusted by the hijacking of our financial system.

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Why not. There are several instances when what we as humans do occur in nature. How can you claim to know that when you did not know the man?

[-] 3 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

In a society who's primary economic philosophy consists of stating flatly: "self interest is rational", any form of altruism or desire to help others becomes ipso-facto: irrational. We now know that this somewhat bizarre line of reasoning (known as: 'social-Darwinism') is a deeply flawed relic from some former, harsher, more patriarchal period of history that we have thankfully stepped out of. Clearly, markets do not, cannot and will not regulate themselves effectively.

On a small planet with finite resources -- where we all breathe the same air, drink the same water and eat the same food from the same oceans and farms -- there is simply no logic in competitive behavior. Thus, the cultural meme of so-called 'rational self-interest' will be inoculated - as ignorance always is, eventually - by a deep, shared understanding of 'Enlightened Self Interest' or: 'sustainable altruism'.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Man I'm just going back and forth with you today. Anyways, I agree with you. Helping people is good and I recognize that up to a point. But I think you have to take into account how instinctually and emotionally driven human beings are.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Excellent statement.

[-] -1 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure she didn't openly advocate rape??

Also, she collected gov't assistance but at a rate she (and most definitely her books many times over) paid for.

[-] 4 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Yes, well I believe it was Henry Louis Mencken that said:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American Public"

[-] -1 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

You continue to refuse to address the topic at hand. I wasn't saying whether or not her books deserved to be bought but that SHE PAID FOR WHAT SHE TOOK. Christ, no wonder your spending the majority of your time in a park

[-] 3 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

You have no evidence to support that claim because we don't know what she paid for or what she took.

For all I know, she could have been poor at the end of her life due to an IRS seizure stemming from her inability to pay her taxes. Maybe she never paid a dime into the system but benefited from it anyway.

I don't know and I don't care.

If someone needs help they should get it.

Period.

Even when that person is a sociopathic nut job like Ayn Rand.

[-] 0 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

I believe if someone needs help they should get it, however, our definition of need varies greatly I'm sure. If your life choices led to your "need" they should be judged. Some cases are unavoidable, most are not. If the fat was eliminated from the system then there would be more than enough for those who need.

Again, this started from you attacking Ayn Rand's life and not her philosophy which should stand alone from how she ended her life?

[-] 3 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

I attacked her life, her philosophy, her character and her integrity all at the same time. These are all intertwined and they all come back to the question of the validity of her work... Which doesn't really hold up.

[-] 0 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

The only actual defense against her philosophy you offered was people who "need" help should get it. Pretty pitiful defense in the end.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

What about that part where I explained that the social-Darwinist / "Objectivist" philosophy that Ayn Rand espoused is the very hallmark of the Republican / market-fundamentalist / right-wing / "conservative" / libertarian / laissez-faire / free-market rhetoric of anarcho-capitalist zealots and their corporatocratic constituency in Washington and around the country.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/anyone/#comment-447545

[-] 1 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

you linked her views to a bunch of different positions, that is not addressing the content of social-darwinism/objectivism and what you believe is wrong with the actual doctrine.

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

Here's the deal; the tactic may not be the most ethical, but Metapolitik has a point. Ayn Rand's philosophy is essentially based around the same concept as life and death by the sword; while you're young and strong and wealthy you get to keep every damn dime that you make and you don't have to help anyone unless you want to. The problem with that is that ten to one you only got strong and wealthy because there was a system in place enabling you to do so, including some combination of direct voluntary support but also a certain amount of automatic backing simply from how things are today. Just as you don't have to (and in her mind shouldn't) help someone else, when you grow old and weak the rest of the world will do "right" by you; let you fall and/or accelerate the process if they have something to gain by doing so.

Even the smartest of people had to have a strong educational background to land lucrative jobs. What pays for that? Involuntary universal levies known as taxes. Even the best product in the world needs a distribution network if it wants to reach potential customers. Such a network is based on public infrastructure which is again paid for by involuntary universal levies, known as taxes. I could go on in that vein for a good hour or two, but my point is that there are certain basic things that a society needs to function that are too capital-intensive to be created all at once by the private sector and too important to a functioning First World nation to be created piecemeal and managed for profit (as the private sector is designed to do). This is where the government comes in; we can achieve far more as a people with an organized plan of action than as a million splintered groups out for their own personal gain, and I think it's about time we accepted that.

[-] -3 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

You're also randomly quoting a person who dedicated his life to agnosticism as if it is a legitimate critique.

How about having your own opinion?

[-] 5 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

My opinion is that Ayn Rand was a dipshit with too much money and too much time on her hands who mitigated her deep feelings of guilt and emptiness with by writing sociopathic attacks on the poor and the altruistic via cartoon caricature superheroes in romanticized fictional universes with no parallels in the real world..

[-] -2 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

Your attacking the person for the most apart - another aspect of a poor argument.

Why are there no parallels in the real world? We have a society addicted to government assistance which has psychologically corrupted our citizens (possibly irrevocably)

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

We have a society that is pathologically addicted to corporatism, consumerism and the cryprofascist, propagandized, right-wing media which has psychologically corrupted our citizens.

You want to place the blame:

Blame 'Capitalism'™

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

right on! i have read too much of this debate - no point in arguing with someone who will not see the most simple points. by the way capitalism is not responsible for our wealth - fossil fuels are - until we learned to harness the power in them we were just plodding along.

[-] -1 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

No, capitalism brought us to this point, the most advanced nation ever on the face of the earth. If you think the media is right-wing slanted (other then a few who do openly admit it, ie FOX) then you are delusional and I'm sorry but have got to end this conversation.

The role of gov't is not to be a provider. Want to be really afraid of a gov't? Watch one that provides everything for you, that is true power that you will never be able to change

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

I believe that people have the power and the capacity to provide for themselves and each other and that the role of government is to facilitate and nurture those interaction.

Don't mischaracterize my views as "statist" just because you think you know what I am all about.

You don't.

The whole dichotomy between "left" and "right" and the corresponding two-party framing of political issues is a smoke and mirrors game designed to keep the "good-cop" / "bad-cop" of corporate/government collusion in control.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/approaching-a-metapolitical-discourse/

http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Metalvx

[-] -2 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

I'm not taking time to read links, if you want to state an argument fine. What you did just state, however, is the heart of Ayn Rand's philosophy so I suggest you read her books. You might be surprised by what you find.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

At no point in any of Rand's volumes of drivel does she observe that the dichotomy between "left" and "right" and the corresponding two-party framing of political issues is a smoke and mirrors game designed to keep the "good-cop" / "bad-cop" of corporate/government collusion in control.

[-] 0 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

What I said has nothing to do with the two party system before or after your last comment, your trying to change the discussion which is that if you think "people have the power and the capacity to provide for themselves and each other and that the role of government is to facilitate and nurture those interaction" I don't understand where that doesn't jive perfectly with Ayn Rand. Our current system is not relevant to the discussion at hand

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

It is absolutely relevant.

In that the social-Darwinist / "Objectivist" philosophy that Ayn Rand espoused is the very hallmark of the Republican / market-fundamentalist / right-wing / "conservative" / libertarian / laissez-faire / free-market rhetoric of anarcho-capitalist zealots and their corporatocratic constituency in Washington and around the country.

[-] 0 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

yes her philosophy which you haven't touched on - not her life. I'm done with this convo as its going nowhere

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

But I've only just begun threading all of the holes in the Swiss cheese that is her core philosophy.

What are you afraid of?

Don't run away now!

I'm just getting started.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Or, more accurately - you realize that you have picked a fight that you can't win because when someone articulate and analytic enough to actually parse and decipher Ayn Rand's bullshit presents a rational evisceration of the woman's work, it becomes nearly impossible to defend anything she ever said.

Especially in light of the fact that she died a hypocrite.

VVV

[-] 0 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

I'm getting tired. It took you too long to get started, sorry. Next time I feel like being reminded what a ludicrous movement this is maybe you will be on again. It might not be for a while, however, because I'm currently taking a full course load while working 20+ hours a week part-time along with various other activities I'm involved in. I don't have time to sit in a park and blog every day

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

as i just wrote to metapolitik - capitalism is not the reason we are wealthy - oil is! one barrel of oil will do the work of 12 men working for 1 year! without that your blessed capitalists would still be living in cold dark castles traveling on bumpy roads in carriages. wake up wakeup - you need to think not regurgitate!

[-] -3 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

thanks, am genuinely curious how you guys rationalize her views/people like this (http://the53.tumblr.com/archive)

My family is the epitome of the american dream (I mean as low as you can get at the start) and I have been raised accordingly. Therefore, I have an extremely difficult time identifying with "Occupying Wall Street" other than being ashamed if it were ever me, let alone thinking its a noble pursuit

[-] 3 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

"A heavy smoker who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer brings to mind those today who are equally certain there is no such thing as global warming. Unfortunately, Miss Rand was a fatal victim of lung cancer."

"However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor)."

"As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

"But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit."

"In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

The problem is that poverty in America is a rather mixed bag; much of it is a self induced. And those that apply themselves to fight their way out of poverty should not be held financially responsible for those unwilling to make any effort whatsoever.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Poverty is self induced?

Spoken like an over-privileged ass clown who's never really had to work for anything their lives. People like you never have any callousness on your hands - only your minds.

Just like wealth, much of poverty is inherited or externally induced.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

No... that's not it at all. Most is self induced in the sense that people offered even entirely free education in a world of entirely free opportunity, do not pursue it. Instead they drop out of school, hook up with their baby's mama, make babies they can't afford, and then leave them to raise those children on their own.

It's definitely not true of all, but the overwhelming majority simply do not make any effort whatsoever. If you have no future plan, you will have no future.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Having been poor and having worked my way up from poverty more than once, I can tell you first hand that the conditions of poverty and of working life in America are very difficult and that they turn the pursuit of educational achievement into an Sisyphian struggle that only the most humorless and hyper-focused can attain.

Furthermore, in a competitive economy, the 'haves' are always pitted against the 'have-nots'. It is no secret that poverty has a dramatically destructive effect on a child's ability to obtain academic achievement, and this is even more pronounced when he or she is pitted against those who are better equipped financially to compete in school.

As for teen pregnancy and drug addiction, avoiding such pitfalls when you are poor can be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

The policies of the liberal state have been a dismal failure; they are directly responsible for generational poverty.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

The Liberal State?

Just a second ago, you said poverty was self induced by the lazy and indigent.

Stop being slippery and make up your mind.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

It is self induced and liberal policies only enable.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Poverty is induced by the economic policies of Capitalists and social-Darwinists on the "right"-hand side of the political spectrum.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Absolutely not...

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Spoken like an over-privileged ass clown who's never really had to work for anything their lives. People like you never have any callouses on your hands - only callousness in your minds.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

And you're probably a welfare recipient. Where will your kids be in twenty years? No where...

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Ad hominem character attacks coupled with unqualified speculation as to my children's future will get you nowhere.

You are only further revealing yourself to be a Troll and a twit.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

Why YES YES I have, in fact here is an excerpt I think

http://occupywallst.org/forum/atlas-shat-and-excerpt/#comment-445026

Rand was a sociopath that had NO regard for her fellow human, was a follower of neitzsche's nihilism etc.

Truly an evil person.

[-] -1 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

haha that was straight garbage - in no way do I think any politician on either side is the real life equivalent of her characters (nor will any politician bc they probably wouldn't choose that life)

Saying she had no regard for her fellow human means you didn't read or, worse, didn't understand her works.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Not just fiction.

Garish, cartoonish, utterly unbelievable fiction.

With a cast of characters so completely removed from reality as to be considered by any competent clinical psychologist: "psychopathic", "sociopathic" and deranged.

It's like a comic book without the pretty pictures.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/think-atlas-shrugged-is-fiction-look-around/#comment-435496

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-real-ayn-rand/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/atlas-shat-and-excerpt/

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

Straight garbage... Guess I got her pegged.... And yes I read her real stuff too.... Also straight garbage.

From her books, to her interviews she was a committed nihilist (and should have been committed). She had no regard for nonproducers( though at the end she was one too)

Real people don't see in terms of producers/ nonproducers. We see fortunate and those less fortunate whom need help from time to time.

[-] 1 points by Lmac (1) 12 years ago

I once complained about having no shoes, until I met a man who sold shoes. So I wondered, "How could I get those shoes for my feet?" It was unfair that he had shoes and I didn't. So I asked around. "How did that guy get shoes to sell?" Someone said he worked a job selling newspapers when he was a kid. Then he saved up and bought leather and some tools and now years later he sells a hundred pairs a month. I thought to myself "How unfair". So I decided to camp in Central Park to let everyone know just how unfair our country is. I used to complain about having no shoes. Now I complain about other people selling shoes.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

very unfair. i did that too. the owner of the corner i sold papers from kept increasing the rent. the guy i bought the paper bundles from overheard that i was able to make the new rent increase and took the opportunity to raise the cost of the papers. then the bus fair went up and i could no longer afford to do biz. so i too shall protest.

[-] 1 points by machanicbutcher (3) 12 years ago

the seven deadly sins seem to miss the truth...the only true path to peace on earth is through heroism. selfishness is the obstacle and only lack of vanity brings us to who we really are. we are one without difference, that is the truth

[-] 1 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 12 years ago

I believe it was Gertrude Stein who said:

the thing that differentiates man from animals is money . . .

Now take those two cents with your opposable thumbs, buy some gum drops and find a nice elm to sit under and stare at the clouds for a day or two.

Much better way to waste your time than reading a book by that talentless political idiot.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

They work best for leveling table legs that are akimbo.

Not much else.

[-] 1 points by leavethecities (318) 12 years ago

Give a 100 different reasons why I shouldnt vote for Newt Gingrich otherwise I will deadline 10 am tommorow

[-] -1 points by stuartchase (861) 12 years ago

Dagny and Galt are members of the KTC. We couldn't accept Rearden because he was a tool.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/enterprise-rent-a-car-murders-children/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] -2 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

sorry, didn't feel like reading what that was all about but Fransisco D'Anconia is the man. Could you imagine being him watching Dagny getting railed by Reardon who is a tool and then being taken by Galt. Damn son, that's straight up wrong

[-] 0 points by stuartchase (861) 12 years ago

That's who Dagny is. She likes to fuck. Then she likes to suck on those dollar smokes. Do you think they all had an orgy in Colorado?

[-] -1 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

No way - galt is too pure. I could see her wanting a taste of the forbidden fruit again, however, with a few late night "copper mine - rail road planning sessions" behind the golden boy's back

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 12 years ago

If you get a chance, take a look at those links in the near future. They are two companies that people should really bitch about instead of Walmart.

[-] -2 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Ok well you'll get a lot of ant-rand junk but I personally agree with her ideas and think her books are well written?

[-] 4 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

I'm just glad she's dead.

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Yeah? Why's that? I thought we were all lovy dovy here. Everyone is important and all that jazz.

[-] 7 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Everyone IS important.

Which is why people like Ayn Rand - who insist that the poor and downtrodden don't deserve a voice - are the worst kind of people.

And while I defend their right to say what they want to say.

I maintain my right to say "good riddance" when the hole in their hearts finally kills them.

[-] -2 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

No she said the people that refused to work and wanted to mooch off of the people that wanted to work and create better lives for themselves. Where was the hole in Dagny Taggart? She ran her business like a business woman. She made decisions based off of a system that worked for her ancestors.

[-] 4 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

And then she died collecting government assistance and eating her own words, once she realized that life is more complicated than that and that sometimes people are unable to work due to health, age, disability, natural disaster, sudden poverty, financial collapse, or lack of jobs.

[-] -2 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

You obviously didn't read any of her works and just spew regurgitated nonsense. Either that or you aren't articulate enough to even understand the simplest of meanings within her books.

[-] 4 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

I've read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Both of which sucked a dead rat's ass.

[-] -1 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

If you hated them that much, there is no way you finished them. Just saying, they are extremely long and I would have put it down if I didn't like it. She mentions a few times how she loves those equally who aren't capable of the success her main characters have but work to their means.

If you think those are bad, I couldn't imagine what you do like

[-] 4 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

I'm am intellectual masochist that way.

[-] -2 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

I have no problem with aid. How long was she on it? People get knocked on their ass and they have to get back up eventually. However, people on Welfare for a generation and they have more children just to get more money out of the government. See the problem with that?

[-] 3 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Ah the proverbial "welfare mothers" that just have kids to get money.

There people are a myth... No one wants to be poor.

And while there might be a few isolated examples of this kind of behavior, it is definitely the exception and not the norm.

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

I'm sorry but you are incorrect, People with no incentive to work want to be poor on some level.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Poverty is self induced?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Spoken like an over-privileged ass clown who's never really had to work for anything their lives. People like you never have any callouses on your hands - only callousness in your minds.

Just like wealth, much of poverty is inherited or externally induced.

Having been poor and having worked my way up from poverty more than once, I can tell you first hand that the conditions of poverty and of working life in America are very difficult and that they turn the pursuit of educational achievement into an Sisyphian struggle that only the most humorless and hyper-focused can attain.

Furthermore, in a competitive economy, the 'haves' are always pitted against the 'have-nots'. It is no secret that poverty has a dramatically destructive effect on a child's ability to obtain academic achievement, and this is even more pronounced when he or she is pitted against those who are better equipped financially to compete in school.

As for teen pregnancy and drug addiction, avoiding such pitfalls when you are poor can be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Actually the calluses on my hands have recently been peeled off by shoveling and using an ax for a straight 8 hours. I am neither hyper focused or humorless and am currently maintaining a 4.2 GPA with 3 AP classes on my belt and a sport everyday after school. As for drugs and teen pregnancy and drugs, teen pregnancy is 100 percent preventable and drugs just make more people poorer.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Don't sell yourself short.

You sound pretty focused.

Assuming you are being honest, I admire your fortitude.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Thank you I think. I don't see it that way. They were all appealing to me so i took them.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

And burns in hell

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

I'm sorry but you are incorrect, People with no incentive to work want to be poor on some level.

[-] 3 points by Tinhorn (285) 12 years ago

Written well and good content are two completely different things. I can say eat a shit sandwich or I can say please enjoy a delectable sandwich with our traditional fecal matter sauce. It sounds better but the message is the same.

[-] 4 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Reading an Ayn Rand book is definitely a lot like eating a shit sandwich.

[-] -1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

I didn't say the were the same. I said I thought they existed independently of each other and I think each of them are true statement. However, I guess everything is relative.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

No, everything is "Objective".

(:p

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

I meant it was all relative to how your parents raised you.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

I know... I was making a joke about Ayn Rand's "Objectivism".

Relative / Objective

Nevermind.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

Oh no I understood it.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Ah... But did you manage to catch my subtle, metasyntactic reference to her "Moral Relativism" as well?

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

I'm sure it was in there somewhere

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

well written? here's an excerpt

http://occupywallst.org/forum/atlas-shat-and-excerpt/#comment-445026

She wrote garbage, and was rotten in her soul.

[-] -3 points by applepie (17) 12 years ago

Atlas shrugged & the fountainhead--free--

Ayn Rand (play /ˈaɪn ˈrænd/;[1] born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,[2] playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism.


the fountain head pfd

http://www.multiupload.com/1PIIMGAJOS

the fountainhead mp3 audio compressed

http://www.multiupload.com/BZZ757JW9I

atlas shrugged pdf

http://www.multiupload.com/6QQTXX0AL0

atlas shrugged mp3 audio compressed

http://www.multiupload.com/I31Z3DA1WB

[-] 4 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

I'm just glad she's dead.

[-] 1 points by HapteMikael (162) 12 years ago

+1, Jobs as well.

[-] -2 points by WakeUp (-1) 12 years ago

If you guys were lucky enough, all the capable people would just drop dead. You could just walk right into their lives w/o the work they put in. Best case scenario for you, right?

[-] 1 points by HapteMikael (162) 12 years ago

You're getting owned on this thread.

[-] -1 points by applepie (17) 12 years ago

for hundreds of years , she will be changing people lives in her books- training web page http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Lord help us...