Forum Post: Anyone
Posted 13 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?
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:
...
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
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?"
Well the same is true of all here; all are hypocrites.
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
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.
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.
"true Romantic narrative"
LMAO!
Are you saying Darwin was wrong?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Never claimed to be invincible
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.
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?
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'.
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.
Excellent statement.
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.
Yes, well I believe it was Henry Louis Mencken that said:
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American Public"
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
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.
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?
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.
The only actual defense against her philosophy you offered was people who "need" help should get it. Pretty pitiful defense in the end.
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
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.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/anyone/#comment-447595
http://occupywallst.org/forum/anyone/#comment-447462
http://occupywallst.org/forum/atlas-shat-and-excerpt/
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.
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?
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..
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)
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'™
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
yes her philosophy which you haven't touched on - not her life. I'm done with this convo as its going nowhere
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.
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
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
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!
You'll find plenty of opinions here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-real-ayn-rand/
Also: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarianism-is-so-wonderful/#comment-441587
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
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The policies of the liberal state have been a dismal failure; they are directly responsible for generational poverty.
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.
It is self induced and liberal policies only enable.
Poverty is induced by the economic policies of Capitalists and social-Darwinists on the "right"-hand side of the political spectrum.
Absolutely not...
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.
And you're probably a welfare recipient. Where will your kids be in twenty years? No where...
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
I believe it was Gertrude Stein who said:
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.
They work best for leveling table legs that are akimbo.
Not much else.
Give a 100 different reasons why I shouldnt vote for Newt Gingrich otherwise I will deadline 10 am tommorow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
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!
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
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?
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
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.
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?
I'm just glad she's dead.
Yeah? Why's that? I thought we were all lovy dovy here. Everyone is important and all that jazz.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
Both of which sucked a dead rat's ass.
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
I'm am intellectual masochist that way.
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?
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.
I'm sorry but you are incorrect, People with no incentive to work want to be poor on some level.
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.
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.
Don't sell yourself short.
You sound pretty focused.
Assuming you are being honest, I admire your fortitude.
Thank you I think. I don't see it that way. They were all appealing to me so i took them.
And burns in hell
I'm sorry but you are incorrect, People with no incentive to work want to be poor on some level.
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.
Reading an Ayn Rand book is definitely a lot like eating a shit sandwich.
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.
No, everything is "Objective".
(:p
I meant it was all relative to how your parents raised you.
I know... I was making a joke about Ayn Rand's "Objectivism".
Relative / Objective
Nevermind.
Oh no I understood it.
Ah... But did you manage to catch my subtle, metasyntactic reference to her "Moral Relativism" as well?
I'm sure it was in there somewhere
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.
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
I'm just glad she's dead.
+1, Jobs as well.
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?
You're getting owned on this thread.
for hundreds of years , she will be changing people lives in her books- training web page http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43
Lord help us...