Forum Post: To all of those followers of AYN RAND (and to those who wonder what all this Atlas Shrugged / Fountainhead nonsense is about)
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 23, 2011, 4:27 p.m. EST by therising
(6643)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
To all of you Ayn Rand followers: Why are you so obsessed with being separate from everyone? If you wall yourself off in the isolation of a gated community, you only live half a life. There's no doubt that individualism is an important part of life but most thinking and feeling adults also realize that to be truly fulfilled as a human being, we must also live in community with others, care for others and participate in a dynamic and nurturing society.
Since your viewpoint doesn't make rational sense, I can only attribute the obsession you and others have with the rather boorish Ayn Rand to either some deep seated unmet need in childhood or some sort of cult phenomenon.
I know that the other appeal Rand's outlook has for you and others who obsess over her is that it let's you off the hook. You don't need to care about anyone but yourself. You have no obligations. You have no morality. You can be lazy.
Please help me understand rather than attacking me the way those who have a Rand fixation often do. I'm honestly trying to understand why you feel it heroic to cast aside morality, reneg on your obligation to others and, most of all, lose out on all the benefits of community. Did you simply hate the home or community that you grew up in so much that you can't even envision a dynamic nurturing community.
Together, my friend, we are greater than the sum of our parts. You'll enjoy life much more, make your mark on this world and lead a much happier and more fulfilling life if you come out of the shadows, lay down your fear of others and open your heart. Life is waiting. And the fear is really only in your head. You thrive on it, that fear of others. But it is a fantasy. You fantasize about being one of Rand's heroes but what you're really doing is wasting your life by basing your entire outlook on the delusions of a sociopathic person who celebrated not giving a shit about anything but herself.
Why do you waste your life so? Step out into the warmth of the sun, into the warmth of community and LIVE. Life's too short to be stuck in an invented narrative.
(Here's a very informative link to good info about the real Ayn Rand: http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/the-real-ayn-rand/
You reach out to us to live in your community, yet in the header call our beliefs "nonsense" and in the second paragraph, our viewpoint irrational. Looks like we Randian loners still have better social skills than you fleabaggers.
Anyway, it is your viewpoint that doesn't make rational sense:
"Why are you so obsessed with being separate from everyone?"
We are only obsessed with being separate from looters that rob us at gunpoint.
"we must also live in community with others, care for others and participate in a dynamic and nurturing society."
A society you expect us to build for you, at the point of a government gun, at no cost to you. Build your own society, if you can. We're on strike. Drop dead.
"You have no morality."
We have the best morality in the world, the one that recognizes that we have no obligations to looting, mooching scum. "Hakuna matata: a problem-free philosophy."
"You can be lazy."
You are the lazy ones. We build things for ourselves, for our friends, and for those who ask us for our help. You build nothing for no one, but demand that we help you, without a word of thanks. If we give you something, all we get is ingratitude and a mob that comes back to demand more.
Get lost. The party is over. Get a job, or start your own business, if we find you unemployable.
"Please help me understand rather than attacking me the way those who have a Rand fixation often do."
Said the skilled networker that started hurling insults in the header.
"Together, my friend, we are greater than the sum of our parts."
I am not your friend since the header. Plus, we are great and you are the parts/tools.
"I'm honestly trying to understand"
No, you're not. We already covered that. You start hurling the insults, you're intellectually dishonest by definition.
"why you feel it heroic to cast aside morality,"
Because the only purpose of your counterfeit morality is to permit you to steal from us, to enslave us, and to murder us if we don't comply.
"renege on your obligation to others"
We have no obligations to looting scum, slave drivers, and jackbooted thugs.
"and, most of all, lose out on all the benefits of community."
Your community has nothing to offer to us. You're intellectually, morally, and financially bankrupt. Get out of the way. Drop dead.
"Why do you waste your life so?"
Et tu, brute?
"Step out into the warmth of the sun, into the warmth of community and LIVE."
We are in the sunlight. It is you that is benighted. We neither need nor want the fug of your community. We are alive. You are mindless, lifeless zombies.
"Life's too short to be stuck in an invented narrative."
Life's too short to be stuck in your dream, uh, nightmare world. Life's too short to be your slave.
It is nonsense..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman
This is beautiful. We ought to frame this. Nothing antisocial about this philosophy at all....
"We are only obsessed with being separate from looters that rob us at gunpoint. "
"Nothing antisocial about this philosophy at all....[Sarcasm]"
Thanks for clearly identifying 'looters robbing people at gunpoint' to be your definition of 'social'. Says everything one needs to know about your "philosophy".
You start out with an odious smear characterization and then beg to not be attacked for it but rather to have help understanding? Is that some sort of hilarious Occupier debating construction?
Here is your answer and if you get it you will "understand." The problem is you. You are obsessed with the collective. I will not sink to the gutter level of psychologizing as you did; I leave you to face your ugly motivations in a self-reflective moment -- if you ever have them. Whatever is driving you at the center of your soul, the result is this: you would prefer everyone be forced at the point of a gun into the political collective, but you can't quite achieve it in a nation that still desires freedom. Thus your desperate screams of frustration.
Hence the twisted portrayal of forced community as "dynamic and nurturing" and freely chosen community as fearful, lazy, a-moral, and irrational. Your world is upside down. Some day you may realize the critical importance for a human to be free to utterly separate from others on choice, and the horrific torture visited upon the soul by those seeking to make it illegal and immoral.
Do you really understand how guilty you are for sanctioning political enslavement in the name of an illusory spiritual bond that wards off separation? Not only is that enough to condemn you, be aware that in your futile lust to force mankind into bondage you will be shut out from the open heart, as follows: “To say ‘I love you’ one must know first how to say the ‘I.’” -- Ayn Rand.
You want "to utterly separate from others"? And you say it's "horrific torture visited upon the soul" to join in community? And you seem to be saying you can't love others until you become utterly selfish and self-centered. Dude. Do you ever stop and listen to yourself? This obsession with being separated and withholding love? What's that all about? You can step out of this trap. You don't have to fight so hard to maintain your prison walls. The bars that hold you in are only in your mind. If you open your heart to love, life will grow so much larger and freer. Open your heart. Let go of the clinging to "I, I, I" "me, me, me". Enter the flow of life.
Why can't John Donohue have the FREEDOM to separate himself from the "collective" if he so wishes? Why do you wish to force him into your collective if he will not be a productive member of that community? Why can't you work on attracting people to your community that think like you, and let John Donohue to his own devices?
If you can honestly answer those, then you are one step closer to understanding why YOUR logic is flawed.
So when you eliminate the environmental reatrictions, how will your kids breathe? You play this "we just want to be left alone act but your actions or lack of actions have real consequences for the members of the ommunity, a community youre a part of whether tou like it or not. You drive on these roads and yet you act as though being responsible citizen is some kind of burden. You want all of the benefits and none of the responsibilities. You sound like a lazy hippie.
Au Contraire. I want more responsibility than you can handle. I want those roads privitized, I want all property OWNED by someone. Its easy to justify a road that is unnecessary when the losses for that system are absorbed by the state.
Do you think that we would have the "interstate" highway system if it wasn't for government? We are STUCK with that system even though it is the least efficient and cost effective way to transport people and goods. All other systems are cost prohibitive simply because the interstate system exists.
Do you think we would have over fishing problems if companies could own and farm swaths of the ocean? The fact that these resources are PUBLIC goods are the reason over fishing and pollution occur. Who cares when its not mine or my neighbors....
I can go on and on, but there isn't the time or space to explain it sufficiently here. If you would like to read someone far more intelligent on the matter than me, I suggest Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty". I know you won't read it...but the information is there.
So that's your solution? Sell EVERYTHING???? Ha! You're crazier than I thought. So you'd sell the ocean? Who owns the ocean that would be on a position to sell it? You have an absurdly naive faith in the free market. As the son or daughter of a former slave whether they think the market can do wrong. You do recognize that right? That the free market sold human beings not that long ago on auction blocks. I own a company. Itt's been in business nearly 15 years. I employ a lot of people. In building this business, I've had the chance to deal with lots of other business people. Many of them are good people. Others would sell their own mothers or buy yours if they could make a buck off it These "business assholes" (as George Carlin referred to them) need guardrails. You treat government as some awful "other". The founding fathers would be so disappointed in you. The government is US man. The people.
That's exactly what they think 'Sell Everything"
It ALL must be in private hands, and a 30% surcharge tacked on to create "profit" for - whoever.
It really is like a religion, this irrational faith in "the market" to "fix" everything.
Society went from believing in the hand of god to the invisible hand of the market, and now it's being crushed by both.
If you still believe the government is US and can be US you are crazier than I am. :)
Oh, I don't just believe it. I know it. I worked on Capitol Hill for my Congressman in my younger years. I know the system can work. We helped real people on the ground. Kids got educated. Poor people were fed. We kept elderly people from dying in ditches. You don't give a rats ass about any of those people. Fuck old people right? You just care about yourself. You are so deluded friend. And your delusion is hurting others. Stop it. Just stop it. We mve had enough of selfishism. Ayn Rand's prescription for a society where nobody cares about anybody else is just total horse shit.
While her books are entertaining, Ayn Rand is a tool.
Don't talk to me like I am some Rush Limbaugh ditto-head. The old progressive "You don't care about children or old people" argument won't work on me.
What I want is power BACK to where it belongs, in MY community. Fuck capital hill. I want the FEDERAL government out of my wallet, and out of my life. I want my MONEY in MY hands where I can make a difference the way I see fit.
You guys always say that. And you always claim you know better how to help people with your money personally. And then a Porsche shows up in your driveway. And then you decide not to donate to the homeless shelter this year because, after all, the Porsche needs new tires, right? Then the wife wants that fancy living room furniture right? And so the church donation goes by the wayside. Maybe you need to layoff an employee or two to crank out some more cash for that European vacation. You just end up another mindless American consumer not giving a shit about anyone else.
But that's an empty life you see? What's satisfying is to participate in your community. And government, local, state and federal, hell even the board of your homeowners association are all your community. You want to opt out of any responsibility in your community. But you want the roads to be paved don't ya. Potholes are bad for the Porsche.
You are funny. I love how you pretend to know me. I don't drive a porche, I drive a car I paid 10K for, with a loan. I have four children who I feed. I donate when I can to charities I choose, and I live in an 850 sq ft, house even though I could afford much more.
That is the problem with progressives...everyone has to fit into their nice little buckets...
So you're part of the 99% rather than the 1%. So that's what baffles me. You're out there protecting the rights of the 1%. Why are you doing that? Because you think someday you'll be in their position?
Dude, they are using you. All of you Ayn Rand loving, libertarian leaning, tea party living people (all separate groups but much shared ideology and end results). The 1% are laughing in some smoke filled room right now because these divisive philosophies you guys have allows the 1% to divide and rule the 99%.
I'm telling it like it is here man. They have you guys out there yelling about how bad the government is. That's exactly EXACTLY what they want because it keeps government regulators hands tied. It lets the sec be so weak that Goldman Sachs can sell its own clients junk and then turn around and bet against them... And the S EC doesn't do a damn thing because there're people out there like you shouting less government less government less government. Let me tell you something friend. The 1% are absolutely thrilled that you are letting them off the hook.
I can't reply to you...so I will do it here and hope you see it.
The government and the "bankers" are in collusion. They always have been, well at least since 1913 in this country. And they have been pushing this class warfare shit for the last 100 years and LOVE when you liberal progressives lap it up like the good puppets you are. They keep us fighting for the scraps of "social programs" while lawmakers and elites cut another piece of the pie for themselves
The tragedy of the commons is just as hard a fail for private property as for purely collective property, and is the best argument I know of for government regulation. Read "Libertarianism and the Tragedy of the Commons" from http://www.spectacle.org/897/trust.html
Private owners of resources think short term profits. Sell the redwood forest to a logging company (and almost any little landowner would) and they will liquidate the slow-growing redwoods for quick cash then plant a faster growing species for continued revenue, without regard for anything but the bottom line. It's a fallacy that people always see and protect the intrinsic value of their property. This is precisely what's happened in Indonesia, where the most diverse, productive, ancient, and awesome rainforest habitats on earth have been almost wholly replaced (except for a few national parks) with palm oil plantations.
"Why can't John Donohue have the FREEDOM to separate himself from the "collective" if he so wishes?"
Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Rousseau did offer a way out of the social contract: Leave.
Like it or leave it huh? How very Right wing of you.
Couldn't I technically say that to all of OWS?
The thing is, the social contract, the definition of the general welfare, is defined by the "luminous conception" of the general will, and enforced with the consent of the governed, and that means a majority.
I read the book when I was seventeen I liked the story (actually I read better) but never took anything in the book as serious or gave it another thought. As I got older it became clear that this was a book that had an underlining message that the John Galt's of the world could take the most productive in society on a whim and secretly leave to make society collapse in itself with very little care. This in its self is a socialpathic trait of manipulating society to get your way. Only if this happened in todays society it would involve the 1 percent taking their money out of the system causing collapse maybe because of strict regulations. So no I don't support Ayn Rand she was nuts and I don't think that the 99% should either.
"You have no obligations. You have no morality. You can be lazy." Those quite simply are false claims regarding objectivism. As far as obligations go Ayn Rand would argue that no one can decide what a man's obligations are other than the man himself and in that respect he technically isn't "obligated" to do anything. However men such as Ayn Rand writes about in her novels have many obligations. The three fundamental values of John Galt are reason, purpose, and self-esteem. To have a purpose it is presupposed that one does have obligations. Rand simply proposes a slightly atypical definition of what is actually obligatory in life. A man is obligated to follow his own reason and to follow objective morality. Which brings me to the next claim you make. How can you say "you have no morality." Objectivism is not primarily a political philosophy but a moral philosophy. Rational self-interest may not be the school of moral philosophy which you subscribe to but it is most definitely a type of morality. This isn't even an attack on objectivism I've ever seen before. Most people would say its too moral. That it's moral code is rigid and impossible and even utopian...not immoral. The claim that you can be lazy is laughable and shows that you have no in fact read any of her novels. Howard Roark, Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, and John Galt are just about the least lazy characters I can think of in fiction. Laziness was anathema to Ayn Rand. Her definition of a hero was a productive man of the mind, who's reason and sense of morality are unbridled. I think if you read her works and really examined the interpersonal relationships you would understand objectivist individualism. I think a lot of it is best summed up in a conversation between Howard Roark and Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead. At this point in the novel Wynand has basically become Roark's best friend and Roark tells Wynand (and I'm not looking up the verbatim quote here) "I would die for you Gail, but I couldn't and wouldn't live for you." In objectivism love and friendship are considered selfish acts, as are all moral things. Ayn Rand still believed in true, romantic love. In a speech made by Francisco d'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged he basically says that love, like money,, can in fact bring true happiness...but only to the man who knows its true value. I wish you could see how objectivism is in fact something that glorifies the universe and celebrates man and all that qualities that are part of being a man. The most important part of objectivism is that true human nature (human nature meaning the qualities which separate us from animals...which is mainly human reason) is the most beautiful thing our world has to offer. Objectivism is about a love for all things physical, metaphysical, human, emotional, and even spiritual (I say that with caution however and do not mean to imply any sort of religious mysticism). And lastly, obviously the philosophy in her novels is unrealistic. She writes from a romantic point of view. Her first novel We the Living is mostly autobiographical. It is still a romantic story about a character who's story parallels Ayn's own experience living in Soviet Russia. Ayn wrote that she would never write an actual auto-biography because it would be boring. She wrote in the romantic style because true realism does not allow one to portray an entire philosophy in one novel. And regardless of what your opinion of the philosophy is, her prose are beautifully written and the philosophy is more than legitimate. Ayn Rand wrote about the world as it should be to show it what it can be.
She had a kinky view of sex.
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never work for the sake of another man, nor let another man work for mine."
I bet only half the posters here have actually read Rand.
Ummm that's not the quote by the way...have you read the book?
So you swear you'll never help another human being. What kind of stupidity is that?
That makes no sense to me.
Why didn't it?
Hasn't Rand been diagnosed with narcissistic psychopathy many times over?
Hard to diagnose a dead person.
She left quite much material to work with.
The Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution states that no man shall:
“… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
To paraphrase:
A man has Rights by his mere existence
A man has the Right to his existence
A man has the Right to think what he wants, say what he wants, go where he wants, associate with whose that he wants, etc.
A man has the Right to keep and use the assets which are legally his
The founding fathers established the government as the protector of individual rights. The founding fathers understood that government was necessary because each man on his own could not protect his own Rights. However, they also realized the abuses that could be perpetrated on people when the government had unlimited power. Therefore, they created a government that was not the master of a person, but a servant to each person, and existed to protect each person’s rights equally.
They did not create a government that was meant to fulfill biological human needs. If that is what they had intended the Bill of Rights might read:
But they understood that “needs” were not the same thing as “Rights”. Needs are goods and/or services produced by oneself, or traded for with another person. Thus to say that a person had a Right to these things was to say that one person had the Right to another person’s property and liberty, even their life.
Fast forwarding, government is not here to “help people” or “solve their problems”. It exists only to protect people’s Rights, all the people, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, age, or WEALTH. If the wealthy have committed a crime, arrest them, throw them in jail and take their money. If they haven’t committed a crime, leave them alone or better yet help ensure that the government protects them from those that wish to take from them.
Ayn Rand understood these things and tried to remind others of them. Maybe it’s time they were reminded again.
Love the paraphrasing where you transform the words of the doc which doesnt say what you want it to say into a doc that does :) Funny :). You should really do stand up or something evaluate you have an excellent sense of timing.
By the way, what do you think of this bombshell? If you're brave you'll watch the whole way through this very short 1 minute and 20 second video clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I don't think you have the balls.
therising:
Like most people alive today, you are ignorant about the objective meaning of the wording in the Declaration and Constitution. Our founding documents make clear that the government of the United States was formed to secure our inalienable rights.
Do you grasp what those two concepts entail? "Inalienable" means inherent in the nature of a thing--in this case a human being--and refers to the social requirements for that individual's survival and flourishing. Those requirements are called "rights." Do you know what a right is? It's the opposite of a permission.
In other words, according to the Founders, you have a right to your life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, and don't need anyone's freaking permission to exercise them. It's not up for majority vote.
Get it?
Everything the previous poster said above was spot-on, and logically follows from that. The government is obliged to defend our rights, not violate them. The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy where the majority gets to do whatever it wants.
Pursuant to the principle of individual rights, the entitlement-regulatory state should be done away with. No more handouts, no more strictures on the value-creators.
According to Ayn Rand, if someone is violating the rights of another, i.e. thru the initiation of physical force or fraud--murder, rape, theft, and so on--they should be apprehended by the police, judged in a court of objective law, and imprisoned or otherwise punished if convicted. Other than that, the government should leave people alone to live their lives according to their own independent judgment.
This book is a must read for OWS movement... http://www.amazon.com/Wildfire-Legislation-Ignited-Great-Recession/dp/1617392839/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295880272&sr=1-1
Thanks for the suggestion
These guys are just copying the same things from post to post.
See http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-real-ayn-rand/#
JohnDonohue below states it correctly; they are "obsessed with the collective".
If you start a discussion with them and they disagree with you, they eventually resort to calling you names, especially when they’re losing.
Atlas Shrugged was listed as the #2 most influential book in peoples lives in the 1991 Survey of Lifetime Reading Habits, conducted for the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of Congress' Center for the Book. Confirm at http://www.englishcompanion.com/Readings/booklists/loclist.html or http://belleofthebooks.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/books-that-shaped-peoples-lives/ or anyone of a number of other sites.
Curious about the methodology used to compile this 20-year old reference you cited, I actually went on both these blogs to confirm, as you suggested. The library of congress (a government agency, last i checked, which I find ironic in an attempt to make a point about Rand) no longer makes its methodology available. A slightly more comprehensive and recent source would be the book The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written: The History of Thought from Ancient Times to Today, which does not list anything by Ayn Rand as particularly influential. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100_Most_Influential_Books_Ever_Written_(book)
Yea, I know. I TRIED to get it off the Library of Congress site, but I couldn't find it either. I posted two disparate links just to make sure it wasn't a phantom and apparently did actually happen.
I'm not saying there's any sort of universal acknowledgment that Atlas Shrugged is one of the greatest books ever written. This little tidbit of minor history IS interesting, however, isn't it ?
No, to a serious student of literature and philosophy, it's distracting and tiresome, unless one is an acolyte.
Pretty easy. Try and FORGET about the Ayn Rand of (un)popular culture and try to understand her IDEAS as summarized in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/
LOL ! You ask for "civil discourse" when you say "Please help me understand rather than attacking me the way those who have a Rand fixation often do." but your tone is hardly open minded. Nevertheless...
Ayn Rand suggests we all own ONE thing and one thing only, the products of our minds and hands. She suggests we have the right to exchange these products for whatever we deem to be fair exchange according to our own values. In other words, she asserts we have a NATURAL RIGHT to the products of our being.
Though FEW would argue the Individual Right to the product of our minds and hands, there are a remarkable number of instances where that right is violated. A key instance is when the "poor" rise up to claim a "right" to what others have created. We do this a LOT today when we say I OWE someone ELSE "my fair share."
I do not receive any benefits of government in any greater proportion than my fellow man, so what EXACTLY do people mean when they say "my fair share?" It's as though the local grocery store should charge ME more for an apple than my fellow man, and THAT'S unfair in my opinion. I'm all on-board for paying an equal share of my income in taxes based on a percentage, which DOES result in me paying MORE for the Government services I receive than my fellow citizens, but people seem to feel my "fair share" would be an even LARGER percentage than my fellow man. In this case, "my fair share," would appear to be shorthand for "we need money and you have some, so you should give it to us."
Many have criticized Ayn Rand as lacking empathy. This may or may not be true (I never met her), but she NEVER said we shouldn't be charitable. What we said was that nobody has the right to TELL you to be charitable or to make you feel somehow defective if you aren't. If giving to charity PLEASES you, then you should give to charity, but DON'T do it because society says "you're SUPPOSED to, and if you DON'T, you're a JERK." They have no RIGHT.
I personally don't care for how Ayn Rand chose to illustrate her basic points in either Fountainhead (I can blow up what was taken) or Atlas Shrugged (I should go off and let the system crash just to show people what's what). I personally think she was only using these stories to illustrate the basic point I describe above in a dramatic fashion. I think it could have been better done.
Before you flame me, please get some perspective from my initial post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-has-happened-to-us/ , my follow-up at http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/ , my proposal at http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ , and my continued insistence that individual Americans take RESPONSIBILITY for their part in the economic mess were in at http://occupywallst.org/forum/inconvenient-truths-america/
The RIGHT to the products of my mind and hands is as much a FUNDAMENTAL and NATURAL RIGHT as free speech.
"Though FEW would argue the Individual Right to the product of our minds and hands, there are a remarkable number of instances where that right is violated."
That's EXACTLY what Karl Marx claimed to advocate.
"I do not receive any benefits of government in any greater proportion than my fellow man"
Unlike that illegal immigrant mooch, Ayn Rand, that collected Medicare and Social Security.
"A key instance is when the "poor" rise up to claim a "right" to what others have created."
A greater key instance is when the "RICH" rise up to claim a "right" to what others have created.
"This may or may not be true (I never met her), but she NEVER said we shouldn't be charitable."
~You
"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."
~Ayn Rand
Yeah she does. Frequently.
You're twisting my words when you say I agree with Marx. Marx did NOT assign value to Intellectual Property so that I would benefit disproportionately from a disproportionately GREAT idea I might come up with. Nor did Marx accommodate the benefit accrued who put what they have at risk by, for example, building a factory to MAKE the product I imagined.
As for Ayn being a "mooch" because she collected Social Security and Medicare, remember that up until VERY recently, these were CONTRIBUTORY benefits. It's only NOW that folks are talking about REDEFINING the money I'VE being paying into these benefits as "Taxes" for which I might receive NOTHING. Frankly, this is Ex Post Facto law, and it's surprising people think it's OK !
I happen to be paid well because I can directly relate what I do to the welfare of my employer, and I simply LEAVE if his sense of my value does not agree with my own. My employer takes NOTHING from me I haven't offered; we have a mutually beneficial agreement for the exchange of value.
A GREAT myth of America AND Marx is the idea that "All Men are Created Equal." This is simply NOT TRUE. What IS true is that "All Men are Entitled to Equal Protection under the Law." The fact IS, some people really ARE more capable than others. That's simple scientific fact.
Regarding "If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject," let's define two key words (per on-line dictionaries): Altruism: "behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species;" and Morality: "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."
Now insert those definitions into what Ayn Rand said to see what it MEANS: "If any civilization is to survive, it is the conformity to the rules of right conduct of behavior by men that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to himself but that benefits others of its species that men have to reject." It doesn't READ as well, but it IS more exact.
With all the emotionally laden INTERPRETATIONS replaced by the literal definitions, Ayn's statement doesn't seem so absurd. It is right in line with what I suggested, "No society can long live that demands men sacrifice what is theirs for the well being of another." I agree. While some of us occasionally DO sacrifice our own self interests for the well being of others, a society that DEMANDS it will not stand long.
"Marx did NOT assign value to Intellectual Property so that I would benefit disproportionately from a disproportionately GREAT idea I might come up with. "
Why the hell would you benefit "DISPROPORTIONATELY" from a great idea?? You're implying that those with great ideas should benefit more than their ideas are worth. I think they should benefit PROPORTIONATELY and if it's a great idea it adds to the benefit.
"As for Ayn being a "mooch" because she collected Social Security and Medicare, remember that up until VERY recently, these were CONTRIBUTORY benefits. "
That doesn't address the fact that she's an illegal immigrant that mooched more off the system than she gave.
"I happen to be paid well because I can directly relate what I do to the welfare of my employer, and I simply LEAVE if his sense of my value does not agree with my own."
That's irrelevant to anything I said.
"A GREAT myth of America AND Marx is the idea that "All Men are Created Equal.""
More reason why Ayn Rand is an Anti-American mooch.
"Altruism: "behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species;""
This is the second definition you selected under Merriam Webster. You know why it's second?? Because it's not first.
"With all the emotionally laden INTERPRETATIONS replaced by the literal definitions, Ayn's statement doesn't seem so absurd."
It is absurd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman
Her protagonists were based on her long-time friend William Hickman that kidnapped, ransomed , and brutally murdered a young girl in LA. I, for one, would advocate the death penalty for heroes such as this and find in perplexing that you people worship them.
By "benefit disproportionately" I meant receive more benefit than my fellow man. I suspect you know what I meant, but are in "debate mode."
You said "A greater key instance is when the "RICH" rise up to claim a "right" to what others have created." I responded that NOBODY has TAKEN anything from me that I did not offer as part of a willing exchange.
Regarding "altruism" I can't beleive you're going to argue with me regarding whether I used the first or second definition. Which definition was number one in 1957?
Finally, your style of debate becomes even MORE apparent when one READS the link you provided to William Edward Hickman. I quote from your source, "It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."
There's not much point in continuing this discussion. You have clearly made up your mind and are more interested in scoring debate points than engaging in constructive civil discourse.
"You said "A greater key instance is when the "RICH" rise up to claim a "right" to what others have created." I responded that NOBODY has TAKEN anything from me that I did not offer as part of a willing exchange."
Your employer is subject to certain legal obligations which does in fact make you a beneficiary to those laws.
"Regarding "altruism" I can't beleive you're going to argue with me regarding whether I used the first or second definition. Which definition was number one in 1957?"
The first one.
"It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."
Exactly. She's a psychopath that based her protagonists on another psychopath.
"You have clearly made up your mind and are more interested in scoring debate points than engaging in constructive civil discourse."
I'm just hoping to learn some facts about Ayn Rand. Getting tired of teaching them.
OK - I've read your general comments and will look at all the links you've provided. But let's get specific here. What would you do about an organization like Goldman Sachs - Here is my point and prescription http://occupywallst.org/forum/call-to-action-111111-goldman-sachs-has-engaged-in/#comment-196721
What do you think?
I read your post and the associated comments. It sounds like we're doing EXACTLY what we SHOULD do... identify specific organizations and individuals who have committed crimes RATHER than pain an entire segment of society as "evil" like the Nazis painted the Jews. I for one, think the FINES being levied are FAR too small, and I think that is due in LARGE PART to the money in our political system. Again, see my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ .
What really surprises me is the general LACK of concern shown for the three PRIMARY culprits in the meltdown:
1) Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac CONSTANTLY kept pumping up the conforming loan limit and FUELED the bubble. I believe they did so in large part due to political pressure. Take a look at http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php and tell me whether you think that MAYBE all that money from the Realtors, laborers, carpenters, electricians, etc. had NOTHING to do with Fannie/Freddie pumping up the bubble. Also note that the LARGEST bail-out ($200 billion) went to Fannie/Freddie and We The People are now on the hook for $5 TRILLION in loan guarantees we picked up when we took them over. There's NO HOPE they're going to pay us back like the OTHER companies that got bail-outs, and you should know that the CEOs of these quasi-government "companies" were making $14 million a year before the crash.
2) Banks were perfectly willing to lend We The People the money we borrowed to buy homes we couldn't afford because they were able to collect origination fees then RESELL the risk on secondary markets. This could not have happened if the RATING AGENCIES hadn't been rubber-stamping all those loans "AA" grade debt. Evaluating the QUALITY of these financial instruments is the ONLY job the rating agencies HAVE, and they VIOLATED their fiduciary responsibility. I have YET to be able to figure who watches/regulates THEM or what PRICE they have paid for their abrogation of trust.
3) Finally the LARGEST contributor to the troubles we're in ....[drum roll]... WE THE PEOPLE. Per my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/inconvenient-truths-america/ , WE borrowed trillions to buy Chinese goods and now WE have no money or jobs. Duh. Furthermore, WE signed up for mortgages we couldn't afford then reneged on the contracts WE signed, in MANY cases because we were watching "Flip This House" and acting like idiots hoping to make a quick buck only to walk away and leave our fellow citizens holding the bag when our bet didn't pay off. Sure bankers encouraged folks to take loans, but that's what they DO, and folks shouldn't be basing their decisions on what the SELLER says alone whether he be a guy on Craigslist selling a car or a banker selling a loan. EVERYONE signed a Federal Truth in Lending Act Statement specifically designed to expose any "hidden" fine print and ensure the signer UNDERSTOOD what he/she was signing up for.
Enough ranting from me for now ;o)
Blame, according to Rico:
1.) Government (for doing too much)
2.) Government (for doing too little)
3.) The 99%, for taking advantage of opportunities presented to them by predatory lenders and a trade environment that the neoliberals promise is good for everyone.
Absolutely no mention of the purely private banking institutions that crashed the economy. I don't disagree privatized profits and socialized losses via Fannie/Freddie are bad, or that we need more regulation, but this is total deflection from the real culprits, that were deregulated and proceeded to go to town. Krugman talks about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1319501238-S+pSXgIjk81A+Na/PatCZQ
Wow ! What a distortion of my words !
I started by noting that I feel organizations that have committed crimes SHOULD be punished and that the fines being levied are too small in my opinion.
Next I identified 3 additional problems
1) Fannie/Freddie: Corruption of our political system by monied interests. 2) Rating Agencies: Insufficient oversight and regulation. 3) Americans who borrowed too much, acted greedy, and bought too many Chinese goods.
If I'm a bad guy for saying the behavior of individual Americans is foremost among the reasons, then so be it. I'm somewhat old and still hold onto the apparently outmoded idea that people should take responsibility for their actions.
Do you REALLY think that individual Americans played no role WHATSOEVER in getting us into the mess we're in? Do you really think we're all so STUPID that we're incapable of making a proper decision when confronted with choices?
OK, now we're getting somewhere. So how do we get from A to B here? How do we put ideas into action?
We TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT from the special interests, no matter WHO they are or WHAT they're advocating. If they have a case to make, let them make it with US rather than in a back-room deal with money changing hands.
Once we have OUR Government back, we can resolve our OTHER differences via the UNCORRUPTED Democratic process. If we INSIST on fighting over our other differences NOW, we split into FACTIONS that have NO POWER ... JUST the way the STATUS QUO wants !
I disagree with many OWS'ers on many things, but on THIS I agree, and I will GLADLY live by the results of an UNCORRUPTED Democratic process.
Note my proposal at http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ even prohibits contributions by INDIVIDUALS. Why? because special interests can ORGANIZE individuals, and the POOR who can't AFFORD to contribute are DISENFRANCHISED even if the other individuals AREN'T organized. My proposal ALSO breaks the two-party system by opening the candidacy to ANYONE who collects 1,000,000 unique signatures of registered voters. As far as I'M concerned, if 1,000,000 of my fellow citizens thinks a candidate has something to say that I should hear, I'm WILLING to LISTEN !
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
"Society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned." - Warren Buffett
For perspective, please read my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/inconvenient-truths-america/ and consider for a moment just how well off ALL Americans are in relation to the rest of the world.
We DO have SOME poor, and I am personally for helping them. In terms of policy, for example, I support a flat tax that EXEMPTS the bottom 30% of all income earners REGARDLESS of what they make. Also note I was only recently introduced to the idea of a "land tax" along the lines proposed by Henry George and am still working through the details. It DOES seem like an idea worthy of consideration.
Finally, Warren Buffet says a LOT of things, but he does not speak for all wealthy.I could, for example, cite a BUNCH of young people who disagree with OWS, but would that make you wrong? Of course not. Nevertheless, from your comment, I assume you do NOT demonize Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or the OTHER 35 billionaires that have signed up to give the majority of their wealth to charity. If this is the case, then why do people ALLOW others to toss around the words "rich," "banksters," and "the 1%" in order to marginalize the "enemy" in the same fashion Hitler marginalized the Jews ? Identify specific problems and specific people who have done wrong; don't marginalize an entire segment of society.
Your entire 4th paragraph seemed to be an argument against progressive taxes, hence the Smith quote.
Buffett is pointing out that the generation of wealth depends on externalization of many costs that society pays for, but you apparently reject (and Rand definitely does). The bigger point is that the social contract that makes sense to most falls somewhere between Locke and Rousseau, and there's an aspect of this that involves sacrificing some liberty for the common good. It's not force, it's buying in to society.
Now were getting somewhere, and I happen to agree.
I'm perfectly willing to abide by a progressive taxation system of the FIRST ORDER... flat percentage from the top 70% of all income earners including corporations with zero deductions, exemptions, and loopholes. Under such a system, I STILL pay substantially more for receiving FEWER services than the poor, but since the RATE is equal, I still feel like I've received "Equal Protection."
What FRUSTRATES me is people looking for progressive taxes of the SECOND ORDER in which we MOVE the percentage based on income.
It is my (perhaps incorrect) understanding that a flat tax with zero loopholes would substantially raise the taxes paid by the rich (not me, I have no tax shelters). I'm also still pondering the land tax idea.
Here's the problem, now that you've taken Rand's ethical positions: I don't trust you. It's my experience that those for whom self-interest is the highest moral ideal will use concepts like fairness as a cudgel against those of us for whom that sort of silly thinking matters.
So, Geoism and flat taxes that benefit the poor and actually cause the rich to pay higher taxes, etc.. All I can think of is that you're talking fairness but there's really some benefit to you. I also don't buy that a strict rationalist cares about how it feels w/regards the conjecture that it's actually progressive but doesn't feel that way to the pitiful rich.
I clearly didn't make my point very well.
First, I couldn't care LESS about Ayn Rand as a person or even the novels that she wrote. I DO care about the school of philosophy she founded called Rational Objectivism. I ALSO incorporate some of the thoughts of Socrates in my personal philosophy even though he committed the ultimate sin in my mind, suicide.
Second, I SPECIFICALLY said should a man feel that GIVING returns to him value in proportion to what he gives, then he should give. I happen to be one such man. I LIKE being part of a society, and I DO see that some suffer disadvantages I have not had to face. Furthermore, I would never MANDATE my approach to ANYTHING, but should a majority of my fellow citizens express their desires in an UNCORRUPTED Democratic process, I am will to either ABIDE by those decisions or LEAVE. These are the RULES of membership in our society.
Third, perfectly consistent with Rational Objectivism, I do not expect you to support ANYTHING I say simply because I say it. I hope you will evaluate my statements as a rationale human being, and if you find my logic compelling, support those ideas.
I do not ask you to TRUST me in any way shape or form. I trust your MIND.
Not to put words in your mouth, it seems you've managed to marry altruism and selfishness. (pls forgive the terms, I aiming towards philosophy not minute specifics.) I would love to know if there a specific altruistic philosophy you've choose, if any.
I bring this up because as I read Ayn's fiction (a couple times each) I noticed many and huge gaps in her moralities. Specifically, the now classic, feed the poor, educate the masses, yada yada yada. Basically, the Sunday school stuff.
Yet she hammered home the idea of Pride. Not a concept celebrated, classically. In fact, Pride is a sin to many. Long story short, I came away feeling stronger, more willing to take my share while still accepting and living by the Sunday stuff.
What you wrote above is beautiful and has taken me a while to get to. I can't thank you enough for that. For years now I've been playing with these ideas that stir up way to much hate and never any debate. If I understand you right, thanks and keep sharing. It's important and it matters. ty Peace
The world is a VERY complex place. We are forced to break it down into specialties and point discussions in order to deal with its complexity in communications. The world, however, is a whole, and breaking it into specialties and point discussions obscures Truth.
In our core being, we all KNOW the world is a whole. As we age, we gather experiences and knowledge that influence the construction of a world view in our Mind. This world view is what defines us, and any individual experience or bit of knowledge can only be cited as an influence. No rational being can say they subscribe entirely to someone else's philosophy or world view. First, we cannot know the world-view of another as we are Separate, and second, whatever information we take in is only an influence of our own world-view colored by many unique experiences and accepted fragments of Truth.
Since we cannot know the full world-view of another, we have to use our Mind to evaluate the glimpses of Truth we see in the world view of others communicated in fragments. We use our Mind to evaluate those fragments, and if we find a Truth, we incorporate the fragment into our own world view. Truth is defined partially by objective fact and partially by consistency with our own world view. In any case, it is perfectly reasonable to select one component or another of someone else's world view into our own while rejecting others. It is however a mistake to accept or reject all fragments of another's world view out of hand. There are Truths to be learned from both Hitler and Mother Theresa, some negative and some positive, and I do not accept all of what either said or did without modification according to my own world-view.
The part of Ayn Rand I accept is the idea that we are "Mind in Body" and that we have a natural right to that which we imagine and create as the unique expressions of Mind and Body. Though we are Mind and Body, Mind is clearly dominant. Consider man's ascendancy. In every single measure we are inferior to one animal or another EXCEPT in mind. It is our MIND that sets us apart from the world and, from a religious perspective, it is surely our mind, touched by the finger of God, that manifests His likeness. Body comes into play as the sole means of expression of both Mind and Animal within.
We specialize because we are limited in our ability to express ourselves or communicate our world view. Early on, I realized there three root specialties from which all others derive: Physics, Philosophy, and Religion. I have spent my life integrating these three, along with all the specialization trees below them, into a world view. It cannot be communicated in its whole to any other being except in fragments.
I see no contradiction in holding a sense of Self replete with natural rights given by God and a sense of Others as being Other-Selves accompanying me through the God given gift of imperfection called Life. The only thing I OWE my Other-Selves is RESPECT, and that's all I expect in return. RESPECT requires a reluctance to JUDGE beyond the rightful boundaries of Man combined with ACCEPTANCE of our own imperfection as well that of others. Some call this Compassion, and I call it Respect, but both paths lead to the same destination.
Anticipating some common questions I am asked...
Yes, I believe in God, that beyond our knowing. None can know what is beyond knowing, and in this realm, we CHOOSE what we want to believe. I CHOOSE to believe in Hope and Meaning rather than randomness with no meaning. Some call this Faith. I call it a Reasoned Choice of Joy over Despair.
Yes, I believe the Gift of Life is the Gift of Imperfection. It is the imbalance of forces emerging from the Big Bang that creates the physical realm. Matter is energy, and energy results from imbalance, a desire to flow where it is not, to become what it is not. In this regard, the physical realm is imperfect as it lacks balance and has many perspectives (Aristotle). In a similar vein, Love cannot be without Hate, Pleasure without Pain, Knowledge without Ignorance or Success without Failure (one hand clapping). These contrasts do not exist for a perfect being. So compelling is this Life of Imperfection that the Nicene God incarnate was reluctant to leave it for the Realm of Perfection and explicitly expressed His reluctance in the Garden of Gethsemane. Perfect God cannot fully comprehend the lure of our imperfect existence, so our prayers must pass through his experience among us. Some say "Christ died for your sins," and I do not disagree. I am simply elaborating on the means by which we are saved.
You also have to throw in a baseline amount that is not taxed for everyone like $30,000 plus 10,000 a dependent not to exceed $60,000. That would make it progressive.
Should the Government incentivize children and family? Having children and family, I am certainly biased to say "Yes," but I know some who disagree.
As for the lower limit, I have no problem simply exempting the lowest percentage of income earners from Federal taxes. What should that percentage be? In my opinion, it MUST be less than 50% lest we create a voting majority with no "skin in the game" that votes themselves benefits without ever incurring a cost. I would also consider whether a steep step in taxation would disincentivize those in the tax free bracket from making the step up into the tax paying bracket.
Based on the above, I think perhaps I'm NOT in favor of an absolute flat-tax. I would exempt something like the bottom 40% then introduce some taxes at 40-60% to "ease" people up into the top bracket above 60%.
After think about it some more, I guess I AM in favor of a progressive tax ! I'd just like to see fewer brackets and complete elimination of all deductions, loop-holes, etc. There is simply no excuse for the presence of H&R Block and their ilk; every American should be able to do their own taxes without having to pay an accountant or worry about whether they "missed something."
That is why you set a limit -- even if you make more than the limit you are not taxed on the limit amount - there is never a worry about crossing it you just pay taxes on the amount over the limit.
equality in subjugation - in the amount of force initiated against you - in the amount of wealth stolen from you - is not "Equal Protection". It is "Equal Violation". BIG difference.
"Society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned"
Contradiction in terms. If someone else was responsible for it, then you didn't earn it. They did - which is the whole argument. If Buffet believes he is in possession of what OTHERS earned, he needs to give it to them. He does not require a government to put a gun to his head and force him to do so.
Buffett is simply a hypocrite - mouthing platitudes but acting opposite of them.
I'm an Objectivist philosopher (Ph.D. Columbia, 1973). So without reading all of the comments ahead of me (and I hope you get to this), let me give you a straight answer.
First, we are metaphysically separate by virtue of our free will. You control your own mind, no one else does (and to say otherwise is self-refuting: "society/others have conditioned me to think that society/others have conditioned me to think [whatever])." Your deepest self is your rational faculty, and each individual is in charge of his own mind.
The fact that you ask this question means it is your own, individual question (it's a rare one, too), and that you--you alone, will judge the answer. (Even if you consult others, the final decision on the answer's validity is inescapably yours alone to make.)
Second, as it has been put, an individualist is one who lives for himself not by himself. Not only is there no conflict between being a selfish individualist and getting all the joys of social interaction, Objectivism argues that only the independent, selfish individual can truly value others. From The Fountainhead: "Before you can say 'I love you' you first must know how to say the 'I'."
Hear Ye ! Let's not forget the MIRACLE of having zillions driving on crowded freeways with so few accidents ! Mutual self interest DOES yield order.
Ayn Rand & Greenspan part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8EVczrTyg
Jct: Her hero, John The Engineer Galt, is the technogical Atlas who Shrugged by withdrawing his services from society to run away to hide in his mountain Shangrila and only once the sheep had overthrown the wolves would he then return to give us the benefit of his expertise. Atlas Shrugged Not to Ayn Rand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfnUC71yFQ Pt2/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyCG2xNaaIA is about John The Engineer Turmel who had no Shangrila to hide in and had to take on the wolves. Atlas Shrugged Not.
Jct: So how to take on the wolves when we're not as lucky as John The Engineer Galt having somewhere to hide? 3 ways. Political, legal, local. John The Engineer Turmel has engaged all three. POLITICAL: run for the power to abolish interest on money that causes all the underfunding. Guinness Record 75 electoral tries. Guinness Record 74 electoral losses, one called off. LEGAL: Ask courts with power to restrict the banks' computers to a pure service charge and abolish the interest charge that causes the automatic lack of money in the mort-gage death-gamble contract promising to return 11 when you only took out 10 which I've done to the top 6 times; if they say no, use my anti-foreclosure kits to stall evictions and live rent free while the fight went on; LOCAL: Set up or join a timebarter network anti-poverty lifeboat in case federal money disappears before it does. I financed the first LETS Greendollar timebarter freeware in 1984 that got to address the Millennium Forum to pass the 2000 Millennium Declaration C6 for an interest-free UNILETS "alternative time-based currency" "to restructure the global financail architecture!" Debts you can work off instead of only pay off with scarce cash and no jobs. Oh, and I protested at the Bank of Canada every Thursday "set the rate day" and Parliament Hill for 5 years. http://johnturmel.com/imf82.htm is me being arrested picketing the IMF-World Bank conference in Toronto. In 1982 when I was alone. Which is why I'm so happy to see the thousands now out in the streets with me. So 30 years later, I'm still stuck in my 3-front war with our oppressors. But the Argentine Solution offers hope to the whole planet and it's the workable job-creation by paycheck-creation idea that the unemployed Occupy movement should promote because it can be implemented at any level by any government body. Just link the bond to time and everyone knows what it's worth. But I'd bet when we're off their Gold Standard of Money chips onto our own underground Time Standard of Money tokens, the hero Atlas who shrugged won't get as great a reception as he expects when he returns from those of use who had to stick around and beat off the wolves without him. Ayn Rand's engineer was a coward who violated our Engineer's Oath of Integrity to engineering design. He should have stayed and led the fight to reform the system's engineering, not run away until we lesser Atlases do it without him. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged because he had a yellow streak running down his back. John The Engineer Turmel, Atlas Shrugged Not.
I think we all misinterpreting a lot here.First of all Ayn Rand philosophy was not a bad one. She built here ideas on the fact that human beings can achieve a lot if they have self-esteem and trust in the power of their own minds. She also integrated the belief of a objective reality. That is to say, a reality that is separate from our feelings and beliefs. A is a or that 2+2=4 (non-big brother reason). The reason why her ideas concluded to capitalism to be the more dominate economical system is that it is a system that progressed technology and goods. She supported capitalism not because it held up the rich man and resulted in stagnation, but; it help the smart intellectual man succeed. Also she called for government not to help business in any way in order to prevent corrosive monopolies. But those are her opinions and I only repeated them to give the reader of this post more reliable knowledge about her ideas. Here our mine:
So Aym Rand measures life by the stuff you have and keep and the money you earn and keep.... Wow. What an incredibly limited view of life. I think I outgrew that viewpoint in 9th grade.
No, you misunderstand me, not by the money you have, but ; by virtue one needed to do to get it, like having pride in yourself and what you do. Money is only a tool that represents intellectual and moral value between one another.Also don't think that money is the only thing that represents that value.Do not confuse me with being a true materialist. I do comprehend that there are abstract ideas at work here. Every one has the right to make and convey a idea. Just as every one has the right to pursue the creation of that idea into physical form. Human glory is not his money but his understanding of the root of money itself: justice and productive thinking.
Atlas shrugged in a boring, endless, rant that can be summed up in two words, "ME FIRST."
I’m going to do you, this is going to be funny.
The Rising, what does that mean exactly? The rising tide of Communism you hope to help sweep across the country, enabling you to imprison as many greedy Wall Streeters as possible in your collectivist American gulag. What will the sign above the gate say, “We hate Ayn Rand”? Or maybe this, “We hope you got a lot of abilities because we got a lot of need”. I can see you there now, “Seize all the Porsches, put them over there and take that caviar over to that old lady, she hasn’t had anything to eat for weeks but cat food.”
What is wrong with you man? Did you flunk 7th grade civics? Did girls ignore you as a pimply-faced kid so you took up reading The Communist Manifesto in order to create this intellectual-rebel persona, but you just spent a few too many hours beating-off to Marx in the bathroom?
Come on man! Stand up for your rights and everyone else’s! You don’t have to be a tool of the Socialist Workers Party or the Communist Party of America or even the Democratic Party. Don’t be a taker, don’t be an oppressor and enslaver. You want people to have benefits and no responsibilities. Fight for everyone’s constitutionally guaranteed right to be free, to be in control of their lives and property, to give what they want and keep what they want. After all, we don’t want to end up like Greece, or Italy, or Spain, or the USSR, or Cuba. What are we going to do when your Socialist\Communist ideas bankrupt the country?
You should take it easy and quit being such a commie a-hole. We wouldn’t want you to end up in a padded room one day screaming “But the government is us, the government is us…”
You’re a JOKE.
Keep laughing and stay tuned. You can launch all the ad hominems you want. Your philosophy is morally bankrupt and it's hurting the world. Now it will be exposed for what it is. Rub your eyes my brother and start again. Let go of this Ayn Rand security blanket and live. Really live. Drop the fear fantasy.
So what happened to you? It's hard to have a debate about Ayn Rand without an Ellsworth Toohey. Maybe you're back at that successful company, or Capitol Hill, or the bathroom.
Hang on. Not time at the moment the 1% you support just tear gassed young citizens including a man in a wheelchair. Give me a little time to deal with this. I'm sure you understand and share our disgust for what has happened. http://occupywallst.org/forum/must-see-this-video-on-protests-around-the-country/#comment-210924 I know as a libertarian this police violence at the orders of the 1% must be very upsetting. As a matter of fact, you're probably speaking out and writing letters right now. I'll let you get back to it.
OMG, that is the funniest thing posted on this site! I'm still laughing. You nailed him. It sounds just like him. It's tough when people use your own techniques and words against you isn't it "therising". Payback's a bitch!
Continued "I know that the other appeal Rand's outlook has for you and others who obsess over her is that it let's you off the hook."
Mind reading and ad hom. Not to mention arbitrary assertion (claim that a hook exists that others seek to escape). The only "hook" that Ayn Rand sought to escape was the one with slave chains attached to them.
But don't let that stop you from completely misrepresenting Miss Rand rather than identifying and dealing with her ACTUAL arguments. That would require something those who hate her lack - facts of reality.
"You have no morality."
Lie. Miss Rand has an explicit and detailed morality. It just happens to reject YOUR morality. You want to pretend there is only altruism. That is a blatant lie.
"You can be lazy."
And MORE ad homs.
"Please help me understand rather than attacking me..."
LOL. Please don't do to me that which I have been doing to you throughout my writing. It is quite obvious, given your absence of rational argumentation, and your string of ad homs, that "understanding" and rational discussion are not your goal.
"why you feel it heroic to cast aside morality"
Falsehood. Rejecting altruism is not rejecting morality. That is your logical error.
"reneg on your obligation to others"
Falsehood. There is no "obligation" to others. Man is not born into bondage to other men. No one owes another man ANYTHING simply because he exists.
"lose out on all the benefits of community"
Straw man once again. There are ONLY benefits to human interaction if they are voluntary. If you initiate force - if you violate another human being's rights - that is not a benefit, but a detriment. That it is an entire community which engages in that violation is monstrous, not virtuous. "Losing" - ie defending against, rather than enshrining - such violations is what Miss Rand seeks.
"Did you simply hate the home or community that you grew up in so much that you can't even envision a dynamic nurturing community."
Straw man. You arbitrarily reject reason as the method for accepting Miss Rand's ideas. And you turn to the methodology of altruism/collectivism: feelings ('hate' cause you to reject... etc). That is your methodology - your epistemology - not Miss Rands.
"Together, my friend, we are greater than the sum of our parts."
False. One may be able to achieve a value through voluntary interaction with others that one might not achieve by one's self. But that does not make 5 or 50 or 5 million "greater" than the individual. That is a logical fallacy.
"come out of the shadows, lay down your fear of others and open your heart."
Ad hom AND appeal to emotions. Still not one rational argument. But thanks for providing a crystal clear example for others to see - that you do not appeal to reason. You continually practice its opposite - all because you seek to satisfy your given whim.
"the fear is really only in your head. You thrive on it, that fear of others. "
Ad homs. (But don't attack YOU. Only allow you to attack. Funny - that is your political methodology as well. Don't initiate force against you. But let you keep initiating force against others.)
This is why Miss Rand says faith and force go together. And you prove that nicely - mystic methodology - gangster politics.
"You fantasize..."
Ad hom - again.
"the delusions of a sociopathic person who celebrated not giving a shit about anything but herself."
Ad hom and lie. Miss Rand valued many things and many people. You have continued to evade those facts of reality. Pretending something doesn't exist won't make it disappear. It just demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.
That being all you provide, thank you for showing the complete emptiness of the "OWS" movement. That this is all the Left has to offer anymore shows it is breathing its dying breaths. Thanks for providing the concrete example of its hollowness. :)
http://occupywallst.org/forum/to-all-of-those-followers-of-ayn-rand-and-to-those/
"Why are you so obsessed with being separate from everyone?"
False accusation. Ayn Rand and Objectivism finds there can be both great benefit and great destruction from others. Miss Rand seeks to be "separate" from those who destroy - who initiate force against their fellow man. It's called self-defense. Its called free association.
"If you wall yourself off in the isolation of a gated community..." False accusation. Ayn Rand did not seek the creation of isolated communities. She sought communities free from the initiation. The only reason one would seek to gate one self off from others is to defend against those who would initiate force. Fences prevent violations of rights. And the more people violate rights, the more you need fences - the more you need defense against such initiators.
Apparently this poster believes "you only live half a life" if you don't let others subjugate you, beat you , rape you , steal from you. That is simply a disgusting definition of "a life".
"...adults also realize that to be truly fulfilled as a human being, we must also live in community with others, care for others and participate in a dynamic and nurturing society."
Straw man - ie false accusation. Miss Rand does not say one must shun others. She does not say one must live in isolation rather than in communities. She does not say one should care for no one. And she does not say one should never participate in a society. These are lies. Miss Rand says one should interact with those whom one finds value - and refrain from interacting with those who lack a value to you or seek to destroy your values. Miss Rand explicitly states that a FREE community - one in which the initiation of force is forbidden - men can derive much value from such associations. And she was a vocal proponent of valuing others - if they deserved it. She rejected promiscuous love - in body or spirit. (It is always amusing to see claims like that made in the article - that if you are not promiscuous, you don't "care". Promiscuous love is no love at all.
"Since your viewpoint doesn't make rational sense..."
Arbitrary assertion in the form of ad hom. No evidence is provided to support this claim. The fact that the writer disagrees with Ayn Rand is not evidence that Rand is wrong - nor that the writer is right.
"to either some deep seated unmet need in childhood or some sort of cult phenomenon."
Psychologizing - ie fallacy. Ad hom again. Instead of argument, personal attack. That and the other falsehoods presented are the things which contradict reason. But I have found that many on the left (and quite a few on the right) project their errors onto others instead.
"if you don't let others subjugate you, beat you , rape you , steal from you" And you're criticizing others for strawmen? Who the hell called you in from whatever hateful cathedral of greed and selfishness you call an objectivist forum?
Loosely - you need to insult less and read more. As I said, it is those things - the initiation of force - which Miss Rand is against. She would advocate a gated community as a means of defense against such things. Your fellow altruist./collectivist here insists that advocating a gated community means one only lives "half a life". The ONLY "half" one would be missing is all those forms of initiation of force.
Thus, no straw man. Just identification of the 'principle' being advocated.
Next?
You have no basis for telling me what I need to do (here comes the insult) you soulless psycho.
I can tell you what you need to do to do if you seek to act rationally. Obviously (given your intentional resort to logical fallacies in place of arguments) you do not seek to practice reason. Thus it is no surprise you support OWS.
I don't think Ayn would have supported a society where every human must work 40 hours a day
when that was unnecessary
Freedom. Freedom to work in the job you choose. Freedom to work for who you choose. Freedom to charge what you choose for your labour. Those things are only available in a capitalist society. Every regulation/law/rule that limits any of those things is an encroachment on the only system the world has ever known that allows a man to change the situation he is in through his own effort and ability.
Pretty sure that the Swedes have freedom, and anyway, here in the capitalist society, no everyone is as free as you think we are. And why do you think this only ever applies to MEN?
I don't think this only ever applies to MEN. Why aren't you free?
Then use the word people when you mean people, and please define freedom.
ACtually, don't. I am free to think my thoughts, I'm free to live off the grid. Until I choose to be a hermit, I'm happy to pay my taxes. I just don't want to work for corporations who went on bad gambling sprees. That is most definitely NOT freedom. I don't care about Ayn Rand and I am not gonna get further sucked into a prolix "argument" about her and her kooky quasi-libertarian views.
What kind of fool are you? Seriously man. Who the hell said anything about anyone losing their freedom to work where they want? I employ a lot of people and they can go elsewhere if they like. I'm in no way suggesting that change. What I am suggesting change is that my competitor with the $200,000 car and the. $4 million dollar beach house not be allowed to dump toxic chemicals into the stream that feeds the lake where kids fish. And if you think that's dangerous regulation, if you fall for that slippery slope argument bullshit then you're worse than deluded. You're just a selfish asshole. Ayn Rand has given you a narrative wherein by being a selfish asshole you're some kind of lone hero, the masses bringing you down with their weakness. The problem is it's fiction. When you stop reading your Ayn Rand message of the day on your calendar and you walk outside, you're no lone hero. You're a dick who thinks it's OK to pollute streams and let old ladies eat cat food.
It's a specific situation you make mention of. Why don't you address that situation?
I think this is actual more important http://occupywallst.org/forum/
therising believes it is OK to steal - to subjugate others - in order to feed old ladies.
It aint. There is NO justification for the violation of an individual's rights. Sorry.
Pollution example is one of collectivism, not capitalism, so therising - like the wall street protesters in general - are protesting the wrong thing. They need to privatize the streams, etc. Until then, everyone in systematized civil war for control of use of stream. ONLY initiation of force exists.
But such initiation of force is the last thing therising will seek to ban. Instead he will simply vomit a continuing stream of ad homs against those who refuse to accept the initiation of force by others.
Not really a fan of Ayn Rand, I like the story of Oliver Twist more, you know, the story of a boy who worked hard in a workhouse, and be passionate and forgiving, where in the end, he at least made a comfortable living for himself.
Ayn Rand is just for hipsters
And for the able-bodied, and or the lucky, and or people w means, and or any combination of them. I.e. not most of the 99%.
You think Life is beach do you? A beach is a nice place to visit for a few days of rest and recuperation after a successful quarter. Then it is time to go back to work. I would not want to live there. What you call "dynamic nurturing community" is what a vampire does for a living. You are right about one thing. Living with full consciousness of the way the world is is a bit of a drag. However, I have no intention of going back to denial. I recommend you give it up as well.
I'm starting to get the picture about what gives rise to your vehement support of such a flawed and dangerous ideology. You seem to be stuck in some sort of twisted Puritanical mindset where you believe life is a long grim struggle. You like your two or three weeks vacation a year (which you probably enjoy because you lay off the anger and fear and open up to interact with new people in interesting communities).
But then you go back to the painful "reality" of "how life really is". You feel superior in your dark lonely view of the world. Ayn Rand has given you a storyline to support this superior view where you are the noble hero and you'd be thriving if only the "others" who are weak and leach like would stop sucking your blood and biting your ankles. You think you're Matt Damon or something in a Bourne movie, struggling alone, having to cleverly outwit the forces of evil who are aligned against you (poor elderly people who bring you down, uninsured that bring you down).
I am reaching out to you here trying to help you see a different view of life but you are clinging so hard to your hero narrative that you see anyone who isn't an Ayn Randy as a threat. You are suspicious and fearful. No wonder you see the world as a nonStop assault on you, a dark place full of danger. You are living a self fulfilling prophesy. It's not based in reality though. You're battling in an imagined narrative that you can just let drop. You can walk out of that dark view of life man, let all that fear fall away. When you do, the warm sun of freedom and love will rise for you like the sun through the morning clouds. Until then, people like me will try to help you stop clinging to the bars of your cage. We'll continue to remind you that the cage isn't locked. The door is open and you can walk right out.
Nice words. You've got it back to front though. You are living in a reality only perceived through what 'the majority' says it is. The basis of the Rand philosophy is the self as the centre, i.e; selfishness.
That last sentence will no doubt be met with derision. We are taught selfishness is evil. Is that what YOU think. Is what YOU want, evil? You, at your centre, personally, and not for anyone else. Introspection. Try it.
Not what you have been told 'is good for society', through school, uni, religion, any institution, that has to teach everyone to 'share', because that is the only way masses can be controlled.
What do YOU personally want?
You can do what you like, as long as you don't demand that someone else sacrifices anything of themselves to help you do it.
You can trade, that requires that both parties agree to the terms of their own volition.
That's capitalism, that's Rand philosophy.
Rand's philosophy wasn't about capitalism and neither were her heroes. It was all based on her hero, William Hickman. A sociopath that kidnapped, ransomed, and murdered a young girl and who Ayn Rand visited in prison and wrote to and about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman
It takes an exceptional individual to character assassinate someone they never met, obviously have never read, and knows only what they do about them from Wikipedia.
Both her most popular novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are dedicated to, and, according to notes from The Virtue of Selfishness (an explanation of her philosophy), based on the character of her late husband, Frank O'Connor.
Believe what you like.
Character assassinate??
These are just facts.
What you make of them says more about you than me.
If you insist that her undeniable relationship with William Hickman is a character assassination, then it is you that have disowned her and her philosophy.
There was a relationship between her and Hickman. I accept that is a fact.
You said the philosophy wasn't about capitalism and neither were her heroes. Now you want to say they are facts.
This is what proves the point that you don't have the remotest idea of what you are talking about, but have just seized on the most controversial thing you've heard or read about her.
Shallow.
"but have just seized on the most controversial thing you've heard or read about her."
So this isn't an issue at all?? Seriously??
He chopped up a little girl's body and removed her organs, returned the corpse for ransom, even after he murdered her and Ayn Rand literally said the people condemning him are more guilty than he is.
Are you freaking kidding me??
Now you say I've "seized" this??
Your whole worldview is so warped. Unbelievable.
Like I said, you can't get past the most controversial thing you've heard or read about her.
If everything you said or thought was recorded in a journal, and it was made public, I suppose you would come out smelling like jasmine?
The thousands of pages Ayn Rand has written are of incredibly high quality. If you hear one thing about her, taken out of context and fed second-hand to you with a presupposed attempt to leave you with a particular viewpoint and you can't get past that, that's your loss.
"If everything you said or thought was recorded in a journal, and it was made public, I suppose you would come out smelling like jasmine?"
It would smell a whole lot better than the rotting corpse of a KIDNAPPED,MURDERED,DISMEMBERED, and RANSOMED little girl, I'll tell you that much.
The fact that you think EVERYONE has comparable skeletons in their closet to THAT says a lot about her fans.
She didn't kidnap, murder or dismember anyone.
She said something about someone who did, you don't know exactly what was said, or in what context.
I suspect you have applied the same level of in-depth understanding to come to the conclusion that I "think EVERYONE has comparable skeletons in their closet".
The depth of your understanding is a concern, especially seeing you think you can make assumptions based on it
Keep on following the heard, follow the 99% and wherever it takes you. Keep living like a sheep or a lemming for that matter, it's all you're good for.
"Keep on following the heard, follow the 99% and wherever it takes you. Keep living like a sheep or a lemming for that matter, it's all you're good for."
That's right, you're just too independent for the rest of us. The same worldview you developed from the same exact book as every other one of Ayn Rand's fans makes you an individual. If only others could realize how satisfying it can be to worship oneself, we'd all ignore William Hickman together, and we could all be John Galt.
Holy crap dude. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Paying attention to only your own needs? That's borderline psychopathic. At the very least it's the mindset of an 8 year old. In fact many 8 year olds have more maturity than that. They learn tat by helping others we help ourselves. Not only that but there is pleasure in helping people. Your philosophy, the Ayn Rand cult's philosophy, is completely deluded and you're missing out on the joys of life as a result.
Did someone control you at a young age and make you feel small... So small that you've vowed to never connect with people again, never let your needs be anything other than first ever again? If so, please recognize that you've over reacted. It is good to feel good about yourself but you don't have to wall yourself off from others.
You have it so backwards. You think people want your stuff. We don't want your stuff. We don't. We want to help you. Not only or your own sake but for our sake. Your deluded worldview harms people. Really really harms people. Your people cheer when you hear a man without health insurance might die. What the hell is wrong with you people? Dirty air for your kids? Why do you insist on moving the world in that direction?
I am very connected. I have a 15 year old son, I've been coaching his football team for 8 years. I am self-employed, it's hard (brickpaving), but I like the challenge. I have been the sponsor of a child in Ethiopia since 1999.
Being selfish doesn't mean you don't like people, it is a recognition that you like people and enjoy their company for your own reasons, not because everyone around you is telling you to 'fit in'.
Selfish is a word given a bad rep. Selfish is the only way to see. We've always been told to 'see things from someone else's point of view'. That can't be done. You can only see things form your own point of view. I know it is hard to accept, but it is true.
You can be completely selfish and be involved, and philanthropic. You choose to do those things because you see value added to your own life and experience by doing these things.
There is pleasure in VOLUNTARILY helping people. Think about it. Did you derive more pleasure as a child in voluntarily helping your mom make cookies, or when she told you to take out the trash? I think everyone on this thread is making the mistake of painting a completely black/white picture of each other's philosophy, not unusual for as polarized a society as we have now. What is true is that the real differences in opinion come in the form of DEGREES. Most of us agree to a certain point on what you would deem "community" concerns, such as roads, schools, public safety, regulations, healthcare. The question is degree, the level to which we are all enslaved to ensure that every single ill of society and degree of unfairness is addressed. Do you want to require the maker of your child's bicycle to put a sticker on it telling you that you should hold onto it while they ride lest they be hurt, or some other nanny-state regulation like that? We have nanny-state dictums like making a kid sit out two weeks from football practice if he has any "concussion-like" symptoms. They do it not because they think the kid is hurt, but to protect from lawsuits. I played football in college and got hit hard enough to rattle your teeth on multiple occasions. I'm still walking, talking, and thinking just fine. It's the stupid DEGREES of intervention in everyone's lives. Do we give a heart transplant to every old man who could use one? Is there ever a line in the sand where the individual has the right to say, enough? Or are we to be bombarded with emotional appeals and anecdotes, protests and sit-ins, until someone's ambiguous view of "community" or "justice" for every last living soul has been achieved? You can't legislate morality, you can never get a girl to love you by saying that you just want to help her and it's not for her sake but for both your sake's. You won't admit it, but you DO want their stuff, or the stuff their money can buy. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so concerned with their internal level of fulfillment or happiness. You can't possibly know what makes them happy or fulfilled, so I think it is obvious your concern is a cover for forcing them to contribute monetarily, to whatever degree you deem appropriate, to the "good of all".
Dude. Dude. Take a deep breath. First, remember to make paragraphs. It's easier for readers and makes you look less desperate to defend your point.
OK, now that you've taken a deep breath, ask yourself this question: Is this what we've come to? A country where libertarians and fans of Ayn Rand CHEER "Let him die" at a republican debate when question is raised about what to do about dying uninsured man?
Is this what it's come to.... You supporting the idea that the police working for the 1% tear gas a disabled man in a wheelchair?
Really?
"There is pleasure in VOLUNTARILY helping people."
Pleasure in helping people isn't limited to voluntary acts. How often did your parents make you do something you didn't want to do? And when you got it done, wasn't the feeling great? Did any of your parents, teachers, or other elders make you do something for someone else? You didn't want to do it but once you were done, it felt pretty good, didn't it? And what about criminals who are given community service and after a time of giving they get a lot of satisfaction from it? Obviously the most hardened criminals won't feel pleasure but the idiot who got caught stealing a candybar might.
If you really think you can only get pleasure from voluntary service, you are entirely too narcissistic. Only narcissistic people think Randian philosophy is good.
I'm still for a free society, people freely associating with whom they choose, working to the desired level they choose, helping those they choose to, not some radical left wing nut's idea of what is "fair". How do you think the cultural arts are supported in the country? Not by the OWS crowd. It's the 1%. and they do it voluntarily. How many people are helped by churches? All voluntary. You don't want it to be voluntary because you'd like to decide who gets what, what pet programs of the left can be supported by people you hate. You want free shit, just man up and say so.
Left wing causes, like the general welfare. The common good is anathema to you. This isn't about which poor slobs get help. It's about whether we accept the prevailing ideal of the social contract - as it's been for 90+ years - progressive taxation and all the rest. That how we treat the least of ourselves defines us as a civilized society. Before the progressive social contract, the primary characteristic of a society's charity was that those in a position to help the vulnerable instead exploited and abused them. Libertarians are just all about going back to the Gilded Age, when there was justice and prosperity for the few. One step above feudalism, if that. You have no concept of the struggle the working class went through to gain what you'd so gladly piss away.
We DO have progressive taxation. If I'm not mistaken, those at the top pay over 35% on their income. I would agree that capital gains should be sloped the longer you have the money invested, high for short term gains, lower for long term. But the fact remains that "fair" is a subjective number relative to who's doing the paying. Look at the f...ing Greeks. They think they're going to put their debts to a national referendum!!! Are you kidding me? Those folks, whichever way the vote goes, are gonna have their ass handed to them. Do they think they can repudiate their debts with no consequences and just go on in their socialist utopia? Do you want that for America? Riots are good television, they don't make money. After property is destroyed and a bunch of people get killed, the same situation exists. The working class are not going to get magical high wage jobs, benefits, and pensions no matter how much you protest or riot. Bottom line is they need to become more educated, more skilled, more flexible, and work in tandem with the goals of their employers. The traditional American employee paradigm is OVER.
Ha. We barely have progressive taxation.
I want you, my dear antisocial friend, to read this, in detail, then you can tell me again what's over: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
What's also over is the 40 years of unilateral disarmament that you folks like to call free trade.
Germany, Sweden, and many other nations offer greater protection for the general welfare to their people, and have more equality than Greece, or us. Greece has been played by neoliberal banking scum, sucking them dry. THAT's what we have in common.
If you can bring yourself to accept that you may have something to learn, I suggest: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Ever experience cognitive dissonance? (held two conflicting beliefs simultaneously)
Everyone at some point has and I bet you've made your own choices about how you 'should' act and live. However, these perceived choices are heavily influenced by the surrounding environment one has lived in and this limited perspective itself determines what choices are available. e.g. A person born rich vs one born in poverty hold different views
Selfishness by itself is incomplete because of that fact. It doesn't see what choices and information are unavailable to that particular perspective. And without self-reflection these beliefs will simply be taken as 'the way things are'.
So a person can live purely for themselves and never feel fulfilled because they ruminate and reinforce false old beliefs without reviewing them.
A truly fulfilled individual does not cling to old beliefs nor anything else. They are free to live both as a receiver (selfishly) and as a giver (altruistically).
They neither need be a martyr nor a callous prick. The idea is simply to never close off your perspective completely because no one is omniscient.
Thanks for this. Wise words.
"You can do what you like, as long as you don't demand that someone else sacrifices anything of themselves to help you do it."
LOL! But so what? That's how animals live. There's nothing noble or difficult about living like that. Nothing at all. In fact, it's just lazy--which is why you like it. Caring only about yourself is EASY. Caring about others when you'd really just rather care about yourself is HARD. Sacrificing for others when you'd really rather just care about yourself is HARD. Doing things that you DON'T want to do is HARD. You and other devotees to Ayn Rand's "philosophy" are just lazy, shallow people who take the easy way out EVERY SINGLE TIME. That's not admirable--it's just average... :-)
I see. So you're going to tell me what's HARD are you?
I am a self-employed brickpaver. I lay bricks and build limestone retaining walls (by hand) for a living. I've been doing that for 8 years now.
I have a university degree, but I prefer to be self-emloyed.
I am an insulin-dependant diabetic who has lived with that condition and the four-time daily medication it entails for 22 years.
I have raised my 15 year old son by myself, as well as coached his football team for 8 years.
Please, enlighten me as to how easy I have it, how average and lazy I am and how I take the easy way out EVERY SINGLE TIME, by explaining exactly what you have done that proves you are so HARD and motivated.
If you can extend your understanding, you will see that the philosophy starts with the individual, but you don't live in a vacuum and it doesn't end there.
"...you don't live in a vacuum."
LOLOLOL! Well, well, well--isn't THAT rich coming from an Ayn Rand acolyte! I hate to break it to you, pal, but you people fucking INVENTED the idea of living in a vacuum. So why don't we just cut to the chase: In the coming war, you and I are enemies. Tiocfaidh ar la...
Acolyte? You are the follower, fool.
Maybe you can work for me, try physical labor, you must be good at that. When your entire intellectual arsenal consists of "LOL", you obviously have no talent for expressing any particular argument, if you have one.
"Your day will come", just before you drown in your own shit, which you should enjoy, because the "99%" will be right there with you, and you can all congratulate each other on how you managed to "make everything equal", by bringing yourselves to the lowest common denominator.
You say you have "full consciousness of the way life is". All you have full consciousness of is the false Ayn Rand storyline on which you have based your identity.
PS - It is so weird that you say very directly that you don't want to live in a dynamic and nurturing community. Seriously dude. That's bizarre. Is it because you rely so much on fear and the constant threat of imagined danger to guide you in your spy novel narrative of your life as dictated by Ayn Rand? You couldn't be the big lonely Matt Damon-like Jason Bourne hero then could you? Not if you loved people. It would destroy your whole identity as the intelligent loner wouldn't it??
If you really felt that community was a vampire, you wouldn't be chatting with us great hivemind of bloodsuckers, right? The true, pure, ultimate Randian would be off the grid entirely... or at least not bothering to explain his or her exalted consciousness to we who disagree with individualism.
Do you disagree with individualism? Don't you think man's own existence/pursuit of happiness is his goal? Do you think each individual owes his efforts to someone else?
Not his/her sole goal, no. There's a bigger picture. I personally can't feel fulfilled in an unjust society, and definitely am not self-satisfied when I'm thinking only of myself. If hedonism was all anyone cared about we wouldn't have moral philosophy, religion (not saying religion's good, but it fulfills a need in most humans), etc.
Voting, to force others to be charitable, cannot possibly fulfill you in any way, shape, or form. You get no altruism points for forcing others to do what you falsely claim to feel a "duty" to do yourself. If you did feel such a "duty," you'd just do it and leave other ppl the fuck alone, instead of trying to use state violence to accomplish your evil through other people. Fuck you.
You don't have to FORCE people to help others. You can encourage them with incentives.
I think Randian philosophy is entirely too black and white regarding altruism.
+1 this too.
For me it is really simple. striving to be the best i can be and excelling. What you are missing is that selfishness (not wanting to fear my neighbor looting my house) leads to putting in basic protections for all. I will feed my neighbor because his hunger is my danger.
The philosophy isn't lacking morality. What is stresses is that saying I should live for you eliminates the direct benefit of my work, and doesn't incent you to return the favor. The philosophy is not complete, but is simply recognizes the individual as responsibile for his happiness ( ya know, life liberty and the pursuit of…) it is not against participation in the community, and recognizes that relationships are important. But it rejects fealty to the community recognizing that when 'everyone is in charge' no one is in charge. LIfe isn't one size fits all, and that is the danger of collectivism. That is the difference i see in her philosophy and also in the difference between the 'tea party' philosophy and that espoused by many 'owsers'. Both are angry and feel used by the powers at hand. The tea party looks to the individual, which makes up the community to solve the problem. OWS thinks the government should fix it, which is a subsitite for real community. So I would say your analysis above could just as easily be about socialism and marxist theory. Or as orwell put it " all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others'
I think I get it now. You don't see government as being the people, the citizens (which is what it is). You see it as some evil other. You say government can't solve all problems so it should solve none. You throw the baby out with the bath water.
I own a company. I built it from the ground up and in the process of doing so, I've dealt with a lot of business people. A lot of them are selfish, self centered, only in it for themselves. They're shortsighted. They don't realize that what might be a sacrifice in the short term might be best in the long run.
But it's worse than that. They want to privatize the profits and socialize the losses. They and their companies are also are externalization machines: they'll pollute (because the right environmental equipment is a cost and why pay the cost when you can get away with letting the public deal with the problem, right?
I know how this stuff works. I have owned a successful company for almost fifteen years. Earlier in life, I worked for my congressman on Capitol Hill. And It is simply a fact that unregulated corporations and unregulated business people do bad things. Bad things that aren't in the best interest of the general population, bad things that aren't good for the integrity of the financial markets and bad things that aren't even in their own interests or the interests of their children or grandchildren.
So that's point number one. Ask the son of a former slave sold on the auction block in Mississippi if the free market can do no harm. Regulated capitalism can work. Unregulated capitalism is ruthless and leads to a dismal world. To ignore this is to misunderstand human nature and give way too much credit to those George Carlin called "the business assholes". Many of them would sell their own mothers or buy yours if it would make 'em a buck. You call them horoes and suggest the market will somehow punish or reward them as appropriate. I know it won't. The sandbox needs rules. You want to let brute force win. And I'm saying no fuckin' way. That's not the world I want my family, my grandkids to live in.
Point 2 is this. You say you'll feed your neighbor because his hunger is your danger. First of all, leaving that to individuals or the church is a total fuckin cop out no matter how you slice it. Deep down you know that. C'mon. Get real.
Capitalism is always going to have some carnage. You, sir, seem willing and ready to cheer when people without health insurance die for lack of care. You're ready to let the old ladies eat cat food and wiill probably have some wacky reasoning for why that's the best thing for society.
Government is the people. And the people need a system to take care of the downtrodden so they're not dying in the streets. The people need a system that will help improve education for all, including the downtrodden so they can improve their lot (a benefit to society by the way).
One other thing I'd say about your philosophy of "I feed my neighbor because I'd be in danger if he was hungry: I think you are just plain not being honest here. You feed your neighbor because you have compassion. And if you have compassion, you don't stop there. You work with other people to have a system (government) whereby the needs of the downtrodden are not left to the chance kindness of strangers or neighbors. How do you want your daughter treated if she ends up poor and alone at age 80?
I also think this is an unnecessarily negative code of ethics you are espousing based on fear. You're saying you only help people out of fear. So you bade your life on fear?
Additionally, it seems you philosophy is trapped in a materialistic viewpoint. For you it seems to be about who has what stuff and you assume that people with more stuff or comfort are better off. I think you and I both know that ain't the case. As a matter a fact, quite often it's the opposite.
"You don't see government as being the people, the citizens (which is what it is). You see it as some evil other."
False.
THIS government is some people initiating force against others. That ACTION by the government - the agents of the individual's self-defense - is evil. And it is properly abolished.
Try again.
"You say government can't solve all problems so it should solve none."
Miss Rand stated quite the opposite. She was for the government 'solving' ONE problem - the initiation of force. All the other activities it now engages in are violations of that one function.
"the people need a system to take care of the downtrodden"
If that is what some people seek, they are free to join together voluntarily to do so. They are NOT free to FORCE others to act with them if those others do not choose to engage in such activities voluntarily.
That is what you reject - voluntary action. In its place, you substitute mob rule. Might makes right.
That is precisely the principle of OWS action.
Another anti-socialist quoting the socialist Orwell? Come on.
What therising is saying is that your philosophy has created the government you most despise/fear. Government that only takes and doesn't give back. We're not talking collectivism, or redistribution of wealth or a free ride for anyone. We're talking about the social contract; some basic decency and effective government that smoothes out the very sharp edges of capitalism, providing for the general welfare where the free market has proved it cannot. Despite all you want to believe, there is a commons, and it needs to be managed in the best interests of all, not just the few.
"Another anti-socialist quoting the socialist Orwell? Come on."...
That's great doublethink! PlusPlusGood! lol Cheers
why do you insist on forcing me to comply with what you think is just and right. Live and let live. The left cant function in the world without forcing their will on all of us. The right just wants to be left alone. Why dont all liberals gather together and impose their will on each other & leave the other half of us alone. You dont bother us & we wont bother you.
You oddly insist on living in an ugly world and you want to force me to live in it too as evidenced by you pushing to limit government regulation. Dirty air? Who cares right? Child labor? So what, right? Ask the son of a former slave if he thinks the market can do no wrong. Think about it. You're being lazy. You're not living up to your obligations as a citizen. Plus you're missing out on life. You're trapped in a cult like mindset.
lol for me it's much more simple
I just want the city to continue picking up my garbage so I don't have to drive to the dump three times a week like they do in rural areas
Is that so wrong?
Does that mean I am forcing others to "live for me" at the point of a gun?
there's some crazy lolatarians around that think we all need to do things for ourselves so there's no collective action
What if it is cheaper & more efficient for us to have our government take non profit collective action on our behalf? Does that scare you, too, Randists?
I'm as anti-Rand as they come, but I totally agree with you. As long as what you're doing doesn't infringe on my person, my rights, or our shared natural resources, or our social contract, FINE. Do what you want. What am I imposing on you, anyway? No one is forcing you to read the internet. No one is forcing you to use the electricity that comes over the grid. If you want to not pay taxes, and drop out, and live in the woods eating the deer who wander on your property and the food you grow, fine! But if you drive on our roads and use our airwaves, gotta play by the rules. It's a social contract. It is neither left nor right. It is simply how humans get along, all 7 Billion of us.
So the social contract is where all the technicalities come in.
Whoever or whatever group makes the laws and rules automatically becomes legitimate authority? Is that how it works?
"If you want to not pay taxes,drop out, and live in the woods..."
Translation: If you don't want others to initiate force against you, go somewhere there are no other humans.
"if you drive on our roads and use our airwaves, gotta play by [our] rules."
The fact that you have initiated force to gain these things does not make them yours. Sorry.
A man pointing a gun at you and claiming you owe him something because you live next door to him is not a 'contract'. It is subjugation. You need to learn the difference. Pretending voluntary cooperation and the initiation of force are the same does not make it so. They are opposites. Using the same term for both will not change that fact.
"It is simply how humans get along"
Acting like thugs is not how one 'gets along'. It is how one subjugates another. And slavery was once 'how humans got along' too. Didn't make it right. It was properly abolished.
You need to get over your desire to be a slave master.
What?! Don't be silly! How the heck did you get to "my desire to be a slave master?" I just think if you drive on our (collectively built and collectively owned roads) you should pay taxes and follow driving rules that are mutually agreed upon. I'm anti-Randian and I'm an anti-anarchist because I'm practical. I have no desire to subjugate anyone. This whole conversation is academic, but your tone is so off-putting, and so much NOT a debate, I'm done. You can make up fake subtexts all over the place, it still doesn't make them remotely connected to reality.
"I just think if you drive on our (collectively built and collectively owned roads)..."
Your 'collective' stole money to build them. Thieves don't get to dictate how stolen property is used. They are properly stopped.
"I'm practical" Accepting and advocating the initiation of force for "collective" ends is not "practical" - it is destruction.
I really have no idea how you can make unsubstansiated, unanalyzed claims like this in your own apparent language and not expect me to giggle. Oops! I mean, plot someone's overthrow.
It/Rand directly infringes on the social contract.