Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Who is paul ryan's life idol?

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 14, 2012, 7:10 a.m. EST by ericweiss (575)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

As a devout, rigidly practicing Catholic, you would think it would be Jesus.


Paul Ryan enjoyed ayn rand' atlas shrugged ; so much that in 2005, at a banquet honoring the author, he said, "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” It’s clear that the Vice Presidential candidate’s political ideology has been heavily influenced by Alisa Rosenbaum, the Russian immigrant otherwise known as Ayn Rand.

What I found in Atlas Shrugged was the underlying themes of superiority of the successful and a disdain for the less fortunate. In Rand’s novels, the poor are basically lazy dullards who deserve their lot in life. Actually, they deserve worse, if only the government would get out of the way and stop propping them up with hand-outs. The Paul Ryan budget proposal, which propelled him to national prominence, reflects the same basic belief system. If the Ryan plan were passed, it would deny eight million people food stamps, thirty million people access to healthcare, and send two million kids into poverty; all the while giving even more tax cuts to the wealthiest in society. But isn't thay what t hey deserve? WWJD? or WWAD?

Behind Mr. Ryan’s budget is the ‘Ayn Randian’ notion that taxes and regulations reduce the incentive for the best and brightest in our society. What we have actually seen is that reduced tax rates on the upper end of the economic scale have only created wider ‘wealth chasms.’ We got a tiny taste of laissez faire capitalism when an under-regulated financial industry nearly took down the whole economy. And post-Katrina New Orleans gave us a glimpse of life without government intervention. While the notion of carving out our destiny without government interference may sound rugged and romantic, in the real world, it would be a pretty chaotic place.

Even more difficult to defend than the economic feasibility of Paul Ryan’s budget is its morality, or lack thereof. When Mr. Ryan (a Catholic) spoke at Georgetown University, 90 Georgetown professors wrote a letter protesting his "continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few."

That question, at least in part, is what prompted four nuns, who have devoted their lives to working with the poor, to get on a bus and take their message to the heartland of America. It was outside of Ryan’s office in Wisconsin that Sister Simone Campbell told her audiences that if every church and synagogue and faith community in the nation were to try to do what federal programs now do, it would cost them, in essence, what the government pays -- the money has to come from somewhere. While Ryan would not want to admit it, the only logical conclusion to his plan is that millions of struggling Americans will slip through the cracks.

Ayn Rand was much more open and honest about her belief system; as ryan is not - publically condemning the notion of ethical altruism, preferring her own “virtue of selfishness.” A self-described atheist, she accepted this was contrary to Christ’s teachings to ‘take care of the least of these.” Rand's religion was capitalism, and she unabashedly wrote that the individual “should exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself.”
Of course, Jesus did not “shrug” off the world like the heroes of Atlas Shrugged. Instead, he became the ultimate sacrifice by giving his life for everyone. That’s a very different message than the one you will find in Ayn Rand’s books or Paul Ryan’s budget.
-Jeff Fulmer {slightly editted}


FYI- ryan FORCES his staff to read ayn rand's insanity.
now that you know how ryan is in spired by rand
find out how rand is inspired by william hickman -
google "hickman ayn rand"

216 Comments

216 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

-- Ayn Rand

[-] 3 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

So enjoy stomping on your lessers!!

--Ayn Rand---

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Shallow, very shallow... why would anybody read her?

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

"Upper classes are a nation's past; the middle class is its future."

--Ayn Rand

[-] 5 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Which of course, is why the "upper classes" spend billions trying to destroy them.

Proof being in the pudding and all.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Ohh, I like that one.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

"The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap."

--Ayn Rand

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and the smallest minority on earth is the individual."

-- Ayn Rand

[-] 6 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

In Ayn's twisted vision, this only really applies to the corporate citizen, and it's owners and operators.....All others, please go to the back of the bus.

[-] 3 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

goggle "ayn rand hickmman"

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20500) 1 year ago

Well said, shooz.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20500) 1 year ago

Do not f'ing reply to me with your spam.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20500) 1 year ago

Get a life!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

boy someone got upset

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 1 year ago

Yup, and someone else got banned and removed.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

when did this place start removing people ?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 1 year ago

When they spam the same crap over and over and over and over.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Say it aint so - Joe!!! R U a follower of anti-social pro-sociopath Ayn?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I don't follow anyone.

[-] 4 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Yes you do.

It's been obvious from your very first post.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Agreeing with a statement does not mean you "follow" a person.

I prefer to look at all perspectives and chart my own course. That is why you call me a right winger and the right wingers call me a liberal. I do not fit into a group and I do not "follow" a person group, or political party.

[-] 5 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

I didn't call you a winger, but with your latest posts, I will call you conned.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-great-libertarian-con/

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You like to spew subtle ( well obviously you think they are subtle ) mind poisons. And here you are again spewing introductions to a sociopath - Ayn. Bravo Joe you subtle ( not ) bastard.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Typical replies from both of you.

Call me names, call her names, apply adjectives, but provide no substance.

Cowards, both if you.

[-] 4 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

I look at the behavior of her followers.

It's not a pretty picture.

I would advise you to do the same.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I do not judge anyone by someone else's behavior.

I would advise you to do the same.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Sorry.

It's kind of difficult for me to ignore the behaviors of people like the Kochs and even the Pauls.

A few of her biggest fans.

[-] 0 points by flip (5080) 1 year ago

Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. - ayn rand - sound slike a sociopath to me - how about to you? i am more of the balck elk type - “I did not see anything [New York 1886] to help my people. I could see that the Wasichus [white man] did not care for each other the way our people did before the nation's hoop was broken. They would take everything from each other if they could, and so there were some who had more of everything than they could use, while crowds of people had nothing at all and maybe were starving. This could not be better than the old ways of my people.”

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I think what she is saying is that a virtuous society will prosper more than a corrupt society and therefore collectively have more money.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Whatever sociopath supporter Joe - whatever.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

weak reply....

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Fitting for a supporter of sociopaths.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Just as weak as the last one.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And your still as lame as your 1st day on the forum.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I know you are but what am I?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Don't know about that Joe - looks like you are speaking up for Ayn sociopath Rand.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Just posting some of her own words on a post about her. That does not mean I "follow" her.

As for the quote I do think it is a great statement and I agree that "the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities".

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Your just a staunch supporter of the abusive 1% - U are a 1%'er wannabe.

How about speaking up for government to protect the majority from the abuses of a wealthy minority?

Hey - Joe?

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

It is the job of the government to protect us all from a wealthy minority if that wealthy minority is infringing on the rights of anyone.

It is difficult to have a discussion on the subject however when you speak in generalities rather than specifics.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The specifics are all over this forum Joe - and you know that as you have been trolling here for a very long time.

JoeTheFarmer

No Profile Information

Private Messages

Information

Joined Nov. 15, 2011

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

Joined Nov. 15, 2011

all still with us

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

resource and land owner ship

rent and loan interest

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Then enlighten us on how to deal with a government that is bought and paid for by the wealthy few, like the American government, in which banksters and gangsters and the privileged elite fund almost all the politicians.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Do you really think people are that stupid or naive?

The citizens of the US elected the politicians. Nobody forced them to pull the lever for any particular politician.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Uh, let me see, they have what choices, Puppet A or Puppet B?

[-] -1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The "reality" of American politics gives voters two choices: puppet A or puppet b. The two marionettes work for the same people; they are simply dangled in front of the workers to make the latter believe they have a choice.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

When I go into the booth all the choices are there. You have fallen for the mantra that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away" I do not agree and vote for the candidate I agree with.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

No, I don't believe voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, but I know, barring some catastrophe, miracle, the Rapture, or political earthquake, one of two candidates will win.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Because most of the sheep in this country have bought into the hype that you are throwing your vote away.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I guess there's no point in voting. Might as well give that up.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

"about dying.? How would I do that?"

That's a toughie. You seemed to believe dying was a matter of opinion, so I'm sure you can find a way of proving your premise.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

How silly. Dying a matter of opinion? I don't think that! Nor did I say that!

What are you talkin about?

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

"Seems more of an opinion no?"

Only if dying is a matter of opinion. Let me know what you find out.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

about dying.? How would I do that?

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

"I thought you suggested giving up?"

Not at all, I only stated a fact of life; knowing that I'm certainly going to die does not make me in any way want to assist in the process.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Seems more of an opinion no?

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Of course not. You suggested giving up; I gave you an alternative.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I thought you suggested giving up?

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Or put a loaded Ruger 9mm to one's temple and pull the trigger.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you're suggesting that I do that are you?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I suppose you've never made a mistake with a purchase or a vote?

When you buy a defective product, do you blame yourself or the manufacturer that paid for the ads that persuaded your purchase? They didn't force you to buy it, but they screwed you anyway.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Well that is really irrelevant since I do not buy products because of ads.

I research the products I buy. I often buy the store brand over the name brand. For major purchases I use consumer reports which is non profit and supposedly unbiased however I do not just take their word for it.

As for my vote, I do the research as well. If it is an incumbent I look at their voting record. If not I look at their platform and previous experience.

In either case nobody forced or tricked me into doing something I regretted.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

You don't think the barrage of ads on the internet, TV, and other media influence your purchases? They're designed to enter the subconscious so you aren't even aware of their effect.

I think everyone is affected by advertising no matter how much they deny it.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

No I do not think they do.

I imagine they affect some people but I don't buy Mr Clean because there is a guy with big muscles in the commercial. I don't buy Campbell soup because it is Zesty. I don't have the urge to over pay for a Mercedes Benz.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Did you ever vote for a corrupt politician?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I voted for a politician that did not follow all of his campaign promises. Is that corrupt, I don't think so. Did he get a blow job from an intern, yes. Is that corrupt, I think it is nore perverted than corrupt.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

You must be the rare exception. Never bought a defective product or voted for a corrupt politician?

Obviously large corporations do spend billions of dollars on advertising because it is effective. The same with political advertising. If it was not effective, they would not spend the money.

Advertising is a form of arm twisting, but done in such a way that the twistee thinks they're in control.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I never said that I never bought a defective product. I really cannot think of anything that I bought that was defective except a laptop that I returned for a new one which in turn worked fine for years.

You asked "You don't think the barrage of ads on the internet, TV, and other media influence your purchases? "

The answer to that question is no.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Joe? Meet the Koch's.

Learn of the damage they've done, and then get back to us.

You could learn a lot just by actually searching this forum.

[-] -2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Joe, you're playing hide-and-go-seek here. The full intent of the Ayn Rand quotation is not "to protect minorities from oppression by majorities." No, the full thought is completed by "and the smallest minority on earth is the individual." That last phrase completely fits the entire quotation into the Randian concept of individualism protected from collectivism: the arch enemy of Ayn Rand's societal views.

Even in her notable treatise against racism, she stressed that collectivism was the real enemy to be conquered, the parent of racism, while her individualism denied any notion of superiority based on collectivist thought.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I agree that the smallest minority is the individual. You cannot get any smaller than that. It is the minority and the individual that most often have their rights trampled on.

If you protect the rights of every individual there is not need to protect groups of individuals. There is really no need for group rights. As soon as you protect a group you are creating an inequality.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Meet the Kochs.

Any philosophy political or otherwise is only as good as it's practitioners.

You keep skipping over that part.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

You post the same shit over and over.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

I wouldn't have to, if you would understand that results are the reality, that really matters, not what's on paper.

It's those very followers that put the country and the World in the position that it's in.

It's a philosophy that has already done a great deal of damage.

I'm also sorry that you haven't looked closely enough at the Kochs behaviors and activities.

They actually do distribute the books of Ms. Rand as though they were the Bible.

[-] -3 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Do you suppose anybody reads them? Or is it just those who wish a fresh look at evil who read them?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Based on what's been said so far, what do you think?

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Hell no...

[-] -1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

That's not really an answer.

Are you always this non noncommittal?

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Is that a proposal?

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Are you saying you're in favor of the pluralistic society?

[-] -1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You seem to take the same position as Rand, which denies the unarguable fact that humans are social and will congregrate in groups. Isolated individuals do not exist in most societies except as misfits and hermits.

The solution to the problem of social animals receiving fair and equal treatment in their societies, of course, is nothing less Ayn Rand's arch-enemy: collectivism.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I did not say people do not congregate in groups. I said if you protect the rights of every individual equally that you do not need to protect people in groups.

To your second point do not subscribe to the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. I find it hard to think of an example where collectivism is positive. Collectivism is the root of many atrocities in societies.

Eminent domain is the perfect example. Taking someone's property for the collective good. There have been thousands of cases in the past few years where this concept has usurped the property rights of individuals.

Collectivism basically sucks.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Then I assume you don't use public education, the highways, public water, public utilities, ad infinitum, since they're all the results of collective effort.

Don't bother stick your thumb out on that individualist dirt trail; that may be construed as collective.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

"Then I assume you don't use public education, the highways, public water, public utilities, ad infinitum, since they're all the results of collective effort"

Those are not examples of collectivism. I have seen people use those as examples of socialism as well. Those are not examples of either.

Collectivism is a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution.

Socialism is a political or economic theory advocating state control over the production and distribution of goods and services.

Collectivism is practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. Collectivism provides emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity.

I am OK with government having a role in the creation and maintenance of infrastructure, establishing justice in order to protect individual rights, providing for the common defense. That does not make me a collectivist.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Of course those are examples of collectivism, unless you assume that an individual built them: they are the results of collective will, funding, and effort.

Your definition of collectivism is unique; the usual definition means collective efforts, rewards, and self-governance through collective agreement: real democracy.

Government, in a democracy, is a reflection of the collective will of the people. You can spin the word collectivisim any way you want, but the definition is pretty straight forward.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

It appears you do not understand the meaning of the word collectivism. I suggest you look it up in any dictionary or political science reference.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collectivism

  1. a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
  2. emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/collectivism

  1. the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/125584/collectivism

  1. any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism, in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collectivist

  1. The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

"When you use words incorrectly you diminish their meaning."

I certainly admire your persistence and self-professed expertise in linguistics and semantics in spite of all the definitions I've provided to the contrary.

Most words, especially those that refer to complex objects, are symbols. Your symbology may differ from mine, but that does not diminish from the meaning of the word; it simply expands the meaning to encompass more. Your limited definition may suit you. I certainly won't argue, any more than I will argue your interpretation of Ayn Rand's statements; only point out alternative interpretations.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I agree there can be different definitions. While Wikipedia is a great resource I believe the fact that anyone can post dilutes the accuracy.

My strategy is to look at what is the common thread I see in the resources that are known for giving the definition of words in the English Language. The main theme I see is that the individual is subordinate to the social collective. In other words, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Similar your blurring the lines between collective works and collectivism, I often see people confuse "social programs" with "socialism". There is a distinct difference between a social programs like social security and welfare and Socialism. I hear right wingers call Obama a Communist because he wants to "redistribute the wealth". That is certainly not communism or even socialism.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

"I agree there can be different definitions."

Since we agree on that point, I prefer the definition of horizontal collectivism, which basically translates to direct, real democracy.

I have not mentioned socialism or communism, only because those are two different concepts, and the modern definition of socialism is most certainly different than the early socialists of the 19th century defined it. Similarly, communism has been distorted by the capitalist system into something malign and dictatorial, when in fact, if one bothers to read Marx, the ultimate goal of communism is a state-less, real, true democracy with no need for a vertical government.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

"LOL, I post Webster, Oxford, and Britannica and you post Wikipedia"

First, you use I don't know what to belittle wikipedia, which seems like a straw man objection to deflect your own inability to reasonably counter.

Here are more definitions of collectivism from Webster: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

from Psychology Glossary: Collectivism, which is the opposite of individualism, focuses on the priorities of the group and not the individual.

from Dictionary.com: The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

from Oxford Dictionary: the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it

from John Kennedy's inaugural speech: Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country.

Finally, before you laugh off wikipedia, you should research that as well, lest you step in your own droppings. Nature magazine conducted a survey in 2005 on 42 science-related articles and compared the Britannica and wikipedia. The results: wikipedia has an error rate, per length of article, less than Britannica. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

My point is not to disparage Britannica only to point that your choice of a source to belittle wikipedia is nonsensical considering the facts.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I can change the definition in Wikipedia. I am not saying it is useless I am saying I would never use it a a reference.

Wikipedia is not permitted as a resource in any College, University, High School, or even elementary school.

That aside, doing things collectively is not the same thing as collectivism.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

"That aside, doing things collectively is not the same thing as collectivism."

We'll start out with that non sequitur and backtrack. If "doing things collectively is not the same thing as collectivism," what "is doing the same things," individualism? Obviously not, it's collective, hence, collectivism.

I don't know what colleges you have attended, in the universities I have attended, no encyclopedia can be used as a source, unless you begin with an encyclopedic article then support that with a thesis based on other sources.

That's easy to do with wikipedia, since most articles are annotated with sources listed. You could write your own sub-article on collectivism, which you've pretty well done in our exchanges, but to have it remain in wikipedia unchallenged you would have to provide credible sources--not dictionary blurbs. You, for instance, might give Ayn Rand's definition of collectivism, but then readers would know that the definition was based on Randian ideology.

To reiterate: the logical conclusion of collective actions is not individualism but collectivism.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

When you use words incorrectly you diminish their meaning.

Doing things collectively is just that doing things collectively.

Collectivism is any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collective.

You can do things collectively and still see the collective as subordinate to the individual. In other words you can work together on projects and still respect the rights of the individual over the needs of the collective.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Ah, yes, I've seen the dictionary definition of many complex words; communism, socialism, capitalism: all misstated. In most dictionaries the definition of capitalism completely belies the word's socialist origin, and in fact makes capitalism sound benign.

The etymology of words is often ignored, but at the user's peril.

I refer you to the exploration of the noun collectivism in wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

Here are a few choice quotations: "Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of all, or some group of, human beings... Most societies contain elements of both collectivism and individualism."

The final quotation emphasizes my personal view of collectivism, which as you will clearly note can be almost synonymous with direct democracy: "Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization."

Dictionaries usually give extremely simplistic definitions, so that those who are interested may research further and discover the myriad thoughts behind complex words with deeply symbolic and philosophical meaning. Even an encyclopedia cannot truly capture all the emotions and reactions specific words may arouse in various people.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

LOL, I post Webster, Oxford, and Britannica and you post Wikipedia

"Wikipedia. Is the best thing ever. Anyone, in the world, can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information."

-- Michael Scott (The Office)

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Just curious, what are the demographics of that democracy?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Obviously, not American demographics.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Nope, not if its a pure democracy.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Are those social organizations?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

No, what does that have to do with comparing individualism to collectivism?

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

You seem to take the same position as Rand, which denies the unarguable fact that humans are social and will congregate in groups.

Then I assume you don't use public education, the highways, public water, public utilities, ad infinitum,

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The listed items are results of group--read collective--efforts. The Randian ideology promotes her concept of individualism, which would exclude group--read collective--efforts.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

How many philosophical trips have you taken? And where did it lead?

How can you measure her if you have not made the journey?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

"I don't believe Joe was using the word minority as a demographic reference."

I don't remember mentioning Joe in my previous reply to you, but at any rate. He posted a quotation from Ayn Rand, which appeared to champion the minority from tyranny of the majority, to which I replied her intention was to mention the protection of the individual from the "mob."

I brought up Rand's essay to demonstrate that I find some of her writings reasonable with well-thought-out arguments, but she fails to extend her thoughts to the ultimate conclusions, simply to defend her notion of individualism versus her concept of collectivism.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

That may very well be true; I haven't read her. Still, her conclusions here are absolutely valid. She appears off on some unrelated points... but there's a reason for that.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

"How many philosophical trips have you taken? And where did it lead?

How can you measure her if you have not made the journey?"

I don't believe I've made any philosophical trips; trips to other places, tripped out, yes, but nothing philosophical, unless one considers Marxism a philosophical trip. I prefer to think of Marxism, as Marx put it, a theory of the political economy.

As to measuring Ayn Rand, she put her writings out for us to measure them and her. If she and her thoughts came up short, in many people's opinions, that would have nothing to do with her philosophical trip, only her writings.

I think highly of her essay "Racism." In it she clearly makes the point that racism is "collectivist" in that one group considers itself superior to another, but what Rand failed to do was extend her syllogism to the individual, in whom we find the same characteristic. More or less, racism is not a result of collectivism but of a human characteristic, in which one considers him/herself superior to others based on any number of factors.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

I don't believe Joe was using the word minority as a demographic reference.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20500) 1 year ago

Individuals must function TOGETHER on this good earth.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

However the wants of the majority should not usurp the rights of the individual or the minority.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

Rights are perfectly good, and everyone is entitled to them. I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you to protect them. But, with rights come responsibility, call it civic duty, and that means making many personal sacrifices great and small for the improvement of the community, and the preservation of the Earth as a whole.

The quality of our lives is a greater measurement of our nation's wealth, and far greater celebration of the American dream. But, if our nation's wealth is squandered irresponsibly, for short term gain of the few, then we will become a historic model of what happens when a great society loses it's human compassion to the values of greed and short-sightedness.

Consider this... In Europe, people have been building cities for hundreds of years. It is the combined effort of many generations of people that made those cities such wonderful places to be. What contribution does our generation have to offer? Every man for himself economics? Hardly. There's a smarter way to do things, and only the government can be trusted to build roads, pay policemen, and put breakfast out for poor children to eat before school starts.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

You have a lot in that post....

I disagree that it is our duty to make sacrifices for the improvement of the community. It is a good thing when we do and I do volunteer my time and money for the benefit of those less fortunate however it is not my "civic duty" to do so.

"The quality of our lives is a greater measurement of our nation's wealth." That sounds wonderful but I am not a nationalist.

Europe was built on the backs of slaves and indentured servants let's not fool ourselves. The Kings and Lords commanded they be built and they were.

"only the government can be trusted to build roads"

There are many examples of private roads that are better maintained than the public roads in the United States. Some examples are the Indiana Toll Road, The Dalton Highway in Alaska, The 91 Express Lanes in the median of the Riverside Freeway, The Dulles Greenway in Virginia, and the Chicago Skyway to name a few.

Look at the internet. There is no central planning authority dictating traffic routing, yet users get to where they want; information is readily available, accessible; goods are proficient and easily accessed; commerce is booming and, arguably, the future is online ordering; and much more.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

Ok, no need for me to itemize your entire post. I'll give you credit as well. Your private roads theory might indeed bear some merit. I'll grant that if it's really working then it's a privatized program that could probably be expanded. The important part is that the service is provided for all to use and anyone and everyone can profit from them being there. Good roads equals improved profits. And, presumably, the cost burden is widespread, because there are so many users. Cool. I'm open to this idea so far.

However, your basic thesis which is a bit of a rough draft, I'm sure, is in your first paragraph. It reads:

I disagree that it is our duty to make sacrifices for the improvement of the community. It is a good thing when we do and I do volunteer my time and money for the benefit of those less fortunate however it is not my "civic duty" to do so.

-- Kudos for doing your part in the community, I'm sure you know the joy of helping just to see people smile. I really don't ask anything more from you than that, except for you to pay your taxes. Let's expand on that thought and use the old saw "it takes a community to raise a child." I'm sure you'd help a kid who fell and hurt himself and needed a phone call and maybe some basic first aid. You're a human being with a decent soul, you wouldn't leave a child in distress, and I'd even give you a medal and a free steak for being a such an upstanding neighbor. "Hero Neighbor Helps Child In Distress." I love it. Be my neighbor, please.

But, instead, let's start with a real world example, with your tax dollars. Let's talk about real kids, and a charitable act which your tax dollars count toward, which plays out in every single school in this country. You're a hero and you may not understand it, because you don't understand the benefit of having a sense of civic duty.

Let's begin. When was the last time you bought breakfast for all the poor kids before school? If you have, is this something they can depend on from you every single day this year? If not, then for how long? Let's start with the elementary school around the corner. School starts Monday, have you got 150 semi-nutritious hot breakfasts lined up to be served in a 30- minute, immutable block of time? What if you decide to skip a day between now and next June?

The government does this every school day, with your tax dollars, for a lot of kids who would go hungry (ie, lack basic nutrition) otherwise. It's more than just charity, it's a very practical solution to behavior problems in classrooms, which in turn improves test scores, among other less tangible benefits. A hungry kid disrupts class, and that even harms the kid who got breakfast at home, and who is bright eyed, alert and ready to study hard to get his or her A's. And, no cheating: a teacher can't be expected to just "manage" a child's hunger problem, which might vary in severity depending on whether they even got a full stomach the night before. The cost is way less than a buck per meal, and it improves the day for the entire school community. I once bought a hungry kid breakfast and it changed both our days for the better. Multiply that by a million or so kids, for starters, and smile because your tax dollars are doing God's work.

Your tax dollars do a lot of good, you know. You should feel proud that you're able to make a contribution to every classroom in America. Only a total sap would think otherwise. Maybe leech is a better word? Reasonable, rational, compassionate human being though you surely are, are you really gonna be the dreamer who steps up and makes sure these kids get fed every single day? What if they don't say thank-you, and complain that the muffins smell like jockstraps? What's your best price to do it the way it needs to be done? For all the kids across the nation who can't get access to breakfast otherwise. Oh, and will you be held accountable if your employees start cutting corners on any single one of these kids? I'm not trying to insult your humanity, I'm not even suggesting you'd cut corners on children's chow to make a bigger paycheck. But, I'm talking about cold hard reality. Are you that guy?

Public schools can't function with rooms packed full of hungry kids, period. Local communities don't always pick up the slack. If you want to see everyone's test scores go down, cut the breakfast programs and hope really hard that charity and local taxes fill in the gap.

And thus, what's the smartest, least disruptive solution to this problem? Seriously. What gets every poor kid fed, keeps the peace in the classrooms, improves test scores, and uses the facilities already in place (the kitchen on school grounds, which also serves as an emergency shelter in dire times, and for cub scout meetings.)

It's a federal program, and it works reasonably well. You pay for it. It employs people. It operates on a shoestring. Be happy you can just kick in, you know? But, be proud to know kids aren't going hungry on your tax dollar.

[-] -1 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

No response. As expected.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

LOL.

Do you think I sit in front of my computer all day waiting for a OWS post?

When did I say I did not want my tax dollars used for school lunch programs? I never said I want to eliminate the government or eliminate all public works. I was just responding to the you premise that the government is the only entity that can do things for the common good. I find that private efforts are often more efficient than government run programs. I also believe that politicians create huge bureaucracies where only a small portion of the money gets to the people that actually need it.

Since you are on the subject of food for poor children, lets use the example a program I volunteer with. We have delivered over a million pounds of food to food pantries, and poor communities. http://americasgrowarow.org This is all done without tax payer money. It is a great group of people working together without the help of the government.

Again, I am not saying we need to eliminate all government run programs I am just saying that doing things together for the common good does not require the government. In fact most programs the government runs are inefficient and are othen fraught with corruption.

[-] 1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

The mantra of the Left - with rights come responsibility; true and first and foremost among them is to protect those rights. Which the Left so easily sells.

Consider this, the cities of Europe have been building with incredulous opulence for hundreds of years, entirely on the backs of slave labor.

[-] 0 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

I never said it was fun to build cathedrals, only that these civic projects did a lot of good in the short term, and, they have enriched many generations over the long term.

Civic responsibility trumps individual rights and freedoms. Period.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

It wasn't civic responsibility that created those cathedrals, churches, castles, residences of Europe in such opulance - it was a collective slavery.

[-] 2 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

I'm not arguing the whole religion and slavery issue with you. In fact, I think we're all serfs these days and we don't even realize it. I'll go even further: my Scottish relatives were sold into indentured servitude and arrived in America as virtual slaves. So, I get it.

However, once upon a time people thought about a family's wealth as something that was grown and passed forward. A community church was something the parishioners pooled resources to build, and it was meant as an investment to be used by their grandchildren. Yes, some slaves were probably put to task to build something that lasts to this day. As I understand it, you'd have us all living in mud huts so that you can now live a life without any responsibility to your country and society. Thanks anyway, why don't you go on vacation in the third world, I'm sure you can find a land free of social services or enforceable tax code.

Extremely short-sighted thinking occurs when your vision is limited to the horizon seen from your front door.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

I think you misunderstood me - the incredible creations of opulence in Europe that you referenced really were constructed almost entirely, stone by stone, with slave labor. Your "combined effort of generations" is a very poor example.

Individual rights are what allow me to say no to that form, any form, of civil duty regardless of its collective achievement; they are not to be trumped by any authority no matter how beneficial, or benevolent, or aesthetically pleasing the creation.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

Ok, you've officially been banished to the rope gang. When they build my pyramid, you shall be a puller. Your sweaty efforts will be a monument to my life's achievements, and this temple will be a wonder to behold for thousands of years to come. I shall pay you gruel and you shall have Sundays to pray thanks to me.

Maybe it's over the top. How about you picture the year 2075... It goes like this: "Grampa, these pyramids are amazing, but how come everyone around here is dumber than shit, and has no idea how they were built?" You reply "Well sonny, back in my day a bunch of idiots got together and decided schools were a waste of their money, and because they also stopped caring about the EPA, and how much lead was in the air, everyone's IQ's steadily dropped for several crops of children, which we call generations, and so now everyone is dumber than shit. Just like those guys who decided civic duty had nothing to do with being an American citizen. This pyramid is a monument to the noble efforts against such stupidity."

Civic duty is part of being an American, that includes overt acts, as well as paying taxes. It's not much use arguing further. Please coil the ropes before you clock out for the night.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Yea, but that's not what education does, especially as it relates to history. What it does is present a basic superficial framework, riddled with misconceptions; it leaves real history to those more brilliant, to be discovered on one's own, as evidenced by our historical writers. It would be far better to let students pursue their own interests unlimited by the confines of curriculum, as a means of punching the academic ticket, and then award the degree - if any - in accordance with achievement.

Duty and honor... words worthy of our study; they have their place in history. But there is no "duty" that shall serve to bind our children in civil manner as a moral or ethical concern to any cause that is not their own; nor shall there ever be. This is the problem with the educational establishment - there's far too much pseudo-intellectualism absent depth of philosophy.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

So, it's ok to let the kids go hungry? Pseudo-intellectualism, combined with greed are surely two hoops on the playground of your mind. So ok, let the poor kids starve, that's what you're saying?

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Well, I think the question of how you personally define "civil duty" is central to this discussion. If you define civil duty as military service, as police, fire, ambulance or charitable function, I'm down with that. If you define it as a social decree to drive heroin addicts to the methadon clinic, or mothers and pregnant teens to social services, or anyone to their court date... then your "duty" is not duty at all - it's a call for a social mandate as a voluntary enslavement of those that do to those that don't; it's never going to happen. People need to take care of their own and that's what "people" do.

Put those starving, uncared for children in the convent; raise them in the light - that's the purpose of our tithing. And where do your dollars go, do you put your money where your mouth is?

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

Yes, I put my money where my mouth is. And, I think your theory, no matter how your parse your civic responsibilities, totally sucks-- because you're not dealing in reality. So far, the kids are going hungry on your watch, because you're more worried about your civil responsibilities.

What you're saying is that the churches will feed the poor if we cut hot breakfast for poor kids at the public schools. Will they be coming to the school from 7:30 to 8:00am, with their food trays, or should the kids report to the church for morning classes? I guess even if the kids lose their religious freedom, it's a small price to pay for a nutritious meal in the morning.

Your next suggestion: put kids in orphanages if their parents can't keep them properly fed-- assuming the local community members don't pick up the slack. Were you planning on adopting any of these starving, parent-less, Godless children? Will they be better fed and loved at an orphanage? Who's paying for that? Were these state run orphanages, or are you planning on opening a bunch of church orphanages? We're talking about reality now. Nature's forces. Kids gotta eat, and they're going to disrupt classes if they are hungry. You're saying put them in orphanages, it's not your problem. Frankly, a better system is in place and it works very well, although it costs you some tax money. The sun rises in the east. People are going to have sex and begetting more kids whether they have money in the bank, or not. Sex and procreation are not rights of the wealthy, they're forces of nature that we have little control over, in the grand scheme. This is reality time, not theory. The kids got their breakfast this morning, and they didn't have to say amen for it. Still, one day they might grow up and say thank you for your tax contributions. And, they may give something back to their community themselves.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

It's a hollow argument. Nature's forces do not mandate an irresponsibility; in fact, all of what is innately mandated informs us of a necessary responsibility. This is social failure in that there is no community censure, no accountability. When enough are hungry than compassion will rear its communal head to right these wrongs in the form of a mandated responsibility. To say those more responsible should be mandated to care for irresponsibility is to tell hunger to go forth and multiply.

Welcome to the Catholic community; welcome to the Mormon community, welcome to the community of Witnesses and Born to Born-Agains - our definition of civic duty is much more wholesome - it requires no socially mandated as legislated duty; it is a question of our honor.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Nor should the rights of a minority usurp those of a majority; how do we rectify this conundrum?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Your statement was not even close to what I said.

Rights cannot usurp rights either way since we all have the same rights.

Read my statement again, there is not conundrum.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

However the wants of the majority should not usurp the rights of the individual or the minority (your words).

Ok, I'll buy that. But what if I couched it this way: the wants of the individual or the minority should not usurp the rights of the majority?

I sense a conundrum; oh what to do, what to do...

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

If you put it that way I agree and if you really think about it there is no conundrum.

Wants should not usurp rights.

[-] 1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

You're right, they should not.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

She was an exremist right wing wacko, who deserves to beforgotten, Even Lyin' Ryan has dissavowed her.

I watched her say it was ridiculous & unspeakable to consider a woman as President.

She's old and worn out.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

That's correct, those "rights" are subject to boardroom votes.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

and benito made the trains run on time

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Benito was a collectivist and a nationalist. He believe the opposite of that quote above. He believe that the needs of the majority should usurp the rights of the individual.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 1 year ago

Yeah, we all know about these ultra right-wingers' hatred for democracy, don't we? People having a say in the things that affect them - what an awful idea..

No, Ayn Rand didn't like democracy much; but a tyrannical society ruled by the minority, the wealthy and the huge corporations, that was in her mind a much better society.

"Ayn Rand is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history"

-- Noam Chomsky

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Actually she was pretty much against tyranny and the concept of rule. She was not in favor of the wealthy huge corporation either.

What words of hers can you post to back up those claims.

Am I supposed to be impressed that Chumpsky uses the word evil to describe her?

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 1 year ago

She had no problem with private tyranny and rule. Laissez-faire means a corporate-run society; a society where the wealthy are the ones who have the overwhelming control in society.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Explain this private tyranny. Explain how any individual can be controlled in a free society.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 1 year ago

The way things function in a non-regulated capitalist society (like all others) is that the more resources and wealth you have, the more power you have. So in this kind of society it is the big corporations and the financial elite who overwhelmingly are in charge of the economy and market (very similar to today's actual society). They control the resources, the economic institutions, and the means of production. In other words: They have an overwhelming power over the economy and the market as a whole.

Not only do the rich and powerful (in an undemocratic way) control the economy as a whole in huge networks of transactions, investments and stock exchange, they also rule the institutions in this kind of society in a totalitarian way. The economic institutions in a capitalist society have a totalitarian model: a tyrannical non-democratic hierarchy in which the people at the top - the CEOs, owners etc - dictate how the institution is being run, what’s being produced, working conditions and so on, while people further down the hierarchy must follow their orders - a non-democratic hierarchy with control and power in the hands of the ones at the top. Capitalist institutions are in other words private tyrannies.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/debunking-libertarian-myths-pt-1/

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

So your assumption is that people are inherently evil, especially rich people and that they work as a group to control the economy. I don't think anyone has that much power. Not even Warren Buffet or Bill Gates can control the economy.

"The economic institutions in a capitalist society have a totalitarian model" I would say just the opposite. Only private corporations or governments can act in a totalitarian model. Capitalist (public) companies are owned by shareholders who vote on any major decision, They must also comply with SEC regulations.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 1 year ago

"So your assumption is that people are inherently evil"

No, not at all.

"especially rich people"

No. Most of them are just doing what the system requires of them.

"and that they work as a group to control the economy. I don't think anyone has that much power."

The more wealth you have the more power you have. The top 1% richest americans own almost 50% of inv.capital. I know it's a hard pill for you libertarians to swallow, but in capitalism/state capitalism capital accumulates

"I would say just the opposite. Only private corporations or governments can act in a totalitarian model."

Huh?

"Capitalist (public) companies are owned by shareholders who vote on any major decision"

"Capitalist (public) companies"? They're corporations, dude.

And the more stock or money you have, the more votes you have - Private tyranny.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Did you ever have Kahlua, Bailey's and milk on ice. This is awesome.

I am gonna go sit on the deck and enjoy.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20504) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you little bot - you are counting backwards!

are you seriously going to post that over 800,000 times?

someone really should just put you out of your misery . . .

wait - that isn't exactly counting backwards - lets see . . .





no, not counting backwards, and not a means of capturing the comment number.

a logarithm perhaps . . .

possibly a code - if one has the means of using wild card characters to represent the forum post in the url, and can just enter the comment number, perhaps the comments at that series of comment numbers say something . . . interesting . . . when assembled as a whole - but this introduces a level of sophistication that

  • botnetchnyicks like trashy

are not known for,

and a level of cooperation that they are neither suited for nor capable of . . .

team work - it doesn't have an eye

ha

haha

bWA hahaha

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20504) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

repeating yourself -

so, not a bot -

rather a

  • botnetchnyick

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 1 year ago

Obama is bought and payed for. You know how it is with these CEOs and the superwealthy: buying politicians and getting bailouts in the morning; continuing the next chapter of "Atlas Shrugged" in the evening..

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Defending the corpoRATs and the obscenely wealthy Joe? U know the bandits of the 1%.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I am not defending anyone.

I think the quote stands on it's own.

[-] 5 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No her body of work is anti-social is anti-society is sociopathic.

I can see why you are messed-up Joe - you have been swallowing poison - and apparently liking it.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Call her all the names you like. True she does not subscribe to a socialist ideology. She escaped the socialist oppression of the Soviet Union in the 1020s. She saw millions of lives ruined and millions killed. That does not make her a sociopath. Calling her that and ignoring the quote shows a lack of ability to see beyond your own prejudices.

None the less I do agree with her statement

"The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities"

There is no other need for them.

[-] 2 points by flip (5080) 1 year ago

and she somehow was not able to see the millions of lives ruined and millions killed by the great capitalist powers. strange isn't it - how some can see one thing and not another - ideologues i think we might call them - soviet commisars were the same in that regard don't you think? here is just one example of what she might have missed had she been around (thank god she is not) - from the great liberal bill clinton administration - Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Dictatorial oppression of the Soviet Union - that was not a socialist society.

So she grew up in a mind set of fuck everyone else - you gotta protect yourself Ayn - guess what (?) she grew up sociopathic. And then wrote about being a sociopath.

Joe - U is one twisted MF'er.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

None the less I do agree with her statement:

"The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities"

There is no other need for them.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Sounds nice on paper.

Too bad much of what else she said denies it.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Example?

[-] -1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

The most obvious are those cute little libe(R)tarians the Koch brothers.

They love to distribute the works of Rand you know.

They ARE the proof in the pudding.

In the real World of the Randians, the "rights" of the BIG people always trump the "rights' of the little people.

If they have to pay for it to be that way!!

http://www.nationalmemo.com/gop-consultant-koch-brothers-bought-ryans-nomination-with-100-million-promise/

They are out there buyin' lyin' Ryan.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I thought we were talking about Ayn Rand.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

You don't know what a cake looks like, nor how it tastes, by looking at the ingredients.

Having never met Ms. Rand?

I look at the outcomes.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

You suppose that there is an outcome today that has a source in the writings of Rand.

I don't think she was really very influential.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

The only way you can claim that, is if you can claim you never read a single thread on the forum that you didn't start.

That you've ignored every thread on Rand except yours.

Corporatists have been distributing her works around the World for decades.

You want to know the result? Look around.

Stop trying to exist in isolation

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

The threads I have seen on Rand never quote her or use text for any of her books. You call her a sociopath and evil but never explain which of her words brought them to that conclusion.

You say Ryan is evil because he admires Ayn Rand and then say that Ayn Rand must be evil because Ryan admires her. That is a circular argument.

[-] -1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Then you haven't looked very hard.

You've also ignored the results produced by those that practice her "philosophy".

I've never called her evil as I don't espouse such religions descriptions.

So don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to defend Rand.

She's indefensible.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Do you believe in "good" and if so, how is it measured?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by trashyharry (788) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

The function of Ayn Rand was to spend her life advocating against the idea of all of us being a community of people who need to pool a part of our resources for the sake of the common good and then collecting Social Security and Medicare along with her spouse like the fucking hypocrite she was.She was a fucking dirtbag hypocrite hack writer and the bad ideas she popularized have caused untold misery in this world and will continue to do so.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Did she pay into social security and medicare for most of her life? I would think she did. You are forced to participate.

[-] -1 points by trashyharry (788) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

She was forced to pay,but if she had the courage of her convictions she would have refused to participate in whatever part of the program that she could-if she was not a giant hypocrite that is what she would have done.

[-] 0 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

"The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities"

Ayn Rand

Joe, ADDS:

There is no other need for them.

JoeTheFarmer

I NOW have a joke for you Joe, follow closely:

The premise: We have a right to NOT be murdered.

The Joke: Two Average White Rich Males get into an argument in a bar one night. One of them gets mad when the other insults his wife by calling her a whore. Not taking the insult well, he becomes enraged and draws a loaded 44 magnum, and shooting from directly behind the man's head, blows the front of the man's skull off sending brain matter and skull fragments spraying into the bartenders face as the bullet exits. Lucky for the bartender the bullet doesn't enter his skull. The bartender is a minority, actually he's a Mexican with African blood. A mix breed. The joke is how this ALL works out in Joe's World..

In your second premise after Ayn Rand you clearly stated : There is no other need for them.

So, the big man with the temper, who just committed murder can now go free. But, and a big Butt, if the bartender also got struck by the same high velocity bullet aimed so both essentially got murdered. This same man would have to be charged with Murder. Why? Because majorities don't need the political function of rights.

Restating now the what is hopefully obvious, in ALL it's completeness:

"The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities ADD Joe--->There is no other need for them. "

Let's illustrate this way for effect. or let's just say:

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

There is no other need for them.

Now who are we protecting? DO I have a right to be protected? How about those gun laws, who decides who can kill me, and what for?

Joe, don't play semantics with me, as a illusionary clever way to slink away from this. We are either communicating or we are all on cloud 9, and I doubt that. Words do mean things and it's why we have dictionaries. Ayn Rand said things she meant and we heard her. You can not cover for what that woman represents. Social Darwinism, Rugged Individualism, and not help your neighbor, rather screw you neighbor, their lazy, and unworthy. Teach them to fish from polluted rivers and live on river beds.

Wake up from the slumber.

Come Together NOW

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I am not surprised you do not understand the statement.

You have a right to life. It would have been better to say you have a right to not me killed by another person unless in self defense.

In your joke of an example you interchanged the word minority with ethnicity. The Rand quote has nothing to do with being Mexican or African. It has to do with the rights of individuals and why they need to be protected.

  1. Think of the state of California passing proposition 8 eliminating rights of same-sex couples to marry.
  2. Think of a majority preventing a minority from building a mosque in town because it offends them as they did in Switzerland.
  3. Think of a mob in Salem Massachusetts chasing a woman that is accused of being a which because she made strange looking dolls.
  4. Think of native Americans having their land taken away because a majority in a new population decides it is an economic imperative that they give up their hunting grounds for the good of the new nation.

In each of these cases the rights of individuals are being taken way by force or by vote. That is the meaning of the quote.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and the smallest minority on earth is the individual."

-- Ayn Rand

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Ridiculous argument: in the US of America - the "Land of the Free" - the President, his compadres, and the court jestors do exactly as they damn well please; haven't you been paying attention?.

You're arguing over a nonexistent legal device. And anybody who thinks the people have rights in this country is a fool.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Your argument is that because some people's rights are violated we should not have them?

That is just plain stupid.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

No my argument is that we have a President, and a Congress, supported by their court jesters that have systematically stripped us of ALL rights as a matter of precedent; there is nothing left.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Hmmmmm, you're thinking of the (R)epelican'ts and the teabagge(R)s.

They force whole States into forcing teachers to teach creationism.

They are the only ones beside WallStreet that seems to get what they want.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

No, actually I was thinking of Obama.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

I can't recall him forcing teachers to teach creationism.

Perhaps you don't like the idea of education?

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Not today's education, nope, not at all. I can gather the three R's anywhere and I'd really prefer to be free to be me, if you don't mind.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

So then, ignorance is strength.................:)

The intelligent and learned are always so dumb in other ways, eh?.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

There is value in the emotional decision, at times. So I suppose you could say that there can be both ignorance of strength and strength of ignorance. I tend to be less emotional, or at least less impulsive, but if that's your bag, sure... we have a place for you. I don't like any aspect of today's educational institution.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Ignorance is strength!!!

At least to this guy. Now that's Orwellian.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Stupid question but isn't the rich white boy a minority? I mean if all white boys were wealthy would we even be having this discussion?

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Would you say that rights are a negotiated item?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I would say that natural rights are non negotiable and civil rights are negotiable.

[-] 1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Well, I think that's a good question, what are "rights" and how or why do they originate.

Just an aside: the Left, you must realize, is a minority now running roughshod over a majority, that no longer has any rights.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20504) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm not exactly a devout Christian but I gotta say, I think Jesus is pretty cool.

Seriously. He was not only a liberal, he was a political dissident. He was the first of us - the first to over turn the tables of the money changers . . . of course they were conducting their business in the temple - so one could argue perhaps that had more to do with it - but that completely ignores the fact of his homelessness and the way that fact would have informed his world view.

And I do believe he was against usury - but don't make me get out my concordance - it's getting late.

Lao Tzu was kinda cool too.

So was Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu was very cool. All of them hold lessons for us today.

Fuck Lyan Paul Ryan. Fuck Romney. Fuck the repelican party.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

Yes - Jesus was cool - it's disgusting what some of his followers do in his name

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20504) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

absolutely

[-] 2 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

Don't measure your wealth by how much money you have in your pocket ~I have no clue who said it first

The purpose of a government is far more than to ensure that its economy is operating at peak performance for the wealthiest few. As for the wealthiest few: with ultimate freedom and power comes great responsibility. Or, as the Native Americans used to say "nobody owns the earth." Which, you either hold true or untrue, I suppose.

Either way consider this: If you give me $10,000 bonus, which I probably earned, I could buy a car, a boat, put a downpayment on a house, buy a used RV. I could do a lot with that money. But, if you give 100.00 to me and 99 people on the factory floor, you can bet that town is going to see that money touch many people's lives beyond the initial folks who got the cash. Heck, even the hookers are gonna have a good weekend, and that's ok too. That's the power of having a well-paid workforce, and too bad for the wealthy, they didn't get a new car even though they really felt entitled to it. Too bad, the gravy days are coming to an end.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

gravy days may be coming to an end -
but if the 1% win this election,
get ready for soylent green

[-] 2 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

And, how many of those 100 people who get the 100.00 are going to say "let's go build a road!" Or, "let's go hook up the fire department with new hoses!" It just won't happen. I don't care if you have 1 person, or 100 people getting the cash, nobody is going to think beyond their personal desires. That's the government's function.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

lol, that is a good argument. You'd think such a revelation would be common sense, but here we are. Makes me wonder if political discourse in the chambers of congress is ever about the greater good, but is actually only about the greatest reward.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Even the hookers - exactly, that's the point... why indebt a whole nation just for an hour's pleasure? Make me out a check for five thousand, charge it to the Obama campaign, or you can keep it.

[-] 2 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

The thing is, trickle down economics doesn't work, that's exactly what I'm saying. If trickle down economics worked, then even the hooker standing on the corner, who has no connection with the company, is going to see the effects of that money-- if it's a healthy economy. However, she doesn't feel any stimulation at all if the money goes to buy some rich dude a boat. But, give 100 factory workers 100 bucks, and she's gonna be just one of many people in the community that see the fruits of their labor. As it stands now, we've had 30 years of trickle up economics, and now they want to turn the spigot on full blast.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

During that time period the American working class has profited immensely; the voluntary sale of their labor has bought them not just one home but two or three, there are multiple vehicles in the driveway, LCDs in every room, vacations in the islands, cruises to everywhere, accounts and investments.... the working class is no longer comfortable, they are now lower middleclass millionaires.

The thing is nothing drops from the sky and lands in your lap; it takes years of effort to gain peace of mind and security. I don't care how you label it, this has been a time of great prosperity.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

How many working class families have two or three homes? Most are struggling with one mortgage. 10 million houses are currently underwater in 2012. If we are so prosperous why does it take two incomes to maintain our lifestyles? Back in the 70's it was common for just one person to support an entire family.

Look at the following graph and tell me who has really prospered in the last 40 years?

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

How many? So many the IRS took away the second home as investment deduction; I'd consider that a rather sizable amount.

The fact that there were two jobs available for every family is testament to the vibrance of our economy; the male head of household, and businesses everywhere, profited from the introduction/ injection of this alternate female labor force while simultaneously increasing market share.

Ten million that are underwater... while virtually all were carrying a disproportionate level of debt.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 1 year ago

LOL... I'll grant you that the lower middle class lives better than most kings in history, but indoor plumbing is a marvelous quality of life improvement. But, you're living in fantasy land if you think the middle class are being coddled. In fact, I'd say you should lay off the crack and seriously go be poor, and live that way until material things don't even enter your thoughts. Then tell me about the value of a dollar. Trust me, you can work 60 hours per week and still never get that cruise, or a new t.v. set, or even afford one solid car. You're typing from another planet if you think it's so.

Oh! He doesn't have kids... Duh?

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Don't coddle me, either - I never said the middleclass has been coddled. And don't attempt to berate or belittle me... I've lived that life of the poor you reference; you'll find no compassion here.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Stop with the "guilty by association arguments". They are pure garbage, whether from the left or the right.

Focus on the facts of what he has done and proposes. There is more than enough evidence available to expose what the outcome of his election will be.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Lyin' Ryans budget is pretty AynRandian in that it is founded on taking from the needy. So this is a good post in that it shows where he got his philosophy from. We can then extrapolate where he would go next as well.

Another good indication of what Ryan is about is his running away from Ayn Rand because of pressure from the religious right.

So he will cater to that group of anti stem cell, anti LGBT, anti abortion, anti evolution, anti science extremists.

Great Post!

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

And Obama is just as influenced by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Both views are equally without merit.

Let their own deeds show their true selves.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"Obama is just as influenced by Rev. Jeremiah Wright"
and you know that Obama made his staff go to JW's sermons
and the easter bunny ate santa claus

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Just anti Obama republican taking points. Jeremiah Wright? Ha! Your diggin pretty far back there boss. Gettin desperate are we?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Just making a fair comparison regardless of party. I don't favor either candidates views and will blast any and all views that are passed up because of the blindness of party loyalty.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I am not "party" loyal
I am America loyal
and I vote for who is best for America
who do you vote for?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

This post, & my commenst are against the Romney/Ryan anti 99% agenda. The roots of these republican/conservative policies can be found in the extremist views of the Ayn Rand philosophies Ryan has praised.

You attack Obama at every opportunity. Even when the discussion is the anti 99% Ayn Rand based republican agenda. You don't support that agenda do you. I know your gonna squeal if we suggest you areserving republicans with your constant anti Obama rhetoric.

What kind of fair comparison?. Rev Wright is not a philosopher who represents the democratic agenda. Four years ago the republicans used the rev comments against Pres Obama and failed.

Your comparison is unfair and not similar in any way. The democratic agenda in fact is one that favors the 99%. You don't support an agenda that favors the 99%.?

You don't favor either candidate. Why not? one favors the 1%. The other favors the 99%. Do you support OWS and the 99%?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Today it is Mitt.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

If the Ryan plan were passed, it would deny eight million people food stamps, thirty million people access to healthcare, and send two million kids into poverty;

so why give him the time of day ?

this is just a troll making wild statements to upset the sheep

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

As a devout, rigidly practicing Catholic, you would think it would be Jesus.

Mary

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

The GOTP now officially stands as the PARTY of:

SOCIAL DARWINISM

And JR, what we read, and how we choose to brainwash ourselves affects exactly how we behave. Behavior doesn't just materialize out of thin air. Policies come out of these belief systems. Wake UP. Maybe a basic course in human psychology might help you. Seek the truth, honestly. If not, the first your lying to is yourself. Don't care about the truth? Dig IN.

Wake UP......................................

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

One aspect of Rand that I, and I think almost every person on this forum, agreed with was her disgust of fascism as totally unfair to people who are trying to create new, better options.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

I don't get it - is Annie like a required college read or something - here, this is what NOT to believe? Cause, like, nobody in this country has ever f*cking heard of her... and yet she is the centerpiece of discussion here.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by SuperDinny (-1) 1 year ago

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."

-- Ayn Rand

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Well easy to see your not here to make friends and support the movements for a better healthier society for all. Sheesh quoting shit from a sociopath like Ayn - disgusting.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Ahh yes, so true, so true... I'm a Harley dude, in fact, they call me "HarleyHeadFred"... Well, just look at me, I got my leathers, and my feathers, my colors... I got sons of anarchy tattooed on my soul, yes sir, I'm the ultimate individualist, a rebel to the core. And so are my other one million plus buds... and no one rides alone.