@aubreydsinger "was" being the key phrase - When he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he decided that "...in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other..." He compromised on a core principle of the philosophy, and in taking a position with the Federal Reserve, he essentially renounced the fourth principle of Objectivism – laissez-faire Capitalism.
"Why do they become viscerally angry at the mention of Ayn Rand's name? Why do they slander and smear her without actually engaging her ideas? Clearly, there is something they fear in Rand's philosophy, something they don't want you to read. What is it?" - Search: "An Open Letter to America’s Students by C. Bradley Thompson"
@g0ssage I get viscerally angry at the mention of Ayn Rand's name for the same reason I get angry at the mention of 50 Cents name: because they are mediocrities one cannot seem to avoid while people of true ability are ignored. Again, I recommend you read some of Jack London's work and ask yourself if he is not the superior author.
@g0ssage I understand that it is not only English speaking people who use YouTube, so I shall simply say that I don't understand the idea you're trying to express.
@TheAmazingMorse What I was trying to express is that if I thought people made a big fuzz out of a worse writer than Jack London (a plagiarist) I would be upset as well.
@g0ssage You seek to dismiss the greatness of Jack London's work with a single word (plagiarist). I suggest you and everybody else read The Apostate (available on the web for free) and judge for yourself its worth. This single short story is worth more than the entire collection of dreck Ms. Rand ever produced.
Ayn Rand is a crap writer and yet every kid that gets through college seems to at least know of her if not read some of her crappy books. Jack London was perhaps the greatest American writer, and yet I know precious few people who have read his work because he was a socialist. Don't tell me that the country is ruled by socialists because I'm not going to buy it. Rather, it is run by a few selfish bastards that have nothing but contempt for the rest of humanity.
Truth definitely counts, Ayn Rand knows socialism and she knows capitalism, freedom comes from God, whom I wish Ayn Rand understood, acknowledged, and gave credit to for the wisdom of liberty -- freedom to choose is from God!!! It is necessary for our growth here! Her ideas on liberty being the best method for the most happiness, prosperity, and morally good society surpasses all governmentally controlled solutions, proposals, controls, and ideas!!!
Do you want to know about a program that can help you get free 1 oz Morgan Silver Rounds. It is a lot easier than you think. H T T P (colon)//silversnowball(dot)com/3897 Just go to the site and get some information. It can't hurt to look. I am glad I did.
It amazes me how these free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatment.
@logtype47 First of all, it is spelled "udders". Secondly, Ayn Rand made it very clear in her writings that while living in a mixed economy and being forced throughout your life to pay into programs that you disagree with such as Medicare and Social Security, it is completely moral to take make use of those programs as a form of restitution for the money that was forcibly taken from you without your consent. Ayn Rand did exactly what she wrote and believed. So, you see, there is no hypocrisy.
@PCMechanic Not that I don't believe you, but could you point me to where she said that? Why didn't she take Medicare under her own name? EIther way, to emphatically oppose something and then take advantage of it yourself is hypocrisy in my book, I don't care what she preached.
@PCMechanic Thanks for pointing me the way. I found this interesting: "letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . ." So being in support of welfare and using it means one is a parasite and being opposed to it and using it makes one a victim seeking restitution? Did she explain why she didn't take Medicare in her own name?
@reynoldsohoulihan Well, as far as I know, her *legal* name in the U.S. was Ann O'Conner (from her marriage to Frank O'Conner). That would have been the name that the government had on record and that she paid taxes under, etc. The name "Ayn Rand" was just the pen name she invented for herself decades earlier but it was never her legal name.
I was first introduced to Ayn Rand's works in art school in the 70s.
All you new age green brats who think that life is about getting your share of the pie with little effort, I ask you how many trees have YOU actually planted, How many things have YOU skillfully created. How often do YOU share what you have. You all live in a nursery of socialist materialism of a me first society rejecting the laws of nature. It has nothing to do with race!
@includao It's interesting that all of Objectivism's detractors always try to smear the PERSON and not argue the IDEAS. I guess they have nothing to combat Objectivism with in THAT realm. While I am not conceding that Ayn Rand was a sociopath, I don't think that you would apply the same value judgements to Nikola Tesla regarding his rather bizarre and idiosyncratic personality. What it really comes down to is that you try to evade the concept of an objective reality.
@Radeo What's the missing context? I don't like any books imposed to anyone, especially to underage persons (he talks about highschool) even if it is books i love.Plus forcing them, ruins their very point.
&It's plain hypocrisy bashing the inherently statist public education system,while cheering for state sponsored indoctrination to rand's books.
If the argument is that a transitional statism is necessary to demolish the state, i would remind you that the bolsheviks had the same position.
@11thsockpuppet It's not hypocrisy if don't give your moral sanction to the existence of these public entities.
Is paying taxes "hypocrisy" when one supposedly advocates limited government? Why or why not?
The choice is, surrender that ideological battleground or recognize just who created these circumstances in the first place.
All ARI can do is offer to donate, and if public entities choose to let these books be used (that advocate their own destruction), this is a good thing.
@Radeo I get your point. But as i told you, using the statist apparatus to deliver the message is dangerous. Communism was supposed to be both classless AND STATELESS. They too embraced the idea of using the state to deliver their solution and got addicted to it. They promised that the statist stage (dictatorship of the proletariat) would be a short one. They stuck there and the idea of statelessness remained a powerless fable;a vacuous promise like the promise of the paradise. Be wary...
@VysetheTard Well, to claim that my post is baselessly assumptive, is to declare three things: 1) The post exists; 2) The post possesses the identity of being baselessly assumptive; 3) That you KNOW that the post has such identity and that it exists. Hence, existence exists, identity exists and consciousness exists. These are the three axioms of objectivism that you have just implicitly conceded. In other words, the fact that you made that statement, you just made a case FOR objectivism.
@VysetheTard Too late, philosophy is a subject that you cannot ever get awa from, otherwise you wouldn't have been watching this video, or responding to me. Your very comment is a philisophical statement. Or as Ayn Rand always said, "Check your premises."
@pietzsche In order for something to be subjective, a subject must EXIST. Therefore, by your own admission, you are implicitly saying existence exists. Existence exists is a primary axiom that you can never get away from. Even the mere act of you commenting only proves this true, as you are acting on the premise that your computer exists. If you attempt to disagree with me on the axioms, you are agreeing that there exists something to disagree on and someone to disagree with.
@bma051000 lol, yeah right, when you can define "existence" without circularity I'll take you seriously. Or when you have a philosophy that wasn't constructed by a hack from propositions which had already been debunked. Axiomatic philosophy is nonsense, most particularly in an analytical philosophy whose terms can't be defined. Rand was an ignorant muppet, and is the laughingstock of anyone who has any understanding of what's happened in philosophy since Descartes.
@pietzsche Rand, if you bothered to read her literature, showed that the Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy is a false one. Either existence exists or it doesn't. If you hold that it doesn't then why do you even bother responding to me? I'd like to hear what you think on epistemology, ethics and politics. Epistemology, the theory of knowlege, must pertain to something, if it doesn't pertain to existence/reality, then what does it pertain to and what is it knowlege of?
@bma051000 "either existence exists or it doesn't" is a false dichotomy, until you've defined existence in a non circular manner, there's a third option, "existence" is a meaningless collection of sounds, not a concept at all.
Epistemology pertains to our understanding of phenomena, it has nothing to do with "reality" or "existence". "analytic philosophy" has nothing to do with the analytic/synthetic split, it uses both. Rand never proved anything.
@pietzsche "Epistemology pertains to our understanding of phenomena." Do these phenomena exist? You are a true Kantian; the scope of your evasion is staggaring. It is not a false dichotomy. Either God exists or he doesn't. There are no contradictions, there's no such thing as a married bachelor. A is A. But more to the point, why are you even viewing this video if you're so hostile to Rand's views. I don't go bother watching Christian vids, simply b/c I have nothing to gain from them. Cont...
@bma051000 Why is it that of all the philosophers in history, the one that the intellectual establishment is opposed to the most is Rand. She never held an official professorship, and she was a novelilst by trade. I guess her ideas must present a real threat to them.
@bma051000 It's actually due to her lack of engagement in metaphysics and lack of consideration of other perspectives. Simply put other philosophers do what she does better.
@bma051000 Her "ideas" are opposed because they're shit, and because they were refuted before she ever expressed them, often centuries before she was even born. Most sane people oppose legitimizing plagiarism and anything as close to Nazism as rand is. Quirke's exception in before Godwin's law.
@bma051000 No phenomena do not exist, that's part of what "phenomena" means. the phrase "A is A" contains exactly 0 information until "A" is defined, you defined neither existence nor God so your "question" is nonsense. And not only am I not a Kantian, I detest Kant, anyone with a passing familiarity with philosophy could guess that by my username.
@pietzsche If gravity is not a phenomenon, then what do you classify it as? A is A is an expression stating that any given entity IS that entity. Corollary to that is that to exist is to exist as SOMETHING. An apple is an apple, gravity is gravity, my computer is a computer. These all have their own identities and thus a defining set of attributes. If I don't exist, then why did you insist on responding to me? Your evasions are so apparent, they're palpable.
@helljumper1893 Argue the IDEAS, not the people. Of course that would involve: 1) Knowing what her philosophy is; 2) Actually attempting to find contradictions. Here's a hint: start with the axioms.
I think they are against companies which get subsidized by the government for being "green" or developing "green" energy. Which makes sense, as they are against all subsidy by government to all businesses.
Of course, they also dislike environmental extremists, but the core problem with "green" companies is government redistributing every citizen's money involuntarily to artificially stimulate their profitability.
Ayn Rand is for people who can't overcome their loathing for others and learn to accept others as intellectual equals.
She had some ideas, sure. But the bulk her rhetoric is just hate and smears. She inspires so many, because they love to hate others. It's the new racism.
If an individual is rationally passionate about his work, no other man (no matter how intelligent) has the right the tell him how to achieve his work.
Socrates, Galileo, Columbus, the Founding Fathers, William Wallace etc.
These great man, these individuals stood with their own vision, their integrity and accomplished great things.
Objectivism is not for everyone, I agree. There are those who prefer to float through life in mindless self-indulgence. Overall, it is the active vs. the passive
Objectivism is for anyone who knows that there is an objective reality independent of one's wishes or whims, and who chooses to live by reason in all their actions and dealings.
@Eruptide How do you define hate? Where were her smears? People like you have turned the word racism into a tired, ineffective, cliche. If supporting individual liberty and rejecting communitarianism is racism then I guess I'm racist.
Sounds like you have a loating for others by your comment. She opposed the initiation of force and spoke out for reason as the means of settling disputes - that doesn't sound like hate or smears to me. Sounds like you are doing all the hating and smearing. She was especially opposed to racism, which she regarded as disgusting. She viewed that all people should be judged on their merits. Racism judges people based on the group to which they belong - just how you have judged Objectivists.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
rand should be ashamed. her books have so much bias i cant even judge them as literature. "anthem" had amazing potential, but was unbearably short, and had a corny ending that was nothing more than the narrator describing how the couple turned into objectivist disciples. im in the process of reading "atlas", but am disgusted on her logical process of defining an "antihero." any narration of characters' thoughts are twisted and forced, and dont resemble anything vaguely similar to reality.
re: "teaching" children ayn rand's ideas. Sounds more like indoctrination. O'ism is like a secular religion in the sense that it's closed - ie, it's never changing - and inflexible and demands absolute allegiance. Ayn Rand's ideas are laying the foundations for an America fascist regime. It has all the elements: jingoism, war-mongering, persecution of the Left and belligerence towards a race of people that's to blame for our problems: Muslims.
The scary thing is I do know what I'm talking about. O'ism is savagely jingoist for one. It ignorantly blames the poor for stealing the nation's wealth, which is odd because they have no power in society. It curses the good as being evil. Most frighteningly, it breeds out of people their natural, biological sense of right and wrong and replaces it with an ethic that, if someone ends up being left destitute afterwards, it's okay so long as it didn't violate some artificial ethical codes.
This is a direct observation of O'ists in general. I've been studying her ideas for years and I know how her ideas mold, shape and deform a person's mind. It may not sound pleasant, but I'm just being honest. She has far worse things to say about someone who gives out of a sense of good will and altruism, which is pretty backwards imo.
Capitalism and American style democracy have been the engine for a new era in this world. And it's been for the best. Just because Objectivists want to keep what they earn...the fruits of their labor instead of having it taken from them at pain of imprisonment or violence, I don't think that makes them depraved in any sense.
It's depraved to justify poisoning other people's water if it means making more money. Now, I know in principle Objectivism doesn't approve of that. The caveat is, they'll deny tooth and nail that, say, DDT is harmful to the environment and thus humans. There's a strong resistance against conceding any such possibility because it's too close to environmentalism.
I think that objectivists are more into individual rights as set out in the founding documents. I don't remember there being anything in her books suggesting that people poisoning themselves for the sake of business was what needed to happen. More like unnecessary bureaucracies and taxes impede on fundamental, sacred rights.
Individual rights are fine and good. The problem is, when Rand's ideas are internalized in people's minds, they build biases. Environmentalism is evil but mass agriculture is good. Thus, if anyone says that mass agriculture ends up creating bad side affects which hurt other people, the out rage by Objectivists is deafening. They'll deny that to the very end. To even suggest that something as good and noble as industrial farming can hurt people in any way is high treason in their minds.
Ok here's the thing though, you're projecting your own biases. Rand was all about using reason to find the truth, never labeling things off-hand. If that is how people think, they are not practicing objectivism. I think with something like say, global warming comes up, they are waiting for more "proof" and in light of circumstances, they might be right to wait for more proof because right now it looks like it has been blown well out of proportion.
No, that's not it. I even see this sort of denial over environmentalism at ARI. Would an Objectivist truly consider the virtues of organic farming? Of course not. There's clearly nothing wrong with the agribusiness. Organic and "green" is clearly wrong because it takes in to consideration the well being of the environment. Ayn Rand would never condone any "greenie" idea. The fact that you think you can say I'm projecting is silly. You should know this about O'ism as well.
They shouldn't! But they are for political reasons. They're naturally resistant to anything which is "green" because it's associated with left wing stuff. It's an irrational bias that they let get in the way of results.
You are throwing much to wide a net with 'green'. As far as she was concerned, you could do anything you wanted, until you try to invoke the power of government to force people to bend to your wishes. So long as what you did did not involve the initiation of force, you were welcome to it. She might have seen no value in 'organic' (as opposed to some imaginary food that is inorganic), but you were welcome to it. Just don't try to force others to eat it or grow it.
Yes, but that hasn't stopped Rand and other Objectivists from misrepresenting the environmental movement and hindering my freedom to do just that, because of the misinformation of her and her ilk. They're ideologically opposed to 'green'. It doesn't matter if it's good for business, they're against it on principle.
@SpazzzDog You are ideologically opposed to "green," too, otherwise you wouldn't be using a compuer made of plastic produced from petroleum and being powered, most likely, by fossil fuel energy. If you were truly green and lived by your principles, you'd be living in a solar powered yurt eating organically grown vegetables grown in compost and washing your clothes in a nearby stream without soap, but I dare to wager that you are not doing those things.
@bma051000 If you lived by your principles, you wouldn't reap the benefits that come from living in a welfare state. Like it or not, your every day life benefits from the use of force by the point of a gun imposed on individuals by the federal government, as defined by Ayn Rand.
She would not be against people selling 'organic' food (there is a kind that is not organic?), or solar energy, ot whatever. What she was against was the forced redistribution of property, ie through taxation, subsidies, incentives, etc. If you can sell solar without stealing from other people through via government giving you subsidies etc, you are welcome to it. She was for voluntarism as opposed to coercion - think Ghandi as opposed to HItler or Stalin.
I mean dude, believe what you want. But out national debt is out of control, we've never been taxed so highly, and the youth of this country are already going to have some serious issues to deal with. Almost all entitlement programs resemble a ponzi scheme except it's government run. If we didn't have a minimum wage, more poor people would be making more money, doing more for the economy and themselves. The great society has been a dismal failure. People just forget about our deficit.
Never been taxed so highly? During WWII taxes reached up to 90% for some people. The attempt to place the blame solely on the poor and the gov't is misleading. It denies the obvious fact that corporate welfare is astronomical. If the amount of money that went to agriculture went to the poor, we'd have no more poor.
So long as Libertarians dehumanize people on Social Security & Disability as "Moochers", and try to deprive them of their ONLY means to afford a roof over their head or to have any food to eat, then you will deserve nothing but scorn and contempt from the rest of Humanity.
Burn in Hell, each and every one of you inhuman Libertarian monsters.
yeah...because one who feels that they are entitled to own their property of which they earned and should be the sole check writer of their wealth makes one a scum bag that should burn in hell...
seeing as you use the reference "hell"...i am assuming you are being religious about this...since you impose religion...check the ten commandments "Thou shall not Steal"...
with that...i think i know where you will be burning.
what's your plan to make SS sustainable? Are you personally going to pay for it? Who is? The Chinese? Think about the national debt before you go talking morality you fucking faggot cocksuck bullshit
hey, I'm poor, give me a place to stay, food to eat, and let me fuck your mother...I mean why not right? If you don't give me all of this, you're being selfish and mean. I have needs...take care of me you sick mother fucker!
I just wish Objectivists were not such purists. I know tons of good people that believe in mysticism and are still rational about the world. They merely just assume that we were created by some entity. In fact, I know several religious "Objectivists" that believe in most of Rand's philosophy but still retain their traditional religion. My religious convictions about Wotan personally enforce my Capitalist pro-liberty mindset, after all the pantheon was a divine State that was riddled by scandals.
RE: JohnRater, how you define 'religious'? I'm a deist, I have no 'church' or 'religion' and yet I believe in higher being and an Objectivist. What is opposed is using this 'God' as a crutch to justify ones actions or as a crutch to excuse ones ignorance.
3.that person will ask u out or say they love u tomarrow.
4. heres the thing copy and paste to 2 other vids
dnt read this(cuz it really wrks). u will gt kissd on the nearest frieday by the love of ur life. 2mara wll b the bst day of ur life hwever if you dnt post ths comment 2 at least 3 vids u will die withn 2 days... sorry i hate these things
The Obama administration is almost a copy/paste of Randian villians, they're so crazy they make FDR seem reasonable, so I think we're no longer able to call her predictions "non sequiturs" or dismiss them as arguments ad absurdum.
Fernt: Objectivism is not at odds with atheism, but it is at odds with intuitionism and innatism, which are at the bases of ethical arguments provided by atheists such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris.
As for the "cult" of Rand - I would say instead that it is cult-PROOF. How exactly do you get someone to "drink the kool-aid" or give you their money if you teach that their money is their own to keep, and that their lives should be the most important thing to them - not a comet, not a god, etc.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ayn Rand was nothing but a capitalist or more accuratly the corporate giants whore....She spoke in the favour of the money hungry corporation.She was nothing but very sick bitch, who must hav e been raped by some communist back in the day, and cos she refused to admit her great time she had having her arse ripped apart, she chose to lead a life spewing her her mentally retarded idiologies..Good riddence the filthy bitch is dead...Socialism forever death to capitalism and democracy in general.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Your the misguided and brainwashed sheep worshipping the idiology of a woman who was a believer in the industrialist and whose greed and hatred had infected the minds of many.I feel sorry for you, for your sad existence.How dare you critisize my views??....i live by my idiology and dislike of anyone whoever backed capitalism and the oppression of the worker. I know how it feels to be exploited by greedy, money hungry industrialists....GO FUCK YOURSELF, I HAVE NO CARE FOR YOUR VIEWS AND VALUES.
I've read them all, but I'm from New Zealand and there are very few high schoolers here who can even tell you what a noun is. The Fountainhead seems a bridge too far for them.
Anthem is recommended for people under fourteen. People over fourteen can try The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged is recommended for people over sixteen since politics play a big part in that book. Take your pick.
Although I cannot call myself an Objectivist, I have learned so much from Ayn Rand. She makes a wonderful case for the individual. I own all 4 novels and her early work, including Virtue Of Selfishness, and I absolutely consider myself a fan.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And you've proven that your blind worship inhibits your ability to read properly. Ayn Rand's awful behaviour to her husband justify my criticism, imo.
I'm not sure if you're trying to criticize Ayn Rand or her detractors. Either way, I'm going to say a few words about Ayn Rand. She was a philosopher, and an advocate of reason and self-responsibility. Her whole message was about relying on oneself rather than taking from others--being a producer rather than a looter. People who want power and control would rather force others to support them rather than work to be self-sufficient. Ayn Rand was not a looter, and she did not support looting.
"Force" good manners? A teacher's job is to cultivate a student's critical thinking skills, so that the student is confident to use his or her reason to determine a course of action. Generally, good manners are reasonable, but no one can force a person to use them. "Social responsibility?" One's responsibility is to oneself--to one's own integrity and independence, i.e. to one's survival. No one has the perspective to declare what another person's mandatory obligation should be.
Have to study it? Forced education? Donated books? Are you suggesting students use critical thinking as their approach to Ayn Rand or acceptance of her ideas. There are so many goodreads, Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Henry Grady Weaver, Robert LaFavre.
I've just started reading about objectivism and is changing my life in ways I could never imagined when I thought I was corrupted and condemed by nature and God
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
Greenspan was an acolyte. And he basically ruined the economy. Well done.
aubreydsinger 4 months ago
@aubreydsinger "was" being the key phrase - When he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he decided that "...in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other..." He compromised on a core principle of the philosophy, and in taking a position with the Federal Reserve, he essentially renounced the fourth principle of Objectivism – laissez-faire Capitalism.
TheMrSeagull 5 days ago
"Why do they become viscerally angry at the mention of Ayn Rand's name? Why do they slander and smear her without actually engaging her ideas? Clearly, there is something they fear in Rand's philosophy, something they don't want you to read. What is it?" - Search: "An Open Letter to America’s Students by C. Bradley Thompson"
g0ssage 4 months ago
@g0ssage I get viscerally angry at the mention of Ayn Rand's name for the same reason I get angry at the mention of 50 Cents name: because they are mediocrities one cannot seem to avoid while people of true ability are ignored. Again, I recommend you read some of Jack London's work and ask yourself if he is not the superior author.
TheAmazingMorse 4 months ago
@TheAmazingMorse I would get viscerally angry as well if I thought someone worst than a plagiarist got all the fame and fortune.
g0ssage 4 months ago
@g0ssage I understand that it is not only English speaking people who use YouTube, so I shall simply say that I don't understand the idea you're trying to express.
TheAmazingMorse 4 months ago
@TheAmazingMorse What I was trying to express is that if I thought people made a big fuzz out of a worse writer than Jack London (a plagiarist) I would be upset as well.
g0ssage 4 months ago
@g0ssage You seek to dismiss the greatness of Jack London's work with a single word (plagiarist). I suggest you and everybody else read The Apostate (available on the web for free) and judge for yourself its worth. This single short story is worth more than the entire collection of dreck Ms. Rand ever produced.
Anglagard1 4 months ago
Ayn Rand is a crap writer and yet every kid that gets through college seems to at least know of her if not read some of her crappy books. Jack London was perhaps the greatest American writer, and yet I know precious few people who have read his work because he was a socialist. Don't tell me that the country is ruled by socialists because I'm not going to buy it. Rather, it is run by a few selfish bastards that have nothing but contempt for the rest of humanity.
TheAmazingMorse 5 months ago
Truth definitely counts, Ayn Rand knows socialism and she knows capitalism, freedom comes from God, whom I wish Ayn Rand understood, acknowledged, and gave credit to for the wisdom of liberty -- freedom to choose is from God!!! It is necessary for our growth here! Her ideas on liberty being the best method for the most happiness, prosperity, and morally good society surpasses all governmentally controlled solutions, proposals, controls, and ideas!!!
80sJerm 5 months ago
How could I be optimistic that a vile shank who idolized psychopathic ways of thinking had any influence on society?
reynoldsohoulihan 5 months ago
lol, randroids
jubulalau 5 months ago
Libertardism: Marxism revision B.
The jews are at it again.
Time for another lollercaust.
maersklandro 7 months ago
Why does this man sound a little retarded. Anyway, I love that he is asking for money. Hypocrite douche bags like everyone else.
mygaffer 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you want to know about a program that can help you get free 1 oz Morgan Silver Rounds. It is a lot easier than you think. H T T P (colon)//silversnowball(dot)com/3897 Just go to the site and get some information. It can't hurt to look. I am glad I did.
frankiegmh 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It amazes me how these free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatment.
logtype47 9 months ago
@logtype47 First of all, it is spelled "udders". Secondly, Ayn Rand made it very clear in her writings that while living in a mixed economy and being forced throughout your life to pay into programs that you disagree with such as Medicare and Social Security, it is completely moral to take make use of those programs as a form of restitution for the money that was forcibly taken from you without your consent. Ayn Rand did exactly what she wrote and believed. So, you see, there is no hypocrisy.
PCMechanic 8 months ago
@PCMechanic Not that I don't believe you, but could you point me to where she said that? Why didn't she take Medicare under her own name? EIther way, to emphatically oppose something and then take advantage of it yourself is hypocrisy in my book, I don't care what she preached.
reynoldsohoulihan 5 months ago
@reynoldsohoulihan
aynrandlexiconDOTcom/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html (Last six paragraphs)
PCMechanic 5 months ago
@PCMechanic Thanks for pointing me the way. I found this interesting: "letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . ." So being in support of welfare and using it means one is a parasite and being opposed to it and using it makes one a victim seeking restitution? Did she explain why she didn't take Medicare in her own name?
reynoldsohoulihan 5 months ago
@reynoldsohoulihan Well, as far as I know, her *legal* name in the U.S. was Ann O'Conner (from her marriage to Frank O'Conner). That would have been the name that the government had on record and that she paid taxes under, etc. The name "Ayn Rand" was just the pen name she invented for herself decades earlier but it was never her legal name.
PCMechanic 5 months ago
Spread the Rand.
Chibithy 10 months ago
I was first introduced to Ayn Rand's works in art school in the 70s.
All you new age green brats who think that life is about getting your share of the pie with little effort, I ask you how many trees have YOU actually planted, How many things have YOU skillfully created. How often do YOU share what you have. You all live in a nursery of socialist materialism of a me first society rejecting the laws of nature. It has nothing to do with race!
GrumpSkull 1 year ago
DON'T STAREEOTYPE JEWISH PEOPLE! STAREEOTYPES ARE THE WURST!
thejobloshow 1 year ago
well, everyone knows that Ayn Rand was a sociopath.
includao 1 year ago
@includao It's interesting that all of Objectivism's detractors always try to smear the PERSON and not argue the IDEAS. I guess they have nothing to combat Objectivism with in THAT realm. While I am not conceding that Ayn Rand was a sociopath, I don't think that you would apply the same value judgements to Nikola Tesla regarding his rather bizarre and idiosyncratic personality. What it really comes down to is that you try to evade the concept of an objective reality.
bma051000 1 year ago
@1:30
it's sad how objectivist people have embraced statism and state imposed propaganda as a tool to expose these views to the public.
Shameful.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
nice evasion of context
Radeo 1 year ago
@Radeo What's the missing context? I don't like any books imposed to anyone, especially to underage persons (he talks about highschool) even if it is books i love.Plus forcing them, ruins their very point.
&It's plain hypocrisy bashing the inherently statist public education system,while cheering for state sponsored indoctrination to rand's books.
If the argument is that a transitional statism is necessary to demolish the state, i would remind you that the bolsheviks had the same position.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet It's not hypocrisy if don't give your moral sanction to the existence of these public entities.
Is paying taxes "hypocrisy" when one supposedly advocates limited government? Why or why not?
The choice is, surrender that ideological battleground or recognize just who created these circumstances in the first place.
All ARI can do is offer to donate, and if public entities choose to let these books be used (that advocate their own destruction), this is a good thing.
Radeo 1 year ago
@Radeo I get your point. But as i told you, using the statist apparatus to deliver the message is dangerous. Communism was supposed to be both classless AND STATELESS. They too embraced the idea of using the state to deliver their solution and got addicted to it. They promised that the statist stage (dictatorship of the proletariat) would be a short one. They stuck there and the idea of statelessness remained a powerless fable;a vacuous promise like the promise of the paradise. Be wary...
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
thanks!
ImmanuallRand 1 year ago
"We will get to the point wheah a million-pwus kids evewy single yeah will wead Ayn Wand in high school!"
Not with that voice, I hope.
VysetheTard 1 year ago
@VysetheTard Your choice of moniker is very apt at describing the level of your intelligence.
bma051000 1 year ago
I'd rather you refer to it as a pseudonym or a handle. "Moniker" sounds like some sort of endangered woodpecker.
The rest of your post is too baselessly assumptive to be worthy of further comment.
VysetheTard 1 year ago
@VysetheTard Well, to claim that my post is baselessly assumptive, is to declare three things: 1) The post exists; 2) The post possesses the identity of being baselessly assumptive; 3) That you KNOW that the post has such identity and that it exists. Hence, existence exists, identity exists and consciousness exists. These are the three axioms of objectivism that you have just implicitly conceded. In other words, the fact that you made that statement, you just made a case FOR objectivism.
bma051000 1 year ago
@bma051000
I will not be drawn into sordid philosophical masturbation with you, bma. Life is too short for that.
VysetheTard 1 year ago
@VysetheTard Too late, philosophy is a subject that you cannot ever get awa from, otherwise you wouldn't have been watching this video, or responding to me. Your very comment is a philisophical statement. Or as Ayn Rand always said, "Check your premises."
bma051000 1 year ago
@bma051000 axiomatic philosophies? You gotta be shitting me. choice of axioms is subjective, ask Poincare.
pietzsche 1 year ago
@pietzsche In order for something to be subjective, a subject must EXIST. Therefore, by your own admission, you are implicitly saying existence exists. Existence exists is a primary axiom that you can never get away from. Even the mere act of you commenting only proves this true, as you are acting on the premise that your computer exists. If you attempt to disagree with me on the axioms, you are agreeing that there exists something to disagree on and someone to disagree with.
bma051000 1 year ago
@bma051000 lol, yeah right, when you can define "existence" without circularity I'll take you seriously. Or when you have a philosophy that wasn't constructed by a hack from propositions which had already been debunked. Axiomatic philosophy is nonsense, most particularly in an analytical philosophy whose terms can't be defined. Rand was an ignorant muppet, and is the laughingstock of anyone who has any understanding of what's happened in philosophy since Descartes.
pietzsche 1 year ago
@pietzsche Rand, if you bothered to read her literature, showed that the Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy is a false one. Either existence exists or it doesn't. If you hold that it doesn't then why do you even bother responding to me? I'd like to hear what you think on epistemology, ethics and politics. Epistemology, the theory of knowlege, must pertain to something, if it doesn't pertain to existence/reality, then what does it pertain to and what is it knowlege of?
bma051000 1 year ago
@bma051000 "either existence exists or it doesn't" is a false dichotomy, until you've defined existence in a non circular manner, there's a third option, "existence" is a meaningless collection of sounds, not a concept at all.
Epistemology pertains to our understanding of phenomena, it has nothing to do with "reality" or "existence". "analytic philosophy" has nothing to do with the analytic/synthetic split, it uses both. Rand never proved anything.
pietzsche 1 year ago
@pietzsche "Epistemology pertains to our understanding of phenomena." Do these phenomena exist? You are a true Kantian; the scope of your evasion is staggaring. It is not a false dichotomy. Either God exists or he doesn't. There are no contradictions, there's no such thing as a married bachelor. A is A. But more to the point, why are you even viewing this video if you're so hostile to Rand's views. I don't go bother watching Christian vids, simply b/c I have nothing to gain from them. Cont...
bma051000 1 year ago
@bma051000 Why is it that of all the philosophers in history, the one that the intellectual establishment is opposed to the most is Rand. She never held an official professorship, and she was a novelilst by trade. I guess her ideas must present a real threat to them.
bma051000 1 year ago
@bma051000 It's actually due to her lack of engagement in metaphysics and lack of consideration of other perspectives. Simply put other philosophers do what she does better.
angrydead 1 year ago 2
@bma051000 Her "ideas" are opposed because they're shit, and because they were refuted before she ever expressed them, often centuries before she was even born. Most sane people oppose legitimizing plagiarism and anything as close to Nazism as rand is. Quirke's exception in before Godwin's law.
pietzsche 1 year ago
@bma051000 No phenomena do not exist, that's part of what "phenomena" means. the phrase "A is A" contains exactly 0 information until "A" is defined, you defined neither existence nor God so your "question" is nonsense. And not only am I not a Kantian, I detest Kant, anyone with a passing familiarity with philosophy could guess that by my username.
pietzsche 1 year ago
@pietzsche If gravity is not a phenomenon, then what do you classify it as? A is A is an expression stating that any given entity IS that entity. Corollary to that is that to exist is to exist as SOMETHING. An apple is an apple, gravity is gravity, my computer is a computer. These all have their own identities and thus a defining set of attributes. If I don't exist, then why did you insist on responding to me? Your evasions are so apparent, they're palpable.
bma051000 1 year ago
Comment removed
pietzsche 1 year ago
randroids.
helljumper1893 1 year ago
@helljumper1893 Argue the IDEAS, not the people. Of course that would involve: 1) Knowing what her philosophy is; 2) Actually attempting to find contradictions. Here's a hint: start with the axioms.
bma051000 1 year ago
thanks for posting this
SleepwatchSelf 1 year ago
oh god i hope i am dead in 15 years
iloveinfantiphagia 1 year ago
@iloveinfantiphagia "Why not expedite the process?"
bma051000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thanks for adding reason to culture
AynRead 1 year ago
thanks for adding reason to culture
AynRead 1 year ago
I think they are against companies which get subsidized by the government for being "green" or developing "green" energy. Which makes sense, as they are against all subsidy by government to all businesses.
Of course, they also dislike environmental extremists, but the core problem with "green" companies is government redistributing every citizen's money involuntarily to artificially stimulate their profitability.
lucentenor 1 year ago
Ayn Rand is for people who can't overcome their loathing for others and learn to accept others as intellectual equals.
She had some ideas, sure. But the bulk her rhetoric is just hate and smears. She inspires so many, because they love to hate others. It's the new racism.
Eruptide 1 year ago
What a typical postmodernist lunacy !
non-egalitarian = racist
principled consistent ethics = hate and smears
lol
VonStierlitz 1 year ago 2
If an individual is rationally passionate about his work, no other man (no matter how intelligent) has the right the tell him how to achieve his work.
Socrates, Galileo, Columbus, the Founding Fathers, William Wallace etc.
These great man, these individuals stood with their own vision, their integrity and accomplished great things.
Objectivism is not for everyone, I agree. There are those who prefer to float through life in mindless self-indulgence. Overall, it is the active vs. the passive
windigo433 1 year ago
Objectivism is for anyone who knows that there is an objective reality independent of one's wishes or whims, and who chooses to live by reason in all their actions and dealings.
raybanseyes 1 year ago
@Eruptide How do you define hate? Where were her smears? People like you have turned the word racism into a tired, ineffective, cliche. If supporting individual liberty and rejecting communitarianism is racism then I guess I'm racist.
zevon1964 1 year ago
@Eruptide Or maybe they appear to hate others because others are forcing their will upon them.
myheadhurtsnow 1 year ago
Sound butthurt. Don't believe in a benevolent universe? I'm an objectivists and a very nice person... to those who deserve it.
windigo433 1 year ago
Sounds like you have a loating for others by your comment. She opposed the initiation of force and spoke out for reason as the means of settling disputes - that doesn't sound like hate or smears to me. Sounds like you are doing all the hating and smearing. She was especially opposed to racism, which she regarded as disgusting. She viewed that all people should be judged on their merits. Racism judges people based on the group to which they belong - just how you have judged Objectivists.
raybanseyes 1 year ago
don't bother reading Atlas, you'll not understand it.
if you can't understand Anthem.
I suggest you read something more to your intellectual speed such as Marx or maybe something by Obama.
xTjPx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
rand should be ashamed. her books have so much bias i cant even judge them as literature. "anthem" had amazing potential, but was unbearably short, and had a corny ending that was nothing more than the narrator describing how the couple turned into objectivist disciples. im in the process of reading "atlas", but am disgusted on her logical process of defining an "antihero." any narration of characters' thoughts are twisted and forced, and dont resemble anything vaguely similar to reality.
nevernateofkamal 2 years ago
re: "teaching" children ayn rand's ideas. Sounds more like indoctrination. O'ism is like a secular religion in the sense that it's closed - ie, it's never changing - and inflexible and demands absolute allegiance. Ayn Rand's ideas are laying the foundations for an America fascist regime. It has all the elements: jingoism, war-mongering, persecution of the Left and belligerence towards a race of people that's to blame for our problems: Muslims.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
You definitely have no idea what you're talking about. I really feel sorry for you
mccronej 2 years ago
The scary thing is I do know what I'm talking about. O'ism is savagely jingoist for one. It ignorantly blames the poor for stealing the nation's wealth, which is odd because they have no power in society. It curses the good as being evil. Most frighteningly, it breeds out of people their natural, biological sense of right and wrong and replaces it with an ethic that, if someone ends up being left destitute afterwards, it's okay so long as it didn't violate some artificial ethical codes.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
It sounds like you're going a bit over board or you haven't read the books. Probably you were too busy BEATING OFF!
mccronej 2 years ago
This is a direct observation of O'ists in general. I've been studying her ideas for years and I know how her ideas mold, shape and deform a person's mind. It may not sound pleasant, but I'm just being honest. She has far worse things to say about someone who gives out of a sense of good will and altruism, which is pretty backwards imo.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
Capitalism and American style democracy have been the engine for a new era in this world. And it's been for the best. Just because Objectivists want to keep what they earn...the fruits of their labor instead of having it taken from them at pain of imprisonment or violence, I don't think that makes them depraved in any sense.
mccronej 2 years ago
It's depraved to justify poisoning other people's water if it means making more money. Now, I know in principle Objectivism doesn't approve of that. The caveat is, they'll deny tooth and nail that, say, DDT is harmful to the environment and thus humans. There's a strong resistance against conceding any such possibility because it's too close to environmentalism.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
I think that objectivists are more into individual rights as set out in the founding documents. I don't remember there being anything in her books suggesting that people poisoning themselves for the sake of business was what needed to happen. More like unnecessary bureaucracies and taxes impede on fundamental, sacred rights.
mccronej 2 years ago
Individual rights are fine and good. The problem is, when Rand's ideas are internalized in people's minds, they build biases. Environmentalism is evil but mass agriculture is good. Thus, if anyone says that mass agriculture ends up creating bad side affects which hurt other people, the out rage by Objectivists is deafening. They'll deny that to the very end. To even suggest that something as good and noble as industrial farming can hurt people in any way is high treason in their minds.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
Ok here's the thing though, you're projecting your own biases. Rand was all about using reason to find the truth, never labeling things off-hand. If that is how people think, they are not practicing objectivism. I think with something like say, global warming comes up, they are waiting for more "proof" and in light of circumstances, they might be right to wait for more proof because right now it looks like it has been blown well out of proportion.
mccronej 2 years ago
No, that's not it. I even see this sort of denial over environmentalism at ARI. Would an Objectivist truly consider the virtues of organic farming? Of course not. There's clearly nothing wrong with the agribusiness. Organic and "green" is clearly wrong because it takes in to consideration the well being of the environment. Ayn Rand would never condone any "greenie" idea. The fact that you think you can say I'm projecting is silly. You should know this about O'ism as well.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
@SpazzzDog There are all kinds of companies profiting from organic and green ideas. Why would she be against that?
myheadhurtsnow 1 year ago
They shouldn't! But they are for political reasons. They're naturally resistant to anything which is "green" because it's associated with left wing stuff. It's an irrational bias that they let get in the way of results.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
You are throwing much to wide a net with 'green'. As far as she was concerned, you could do anything you wanted, until you try to invoke the power of government to force people to bend to your wishes. So long as what you did did not involve the initiation of force, you were welcome to it. She might have seen no value in 'organic' (as opposed to some imaginary food that is inorganic), but you were welcome to it. Just don't try to force others to eat it or grow it.
raybanseyes 1 year ago
Yes, but that hasn't stopped Rand and other Objectivists from misrepresenting the environmental movement and hindering my freedom to do just that, because of the misinformation of her and her ilk. They're ideologically opposed to 'green'. It doesn't matter if it's good for business, they're against it on principle.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
@SpazzzDog You are ideologically opposed to "green," too, otherwise you wouldn't be using a compuer made of plastic produced from petroleum and being powered, most likely, by fossil fuel energy. If you were truly green and lived by your principles, you'd be living in a solar powered yurt eating organically grown vegetables grown in compost and washing your clothes in a nearby stream without soap, but I dare to wager that you are not doing those things.
bma051000 1 year ago
@bma051000 If you lived by your principles, you wouldn't reap the benefits that come from living in a welfare state. Like it or not, your every day life benefits from the use of force by the point of a gun imposed on individuals by the federal government, as defined by Ayn Rand.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
She would not be against people selling 'organic' food (there is a kind that is not organic?), or solar energy, ot whatever. What she was against was the forced redistribution of property, ie through taxation, subsidies, incentives, etc. If you can sell solar without stealing from other people through via government giving you subsidies etc, you are welcome to it. She was for voluntarism as opposed to coercion - think Ghandi as opposed to HItler or Stalin.
raybanseyes 1 year ago
I mean dude, believe what you want. But out national debt is out of control, we've never been taxed so highly, and the youth of this country are already going to have some serious issues to deal with. Almost all entitlement programs resemble a ponzi scheme except it's government run. If we didn't have a minimum wage, more poor people would be making more money, doing more for the economy and themselves. The great society has been a dismal failure. People just forget about our deficit.
mccronej 2 years ago
Never been taxed so highly? During WWII taxes reached up to 90% for some people. The attempt to place the blame solely on the poor and the gov't is misleading. It denies the obvious fact that corporate welfare is astronomical. If the amount of money that went to agriculture went to the poor, we'd have no more poor.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
So long as Libertarians dehumanize people on Social Security & Disability as "Moochers", and try to deprive them of their ONLY means to afford a roof over their head or to have any food to eat, then you will deserve nothing but scorn and contempt from the rest of Humanity.
Burn in Hell, each and every one of you inhuman Libertarian monsters.
mhirtes12 2 years ago
yeah...because one who feels that they are entitled to own their property of which they earned and should be the sole check writer of their wealth makes one a scum bag that should burn in hell...
seeing as you use the reference "hell"...i am assuming you are being religious about this...since you impose religion...check the ten commandments "Thou shall not Steal"...
with that...i think i know where you will be burning.
:)
helltrackrider 2 years ago 2
Make all the excuses and rationales you want.
You're selfish, and you're a dick.
mhirtes12 2 years ago
...in your eyes, i may be.
But, in reality...if YOU make an A in the class and a classmate makes an F...are YOU willing to break it even and BOTH get C's?
nope.
point proven.
helltrackrider 2 years ago
Your analogy is retarded.
Fact still remains. Randroids want to get rid of Social Security and condemn millions to death from hunger.
mhirtes12 2 years ago
no...your view is retarded.
my analogy imitates your view to the T...
fact still remains...Government taxing ME, without my consent, in order to feed/house/pay others is THEFT...any way you slice the pie, it is THEFT.
helltrackrider 2 years ago
what's your plan to make SS sustainable? Are you personally going to pay for it? Who is? The Chinese? Think about the national debt before you go talking morality you fucking faggot cocksuck bullshit
mccronej 2 years ago
you're a fag with a dick in his ass
mccronej 2 years ago
So mature, aren't you?
mhirtes12 2 years ago
hey, I'm poor, give me a place to stay, food to eat, and let me fuck your mother...I mean why not right? If you don't give me all of this, you're being selfish and mean. I have needs...take care of me you sick mother fucker!
mccronej 2 years ago
Unsuccessful Troll is unsuccessful.
mhirtes12 2 years ago
you are so clearly a freshman in a liberal arts program, go look at gay porn and smoke your pot you faggot!
mccronej 2 years ago
What influence?
Coribec 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ayn Rands legacy is a joke
alk222111000 2 years ago
Good joke.
squaretriangle 2 years ago
And you are an idiot Mr.alk222111000
moonhitler 2 years ago
...your "legacy" is a joke.
your wife told me so.
Why come to an Ayn Rand video on an Ayn Rand influenced page and mock her?
get a life.
helltrackrider 2 years ago
Ayn Rand is a horrible writer. Her books are boring and ignorant. She's a communist
:0
alk222111000 2 years ago
hahaha...troll.
a Communist?
please back with explination.
helltrackrider 2 years ago 2
I just wish Objectivists were not such purists. I know tons of good people that believe in mysticism and are still rational about the world. They merely just assume that we were created by some entity. In fact, I know several religious "Objectivists" that believe in most of Rand's philosophy but still retain their traditional religion. My religious convictions about Wotan personally enforce my Capitalist pro-liberty mindset, after all the pantheon was a divine State that was riddled by scandals.
JohnRater 2 years ago
bertrand russel was both more rational and more mystical than all these idiots.
truthymgee 2 years ago
RE: JohnRater, how you define 'religious'? I'm a deist, I have no 'church' or 'religion' and yet I believe in higher being and an Objectivist. What is opposed is using this 'God' as a crutch to justify ones actions or as a crutch to excuse ones ignorance.
kawaiigardiner 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com fgnmdifg
titalminarisa 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1.take ur middle finger and put on ur nose.
2.say a name of someone u like.
3.that person will ask u out or say they love u tomarrow.
4. heres the thing copy and paste to 2 other vids
dnt read this(cuz it really wrks). u will gt kissd on the nearest frieday by the love of ur life. 2mara wll b the bst day of ur life hwever if you dnt post ths comment 2 at least 3 vids u will die withn 2 days... sorry i hate these things
surfurgirl2007 2 years ago
I'd study Ayn Rand to learn about logical fallacies, non-sequiturs and the ad hominum in particular.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago 2
The Obama administration is almost a copy/paste of Randian villians, they're so crazy they make FDR seem reasonable, so I think we're no longer able to call her predictions "non sequiturs" or dismiss them as arguments ad absurdum.
cjwynes 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pwogwams. zewo eight yeuhs ago. not bad in tuwms of gwoph.
JRStheTruth 2 years ago
typical, instead of refuting facts, you poke fun.
jackieblum14 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ghey
truthymgee 2 years ago
this is not an appropriate forum for you to come out of the closet truthymgee
nosavage25 2 years ago
dude ayn rand sucks get over it.
truthymgee 2 years ago
There is something awesome about the ideas behind objectivism. If only we were strong enough to follow through on it.
TtL2424 2 years ago
Speak for yourself.
deankriegel 2 years ago
Comment removed
TtL2424 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just did....lol
TtL2424 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I used to think atheists by definition were mutually exclusive to religion until I discovered the cult of objectivism. How foolish I was.
Fernt 2 years ago
Fernt: Objectivism is not at odds with atheism, but it is at odds with intuitionism and innatism, which are at the bases of ethical arguments provided by atheists such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris.
As for the "cult" of Rand - I would say instead that it is cult-PROOF. How exactly do you get someone to "drink the kool-aid" or give you their money if you teach that their money is their own to keep, and that their lives should be the most important thing to them - not a comet, not a god, etc.
anti0918 2 years ago
the church of satan teaches the same stuff, and they're definitely a cult/
Fernt 2 years ago
Is there a cult for those who utter words with little or no knowledge of what they are talking about? Are you among the congregation?
deankriegel 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1/5
Fernt 2 years ago
It's called the treasury department.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
I am not an Objectivist....Because I am too Subjectively opinionated to be an Objectivist!! lol..
komodiakarma 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ayn Rand was nothing but a capitalist or more accuratly the corporate giants whore....She spoke in the favour of the money hungry corporation.She was nothing but very sick bitch, who must hav e been raped by some communist back in the day, and cos she refused to admit her great time she had having her arse ripped apart, she chose to lead a life spewing her her mentally retarded idiologies..Good riddence the filthy bitch is dead...Socialism forever death to capitalism and democracy in general.
Serbpride4lif 2 years ago
You know, those there really good arguments. If there were any. You seriously have mental problems. And many.
Juxtys 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your the misguided and brainwashed sheep worshipping the idiology of a woman who was a believer in the industrialist and whose greed and hatred had infected the minds of many.I feel sorry for you, for your sad existence.How dare you critisize my views??....i live by my idiology and dislike of anyone whoever backed capitalism and the oppression of the worker. I know how it feels to be exploited by greedy, money hungry industrialists....GO FUCK YOURSELF, I HAVE NO CARE FOR YOUR VIEWS AND VALUES.
Serbpride4lif 2 years ago
Oh that's your problem. I love capitalism because my parents lived in Communism. Who opressed the worker? Communists did!
Juxtys 2 years ago 4
Could a high school student read Ayn Rand?
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago 4
Easily. Atlas Shrugged is an accessible but lengthy novel, Anthem and The Fountainhead are similarly accessible for high schoolers.
kkassam 2 years ago 8
I've read them all, but I'm from New Zealand and there are very few high schoolers here who can even tell you what a noun is. The Fountainhead seems a bridge too far for them.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago 4
Anthem is recommended for people under fourteen. People over fourteen can try The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged is recommended for people over sixteen since politics play a big part in that book. Take your pick.
Juxtys 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
SeanKasky 3 years ago
Although I cannot call myself an Objectivist, I have learned so much from Ayn Rand. She makes a wonderful case for the individual. I own all 4 novels and her early work, including Virtue Of Selfishness, and I absolutely consider myself a fan.
SuperHimself90 3 years ago 6
Excellent video. ARI is the only non-profit that I donate to. Thank you Yaron and others at ARI.
Steel4Rearden 3 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I never knew Elmer Fudd was an Objectivist.
TheLifeIsLessAble 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nice theories, such a shame the leader was a self-worshipping whore.
thejobloshow 3 years ago
Totally wrong. All you've done is here is publicly declare you don't understand Rand, self-worship or whore-ish behavior.
rcky321 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And you've proven that your blind worship inhibits your ability to read properly. Ayn Rand's awful behaviour to her husband justify my criticism, imo.
thejobloshow 3 years ago
She did love her husband. Only a mystic like you would claim that Ayn Rand was infallible, she wasn't she made a mistake with Branden. Deal with it.
freezzertime 3 years ago 7
However, she clearly doesn't think she was making a mistake - does she? She has no regrets.
thejobloshow 3 years ago
She corrected the mistake by getting rid of Branden.
freezzertime 3 years ago
this is the most wonderful thing I have seen in a while. I am very excited to see this!
temanite98 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a stupid cunt
pouyan242 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hay hay hay. ;D
do u haev M.S.N messenger? go2 my profile and msg my ID! pW
alguienyo 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If my teacher told me to study ayn rand, I'd tell her please go to hell.
freelostforever 3 years ago
I'm one of those 2 million! Thank you Mr. Lampo!
Nac117 3 years ago 2
Thumbs up to Howard Roark
leo1133 3 years ago 3
why do people always believe the truth has to be forced on our children
godscuttingyoudown 3 years ago
Why do we feel the need to force good manners and social responsibility on them, either?
Islander255 3 years ago 3
because the truth to manipulators that go after your children are interested only in power and control
godscuttingyoudown 3 years ago
I'm not sure if you're trying to criticize Ayn Rand or her detractors. Either way, I'm going to say a few words about Ayn Rand. She was a philosopher, and an advocate of reason and self-responsibility. Her whole message was about relying on oneself rather than taking from others--being a producer rather than a looter. People who want power and control would rather force others to support them rather than work to be self-sufficient. Ayn Rand was not a looter, and she did not support looting.
philosophermax 3 years ago
"Force" good manners? A teacher's job is to cultivate a student's critical thinking skills, so that the student is confident to use his or her reason to determine a course of action. Generally, good manners are reasonable, but no one can force a person to use them. "Social responsibility?" One's responsibility is to oneself--to one's own integrity and independence, i.e. to one's survival. No one has the perspective to declare what another person's mandatory obligation should be.
philosophermax 3 years ago 2
That was beautifuly said, I wish Bushes
's No Child Ledft Behind Law would also listen to tis statement....
freezzertime 3 years ago
Have to study it? Forced education? Donated books? Are you suggesting students use critical thinking as their approach to Ayn Rand or acceptance of her ideas. There are so many goodreads, Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Henry Grady Weaver, Robert LaFavre.
Ciada91 3 years ago
I've just started reading about objectivism and is changing my life in ways I could never imagined when I thought I was corrupted and condemed by nature and God
Nadow 3 years ago 10
Welcome to the fold!
Nac117 3 years ago
Welcome into the world of the mind.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Objectivism cured my nihilism.
ymeg1 3 years ago 10
It cured mine as well
88ragtime 3 years ago
:) "The cure for everything?"
Kurtyoungblood 3 years ago
Ay ay
p0rq 3 years ago
Yup, cured mine also :)
DantesObjective 3 years ago 2
For me, Objectivism is a "Cure-All" cold syrup for the mind.
It takes care of the cough (Altruism), headache (Communism), fever (Mysticism) and allows me to breathe easier (Thinking).
SatanicCod 3 years ago 12
Really improved my optimism on the future. :D
NSMetalhead 3 years ago 5
Mine too.
freezzertime 3 years ago