Oh, the hypocrisy! Business "shutting their doors" has nothing to do with regulations. It's called the free market only when elite business owners can move their business to Mexico, India and China. Competition only exist for the peasants, but for the big corporations, they get fringe benefits of doing what they want.
And stop acting like there's such a thing as free-market fairy dust. Not all products will sell just because you put them on the market or stamp a US label on it.
Ayn Rand has NOTHING TO DO WITH Tea Party. She was anarchist, atheist, etc... the only thing in common with Tea Party people is the non-taxes policy she wanted.
How do you destroy Christianity and Capitalism? Get them to believe that unlimited absolute freedom helps Christianity and Capitalism. In fact, restraint and caution of earthly things is central to Christian values.But since the businessman types have weak Christian values as a foundation (business 1st),of course they focus only on the "property" rights of man first and foremost.
Just like "Forced equality" destroyed Communism. "Unlimited freedom" will destroy Capitalism.
The only reason they teach people about Ayn Rand and have kids read the book by her is so they can judge it. When my teacher told us to read it that was so we can pick it apart.
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Also, the current crisis was quite clearly caused by markets. The government internvention in the markets has been scaled back constantly over the past few decades. Ayn Rand is shite.
Free market isnt holy. Remember how it came to be that the market colapsed in 2008... The most appaling statement from the book is where she absolutly hates Robin Hood. She clearly did not get the entire point of Robin Hood. The rich robbed the poor. They submissed the poor into practicly slavery and taxed them heavily. Beaten down and defeated the poor were. And then it is wrong that some fights this injustice?
@toverkleet To be fair, the character 'Ragnar' does mention that the actual historical robin hood (who ever that was) was most certainl fighting against "bad" rich people who had been stealing from the poor. Unfortunately, (as the charcter explains) the 'Robin Hood' mythos is no longer relevant because today's rich - Steve Jobs,etc. Did not rob anyone, they invented things and created products people wanted to buy, they enriched others. Yet the RH myth still compels us to steal from the rich.
@airborneinfantry888 Okay, fair enough, (and btw good counter argument) but can we not pose that the rich have been stealing again now? I mean, look at how the banks have acted?
@toverkleet Always a rare treat to encounter rational discourse on trolltube - I mean youtoube :) But to respond to your question I would say "Which banks"? I think what people sometimes mix up is "fraud" vs "capitalism". Those particular bankers may have been fraudulent but does that mean that Banking is less valuable? Bankers get treated worse then murderers these days. A bank loans you money to start a business and they make a profit - so do you. They are important imho.
@airborneinfantry888 That is not what i pose mon fraire :p I consider banks to be very important. However, I do not believe that we can let banks run free, again, refering to the colapse. Yes it is fraud and no it is not what the freemarket truelly means, BUT! people act this way. They act upon this greed and than they take whatever they can. It easily overturns to the bad side of things. That's why Im in favor of government CHECK, not control ;) (and ps agreed about that trolltube :P )
Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.
@PatriciaCookFind1 Right! PenultimateRun IS less than negative negative negative negative dipshit. It disparages the writing skills of a best-selling author, while displaying no writing skills of its own. I know that doesn't NECESSARILY mean that its ignorant, immature comments about the author's appearance means that PR is a hideous freak that no human could ever find attractive, but I can't help thinking that to be likely. Too bad it lacks character to compensate for its physical defects.
The people who attack Rand on the idea of selfishness either do not understand what she meant by the term (rational self-interest vs. whim-based) or, frankly, are not intellectually capable of making such a distinction. I used to think it was the former - that people were just too lazy to really learn what she was espousing. I now believe it's the latter... for whatever reason, some people (maybe most) are simply incapable of grasping distinctions that are not shallow.
Nathaniel Brandon's lectures on Objectivism are far more transparent and distinctive in the principals and concepts of objectivism. So for all of you who have a predisposition toward objectivism, I would recommend those lectures to you first and the novels second.
This is pure propaganda used to justify greed and selfishness. There's plenty of this type of shit around. It scares me, though, that so many people are anxious to believe the distortions and seem unable to tell the difference between what the sociopath said and what her fans say she said. It's literally mass insanity.
@tripfunkmonster The people who are really greed and selfish (as that word is commonly understood) are those who believe they are entitled to other people's taxes. And yes I would include those bankers and auto executives who took bailouts. I don't blame people who need to take government handouts to survive but we should be looking to break the cycle of dependency on government whether that dependency is a result of being born poor, unemployment, old age or anything else. (continued)
The free market really does have better solutions than the government. Don't mistake crony capitalism for the free market just because crony capitalist politicians use free market rhetoric. Both of the George Bushes and Herbert Hoover (whose policies were repackaged in FDR's "New Deal") were crony capitalists. Reagan may have believed in the free market but didn't make free market policies enough of a priority and was thus effectively a crony capitalist. (continued)
I don't know if there are any true free market politicians but Ron Paul is a reasonably close approximation (as are most members of the Libertarian Party). Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coolidge also leaned heavily in the free market direction. Research them to find out things they don't teach you in public schools. Start with the Depression of 1920-21 and how Harding's free market response pulled us out of it quickly, in contrast to the Hoover/Roosevelt response to the next one.
@zackzebra: The "free market direction" Harding & Coolidge took in the 1920s led directly to the Great Depression. The 1920-21 depression was due to Wilson's deceitful entry into WW1 & the difficult transition to a peacetime economy. Harding was too busy partying & funneling money to his oil friends. They were more responsible for it than Hoover who eventually started spending gov't. $ on infrastructure (actual jobs) but was too late in doing it to save his presidency. Quick isn't always best.
@tripfunkmonster Agreed that Wilson's entry into WW I was the primary cause of 1920-21 depression (could have been the only cause but I think the "progressive" domestic policies of the racist enemy of free speech may have played a role, too). As for Harding's policies causing the depression 1929 we may never agree but I am interested in your sources. Mine are the institutes of the graduates of the Austrian School of Economics, particularly the von Mises institute. (cont'd)
@nilbud The Austrian Economists and other free-marketers have not been discredited. It is politicians, like the Bushes and Alan Greenspan, who paid lip-service to their ideas while engaging in policies contradictory to those ideas, that make them appear discredited to people who pay attention to words but not actions. Also, why are people with opinions that differ from yours "liars"?
Look up von Mises senior fellow Thomas Woods for an excellent discussion of the 1920-21 depression. I'll leave you with this quote from Woods' latest work on the subject "Few presidents have been subjected to the ...ridicule...Harding...continues to receive long after his death....the conventional wisdom about Harding is wrong to the point of absurdity: even [his] alleged 'corruption' [is] laughably minor compared to the presidential transgressions we have since come to take for granted."
@zackzebra: I've read von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, too. I have a completely different set of morals & priorities than Austrian economists - or economists in general. I see the world differently. So, I'll always have a disagreement with people who think in economic terms - but I try to keep it civil. As far as presidential transgressions in recent history, I've said the same thing in relation to Nixon. His wrongdoing in the Watergate scandal has been blown far out of proportion when compared...
@zackzebra ...to, let's say, the Reagan administration. Yet, Reagan is idolized & Nixon is considered evil. BUT - unlike the braindead of our country - I don't take corruption for granted. Harding was no angel. Also, despite the relatively quick fix of the 1920-21 depression, the policies also led to overconfidence (& arrogance) in the market and to the Great Depression. Harding & Coolidge allowed banks too much power & Hoover did nothing to slow it either (though he did mention it in a speech).
@tripfunkmonster "Also, despite the relatively quick fix of the 1920-21 depression, the policies also led to overconfidence (& arrogance) in the market and to the Great Depression." Again can I see your sources? What evidence do you have that if Hoover had done what Coolidge did that the 1929 depression wouldn't have also ended quickly and never become "Great?"
Oh yeah. The problem with people and society is that we are not selfish enough. Give me a break.
Regarding Atlas Shrugged, a sub-par read promoted by people that want to excuse their trespasses on others as justified by greed. Let's just stop the pretense shall we?
@drfoxcourt Nop, the problem is self interest disguised as good faith, and used to commit fraud against others under the wing of the state. For instance, giving away taxpayer´s money to the poor in order to obtain votes and perpetuate in power by setting their minds against the people who created the money they received.
Blah blah, blah blah blah, blaaaaaah. I have said nothing but what you think I say is revolutionary when it is as old as Man itself. Ahhh, the "self" What fools gold you are. Can't balance individualism and collectivism? Then you are doomed. Both are natural as in nature. I know you're too "liberated" in the discovery of your "self" to understand real common sense.
too bad no one could read Atlas Shrugged in Rand's ideal society, since public schooling would not exist, and the bourgeoisie would intentionally keep education out of the hands of the proletariat.
Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
As long as the Tea Party sticks to fiscal issues they're fine, but when they start sounding like social conservatives again, it's important to distance them from objectivism.
@schmoborama The "Super-Rich" are the looters, as the real rich- the productive members of society- left as soon as someone like you opened their mouth. The economy is crumbling because looter scum manipulate and pass laws to steal what little wealth remains in America, namely the small-businessmen and the middle class. The Super Rich are the people who support your looter pals like Obama. The Super Rich support each and every tax hike. The Super Rich are evil, and instead of blaming them you
@schmoborama blame the productive members of society and say they're being too greedy. Also, what do you mean by Wall St? I highly doubt even YOU know. You looters, when referring to the free market, simply wave their hands and vaguely say "wall st". Yes, the bankers and businessmen of Wall St caused the crisis- but they are the Super Rich looters NOT the productive/rich people- there ARE no 'rich' people left, only looters. All the regulations you call for simply harm the middle class and poor.
"Super Rich are the people who support your looter pals like Obama"
You're grossly misinformed. Yes Obama has some rich contributors, so does *anyone* running for office - you WON'T get into office without them. But it is OBAMA that CUT TAXES for the MIDDLE CLASS, tried to extend Bush's tax cuts for ONLY the MIDDLE CLASS, and for the rich allowing taxes to go back where they were when the economy was FIXED.
And if you look at Paul Ryan's tax reform of 2010, it INCREASES TAX for the MIDDLE CLASS while cutting it for *anyone* who's RICH. All while the revenue for the gov't has been less than the expedatures ever since the Bush cuts, which bloated the debt.
The Bush cuts didn't do the U.S. ANY FUCKING GOOD, bloated the fuck out of the debt, and you think the answer is more of the same??
The fact that Atlas Shrugged has been studied in America Academia means absolutely nothing. Liberal socialist/collectivists are brainwashing young minds using their leftist propaganda and using Atlas Shrugged as the example of bogy Capitalism. They have successfully created at least two generations of idiots. Ayn Rand can be understood only by the real intellectual elite, not by plebs.
Just perusing the comments here, the Randists have a COMPLETE break from reality... Listen up Idiots. Your 'Prophetess' was a deranged drug addict for 30 years. It was the Speed that caused her to write her trash, not 'morality'. You idiots simply need a justification for your asocial behavior. Randists are vermin.
Um, deregulation caused all this. Political power is truly lost when bankers run it all. Windbags like Rand should be swept away and forgotten not revived and zombified by the likes of the new robots and technocrats who believe in her like an idol, a dangling dollar sign around their empty souls. Pull the plug on all isms.
Bank bailouts are nothing new. Banks took more risks because they expected to be bailed out if they failed. This government setup many of these types of moral hazard time bombs. Why are we surprised when they explode?
Currently politicians are very busy arming a lot more.
@MARGARELON The reason large government is the cause for our current problem is because of their intervention in the economy, one good example is the fact that they give money to corporations from taxes they have collected. Look at Lockheed Martin, they receive money from the government for being an American company alongside the money they receive from defense contracts. They then use this money to "buy" politicians which will vote for laws that reduce taxes or increase federal support for
@MARGARELON them which means its an endless cycle. The problem is that Lockheed Martin is not the only company doing this, companies such as Bank of America, Marlboro, etc have massive lobbies in washington specifically there to reduce their operating costs. This is NOT capitalism, these companies are obtaining unfair advantages over others to further their profits. In true capitalism, even if these companies tried to lobby the government to change these laws to get them more money, the
@MARGARELON government would be unable to help them, simply for the fact that it would be strictly not allowed for them to meddle with economic problems.
@MARGARELON Sorry I wasn't more clear, by help them I meant the people who lobby the government for government grants and reduction in their taxes. This includes companies, unions etc.
@armeg35 It may very well be, that this is a problem of the american (and many other) governments. However, from what I understood about the last "big crisis" the reasons where more the stupidity and greed of the average people, who borrowed lots of money and invested in questionable funds, until the whole system came crushing down. I don't see how that could be called the fault of the government or in what way Ayn Rand predicted it.
@armeg35 Ok, maybe Ayn Rand would say, that the government should let the banks pay for there mistakes and just let the crisis run its course, as a lesson for the banks and the investors in the future. However, that wouldn`t have prevented this crisis or stopped it, once it started.
@MARGARELON Maybe, but it would definitely avoid this from happening a second time because banks would learn that they can no longer use the government as a safety net.
@armeg35 In the theory, yes. But stupidity and greed will never die. Also, if a bank collapses, the clients of the bank, even those who never took a credit, would lose everything, because a bank gives out a lot more credits, than it has acutal money. Millions of people, whos existence is ruined, so the banks "learn their lesson". That is my main problem with the whole economical theory of Rand & Co. Sure, it may work in the long run, but in the long run, we're all dead, as Keynes said.
Ayn Rand admired Rose Wilder Lane, In 1943, Lane thrust into national spotlight through her response to a radio poll on Social Security, she stated the SS system is a Ponzi scheme that would destroy the USA. So a CT Trooper came(request of the FBI) to question her. Lane's angry response to this infringement on her right of free speech resulted in "What is this, the Gestapo?," FBI file compiled on Lane - see FOIA.
Keep telling yourself that money isn't power, that Donald Trump & co. are the persecuted members of Galt's Gulch, that the financial system self-regulates (and the "let it burn" strategy would achieve anything but destroy the hard-earned savings of middle class families) and that minimum wage laws restrict "freedom" while the threat of starvation doesn't.
It would be great if the US could have a state only for libertarians so they could go fuck themselves there with their unlabeled medication.
What on earth is this silly woman talking about? I've read ALL of Ayn Rand's novels and non-fiction, and frankly, see little similarity to today's world.
And is the tea party is so aligned with Ayn Rand's credo of personal liberty, why are they so uniformly in the mold of religious right wing bigots, intent on curtailing the personal liberties of anyone that doesn't worship their Bronze Age Sky God?
To summarize: "Fuck you, got mine." Mindless greed is not an idea, it's an expression of baser animal urges. Little wonder why Rand is held up as the stalking horse for corporatism, her ideals are the carrot to be held in front of the masses of impoverished labor.
@jme6141994 The wealthiest corporations make billions in profit from my labor, without paying a fair market price for my labor, and charge many, many times higher than the fair market value for their products.
@Turtleproof Give me some numbers to back your argument. You sound like a socialist drone. I have a feeling nobody is making billions off of your labor.
Boo-hoo. Life is so unfair. Get government out of our lives and we'd all be better off.
Welfare kills the will to work. Minimum wage laws kill jobs. All of these social programs create dependency on government.
@jme6141994 "Get government out of our lives" was attempted in the late 1800's onward. Without regulation, free market companies paid pennies per day of labor while sending people to die in unsafe factories, mines, and elsewhere. Those unsafe factories and slave wages produced goods that were unsafe and worthless yet sold at a high profit.
Historical facts like these should be etched into your cultural memory, like every other American.
Randians say "statist" like republics are a bad thing.
@Turtleproof So Rand is only about "mindless greed"??? I read that she was about individual freedom, the free market, free choice and rational self-interest. Similar to the principles of our Founding Fathers.
@Solverwiz Corporate talking points about personal freedom are in actuality declarations that they should be exempt from the law. Rick Scott, for example, stole billions from vulnerable senior citizens in Florida. He isn't in prison for life because "the corporation did it."
The founders?
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
@Solverwiz You would have been a good soldier for Hitlers army then if you read Ayn Rand's works and don't think its about selfishness and greed !
Your following the teachings of a sociopath and you think she is wonderful and brilliant . Wow you really are delusional !
None of what she says is about the principles of the Founding Forefathers ! This is 2011 its not the 1800's the world has changed the cost of living is so high that blue collar workers can barely survive.
Kind of my point ! Nothing would change as far as the cost of living but everything else would like wages etc and people would be dying off by the millions from lack of health care , Social Security and any means people today have to keep their heads above water. People who follow Ayn Rands lead would stand back and just let people die and say ,,oh well its not my problem they were poor !
I am 66 years old and I have never see such heartless talk coming from politicians and people
@quirky1944 I really think this is just a classic case of manipulation through positive imagery. If you scroll through the thread, you'll notice that pro-Rand camp is basically spamming it full with terms like "freedom", "liberty", "inalienable rights", "exchange on value" and so forth, all of which sound great. All of which we more or less have today. But, no, they want to take it to an extreme without mentioning the immediate effects, namely our return to the Industrial Revolution England.
I guess they think if they repeat these talking points long enough those who are dim witted and don't think for themselves will believe it !
They call it rational self interest when there is nothing rational about Rands whole theory !
If anyone reading what Rand is suggesting in her book did as you and I both have said and followed her theory rationally to its conclusion they would understand the insanity in taking this woman seriously and the distruction it would cause.
Kind of my point ! Nothing would change as far as the cost of living but everything else would like wages etc and people would be dying off by the millions from lack of health care , Social Security and any means people today have to keep their heads above water. People who follow Ayn Rands lead would stand back and just let people die and say ,,oh well its not my problem they were poor !
I am 66 years old and I have never seen such heartless talk coming from so many people.
Most people are not as competitive, or as well-equipped to compete, as they think they are. I imagine this describes most "casual" believers in objectivist ideas.
@desertrat1111 Yea, she underestimated and did not have faith in the new "progressive" America being "built." Rand supported unalienable rights instead of majorities battling each other and choosing what social rights should be given and taken to make everything "fair" and "equal." We are only animals after all?
This woman believes that every philosopher since Aristotle was completely wrong about everything, and while at the same time saying "There can be no disagreement between rational people." I am genuinely amazed that there are educated people in this world who take her seriously.
@urdisturbing Its funny becuase you take other philosophers from hundreds to thousands of years ago more seriously then a philosopher who adapted compared and came up with something new, that makes more sense, gets rid of the metaphysical qualities of life and just focuses on life, your life. I don't understand your convictions. She only wanted man to understand that man should live for themselves not others, and that most philosophers try to connect everyone in some mystical way. when we are...
@Sumdude54 are all indviduals, living should be only for our needs first then the rest of the world later. I am genuily amazed how something so obviouse can't be seen by people like you.
I agree - why are we feeding those useless babies and giving them somewhere to live? They don't do a lick of work and just make messes. I agree with Ayn Rand - and Jonathan Swift. Let's take care of ourselves and eat those fat babies.
@elnabenoit I read what I said and you literally didn't. It has no context to what I said, and it funny how people like you say this bullshit, when know one who thinks objectively would even consider any idea like this and you blame us with the problems of human nature and human indecency because we care about ourselves. If anything people who care about others are the ones who cause the most horrible things in the world, because in the end they simply need power over the people as a reward.
@Sumdude54 The context is that if you are an Objectivist, then you object to helping, supporting, giving, sharing in any form. Let's just dump the babies, the injured, the ill, the elderly, and the disabled onto the streets. They can't pay their own way, so to hell with them. Thanks Ayn Rand. There is some satisfaction in knowing that if there is a god, she is burning in hell.
@elnabenoit YOu ignored what I said and started babbling again, like every single person like you has always done. The world revolves around the concept of helping others for the sake of others for the sake of others, this leads know where except slavery which is a concept to complicated for you to understand it seems. Human beings are communal, if they are naturally good or naturally evil, man will always want to help others. Being forced being charged and being mocked to do it isn't the way..
@Sumdude54 An objectivist world will show the face of humanity instead of hiding behind make up, it will show who we really are and how we treat others with the same expectations true equal rights for all. And in the end people will help other people, but by the make up of there own value, people do it all the time. They help people because they truly feel thats what there life is meant for, there will always be people like that, they are objectivist they are independent and focus on their wish
@Sumdude54 An taking the world Objective out of objectivism truly shows your length of knowledge or understanding of objectivism is others word you are linear in logic and stupid in rationality. Objectivism is defined as realty being perceived by one person, yourself with no external contributions to it. that means if someone wants to help people, they are doing it objectively, but they must understand it and know it is not for the "good" of the collective but the good of their soul.
@Sumdude54 "like every single person like you has done"
There is no other person like me. You lose. And you need to start using a dictionary. Ayn Rand would never let you into Objectivist heaven to worship the golden dollar sign if you can't even spell.
@elnabenoit What was wrong with that sentence? Better grammar, that would make sense but not a dictionary, you are implying that I spelled something wrong, and there isn't a spelling error there. And yes there are billions of mindless irrational, pompous idiots like you. Who can't understand the basic concept of freedom and refuse to acknowledge it, because once again you ignored what I said and tried to insult me without proving anything. Like every single person, like you, has always done.
@urdisturbing If your talking about the connection between philosophies then what is your argument, I didn't say all philosophers were wrong I just wanted to tell the person I was talking to that if he simply believes others instead of taking into account Ayn rands objectivism then he doesn't really respect the integrity of philosophers. Plus There are many other philosophers I respect and I simply believe that philosophy needs to evolve and it has, and for me personally because of Ayn Rand.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Sumdude54 I'm saying Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher. A philosopher is someone who is involved in the philisophical discourse of their day. Most professional philosophers ignored Ayn Rand , and she ignored every professional philosopher. She was too busy starting a cult and popping amphetamines.
@urdisturbing As if you knew about her personal life, or the decisions made by other "philosophers?" Whats the point of your argument, but simply trying to degrade someone because you don't believe what she teaches. If thats what others teach then I'll stick to Objectivism.
@urdisturbing Now I see. You don't actually understand the philosophy of Objectivism. You only repeat what others have said.
I don't have a full understanding either but if I find something utterly irrational, I look up the source. Although people have claimed many utterly irrational things about this philosophy, so far I have found them to be false.
@Sumdude54 Plus Ayn rand has never said she doesn't believe anything that other philosophers have come up with, she doesn't care for the them for her beliefs and that is staying true yo objectivism, she sees Aristotle as a pinnacle to her philosophy she doesn't credit him or denounce him, she just feels he was the closest one to be right, Objectively. In a Objective reality. Plus if you choose not believe in her philosophy it is your choice.
@Solverwiz You do know that Ayn was a big capitalism fan? She loved it so much in New York, she bought an apartment next to Empire State Building and starred in Hollywood movies. All of it - achievements of a corporate, collective effort of the 20s and 30s. But of course she interpreted it as an individualistic *spark* of some sort. If only we all were brilliantly selfish randian heroes, eh? We'd still be living in caves, hitting each other over the head with clubs, but we would finally be free
@Solverwiz Yes! We can only assume you support the right to abortion, the right for gays to marry and serve in the military, and the right of the workers to joins unions. These are all individuals exercising their liberties.
@elnabenoit It is not up to me or other spectators to force people from making their own personal choices. All your examples should have one simple answer. It is up to the voluntary choice of all parties involved, and no one else should be forced to pay for it. Only the abortion issue even warrants discussion since an unborn baby can not make a choice.
apparently it was not in the videographer's self interest to do a decent job with the green screen. jesus christ what a bunch of selfish, misinformed nonsense. go read a decent book.
the extreme right in the US ( has fundamentalist religious undertones, maybe something that Ayn Rand wouldn't have agreed to be mixed into the equation) is using Atlas Shrugged as propaganda for it's cause. Preaching true freedom to create innovation, which should be pursued but then the independent business man meets Wallmart and has their dreams shattered, the problem with the future of free enterprise, the corporations own and become the govt. so things about human ideas become about profits.
Objectivism is a fancy philosophy for Darwinistic Capitalism. It contains some great ideas but in its purest form it would result in ruthless Fascism or Dictatorship as one man imposes his selfish will upon a nation or the world because he determines that's his highest calling. The founders had it right. We need limited government to provide for our necessary infrastructure and common defense but our government is bloated and has strayed a long, long way from what the founders intended.
@UTubeMeTubeWe WOW in its purest form it would result in nothing like that. Fuck..wow its like everyone is un-able to fathom simple logic or rationality. How would it resolve in facism? or dictatorship. Why would anyone believing purely in the Objectivist ideal want to take over. Its the complete opposite people with an objectivist view wouldn't want power, what part of that do you not understand. By saying what you said that means you are your own definition of selfish and you would seek power.
Dude, if you don't understand Ayn Rand's own description of objectivism and her basic premise of putting self above all else and if you can't understand how that ultimately leads to fascism or dictatorship and how she herself believed in Darwinism in business and in life in general then you either haven't read Ayn Rand or you're not comprehending her most basic thoughts on Objectivism. I suggest you check out Rand's You Tube interviews so she can explain it to you herself.
@UTubeMeTubeWeTube What part of perceiving reality objectively does not imply looking out for one self? Thats clear in that statement. And no any person that knows her philosophy would know that couldn't lead to fascism or dictatorship. If the world truly followed her way of thinking, know one would want power, because power implies control over people and an individual doesn't want control over people, simply control over himself and his life. You don't understand the basic premise because you.
Dude, put your critical thinking hat on! A person does not have control over his or her own life unless he/she has control of everything that impacts that life including government policies! An Objectivists forced to work for an employer has very little control over his/her own life. An objectivist that is self employed is still paying 40% to 50% of total wages in taxes and fees to his/her government. An objectivist that is a fascist or dictator makes policy and is living for self.
@UTubeMeTubeWeTube Well obviously why don't you think anyone mentions that, its obviously going to be a part of a majority of people's life that they have bosses, but what someone tells you to do something for profit isn't the same as being forced to do things for the greater of the collective and you have the option to not do the work the consequences if you do so is business. And no In my opinion an objectivist wouldn't want any sort of power or government position, I know I wouldn't..
@UTubeMeTubeWeTube And I know many people wouldn't as well. If you understood how a fascist government or how a dictator functions you would see that no they are doing things for themselves using others to achieve it. Greed, and power are not individualists qualities, you don't or don't want to understand that some people, not all, don't want power over people that they are content with power over "their minds, their goals, and their beliefs" all else is progression to understanding that.
@UTubeMeTubeWeTube Can't understand it, you are brainwashed, like the children in "Brave New World" you hear a trigger world like, freedom or individuals, and sentences like caring for one's life above all and you freak and say constantly the same thing over and over again without understanding it at all. Why? I could never understand why. I've read her books and have gone to great lengths to study its meaning. She praises the individual which means care about yourself above all others in a..
objective Way, which means reality is created and perceived by the individual it is not a cluster of thought or imaginary like some other people would say. That implies that if life is perceived through the individual one should aspire to make yourself happy before even caring about others in a none connected way, what you think is, care about yourself so much you want power and control. No that isn't her premise her premise is, Care about yourself and treat everyone with the same respect.
@marnerogers I agree, I definitely endorse her atheism and feminism, but she's actually a pretty good writer. It's just that the themes she endorses show what a selfish, heartless, greedy bitch she was. Laissez-faire capitalism is a TERRIBLE idea. It just leads to monopolies which are institutions that can be just as coercive as big government haha.
A lot of newcomers to Ayn Rand forget that some of the main 'evil' characters in the book were the selfish and greedy businessman who banded together to influence government. Gov was just a puppet of powerful men. Now the faux-intellectual libertarians want to rewrite the book to make it all about big Gov.
Ayn Rand despised those type of businessmen who banded together to influence government. They were willing to sacrifice anyone and anything for some "greater idea."
I have only one requirement for a presidential candidate. that he follow the constitution. The war is illegal. printing money is out of nowhere is illegal. Allowing the dollar to be purposely drove down to walpaper status is illegal. These things are all unconstitutional. One man will admit this and Is sensored by the media. He is a congress man who was a flight surgen and physician. He fortold the housing colapse. Nobody listened becouse they are driving their own agenda.His name is Dr.Ron Paul
Rand promoted individual fascism as opposed to government fascism.
This is pronounced in this very clip where the feigned reporter is utilizing ad populous to validate the veracity of the book's ideology, hence the self-promotion and dictation of its tenet.
@tripfunkmonster What problem do you have with what I said? If the British gov't is the primary reason why the famine was exacerbated and someone said, the gov't shouldn't be involved at all, they're apparently guilty according to you. "Greedy conservatives" have been proven to give far more to charity as a # and % than liberals. Helping, as an individual, is a far different thing than getting a gun, taking it and robbing everyone else, and giving that money.
What problem do you have with what I said? If the British gov't is the primary reason why the famine was exacerbated and someone said, the gov't shouldn't be involved at all, they're apparently guilty according to you. "Greedy conservatives" have been proven to give far more to charity as a # and % than liberals. Helping, as an individual, is a far different thing than getting a gun, taking it and robbing everyone else, and giving that money.
@NativeNewMexican Given the financial dire straits we are in, it seems time to legalize marijuana and tax it. With some 40 million Americans using it, the financial benefits would be enormous. It would also immediately make the drug cartels obsolete, help clear out prisons and court systems, stop ruining the future of young people with police records, and reduce alcohol consumption. This is an important issue and your comments may just help make it happen. Please respond. Thanks.
@GaryStuartKing Decriminalizing ALL recreational drugs would have a net improvement across the board. Search for Friedman drugs and he clearly explains why criminalization of drugs is the problem, not the drugs themselves. Friedman makes a huge # of points, but he overlooks one: Imagine the recreational drugs that Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson would start making. They would easily produce a drug that had a great high with limited risk and low addictive qualities.
@NativeNewMexican I've read at least 15 books on drug decriminalization including Friedman's, and I agree with you. But even attempting the legalization of the least harmful drug has taken over 40 years, and it's still not legal. I don't believe that taking a substance for one's own pleasure is inherently wrong, and I definitely don't believe it's anyone else's business. The only argument I see from society's view point is loss of motivation, but is THAT another person's business?
@GaryStuartKing The tax income gained, were we to legalize marijuana would be negligible. It's a weed, anyone that wanted to could grow their own easily. No sales = no taxes.
@NativeNewMexican I used to brew my own beer, but it was a hassle. . . Now I stop at the store. I think we could learn much from the Dutch on this subject. Many growers in California are voluntarily sending in taxes on what they are growing in the hopes of getting the local economy 'hooked' on the revenue, and it is working.
@GaryStuartKing Have you ever met someone that grew their own pot? If so, how hard was it? I have, and it's almost as easy as raising dandelions. If it is that easy to grow, how long would it be before retailers were selling various strands at Lowes? Maybe Lowes wouldn't get in on it, but someone would, and it would have a sudden influx of tax revenue for about 1 year while everyone got their garden going then basically nothing.
@NativeNewMexican Yea, I'm 59, and worked my way thru my BSEE by playing in bar bands from age 16 to 35yrs old, so I'm no square. With high intensity lights, it HAS become much easier to grow quality weed, no doubt. I don't want to debate the theoretical outcomes of taxing pot. You may very well be right. ? There are dozens of entities that do not want it legalized which I'm sure you're aware of. But even if taxation resulted in zero dollars, the drop in prison/court costs would save a bundle.
@NativeNewMexican FYI. Here's Friedman's take on taxation of pot: "replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation -- would save $7.7B per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4B annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2B annually." Again, I personally can't predict people's behavior.
@GaryStuartKing The savings by stopping the drug war would be immense. The moral fiber of the country would also receive a major boost. Imprisoning someone for wanting to enjoy themselves, doing no harm to someone else is offensive and has made many of us hate ourselves.
@NativeNewMexican You are correct. Imagine the elimination of the entire DEA. Another good book is "Smoke and Mirrors" that, yr by yr, outlines the rights of privacy we have lost due to the war on drugs. The author also points out, yr by yr, the lives lost due to cigarettes and alcohol, while the lives lost to marijuana is zero. The Feds have more than 1 patent on marijuana, arguing the strong antioxidant properties of the drug. Google it for a laugh. Religion and personal pleasure do not mix.
Oh, the hypocrisy! Business "shutting their doors" has nothing to do with regulations. It's called the free market only when elite business owners can move their business to Mexico, India and China. Competition only exist for the peasants, but for the big corporations, they get fringe benefits of doing what they want.
And stop acting like there's such a thing as free-market fairy dust. Not all products will sell just because you put them on the market or stamp a US label on it.
EeeScape 2 months ago
Ayn Rand has NOTHING TO DO WITH Tea Party. She was anarchist, atheist, etc... the only thing in common with Tea Party people is the non-taxes policy she wanted.
notengonickcojones 2 months ago
@notengonickcojones
How do you destroy Christianity and Capitalism? Get them to believe that unlimited absolute freedom helps Christianity and Capitalism. In fact, restraint and caution of earthly things is central to Christian values.But since the businessman types have weak Christian values as a foundation (business 1st),of course they focus only on the "property" rights of man first and foremost.
Just like "Forced equality" destroyed Communism. "Unlimited freedom" will destroy Capitalism.
EeeScape 2 months ago
The hero of this book is a murdering lieing coward.
mattcrow6 3 months ago
free markets forever. profiteers and corporate raiders on th fkank.
MrJugger99777 3 months ago
ATLAS SHRUGGED has a dirty little secret !
wonder who can tell
frank0067 3 months ago
@nowwithmorekick how would you tear it down? Cause I am interested in that...
toverkleet 4 months ago
see the documentary ¨All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace¨ BEFORE reading Ayn Rand
raggedhook 4 months ago
The only reason they teach people about Ayn Rand and have kids read the book by her is so they can judge it. When my teacher told us to read it that was so we can pick it apart.
nowwithmorekick 4 months ago
Increae is probably due to Mad Men
kevincarter2020 4 months ago
Bush and Obama are the same. I hate when people blame Obama only for the state of the economy. I don't like Obama, but he didn't start or cause this.
TurboFuss1 4 months ago
@TurboFuss1 That's at least the most realistic attitude I have heard from someone that doesn't like Obama :)
toverkleet 4 months ago
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Also, the current crisis was quite clearly caused by markets. The government internvention in the markets has been scaled back constantly over the past few decades. Ayn Rand is shite.
lettucemonster 4 months ago
Atlas Shrugged is crap. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be read though.
bluenickels 5 months ago
Free market isnt holy. Remember how it came to be that the market colapsed in 2008... The most appaling statement from the book is where she absolutly hates Robin Hood. She clearly did not get the entire point of Robin Hood. The rich robbed the poor. They submissed the poor into practicly slavery and taxed them heavily. Beaten down and defeated the poor were. And then it is wrong that some fights this injustice?
toverkleet 5 months ago
@toverkleet To be fair, the character 'Ragnar' does mention that the actual historical robin hood (who ever that was) was most certainl fighting against "bad" rich people who had been stealing from the poor. Unfortunately, (as the charcter explains) the 'Robin Hood' mythos is no longer relevant because today's rich - Steve Jobs,etc. Did not rob anyone, they invented things and created products people wanted to buy, they enriched others. Yet the RH myth still compels us to steal from the rich.
airborneinfantry888 4 months ago 2
@airborneinfantry888 Okay, fair enough, (and btw good counter argument) but can we not pose that the rich have been stealing again now? I mean, look at how the banks have acted?
toverkleet 4 months ago
@toverkleet Always a rare treat to encounter rational discourse on trolltube - I mean youtoube :) But to respond to your question I would say "Which banks"? I think what people sometimes mix up is "fraud" vs "capitalism". Those particular bankers may have been fraudulent but does that mean that Banking is less valuable? Bankers get treated worse then murderers these days. A bank loans you money to start a business and they make a profit - so do you. They are important imho.
airborneinfantry888 4 months ago
@airborneinfantry888 That is not what i pose mon fraire :p I consider banks to be very important. However, I do not believe that we can let banks run free, again, refering to the colapse. Yes it is fraud and no it is not what the freemarket truelly means, BUT! people act this way. They act upon this greed and than they take whatever they can. It easily overturns to the bad side of things. That's why Im in favor of government CHECK, not control ;) (and ps agreed about that trolltube :P )
toverkleet 4 months ago
You're pretty.
TheHortond 5 months ago
Aynus Rand
nilbud 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nilbud: You said "Aynus Rand." Thanks for showing the world the intellect and maturity of the typical anti-capitalist.
zackzebra 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.
tannersanta 5 months ago
@PatriciaCookFind1 Right! PenultimateRun IS less than negative negative negative negative dipshit. It disparages the writing skills of a best-selling author, while displaying no writing skills of its own. I know that doesn't NECESSARILY mean that its ignorant, immature comments about the author's appearance means that PR is a hideous freak that no human could ever find attractive, but I can't help thinking that to be likely. Too bad it lacks character to compensate for its physical defects.
zackzebra 5 months ago
Would Jesus subscribe to pure self-interest? I don't think so.
gorillafix 5 months ago
I am sure Larfaleeze the sole Agent Orange would very much love Ayn Rand. Because why have ONE hamboigah when you could have maybe even TWO?
blacksesamecandies 5 months ago
The people who attack Rand on the idea of selfishness either do not understand what she meant by the term (rational self-interest vs. whim-based) or, frankly, are not intellectually capable of making such a distinction. I used to think it was the former - that people were just too lazy to really learn what she was espousing. I now believe it's the latter... for whatever reason, some people (maybe most) are simply incapable of grasping distinctions that are not shallow.
swebbie 5 months ago 3
Nathaniel Brandon's lectures on Objectivism are far more transparent and distinctive in the principals and concepts of objectivism. So for all of you who have a predisposition toward objectivism, I would recommend those lectures to you first and the novels second.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
This is pure propaganda used to justify greed and selfishness. There's plenty of this type of shit around. It scares me, though, that so many people are anxious to believe the distortions and seem unable to tell the difference between what the sociopath said and what her fans say she said. It's literally mass insanity.
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
@tripfunkmonster The people who are really greed and selfish (as that word is commonly understood) are those who believe they are entitled to other people's taxes. And yes I would include those bankers and auto executives who took bailouts. I don't blame people who need to take government handouts to survive but we should be looking to break the cycle of dependency on government whether that dependency is a result of being born poor, unemployment, old age or anything else. (continued)
zackzebra 5 months ago
The free market really does have better solutions than the government. Don't mistake crony capitalism for the free market just because crony capitalist politicians use free market rhetoric. Both of the George Bushes and Herbert Hoover (whose policies were repackaged in FDR's "New Deal") were crony capitalists. Reagan may have believed in the free market but didn't make free market policies enough of a priority and was thus effectively a crony capitalist. (continued)
zackzebra 5 months ago
I don't know if there are any true free market politicians but Ron Paul is a reasonably close approximation (as are most members of the Libertarian Party). Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coolidge also leaned heavily in the free market direction. Research them to find out things they don't teach you in public schools. Start with the Depression of 1920-21 and how Harding's free market response pulled us out of it quickly, in contrast to the Hoover/Roosevelt response to the next one.
zackzebra 5 months ago
@zackzebra: The "free market direction" Harding & Coolidge took in the 1920s led directly to the Great Depression. The 1920-21 depression was due to Wilson's deceitful entry into WW1 & the difficult transition to a peacetime economy. Harding was too busy partying & funneling money to his oil friends. They were more responsible for it than Hoover who eventually started spending gov't. $ on infrastructure (actual jobs) but was too late in doing it to save his presidency. Quick isn't always best.
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
@tripfunkmonster Agreed that Wilson's entry into WW I was the primary cause of 1920-21 depression (could have been the only cause but I think the "progressive" domestic policies of the racist enemy of free speech may have played a role, too). As for Harding's policies causing the depression 1929 we may never agree but I am interested in your sources. Mine are the institutes of the graduates of the Austrian School of Economics, particularly the von Mises institute. (cont'd)
zackzebra 5 months ago
@zackzebra Those crooks are discredited, you're quoting liars.
nilbud 5 months ago
@nilbud The Austrian Economists and other free-marketers have not been discredited. It is politicians, like the Bushes and Alan Greenspan, who paid lip-service to their ideas while engaging in policies contradictory to those ideas, that make them appear discredited to people who pay attention to words but not actions. Also, why are people with opinions that differ from yours "liars"?
zackzebra 5 months ago
Look up von Mises senior fellow Thomas Woods for an excellent discussion of the 1920-21 depression. I'll leave you with this quote from Woods' latest work on the subject "Few presidents have been subjected to the ...ridicule...Harding...continues to receive long after his death....the conventional wisdom about Harding is wrong to the point of absurdity: even [his] alleged 'corruption' [is] laughably minor compared to the presidential transgressions we have since come to take for granted."
zackzebra 5 months ago
@zackzebra: I've read von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, too. I have a completely different set of morals & priorities than Austrian economists - or economists in general. I see the world differently. So, I'll always have a disagreement with people who think in economic terms - but I try to keep it civil. As far as presidential transgressions in recent history, I've said the same thing in relation to Nixon. His wrongdoing in the Watergate scandal has been blown far out of proportion when compared...
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
@zackzebra ...to, let's say, the Reagan administration. Yet, Reagan is idolized & Nixon is considered evil. BUT - unlike the braindead of our country - I don't take corruption for granted. Harding was no angel. Also, despite the relatively quick fix of the 1920-21 depression, the policies also led to overconfidence (& arrogance) in the market and to the Great Depression. Harding & Coolidge allowed banks too much power & Hoover did nothing to slow it either (though he did mention it in a speech).
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tripfunkmonster "Also, despite the relatively quick fix of the 1920-21 depression, the policies also led to overconfidence (& arrogance) in the market and to the Great Depression." Again can I see your sources? What evidence do you have that if Hoover had done what Coolidge did that the 1929 depression wouldn't have also ended quickly and never become "Great?"
zackzebra 5 months ago
173 people played BioShock.
I am proudly one of them.
ThatCalvineGuy 6 months ago
Her novel - life and ideas were remarkable and interesting - but the tenets of her "arguments" cannot and never have existed in the the "real world" -
The perfectly free market / society / concept is what I mean.
It is just not possible when Human beings - and all their various motivations - actions - reactions - etc... are at play
Without rules and regulations - even of a simple nature - society would not function - and anarchy would persist.
SALESPRODUCTIONS 6 months ago
Oh yeah. The problem with people and society is that we are not selfish enough. Give me a break.
Regarding Atlas Shrugged, a sub-par read promoted by people that want to excuse their trespasses on others as justified by greed. Let's just stop the pretense shall we?
drfoxcourt 6 months ago
@drfoxcourt Nop, the problem is self interest disguised as good faith, and used to commit fraud against others under the wing of the state. For instance, giving away taxpayer´s money to the poor in order to obtain votes and perpetuate in power by setting their minds against the people who created the money they received.
keiv2004 6 months ago 11
Blah blah, blah blah blah, blaaaaaah. I have said nothing but what you think I say is revolutionary when it is as old as Man itself. Ahhh, the "self" What fools gold you are. Can't balance individualism and collectivism? Then you are doomed. Both are natural as in nature. I know you're too "liberated" in the discovery of your "self" to understand real common sense.
medicatedsaint 6 months ago
too bad no one could read Atlas Shrugged in Rand's ideal society, since public schooling would not exist, and the bourgeoisie would intentionally keep education out of the hands of the proletariat.
stripesthebird 6 months ago
Randbots, what happened? The movie bombed. Was it all the Librul Media's fault?
AtlasShruggery 6 months ago
Try reading "Common Sense" and "The Rights of Man" instead.
generationalist 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ayn rand is fucking stupid.
rockfan1221 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
logtype47 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Despite any flaws (who doesn't have any), Ayn Rand's contribution to the defense of an individual's right to his own life and property are monumental.
Read "Atlas Shrugged". It will change your outlook on life.
backlighting 6 months ago
As long as the Tea Party sticks to fiscal issues they're fine, but when they start sounding like social conservatives again, it's important to distance them from objectivism.
ShrugMeSilly245 6 months ago
This vid is a crock of SHIT.
Our economy is "crumbling" because the super-rich are richer than ever, taxed less than ever, and because Wall st. was DE-regulated.
Rand didn't predict a fucking thing right, she only said what she WANTED to be true.
schmoborama 6 months ago
@schmoborama The "Super-Rich" are the looters, as the real rich- the productive members of society- left as soon as someone like you opened their mouth. The economy is crumbling because looter scum manipulate and pass laws to steal what little wealth remains in America, namely the small-businessmen and the middle class. The Super Rich are the people who support your looter pals like Obama. The Super Rich support each and every tax hike. The Super Rich are evil, and instead of blaming them you
Objectivist1994 6 months ago
@schmoborama blame the productive members of society and say they're being too greedy. Also, what do you mean by Wall St? I highly doubt even YOU know. You looters, when referring to the free market, simply wave their hands and vaguely say "wall st". Yes, the bankers and businessmen of Wall St caused the crisis- but they are the Super Rich looters NOT the productive/rich people- there ARE no 'rich' people left, only looters. All the regulations you call for simply harm the middle class and poor.
Objectivist1994 6 months ago
@Objectivist1994
"Super Rich are the people who support your looter pals like Obama"
You're grossly misinformed. Yes Obama has some rich contributors, so does *anyone* running for office - you WON'T get into office without them. But it is OBAMA that CUT TAXES for the MIDDLE CLASS, tried to extend Bush's tax cuts for ONLY the MIDDLE CLASS, and for the rich allowing taxes to go back where they were when the economy was FIXED.
cont.
schmoborama 6 months ago
@Objectivist1994
And if you look at Paul Ryan's tax reform of 2010, it INCREASES TAX for the MIDDLE CLASS while cutting it for *anyone* who's RICH. All while the revenue for the gov't has been less than the expedatures ever since the Bush cuts, which bloated the debt.
The Bush cuts didn't do the U.S. ANY FUCKING GOOD, bloated the fuck out of the debt, and you think the answer is more of the same??
schmoborama 6 months ago 2
I support capitalism. but Ayn Rand.. no way!
desertrat1111 6 months ago
The fact that Atlas Shrugged has been studied in America Academia means absolutely nothing. Liberal socialist/collectivists are brainwashing young minds using their leftist propaganda and using Atlas Shrugged as the example of bogy Capitalism. They have successfully created at least two generations of idiots. Ayn Rand can be understood only by the real intellectual elite, not by plebs.
mk181818 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just perusing the comments here, the Randists have a COMPLETE break from reality... Listen up Idiots. Your 'Prophetess' was a deranged drug addict for 30 years. It was the Speed that caused her to write her trash, not 'morality'. You idiots simply need a justification for your asocial behavior. Randists are vermin.
Oh, and like said,Ayn Rand was a welfare queen!
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ayn Rand was a drug addicted welfare queen. Nuff said about this scum bag fraud.
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
Um, deregulation caused all this. Political power is truly lost when bankers run it all. Windbags like Rand should be swept away and forgotten not revived and zombified by the likes of the new robots and technocrats who believe in her like an idol, a dangling dollar sign around their empty souls. Pull the plug on all isms.
YYYeahhHup 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AYN RAND=ZIONIST JEW
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 7 months ago
Bank bailouts are nothing new. Banks took more risks because they expected to be bailed out if they failed. This government setup many of these types of moral hazard time bombs. Why are we surprised when they explode?
Currently politicians are very busy arming a lot more.
Solverwiz 7 months ago
The current global financial crisis is a direct, blatantly direct, result of deregulation and individidual greed.
Objectivism: Helping redefine your narcissistic greed and self interest as moral superiority for over 50 years!
TheCelticChimp 7 months ago
there are so many inaccuracies i dont know where to start.
AhYaOk 7 months ago
The economic crisis was not the result of government regulations.
MARGARELON 7 months ago
@MARGARELON It was completely because of government intervention in places where they should not be.
armeg35 7 months ago
@armeg35 Please, explain.
MARGARELON 7 months ago
@MARGARELON The reason large government is the cause for our current problem is because of their intervention in the economy, one good example is the fact that they give money to corporations from taxes they have collected. Look at Lockheed Martin, they receive money from the government for being an American company alongside the money they receive from defense contracts. They then use this money to "buy" politicians which will vote for laws that reduce taxes or increase federal support for
armeg35 7 months ago
@MARGARELON them which means its an endless cycle. The problem is that Lockheed Martin is not the only company doing this, companies such as Bank of America, Marlboro, etc have massive lobbies in washington specifically there to reduce their operating costs. This is NOT capitalism, these companies are obtaining unfair advantages over others to further their profits. In true capitalism, even if these companies tried to lobby the government to change these laws to get them more money, the
armeg35 7 months ago
@MARGARELON government would be unable to help them, simply for the fact that it would be strictly not allowed for them to meddle with economic problems.
armeg35 7 months ago
@armeg35 help who?
MARGARELON 7 months ago
@MARGARELON Sorry I wasn't more clear, by help them I meant the people who lobby the government for government grants and reduction in their taxes. This includes companies, unions etc.
armeg35 7 months ago
@armeg35 It may very well be, that this is a problem of the american (and many other) governments. However, from what I understood about the last "big crisis" the reasons where more the stupidity and greed of the average people, who borrowed lots of money and invested in questionable funds, until the whole system came crushing down. I don't see how that could be called the fault of the government or in what way Ayn Rand predicted it.
MARGARELON 7 months ago
@armeg35 Ok, maybe Ayn Rand would say, that the government should let the banks pay for there mistakes and just let the crisis run its course, as a lesson for the banks and the investors in the future. However, that wouldn`t have prevented this crisis or stopped it, once it started.
MARGARELON 7 months ago
@MARGARELON Maybe, but it would definitely avoid this from happening a second time because banks would learn that they can no longer use the government as a safety net.
armeg35 7 months ago
@armeg35 In the theory, yes. But stupidity and greed will never die. Also, if a bank collapses, the clients of the bank, even those who never took a credit, would lose everything, because a bank gives out a lot more credits, than it has acutal money. Millions of people, whos existence is ruined, so the banks "learn their lesson". That is my main problem with the whole economical theory of Rand & Co. Sure, it may work in the long run, but in the long run, we're all dead, as Keynes said.
MARGARELON 7 months ago
@armeg35 Also, I kinda think, the big decisionmakers in the banks, wouldn't suffer either way.
MARGARELON 7 months ago
Ayn Rand admired Rose Wilder Lane, In 1943, Lane thrust into national spotlight through her response to a radio poll on Social Security, she stated the SS system is a Ponzi scheme that would destroy the USA. So a CT Trooper came(request of the FBI) to question her. Lane's angry response to this infringement on her right of free speech resulted in "What is this, the Gestapo?," FBI file compiled on Lane - see FOIA.
sibkiss2009 7 months ago
Keep telling yourself that money isn't power, that Donald Trump & co. are the persecuted members of Galt's Gulch, that the financial system self-regulates (and the "let it burn" strategy would achieve anything but destroy the hard-earned savings of middle class families) and that minimum wage laws restrict "freedom" while the threat of starvation doesn't.
It would be great if the US could have a state only for libertarians so they could go fuck themselves there with their unlabeled medication.
CoonAndFriends2 7 months ago
What on earth is this silly woman talking about? I've read ALL of Ayn Rand's novels and non-fiction, and frankly, see little similarity to today's world.
And is the tea party is so aligned with Ayn Rand's credo of personal liberty, why are they so uniformly in the mold of religious right wing bigots, intent on curtailing the personal liberties of anyone that doesn't worship their Bronze Age Sky God?
hroark91 7 months ago
To summarize: "Fuck you, got mine." Mindless greed is not an idea, it's an expression of baser animal urges. Little wonder why Rand is held up as the stalking horse for corporatism, her ideals are the carrot to be held in front of the masses of impoverished labor.
Turtleproof 8 months ago
@Turtleproof So, I guess you want your share of other peoples' money.
jme6141994 8 months ago
@jme6141994 The wealthiest corporations make billions in profit from my labor, without paying a fair market price for my labor, and charge many, many times higher than the fair market value for their products.
Who's money? Your money into their pockets.
Turtleproof 8 months ago
@Turtleproof Give me some numbers to back your argument. You sound like a socialist drone. I have a feeling nobody is making billions off of your labor.
Boo-hoo. Life is so unfair. Get government out of our lives and we'd all be better off.
Welfare kills the will to work. Minimum wage laws kill jobs. All of these social programs create dependency on government.
jme6141994 7 months ago
@jme6141994 "Get government out of our lives" was attempted in the late 1800's onward. Without regulation, free market companies paid pennies per day of labor while sending people to die in unsafe factories, mines, and elsewhere. Those unsafe factories and slave wages produced goods that were unsafe and worthless yet sold at a high profit.
Historical facts like these should be etched into your cultural memory, like every other American.
Randians say "statist" like republics are a bad thing.
Turtleproof 7 months ago
@Turtleproof So Rand is only about "mindless greed"??? I read that she was about individual freedom, the free market, free choice and rational self-interest. Similar to the principles of our Founding Fathers.
Solverwiz 8 months ago
@Solverwiz Corporate talking points about personal freedom are in actuality declarations that they should be exempt from the law. Rick Scott, for example, stole billions from vulnerable senior citizens in Florida. He isn't in prison for life because "the corporation did it."
The founders?
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Turtleproof 8 months ago 2
@Solverwiz You would have been a good soldier for Hitlers army then if you read Ayn Rand's works and don't think its about selfishness and greed !
Your following the teachings of a sociopath and you think she is wonderful and brilliant . Wow you really are delusional !
None of what she says is about the principles of the Founding Forefathers ! This is 2011 its not the 1800's the world has changed the cost of living is so high that blue collar workers can barely survive.
quirky1944 7 months ago
@quirky1944 Well, to be fair, blue collar workers didn't survive for very long in 1800. :P
Yupiyeahs 7 months ago
@Yupiyeahs
Kind of my point ! Nothing would change as far as the cost of living but everything else would like wages etc and people would be dying off by the millions from lack of health care , Social Security and any means people today have to keep their heads above water. People who follow Ayn Rands lead would stand back and just let people die and say ,,oh well its not my problem they were poor !
I am 66 years old and I have never see such heartless talk coming from politicians and people
quirky1944 7 months ago
@quirky1944 I really think this is just a classic case of manipulation through positive imagery. If you scroll through the thread, you'll notice that pro-Rand camp is basically spamming it full with terms like "freedom", "liberty", "inalienable rights", "exchange on value" and so forth, all of which sound great. All of which we more or less have today. But, no, they want to take it to an extreme without mentioning the immediate effects, namely our return to the Industrial Revolution England.
Yupiyeahs 7 months ago
@Yupiyeahs
I guess they think if they repeat these talking points long enough those who are dim witted and don't think for themselves will believe it !
They call it rational self interest when there is nothing rational about Rands whole theory !
If anyone reading what Rand is suggesting in her book did as you and I both have said and followed her theory rationally to its conclusion they would understand the insanity in taking this woman seriously and the distruction it would cause.
quirky1944 7 months ago
@Yupiyeahs
Kind of my point ! Nothing would change as far as the cost of living but everything else would like wages etc and people would be dying off by the millions from lack of health care , Social Security and any means people today have to keep their heads above water. People who follow Ayn Rands lead would stand back and just let people die and say ,,oh well its not my problem they were poor !
I am 66 years old and I have never seen such heartless talk coming from so many people.
quirky1944 7 months ago
holy crap, in the absurd stakes, Ayn Rand is second only to L Ron Hubbard. Only in America.
digimaton 8 months ago
Most people are not as competitive, or as well-equipped to compete, as they think they are. I imagine this describes most "casual" believers in objectivist ideas.
dugfriendly 8 months ago
I generally like Tea Party candidates. But if they are advocates of Ayn Rand, I may start turning away.
desertrat1111 8 months ago
@desertrat1111 Yea, she underestimated and did not have faith in the new "progressive" America being "built." Rand supported unalienable rights instead of majorities battling each other and choosing what social rights should be given and taken to make everything "fair" and "equal." We are only animals after all?
Solverwiz 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, Ayn Rand of the Illuminati certainly had a gay following, and yes the Illuminati.
Den12tribe 8 months ago
@Den12tribe I think your tin foil hat may be on too tight.
Solverwiz 8 months ago
This woman believes that every philosopher since Aristotle was completely wrong about everything, and while at the same time saying "There can be no disagreement between rational people." I am genuinely amazed that there are educated people in this world who take her seriously.
urdisturbing 8 months ago
@urdisturbing Its funny becuase you take other philosophers from hundreds to thousands of years ago more seriously then a philosopher who adapted compared and came up with something new, that makes more sense, gets rid of the metaphysical qualities of life and just focuses on life, your life. I don't understand your convictions. She only wanted man to understand that man should live for themselves not others, and that most philosophers try to connect everyone in some mystical way. when we are...
Sumdude54 8 months ago
@Sumdude54 are all indviduals, living should be only for our needs first then the rest of the world later. I am genuily amazed how something so obviouse can't be seen by people like you.
Sumdude54 8 months ago
@Sumdude54
I agree - why are we feeding those useless babies and giving them somewhere to live? They don't do a lick of work and just make messes. I agree with Ayn Rand - and Jonathan Swift. Let's take care of ourselves and eat those fat babies.
elnabenoit 7 months ago
@elnabenoit I read what I said and you literally didn't. It has no context to what I said, and it funny how people like you say this bullshit, when know one who thinks objectively would even consider any idea like this and you blame us with the problems of human nature and human indecency because we care about ourselves. If anything people who care about others are the ones who cause the most horrible things in the world, because in the end they simply need power over the people as a reward.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@Sumdude54 The context is that if you are an Objectivist, then you object to helping, supporting, giving, sharing in any form. Let's just dump the babies, the injured, the ill, the elderly, and the disabled onto the streets. They can't pay their own way, so to hell with them. Thanks Ayn Rand. There is some satisfaction in knowing that if there is a god, she is burning in hell.
elnabenoit 7 months ago
@elnabenoit YOu ignored what I said and started babbling again, like every single person like you has always done. The world revolves around the concept of helping others for the sake of others for the sake of others, this leads know where except slavery which is a concept to complicated for you to understand it seems. Human beings are communal, if they are naturally good or naturally evil, man will always want to help others. Being forced being charged and being mocked to do it isn't the way..
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@Sumdude54 An objectivist world will show the face of humanity instead of hiding behind make up, it will show who we really are and how we treat others with the same expectations true equal rights for all. And in the end people will help other people, but by the make up of there own value, people do it all the time. They help people because they truly feel thats what there life is meant for, there will always be people like that, they are objectivist they are independent and focus on their wish
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@Sumdude54 An taking the world Objective out of objectivism truly shows your length of knowledge or understanding of objectivism is others word you are linear in logic and stupid in rationality. Objectivism is defined as realty being perceived by one person, yourself with no external contributions to it. that means if someone wants to help people, they are doing it objectively, but they must understand it and know it is not for the "good" of the collective but the good of their soul.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@Sumdude54 "like every single person like you has done"
There is no other person like me. You lose. And you need to start using a dictionary. Ayn Rand would never let you into Objectivist heaven to worship the golden dollar sign if you can't even spell.
elnabenoit 7 months ago
Comment removed
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@elnabenoit What was wrong with that sentence? Better grammar, that would make sense but not a dictionary, you are implying that I spelled something wrong, and there isn't a spelling error there. And yes there are billions of mindless irrational, pompous idiots like you. Who can't understand the basic concept of freedom and refuse to acknowledge it, because once again you ignored what I said and tried to insult me without proving anything. Like every single person, like you, has always done.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@Sumdude54 Read Spinoza, then see if you aren't embarassed about that comment.
urdisturbing 8 months ago
@urdisturbing If your talking about the connection between philosophies then what is your argument, I didn't say all philosophers were wrong I just wanted to tell the person I was talking to that if he simply believes others instead of taking into account Ayn rands objectivism then he doesn't really respect the integrity of philosophers. Plus There are many other philosophers I respect and I simply believe that philosophy needs to evolve and it has, and for me personally because of Ayn Rand.
Sumdude54 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Sumdude54 I'm saying Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher. A philosopher is someone who is involved in the philisophical discourse of their day. Most professional philosophers ignored Ayn Rand , and she ignored every professional philosopher. She was too busy starting a cult and popping amphetamines.
urdisturbing 8 months ago
@urdisturbing As if you knew about her personal life, or the decisions made by other "philosophers?" Whats the point of your argument, but simply trying to degrade someone because you don't believe what she teaches. If thats what others teach then I'll stick to Objectivism.
Sumdude54 8 months ago
@Sumdude54 If objectivist ideas are put into practice most of us will suffer the same fate as Eddie Willers
urdisturbing 8 months ago
@urdisturbing Eddie Willers survived. The poor girl who committed suicide after seeing the social worker did not.
Solverwiz 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Objectivism is literal genocide. Depriving poor people of schools, roads, firefighters and hospitals is no different from killing them.
urdisturbing 8 months ago
@urdisturbing Now I see. You don't actually understand the philosophy of Objectivism. You only repeat what others have said.
I don't have a full understanding either but if I find something utterly irrational, I look up the source. Although people have claimed many utterly irrational things about this philosophy, so far I have found them to be false.
Solverwiz 8 months ago
@Sumdude54 Plus Ayn rand has never said she doesn't believe anything that other philosophers have come up with, she doesn't care for the them for her beliefs and that is staying true yo objectivism, she sees Aristotle as a pinnacle to her philosophy she doesn't credit him or denounce him, she just feels he was the closest one to be right, Objectively. In a Objective reality. Plus if you choose not believe in her philosophy it is your choice.
Sumdude54 8 months ago
Deregulation caused the ecomomy to collapse morons .
bonnevie9 8 months ago 2
Great book. Good movie. Basically shows what Corporatism and Socialism can do the countries. In this case, America.
Bring back inalienable rights to the individual. The group has none.
Solverwiz 8 months ago 6
@Solverwiz Creators live to conquer nature, the second-hander lives to conquer men. - Ayn rand
Sumdude54 8 months ago
@Solverwiz You do know that Ayn was a big capitalism fan? She loved it so much in New York, she bought an apartment next to Empire State Building and starred in Hollywood movies. All of it - achievements of a corporate, collective effort of the 20s and 30s. But of course she interpreted it as an individualistic *spark* of some sort. If only we all were brilliantly selfish randian heroes, eh? We'd still be living in caves, hitting each other over the head with clubs, but we would finally be free
zersockpuppet 8 months ago
@Solverwiz Yes! We can only assume you support the right to abortion, the right for gays to marry and serve in the military, and the right of the workers to joins unions. These are all individuals exercising their liberties.
elnabenoit 7 months ago
@elnabenoit It is not up to me or other spectators to force people from making their own personal choices. All your examples should have one simple answer. It is up to the voluntary choice of all parties involved, and no one else should be forced to pay for it. Only the abortion issue even warrants discussion since an unborn baby can not make a choice.
Solverwiz 7 months ago
apparently it was not in the videographer's self interest to do a decent job with the green screen. jesus christ what a bunch of selfish, misinformed nonsense. go read a decent book.
SpaceDisease 8 months ago
the extreme right in the US ( has fundamentalist religious undertones, maybe something that Ayn Rand wouldn't have agreed to be mixed into the equation) is using Atlas Shrugged as propaganda for it's cause. Preaching true freedom to create innovation, which should be pursued but then the independent business man meets Wallmart and has their dreams shattered, the problem with the future of free enterprise, the corporations own and become the govt. so things about human ideas become about profits.
zombietooth 8 months ago
Objectivism is a fancy philosophy for Darwinistic Capitalism. It contains some great ideas but in its purest form it would result in ruthless Fascism or Dictatorship as one man imposes his selfish will upon a nation or the world because he determines that's his highest calling. The founders had it right. We need limited government to provide for our necessary infrastructure and common defense but our government is bloated and has strayed a long, long way from what the founders intended.
UTubeMeTubeWeTube 8 months ago
@UTubeMeTubeWe WOW in its purest form it would result in nothing like that. Fuck..wow its like everyone is un-able to fathom simple logic or rationality. How would it resolve in facism? or dictatorship. Why would anyone believing purely in the Objectivist ideal want to take over. Its the complete opposite people with an objectivist view wouldn't want power, what part of that do you not understand. By saying what you said that means you are your own definition of selfish and you would seek power.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@Sumdude54 ,
Dude, if you don't understand Ayn Rand's own description of objectivism and her basic premise of putting self above all else and if you can't understand how that ultimately leads to fascism or dictatorship and how she herself believed in Darwinism in business and in life in general then you either haven't read Ayn Rand or you're not comprehending her most basic thoughts on Objectivism. I suggest you check out Rand's You Tube interviews so she can explain it to you herself.
UTubeMeTubeWeTube 7 months ago
@UTubeMeTubeWeTube What part of perceiving reality objectively does not imply looking out for one self? Thats clear in that statement. And no any person that knows her philosophy would know that couldn't lead to fascism or dictatorship. If the world truly followed her way of thinking, know one would want power, because power implies control over people and an individual doesn't want control over people, simply control over himself and his life. You don't understand the basic premise because you.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
Comment removed
Sumdude54 7 months ago
Comment removed
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@Sumdude54
Dude, put your critical thinking hat on! A person does not have control over his or her own life unless he/she has control of everything that impacts that life including government policies! An Objectivists forced to work for an employer has very little control over his/her own life. An objectivist that is self employed is still paying 40% to 50% of total wages in taxes and fees to his/her government. An objectivist that is a fascist or dictator makes policy and is living for self.
UTubeMeTubeWeTube 7 months ago
@UTubeMeTubeWeTube Well obviously why don't you think anyone mentions that, its obviously going to be a part of a majority of people's life that they have bosses, but what someone tells you to do something for profit isn't the same as being forced to do things for the greater of the collective and you have the option to not do the work the consequences if you do so is business. And no In my opinion an objectivist wouldn't want any sort of power or government position, I know I wouldn't..
Sumdude54 7 months ago
Comment removed
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@UTubeMeTubeWeTube And I know many people wouldn't as well. If you understood how a fascist government or how a dictator functions you would see that no they are doing things for themselves using others to achieve it. Greed, and power are not individualists qualities, you don't or don't want to understand that some people, not all, don't want power over people that they are content with power over "their minds, their goals, and their beliefs" all else is progression to understanding that.
Sumdude54 7 months ago 11
@Sumdude54 "Greed, and power are not individualists qualities:" ARE YOU DERANGED? It really takes a 'special' mind to warp reality so much....
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UTubeMeTubeWeTube Can't understand it, you are brainwashed, like the children in "Brave New World" you hear a trigger world like, freedom or individuals, and sentences like caring for one's life above all and you freak and say constantly the same thing over and over again without understanding it at all. Why? I could never understand why. I've read her books and have gone to great lengths to study its meaning. She praises the individual which means care about yourself above all others in a..
Sumdude54 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
objective Way, which means reality is created and perceived by the individual it is not a cluster of thought or imaginary like some other people would say. That implies that if life is perceived through the individual one should aspire to make yourself happy before even caring about others in a none connected way, what you think is, care about yourself so much you want power and control. No that isn't her premise her premise is, Care about yourself and treat everyone with the same respect.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
Ayn Rand is still a lame writer, but I endorse her atheism & feminism
marnerogers 9 months ago
@marnerogers I agree, I definitely endorse her atheism and feminism, but she's actually a pretty good writer. It's just that the themes she endorses show what a selfish, heartless, greedy bitch she was. Laissez-faire capitalism is a TERRIBLE idea. It just leads to monopolies which are institutions that can be just as coercive as big government haha.
TurquoiseCowboy 8 months ago
A lot of newcomers to Ayn Rand forget that some of the main 'evil' characters in the book were the selfish and greedy businessman who banded together to influence government. Gov was just a puppet of powerful men. Now the faux-intellectual libertarians want to rewrite the book to make it all about big Gov.
limelightvideo 9 months ago
@limelightvideo
Ayn Rand despised those type of businessmen who banded together to influence government. They were willing to sacrifice anyone and anything for some "greater idea."
mustang607 9 months ago
what i find funny is how Ayn Rand took medicare payments under a false name when she was diagnosed with breast cancer
meatcube1234 9 months ago
1. She had lung cancer.
2. Why would she need to use another name? She was a citizen of eligible age.
3. Do you have any evidence for this stupid allegation? Or is it just fun to make crap up?
somedudeinva 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have only one requirement for a presidential candidate. that he follow the constitution. The war is illegal. printing money is out of nowhere is illegal. Allowing the dollar to be purposely drove down to walpaper status is illegal. These things are all unconstitutional. One man will admit this and Is sensored by the media. He is a congress man who was a flight surgen and physician. He fortold the housing colapse. Nobody listened becouse they are driving their own agenda.His name is Dr.Ron Paul
breadstax 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rand promoted individual fascism as opposed to government fascism.
This is pronounced in this very clip where the feigned reporter is utilizing ad populous to validate the veracity of the book's ideology, hence the self-promotion and dictation of its tenet.
ninuxy 9 months ago
Comment removed
ninuxy 9 months ago
Ayn Rand's Ideas changed my life... tell me how i can help the cause.
nirvanaone7 9 months ago
@tripfunkmonster What problem do you have with what I said? If the British gov't is the primary reason why the famine was exacerbated and someone said, the gov't shouldn't be involved at all, they're apparently guilty according to you. "Greedy conservatives" have been proven to give far more to charity as a # and % than liberals. Helping, as an individual, is a far different thing than getting a gun, taking it and robbing everyone else, and giving that money.
NativeNewMexican 9 months ago
What problem do you have with what I said? If the British gov't is the primary reason why the famine was exacerbated and someone said, the gov't shouldn't be involved at all, they're apparently guilty according to you. "Greedy conservatives" have been proven to give far more to charity as a # and % than liberals. Helping, as an individual, is a far different thing than getting a gun, taking it and robbing everyone else, and giving that money.
NativeNewMexican 9 months ago
Greetings: I am currently reading Atlas, and I am interested in what Randians believe in regards to:
1) Doctor assisted suicide (privately funded)
2) Abortion (privately funded)
3) Faith-based initiatives (federally funded)
A last question: please comment on the latest poll that shows 70% of tea party members do not want a voucher system for medicare.
It does seem knee-jerk responses of "idiot, moron" and worse seem to appear commonly on this site, so that is waste of your own time. Thanks
GaryStuartKing 9 months ago
@GaryStuartKing
1. Doctor assisted suicide: support - Search Ayn Rand Suicide (also supports any drug use)
2. Abortion: support - search Ayn Rand Abortion
3. Faith-based initiatives, fed funded: against. - re-watch this video. Taking money to fund x is theft.
NativeNewMexican 9 months ago
@NativeNewMexican Given the financial dire straits we are in, it seems time to legalize marijuana and tax it. With some 40 million Americans using it, the financial benefits would be enormous. It would also immediately make the drug cartels obsolete, help clear out prisons and court systems, stop ruining the future of young people with police records, and reduce alcohol consumption. This is an important issue and your comments may just help make it happen. Please respond. Thanks.
GaryStuartKing 9 months ago
@GaryStuartKing Decriminalizing ALL recreational drugs would have a net improvement across the board. Search for Friedman drugs and he clearly explains why criminalization of drugs is the problem, not the drugs themselves. Friedman makes a huge # of points, but he overlooks one: Imagine the recreational drugs that Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson would start making. They would easily produce a drug that had a great high with limited risk and low addictive qualities.
NativeNewMexican 9 months ago
@NativeNewMexican I've read at least 15 books on drug decriminalization including Friedman's, and I agree with you. But even attempting the legalization of the least harmful drug has taken over 40 years, and it's still not legal. I don't believe that taking a substance for one's own pleasure is inherently wrong, and I definitely don't believe it's anyone else's business. The only argument I see from society's view point is loss of motivation, but is THAT another person's business?
GaryStuartKing 9 months ago
@GaryStuartKing The tax income gained, were we to legalize marijuana would be negligible. It's a weed, anyone that wanted to could grow their own easily. No sales = no taxes.
NativeNewMexican 9 months ago
@NativeNewMexican I used to brew my own beer, but it was a hassle. . . Now I stop at the store. I think we could learn much from the Dutch on this subject. Many growers in California are voluntarily sending in taxes on what they are growing in the hopes of getting the local economy 'hooked' on the revenue, and it is working.
GaryStuartKing 9 months ago
@GaryStuartKing Have you ever met someone that grew their own pot? If so, how hard was it? I have, and it's almost as easy as raising dandelions. If it is that easy to grow, how long would it be before retailers were selling various strands at Lowes? Maybe Lowes wouldn't get in on it, but someone would, and it would have a sudden influx of tax revenue for about 1 year while everyone got their garden going then basically nothing.
NativeNewMexican 9 months ago
@NativeNewMexican Yea, I'm 59, and worked my way thru my BSEE by playing in bar bands from age 16 to 35yrs old, so I'm no square. With high intensity lights, it HAS become much easier to grow quality weed, no doubt. I don't want to debate the theoretical outcomes of taxing pot. You may very well be right. ? There are dozens of entities that do not want it legalized which I'm sure you're aware of. But even if taxation resulted in zero dollars, the drop in prison/court costs would save a bundle.
GaryStuartKing 9 months ago
@NativeNewMexican FYI. Here's Friedman's take on taxation of pot: "replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation -- would save $7.7B per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4B annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2B annually." Again, I personally can't predict people's behavior.
GaryStuartKing 9 months ago
@GaryStuartKing The savings by stopping the drug war would be immense. The moral fiber of the country would also receive a major boost. Imprisoning someone for wanting to enjoy themselves, doing no harm to someone else is offensive and has made many of us hate ourselves.
NativeNewMexican 9 months ago
@NativeNewMexican You are correct. Imagine the elimination of the entire DEA. Another good book is "Smoke and Mirrors" that, yr by yr, outlines the rights of privacy we have lost due to the war on drugs. The author also points out, yr by yr, the lives lost due to cigarettes and alcohol, while the lives lost to marijuana is zero. The Feds have more than 1 patent on marijuana, arguing the strong antioxidant properties of the drug. Google it for a laugh. Religion and personal pleasure do not mix.
GaryStuartKing 9 months ago