Rands intellectual and financial heir is Leonard Peikoff, and he has advocates THE most evil foreign policy in American politics. He believes that we should invade Iran and all other oil producing countries, using nuclear force if necessary, simply because their oil rightfully belongs to American oil companies. I don't think most objectivists truely understand their philosophy. If people with Rands mindset get into power it may well mean the end of our species.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It amazes me how these free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatment.
@logtype47 Is stalin justified in his actions? No one on the non-statist side, notice I said non statist not far left I wouldn't want you trying to use hitler as an example, has ever been involved in mass murder or genocide but statists on the right and left have. And it's like I said if you've been forced at the threat of jail time to give your money to programs you disagree with I have no problem with reaping the benefits. Should those programs be in place? Absolutely not.
@xtremejohnny69 Historically he turned Russia from what had been a backward peasant economy into one of the worlds two great industrial super powers. At the same time at tremendous cost in men and material managed too defeat one of the most efficient but ruthless military machines the world has ever seen. He might well have been a ruthless and paranoid dictator but don't forget it took ethnic cleansing and slavery to help build the foundations of the USA. No insult intended.
@davijeph All I'm saying is he could have made Russia an economic super power through free market capitalism and spared all of those lives. Hitler was defeated through teamwork. In 1942 the german army was bogged down on the eastern front and losing in Africa so every one of the allied nations played their part. I give credit to the soldiers for that one though, not the governments. I may have some bias because I am in the army myself.
@xtremejohnny69 I had no desire too be contentious or insulting to the US and was in no way defending Stalin or communism but history is what history is. Can I say you are the first young US citizen I have come across that understands WWII was a co-operative effort. Given you say you are a 18 year old serving member of the US forces I'm curious why Rand's philosophy of self-interest appeals to you when the armed forces depend so much on individual co-operation and mutual dependents" . Regards
@davijeph Well I firmly believe in the free markets. I understand the need for government, but don't think national government should play a role in the economy. I think state's should have the right to determine their economic policies, but the national government should provide defense, a national constitution, weights and measurement standards, and national currency. I'm ok with cooperation and teamwork, but I know people have their own goals in mind.
@xtremejohnny69 . Certainly capitalism is preferable on the whole too state run enterprises. Entrepreneurship, Innovation, hard work and self reliance should hopefully all be rewarded. But it is in the nature of the human condition that in order too maintain a well balanced civilised society we are required too take responsibility not just for ourselves but to that greater society we live in.
@davijeph I would be ok with reforming the welfare system to make it harder for people to become dependent on it. Offer incentives for school, provide them with job opportunities, random checks by state officials, and time limits. Basically I feel if you're going to recieve tax payer dollars, then the government should keep a close eye on you.
@xtremejohnny69 The problem in trying too discuss Rands ideas and values is the way different cultures give words different meanings or values, I do not know any socialist or communist (they are two different things) that support paying out welfare to the undeserving. Totalitarian governments were noted for the way they treated those deemed too be undesirable. The problem remains how does a civilised Nation look after the welfare of those unable to care for them selves, charity will not do it.
@davijeph I'd be willing to comprimise to the point of refroming the system where it's harder to exploit it. I never thought people who got on welfare were lazy or anything but when you're dependent on it your whole life and never try to benefit society then it becomes a problem. I think if we at least reformed welfare we'd see some economic growth. Especially if you took a strong step to help them get a job and go to college.
@xtremejohnny69 Thank you for giving me your thoughts. While we can agree welfare must not be abused do we also agree that in order to maintain civilised values within society it cannot allow its most vulnerable citizens to starve, go homeless or lack medical help. Citizens must be supplied with these basics needs If only because not to do so would quickly create a society far worse than Stalin or indeed Hitler or PolPot could ever dream up.
@davijeph I'm glad we could have this conversation and be civil about it. I don't really think supplying people with their needs should be a right. Cause if you're needs are given to you, then you have barely and incentive to work. It does say in the constitution that we have a right to the pursuit of happiness. No one has a right to be happy, but we all have the right to pursue happiness.
@xtremejohnny69 Please remember I'm not a us citizen but a Brit. All peoples in free societies have the right too pursue "happiness". The question is, not all people are capable of pursuing it the mentally ill for starters Might I ask another question? Its hypothetical and extreme but one that could happen. A 20 year old married couple, both orphans, they both educated and work but have little in the way of resources, they are both killed in an accident who is responsible for the child?
@davijeph I would say the state takes the child unless the child has a godparent, then it's the dying parents' wishes. I'm ok with the mentally ill being taken care of by the state. Obviously those in true need like the disabled or mentally ill should be taken care of. But I think if you're born healthy, you should plan for the future. Government aid should only apply to those who are born with mental and physical problems. And btw I went to Britan once when I was 12 and loved it.
@xtremejohnny69 Well thank for the last bit. If you agree that the state (Nation) is responsible for the baby that means you accept your responsibility in paying the taxes that will be needed too pay for the feeding, education, health etc of that child. So Rand is wrong when she says people should only act in their own selfish interest. You do not know the child, you will never be aware of that child's life or existents but you feel the need to help in looking after it . Your not a bad person.
@davijeph After it's put into state care, I would think it should be put in foster care to a nice family that can provide for it. I'm not a complete objecivist, but I do agree with free market capitalism completely. I also support state's rights. If one state wants to implement a quazi-socialist type government, let them, but if another wants to have complete free market capitalism, let them. I feel the only purpose of the national government is defense and setting a national currency.
@xtremejohnny69 Being a Brit I forget the US is a collection of States each with a great degree of autonomy. While I do not agree with Rands values or political theories, from my point of view Governments are needed too run far more than defence or money, international affairs and trade, aid and crime for starters you obviously think differently. Thank you for and interesting exchange of views and all the best in your career keep your head down and keep safe from an old Brit squaddie. Regards
@davijeph STOP SAYING THAT! Rand never characterized her philos. as being "selfish". That is a lie from the left. Her point was, people can do better, and be more efficient , if they take responsibility for their own interests. That is not being selfish.
@foamulator Her point was that people had no responsibility towards other people unless they choose to do so out of their own self-interest. She was wrong, if you like living in a civilised society like it or not you are in the final analysis your brother’s keeper. I know of no person of the left, right or centre that does not support the idea of individual self-reliance only failed extreme forms of communist collectivism like Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot and North Korea advocated such control.
@davijeph She was not" wrong.", anymore than you are wrong. She chose to espouse a lesser degree of social control than others, that's all. It's like saying , well, " drink just a little of this poison, cause it won't kill you" So what. it's still poison. Civilization does not require a 24/7 Government Nanny State. Collectivism and Totalitarianism are two different things, although they are often mixed together.
@foamulator Civilisation might not require a 24/7 Government Nanny State but it is undeniable that nearly all individuals will at some time or other in there lives need help from their fellow citizens. Some will through no fault of their own require of help from birth till they die. Some will need help for only a short time the lucky ones will live long lives and never require help. Rand was no exception despite her believes she was still willing to use the US welfare system
@foamulator Nobody I know supports the idea that welfare systems should be abused. The able should make every effort to support themselves and those they have direct responsibly for but they all agree that societies and the peoples who form them are too complex and unstable for there no to be the need for an equally complex (and therefore expensive) governing authority and until someone comes up with a better system (not Rand, please) I’ll go for good old tried and tested democracy. Regards
I was speaking primarily about the entire govt, sponsored gravy train, ie: Retirements, disability plans,, overpaid Govt, employees, featherbedding, union health plans, union demands for everything under the sun, and now Obamacare, .... it can't sustain itself on our backs.
@foamulator 1/3 Well lets see, Rand on Democracy ”a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose". I would say she was not a great supporter of democracy. Modern democracy is certainly flawed but there are very few genuinely oppressed minorities living within them compared with the alternatives that have gone before.
@davijeph 1.3 She was talking about the present collectivist leaning system in America. Are you suggest that only the US has the "real'' form of democracy? Please. Again you show yourself as an idiot.
As for oppressed minorities, so what? Am I supposed to disagree with you on this point? Why are liberals always more concerned with the minorities than the majority? It proves nothing and is irrelevant.
@foamulator I might be an ant butanant that was born in the wrong side of thehive but managed by my own efforts too make a good life. I never used the UK'S social welfare system and in my 50years working life was always in job. The fact you finally resort to insults means you are not able to supply libertarian answers to the problems raised. History shows I am correct about child labour. I am not a liberal as such but a democratic capitalist, socialist, liberal and it works you are a fool.
@foamulator Sorry, I thought we had finished. Where in the ant heap do you fit? Worker, soldier, drone or Queen. You will find when you get older everybody and everything from worker too queen are disposable. By the way if you are not concerned about oppressed minorities and are happy to be ruled by the majority the you should reject Rand, you do not understand Democracy and you certainly do not understand Liberals or the meaning of Socialism but then neither did Rand.
@davijeph How did you survive being so dumb? The ant colony metaphor fits your idea of heaven, not mine. I'm the Grasshopper, with an IRA.
BTW: Who said anything about "oppressed"??? NO ONE except your knee jerk mentality. All minorities aren't oppressed. Instead of your arrogant self telling me what I think, why don't you tell me what you think. Or not. LOL
@foamulator 2/3 Regarding government spending certainly it should be strictly controlled a Nation must always "cut one's coat according to one's cloth" but over paid executives, feather bedding, corruption are not the preserve of Government ask Bernie Madoff. Unions have certainly done a great deal of harm with unnecessary and costly strikes that is true in the UK more than most. But if the workers have no voice then it would soon be back to child labour and dark satanic mills.
@foamulator 3/3 How under Rand principles do the sick, the old, the infirmed (both mentally and physically) survive unless they get sustained and guaranteed basic help? Please don’t tell me it can be done by charity, it could not. The sums needed are far in excess of what people would give look back at your own social history. Regards
@foamulator Supposing "the family" does not have the means too supply the sick brothers needs or they decide it is not in their "interest" too look after him if looking after the sick brother it means a life time of destitution for the family? Who should or could take on the responsibly of looking after the sick brother? The only answer is society itself,why? Because the brother like all those who genuinely need help are part of society. If society turns its back on him what price society?
@davijeph 3/3 She wanted people to have the self confidence to live not only within your means, but from your own sweat. I agree with her. You can play "What if" all day long, and you only reinforce my opinion of you. You are an ant , who likes living in an ant colony. I will no longer support you or your idiotic socialist dreams.
@xtremejohnny69 Unfortunately charity could never take the place of tax based benefits. The problem I suspect is the same in any free democratic nation how does society look after the needs of those who for many valid reason cannot in the short or long term look after themselves and ensure that help does not go too the work shy or lazy. Regards
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
She admired a serial killer, because he possed the emotional detachment of what she considered the "super man". That was her aspiration. How is that not being a sociopath. It has nothing to do with politics or philosophy. It is an illness...
So it turns out that that libertarian gasbag, Ayn Rand, collected Social Security under her ex-husband's Social Security number and did so under an assumed name in order to hide her identity. What a total freakin poseur.
@AtlasShruggery HER HUSBAND PAID ENOUGH IN TAXES TO FINANCE THE SOCIAL SECURITY OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. AYN RAND COLLECTED SOME OF THAT BACK IN THE SAME WAY THAT MILLIONS OF MIDDLE TO UPPER MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS STILL DO TODAY. WOULD YOU CALL HER A POSEUR IF SHE ALSO CASHED HER TAX REFUND CHECK!
@AtlasShruggery I am not a "Teabagger", nor am I a liberal, conservative, libertarian or any other label you may try to pin on me. I think for myself and entertain ideas from many thinkers and sources. You should try it some time. As I read your comments below it is clear you really are uninformed. Rand was a harsh critic of conservatism. I'm sure that if put to the test you would be at a total loss to explain Objectivism or any other philosophy for that matter. Poseur go PU a book.
It amuses me how Randroids like to pretend that Rand invented logic and rational self-interest. Rand critical of conservatives? You mean like she criticized Senator Joesph McCarthy? Oh, wait.........
@AtlasShruggery So what would you have her do? Maybe what you might do given the same circumstances ... whatever you had to do to survive. Your laundry list of religious philosophical quotes now shows you for the freakin accuser you really are. Gasbag poseur.
What would I have her do? Tell the truth, maybe instead of hiding her identity? Admit that she was a complete fraud for collecting Social Security after decades of condemning it? She wouldn't do that because, in addition to being a sociopath, Ayn Rand was an egomaniac
Let's face it, Ayn Rand was the original Teabagger Con.
Tommy Teabagger sez: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
**The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?"
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; & a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say, "and that's what I reject"?
Its sad that political leaders and most people from the land of the free have been brainwashed to hate their own freedom and distort the natural market while becoming pure reactionaries....... :'(
The EPA recently proposed to regulate CO2 emissions by enacting non-Constitutional regulations after declaring that CO2 is a 'pollutant'. So, it appears that soon, if this trend continues, it will be illegal to exhale. Therefore, they've made criminals of us ALL.
@MrSyCoe LOL you realize that produceing, trafficing and useing DMT is a federal offence. Just being alive is already illegal. They have already made criminal out of us.
Rand is simply WRONG about the Founders. Nearly all of them depended and thanks the intevention of GOD in the success and future of America. This is a view handed down for thousands of years. Furthermore some of them wrote slavery in the Constitution which others abhorred and a few years later six hundred thousand Americans fought to get rid of and preserve the union, mostly for altruistic reasons.
her real name is alysa zinovyena rosenbaum great friend of greenspans her promoters worth to check out ..... herdnation can u hear ...mnemonics ???perception management ???cognetive linguistics??? protocol of zion ??how come fed man greenspan is just sooooo close friend since ages whats the names of her marketters aint it fun even tea party use her demagoguery wake up kiddos it is protocol of federal reserves
WOW a resentfull FUCK FUCK SHIT FUCK FUCK person. It's funny! Can imagine it watching the first 48 the FUCK FUCK person clapping when they reveal the dude murdered SAYING FUCK FUCK YEAH BOY FUCK EVERYTHING DUDE ONE FUCK MOTHERFUCKER......I CAN TYPE FUCK....You need counselling.
shes a pro communist liberal? have you listen to anything she says? your an idiot! she has said in more than one interview that its better for people to be in the right than left except for religion being a format of the party. shes pro capitolism, pro human, pro freedom, pro small government, anti everything we are today.
While there is a great deal of truth here the fact that Ron Paul's picture (one holds an early American flag no less) is presentted when she starts talking about forward looking liberals is absurd.
Rand seems to think that the only reason conservatives adhere to the original founding principles is because they're OLD
This is ludicrous. The reason we adhere to them is because they are LAW. It is the principle of "Lex, Rex," which the founders correctly understood as the most essential protection against tyranny.
This is another example of how Rand---ironically---could better be categorized as a leftist than a rightist. She believed certain "heroic" men could be justified to nullify law.
Lex, Rex went a bit too far and advocated pre-emptive wars. Attacking someone for what they might do - before they've done it. Everyone rejects that behavior between individuals. Unfortunately, it does not seem to apply to relations between nations anymore.
All nations have a fundamental right to protect their sovereign soils, but never to attack another on theirs.
John Adams son, John Quincy Adams, probably put it best:
"America Does Not Go Abroad Searching for Monsters to Destroy"
However, my invoking of "Lex, Rex" was not a blanket endorsement of THE BOOK, but rather, an acknowledgment that the PRINCIPLE of Lex, Rex is an important first cornerstone in the development of Classical Liberalism as embraced by the Founders.
In other words, "Lex, Rex" can refer to the title of a book, or it can refer to a principle contained within the book. My endorsement was for the later.
I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country and being an atheist she is devoid of the sense of the human spirit, however she hits it correctly and right on every other issue regarding love, altruism and mostly regarding the future in the
U.S. regarding socialism 'creeping into society and to our children in schools' and
what will happen to the U.S. and our future "IF the U.S. does not wake up"!!!
Ayn Rand's followers always seem to mix up personal freedoms with materialism and consumerism, they also seem to make a weird connection between collectivism and anti-individualism, which they use as synonyms. Nothing on this planet, NOTHING, works by itself, everything is a collective, every system of every ecosystem, to the functional systems of all living creatures, even capitalism is collectivist, as it requires many parts to "succeed". Youcanbeanindividualina collective,becausyoualready are
@GuhYeahRight you are confusing free cooperation with forced collectivism. A man is free to join any group and does so because it is in his interest: the other is a subordination to the group. One is based on consent: ie a business, a football team, a class project the other is based on force. Even if it is not in a man's interest, he can not leave it. The two can NEVER be the same since force requires no consent, consent requires no force.Can't be raped if you give consent & vice versa.
@GuhYeahRhe You say a majority of intellectuals think she is a fool. Are you serious? Ayn would say "a majority of people thinking something tells you nothing about its truthfulness, it rightness or it goodness". Stop resisting and read Ayn, she will revolutionize your thinking.
@garybsg I've read Ayn Rand, shes not brilliant... and you sound like a bible basher... GO READ 50 YEAR OLD PHILOSOPHY AND CONTINUE TO THINK IT'S NEW AND REVOLUTIONARY!!...
No, no. I don't by into the anti-collectivist nonsense she spews... she's just another person who justifies a system that cannot work.
@GuhYeahRight Look if you want to discuss or debate than say something. Collectivistism is superior because of X which refutes Rands beliefs of Z. I don't believe, I don't like, it's old, it's bullshit are not arguments they are feelings. Feelings are not arguments. You are not in high school anymore.
@garybsg Nothing in nature works as an individual, NOTHING... everything must exist within the context of it's environment and species. Humanity, which is the the entire group of human beings, is not a series of selfish individuals, it's a collective. To assume that human beings can usurp nature is absurd, and the individualist/capitalist societal dogma that we have accepted as truth is only an abstraction from our natural existence. Rand and her ideology had a direct result on our current fail
1. Entire group of human beings is not a series of individuals. Why? Why can't individuals like John, Paul, Ringo and George form a group called the Beatles that accomplish a task like producing music? Did John Lennon lose his individuality when he joined the Beatles. What is a company? A group of individuals who perform business task. The rest of your comments were not arguments and incoherent.
@garybsg Essentially you just proved my point. While each singular person in the beatles was an individual, they didn't make an impact until they worked as a group. Im not saying that individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive, but it is much more beneficial for all groups to work as a collective, which is natural state.
@GuhYeahRight Individuals freely working together for their self interest has nothing to do with collectivism. Collectivism is based on force not freedom.
They are as different as rape and dating: one based on free choice, the other on force.
@garybsg I would argue that self interest is completely forced, as humans are not naturally greedy. The only natural form of self interest is subsistence survival, not materialism or consumerism, which are inseparable from free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is 100% unsustainable, basic logic tells you that you can't have infinite growth with finite resources. Seriously your love for the everyman for himself paradigm is sickening and childish
@GuhYeahRight 1. Utterly false. Self interest is part of human nature. It exists in all cultures and through out history and including before capitalism in the late 1700s. 2. Free market is not sustainable is absolutely wrong again. All the evidence points to the opposite. In 1800s, almost every human on earth was poor hungry. 200 years later with a 10 fold increase in population, wealth has never been higher for the world. China before capitalism: 100 million starved, after the Chinese are fat
@garybsg You views of sociology were debunked in the late 70s, greed is 100% societally influenced, before the most monetary systems people formed mostly egalitarian societies. Self interest in the form of greed certainly does not exist in "all cultures", thats bullshit, you just made it up. Consider the immense amount of waste in the infinite growth paradigm, it's... infinite. BASIC LOGIC, that somehow escapes you. Back when people used to be "poor and hungry", they lived longer.
@GuhYeahRight 1. You are right societies were egalitarian - everybody was filthy poor. 2. Name one country where greed does not exist? Name anytime where greed did not exist? Shockingly naive. 3. Average life in the west was 25 and now is 77. This is an utter asinine statement. No antibiotics, no medicine, no doctors, no surgery. People died from tooth aches. Sheer nonsense, please study history it will help.
@GuhYeahRight The world resources are limited but man's ability to create, invent, discover is unlimited. Imagine this remark before the invention of electricity, telecommunications, the combustion engine, the computer etc. Your total disregard and stunted view of man is sickening and childish.
"...Rand and her ideology had a direct result on our current fail..."
That's a load of crap. The economic failure can be generalized as the result of corrupt government illegitimately engaging with business through "regulation." Yes of course, this "regulation" was all under the guise of "the public good." But it really just lined the pockets of the "elite" of BOTH parties.
That's why the Founders chose to LIMIT government rather than empower it to work for "social justice."
@GodHatesPortugal I seriously doubt she is in hell. The power to judge is not yours. Lucifer was kicked out for trying to take the Thrown of Judgment, and you are acting like him.Good luck.
I'm glad you would like it to be about freedom :). But if someone decided to take some of your property and give it to some one in need, would that mean you are not completely free? If someone severely offended you, should you be free to physically hurt that person? What if someone wants to hurt somebody because it's pleasurable.
Lol, you don't have to feel like it's a trap. I'm just challenging your implied notion that written theories could all be equally wrong regardless of their logical foundation. I intended to do that by leading you to derive a philosophical system, which would have shown you which one of the two is more logical, therefore refuting the idea that they were both naive.
@haansgruber Agreed, this is the harsh reality we all face today, particularly the western world. Whether we know it or not we are all living in breach of some God damned insane politically motivated rule or regulation that renders us all criminals & therefore liable for something or someone we may virtually have no idea about. The story of Atlas Shrugged & nearly all it suggests is being played out NOW in the USA & around the globe. Those who have READ THE BOOK will be able to see it! Cheers
@dwhirmire49 she is teaching rugged individualism, she doesnt want you to agree with everything she says. honestly i dont think you have a clue what conservatism is.
@foxworth1313 Rugged individualism? lol You don't understand conservatism either.
I do understand the 'me' and that binding force of morality can look like an electron jumping from one me to another when things heat up. Consequence of law, some deity, or the wrath of the offended is what maintains order and you and she can 'object' all day and it won't change that 'reality'.
@dwhirmire49 yeah, well when you're writing screenplays at 8 and novels at 10 and get bored in school even though you're the top student simply because you read the text book ONCE, you're bound to be strangely knowledgable to the extent of seeming whacked out compared to the rest of us.
@dwhirmire49 She died in 1982. I don't know when this was made, but it is just as applicable today as it was when she spoke. Only some details differ and we hadn't had the Reagan era.
I have hard evidence of FDR per his own quote on March 4, 1939. Congressional testimony on tape, and a congressional hearing that confirms, Historical research in the form of hard backs, and irrefutable researcher from reputable historians. I can send you the links, no problem. Go to the local library and check out the books, some are rare and some you can find on loan. Not a problem at all.....
@haan, Rand does appeal to young minds. She would have been perfect in Victorian England. I see it as an excellent Intellectualization of the justifaction of greed & selfisness.
Are you joking? Religion is a private matter in America b/c Europe was constantly involved in religious warfare. we stopped that here. o ya we have statues of the devil everywhere even on our stamps you figured it out
conservative mind set is worship of wealth and look who leads you limbaugh a man who has not seen his privates in years and railed against addicts he called weak til he had to admit his own addiction. Glen beck aPUSSY who cried about the healthcare system being broke on one network and now saying nthe oposite on Fox. I was a soldier neither Beck nor Rush would have been brave enough to do 14 yrs like I did the ARMY throws PUSSIES like them out every daY. CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS ARE NUTS!!
The first answer could be that Ayn Rand died long before Ron Paul's political ideas became known. But more importantly, Ayn Rand was not a Liberaterian. In fact, she despised them.
but ron pauls ideas are identical to those of milton friedman. also ron paul has stated that he does not believe in names that are given to parties. he said that he believes in the constitution.
i've heard him say it once. for very good reasons, but i've also heard him say that he likes the idea and that it should exist on a minor level. he even says he liked Bernanke. i need not say more on his feelings toward the FED
Ron Paul was influenced by Rand, but he rejects her morality, as all libertarians tend to do. so they argue for liberty and that's it. Objectivism doesn't apply to simple a person who wants liberty it applies to a person who knows that liberty is moral and that man's life is the standard of value
i dont remember what lecture she said this at. but i think it's in her book Capitalism: The unknown ideal . " the person who praises capitalism without reason or morality is more immoral than a communist."
Exactly, and isn't that really the issue with the teabaggers and town hall obstructionists? They absorb the narrow alarmist definitions from disingenuous, advertising-dollar agendized cable TV rabble and apply their own flavor of hate to justify their putrid distortions?
What happened to research, due diligence and deciding for yourself?
@hyylo, its a ruse and mute point. The Federal Reserve is due to be crashed soon as strategy like they did in 1929. It was set up a full decade to orchestrate the Great Depression to set up a military dictatorship by FDR by 1933. Its failed for a number of reasons. The same is planned now. World government, currency and religion is now set up to happen as they have planned all along.
@hyylo....no. these scum bags orchestrate every single depression, recession and inflationary period like you do your budget and paying bills. They planned the Great Depression a full decade ahead in order plan a coup of the US Government, as FDR was also a part of this in 1933. Google Plot to Seize the White House. History lies. They can and will soon crush the Federal Reserve in literally less than one hour. They did it in 1929 and this one has been planned for a long time.
@coolasacoldsummer, YOU ARE AN IGNORANT FOOL.
Nashhinton 4 months ago
The global warming proposals are about one thing: power over us all.- Not saving the earth.
foamulator 7 months ago
Except for the accent i like what i hear .. you guys and girls should check her protege Leonard ... he is a strange character
madmanzila 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rands intellectual and financial heir is Leonard Peikoff, and he has advocates THE most evil foreign policy in American politics. He believes that we should invade Iran and all other oil producing countries, using nuclear force if necessary, simply because their oil rightfully belongs to American oil companies. I don't think most objectivists truely understand their philosophy. If people with Rands mindset get into power it may well mean the end of our species.
urdisturbing 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It amazes me how these free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatment.
logtype47 9 months ago
@logtype47 It's not hypocrisy if you were forced to pay into it.
xtremejohnny69 9 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 Is Rand justified in her actions? I can't wait to see you walk into this one.
logtype47 9 months ago
@logtype47 Is stalin justified in his actions? No one on the non-statist side, notice I said non statist not far left I wouldn't want you trying to use hitler as an example, has ever been involved in mass murder or genocide but statists on the right and left have. And it's like I said if you've been forced at the threat of jail time to give your money to programs you disagree with I have no problem with reaping the benefits. Should those programs be in place? Absolutely not.
xtremejohnny69 9 months ago 7
@xtremejohnny69 Historically he turned Russia from what had been a backward peasant economy into one of the worlds two great industrial super powers. At the same time at tremendous cost in men and material managed too defeat one of the most efficient but ruthless military machines the world has ever seen. He might well have been a ruthless and paranoid dictator but don't forget it took ethnic cleansing and slavery to help build the foundations of the USA. No insult intended.
davijeph 8 months ago
@davijeph All I'm saying is he could have made Russia an economic super power through free market capitalism and spared all of those lives. Hitler was defeated through teamwork. In 1942 the german army was bogged down on the eastern front and losing in Africa so every one of the allied nations played their part. I give credit to the soldiers for that one though, not the governments. I may have some bias because I am in the army myself.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 I had no desire too be contentious or insulting to the US and was in no way defending Stalin or communism but history is what history is. Can I say you are the first young US citizen I have come across that understands WWII was a co-operative effort. Given you say you are a 18 year old serving member of the US forces I'm curious why Rand's philosophy of self-interest appeals to you when the armed forces depend so much on individual co-operation and mutual dependents" . Regards
davijeph 8 months ago
@davijeph Well I firmly believe in the free markets. I understand the need for government, but don't think national government should play a role in the economy. I think state's should have the right to determine their economic policies, but the national government should provide defense, a national constitution, weights and measurement standards, and national currency. I'm ok with cooperation and teamwork, but I know people have their own goals in mind.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 . Certainly capitalism is preferable on the whole too state run enterprises. Entrepreneurship, Innovation, hard work and self reliance should hopefully all be rewarded. But it is in the nature of the human condition that in order too maintain a well balanced civilised society we are required too take responsibility not just for ourselves but to that greater society we live in.
davijeph 8 months ago
@davijeph I would be ok with reforming the welfare system to make it harder for people to become dependent on it. Offer incentives for school, provide them with job opportunities, random checks by state officials, and time limits. Basically I feel if you're going to recieve tax payer dollars, then the government should keep a close eye on you.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 The problem in trying too discuss Rands ideas and values is the way different cultures give words different meanings or values, I do not know any socialist or communist (they are two different things) that support paying out welfare to the undeserving. Totalitarian governments were noted for the way they treated those deemed too be undesirable. The problem remains how does a civilised Nation look after the welfare of those unable to care for them selves, charity will not do it.
davijeph 8 months ago
@davijeph I'd be willing to comprimise to the point of refroming the system where it's harder to exploit it. I never thought people who got on welfare were lazy or anything but when you're dependent on it your whole life and never try to benefit society then it becomes a problem. I think if we at least reformed welfare we'd see some economic growth. Especially if you took a strong step to help them get a job and go to college.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
Comment removed
davijeph 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 Thank you for giving me your thoughts. While we can agree welfare must not be abused do we also agree that in order to maintain civilised values within society it cannot allow its most vulnerable citizens to starve, go homeless or lack medical help. Citizens must be supplied with these basics needs If only because not to do so would quickly create a society far worse than Stalin or indeed Hitler or PolPot could ever dream up.
davijeph 8 months ago
@davijeph I'm glad we could have this conversation and be civil about it. I don't really think supplying people with their needs should be a right. Cause if you're needs are given to you, then you have barely and incentive to work. It does say in the constitution that we have a right to the pursuit of happiness. No one has a right to be happy, but we all have the right to pursue happiness.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 Please remember I'm not a us citizen but a Brit. All peoples in free societies have the right too pursue "happiness". The question is, not all people are capable of pursuing it the mentally ill for starters Might I ask another question? Its hypothetical and extreme but one that could happen. A 20 year old married couple, both orphans, they both educated and work but have little in the way of resources, they are both killed in an accident who is responsible for the child?
davijeph 8 months ago
@davijeph I would say the state takes the child unless the child has a godparent, then it's the dying parents' wishes. I'm ok with the mentally ill being taken care of by the state. Obviously those in true need like the disabled or mentally ill should be taken care of. But I think if you're born healthy, you should plan for the future. Government aid should only apply to those who are born with mental and physical problems. And btw I went to Britan once when I was 12 and loved it.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 Well thank for the last bit. If you agree that the state (Nation) is responsible for the baby that means you accept your responsibility in paying the taxes that will be needed too pay for the feeding, education, health etc of that child. So Rand is wrong when she says people should only act in their own selfish interest. You do not know the child, you will never be aware of that child's life or existents but you feel the need to help in looking after it . Your not a bad person.
davijeph 8 months ago
@davijeph After it's put into state care, I would think it should be put in foster care to a nice family that can provide for it. I'm not a complete objecivist, but I do agree with free market capitalism completely. I also support state's rights. If one state wants to implement a quazi-socialist type government, let them, but if another wants to have complete free market capitalism, let them. I feel the only purpose of the national government is defense and setting a national currency.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 Being a Brit I forget the US is a collection of States each with a great degree of autonomy. While I do not agree with Rands values or political theories, from my point of view Governments are needed too run far more than defence or money, international affairs and trade, aid and crime for starters you obviously think differently. Thank you for and interesting exchange of views and all the best in your career keep your head down and keep safe from an old Brit squaddie. Regards
davijeph 8 months ago
@davijeph I'm glad we could keep this debate civil and not jump down each other's throats. I definetly will visit the UK again one day.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
@davijeph STOP SAYING THAT! Rand never characterized her philos. as being "selfish". That is a lie from the left. Her point was, people can do better, and be more efficient , if they take responsibility for their own interests. That is not being selfish.
foamulator 7 months ago 3
@foamulator Her point was that people had no responsibility towards other people unless they choose to do so out of their own self-interest. She was wrong, if you like living in a civilised society like it or not you are in the final analysis your brother’s keeper. I know of no person of the left, right or centre that does not support the idea of individual self-reliance only failed extreme forms of communist collectivism like Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot and North Korea advocated such control.
davijeph 7 months ago
@davijeph She was not" wrong.", anymore than you are wrong. She chose to espouse a lesser degree of social control than others, that's all. It's like saying , well, " drink just a little of this poison, cause it won't kill you" So what. it's still poison. Civilization does not require a 24/7 Government Nanny State. Collectivism and Totalitarianism are two different things, although they are often mixed together.
foamulator 7 months ago 2
@foamulator Civilisation might not require a 24/7 Government Nanny State but it is undeniable that nearly all individuals will at some time or other in there lives need help from their fellow citizens. Some will through no fault of their own require of help from birth till they die. Some will need help for only a short time the lucky ones will live long lives and never require help. Rand was no exception despite her believes she was still willing to use the US welfare system
davijeph 7 months ago
@foamulator Nobody I know supports the idea that welfare systems should be abused. The able should make every effort to support themselves and those they have direct responsibly for but they all agree that societies and the peoples who form them are too complex and unstable for there no to be the need for an equally complex (and therefore expensive) governing authority and until someone comes up with a better system (not Rand, please) I’ll go for good old tried and tested democracy. Regards
davijeph 7 months ago
@davijeph Rand was not against democracy.
I was speaking primarily about the entire govt, sponsored gravy train, ie: Retirements, disability plans,, overpaid Govt, employees, featherbedding, union health plans, union demands for everything under the sun, and now Obamacare, .... it can't sustain itself on our backs.
foamulator 7 months ago
@foamulator 1/3 Well lets see, Rand on Democracy ”a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose". I would say she was not a great supporter of democracy. Modern democracy is certainly flawed but there are very few genuinely oppressed minorities living within them compared with the alternatives that have gone before.
davijeph 7 months ago
@davijeph 1.3 She was talking about the present collectivist leaning system in America. Are you suggest that only the US has the "real'' form of democracy? Please. Again you show yourself as an idiot.
As for oppressed minorities, so what? Am I supposed to disagree with you on this point? Why are liberals always more concerned with the minorities than the majority? It proves nothing and is irrelevant.
foamulator 7 months ago
@foamulator I might be an ant butanant that was born in the wrong side of thehive but managed by my own efforts too make a good life. I never used the UK'S social welfare system and in my 50years working life was always in job. The fact you finally resort to insults means you are not able to supply libertarian answers to the problems raised. History shows I am correct about child labour. I am not a liberal as such but a democratic capitalist, socialist, liberal and it works you are a fool.
davijeph 7 months ago
@davijeph History also shows that worker ants in the collectivist model are disposable. Works for me.
foamulator 7 months ago
@foamulator Sorry, I thought we had finished. Where in the ant heap do you fit? Worker, soldier, drone or Queen. You will find when you get older everybody and everything from worker too queen are disposable. By the way if you are not concerned about oppressed minorities and are happy to be ruled by the majority the you should reject Rand, you do not understand Democracy and you certainly do not understand Liberals or the meaning of Socialism but then neither did Rand.
davijeph 7 months ago
@davijeph How did you survive being so dumb? The ant colony metaphor fits your idea of heaven, not mine. I'm the Grasshopper, with an IRA.
BTW: Who said anything about "oppressed"??? NO ONE except your knee jerk mentality. All minorities aren't oppressed. Instead of your arrogant self telling me what I think, why don't you tell me what you think. Or not. LOL
foamulator 7 months ago
@foamulator I think your a twat.
davijeph 7 months ago
@foamulator 2/3 Regarding government spending certainly it should be strictly controlled a Nation must always "cut one's coat according to one's cloth" but over paid executives, feather bedding, corruption are not the preserve of Government ask Bernie Madoff. Unions have certainly done a great deal of harm with unnecessary and costly strikes that is true in the UK more than most. But if the workers have no voice then it would soon be back to child labour and dark satanic mills.
davijeph 7 months ago
@davijeph 2/3.... no, it wouldn't. child labor? get serious.
foamulator 7 months ago
@foamulator BTW we are finished now.
davijeph 7 months ago
@foamulator 3/3 How under Rand principles do the sick, the old, the infirmed (both mentally and physically) survive unless they get sustained and guaranteed basic help? Please don’t tell me it can be done by charity, it could not. The sums needed are far in excess of what people would give look back at your own social history. Regards
davijeph 7 months ago
@davijeph It's called family.
foamulator 7 months ago
@foamulator Supposing "the family" does not have the means too supply the sick brothers needs or they decide it is not in their "interest" too look after him if looking after the sick brother it means a life time of destitution for the family? Who should or could take on the responsibly of looking after the sick brother? The only answer is society itself,why? Because the brother like all those who genuinely need help are part of society. If society turns its back on him what price society?
davijeph 7 months ago
@davijeph 3/3 She wanted people to have the self confidence to live not only within your means, but from your own sweat. I agree with her. You can play "What if" all day long, and you only reinforce my opinion of you. You are an ant , who likes living in an ant colony. I will no longer support you or your idiotic socialist dreams.
foamulator 7 months ago
@foamulator not even the idiotic socialist dream of giving every little girl a pony?
JesusConvictScorpion 7 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 Unfortunately charity could never take the place of tax based benefits. The problem I suspect is the same in any free democratic nation how does society look after the needs of those who for many valid reason cannot in the short or long term look after themselves and ensure that help does not go too the work shy or lazy. Regards
davijeph 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She admired a serial killer, because he possed the emotional detachment of what she considered the "super man". That was her aspiration. How is that not being a sociopath. It has nothing to do with politics or philosophy. It is an illness...
shilltheshillXXX 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eturkreenz
Is that what they told you on Faux News? Typical Teabagger. Ignorant of history. Karl Marx was a German economist. He never executed anyone.
AtlasShruggery 9 months ago
@eturkreenz
Is that what they told you on Faux News? Typical Teabagger. Ignorant of history. Karl Marx was a German economist. He never executed anyone.
AtlasShruggery 9 months ago
@eturkreenz
LOL. You're a typical Teabagger. Ignorant of history. Karl Marx was a German economist. He never executed anyone.
AtlasShruggery 9 months ago
@eturkreenz
LOL. You're a typical Teabagger. Ignorant of history. Karl Marx was a German economist. He never executed anyone.
AtlasShruggery 9 months ago
So it turns out that that libertarian gasbag, Ayn Rand, collected Social Security under her ex-husband's Social Security number and did so under an assumed name in order to hide her identity. What a total freakin poseur.
AtlasShruggery 9 months ago
@AtlasShruggery HER HUSBAND PAID ENOUGH IN TAXES TO FINANCE THE SOCIAL SECURITY OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. AYN RAND COLLECTED SOME OF THAT BACK IN THE SAME WAY THAT MILLIONS OF MIDDLE TO UPPER MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS STILL DO TODAY. WOULD YOU CALL HER A POSEUR IF SHE ALSO CASHED HER TAX REFUND CHECK!
walkaboutwithme 9 months ago
@walkaboutwithme
Heh heh heh. Riddle me this, Teabagger: Why did Ayn Rand try to hide her identity when she was collecting on her ex-husband's Social Security?
AtlasShruggery 9 months ago
@AtlasShruggery I am not a "Teabagger", nor am I a liberal, conservative, libertarian or any other label you may try to pin on me. I think for myself and entertain ideas from many thinkers and sources. You should try it some time. As I read your comments below it is clear you really are uninformed. Rand was a harsh critic of conservatism. I'm sure that if put to the test you would be at a total loss to explain Objectivism or any other philosophy for that matter. Poseur go PU a book.
walkaboutwithme 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@walkaboutwithme
It amuses me how Randroids like to pretend that Rand invented logic and rational self-interest. Rand critical of conservatives? You mean like she criticized Senator Joesph McCarthy? Oh, wait.........
AtlasShruggery 9 months ago
@AtlasShruggery So what would you have her do? Maybe what you might do given the same circumstances ... whatever you had to do to survive. Your laundry list of religious philosophical quotes now shows you for the freakin accuser you really are. Gasbag poseur.
eturkreenz 9 months ago
@eturkreenz
What would I have her do? Tell the truth, maybe instead of hiding her identity? Admit that she was a complete fraud for collecting Social Security after decades of condemning it? She wouldn't do that because, in addition to being a sociopath, Ayn Rand was an egomaniac
Let's face it, Ayn Rand was the original Teabagger Con.
Tommy Teabagger sez: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
AtlasShruggery 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
**The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?"
notbestfriends 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; & a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say, "and that's what I reject"?
notbestfriends 10 months ago
Its sad that political leaders and most people from the land of the free have been brainwashed to hate their own freedom and distort the natural market while becoming pure reactionaries....... :'(
IxenBlaze 11 months ago
Atlas Shrugged movie trailer on youtube
yousmokecrackers 11 months ago
The EPA recently proposed to regulate CO2 emissions by enacting non-Constitutional regulations after declaring that CO2 is a 'pollutant'. So, it appears that soon, if this trend continues, it will be illegal to exhale. Therefore, they've made criminals of us ALL.
MrSyCoe 11 months ago 9
@MrSyCoe LOL you realize that produceing, trafficing and useing DMT is a federal offence. Just being alive is already illegal. They have already made criminal out of us.
DivineMoleculeDMT 7 months ago
@MrSyCoe CO2 is a virtuous Objectivist gas.
JesusConvictScorpion 7 months ago
Rand is simply WRONG about the Founders. Nearly all of them depended and thanks the intevention of GOD in the success and future of America. This is a view handed down for thousands of years. Furthermore some of them wrote slavery in the Constitution which others abhorred and a few years later six hundred thousand Americans fought to get rid of and preserve the union, mostly for altruistic reasons.
exenrontexas 1 year ago
@coolasacoldsummer Angry much???
Heidi
Heidi3518 1 year ago
her real name is alysa zinovyena rosenbaum great friend of greenspans her promoters worth to check out ..... herdnation can u hear ...mnemonics ???perception management ???cognetive linguistics??? protocol of zion ??how come fed man greenspan is just sooooo close friend since ages whats the names of her marketters aint it fun even tea party use her demagoguery wake up kiddos it is protocol of federal reserves
artregeous 1 year ago
WOW a resentfull FUCK FUCK SHIT FUCK FUCK person. It's funny! Can imagine it watching the first 48 the FUCK FUCK person clapping when they reveal the dude murdered SAYING FUCK FUCK YEAH BOY FUCK EVERYTHING DUDE ONE FUCK MOTHERFUCKER......I CAN TYPE FUCK....You need counselling.
Cardiff67235 1 year ago
@coolasacoldsummer
Couldn't have said it better myself.
reeljerc 1 year ago
@reeljerc RE: coolsummer- All he had to say was: "I don't give a damn about anyone or anything, cause I'm a selfish bastard"
foamulator 7 months ago
shes a pro communist liberal? have you listen to anything she says? your an idiot! she has said in more than one interview that its better for people to be in the right than left except for religion being a format of the party. shes pro capitolism, pro human, pro freedom, pro small government, anti everything we are today.
1980parkie 1 year ago
Ayn is a witch that has strong relation with Illuminati !
shes a pro communist liberal too.. if that's any different
frank0067 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frank0067 and you are a loony
lachlandtait 1 year ago
While there is a great deal of truth here the fact that Ron Paul's picture (one holds an early American flag no less) is presentted when she starts talking about forward looking liberals is absurd.
gordon17freeman 1 year ago
Rand seems to think that the only reason conservatives adhere to the original founding principles is because they're OLD
This is ludicrous. The reason we adhere to them is because they are LAW. It is the principle of "Lex, Rex," which the founders correctly understood as the most essential protection against tyranny.
This is another example of how Rand---ironically---could better be categorized as a leftist than a rightist. She believed certain "heroic" men could be justified to nullify law.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv
Lex, Rex went a bit too far and advocated pre-emptive wars. Attacking someone for what they might do - before they've done it. Everyone rejects that behavior between individuals. Unfortunately, it does not seem to apply to relations between nations anymore.
All nations have a fundamental right to protect their sovereign soils, but never to attack another on theirs.
John Adams son, John Quincy Adams, probably put it best:
"America Does Not Go Abroad Searching for Monsters to Destroy"
KDanagger 1 year ago
@KDanagger
For the most part, I agree with you.
However, my invoking of "Lex, Rex" was not a blanket endorsement of THE BOOK, but rather, an acknowledgment that the PRINCIPLE of Lex, Rex is an important first cornerstone in the development of Classical Liberalism as embraced by the Founders.
In other words, "Lex, Rex" can refer to the title of a book, or it can refer to a principle contained within the book. My endorsement was for the later.
How's the coal business, Mr Danagger?
UncleIrv 1 year ago
It would be nice to reference the time of her broadcast, since she died in 1982. We'd just like to have some perspective time-wise.
JBC814 1 year ago
Someone did this video already.
dontanner232 1 year ago
Nuts to Ayn Rand.
I would have eaten her for lunch...
InanityAnon 1 year ago
This is a self-serving and edited out of context.
mjd001 1 year ago
listen to what she said the reason must be RIGHT . NOT NEW OR OLD !
readyxxi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Join us on the Atlas Shrugged The Movie's OFFICIAL twitter page here for behind the scenes photos and clips:
@_AtlasShrugged
vtrestrail 1 year ago
I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country and being an atheist she is devoid of the sense of the human spirit, however she hits it correctly and right on every other issue regarding love, altruism and mostly regarding the future in the
U.S. regarding socialism 'creeping into society and to our children in schools' and
what will happen to the U.S. and our future "IF the U.S. does not wake up"!!!
carol33189 1 year ago
is it just me, or is hillary clinton way better looking now than she was during bill's administration? =]
samm1809 1 year ago
Ayn Rand's followers always seem to mix up personal freedoms with materialism and consumerism, they also seem to make a weird connection between collectivism and anti-individualism, which they use as synonyms. Nothing on this planet, NOTHING, works by itself, everything is a collective, every system of every ecosystem, to the functional systems of all living creatures, even capitalism is collectivist, as it requires many parts to "succeed". Youcanbeanindividualina collective,becausyoualready are
GuhYeahRight 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRight you are confusing free cooperation with forced collectivism. A man is free to join any group and does so because it is in his interest: the other is a subordination to the group. One is based on consent: ie a business, a football team, a class project the other is based on force. Even if it is not in a man's interest, he can not leave it. The two can NEVER be the same since force requires no consent, consent requires no force.Can't be raped if you give consent & vice versa.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg stop shitting nonsense to justify your nonsense.
GuhYeahRight 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRight Ayn would not be happy with your response. She would say that an insult is not an argument and a sign of intellectual capitulation.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg Yeah well, most intellectuals think Ayn Rand is a fool, but then again, who cares about some bitter ass old woman
GuhYeahRight 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRhe You say a majority of intellectuals think she is a fool. Are you serious? Ayn would say "a majority of people thinking something tells you nothing about its truthfulness, it rightness or it goodness". Stop resisting and read Ayn, she will revolutionize your thinking.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg I've read Ayn Rand, shes not brilliant... and you sound like a bible basher... GO READ 50 YEAR OLD PHILOSOPHY AND CONTINUE TO THINK IT'S NEW AND REVOLUTIONARY!!...
No, no. I don't by into the anti-collectivist nonsense she spews... she's just another person who justifies a system that cannot work.
GuhYeahRight 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRight Look if you want to discuss or debate than say something. Collectivistism is superior because of X which refutes Rands beliefs of Z. I don't believe, I don't like, it's old, it's bullshit are not arguments they are feelings. Feelings are not arguments. You are not in high school anymore.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg Nothing in nature works as an individual, NOTHING... everything must exist within the context of it's environment and species. Humanity, which is the the entire group of human beings, is not a series of selfish individuals, it's a collective. To assume that human beings can usurp nature is absurd, and the individualist/capitalist societal dogma that we have accepted as truth is only an abstraction from our natural existence. Rand and her ideology had a direct result on our current fail
GuhYeahRight 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRight @GuhYeahRight Congratulation for at least trying to form an argument.
1. Entire group of human beings is not a series of individuals. Why? Why can't individuals like John, Paul, Ringo and George form a group called the Beatles that accomplish a task like producing music? Did John Lennon lose his individuality when he joined the Beatles. What is a company? A group of individuals who perform business task. The rest of your comments were not arguments and incoherent.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg Essentially you just proved my point. While each singular person in the beatles was an individual, they didn't make an impact until they worked as a group. Im not saying that individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive, but it is much more beneficial for all groups to work as a collective, which is natural state.
GuhYeahRight 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRight Individuals freely working together for their self interest has nothing to do with collectivism. Collectivism is based on force not freedom.
They are as different as rape and dating: one based on free choice, the other on force.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg I would argue that self interest is completely forced, as humans are not naturally greedy. The only natural form of self interest is subsistence survival, not materialism or consumerism, which are inseparable from free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is 100% unsustainable, basic logic tells you that you can't have infinite growth with finite resources. Seriously your love for the everyman for himself paradigm is sickening and childish
GuhYeahRight 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRight 1. Utterly false. Self interest is part of human nature. It exists in all cultures and through out history and including before capitalism in the late 1700s. 2. Free market is not sustainable is absolutely wrong again. All the evidence points to the opposite. In 1800s, almost every human on earth was poor hungry. 200 years later with a 10 fold increase in population, wealth has never been higher for the world. China before capitalism: 100 million starved, after the Chinese are fat
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg You views of sociology were debunked in the late 70s, greed is 100% societally influenced, before the most monetary systems people formed mostly egalitarian societies. Self interest in the form of greed certainly does not exist in "all cultures", thats bullshit, you just made it up. Consider the immense amount of waste in the infinite growth paradigm, it's... infinite. BASIC LOGIC, that somehow escapes you. Back when people used to be "poor and hungry", they lived longer.
GuhYeahRight 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRight 1. You are right societies were egalitarian - everybody was filthy poor. 2. Name one country where greed does not exist? Name anytime where greed did not exist? Shockingly naive. 3. Average life in the west was 25 and now is 77. This is an utter asinine statement. No antibiotics, no medicine, no doctors, no surgery. People died from tooth aches. Sheer nonsense, please study history it will help.
garybsg 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRight The world resources are limited but man's ability to create, invent, discover is unlimited. Imagine this remark before the invention of electricity, telecommunications, the combustion engine, the computer etc. Your total disregard and stunted view of man is sickening and childish.
garybsg 1 year ago
@GuhYeahRight
"...Rand and her ideology had a direct result on our current fail..."
That's a load of crap. The economic failure can be generalized as the result of corrupt government illegitimately engaging with business through "regulation." Yes of course, this "regulation" was all under the guise of "the public good." But it really just lined the pockets of the "elite" of BOTH parties.
That's why the Founders chose to LIMIT government rather than empower it to work for "social justice."
UncleIrv 1 year ago
This stupid whore is in HELL...she cant send messages from there, read the Scriptures you silly faggots.
GodHatesPortugal 1 year ago
@GodHatesPortugal I seriously doubt she is in hell. The power to judge is not yours. Lucifer was kicked out for trying to take the Thrown of Judgment, and you are acting like him.Good luck.
JonVonTruthSeeker 1 year ago
I think alot of Ayn Rands views justifiably came from her horrible experience w/ the Soviets.
I believe her views are way extreme. Communism sounds great on paper as Ayn Rand sounds great on paper but both are Naive.
DERBYCLOWN 1 year ago
@DERBYCLOWN I like to ask for your opinion on which one is more rational.
Also if a philosophical system were to be written down on paper by you, what would it look like?
GeminiK 1 year ago
@GeminiK I feel like this is a Trap. If I wrote a paper it would be about Freedom on every level.
DERBYCLOWN 1 year ago
@DERBYCLOWN
I'm glad you would like it to be about freedom :). But if someone decided to take some of your property and give it to some one in need, would that mean you are not completely free? If someone severely offended you, should you be free to physically hurt that person? What if someone wants to hurt somebody because it's pleasurable.
Continued...
GeminiK 1 year ago
@DERBYCLOWN Continued
Lol, you don't have to feel like it's a trap. I'm just challenging your implied notion that written theories could all be equally wrong regardless of their logical foundation. I intended to do that by leading you to derive a philosophical system, which would have shown you which one of the two is more logical, therefore refuting the idea that they were both naive.
GeminiK 1 year ago
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power
any government has is the power to crack down on
criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals,
one makes them. One declares so many things to be
a crime that it becomes impossible to live without
breaking laws."
~Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged
peace :)
haansgruber 1 year ago 21
@haansgruber Agreed, this is the harsh reality we all face today, particularly the western world. Whether we know it or not we are all living in breach of some God damned insane politically motivated rule or regulation that renders us all criminals & therefore liable for something or someone we may virtually have no idea about. The story of Atlas Shrugged & nearly all it suggests is being played out NOW in the USA & around the globe. Those who have READ THE BOOK will be able to see it! Cheers
evermore8888 11 months ago
@haansgruber Ayn may have something here... 2.5 million laws on the books, growing 48 pages a day...
Scmeagal71 8 months ago
Comment removed
haansgruber 1 year ago
Comment removed
haansgruber 1 year ago
Wow, many comments about Ayn from people here that haven't read her work.
She had more logic than all of the computers at Facebook. Certainly not a "cold" woman.
rivronjack 1 year ago
cold woman?
nekojebenoime 1 year ago
No, she was alive when she said all that stuff. ;-)
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As bright as she is has no clue about conservatism. Obvious bias against with no credit to the obvious value.
Her clueessness about conservatism gives me pause about believing thing she says in areas I am trying to learn.
I don't trust her overview but she makes hell good individual points.
Personally she seems kinda wacked out and is a strange person..
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
She certainly has a clue, whacked out and strange? Sure, but abnormal intelligence is often misunderstood, even feared.
You don't have to agree with her points to recognize their value.
But I'd ask you to at least consider the depth and complexity of her positions.
Peace.
reeljerc 1 year ago 9
@reeljerc hmmm... meh. maybe she was just a misguided cynic. she sure sounds that way.
CT2507 1 year ago
@dwhirmire49
She says, "Some people think conservatism is..." etc etc." She is attacking the type of conservatism she specifies.
Obversity 1 year ago
Point taken but plausible denial-ability also came to mind.
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
@dwhirmire49 she is teaching rugged individualism, she doesnt want you to agree with everything she says. honestly i dont think you have a clue what conservatism is.
foxworth1313 1 year ago
@foxworth1313 Rugged individualism? lol You don't understand conservatism either.
I do understand the 'me' and that binding force of morality can look like an electron jumping from one me to another when things heat up. Consequence of law, some deity, or the wrath of the offended is what maintains order and you and she can 'object' all day and it won't change that 'reality'.
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
@foxworth1313 I used to frequent 'the Conservative Philosopher' and the sister site 'the Anal Philosopher'.
Don't remember people there referencing Rand for anything.
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
@dwhirmire49
Okay, what is she clueless about? What makes her bias? What is conservatism's "obvious value?"
evilnomad111 1 year ago
@dwhirmire49 yeah, well when you're writing screenplays at 8 and novels at 10 and get bored in school even though you're the top student simply because you read the text book ONCE, you're bound to be strangely knowledgable to the extent of seeming whacked out compared to the rest of us.
samm1809 1 year ago
@dwhirmire49 She died in 1982. I don't know when this was made, but it is just as applicable today as it was when she spoke. Only some details differ and we hadn't had the Reagan era.
moralimpact 1 year ago
I have hard evidence of FDR per his own quote on March 4, 1939. Congressional testimony on tape, and a congressional hearing that confirms, Historical research in the form of hard backs, and irrefutable researcher from reputable historians. I can send you the links, no problem. Go to the local library and check out the books, some are rare and some you can find on loan. Not a problem at all.....
tgambill 1 year ago
This is classic hegelian dialectic
pretend to be against the status quo
a front not unlike, john birch, the mormons, the masons, the CFR, the UN
I'm from the government, I'm here to help you
haansgruber 1 year ago
dang interesting point but she has a cult following and just like Che' she has symbolic tenure
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
I used to be one of them in my teens and twenties (when I thought I was invincible)
I have since realized the plan is much greater than any of us realize
she's a flake and if one carefully examines her philosophies, they are not as valid as first introductions might lead us to believe
peace :)
haansgruber 1 year ago
Be very interesting to hear more on what you see. If your up to it and want to use my in box and don't be brief .
take care
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
@haan, Rand does appeal to young minds. She would have been perfect in Victorian England. I see it as an excellent Intellectualization of the justifaction of greed & selfisness.
DERBYCLOWN 1 year ago
Agreed, her logic is flawed
Objective reality, and rational thinking inherent in us all?
She never saw Jerry Springer
There is no observation which is independent of the the observer
peace :)
haansgruber 1 year ago
Why only in america is religion a private matter?
They knew the 3 city states would serve their purposes
london=financial
vatican=religious
wash dc= military
The reason is not to protect Christianity but, instead to protect luciferianism
which is an offshoot of what they preach. reason and self are all that matter
cause the problems and claim to be fixing them is a racket (their racket)
peace :)
haansgruber 1 year ago
Are you joking? Religion is a private matter in America b/c Europe was constantly involved in religious warfare. we stopped that here. o ya we have statues of the devil everywhere even on our stamps you figured it out
Pantalaimon345 1 year ago
Are you referring to organized religion?
Who are 'they''?
What is the link between what you call 'city states'
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
A great philosophy if one is already well off; I guess poor folks like me are just extra baggage, and don't deserve to LIVE.
leahcim384 1 year ago
Why do you say that? Objectivism states that every human is born with dignity and rights and has equal opportunity.
Pantalaimon345 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
america's disease.
her mouth was the door of evil. cha cha cha ;)
RebelliousbyDesign 2 years ago
@RebelliousbyDesign
Pussies like you would never be able to handle communist USSR
savemyplaylist 2 years ago
conservative mind set is worship of wealth and look who leads you limbaugh a man who has not seen his privates in years and railed against addicts he called weak til he had to admit his own addiction. Glen beck aPUSSY who cried about the healthcare system being broke on one network and now saying nthe oposite on Fox. I was a soldier neither Beck nor Rush would have been brave enough to do 14 yrs like I did the ARMY throws PUSSIES like them out every daY. CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS ARE NUTS!!
ajushi10 2 years ago
this comment is against the people who commented against " the music in he backdrop" .
THIS MUSIC COULD BE A BAD CHOICE ..BUT SO IS YOUR LIFE....
IF RECOGNIZING MUSIC SCORE IN SOMEONES POSTING IS YOUR IDEA .. I'M SORRY FOR YOU...
e0rag 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
she was a piece of garbage.
RebelliousbyDesign 2 years ago
one mans trash is another mans treasure
amalwaysawsome 2 years ago
The music sucks.
Cidriullo 2 years ago
That background music is spoiling her speech! Get rid of it!
odalrich 2 years ago
Actually this does seem timely! Separation of church and state!!!!
RockyMissouri 2 years ago
why the shitty ,usic in the background? cant understand a word the woman says
casperado666 2 years ago 2
hi
can someone please answers this:
Why does Ayn Rand not agree with Ron Paul?
I thought Ron Paul was similar to the views of Ayn Rand.
hyylo 2 years ago
The first answer could be that Ayn Rand died long before Ron Paul's political ideas became known. But more importantly, Ayn Rand was not a Liberaterian. In fact, she despised them.
reeljerc 2 years ago
but ron pauls ideas are identical to those of milton friedman. also ron paul has stated that he does not believe in names that are given to parties. he said that he believes in the constitution.
hyylo 2 years ago
Ron Paul's ideas are NOT identical to Friedman's. Friedman was an adovocate of the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul along with Objectivists HATE the FED
oscar7557 2 years ago
Friedman has stated in ALL his books he wants to shut down the federal reserve.
what are you talking about?
Friedman hates the federal reserve. search youtube for the Milton Friedman speech against the federal reserve.
hyylo 2 years ago
i've heard him say it once. for very good reasons, but i've also heard him say that he likes the idea and that it should exist on a minor level. he even says he liked Bernanke. i need not say more on his feelings toward the FED
oscar7557 2 years ago
hello reeljerc
Hey can ya link me to where she speaks about Libertarians?
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
this is a comment on Ayn Rand in case ya don't remember. I mean it was five months ago. lol Where does she talk about Libertarians? thanx take care
dwhirmire49 1 year ago
Ron Paul was influenced by Rand, but he rejects her morality, as all libertarians tend to do. so they argue for liberty and that's it. Objectivism doesn't apply to simple a person who wants liberty it applies to a person who knows that liberty is moral and that man's life is the standard of value
oscar7557 2 years ago
i dont remember what lecture she said this at. but i think it's in her book Capitalism: The unknown ideal . " the person who praises capitalism without reason or morality is more immoral than a communist."
oscar7557 2 years ago 2
Exactly, and isn't that really the issue with the teabaggers and town hall obstructionists? They absorb the narrow alarmist definitions from disingenuous, advertising-dollar agendized cable TV rabble and apply their own flavor of hate to justify their putrid distortions?
What happened to research, due diligence and deciding for yourself?
reeljerc 2 years ago 4
but the teabaggers are againt tax and income tax.
hyylo 2 years ago
sense when
amalwaysawsome 2 years ago
hi
the teabaggers are against the federal reserve and the income tax.
hyylo 2 years ago
@hyylo, its a ruse and mute point. The Federal Reserve is due to be crashed soon as strategy like they did in 1929. It was set up a full decade to orchestrate the Great Depression to set up a military dictatorship by FDR by 1933. Its failed for a number of reasons. The same is planned now. World government, currency and religion is now set up to happen as they have planned all along.
tgambill 1 year ago
the federal reserve can only be crushed once the american people and the rest of the world wakeup
hyylo 1 year ago
@hyylo....no. these scum bags orchestrate every single depression, recession and inflationary period like you do your budget and paying bills. They planned the Great Depression a full decade ahead in order plan a coup of the US Government, as FDR was also a part of this in 1933. Google Plot to Seize the White House. History lies. They can and will soon crush the Federal Reserve in literally less than one hour. They did it in 1929 and this one has been planned for a long time.
tgambill 1 year ago