@BruceD1776 Good I do not work for internet hacks ,nutri-system losers and general turds like business men anyway. Only a loser and dummy would believe in one of Rand's poorly written, science, history,political ,human and factual fantasies. Do yourself a favor and read Spider man at least there is cool comics. You are naive and easily impressed if you think Rand anything but hack. She was,and also her films sucked too. Now go put your tooth under the pillow. Baby!
About oil companys, the problem is NOT that they make profit the problem is much of their 'profits' are actually handed directly to them by the US government 30+ billion a year, where in the ideals of Ayn Rand do government handouts exist? If you are going to masterbate to Ayn Rands philosophy perhaps you should apply it to your own thinking.
(cont2) Furthermore, I would venture to claim that there hasn't been any assumptions Rand as a ideologist has made that have really been scientifically invalidated by economic theories. There is LOT to be discovered in this area since we've never had a completely laissez-faire economy to test her assumptions upon. Rand is equivalent to Moses believing in Jesus, WAY ahead of her time. Today's economist are still busy saying how preposterous it is to try. The world is still FLAT! Don't question!
@U4EANetworksInc "there hasn't been any assumptions Rand as a ideologist has made that have really been scientifically invalidated by economic theories." You can NOT scientifically invalidate a faith based assumption that does not exist. This is why a biblical god can NOT be disproved by science because there is no evidence for something that does not exist. The associated events in the bible however can NOT be taken literally because they ARE falsifiable. Events are falsifiable, beliefs are NOT
@U4EANetworksInc your "Moses believing in Jesus" comment is a non-sequitur. Where in the Tanakh does it say that the fictional character Moses believed in Jesus, fictional or human? Please cite your passage from the Tanakh. How can the myth known as Moses be equivalent to a real Ayn Rand? Are you saying Ayn Rand was a prophet a seer of the future? That would go against free will which is a tenet of objectivism. Also, free will does not exist, only a probabilistic reality from neuron interaction.
(cont) Epistomology is religious IN nature, i mean. Mind itself is subjective, as is morality, and all theories UNTIL they are validated. Your argument about Rand viewing science and objectivism being opposed is off; her being opposed to science is ridiculous! Why do you suppose there is an Ayn Rand Institute? I suppose its because Rand made absolutely no contributions to science, only to philosophy? - Philosophy CAUSES science to happen, and Rand was a visionary and inspiration to that regard
@U4EANetworksInc you do not understand what a scientific theory is if you believe that it is ever subjective. A scientific theory is no longer a conjecture, nor an hypothesis but has progressed to be supported by peer reviewed empirical evidence. It is NOT an idea or belief. That would be a conjecture. An hypothesis has some tangible evidence to support a POTENTIAL causal relationship but is yet to be validated. Rarely is a theory ever invalidated, conjectures and hypotheses are frequently.
Ayn Rand never wrote any scientific treatise. She openly opposed science as a foundation of economics and also law. Atlas Shrugged is an attempt at proof by analogy which according to Bjarne Stroustrup is fraud. There are other books that preach morality through fiction and I cite the bible as physical evidence. Fiction is fiction and I will argue that the scientific method can produce an objectified economic system where the faith based fictional economic Rand system does not yield objectivity.
@generationalist can you quote a passage Rand as evidence of said 'openly opposed science' as a foundation of economics or in the establishment of law? she wrote a lot about 'moral' society, yet science and morality mutually exclusive? since when? In fact, she wrote of natural laws coming into play; she recognized that man's laws are supposed to protect value-producers from the moochers of virtue. Moral virtue is an value, while subjective, you cannot take it out of the human economic equation.
@U4EANetworksInc An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - "Philosophy by it's nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment. Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true." This is as clear an argument against science from Ayn Rand's many moving goal posts as anyone could ever get out of her faith based ideology of objectivism. A subjective ideology/philosophy can not be empirically tested.
'Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true.' yes, there is no science without mind, but there can be mind without science. Anyone can discover scientific facts and interpret them differently than someone who has a different working philosophy about science. Every science has rudimentary assumptions, which are built and continually validated upon working assumptions. economics as a science is no different, + 'epistomology' is religious is nature. its ALL mind!
@U4EANetworksInc science is the scientific method applied. It is a methodology; there are not sciences, there is only one science; the end product of the understanding from the method. There is NO mind only brain. The belief in a mind is a faith based tenet. Science is founded entirely on only one apriori - reality exists, not existence exists. Existence is the experiential understanding and awareness of reality as derived from empirical sensory experience. Consciousness is a function of memory.
Plus Atlas Shrugged is not even a good book, insidiously boring and with the character of a standard table spoon. It didn't even make the ABC top 1001 books of all time, and for good reason!
Most people are devoted to it because it's the only book they've bothered to bloody well read in their sad lives.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
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.
here's where I feel Ayn Rand contradicts herself. At first she says that you don't have to justify what you are doing with how much it is for the public good, but then she explains that the very reason pursuit of ones own self interest is a good thing, is because it leads to products and innovations, which in the end serve "the public good". am I misunderstanding Ayn Rand here, or is that a contradiction? I'm not dissing Ayn Rand here, don't take it the wrong way.
@Chaaarge I agree with your point. I think what she was trying to say is that if left alone, the beneficial products and innovations will survive regardless of the intent of the producer. That way, the best entrepreneurs/companies will succeed and lead society.
@Chaaarge You are misunderstanding her argument, yes. Serving the "public good" is not what she argues should motivate what you produce. You should create because it brings you happiness in a rational sense - in other words because it makes your life better from an objective, concrete standpoint. To the extent that others value what you produce, they're willing to trade you something you value in exchange (money, a service, their own product, etc.). The "public good" is served by this trading.
@swebbie Thank you :) awesome explanation. I love her books, my favorite one is anthem. So basically, you should do what brings you happiness and makes your life better, and the reason trading is good is because everyone gets what they want, and the so called "public good" is really just individuals pursuing their own self interest. So there technically is no "public", just individuals. Am I getting this right?
@Chaaarge This is really important in understanding Rand's ideas... It is NOT simply doing what makes you happy. It's doing what makes you happy if it is rationally, objectively in your interest and does not come at the expense of someone else by way of forcing their hand. And beware anyone who trumpets "society" or "the public." The only entity that holds rights is the individual. If you take their rights away to "help the public" it is nothing more than some individuals enslaved to others.
@AashiquiTheri And if you're part of the Ayn Rand cult, you're both a leech and a loser! Wow, a two time loser.... you must be proud of yourself. But of course that's what happens to the sheep for being a follower of a 30 year drug addict and welfare queen!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's curious that Ayn Rand choose the name Rearden for one of her protagonists. It is of course Irish. In 1847 famine struck Ireland. People were reduced to eating grass and there was widespread cannibalism. One million people died. What were the landlords and people who controlled agricultural production doing? Shipping food out of the country. The argument being that the local population could not afford food so why not sell it to those who could. Parents watched their children die.
@drmodestoesq These are the kinds of things we can't change about society because of how things have come into fruition because of the things we try to fight against, these things wouldn't happen because of human nature mostly being naturally violent and if the market worked as it should have and if people did things right. I think most of what happens to Ireland is due to its history of violence and revolution a totally separate issue. I am an objectivist and I would have tried to help.
@Sumdude54 Why would you have tried to help? It would be a pointless waste of time and effort. Why would it matter in the slightest if hundreds of thousands of children died of starvation. There's lots more where they came from to work in the mines, dig the canals and put in 16 hour days in the textile mills. The hero industrialist should not care. The Irish children were architects of their own misery. Any display of human empathy is a self-imposed slavery according to Rand.
@drmodestoesq These are silly arguments. Rand would say that where any person is forced to work (including by their parents or as wards of the state...ie, gov't), any business owner that employed such a workforce is contemptible. That's a classic example of the initiation of force, something Rand over and over again blasted as always and everywhere immoral and indefensible. Anyone who believes Rand or her philosophy sanctions such a scenario is clueless about what she believed.
@swebbie I didn't say the Irish in the aftermath of the potato famine were forced to work. I said that the owners of the means of production (the landlords) were shipping food out of a country in the midst of mass starvation. The defenders of the laissez faire policy in Ireland were of the view that government assistance would make the grandfathers and grandmothers of Rearden lazy and habituated to handouts. You clearly had the choice to either buy food or not buy food.
Geniuses do what they are good at for the sake of doing it, not for monetary gain. Einstein didn't give up his 10-year struggle to formulate General Relativity just because he was being paid peanuts. He loved the subject, and did it because he loved it. Objectivism is just a contrived excuse for grown adults to justify having the mentality of a toddler going through his "MINE!" phase.
@mtheory85 Anyone does what they are good at because it is a joy to accomplish what you have the capacity to. As for monetary gain, that would depend upon whether an interest is an intended vocation; avocations are pursued simply for the enjoyment which someone may derive from pursuing them. The aforementioned need not have anything to do with Objectivism; it applies to anyone, as it should.
@mtheory85 You explained the goals and imagination of an objectivist the love of his work and what he gets for it. By profit lets say spiritual gain, I made money, I am proud that I made it because I worked hard to get doing what I love. If I give it away to people who don't deserve it a piece of what I love so much about my work life is given to them, which is my only ambition to do the work the self-satisfaction that I achieved it. Einstein is objectivist then if what you say is true.
Whew. At first I thought you were going to be another progressive trying to alter what the book was about, but you turned out to be an ok guy. Here is to Atlantis.
" The sophistry of merchants inspired by the spirit of monopoly has confounded the common sense of mankind - Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations, Univ. of Chicago
Because it makes them out to be the heroes of society? Did there really need to be a five minute video about this? Also, this dude looks and acts creepy and robotic
"Pharmaceutical companies who successfully develop lifesaving drugs... Oil companies who explore the earth the ends of the earth to extract more of a vital resource"
Translated from Bullshit:
Pharmaceutical companies who steal life-saving drugs from native populations and monopolize their production so they can sell them back for more money than they are worth....and Oil Companies that dominate local people to the ends of the earth to exploit a profitable resource and pollute the world.
@LordXehenniar Personally I think the oil industry is a primitive one, they are latching on to the infrastructure the government put in place and they exploit people because we run all our primitive machines on oil. That is not objectivism, they are a burden they seek power, sway government decisions and the future generations must realize that and get rid of them. But saying that pharmaceutical companies use primitive cultures medicines that obviously don't work for us is stupid.
The speech starts with his right to his "reason"....and he comes to the conclusion that his "reasons" will cause violence...Maybe he should change his "reasoning?" if he see it will lead to riots....right?
Fascinating. So the public good does not include businessmen. What are you lot, if you're not part of the public? Oh, that's right, you're above all the rest of us. Because a bitter old wanna-be philosopher who was laughed at by every philosopher in the world said so.
Businessmen love Atlas Shrugged because businessmen tend to have zero aesthetic judgment. As a group, they know SHIT about art. Their careers are about mercilessly pursuing mammon. They laugh at the story of great artists dying in the mud. They spend their money on rubbish novels by Russian immigrants who lived in the US for 70 years and never learned to speak English properly and call it 'great literature.' They know as much about great literature as the illiterate do.
What garbage is this? From this summary, the impression is that this book teaches an ideology that nobody follows, as it is not viable in the current economic world.
There is no incentive for massive corporations like Nike or Tyson to produce quality goods, as they have to compete with other giant corporations who do the same thing for the same reasons. The undermining of quality for the sake of economic superiority usually involves slave labor, corruption, and weakening the middle class.
@silencer299 Exactly, the vulgar libertarians equate multinational capitalism, which requires the state to prop up its debt machine and all-but-formal oligopoly with an idealistic mutualism of the "free market". The geniuses are equally as marginalized as the sweatshop workers in the face of those masters of the bottom line who control our lives.
Although I am a Christian that does not subscribe to most of Ayn Rand's moral philosophies, I do agree that pursuit of capitalism is moral. I believe Jesus wants every man to earn enough to support his or her family, stay out of debt (i.e. Dave Ramsey) and earn a lot to give to others. There are even more reasons which are global. YouTube search "The Other Side of Outsourcing". India & Pakistan are at peace because of capitalism. Poor (true poor) in 3rd world are moving up like us 200yrsago
@Schwad93 Correction: We can best take care of our neighbors by taking care of ourselves first. I want to be perfectly clear here and in all of my posts on this video were not clear. I do not think pursuit of capitalism in and of itself is moral except to say that Jesus wanted no one to be a sluggard, to take care of one's family & neighbors. Ayn & I part ways there. Seeing as a social good can be a byproduct of capitalism, Jesus would be for capitalism because it helps the social good.
@eaodak Show me the Biblical passage where Jesus says that the government should take instead of the help being freely given? Also, show me the passage where Jesus disagrees that capitalism can being a help to the poor.
Another thing. Do you think Jesus would honestly discourage someone from working to build wealth if the intention was to give it to the poor or spread the word of his salvation?
@eaodak Jesus hated the wealthy that did not obey the two basic commandments of loving God & loving your neighbor which basically sum up the 10 commandments.
I sincerely doubt your a Christian because one has to twist things in the Bible to claim that God hates all the wealthy. Its like that passage in 1 Timothy 6:10: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." That has been twisted to mean money is the root of all kinds of evil.
@conservative608 Do you understand what the word 'pedantic' means? If the 'love' of money is the root of all evil, all that it is saying is that insentient money is neither 'good' nor 'evil' but the human beings that amass large supplies of it are indeed 'evil', as they clearly 'love' money, a completely unnatural contrivance. Is that clearer for you? Or do you care to 'be correct' on some other meaningless point?
@eaodak The reason why the love of money was an issue with Jesus was the 1st Commandment. Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me." This explains why most wealth people are not Christians which fits what Jesus was talking about rich people not being able to enter heaven because their money has become their god. Giving to the poor, without faith in God, Jesus said in Isaiah 64:6 "... are like filthy rags". Jesus wanted to know that the young rich man loved God more than his money.
@DonnyDeutschisBigBro "I repeat: you cannot make society a better place by oppressing the genius of its most prominent members for the sake of its most stupid." I love to read when the latter defends so passionately the former... Well done Donny! Now go put that slave collar back on before your 'genius' master sees....
@DonnyDeutschisBigBro No doubt, but at the same time rewards have to be given out proportionally. Genius, like any other genetic gift, is the product of luck. The man born intelligent is no mopre to credit for his brilliance than the stupid man is to blame for his dullness. There is little we can do about the vagarancies of the genetic lottery.
@DonnyDeutschisBigBro Exactly, and this is the aim of most forms of Socialism: to elevate and liberate the possibilities of natural genius over the indiscriminate promotion of the idiotic by the arbitrary allotment of wealth. No one critiques Big Energy or Pharma for their profits. They critique them for environmental destruction, for exploitation of miners, for turning our schools & prisons into doping factories, for promoting dangerous drugs & for raising the cost of vital care.
The misconstrual of multinational corporate hegemony as mutualism by the ever-growing hoard of vulgar libertarians is a dirty trick hoisted on the slaves by their industrial masters to convince them that the spiked rat wheel is not merely the only alternative to starvation, but the most benevolent & prosperous one conceivable. To subsistence wage workers: where is the fruit of your labor, who has absconded with it? Where is the land or resources whereby u might mutually profit from each other.
@U4EANetworksInc and yet Einstein ardently, almost angrily opposed Oppenheimer, Lemaitre and Heisenberg. Even the greatest minds have their limits and finally fall down. Does Einstein's failure to accept uncertainty, an expanding universe and QED make his mind a mediocre mind? Objectivity is measurable, testable, verifiable. In short it is proof by evidence based rationality not the faith based rationality of a work of fiction. Most importantly great "spirits" can still be demonstrably wrong.
I talked to a man today, he worked with a friend, manually to remodel gardens. His friend owned this company and payed a fair wage. Once owners are no longer your friends, they pay necessary wages, preferably to foreign workers. Running a big bussiness is not about valuing work, but about collecting wealth. Not necessarily as nice as in Rand.
She is a great writer, but seems so misunderstood. Rand is really about being just, not wealthy.
@0ldow Soo true, mostly because Dagny and Hank didn't worked for money, but for the pride of being good on what they do. For them, it was like playing a game: they took pride on being the best posible, to be the winners, to be the people who no one would surpass.
These detractors of Atlas, such as the small jrmsher33, should try to understand the morality that Rand wished to see, but is not possible in my opinion, morality without God.
A corporation is not a collective in the nature that some try to ascribe. It is a series of contracts with profit as it's goal. It has no morality. It is not human.
That all ideas are built upon ideas of past invention is not collectivism. This is clearly stated in the book.
Yeah, the problem with your argument is that every industry you have sighted is a collectivist venture. We live in the collectivist age of technology. Her philosophy is so dated, it was dated during her time. Basically, you should be ashamed for even thinking you have the privilege to use a computer by Ayn Rand's own philosophy little parrot. Little parrot with no idea's. You must really hate yourself by your adoption of her philosophy.
@jrmsher33 So because her philosophy is old, then it's bad. Ideas aren't accepted or rejected based on their age, but their soundness. I have never read anything about her that would suggest an affront to technology or innovation. Speaking of parrots, takes one to know one I guess, since these aren't your ideas. Arguments about her "dated philosophy" and bigoted rejection ethical egoism instead of taking the time to learn its implications are ever present in recent media. You must hate yourself
Pursuit of profit for the top (who are not necessarily the innovators or creators of their jobs), not the workers. I have a hard time saluting trust fund babies who play with corporate rules sufficiently to move middle class jobs to countries with no meaningful safety or environmental regulations. There is no nobility in what has been happening in the U.S. since Reagan screwed everything up.
Ayn Rand was relevant in the 50's before the Federal government got too big and too intrusive. What she didn't want to happen already has. You can't apply her philosophy to giant corporate moguls and to modern day investors. She was speaking about honest moral work. Real work. Not today's big corporations that help write the laws to favor themselves and buy elections. Can't you see that? There's nothing wrong with making a buck or inventing new things, but today, it's done at whose expense?
@coffeespookie She spoke against the systems you speak of as well. She merely defended the working man and entrepreneur who worked for their own gain in a way that is not designed to harm those around them for their own good. She believed in a mutual bond, or at least one that wasn't parasitic to either party.
Go ahead and get rich. Step on others heads to get it. You shouldn't worry about what other people think about you. Throw a hot coffee at a bum. What matters most is that you have everything you want and make as much profit as you can. Don't just starve poor people, snatch away their plate. You are supreme. Next time it rains, splash those people waiting at the bus stop. It is their fault they don't have a car. Make enough for your own privilege, then hoard the rest.
@trailrun12 Very intelligent dick head. Read the Preamble, OUR Government's role is to secure the 'general Welfare' (Capitalized in the Constitution).
Jefferson spoke against the Corporate structure. Franklin made it very clear that you have NO RIGHT to any property besides the clothes on your back and a hut, all else is generated by the People and is ultimately owned by the People.
Get an education and you won't sound so stupid. Or don't it matters not....
@trailrun12 How is living a life in a cube working long hours with little pay and no benefits for someone else's $ happiness? Besides, only the least inspired and most base equate $ with happiness.
I don't have a problem with people getting rich if they actually produce something of value to society, go ahead, knock yourselves out, make a trillion bucks for all I care. I do have a problem with so many people getting rich due to non-productive activities, such as many of the rich today (getting rich off the casino global stock market, slave labour to China, lobbying conmgress, corporate welfare, etc).
Rand was a sociopathic drug addict and cult leader.
Her 'heroes' are all criminals.
AND just to make it richer, she wrote about child rapist and murderer, William Hickman,
In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. -Journals of Ayn Rand p21-22
Rand was a sociopathic drug addict and cult leader.
Her 'heroes' are all criminals.
AND just to make it richer, she wrote about child rapist and murderer, William Hickman,
In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. -Journals of Ayn Rand p21-22
Rand said of William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22)
Further, vacation dates back to William the Bastard of Normandy who brought the custom to England. Law courts and universities took a long summer break, long before your precious socialists.
@yammerz A majority of the population in the US now lives better than anyone in the US lived 40 years ago. How cool is that? It wasn't the govenment sending people to the moon that did that, it was individuals staying home and working on things that they perceived as in their own interest.
Your claim is unsubstantiated, you are not a historian, you cannot randomly attribute anything as the cause of improvement for a society (and another question to ask how much improvement, to whom, and as much as there should have been?)
I think, however, that you are at least admitting that the pursuit of self-interest ( including to the extend of greed) is the basis of Rand's philosophy. I don't see why you should be in denial, Rand would tell you it herself.
@yammerz I can attribute anything I want to. you are free (for now) to accept or reject it. Self interest, limited in ones self interest from use of force, because only from refraining from use of force can the mind be set free to produce.
By contrast, the shortages that were the chief product of communism, or the waiting lists that are the chief product of socialist medicine, are due to greed of the lazy and incompetent for what they have not earned.
You have now refused to engage in reasonable dialogue. Firstly, I will not accept vague statements that take advantage human creativity as proof for overzealously supporting capitalism. I repeat, you are not a historian and I will not approve of unproven statements. Secondly, you seem to think I am a communist and keep on committing a strawman fallacy. (Not to mention, you have little educational background on socialism.) I leave you until you learn how to make a valid argument.
@eaodak Ragnar stole previously stolen goods. Thieves hate that, don't they. Francisco blew up his property rather than let it be stolen. That also annoys thieves. I can see why it makes you nervous.
@DonMeaker "Ragnar stole" Who cares the rationalization, Ragnar was a violent pirate who used force to achieve his ends. Case closed there.
Fransisco induced investors for the sole purpose of ruining them. He could have set fire to his own property without resorting to fraud. Case closed again.
Galt was an outright terrorist. Strike three for Rand and Randism. Thank you for playing.
@eaodak In the novel, Ragnar used force to counter other thieves. In the novel, people who copied Fransisco's investing strageties were ruined because they sought to gain what they had not earned. Galt a terrorist? Rather, he was tortured by the government trolls you seem to idolize. He withdrew his support from the system.
@eaodak No. You got it wrong. When one party uses force, they make the use of force permitted for all. I refuse to let only evil use force without answer. Once one party stoops to force, response will be in kind. That is objective. All were punished by theft, because productive men were drawn away from protective work to protect their own and punish evil. Rand, different from the Soviets thought that violence was necessary to protect the productive from thieves. Soviets used violence as thieves
@DonMeaker "When one party uses force, they make the use of force permitted for all."
So then Rand's philosophy is 'Might makes Right." as no one will ever admit that they 'initiated' the force/violence....
"Rand, different from the Soviets thought that violence was necessary to protect the productive from thieves. Soviets used violence as thieves" You forgot to mention, "In my and Rand's opinion."
Can you not see this basic problem with her ideology???
@eaodak Wrong again bucko. The point is that people can deal with each other as productive people, and build a better world. Or they can use might makes right, and find that they have nothing to steal. Socialism begins with lies, moves to theft, enslavement, torture, murder. Productive people are also more productive at making weapons, so Nazi and Soviet approaches fail. Then trolls like you fall back onto lies.
@DonMeaker "The point is that people can deal with each other as productive people, and build a better world."
Don, you are so full of shit it's embarrassing. But only embarrassing to you. Listen up retard, if the 'Creators' (read: Robber Barons) thought that they could make 5 cents by 'Going Galt', these vampires would have done it LONG ago.
'Libertarianism' is an absolute failure in the 19th Century, and it's a bigger joke today.
@DonMeaker Don, you're just another ignorant douche bag peddling this garden variety ideology spawned by a sociopathic drug addicted cult leader. Congrats asshole, you made it to the Middle.
LONG on bullshit, short on reality. Now back to that fast food job with you!
@DonMeaker No, Don, I don't want 'your money'. I want you to pay your way and not be such a fucking blood sucker. It's so laughable that people like you deny the various systemic-communal benefits that come with society.
I would make some comment about your parentage, but I can't even imagine what kind of womb of puss and scum and pig shit you fell out of, but no one is proud of you.
Now pay those taxes or face prison. I will be more than happy to sit on the jury that convicts.
@eaodak Don't worry. Every government check you cash comes with an audit trail. Perhaps some day we will give you the chance to be virtuous, and pay that back. Of course if you can't then your property, gained with stolen goods, can be seized and sold at auction to pay your debt.
Laughable is the pretention that you produce anything of value.
After reading Atlas Shrugged I thought that the collectivist characters were goofy, exaggerated and one dimensional, akin to those in Catch-22... but reading your comments it seems that they're based in reality.
@thegillotine09 Yes, I have very little to say to an obvious sociopath. That's true. But I do have one thing to say, "Please remember to SuperSize my order or I'll complain to your manager...."
I'm an obvious sociopath because you remind me of Bertram Scudder? Nice.
And Jesus said a lot of things. He said that illness was caused by demons. Go figure.
(and FYI I'm an actuary... I've never worked in fast food although I did work for a landscaping company in high school. Work is good for you. You should try it some time. It builds character).
@thegillotine09 You're a sociopath because you buy into Rand. If you comments are merely intended to irritate, then perhaps you are a sociopath, but you are certainly then an asshole.
So you figure out how to fuck people out of money? Charming. How about a real job where you contribute to the society that has given you everything and not be a leech peddling some garden variety ideology? You should try it, it builds character.
lol sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. I never said I buy into Rand I only said that I read Atlas Shrugged and that you remind me of some 1-dimensional characters in there. It's interesting that you assume anyone who has read the book accepts its ideology.
"Society" as some mythological entity has not given me anything. However many people have given me things and I paid them the price they asked for it without implying that they are leaches.
@thegillotine09 Wonderful insights, thanks for sharing. But.... who cares what you think? Or better, what makes you think for a moment that I care what you think of me?
Society is the collective of individual units, each of them fighting an never-ending battle to fulfill their own goals...whether they realism it or not. To try to give on on that battle is to either die or fail miserably.
Now, gratitude is a sickness suffered by a dogs. To do something because of the gratitude, is to lose.
@NathanRomml Yes, your first sentence seems to be the most factual. Now please go back on your medication, we don't want to see more Arizona gunman...
@NathanRomml What makes you think I care one way or the other. If you are from Pluto it would hardly matter to me.
I guess the answer to your second thing is how you 'define' success. Some are failure before they take their first step... Do you fancy yourself a terrorist? Do you have plans for teaching society a lesson? How is your manifesto coming along?
@NathanRomml 19 pages, boy oh boy that's wonderful. And how is that medication going? You may need to take your meds consistently for it to be effective... It seems that you're lapsing. My interest in you? Pure entertaintment... I'm just wondering when I should set my DVR up to record your failed 'blaze of glory'... any hints?
@eaodak Regardless of peoples opinions. Someone did start the fight.
If I own a farm and grow crops, then the Soviets come to take those crops with the assumption that I will be shot if I do not let them, then the Soviets were absolutely the first to initiate force, no opinion needed. Just fact.
That's how communism works. Everything gets taken from you under threat of violence and hopefully you get back enough to survive.
Can you not see this basic problem with your ideology?
@eaodak That means that one person, in actuality, started the fight and the other did not, and that fact exists regardless of our opinion of it even though it may be obscured.
@galaktar ""There are more of us than there are of you, so give us your stuff." - That, defines "Might makes right"
I agree that that is ONE way to define it. It can as easily fall into, "I have more money than you other 100 million, so give me the rest of your stuff." As well as, "I have a monopoly on violence, so give me your stuff." Rand wants to remove that monopoly from The People and give it to her Creators.
Rand LOVES violence.... Ragnar, Fransisco and Galt, all violent.
@eaodak How could I steal from you if I was only allowed to trade freely with you, regardless of how rich I am. If I took something that was yours without paying and without your consent that would be stealing.
Also, do you know what a monopoly on violence means? That means that only one person or group can use violence to the exclusion of all others. For instance, the government can have a monopoly on violence if no one else is allowed to own firearms.
@galaktar "For instance, the government can have a monopoly on violence if no one else is allowed to own firearms. "
Correct. The Government, OUR Government, you know, "We the People..." have the current monopoly of violence. Randism would like to remove this from The People, and place it in the hands of her Creator Class.
@eaodak Where on Earth does she say that? I'm pretty sure that she never says that she only wants right people to have guns. And why do you think I'm trying to take away your guns. You can have them too. You, personally...to defend against ME if I ever try to steal from YOU.
The government does not currently have a monopoly on violence, since individuals have weapons too.
Also, let me get this straight. You think a monopoly on violence is a good thing?
@galaktar "Also, let me get this straight. You think a monopoly on violence is a good thing?" I'm not so sure I would call it a 'good' thing.... More like a necessary thing. Necessary because while I agree there is an objective universe, we experience it subjectively. That subjectivity leads to neat distinctions between Ragnar's 'good theft' and Robin Hood's 'bad theft'.
@eaodak Didn't the actual Robin Hood steal from the government because they had stolen from the people?
Anyway, Ayn Rand didn't like the way that the Robin Hood myth was twisted and used to justify stealing from a stereotypical "privileged person" whether or not they had committed any crime.
For the government to pretend to be Robin Hood is the ultimate absurdity.
It's like King John going through the English countryside with his band of merry men.
@galaktar "Didn't the actual Robin Hood steal from the government because they had stolen from the people?" I don't believe that those who lived under feudalism considered it a 'government' as such. That's rather histrionic of you....
@eaodak You're also assuming that the government can see things objectively. Instead of worshiping a god, you have replaced him with an all-knowing benevolent bureaucracy....which does not exist.
Why would a government with a monopoly on force need to have things like elections, or due process? What event, in the history of civilization, makes you think that that is a recipe for a just and moral society?
@galaktar "You're also assuming that the government can see things objectively."
Well, I'm not assuming 'the government' can see anything. "Government' is a legal fiction we create. The 'people' that comprise it can see things subjectively, just like the rest of us.
Why do you people insist on casting 'The Government' as some sort of foreign and alien 'thing'?
@eaodak When the government isn't subservient to the individuals that make it up, it is a foreign and alien thing. The government and the people become two separate entities.
You think the government should be the brain of the country, I think it should be the skin.
@galaktar "When the government isn't subservient to the individuals that make it up"
So I STRONGLY encourage you to be a man, stand up for your convictions and try and overthrow The Government if that's your choice. I will eagerly be scanning the news for the latest psychotic that crashes his plane into a The Government building. May that loon be you.
Or do you plan on bombing a place like the Murrah Building? I'm sure you think that those children deserved what they got. Fucking nut!
@eaodak See there you go. Your collective minded thought goes on blaming me for the crimes of others.
Do I get to blame you for the crimes of Stalin or Mao? Are you guilty by association. If I applied the concept of social justice here, I could execute you on the spot for belonging to a group that has killed an average of 900,000 people per year during the 20th century.
As a member of an oppressed group I demand reparations!
@galaktar "See there you go. Your collective minded thought goes on blaming me for the crimes of others."
No Crazy! You made some vague threat that you intend on rebelling, so I said you should follow your crazy notions, but that they would and should lead you to ruin.
@galaktar "The government does not currently have a monopoly on violence, since individuals have weapons too. "
It's like talking to my 10 year old niece....
This does not change the fact that government has a monopoly on violence. Even without weapons, you can still be violent, so by your definition, there could NEVER be a monopoly on violence.
@eaodak So because the government has tanks, warplanes, etc everything else doesn't count? Is that what you're getting at? History is littered with examples of militarily inferior forces defeating larger ones. Hell, you can buy a AR 15. It shoots the same size round as the M-16 and although it is only semi-automatic the M-16 isn't supposed to be used in the 3 round burst mode anyway.
It's like talking to a gorilla wearing a monocle...to show how smart he is.
Because it is stupid and easy for dumb business dopes to understand and justifies greed in a silly poorly written ala comic book and twilight style.
duaneburnett 3 weeks ago
@duaneburnett "Because it is stupid and easy for dumb business dopes"
I'll forward your comment to all my business dope friends. Maybe they'll remember your comment when they make hiring & firing decisions.
BruceD1776 1 week ago
@BruceD1776 Good I do not work for internet hacks ,nutri-system losers and general turds like business men anyway. Only a loser and dummy would believe in one of Rand's poorly written, science, history,political ,human and factual fantasies. Do yourself a favor and read Spider man at least there is cool comics. You are naive and easily impressed if you think Rand anything but hack. She was,and also her films sucked too. Now go put your tooth under the pillow. Baby!
duaneburnett 1 week ago
About oil companys, the problem is NOT that they make profit the problem is much of their 'profits' are actually handed directly to them by the US government 30+ billion a year, where in the ideals of Ayn Rand do government handouts exist? If you are going to masterbate to Ayn Rands philosophy perhaps you should apply it to your own thinking.
lerch25 2 months ago
Big fan of Atlas Shrugged
great story and inspiring Characters
RSG132 4 months ago
(cont2) Furthermore, I would venture to claim that there hasn't been any assumptions Rand as a ideologist has made that have really been scientifically invalidated by economic theories. There is LOT to be discovered in this area since we've never had a completely laissez-faire economy to test her assumptions upon. Rand is equivalent to Moses believing in Jesus, WAY ahead of her time. Today's economist are still busy saying how preposterous it is to try. The world is still FLAT! Don't question!
U4EANetworksInc 4 months ago
@U4EANetworksInc "there hasn't been any assumptions Rand as a ideologist has made that have really been scientifically invalidated by economic theories." You can NOT scientifically invalidate a faith based assumption that does not exist. This is why a biblical god can NOT be disproved by science because there is no evidence for something that does not exist. The associated events in the bible however can NOT be taken literally because they ARE falsifiable. Events are falsifiable, beliefs are NOT
generationalist 4 months ago
@U4EANetworksInc your "Moses believing in Jesus" comment is a non-sequitur. Where in the Tanakh does it say that the fictional character Moses believed in Jesus, fictional or human? Please cite your passage from the Tanakh. How can the myth known as Moses be equivalent to a real Ayn Rand? Are you saying Ayn Rand was a prophet a seer of the future? That would go against free will which is a tenet of objectivism. Also, free will does not exist, only a probabilistic reality from neuron interaction.
generationalist 4 months ago
(cont) Epistomology is religious IN nature, i mean. Mind itself is subjective, as is morality, and all theories UNTIL they are validated. Your argument about Rand viewing science and objectivism being opposed is off; her being opposed to science is ridiculous! Why do you suppose there is an Ayn Rand Institute? I suppose its because Rand made absolutely no contributions to science, only to philosophy? - Philosophy CAUSES science to happen, and Rand was a visionary and inspiration to that regard
U4EANetworksInc 4 months ago
@U4EANetworksInc you do not understand what a scientific theory is if you believe that it is ever subjective. A scientific theory is no longer a conjecture, nor an hypothesis but has progressed to be supported by peer reviewed empirical evidence. It is NOT an idea or belief. That would be a conjecture. An hypothesis has some tangible evidence to support a POTENTIAL causal relationship but is yet to be validated. Rarely is a theory ever invalidated, conjectures and hypotheses are frequently.
generationalist 4 months ago
Ayn Rand never wrote any scientific treatise. She openly opposed science as a foundation of economics and also law. Atlas Shrugged is an attempt at proof by analogy which according to Bjarne Stroustrup is fraud. There are other books that preach morality through fiction and I cite the bible as physical evidence. Fiction is fiction and I will argue that the scientific method can produce an objectified economic system where the faith based fictional economic Rand system does not yield objectivity.
generationalist 4 months ago
@generationalist can you quote a passage Rand as evidence of said 'openly opposed science' as a foundation of economics or in the establishment of law? she wrote a lot about 'moral' society, yet science and morality mutually exclusive? since when? In fact, she wrote of natural laws coming into play; she recognized that man's laws are supposed to protect value-producers from the moochers of virtue. Moral virtue is an value, while subjective, you cannot take it out of the human economic equation.
U4EANetworksInc 4 months ago
@U4EANetworksInc An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - "Philosophy by it's nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment. Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true." This is as clear an argument against science from Ayn Rand's many moving goal posts as anyone could ever get out of her faith based ideology of objectivism. A subjective ideology/philosophy can not be empirically tested.
generationalist 4 months ago
'Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true.' yes, there is no science without mind, but there can be mind without science. Anyone can discover scientific facts and interpret them differently than someone who has a different working philosophy about science. Every science has rudimentary assumptions, which are built and continually validated upon working assumptions. economics as a science is no different, + 'epistomology' is religious is nature. its ALL mind!
U4EANetworksInc 4 months ago
@U4EANetworksInc science is the scientific method applied. It is a methodology; there are not sciences, there is only one science; the end product of the understanding from the method. There is NO mind only brain. The belief in a mind is a faith based tenet. Science is founded entirely on only one apriori - reality exists, not existence exists. Existence is the experiential understanding and awareness of reality as derived from empirical sensory experience. Consciousness is a function of memory.
generationalist 4 months ago
At what point does profit seeking stop being morale,or does ayn rand want to turn us into ferengis from startrek.
Whatever4690 5 months ago
@Whatever4690
When you change from voluntary trade to initiating force or fraud (aka big government) against others, it becomes immoral. Just like Rand said.
mustang607 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ayn Rand was a psychopath.
Plus Atlas Shrugged is not even a good book, insidiously boring and with the character of a standard table spoon. It didn't even make the ABC top 1001 books of all time, and for good reason!
Most people are devoted to it because it's the only book they've bothered to bloody well read in their sad lives.
SuperAntiZionist 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes 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
here's where I feel Ayn Rand contradicts herself. At first she says that you don't have to justify what you are doing with how much it is for the public good, but then she explains that the very reason pursuit of ones own self interest is a good thing, is because it leads to products and innovations, which in the end serve "the public good". am I misunderstanding Ayn Rand here, or is that a contradiction? I'm not dissing Ayn Rand here, don't take it the wrong way.
Chaaarge 6 months ago
@Chaaarge I agree with your point. I think what she was trying to say is that if left alone, the beneficial products and innovations will survive regardless of the intent of the producer. That way, the best entrepreneurs/companies will succeed and lead society.
ACudmore2 6 months ago
@Chaaarge You are misunderstanding her argument, yes. Serving the "public good" is not what she argues should motivate what you produce. You should create because it brings you happiness in a rational sense - in other words because it makes your life better from an objective, concrete standpoint. To the extent that others value what you produce, they're willing to trade you something you value in exchange (money, a service, their own product, etc.). The "public good" is served by this trading.
swebbie 5 months ago
@swebbie Thank you :) awesome explanation. I love her books, my favorite one is anthem. So basically, you should do what brings you happiness and makes your life better, and the reason trading is good is because everyone gets what they want, and the so called "public good" is really just individuals pursuing their own self interest. So there technically is no "public", just individuals. Am I getting this right?
Chaaarge 5 months ago
@Chaaarge This is really important in understanding Rand's ideas... It is NOT simply doing what makes you happy. It's doing what makes you happy if it is rationally, objectively in your interest and does not come at the expense of someone else by way of forcing their hand. And beware anyone who trumpets "society" or "the public." The only entity that holds rights is the individual. If you take their rights away to "help the public" it is nothing more than some individuals enslaved to others.
swebbie 5 months ago
Businessman LOVE Ayn Rand because Ayn Rand was a chronic drug addict, welfare queen and all around hypocrite. Just like the very 'best' businessmen.
Your "Queen" was a sleaze and a fraud. Randism is PURE rubbish. And you poople are just Losers.
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Better a loser than a Leech.
AashiquiTheri 6 months ago
@AashiquiTheri And if you're part of the Ayn Rand cult, you're both a leech and a loser! Wow, a two time loser.... you must be proud of yourself. But of course that's what happens to the sheep for being a follower of a 30 year drug addict and welfare queen!
WhyMeMoFo 6 months ago
I'm young working for a small business and reading atlas shrugged for the philosophy. I'm not trying to justify my wealth, I want to learn!
natritious1 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's curious that Ayn Rand choose the name Rearden for one of her protagonists. It is of course Irish. In 1847 famine struck Ireland. People were reduced to eating grass and there was widespread cannibalism. One million people died. What were the landlords and people who controlled agricultural production doing? Shipping food out of the country. The argument being that the local population could not afford food so why not sell it to those who could. Parents watched their children die.
drmodestoesq 8 months ago
@drmodestoesq These are the kinds of things we can't change about society because of how things have come into fruition because of the things we try to fight against, these things wouldn't happen because of human nature mostly being naturally violent and if the market worked as it should have and if people did things right. I think most of what happens to Ireland is due to its history of violence and revolution a totally separate issue. I am an objectivist and I would have tried to help.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
@Sumdude54 Why would you have tried to help? It would be a pointless waste of time and effort. Why would it matter in the slightest if hundreds of thousands of children died of starvation. There's lots more where they came from to work in the mines, dig the canals and put in 16 hour days in the textile mills. The hero industrialist should not care. The Irish children were architects of their own misery. Any display of human empathy is a self-imposed slavery according to Rand.
drmodestoesq 7 months ago
@drmodestoesq These are silly arguments. Rand would say that where any person is forced to work (including by their parents or as wards of the state...ie, gov't), any business owner that employed such a workforce is contemptible. That's a classic example of the initiation of force, something Rand over and over again blasted as always and everywhere immoral and indefensible. Anyone who believes Rand or her philosophy sanctions such a scenario is clueless about what she believed.
swebbie 5 months ago
@swebbie I didn't say the Irish in the aftermath of the potato famine were forced to work. I said that the owners of the means of production (the landlords) were shipping food out of a country in the midst of mass starvation. The defenders of the laissez faire policy in Ireland were of the view that government assistance would make the grandfathers and grandmothers of Rearden lazy and habituated to handouts. You clearly had the choice to either buy food or not buy food.
drmodestoesq 5 months ago
Geniuses do what they are good at for the sake of doing it, not for monetary gain. Einstein didn't give up his 10-year struggle to formulate General Relativity just because he was being paid peanuts. He loved the subject, and did it because he loved it. Objectivism is just a contrived excuse for grown adults to justify having the mentality of a toddler going through his "MINE!" phase.
mtheory85 8 months ago
@mtheory85 Anyone does what they are good at because it is a joy to accomplish what you have the capacity to. As for monetary gain, that would depend upon whether an interest is an intended vocation; avocations are pursued simply for the enjoyment which someone may derive from pursuing them. The aforementioned need not have anything to do with Objectivism; it applies to anyone, as it should.
cosg9531 8 months ago
@mtheory85 You explained the goals and imagination of an objectivist the love of his work and what he gets for it. By profit lets say spiritual gain, I made money, I am proud that I made it because I worked hard to get doing what I love. If I give it away to people who don't deserve it a piece of what I love so much about my work life is given to them, which is my only ambition to do the work the self-satisfaction that I achieved it. Einstein is objectivist then if what you say is true.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
Whew. At first I thought you were going to be another progressive trying to alter what the book was about, but you turned out to be an ok guy. Here is to Atlantis.
jonathanlippe 8 months ago
" The sophistry of merchants inspired by the spirit of monopoly has confounded the common sense of mankind - Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations, Univ. of Chicago
edition , editor Edwin Cannan , pg. 519 ...............credit default swaps , quantitative easing ( QE2 ) , financial " instruments " ......
hieronomy 8 months ago
Because it makes them out to be the heroes of society? Did there really need to be a five minute video about this? Also, this dude looks and acts creepy and robotic
redsdisease 8 months ago
@redsdisease Not all of us are amazing actors or good public speakers, I highly doubt you are, and that isn't an insult neither am I.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
"Pharmaceutical companies who successfully develop lifesaving drugs... Oil companies who explore the earth the ends of the earth to extract more of a vital resource"
Translated from Bullshit:
Pharmaceutical companies who steal life-saving drugs from native populations and monopolize their production so they can sell them back for more money than they are worth....and Oil Companies that dominate local people to the ends of the earth to exploit a profitable resource and pollute the world.
LordXehenniar 9 months ago
@LordXehenniar Personally I think the oil industry is a primitive one, they are latching on to the infrastructure the government put in place and they exploit people because we run all our primitive machines on oil. That is not objectivism, they are a burden they seek power, sway government decisions and the future generations must realize that and get rid of them. But saying that pharmaceutical companies use primitive cultures medicines that obviously don't work for us is stupid.
Sumdude54 7 months ago
Ooo, Ooo, I know why!!
Because it lets them off the HOOK!!
leeroynaggins 9 months ago
Where is the video for why single two minimum wage job mother like Ayn Rand?
AleroR 9 months ago
Evolution has your number.
devilducky9 9 months ago
Comment removed
musicalidea 9 months ago
The speech starts with his right to his "reason"....and he comes to the conclusion that his "reasons" will cause violence...Maybe he should change his "reasoning?" if he see it will lead to riots....right?
joraejean 11 months ago
Sorry but most businessmen don't read books.
chigong980 11 months ago
Brilliant, every word true!
MrBeemer100 11 months ago
Fascinating. So the public good does not include businessmen. What are you lot, if you're not part of the public? Oh, that's right, you're above all the rest of us. Because a bitter old wanna-be philosopher who was laughed at by every philosopher in the world said so.
Pizuzuzimmer 11 months ago
Businessmen love Atlas Shrugged because businessmen tend to have zero aesthetic judgment. As a group, they know SHIT about art. Their careers are about mercilessly pursuing mammon. They laugh at the story of great artists dying in the mud. They spend their money on rubbish novels by Russian immigrants who lived in the US for 70 years and never learned to speak English properly and call it 'great literature.' They know as much about great literature as the illiterate do.
Pizuzuzimmer 11 months ago
What garbage is this? From this summary, the impression is that this book teaches an ideology that nobody follows, as it is not viable in the current economic world.
There is no incentive for massive corporations like Nike or Tyson to produce quality goods, as they have to compete with other giant corporations who do the same thing for the same reasons. The undermining of quality for the sake of economic superiority usually involves slave labor, corruption, and weakening the middle class.
silencer299 11 months ago
@silencer299 Exactly, the vulgar libertarians equate multinational capitalism, which requires the state to prop up its debt machine and all-but-formal oligopoly with an idealistic mutualism of the "free market". The geniuses are equally as marginalized as the sweatshop workers in the face of those masters of the bottom line who control our lives.
musicalidea 9 months ago
Although I am a Christian that does not subscribe to most of Ayn Rand's moral philosophies, I do agree that pursuit of capitalism is moral. I believe Jesus wants every man to earn enough to support his or her family, stay out of debt (i.e. Dave Ramsey) and earn a lot to give to others. There are even more reasons which are global. YouTube search "The Other Side of Outsourcing". India & Pakistan are at peace because of capitalism. Poor (true poor) in 3rd world are moving up like us 200yrsago
conservative608 1 year ago
@conservative608 Precisely. We can best take care of our neighbors by taking care of ourselves.
Schwad93 1 year ago
@Schwad93 Correction: We can best take care of our neighbors by taking care of ourselves first. I want to be perfectly clear here and in all of my posts on this video were not clear. I do not think pursuit of capitalism in and of itself is moral except to say that Jesus wanted no one to be a sluggard, to take care of one's family & neighbors. Ayn & I part ways there. Seeing as a social good can be a byproduct of capitalism, Jesus would be for capitalism because it helps the social good.
conservative608 10 months ago
@conservative608 Jesus was clearly a Libertarian Socialist.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Show me the Biblical passage where Jesus says that the government should take instead of the help being freely given? Also, show me the passage where Jesus disagrees that capitalism can being a help to the poor.
Another thing. Do you think Jesus would honestly discourage someone from working to build wealth if the intention was to give it to the poor or spread the word of his salvation?
conservative608 1 year ago
@conservative608 Jesus hated the wealthy and told them that they were going to hell. Have you never read the Bible?
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Jesus hated the wealthy that did not obey the two basic commandments of loving God & loving your neighbor which basically sum up the 10 commandments.
I sincerely doubt your a Christian because one has to twist things in the Bible to claim that God hates all the wealthy. Its like that passage in 1 Timothy 6:10: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." That has been twisted to mean money is the root of all kinds of evil.
conservative608 1 year ago
@conservative608 Do you understand what the word 'pedantic' means? If the 'love' of money is the root of all evil, all that it is saying is that insentient money is neither 'good' nor 'evil' but the human beings that amass large supplies of it are indeed 'evil', as they clearly 'love' money, a completely unnatural contrivance. Is that clearer for you? Or do you care to 'be correct' on some other meaningless point?
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak The reason why the love of money was an issue with Jesus was the 1st Commandment. Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me." This explains why most wealth people are not Christians which fits what Jesus was talking about rich people not being able to enter heaven because their money has become their god. Giving to the poor, without faith in God, Jesus said in Isaiah 64:6 "... are like filthy rags". Jesus wanted to know that the young rich man loved God more than his money.
conservative608 10 months ago
I repeat: you cannot make society a better place by oppressing the genius of its most prominent members for the sake of its most stupid.
DonnyDeutschisBigBro 1 year ago 30
@DonnyDeutschisBigBro May John Galt hear you bro xD
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@DonnyDeutschisBigBro "I repeat: you cannot make society a better place by oppressing the genius of its most prominent members for the sake of its most stupid." I love to read when the latter defends so passionately the former... Well done Donny! Now go put that slave collar back on before your 'genius' master sees....
eaodak 1 year ago
@DonnyDeutschisBigBro No doubt, but at the same time rewards have to be given out proportionally. Genius, like any other genetic gift, is the product of luck. The man born intelligent is no mopre to credit for his brilliance than the stupid man is to blame for his dullness. There is little we can do about the vagarancies of the genetic lottery.
chefshitpiece 11 months ago
@DonnyDeutschisBigBro lol what a smug baby
RaymondoPerson 10 months ago
@DonnyDeutschisBigBro Exactly, and this is the aim of most forms of Socialism: to elevate and liberate the possibilities of natural genius over the indiscriminate promotion of the idiotic by the arbitrary allotment of wealth. No one critiques Big Energy or Pharma for their profits. They critique them for environmental destruction, for exploitation of miners, for turning our schools & prisons into doping factories, for promoting dangerous drugs & for raising the cost of vital care.
musicalidea 9 months ago
The misconstrual of multinational corporate hegemony as mutualism by the ever-growing hoard of vulgar libertarians is a dirty trick hoisted on the slaves by their industrial masters to convince them that the spiked rat wheel is not merely the only alternative to starvation, but the most benevolent & prosperous one conceivable. To subsistence wage workers: where is the fruit of your labor, who has absconded with it? Where is the land or resources whereby u might mutually profit from each other.
musicalidea 9 months ago
@DonnyDeutschisBigBro yes, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."- Albert Einstien
U4EANetworksInc 5 months ago
@U4EANetworksInc and yet Einstein ardently, almost angrily opposed Oppenheimer, Lemaitre and Heisenberg. Even the greatest minds have their limits and finally fall down. Does Einstein's failure to accept uncertainty, an expanding universe and QED make his mind a mediocre mind? Objectivity is measurable, testable, verifiable. In short it is proof by evidence based rationality not the faith based rationality of a work of fiction. Most importantly great "spirits" can still be demonstrably wrong.
generationalist 4 months ago
I talked to a man today, he worked with a friend, manually to remodel gardens. His friend owned this company and payed a fair wage. Once owners are no longer your friends, they pay necessary wages, preferably to foreign workers. Running a big bussiness is not about valuing work, but about collecting wealth. Not necessarily as nice as in Rand.
She is a great writer, but seems so misunderstood. Rand is really about being just, not wealthy.
0ldow 1 year ago
@0ldow Soo true, mostly because Dagny and Hank didn't worked for money, but for the pride of being good on what they do. For them, it was like playing a game: they took pride on being the best posible, to be the winners, to be the people who no one would surpass.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
The term "businessmen" today has conflated fascists who cozy up to the guns of government as a shortcut to free market competetion, with capitalists.
So when you say 'businessmen Love Atlas Shrugged', you are implying something that isn't quite precisely true.
Capitalists love Atlas Shrugged-- for the reasons you describe.
But not all businessman are capitalists.
IBM buying special interest government treatment via Moynihan in the 80's was not 'capitalism,' that was fascism.
fredianoB 1 year ago
I maintain that it is possible to believe most of what Ayn Rand taught and STILL believe in god (not necessarily religion).
jscottupton 1 year ago
I swear that as each generation goes by, the Ayn Rand collective (snicker) gets kookier and kookier.
pneumatictrousers 1 year ago
Well stated video. Best book I've read.
These detractors of Atlas, such as the small jrmsher33, should try to understand the morality that Rand wished to see, but is not possible in my opinion, morality without God.
A corporation is not a collective in the nature that some try to ascribe. It is a series of contracts with profit as it's goal. It has no morality. It is not human.
That all ideas are built upon ideas of past invention is not collectivism. This is clearly stated in the book.
StupidPeasant 1 year ago
Yeah, the problem with your argument is that every industry you have sighted is a collectivist venture. We live in the collectivist age of technology. Her philosophy is so dated, it was dated during her time. Basically, you should be ashamed for even thinking you have the privilege to use a computer by Ayn Rand's own philosophy little parrot. Little parrot with no idea's. You must really hate yourself by your adoption of her philosophy.
jrmsher33 1 year ago
@jrmsher33 So because her philosophy is old, then it's bad. Ideas aren't accepted or rejected based on their age, but their soundness. I have never read anything about her that would suggest an affront to technology or innovation. Speaking of parrots, takes one to know one I guess, since these aren't your ideas. Arguments about her "dated philosophy" and bigoted rejection ethical egoism instead of taking the time to learn its implications are ever present in recent media. You must hate yourself
Krad787 1 year ago
Pursuit of profit for the top (who are not necessarily the innovators or creators of their jobs), not the workers. I have a hard time saluting trust fund babies who play with corporate rules sufficiently to move middle class jobs to countries with no meaningful safety or environmental regulations. There is no nobility in what has been happening in the U.S. since Reagan screwed everything up.
CTHULHUSURVIVOR 1 year ago
Businessmen love Atlas Shrugged because 'businessmen are just about the worst kind of criminal cocksucker you could ever come across.' -George Carlin
eaodak 1 year ago
Ayn Rand was relevant in the 50's before the Federal government got too big and too intrusive. What she didn't want to happen already has. You can't apply her philosophy to giant corporate moguls and to modern day investors. She was speaking about honest moral work. Real work. Not today's big corporations that help write the laws to favor themselves and buy elections. Can't you see that? There's nothing wrong with making a buck or inventing new things, but today, it's done at whose expense?
coffeespookie 1 year ago
@coffeespookie She spoke against the systems you speak of as well. She merely defended the working man and entrepreneur who worked for their own gain in a way that is not designed to harm those around them for their own good. She believed in a mutual bond, or at least one that wasn't parasitic to either party.
Mirithonomy 1 year ago 5
Go ahead and get rich. Step on others heads to get it. You shouldn't worry about what other people think about you. Throw a hot coffee at a bum. What matters most is that you have everything you want and make as much profit as you can. Don't just starve poor people, snatch away their plate. You are supreme. Next time it rains, splash those people waiting at the bus stop. It is their fault they don't have a car. Make enough for your own privilege, then hoard the rest.
coffeespookie 1 year ago
@coffeespookie Somebody doesn't get it.
CrimsonEdge38 1 year ago
@coffeespookie Exactly
draphaelc 1 year ago
@coffeespookie "pursuit of happiness" - apparently you don't believe in it. Move to Cuba moron.
trailrun12 1 year ago
@trailrun12 Very intelligent dick head. Read the Preamble, OUR Government's role is to secure the 'general Welfare' (Capitalized in the Constitution).
Jefferson spoke against the Corporate structure. Franklin made it very clear that you have NO RIGHT to any property besides the clothes on your back and a hut, all else is generated by the People and is ultimately owned by the People.
Get an education and you won't sound so stupid. Or don't it matters not....
eaodak 1 year ago
@trailrun12 How is living a life in a cube working long hours with little pay and no benefits for someone else's $ happiness? Besides, only the least inspired and most base equate $ with happiness.
musicalidea 9 months ago
I don't have a problem with people getting rich if they actually produce something of value to society, go ahead, knock yourselves out, make a trillion bucks for all I care. I do have a problem with so many people getting rich due to non-productive activities, such as many of the rich today (getting rich off the casino global stock market, slave labour to China, lobbying conmgress, corporate welfare, etc).
MegaAvalonn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
15 people are against freedom
tookonehourtogetthis 1 year ago
Ayn Rand was a cunt and her books are boring and stupid as fuck
r3dfl4ck4l1 1 year ago
callow
JesusConvictScorpion 1 year ago
@JesusConvictScorpion Yeah because fancy Marxist speak is above simple economic truths
dudeofdixie 1 year ago
To bad Ayn is no longer alive so you could wash her feet.
alantjost 1 year ago
How can the main characters be 'inspiring hero's' when they're so unutterably superior to everyone else?
Stube437 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rand was a sociopathic drug addict and cult leader.
Her 'heroes' are all criminals.
AND just to make it richer, she wrote about child rapist and murderer, William Hickman,
In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. -Journals of Ayn Rand p21-22
eaodak 1 year ago
Rand was a sociopathic drug addict and cult leader.
Her 'heroes' are all criminals.
AND just to make it richer, she wrote about child rapist and murderer, William Hickman,
In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. -Journals of Ayn Rand p21-22
eaodak 1 year ago
Rand said of William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22)
eaodak 1 year ago
Further, vacation dates back to William the Bastard of Normandy who brought the custom to England. Law courts and universities took a long summer break, long before your precious socialists.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
Universities and the "law courts" were full of rich intellectuals, unlike today i.e. minority of the population.
yammerz 1 year ago
@yammerz A majority of the population in the US now lives better than anyone in the US lived 40 years ago. How cool is that? It wasn't the govenment sending people to the moon that did that, it was individuals staying home and working on things that they perceived as in their own interest.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
Your claim is unsubstantiated, you are not a historian, you cannot randomly attribute anything as the cause of improvement for a society (and another question to ask how much improvement, to whom, and as much as there should have been?)
I think, however, that you are at least admitting that the pursuit of self-interest ( including to the extend of greed) is the basis of Rand's philosophy. I don't see why you should be in denial, Rand would tell you it herself.
yammerz 1 year ago
@yammerz I can attribute anything I want to. you are free (for now) to accept or reject it. Self interest, limited in ones self interest from use of force, because only from refraining from use of force can the mind be set free to produce.
By contrast, the shortages that were the chief product of communism, or the waiting lists that are the chief product of socialist medicine, are due to greed of the lazy and incompetent for what they have not earned.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
You have now refused to engage in reasonable dialogue. Firstly, I will not accept vague statements that take advantage human creativity as proof for overzealously supporting capitalism. I repeat, you are not a historian and I will not approve of unproven statements. Secondly, you seem to think I am a communist and keep on committing a strawman fallacy. (Not to mention, you have little educational background on socialism.) I leave you until you learn how to make a valid argument.
yammerz 1 year ago
@yammerz Odd that you declare yourself the boss of the Internet. Sad for you to have such delusions.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Actually, I think he said you were just full of shit....
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Ragnar stole previously stolen goods. Thieves hate that, don't they. Francisco blew up his property rather than let it be stolen. That also annoys thieves. I can see why it makes you nervous.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker "Ragnar stole" Who cares the rationalization, Ragnar was a violent pirate who used force to achieve his ends. Case closed there.
Fransisco induced investors for the sole purpose of ruining them. He could have set fire to his own property without resorting to fraud. Case closed again.
Galt was an outright terrorist. Strike three for Rand and Randism. Thank you for playing.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak In the novel, Ragnar used force to counter other thieves. In the novel, people who copied Fransisco's investing strageties were ruined because they sought to gain what they had not earned. Galt a terrorist? Rather, he was tortured by the government trolls you seem to idolize. He withdrew his support from the system.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker "Ragnar used force" Again, who cares as to the rationalization? Remember dolt, her ideology is OBJECTIVEISM. (Bullshit actually)
Fransisco engaged in outright fraud, who cares to his rationalizations too?
Galt was a terrorist. His language, "There are no innocents", "You will all be punished" is pretty damning in this regard.
Remember, Rand like the Soviets had NO problem with violence and force, as long as they held the monopoly.
Thank you for your confirmation.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak No. You got it wrong. When one party uses force, they make the use of force permitted for all. I refuse to let only evil use force without answer. Once one party stoops to force, response will be in kind. That is objective. All were punished by theft, because productive men were drawn away from protective work to protect their own and punish evil. Rand, different from the Soviets thought that violence was necessary to protect the productive from thieves. Soviets used violence as thieves
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker "When one party uses force, they make the use of force permitted for all."
So then Rand's philosophy is 'Might makes Right." as no one will ever admit that they 'initiated' the force/violence....
"Rand, different from the Soviets thought that violence was necessary to protect the productive from thieves. Soviets used violence as thieves" You forgot to mention, "In my and Rand's opinion."
Can you not see this basic problem with her ideology???
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Wrong again bucko. The point is that people can deal with each other as productive people, and build a better world. Or they can use might makes right, and find that they have nothing to steal. Socialism begins with lies, moves to theft, enslavement, torture, murder. Productive people are also more productive at making weapons, so Nazi and Soviet approaches fail. Then trolls like you fall back onto lies.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonMeaker "The point is that people can deal with each other as productive people, and build a better world."
Don, you are so full of shit it's embarrassing. But only embarrassing to you. Listen up retard, if the 'Creators' (read: Robber Barons) thought that they could make 5 cents by 'Going Galt', these vampires would have done it LONG ago.
'Libertarianism' is an absolute failure in the 19th Century, and it's a bigger joke today.
Wake up asshole!
eaodak 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Don, you're just another ignorant douche bag peddling this garden variety ideology spawned by a sociopathic drug addicted cult leader. Congrats asshole, you made it to the Middle.
LONG on bullshit, short on reality. Now back to that fast food job with you!
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Looking in the mirror again?I wouldn't eat fast food if dolts like you prepared it.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Gee Don, you got me with that one!
Listen up schmuck, pay your fucking taxes or face prison. You want to live here? Then you have to pay for the pleasure of my company.
Or get the fuck out and live in the woods, no one will miss you.....
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Yes, thug. You want my money, I know. Moocher. Moron. Thief that can't steal for himself.
Shame on you. Your mother must be so disappointed that you grew up to be a leech.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker No, Don, I don't want 'your money'. I want you to pay your way and not be such a fucking blood sucker. It's so laughable that people like you deny the various systemic-communal benefits that come with society.
I would make some comment about your parentage, but I can't even imagine what kind of womb of puss and scum and pig shit you fell out of, but no one is proud of you.
Now pay those taxes or face prison. I will be more than happy to sit on the jury that convicts.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Don't worry. Every government check you cash comes with an audit trail. Perhaps some day we will give you the chance to be virtuous, and pay that back. Of course if you can't then your property, gained with stolen goods, can be seized and sold at auction to pay your debt.
Laughable is the pretention that you produce anything of value.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Fat chance scum bag. I predict that your 'revolution' will end with your head on a pike.....
But until you try to enact your little wet dream, keep paying those taxes, cause we're all watching you! Jail is waiting!
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak No.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@eaodak
After reading Atlas Shrugged I thought that the collectivist characters were goofy, exaggerated and one dimensional, akin to those in Catch-22... but reading your comments it seems that they're based in reality.
thegillotine09 1 year ago
@thegillotine09 Spoken like a true shithead. Good luck on your long trip to the middle.....
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak
Spoken like someone with nothing to say :P
thegillotine09 1 year ago
@thegillotine09 Yes, I have very little to say to an obvious sociopath. That's true. But I do have one thing to say, "Please remember to SuperSize my order or I'll complain to your manager...."
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak
I'm an obvious sociopath because you remind me of Bertram Scudder? Nice.
And Jesus said a lot of things. He said that illness was caused by demons. Go figure.
(and FYI I'm an actuary... I've never worked in fast food although I did work for a landscaping company in high school. Work is good for you. You should try it some time. It builds character).
thegillotine09 1 year ago
@thegillotine09 You're a sociopath because you buy into Rand. If you comments are merely intended to irritate, then perhaps you are a sociopath, but you are certainly then an asshole.
So you figure out how to fuck people out of money? Charming. How about a real job where you contribute to the society that has given you everything and not be a leech peddling some garden variety ideology? You should try it, it builds character.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak
lol sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. I never said I buy into Rand I only said that I read Atlas Shrugged and that you remind me of some 1-dimensional characters in there. It's interesting that you assume anyone who has read the book accepts its ideology.
"Society" as some mythological entity has not given me anything. However many people have given me things and I paid them the price they asked for it without implying that they are leaches.
thegillotine09 1 year ago
@thegillotine09 Wonderful insights, thanks for sharing. But.... who cares what you think? Or better, what makes you think for a moment that I care what you think of me?
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak
He's not a sociopath. I am.
Society is the collective of individual units, each of them fighting an never-ending battle to fulfill their own goals...whether they realism it or not. To try to give on on that battle is to either die or fail miserably.
Now, gratitude is a sickness suffered by a dogs. To do something because of the gratitude, is to lose.
NathanRomml 1 year ago
@NathanRomml Yes, your first sentence seems to be the most factual. Now please go back on your medication, we don't want to see more Arizona gunman...
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak
What makes you think I'm American? Also, this guy in Arizona failed miserably.
NathanRomml 1 year ago
@NathanRomml What makes you think I care one way or the other. If you are from Pluto it would hardly matter to me.
I guess the answer to your second thing is how you 'define' success. Some are failure before they take their first step... Do you fancy yourself a terrorist? Do you have plans for teaching society a lesson? How is your manifesto coming along?
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak
I think it's coming along pretty well. I have already wrote 19 pages, and I'm think that it will be finished near March.
Also, I don't know if you care or not.....but obviously you do since you wrote back...
Oh, and yeah, it would be cool to make people do things by the means of terror....
NathanRomml 1 year ago
@NathanRomml 19 pages, boy oh boy that's wonderful. And how is that medication going? You may need to take your meds consistently for it to be effective... It seems that you're lapsing. My interest in you? Pure entertaintment... I'm just wondering when I should set my DVR up to record your failed 'blaze of glory'... any hints?
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak
Friday afternoon.
NathanRomml 1 year ago
@NathanRomml Um, what time zone? Hell, don't worry, I'm sure with the 24 hour news cycle I won't miss a thing!
Thank you in advance for providing a few moments of entertainment.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak
It was MY pleasure.
NathanRomml 1 year ago
@NathanRomml Was?
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Regardless of peoples opinions. Someone did start the fight.
If I own a farm and grow crops, then the Soviets come to take those crops with the assumption that I will be shot if I do not let them, then the Soviets were absolutely the first to initiate force, no opinion needed. Just fact.
That's how communism works. Everything gets taken from you under threat of violence and hopefully you get back enough to survive.
Can you not see this basic problem with your ideology?
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar "Regardless of peoples opinions. Someone did start the fight."
What are you babbling about here?
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak That means that one person, in actuality, started the fight and the other did not, and that fact exists regardless of our opinion of it even though it may be obscured.
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar What 'fight' are you referring to? What two people are you discussing??
Again, what are you babbling about Dolt?
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Any stereotypical fight. Unless you are in a boxing match, someone is the instigator.
Weren't you criticizing someone earlier about not being able to focus on the abstract?
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar What is the context here? I'm still not clear on why you are talking about this? What is your point?
Maybe this will be easier for you to explain than your ignorance about pharmacology... but more likely not.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak 1) No, Ragnar took back what was stolen. He performed the job that the police should have been doing.
2) Fransisco would have engaged in fraud if he had attempted to sell his land, but he didn't. It was taken from him.
3) Galt harmed no one, he simply refused to help them, and let them rot in a cesspool of their own making.
4) If every person has the right and ability to defend themselves, that is the exact opposite of a monopoly on force.
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar Why the need to be a worm? It's might makes right, thats Randism!
1) Ragnar - by your admission was a vigilante. He was an outright thief.
2) Fransisco's INTENT was to defraud his investors. Did you actually read the book???
3) Galt engaged in terrorism. His verbiage is exactly what terrorists say, "There are no innocents."
They were dogs and rotters and should have been shot like the animals they were....
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak No, right is right.
"There are more of us than there are of you, so give us your stuff." - That, defines "Might makes right" and is contrary to Objectivism.
1) So if I steal your bike, then your friend beats me up and then gives you your bike back, he is a thief?
2) His investors? You mean the people who intended to nationalize everything he had.
3) What terrorist act did Galt commit? He didn't kidnap anyone. Anything he destroyed belonged to him and was his to break.
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar ""There are more of us than there are of you, so give us your stuff." - That, defines "Might makes right"
I agree that that is ONE way to define it. It can as easily fall into, "I have more money than you other 100 million, so give me the rest of your stuff." As well as, "I have a monopoly on violence, so give me your stuff." Rand wants to remove that monopoly from The People and give it to her Creators.
Rand LOVES violence.... Ragnar, Fransisco and Galt, all violent.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak How could I steal from you if I was only allowed to trade freely with you, regardless of how rich I am. If I took something that was yours without paying and without your consent that would be stealing.
Also, do you know what a monopoly on violence means? That means that only one person or group can use violence to the exclusion of all others. For instance, the government can have a monopoly on violence if no one else is allowed to own firearms.
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar "For instance, the government can have a monopoly on violence if no one else is allowed to own firearms. "
Correct. The Government, OUR Government, you know, "We the People..." have the current monopoly of violence. Randism would like to remove this from The People, and place it in the hands of her Creator Class.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Where on Earth does she say that? I'm pretty sure that she never says that she only wants right people to have guns. And why do you think I'm trying to take away your guns. You can have them too. You, personally...to defend against ME if I ever try to steal from YOU.
The government does not currently have a monopoly on violence, since individuals have weapons too.
Also, let me get this straight. You think a monopoly on violence is a good thing?
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar "Also, let me get this straight. You think a monopoly on violence is a good thing?" I'm not so sure I would call it a 'good' thing.... More like a necessary thing. Necessary because while I agree there is an objective universe, we experience it subjectively. That subjectivity leads to neat distinctions between Ragnar's 'good theft' and Robin Hood's 'bad theft'.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Didn't the actual Robin Hood steal from the government because they had stolen from the people?
Anyway, Ayn Rand didn't like the way that the Robin Hood myth was twisted and used to justify stealing from a stereotypical "privileged person" whether or not they had committed any crime.
For the government to pretend to be Robin Hood is the ultimate absurdity.
It's like King John going through the English countryside with his band of merry men.
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar "Didn't the actual Robin Hood steal from the government because they had stolen from the people?" I don't believe that those who lived under feudalism considered it a 'government' as such. That's rather histrionic of you....
eaodak 1 year ago
@galaktar Why in the first sentence do you challenge my Robin Hood v Ragnar example, and then in the next confirm it??
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak You're also assuming that the government can see things objectively. Instead of worshiping a god, you have replaced him with an all-knowing benevolent bureaucracy....which does not exist.
Why would a government with a monopoly on force need to have things like elections, or due process? What event, in the history of civilization, makes you think that that is a recipe for a just and moral society?
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar "You're also assuming that the government can see things objectively."
Well, I'm not assuming 'the government' can see anything. "Government' is a legal fiction we create. The 'people' that comprise it can see things subjectively, just like the rest of us.
Why do you people insist on casting 'The Government' as some sort of foreign and alien 'thing'?
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak When the government isn't subservient to the individuals that make it up, it is a foreign and alien thing. The government and the people become two separate entities.
You think the government should be the brain of the country, I think it should be the skin.
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar "When the government isn't subservient to the individuals that make it up"
So I STRONGLY encourage you to be a man, stand up for your convictions and try and overthrow The Government if that's your choice. I will eagerly be scanning the news for the latest psychotic that crashes his plane into a The Government building. May that loon be you.
Or do you plan on bombing a place like the Murrah Building? I'm sure you think that those children deserved what they got. Fucking nut!
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak See there you go. Your collective minded thought goes on blaming me for the crimes of others.
Do I get to blame you for the crimes of Stalin or Mao? Are you guilty by association. If I applied the concept of social justice here, I could execute you on the spot for belonging to a group that has killed an average of 900,000 people per year during the 20th century.
As a member of an oppressed group I demand reparations!
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar "See there you go. Your collective minded thought goes on blaming me for the crimes of others."
No Crazy! You made some vague threat that you intend on rebelling, so I said you should follow your crazy notions, but that they would and should lead you to ruin.
You are one crazy sociopath!
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak The government pulled that one off too, just like 9/11.
loafpork 1 year ago
@galaktar "The government does not currently have a monopoly on violence, since individuals have weapons too. "
It's like talking to my 10 year old niece....
This does not change the fact that government has a monopoly on violence. Even without weapons, you can still be violent, so by your definition, there could NEVER be a monopoly on violence.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak So because the government has tanks, warplanes, etc everything else doesn't count? Is that what you're getting at? History is littered with examples of militarily inferior forces defeating larger ones. Hell, you can buy a AR 15. It shoots the same size round as the M-16 and although it is only semi-automatic the M-16 isn't supposed to be used in the 3 round burst mode anyway.
It's like talking to a gorilla wearing a monocle...to show how smart he is.
galaktar 1 year ago
@galaktar Ok dope, how about we try it this way....
What does a MOV mean to you?