Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Ed Snider Speech

[KeithMcElwain]

I am John Gault : )

[Atombombmother]

yea, he's a real hero as Chairman of Comcast. Comcast is the worst corporation in America.

[JackBlair2]

@Atombombmother It's OK. Even Looters can provide us with insight.

[GeminiK]

@GrndOrdrOfDracoSlyrs You should read one of her books, and if you don't change your mind I will give you credit for having strong convictions.

[Vocalallusive]

Poor little Snider, you don't even understand the most essential things about the ideas of Ayn Rand. You've got no right WHAT SO EVER to call yourself an objetivist.

If Ayn Rand would not support a man who destroy a recipe to cure cancer, and for no other reason than he doesn't want to, she would contradict herself in the most root seeking way, because then she would admit this man was born to be a slave for others.

What tha fack do objectivism needs enemies for when it got friends like YOU!?

[rubbersole79]

I hear the "communist / socialist" experiment in Cuba is going well.

Gas is $9.00 a gallon and the average wage is $20.00 a week

Oh yeah, gimme somma that.

[valu777]

I am a preacher with the aim of waking others to the saving Grace of our Creator, Our creator who loves us and wishes that we, being his creation survive the Judgement to come, our creator has set the standard for the creation and trashes all that fall short, but he has set a way of escape by paying the price with his own sons blood, all we need to do is accept to be saved

[bapyou]

Ayn Rand was a sixth rate philosopher at best. Anyone beyond the age of 16 who thinks her work has any applicaiton in the real world, is delusional.

[BatOtaku13]

@bapyou not to mention atlas shrugged is just right wing propaganda.

[kamikazee55]

@BatOtaku13 Right wing? Ayn rand was not right wing in any sense.

[BatOtaku13]

@kamikazee55 i know she's not right wing/conservative in the modern sense, but the ideas of atlas shrugged are still unquestionably right in theory.

[BrettDunbar]

@BatOtaku13 LOL every single thing we say makes sense and has basis in reality. All the left has now is propaganda. You authoritarians will fail hard in november. You people are like creationists. lol :3

[kickyerass]

@bapyou That explains it; you're 15! You are too immature to analyze philosophy. Now go tell your mother she wants you. We're busy here having an adult discussion Or! Or! Did you forget to take your meds today?.

[bapyou]

@kickyerass

No, that's not what my comment "explains"; my comment explains why dopes like you think that Rand is a "philosopher" at all.

I expect nothing but moronic ad hominem attacks from dopey Randbots such as yourself. After all, your heroine's philosophy amounts to little more than an excuse for adults to indulge in their own infantile egoism.

[rubbersole79]

@bapyou ......Count me as delusional then.

I don't know where she ranks as a philosopher, but as someone who has been in business for himself for over 25 years and watched the government try to do more and more, and do it infinitely more poorly than the free market has, totally buy in to the precepts in "Atlas Shrugged".

Two questions for you;

1.) Ever been in business for yourself?

2.) Ever read the book?

[bapyou]

@rubbersole79

"over 25 years and watched the government try to do more and more, and do it infinitely more poorly than the free market has"

Since the Reagan administration, in an effort to privatize everything under the sun and profit mightily in the process, government has done things purposefully bad. Read Thomas Frank's 'The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule' in which Frank details such anti-public government monkey-wrenching.

I loathe everything right-wing. The scum of the Earth.

[rubbersole79]

@bapyou

Help me out here if you would. You say the gov't since RR is purposely doing a bad job in an effort to privatize things? Does that include the Clintons and his handling of Freddie Mae/Mac? Not to mention NAFTA, China, and his CFR affiliation. I suppose all of this is good ?

Rand was under the impression that both sides are headed for socialism, which is just communism "lite". I tend to agree with her, although I will check out Franks book.

I loathe career politicians of any flavor.

[bapyou]

@rubbersole79 Clinton was little relief from the neoliberal project of privatization. NAFTA was neoliberal legislation allowing business to run roughshod over the hemisphere's economy: 1000s of Mexican family farmers could not compete against the cheap corporate products coming across the border, prompting many to immigrate to the states in order to earn a living for their family back in Mexico.

My heroes are the labor activists of the 1930s who stood in solidarity with leftists of the time.

[TheMi3k]

der mann hat irgendwas mit bioshock zutun, sein name wurde bei wikipedia unter bioshock erwähnt.

[geezzerboy]

The strangest thing about Atlas Shrugged is the total lack of children. None of the main characters have children. Why? What economic value do babies have? What economic value to toddlers have? Ayn Rand's world has nothing to do with any real human reality.

[antinominianist]

@geezzerboy Page 719-720 Paperback edition speaks of a 7 year old and 4 year old boy in Galt's gulch. Their mom tells Dagny why she chose to raise them in the gulch.

[notbestfriends]

Reading "Atlas Shrugged" will most certainly, change your life-for the better.

[kmeisenbach1]

Thank You Ed!

[goliathreno]

@NOMADdaf Wait, doesn't this prove my point? Africa has millions of people. Since we know they aren't all lazy then you are forced to face the reality.

People don't just get rich they need workers and also also access to skills and education which are preserved by society. Africa for centuries had been highly exploited. So those in the U.S. who are successful are those with the best opportunities.

If you could do it on your own, there would be the same amount of rich people in Africa.

[mhirtes12]

If Objectivists really just wanted to be left alone, they'd go naked & empty-handed into the woods to fend for themselves. But they don't want that, they want their running water, electricity, easy access to groceries, etc. that can only exist by the collective labor of civilization, but they don't want to pay their debt to society by contributing to that labor because they're ignorant of that debt.

[dudeman5790]

collectivist labor? rethink that notion.

[Arjozof]

debt to society? what kind of hideous notion is that?

It's the "society" which has the actual debt to all the creative producers who brought it from stone age to the space age.

Are you a looter or a moocher?

[mhirtes12]

"what kind of hideous notion is that?"

Ah yes. I'm sure helping someone out is totally abhorrent to a selfish prick like you, but that is how humanity managed to evolve (well,with the exception of Rand of course).

Hell, even shit-flinging apes have the intelligence to know that working together and helping others out leads to a common goal.

[Arjozof]

Humanity managed to evolve thanks to TRADER PRINCIPLE, that is voluntary cooperation via market, not through compulsory slave labour you condone for some mystic "common goal". There is no common goal, as each of us has different set of goals, and only voluntary exchange can coordinate our desires to maximize our happiness.

You either do not understand basic economics, or you are simply a cruel bastard.

[mhirtes12]

You're delusional. No wonder you worship that nutty old hag.

[Arjozof]

a typical answer from an intellectual troglodyte and political fascist. No addressing the factual arguments, but pure ad hominem smearing. I've thousands like yourself, you are nothing but pest, intellectual flies who can only buzz but can't even sting.

[mhirtes12]

Whatever, loon.

[goliathreno]

We evolved from leeching off of the knowledge and success of others. The increase in being able to preserve and transmit knowledge led to our evolution.

From my view there is a balancing test. The original post is right, if you want to go out on your own you can, and you won't be able to do much at all. You need to suck at the teat of the accumulation of knowledge and skills. You speak of the Trader Principle, but the problem is that not all are able to leech off of past accomplishments cont

[goliathreno]

So I do believe in a balance, we want an incentive for those who benefit the most from knowledge and skill and even raw talent to participate with society. So we allow them to accumulate wealth VASTLY superior to what they could ever accumulate on their own.

But the balance needs to be met, the rich MUST realize they are leeching off of society. They don't obtain their knowledge or riches on their own. They rely on society for both. Or be born and live alone and see how that works.

[Arjozof]

If the poor are so essential to the rich, the market would immediately make them bid their wages much higher. But it doesn't - because the rich - or actually, the CREATIVE, are essential for the market to function, to coordinate actions of individuals associated in firms and companies, so the production of goods is most efficient, as well as the distribution, and consumers' demand is satisfied.

Isolated workers cannot do that on their own, so your theory collapses just like of any other loon

[goliathreno]

You didn't address my claim. Please save the personal attacks for your friends. How much can a person with this creative, coordinating skill do on their own vs. an individual with farming skills? Which one of those two, as defined by the skill ITSELF, requires other individuals?

You also didn't address the leeching of the reservoirs of knowledge maintained, stored and transmitted by society. I am guessing you can't, leech.

One flaw is in equating supply and demand with value. tsk tsk

[Arjozof]

you have a zero grasp of basic economics, so what should I address? Read "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" by Ludwig von Mises, and then you will learn the role of enterpreneur and capitalist in market economy. It's very simple.

BTW, there is no such thing as a society. Knowledge is maintained, stored and transmitted by INDIVIDUALS who act on purpose. It does not just reside among some collective brain.

[goliathreno]

The role of the entrepreneur is just that: A ROLE. It is not the END that you treat it as. This is the flaw with Rand, this is the flaw with you, the entrepreneur is NOTHING without the workers. The workers are DIMINISHED (but still something) without the entrepreneur.

No such thing as society? No such thing as humans banding together for MAXIMIZATION of protection, progress and (drum roll) diffusion of knowledge?

An entrepreneur NEEDS to not just be part of society he HAS to be part CONT

[Arjozof]

humans band together for common goals in firms and companies, not in some abstract forms which never existed and are called 'society'.

The real economic entities which act on the market are voluntary and aimed at achieving concrete ends. "Society" is neither voluntary nor goal-focused, so it doesn't exist economically. Rather, a government exploitation racket forces this "societal" bond upon people to maximize state's profits - not the people in question.

It's all been covered by Rothbard& Mises

[NOMADdaf]

@goliathreno Africa has plenty of workers and no native entrepreneurs. And what has that gotten them in the last 10,000 years? An entrepreneur will find workers or build a machine to do without. The workers will stagnate waiting for the entrepreneur to tell them what to do. A hammer is useless with out a carpenter but a carpenter will use a rock. or invent a screw if need be., It takes a lot to get worker going but you can never stop an entrepreneur.

[goliathreno]

He has to be part of a SPECIFIC society (organization of humans) in order to have access to certain stores of skills and knowledge.

So the entrepreneur REQUIRES other people (ie. not THEMSELVES, call it society or not, I don't care, realize it isn't individually gained) to TRANSMIT skills and knowledge. The entrepreneur ALSO then NEEDS people to provide ALL the individual necessities (from food to sewage), they then REQUIRE individuals in order to make their skill have worth.

Got it? ;)

[Arjozof]

When enterpreneur requires either capital or labour - he purchases it at the market. If the workers were able to achieve higher profits without enterpreneurs, they would become enterpreneurs themselves - but they rarely do, precisely because they lack the essential enterpreneurial skills or just do not wish to BEAR RISK, which enterpreneur gladly does, as he sees opportunities and much higher profits. Everybody benefits

[goliathreno]

The entrepreneur fills a role, I have stated as much. What you and others fail to recognize is the vital role that workers serve. We don't NEED or WANT everyone to be an entrepreneur. We want people to be ditch diggers, restaurant workers, you name it.

The provide the work which makes the world turn. As for entrepreneurs, ie. those who leeched most off of the stores of knowledge and skill, ie. generally born with opportunities, they also have a role: but they need workers just as much.

[dgafx10]

wrong.. rich/poor in america is a choice. of course there are some exceptions like disabalities among other things.. but thats not the general case..

[goliathreno]

rich/poor in America is the same as anyplace else: determined by opportunities available. Our society has amassed the largest collection of information and skill exchange ever.

This is an opportunity that is, though available to more than anywhere else, not equally available to all.

Want to know who will be rich with a 99% accuracy? Look to the real opportunities available. The rich always get opportunities, the poor...rarely. So the poor stay poor. They don't choose it. Stats don't lie.

[goliathreno]

Being rich doesn't require any skills beyond controlling a limited supply of something in high demand. It is that simple. And I'm not marxist, human beings need incentive, so society is better off allowing some individuals to benefit more OFF of society as a means to benefit society more in the long run.

The rich neither earn nor deserve that money. On their own, like said before, they would be busy building and growing their own food to accumulate wealth. What they have comes from society.

[Arjozof]

the skill to control and actually reap profits from the capital and land owned is a very unique skill and not everyone has it, and not everyone is excellent at it. That's why world knows many fortunes which have been lost to incompetence, malinvestment and straight waste.

Was it a boon to society, that a playboy wasted all his father's fortune on hookers and booze?

Would it be better, if his fortune provided millions of poor with exactly the same hookers and booze?

Or rather he used it wisely?

[goliathreno]

The issue is if their skills of increasing profit and productivity of workers is actually WORTH that much more than what the workforce performs.

The workers can do more without this especially skilled "boss" than the boss can do without any workers. To someone whose skill is in reaping profit from workers he'd be pretty screwed on his own. He needs the workers to give his skill value. I have no problem providing different incentives to fill different roles. But the rich need the poor.

[goliathreno]

lol, rich people need the poor much more than the poor need the rich. When the rich in Atlas all go and hide out I laughed. Who was going to grow their food, handle their sewage, build their shelter? hehe, rich people generally have pretty worthless skills when it comes to survival.

But in Atlas Shrugged all those rich people together would be screwed. Individuals can accumulate little wealth and comfort by today's standards. Society makes it possible. Wealth is a good incentive though.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

Didn't you say that you have read the book? The inhabitants of Galt's Gulch were completely self-sufficient; they didn't need anyone toe "grow their food" or "handle their sewage." Even those quotidian tasks are the products of man's mind, of competence. You dolt.

[goliathreno]

Easily the most naive, ignorant comment EVER made. If THEY were handling their sewage and growing their food their lives would be SUBPAR. The ability to innovate or ACCUMULATE any wealth or comfort would be NILCH.

Here is what would happen: the rich people leave to their own place. Thousands of able individuals take their place, society doesn't miss a freakin beat.

The RICH go to their island. Realize that wealth really is just having poor people work for you, continued

[goliathreno]

So NOW these rich people (who in REAL life have very worthless practical skills) find themselves forced to spend ALL their time constructing BASIC shelters, mining and gathering commodities, growing food, handling sewage, making drinking water.

It will be a CRUDE shelter, where there is no rich or poor. Where they find that all of their education has NO practical purpose without the poor and middle classes handling ALL the necessities.

Don't be so naive, the rich on their own are NOTHING.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

I used to be a Marxist, so I'm familiar with your antipathy for the opulent. Being rich is not exploitation, as you imply. And notice, the inhabitants of Galt's Gulch are not all rich; they are simply the men of the mind.

You hate the rich because they remind you of your own deficiencies. I won't be fatuous and say that all of the rich are able and innovative, but amassing so much wealth on one's own often requires superlative skills.

[dochmbi]

This book is featured extensively in Fallout 3.

[haolihfaioefh]

How so?  I haven't read Atlas Shrugged..... Love Fallout 3 though. Is it kinda like how Bioshock seems influenced by The Fountainhead?

[vulcanvinny]

The solution to current problems and ironically, one of the causes of the current problem in our country is the majority of individuals and how they operate as an individual or as a collective of individuals.

I have found that as individuals we can make choices to best get ahead in life and in the event of bad economic times there are things we can do to survive unemployment and all of the other problems in such environments. For more insights check out our-mission-possible

[vulcanvinny]

What I have taken from her insights is that she worships people who are not afraid to sacrifice for their goals, will not shirk putting off rewards for today for a greater outcome in the future. She understands that some people take lots of personal risks despite potential for personal failure because they have goals that often will provide wealth, new technology and services and employment.

[vulcanvinny]

I have done very well in various businesses and I have actually practiced altruism before I became well off and during the years I made lots of money.

All of these experiences and the way that other people both rich and poor treat people who are ambitious has led me to realize that Ayn Rand is at least 99% on the money with her views.

[vulcanvinny]

We need a different approach to combat the corrupt and I fear we may lack the will to do so. To be fair, it is possible that Ayn Rands philosophy may not be best if taken to its most extreme ideals although I am not entirely convinced that this is the case.

I say this based on years of living in different social-economic conditions.

I have been poor and starving as a kid. I have been homeless as a disabled Vet. I have been paid handsomely as a government employee.

[vulcanvinny]

Greed and corruption has always been with us and unfortunately it may always be with us. As a society, we cannot afford to fight this corruption in the manner most people think we should address such problems.

Just as General Colin Powell has said we simply cannot afford to fight terrorism insofar as to completely eradicate it. Technology and the dishonesty and many other factors are on the side of the corrupt.

[vulcanvinny]

I have worked in the government sector and I have seen first hand the incompetence and waste of money and time and the corruption to insure that no matter how many laws we pass and how many regulations we construct to protect us, these circumstances will always spring up. In fact I have seen first hand how one governmental watchdog agency will enlist the help of other governmental agencies to stonewall the public and to work to cover things up.

[vulcanvinny]

In fact Ayn Rand speaks very plainly in that the only reason why corporations or people can get unfair advantages or subsidies or are left alone to cheat and lie and commit fraud is because despite the laws and regulations that we do have to protect us against such situations is the fact that big businesses have many of the watchdogs in their pockets.

[vulcanvinny]

I will comment on Ayn Rand.

I am dismayed to see that Ayn Rand and her philosophy is too often misunderstood.

This misunderstanding springs forth for two reasons.

1. She is often misquoted, especially by people against her philosophy.

2. Her ideas are not studied close enough so her ideas or statements are often taken out of context.

No where in her books or speeches would she applaud the evil that Enron, or Madoff, or that any of the people or the organizations who are destructive.

[AtlasShruggery]

There are two novels that can change a fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

[Radeo]

How unfortunate for you.

[Libertyjack1]

Atlas Shrugged is THE remedy...for Ed Snyder and some other people, not for everyone,

[liberalsmustdie]

Atlas Shrugged had essential ideas that need to be taught and understood. Too bad Ayn Rand didn't have a good editor. The book is 300 pages of decent story crammed into 800 pages. Nearly unreadable as a result, in spite of the value of the lessons.

[pookiehohn]

1000+ in my edition.

[601373]

Fail. Keep your shitty opinions to yourself. The complexity of "Atlas Shrugged" cannot be crammed into 300 pages.

[liberalsmustdie]

LOL! What is this, the only book you ever read? Complex? A sophomoric angst ridden love story set in an unbelievable cartoon world as the vehicle to convey what is probably some of the most important concepts regarding capitalism there is? If someone wanted to convey those concepts, logic suggests they would try to make their book readable. Rand's problem was her ego. She wouldn't listen to her editor. Sounds like you've got the shitty opinion market cornered, fool.

[601373]

An unbelievable cartoon world, really? Maybe you should look at the current state of affairs before you declare the setting of "Atlas Shrugged" a cartoon world.

Good thing "Atlas Shrugged" is a work of fiction, and as such it can have a plot, dialogue, rising action, climax, falling action, you know all of the things which generally make up a good novel.

Nearly unreadable? I guess the immense number of pages might scare some people off - maybe in your case - but luckily not all.

[omawashi]

Well friend, maybe you should actually read the book and the entirety of its impossible events.

"I WILL GET MY METAL!"

Pages don't make a book unreadable (they actually make it readable, shocking concept), especially in this case; the emotionless and dead characters of this unbelievably far-fetched novel make it unreadable.

Are you an anarcho-capitalist? Just wondering.

[Blindedbythelight]

at 8:06 you can see a man falling asleep

and then waking up lol

[thesquonkstear]

Balance-- on the one hand, barriers to entry, government inaction, over taxing, and pork spending, dirty pool, corrupt finance, corrupt lobbying, union busting, and on the other hand, Atlas Shrugged.

Sorry guys-- defending today's profiteering and corrupt government "unregulation" with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is like quoting the Bible to justify beating your wife and children. And you see it everywhere. I'm thinking it's just blind obedience to the hand that feeds them.

[terri898]

I'm not sure that I fully understand what you mean. Atlas Shrugged absolutely does not defend today's 'corrupt government "unregulation"'; on the contrary, most of those who share Ayn Rand's ideals agree that there is far too much government regulation, not that the current amount of regulation is correct and should be defended.

[xhamlin]

I am utterly amazed at how many people hold your view: that free market capitalism is the cause of our economic crisis. You obviously don't understand capitalism at all.

[liberalsmustdie]

I'm utterly amazed that you could call what we have been practicing free market capitalism. True Free market capitalism has never been tried - and if you ever read Francisco D'Anconia's monolgue from the book, you would know that Money will not tolerate being half-free. Our economic crisis was caused by over regulation in the form of the community reinvestment act.

[SteveAndIdiAmin]

Randians trying to reverse-engineer a justification for their childishness. And praising Rand's WRITING in the bargain...

I'd laugh if their influence wasn't so toxic.

[07rensza]

has there ever been a catastrophe launched by the words "think of yourself"?

[texpeare]

The Great Depression.

[07rensza]

not so...

[deinse81]

I love that introduction. It's such a hilarious insult, if only you add a tiny smirk to the end (and a proper introduction for all the previous guests), the audience would've errupted in laughter.

[philosophyarchitect]

The capitalist rhetoric, i.e., the idea that individuals have a right to live for themselves, and that the most productive are not our slaves.

And to the contrary most businessmen, including the corrupt ones, yell as loud as Naomi Klein does about their obligation to society. And yet here we are - their obligation to fuck our society up with the force of the government.

[dsmfishgal]

An obligation to one another and greater society need not be carried out by increasing the scope and power of government. That is never what I'm advocating. Individualism is great, but there are extremes to heed, just as with the collectivist mentality. Don't you think a balance is capable of being struck?

[philosophyarchitect]

I see where you're coming from and I sympathize. I think you're mistaking the Objectivist position. Objectivism doesn't believe in the sort of ruthless, fuck everyone else look out for number one hednosim. Objectivism's point is that we should be primarily self-interested. But this includes always respecting the rights of others, and often includes helping others not for any immediate benefit but because you value them as a person. If you call that a balance, sure.

[BIBIchgo]

This book has changed my life. I wish my catholic high school would made it required reading but of course they would never do that. Why isn't required at other High schools especially urban areas like chicago, detroit. No need to answer. I know why. Think!

[9638899]

so cool!!! msg me! 5

[supapawa]

Atlas Shrugged: pure atheism, facism and plutocracy dictatorship.

[oldmontabbott]

I know only 9 people who are long-time objectivists. What I find interesting is that every single one of them was once - often long ago - a born again christian or an uber-Marxist.

My point is that it seems to me that maybe one condition of possibility for the acceptance of such a self-contradictory and incoherent philosophy is that it appeals to those who require a blanket, absolute, one-size-fits-all dogmatism to use as a crutch with which to live thier lives.

[manco82]

Really? I'm an an Objectivist. I was never a born again Christian or uber-Marxist. There goes your pseudo-theory.

[Eudaimonist]

I've been an Objectivist for over 15 years, and I was never a born-again christian or any flavor of Marxist.

[moonhitler]

i don't agree with you, but once i was a marxist and now, i'm a objectivist so it may be a (un)common thing

[dsmfishgal]

Check out the demographics of the audience. Since when did Big Business become the Big Victim? Nevermind the fact that major corporations strive to monopolize and lobby to sway legislation in their favor, even at the expense of the people, as workers, consumers and citizens. If this wealthy minority would keep themselves in line ethically, there would never have been a reason for governments to regulate and limit them. But as is true now and throughout history, power continues to corrupt.

[philosophyarchitect]

"corporations strive to monopolize and lobby to sway legislation in their favor,"

So, the solution for corporations manipulating the government's power via lobbying, is to give the government more power?

[dsmfishgal]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I thought it was clear that my issue wasn't a matter of legality but rather ethical decision-making. Big Business has an obligation to the greater society, despite all the Capitalist rhetoric to the contrary. Our society is suffering as a result of poor choices made both within the business sector and in our government. Increasing the power of either isn't a solution.

[philosophyarchitect]

No society as a whole could suffer by the decisions of private businessmen if it weren't for government manipulation. There is no reason why businesses should "serve society" any more than you or me. They don't have the responsibility to keep the public in mind that the state does, because we associate with them voluntarily. The disaster that has happened could only be so ubiquitous because of government involvement. Without that, serving their self-interest would be enough for us to be okay.

[dsmfishgal]

We differ in our beliefs. While I find that serving our own selves may be beneficial to an extent, I do believe we each have an obligation to serve greater society as well. That goes for individuals, businesses, and our government. This capitalist notion that all we need to do is cater to our own selfish interests does indeed appear to be part of the problem in and of itself. We are interconnected and would do well to keep that in mind.

[philosophyarchitect]

Objectivism is entirely compatible with a fair amount of considering others. Just not as a primary. Our current ethics implies that we buy our right to live by serving other people. Objectivism doesn't believe that we'll do okay but *ignoring* other people's interests; it just believs that we can be fundamentally self-interested, and yes, this will sometimes mean considering other people's interests, as well as not defying their rights.

[junsumoney]

I don't see how I am supposed to live selflessly. I will work for my own, and none of that money will be to help others, unless it should benefit my self-interest. For example, if I give help to neighbor, it will be to expect help back.

[dsmfishgal]

I never suggested living selflessly was the way to go. But, likewise, neither is living a purely selfish existence. There is a balance to be struck somewhere in there, though it likely differs from person to person.

We all work for one another, at least to some extent, because no man is an island.

[junsumoney]

An honest purely selfish existence is the way to live. Not selfish as in I want something from others, but I do for the sake of my own. If I volunteer to save the rain forest, I am putting in time to save myself from global warming, and it will benefit others too (but it's not my main goal). If I decide to share a food with my friend, it's because it's my desire to share it with him and see gratitude. Everything it's for my own sake.

[drewboul86]

@junsumoney hey every1 u tell ed snider that geraldo rosario said he fucked ur ex and current wife so sad for ur luck dirty jew boy the sixers suck and flyers cant win stay in ur comfort zone i remember ur house and everything my boosh boosh lol inside joke u took me every where than left me flat i feel like a tramp and its on wen i see u at the next game

[n3syntax]

@junsumoney

Why not do it for others knowing its going to help you as well because you helped others. That would also begin to create an atmosphere of people who help each other. Your idea sounds good but it wouldn't be to hard to corrupt people who are only interested in helping themselves.

[Vazeroth16]

Egoist philosophy actively promotes selfish behavior and would criticize of you for caring about the needs of others. Egoists believe the interests of others do not matter. You can't access them so there is no reason to care outside of instrumental value "to you and you alone." Egoism is ridiculous because whenever you say "X was done altruistically," they make up an elaborate story to say otherwise. Parsimony, plus altruism is well documented.

[dafedge2007]

@junsumoney ...so, you know a lot of Randist's putting in time to save rain forests?

[KellyAnnOR]

@dafedge2007 Save the rainforest? That is forced altruism. Which is tantamount to slavery! As a human being I have the fundamental right to be selfish, greedy, and care as little about the world I live in as possible. You're just a whining looter if you want to save the environment. Why not make some money instead? Do you have any idea how much work it takes to strip mine an entire ecosystem? The logistics of displacing dozens of native tribes? Now THAT is something to admire

[dafedge2007]

@KellyAnnOR You know, Randites are becoming such fundamentalists that it really is hard to tell the difference between their "sincere" beliefs and good honest satire. Next they'll be reading Swift's "A Modest Proposal" as if it were a cook book.

[KellyAnnOR]

@dafedge2007 And I've read comments just like the one I made earlier. And they were entirely serious.

Replace "Catholics" with "the poor" and I think Swift would be the Rand Institute's next best seller...

[Twiggy269]

Why does everyone forget that Objectivism does NOT condemn being charitable as long as it is the persons CHOICE to do so. While we do not hold this as something to take pride in, or do as an end in itself, Objectivism does not preach hedonism (which everyone loves to mistakely call selfishness.) To understand what is TRULY in your own rational self interest is an amazingly complex thing to conclude. A clearly hedonistic whim does NOT QUALIFY as a rational selfish act, as miss Rand has stated.

[deinse81]

We have a democratic system: the power to sway government action lies with the people, and so does the responsibility.

Of course, the power to sway the culture, and by it the people lies with the intellectual elite, so the ultimate responsibility for all this corruption and depravity is theirs. Start blaming them.

[bbmonte]

benefits of socialism..??where?

[chingada47]

Universal Medicare

[junsumoney]

Why should I work for the welfare of others?

[dummyyummy2]

Or better still "Why should I be FORCED for altrusim...."

[liberalsmustdie]

Yeah? Ask the canadians how that's working out for them. The ones I talk to range from unhappy to downright disgusted.

[truthadvocate]

We should teach the benefits of capitalism and the failures of socialism as soon as children can grasp it. Why wait until college? It should be a basic building block of grade school and highschool. Why do we waste time teaching advanced calculus before we even introduce children to basic ecomonics?

[geistjagerin]

Should they also learn the benefits of socialism and the failures of capitalism?

[operationmongoose]

Somewhat of a contradiction in terms.

[roddack]

I can see no benefits is looterism

[duendeness]

well, of course they should. If the principles of the two are well identified and explained they will understand that the benifits of socialism and the failures of capitalism are only significant during an extremely unbalanced time, or in theory.

[MyITRcom]

The benefit of gas prices heading to the moon, and the dollar moving towards its actual value as you fake reality.

[troir]

did you know that basic economics is actually based on advanced calculus ??? did you ??

[dweebieMC]

almost no economists believe that entirely unregulated, completely laissez fair capitalism is the preferential system of wealth distribution. so maybe you don't know what you are talking about?

hope this helps

[nicomachos]

Dr. David Kelley spoke to the Laissez-Faire Supper Club in New York around 1988 about why libertarians need Objectivism as a philosophical basis for freedom, which echoed Rand's concern about libertarians. But because the group was considered "libertarian," Dr. Peikoff said it would be inappropriate to speak to them even to criticize them.

In recent years ARI has moved away from this policy.

[nine9s]

Around here, Comcast is known as "Comcrash." Its internet/cable service will sometimes bleep out of existence for no reason. Ironic, huh? :)

[operationmongoose]

Comcast here very rarely (2 or 3 times a year) goes out. Internet is down more maybe 6-10 times /year that Ive noticed. With the weather in Seattle... satellite sucks from my experience. Though it has potentially the best picture and more hd.

[legendre007]

Ed Snider's company is the sports company Comcast Spectacor, which owns the Philadelphia Flyers. It's not the same company as the cable company Comcast. :-)

[legendre007]

Me (old): "Ed Snider's company is the sports company Comcast Spectacor, which owns the Philadelphia Flyers. It's not the same company as the cable company Comcast. :-)"

Me (new): I should further clarify. Snider started the company "Spectacor." The cable company then purchased Spectacor & made it "Comcast Spectacor," & Snider still runs it. The cable company Comcast owns Snider's company, but Snider's company isn't responsible for the company's cable operations.

[legendre007]

liberalsmustdie: "I'm utterly amazed that you could call what we have been practicing free market capitalism."

legendre007: "I didn't mention free-market capitalism in the text comment to which you were responding. You responded to a text comment in which I said that Ed Snider started a company called Spectacor, which was purchased by Comcast. Perhaps it was a text comment other than mine to which you intended to reply?"

[qtronman]

What happened between Snider and Peikoff? I heard that Snider, before dis-associating from the Ayn Rand Institute, threatned to "crush him [Peikoff] in court." Is that true?

[operationmongoose]

I don't know if he said that. The extent of my knowledge is that David Kelley got ostracized for selling books through libertarian channels by Peter Schwartz. Peikoff argreed with Schwartz and Kelley left the ARI. Snider hooked up with Kelley in the efforts of the Atlas Society or New Individualist.

[operationmongoose]

May well have happened, anyone know?

[politEgoEgonomics]

Golden AyniversARy Celebrations 10\10\50AS A fAyn tribute to a gRand mInd

Atlas Shrugged "is a histORical novel as well as a prophetic one." - now that Her motOR is made.

A is A is A

Philosophy : Physics : Mechanics

mORal Code : Motive Power : MotOR Unit

Egology : Ideaology : Technology

"And I mean it."

[legendre007]

The head of Comcast Spectacor is a genius. :-)