A follower is a believer in another's doctrine who repeats like a parrot without thinking the things he or she hears and "believes". What most people don't understand is that Objectivists are the opposite of followers or disciples.. they are individuals who understand they must identify the world and search for truth with their own senses to form concepts by rational thought. Beliefs are not truths. Truths can only be determined by the law of identity, not by following what others believe.
@WhyMeMoFo "Rand disciples" living on an island would not cannibalize themselves because there would be no intelligent reason for it. Each individual would realize that it would be in his/her own best, selfish interest to cooperate and use reason to grow crops, hunt for food, and build a society. Objective morality is about logic, and it's illogical to cannibalize humans when you yourself could be on the menu.
Excuse me, where's the hard work? Making deals isn't "work." It's playing a game. Farming is work, engineering is work. Marketing has more to do with playing poker than it does with repairing a car.
@aluisious You reallly dont know what you are talking about because if making deals is so easy then why dont more people make a living making deals so that they wont have to toil for less money doing manuel labor?
@joskemom Most people are obstructed by ethics. The regular person doesn't try to take something they don't deserve. The successful business person goes for every campaign contribution and lobbying effort they can to get subsidies, tax breaks, regulation in their favor...they don't blink twice to fire domestic employees to pay Chinese people a dollar a day in a toxic dump.
That's why more people don't make deals. They aren't fucking crooks.
@aluisious As if you know how people think. I guess your judgement is altered by your own personal lack of success and thus the bitch rant about people more successful than you. Whining is never a sign of achievers.
@aluisious I made my point, you are a whiner about people who achieve to a level you can't comprehend. Hey, enjoy the next occupy 'stuff that aint mine' protest.
The character of Cooper is meant to be insane and the contradiction of his love of the self-interested Rand while simultaneously worshipping the values of self-sacrifice found in Samurai Bushido exemplifies this. These incongruencies are more than just a reflection of eccentricity and are the hallmark of an inherently unhealthy mind. Calling this the best ad for the book is almost like having Jim Jones as spokesperson for Kool-Aid. Many people may be missing the point here.
@TheCommonManUSA I have apologized for my mistake in my other response to you, if you can find it. I consider Objectivism as an ideology, although rationality-based, in practice by those who espouse it, ritualize it without much deep thought--hence it is like an occult, or religious in social behavior. I made the mistake that you are one of their believers. Again, I am sorry. :-)
After looking at your comments, i can tell you are well read. I have just started reading atlas shrugged and i really dont see the problem with objectivism. Where is its flaw, why dont you believe it is correct.
If you do respond, please do it via a personal message.
@TheCommonManUSA Oh my, I either did do what your last response says, 1. made the error and mistaken you for a Randian, or 2. because how awkward and non-user friendly YouTube discussion/comment threads are, I read someone below or above you then hit your reply button instead, but either way it was my mistake, and for that I apologize. As you can read, I have sporadic responses on here, looking rather in fragments now. I think I will quit with this last one before my eyes go criss-cross. 0_o
@TheCommonManUSA Seems to me you are the one that needs to get a dictionary and get your nose out of Rand's fictions. And honestly, all the words I used for my last reply are words that you can get in many of Ayn Rands books, which I still own from when I was a teenager. One will be particularly useful for you, "The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z" which you will see define words such as tautology and epistemology. Next time you espouse a religion, know the critical texts, buddy. :-)
@TheCommonManUSA You need some instructions on tautology. But if you insist on analytical linguistics, my statement is that:
At age X I read Atlas Shrugged, at an earlier age when individuation from socialization was an important evaluation of myself. The sociopathological themes of AS appealed to my teenage mind. But reading it again at age Z, as an adult with much more understanding of ontology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics, I realized how wrong Rand is--hence I "grew up."
@TheCommonManUSA I read it as a teenager and as an adult. If I had to give a bromidic speech such as portrayed in this clip, I'd say we are different, because I grew up, and you didn't.
@soyerpanzen Hey somebody removed my comment! And it wasn't me...hmmm what do you think @TheCommonManUSA ? I wonder if the admin of this channel had something to do with it? Lol.
For jcat3022''s comments below: "I've always thought that it was those who read Atlas Shrugged, and think its a great book were the ones who understood it the least."
This is probably the most narrow minded point of view I have ever heard. This kind of person makes the world has more war than peace, more argument than discussion and more enemy than friend........
People with kids aren't always self interested. Often, they put their kids first. Ayn Rand never got that. Her main characters never seem to have kids.
@mimesis6mime Protecting what you value is the very definition of self-interest. People with kids they value are protecting what they value when they put their kids first.
It is not a selflessness if you are willing to die for your wife if you value your wife's life more than yours. That is an act of high selfishness. However it is selflessness if you value her more then yourself, and yet you let her suffer & die.
@antinominianist In a world without a God ideals are meaningless, human happiness is the only thing of value.
Kids aren't characters in the movie of your life that you have to improve your own happiness, marriage doesn't work like that either. Love is something that involves suffering, we choose it anyway, we choose to set aside our self interests for something more important. deliberate is not selfish.
we often don't really even KNOW what's good for us, that Rand's folly. intuition tells us
@mimesis6mime I see many Asian-Americans from an atheist heritage (non-traditional theistic account) who are happy, meaningful, and idealistic. You don't need God, nor Ayn Rand to live a moral life. (Sometimes one can say about Americans that they don't need religion at all too in general, since they have consumerism. But I would say that's ideological too on par with the desires prescribed by religion). I agree that love requires much work, altruism, and self-interest. Love is complicated.
@orospakr Conception is done out of self interest, some of the time. Raising kids is work and sacrifice, but its in our instinct.
Wanting kids is either wanting to sacrifice or wanting a person you can control. Does Rand lean toward the latter? the desire to fill out a family picture you idealized. these are the worst kind of parents.
Sacrifice isn't a bargain or a trade off, love is not a contract. Its a spiritual experience that involves giving up self interest and control of your happiness
@orospakr so at one instant, child-bearing is an innate activity, but on another instant Rand's theory of emotions as from intellectual premise (out of one's volition) is not innate, which would include self-interest. make up your minds, objectivists.
I talked to a guy once who loved Ayn Rand. He said she was the best philosopher in the world and that no one had manged to put a hole in her logic. He told me about her objectivst philosophy and I shuddered. I then mentioned A Christmas carol story about of Scrooge learning that his selfish ways earned him nothing. The objectivst stood there like a question mark? "A Christmas carol? Never heard of it". The moral:
You may know much, but sometimes not the most important stuff.
@AndyAce83 There isn't a dumbass out there who would be willing to work for Scrooge. He pays sub-par wages and skimps on every cost. In real life, he'd go out of business the second someone else offered a better deal to his employees (which they would, since they could make a profit by doing so).
@TheDrCN Like communism this works in theory. In real life people are still working at minimal wages all across the world. Not everybody is born with the midas touch, some are unlucky and get the *bleep*y end of the stick. I am not against freedom, or see anything wrong with moderate liberalism, but to believe that if everybody got unlimited freedom everything would work out great is naive at best. The best way to make a million is to start with two.
@TheDrCN In your logic, syndicalism and unionism would also be in the self-interest of the employee (but of course, not the employer who privileges profit independent of whether profit-making raises or lowers standards of life and qualities of life in others) Randian idealization is ironically Platonic when examples in "real life" are indicated but have no historical and sociological concretes to materialize the claims. (Also see neoliberal corporations in Global South for more counterexamples).
I'm an Objectivist, and I've never met another Objectivist who's an asshole.. Maybe you mean Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly? these aren't Objectivist. Yaron Brook for example is an Objectivist, he isn't an asshole.. People on the internet keep saying Rand is for "self-righteous assholes" -well I've never met one, have you?
@stephleom the quote you provide from people on the Internet is an opinion. It is most likely a poorly formed opinion. Yaron Brook can easily be seen as self-righteous if one wants to ( I don't), but i am sure that is someone's opinion. As an objectivist, what do you care?
@stephleom I haven't met an Objectivist who isn't an asshole. You are not meeting enough, that's all. Presumably because sociopaths do not have the propensity to be collective, as Ayn Rand has redundantly systematized in her thought.
you mean those people who think we should nuke iraq, and it would be okay because that's selfish and being selfish is the entire point of Atlas Shrugged
" I've never met another objectivist whos an asshole". Thats maybe because people like you suffer from Narcissism. Dont ask you if you are an asshole. Ask others.
@stephleom First off, O'Reilly and Beck don't claim to be Objectivists, they just like Ms.Rand's work (even though I would argue that Bill O'Reilly, as a traditionalist conservative, doesn't actually believe in voluntaryism, minarchism, or liberty like Rand. He's more of a Teddy Roosevelt progressive-lite and Beck likes Rick Santorum, another big spendin' GOPer).
Those who bash Rand & Atlas Shrugged always seem to be the ones that understand her & the book the least. If understood without a preconceived bias, it is the most powerful book ever written.
@soyerpanzen There is a big difference between Global Capitalism a.k.a. Monopoly Capitalism (where Governments give protection over the competetion & other advantages) & Free Enterprise Capitalism (Private Property owenership by individuals who compete in the free market). Unfortunatley for Collectivists (like you) you're disease is incurable. Now get the hell out of our way, we've got a society to rescue.
@jcat3022 oh so now collectivism is a disease? can you please cite the current scientific studies using methodology from the physical sciences and natural sciences, i.e. (true) OBJECTIVE (epistemic standpoint), that defines collectivism as a "disease."
@jcat3022 I think there are many different "gradients" in the stages of capitalism, not just monopoly capitalism. There is also mercantilism, finance capitalism, and when I meant Global Capitalism, I was speaking of neoliberal globalization. [I have to break up my reply in sections due to the character count limit on here].
@jcat3022 Lastly: Laissez Faire capitalism however is a-historical and will never exist, because reality is never that simple. Monist-reductionism in metaphysics might work, but hardly applicable to the social relations of political economy. Ontologically, yes A is A, but that is reified when imported into negotiations over economics, psychology, and politics. Now for my own ad-hominem rhetoric in return, You guys are so silly.
@jcat3022 Actually no. It's the most extreme book ever written. I know it has its heart in the right places, but Rand really did not use philosophical insight when writing it. No philosopher would admit that the world is black and white, but Rand did. She refused to acknowledge a middle ground, always portraying people as supremely good or evil. All her characters are either superheroes or villains. That's why idealists like her so much - because they want to see in black and white.
@jcat3022 Sorry for the rant, but I too have been through the Rand idealist phase and grown out of it. When you come out the other side, you'll be a lot more insightful.
@redshark618 - The analysis of Rand is noted & to a degree your point is correct. However, what is the problem w/ individuals seeking their own self interests over others? Seems to me, the world could use quite a few more Producers instead of Takers these days. There argument of Individualism vs. Collectivism has never been more clear then in today's society, and Rand saw in coming decades ago,
@jcat3022 From a literacy point of view, It is a poor and very bad written book. And thats the most important fact in a book. The rest, like your opinion, comes obviously from a preconceived bias. Read more, im sure you will find really powerful books.
Back in the 1963 setting here it probably was! But then what would $1.99 be in today's money? Probably more than the $17 I paid for my copy! And by the time obimbo gets thru with America (that would be Jan. 20, 2013), we'll be lucky if it doesn't cost $199 !!!!!
Every law is either a freedom law or a slavery law. there is no third possibility. Many people today, without knowing it, cheer on politicians who pass laws that enslave others. If you understand freedom you will understand how incredibly destructive it is to blast freedom out of existence one Communist\Socialist law at a time. If it continues it will be the end of the United States and freedom for centuries.
Freedom is logical. When government passes and enforces freedom laws, the resulting economic system is based on freedom and it is called Capitalism. When a person attacks Capitalism, they MUST attack freedom directly or indirectly. Freedom and logic make Capitalism "go". To destroy Capitalism, you must destroy the principle(s) it rests on, namely, freedom. Destroy freedom and you destroy Capitalism AND the United States.
Read Atlas Shrugged and you will know what freedom is.
As I understand it, freedom (in the political sphere), exists when there is an absence of physical force.
The US was the first country to follow this idea and the result is it lifted mans standard of living to its highest level in the history of mankind. The entire world is better off because of America and Freedom. Even the killer low lifes in Iraq and Iran who swear to kill all Americans have a better life because of Freedom and America... Rand defends Freedom.
@LooksOrange Yes, hiring kids is a freedom. Hiring people
USA is losing it's status piece by piece because the world started a few decades ago to compete. A Rand Paul follower should know that USA has toppled democratic regimes for its own benefit. It isn't about freedom, it's about dominance, money and resources. I bet the US MIC kills far more than the "low lifes" in Iraq and Iran. Didn't USA support Saddam, topple a democratic in Iran 1953? "Freedom" is just a slogan.
What I got from Atlas Shrugged is that you, as an individual, have a right to live your life for your sake. While it is fine and noble (and even in your best interests) to help others they do not have the right to demand your help as payment for your right to exist.
on the other hand it has become a bane without any inherent interest to find a solution for eventual resource depletion. For ex, cutting in funding of science and research in universities, NASA which are the only hope for interplanetary mining and exploration. a minor tweak to theory of capitalism is needed to turn a certain loss into a good probability win.
@jrswordfish1 you need to see a series of videos. search for the most important video ever. I agree with much of your thinking, but it also needs a reality check.
although i can see the virtues of capitalism to distribute limited resources and services (often succinctly chanted by ayn rand) i cannot see how capitalism can save humanity when the resources run out. on one hand capitalism accelerates consumption/depletion of resources and most often without any regard for environment.
It looks like the conversation here has gone off-topic, or at least has taken a turn to some very gray areas.
Let us not forget that the argument has nothing to do with the "drowning child", rather, let us try to focus on this whole sociopathic aspect of the subject.
We cannot ever suggest that Ayn Rand meant 'this' or 'that' without getting into an entirely un-winnable battle, just as we cannot suggest that Ayn Rand did not mean certain things.
@formless777 "justification for sociopaths to abuse the people they depend on."
I will assume by your comment that you are not a leader. You depend on others to improve your union-world through innovation, entrepreneurship, and foresight. Then you complain when it isn't fast enough, user-friendly, or unavailable in 'your size and color.' Your sect is more concerned with the length of the smoke break than the bottom line of the company which made a financial investment into their lives....
Even the title of the philosophy "Objectivism" is a conceited lie. There is nothing objective about this philosophy, it is merely a clumsy justification for sociopaths to abuse the people they depend on.
You're not going to like my videos on religion, but you'll like the ones on politics. I agree with Jefferson when he said: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". Of course that's all Liberals do is PICK MY POCKET!
However, if you really want to be able to defend your religious beliefs, you should watch those videos as well and be able to refute them...I look foward to the challenge :-)
I'm in the process of reading Atlas Shrugged...really like it so far...absolutely into Rand's political views, but not really getting into her philosophy of life.
She seems to be for free enterprise because she doesn't care about others...I'm into free enterprise precisely because I care about others. The best thing for individuals and for society at large is when people provide for themselves and their posterity with the work of their own hands.
You may want to hold back on your rejoicing until you have watched a couple of my videos. I find that most people who agree with my political views, disagree with my religious views; and those who agree with my views on religion, disagree with my political views.
But for me, and at this point in history, ANYONE who values Freedom is a friend of mine :-)
The problem is most people have NO IDEA what Freedom means anymore, and we're quickly losing our country because of it. If you have time, watch my short video on 'FREEDOM!' and tell me what you think.
I receive a lot of responses to my original post, but none of them seem to grasp the essence of the Ayn Rand message, which is that America was based on freedom of the individual. It was not based on helping the individual. Helping is a personal choice, and should not be a government mandate. Today we have a welfare state and the only people who want to come here are people who benefit from that. We used to be the greatest country on earth because of our freedoms.
@Berglernut , they still exist, but they are no longer respected. It all comes down to this:
Are the needs or miseries of one human being a mortgage on the freedom of another?
That's the ONLY question that needs to be asked because government must either protect the individuals "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" or the government must force one person to be another’s keeper (from each according to his ability to each according to his need". It MUST be one or the other.
It is quite clear this clip is making fun of Cooper/Rand - and is Don trying hard to be polite... It's worrying that some commenters seem to think it's saying the book is good!
It's suppose to be ironic. They are ad men. They produce nothing but ads to make people buy things. They are pretty much on par with the people Douglass Adams put on the first ship to colonize the other planets, "with the others coming 'after'". And on top of it, Draper is masking rather deep emotional pain, and Cooper later throws a hissy fit and quits because Draper wrote a letter saying Tobacco Advertising is crap, and the firm wouldn't do it anymore.
This isn't a very good advert for Ayn Rand considering virtually all the characters in Mad Men are supposed to be unsympathetic in some way. Cooper himself is just an old codger. The writers in Mad Men aren't endorsing objectivisn any more than sexism
Why don't you read the book and see the film before you start swearing at people ice cream person. For your information, people with this philosophy are
@TeaParty1776, eyescreamacke is advocating theft. "Millions for charity, not a penny tribute" means exactly that. Conservatives are some of the most generous politicals, way more than liberals. So how about quit trying to just TAKE it? Still, if you want to take the money from the rich, can you tell me by Bruce Springsteen lives in a home that sould house 200 families while preaching the same crap you do?
@Berglernut I have yet to meet a generous objectivist, if you find one maybe me and him can go snope or drop bear hunting, or hang out with Bilbo frodo and santa clause
It's self contradicting, isn't it? If it actually were a good idea to be unashamedly selfish, then what sense is there in recommending the philosophy to others? Surely if you were really selfish, you wouldn't want anyone else to realise being selfish is good for you. You'd benefit the most if you were the only selfish person about.
@Hiraghm individualists and objectivists are equally if not more craven and dishonorable then socialists and communists. At least some of the socialists and communists have good intentions.
@419dman - the intent to enslave people is never "good".
Individualists and objectivists are honorable; socialists and communists are craven and dishonorable. The morality of the latter is "anything is moral that achieves the objective of enslaving each man to another".
@Hiraghm Your ridiculous black and white vision is all the proof anyone needs that you are wrong, sorry randite the world is a gray place with subtlety and ambiguity, to assume all people that ascribe to a certain political philosophy are "craven and dishonorable" displays your extreme ignorance and gross naivety, for instance you are most likely not "craven and dishonorable" yourself but simply miss-guided and unaware.
@Hiraghm Not only do you have a poor understanding of political science you have an entirely disturbed sense of morality. Selflessness=Good, Selfishness=Good, at least if you were to ask Jesus of Nazareth or the God of the Bible.And my personal experience in business has shown me that all people are flawed, Individualist are just proud of their flaws, and by the way, the rest of us refer to you "Individualists" by your proper name- Sociopaths.
@419dman - individualism is *not* selfishness, just as communism is *not* generosity.
The real sociopaths are those who think they have the right to take from one person to give to another, for any reason whatever, and not call it "theft".
The real sociopaths are those who think they have any moral right to force someone to sacrifice their ambitions, desires or self-respect for others.
As Heinlein said, "generosity is inborn, altruism is a learned perversity."
@Hiraghm you choose to be a part of the system, you could live off the grid if you really wanted to, but you want the benefits of society with out having to pay for it, making you a freeloader much more so than the laborer whose existence is subsidized so you can continue to get the services you want at the prices you like, I would be fine if it all went bely up tomorrow, it's sanctimonious people like you who would quickly succumb to the dangers of a stateless society.
@419dman - I pay for the benefits of society every time I conduct a business transaction, even if it's buying a Coca-cola, and that doesn't include the taxes on the product.
Just because a bunch of leftists want to take from me to redistribute the fruit of my productivity to someone else does not mean I benefit from that redistribution.
No, the people providing the services should determine their price, not leftists in Washington through subsidies that exist to coerce behavior.
@Hiraghm You said "I pay for the benefits of society every time I conduct a business transaction, even if it's buying a Coca-cola, and that doesn't include the taxes on the product." this shows your child like reasoning, how do you account for the fact that the coke-a-cola corp. exist only because of the state, there are no corporations in the jungle.
@419dman - Put a man in the jungle, don't interfere, and eventually you will have corporations. Coca-cola exists in spite of the state, not because of it. It exists because an individual had an inspiration, worked to make something of it, and others saw the benefit. Only then did the state step in to take a cut of the fruit of his productivity. States arose as a result of free trade, not the other way around.
@Hiraghm Corporations are unnatural, cooperation is natural, corporations are knee deep in that coercion crap objectivist and libertarians decry all the time. The biggest problem I have with the pro corp. anti-state spiel is that in your system capital would become equal to people, people are already Commoditized now, without the state indentured servitude or slavery is sure to follow, just because gov't corrupt doesn't mean you should allow corrupt business men to take their place.
@Hiraghm It must be nice living in your digital, black and white world, But unfortunately My cognitive ability forces me to take notice of subtlety, your viewpoints aren't shocking, you grew up during the cold-war red scare, took the propaganda to heart and never learned to think for yourself, You are already a slave to "free market" but I wouldn't expect you to understand as you are from the most selfish generation in American History.
@419dman - No, that dishonor goes to the current generation of the entitlement mentality that thinks that the fruit of someone else's labor belongs to them, simply because they exist.
@Hiraghm I am just sickened by the Rand double speak, you nor any other libertarian are enslaved by anyone or anything your all just a bunch of freeloaders who want the benefits of society without trying to pay for it.
@419dman - I'm not a libertarian, and the benefits of society are best paid for by allowing individuals to pursue their ambitions. History has shown that by enslaving individuals to the collective, society becomes poor, vulgar, and primitive.
@Hiraghm I believe that creativity is one of the primary driving forces of the world, my problems with Rand are not the romantic notion of the strike of the mind but are objections to the implausibility of anyones ability to consolidate in their mind the idealist black-n-white "objective" Ideas with the non-romantic pragmatic and highly subjective true nature of reality. And c'mon enslaved? really- Ur cracka ass aint been no body's slave.
@419dman - neither has yours. Not yet. From your "cracka" comment, I imagine you're one of those benighted souls who thinks "slavery" only happened to black people.
@Hiraghm My mind realized the absolute incongruence of randism and reality long ago. And I am aware of the history of slavery, the egyptians, the romans, ect... but the difference is time, the slavery of blacks was much more recently socially acceptable, I too am a "Cracka" but I use the term to illustrate how down right silly you look, trying to claim you are enslaved by anyone or anything.
@419dman Nope. The practice of the rounding up and marketing Africans as slaves actually started under the Arab Muslim era around 750 AD. They also made slaving runs along Greece and the Med. coastline, all the way to northern Europe, which not only destroyed the intercoastal commerce of the Med, but actually contributed to the fall of the Dark Ages in EU.
@419dman " I am just sickened by the Rand double speak, you nor any other libertarian are enslaved by anyone or anything your all just a bunch of freeloaders who want the benefits of society without trying to pay for it."
LOL....There wouldn't BE any society if it wasn't for the producers, you fukin' moron. Do you think leeches like you will support one?? idiot
@foamulator How many Randians and libertardians are actualy producers, is simply making money productive, reality says its often counter productive or destructive, it would be great if you could advance in society based solely on merit, but the system 'yall advocate confuses freedom of capital with individual freedoms.
@Mahmhn A rationally self-interested person takes pleasure from seeing other rational people, and doesn't wish to profit from other's ignorance or misfortune.
@419dman You're taking for granted that "selfish" is automatically bad. This assumption is crippling your ability to see the rationally self-interested people who exist.
@shamgar001 I take nothing for granted, but selfishness is the epitome of moral bankruptcy, whereas selflessness is the highest moral concept. You could argue selfishness is "better" for society (the one you so selfishly want to live in) but it is simply not a morally superior position, and is merely a fallacy spawned by your false perception of your ego as yourself .
@shamgar001 I defer to a moral master "It is better to give than to receive" The entirety of the message Of Jesus (regardless if you believe him historical or not) was that Love breeds selflessness, I would for instance, sacrifice myself for the well being of my children, if I was morally perfect (which I am not) I would extend that love to all mankind
@419dman "I would for instance, sacrifice myself for the well being of my children"
The reason you would do this is because the life and happiness of your children is more important to you than whatever you're giving up. That is a rationally self-interested action.
The way you use "selfish/selfless" is different than they way Rand or egoists use it.
@shamgar001 You are just like Rand in the fact that you just don't get it, "You must not expect anything unearned in life or in love" Ayn Rand, paraphrased of coarse but very illustrative of her lack of understanding, Love can not be "earned" and if you Love somebody because they "earned" it, you don't love them at all. When she said selfishness thats what she meant apologist, she was an egoist and a materialist.
@419dman My soon-to-be wife makes me the happiest man in the world, and I repay her for that service with love. Does that mean my love isn't real, just because she deserves it? The notion that love must not be earned is conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom is often rubbish.
@shamgar001 If you feel your love is contingent on how she makes you happy and not your desire to make her happy, then no your love is not real, everybody deserves love, not just the people that make you happy.
@shamgar001 u got it twisted, I was saying that If you love her you should be more concerned with what you can do for her instead of what she does for you. For instance if she were suddenly crippled and couldn't do most of the things she used to do for you and you had to take care of her, would you, like most people, run for the hills?
@419dman Not at all. My love would drive me to take care of her.
But that's the effect of love, not the cause.
I wouldn't spend my life taking care of a cripple who meant nothing to me. My dearest makes me happy, which means her welfare is a huge part of my rational self-interest.
good points I agree.but if your born rich your already have a leg up and so many more contacts regardless of productivity or talent.Poorer neighbourhood kids,be he talented and driven have so much more of a struggle, I think there should be a system to help out people.and welfare or community centres or whatever system to help the the poor is not going to make them rich.just a slighly better life,and those who do have the talent or drive have some sort of evening out the playing field.
@treefrog2108 An excellent idea. Personally, I would support an organization (funded voluntarily, not through taxes) which goes into neighborhoods and a) teaches kids to be driven and b) finds the most talented and the brightest and gives them the opportunity to succeed. I think Ayn Rand would support this too, because great men derive selfish pleasure out of seeing others like them find success.
my father died when I was 6.My mother struggled and remarried. I went to school,college,joined the military,got a job,all without government assistance. We were poor. Our family and friends helped. I survived without school breakfasts or lunches,day care,color tv. I learned from school and from sports, sometimes you win,sometimes you lose.,but you must try. Not trying is not living
my father died when I was 6.My mother struggled and remarried. I went to school,college,joined the military,got a job,all without government assistance. We were poor. Our family and friends helped. I survived without school breakfasts or lunches,day care,color tv. I learned from school and from sports, sometimes you win,sometimes you lose.,but you must try. Not trying is not living
@MrGene2666 So you had 2 parents in the house and are whining about poor kids who don't have the support system your mother had getting to be able to eat breakfast and lunch. "Our family and Friends helped" you said, don't you understand that not everybody has that kind of assistance.
@419dman It's not the governments place to feed children,its the parents. Or parent. If you can't handle or afford children,you shouldn't have them. There is enough education out there on birth control .Having children and being a slave to the system is just cruel.
A follower is a believer in another's doctrine who repeats like a parrot without thinking the things he or she hears and "believes". What most people don't understand is that Objectivists are the opposite of followers or disciples.. they are individuals who understand they must identify the world and search for truth with their own senses to form concepts by rational thought. Beliefs are not truths. Truths can only be determined by the law of identity, not by following what others believe.
timberskid 1 month ago
Does anyone know in what chapter is it this scene?
Thanks!
RodrigoNovo89 1 month ago
@WhyMeMoFo And when will that be? When "Rand disciples" inhabit an island and cannibalize themselves? Um-kay... Have fun waiting.
Crust218 1 month ago
@WhyMeMoFo I tested it out. It's illogical. Keep your $5.
Crust218 1 month ago
@WhyMeMoFo "Rand disciples" living on an island would not cannibalize themselves because there would be no intelligent reason for it. Each individual would realize that it would be in his/her own best, selfish interest to cooperate and use reason to grow crops, hunt for food, and build a society. Objective morality is about logic, and it's illogical to cannibalize humans when you yourself could be on the menu.
Crust218 1 month ago
"Hard work."
Excuse me, where's the hard work? Making deals isn't "work." It's playing a game. Farming is work, engineering is work. Marketing has more to do with playing poker than it does with repairing a car.
aluisious 2 months ago
@aluisious You reallly dont know what you are talking about because if making deals is so easy then why dont more people make a living making deals so that they wont have to toil for less money doing manuel labor?
joskemom 2 months ago
@joskemom Most people are obstructed by ethics. The regular person doesn't try to take something they don't deserve. The successful business person goes for every campaign contribution and lobbying effort they can to get subsidies, tax breaks, regulation in their favor...they don't blink twice to fire domestic employees to pay Chinese people a dollar a day in a toxic dump.
That's why more people don't make deals. They aren't fucking crooks.
aluisious 2 months ago
@aluisious As if you know how people think. I guess your judgement is altered by your own personal lack of success and thus the bitch rant about people more successful than you. Whining is never a sign of achievers.
joskemom 2 months ago
@joskemom I'd address your points if you had any, but what you deserve is really more along the lines of shut the fuck up.
aluisious 2 months ago
@aluisious I made my point, you are a whiner about people who achieve to a level you can't comprehend. Hey, enjoy the next occupy 'stuff that aint mine' protest.
joskemom 1 month ago
The character of Cooper is meant to be insane and the contradiction of his love of the self-interested Rand while simultaneously worshipping the values of self-sacrifice found in Samurai Bushido exemplifies this. These incongruencies are more than just a reflection of eccentricity and are the hallmark of an inherently unhealthy mind. Calling this the best ad for the book is almost like having Jim Jones as spokesperson for Kool-Aid. Many people may be missing the point here.
ezzerdamoose 2 months ago
I HAVE to finish this book!
alfonso2501 3 months ago
Mad Men?
anthyo2 3 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA I have apologized for my mistake in my other response to you, if you can find it. I consider Objectivism as an ideology, although rationality-based, in practice by those who espouse it, ritualize it without much deep thought--hence it is like an occult, or religious in social behavior. I made the mistake that you are one of their believers. Again, I am sorry. :-)
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@soyerpanzen
After looking at your comments, i can tell you are well read. I have just started reading atlas shrugged and i really dont see the problem with objectivism. Where is its flaw, why dont you believe it is correct.
If you do respond, please do it via a personal message.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 3 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA Oh my, I either did do what your last response says, 1. made the error and mistaken you for a Randian, or 2. because how awkward and non-user friendly YouTube discussion/comment threads are, I read someone below or above you then hit your reply button instead, but either way it was my mistake, and for that I apologize. As you can read, I have sporadic responses on here, looking rather in fragments now. I think I will quit with this last one before my eyes go criss-cross. 0_o
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA Seems to me you are the one that needs to get a dictionary and get your nose out of Rand's fictions. And honestly, all the words I used for my last reply are words that you can get in many of Ayn Rands books, which I still own from when I was a teenager. One will be particularly useful for you, "The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z" which you will see define words such as tautology and epistemology. Next time you espouse a religion, know the critical texts, buddy. :-)
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA You need some instructions on tautology. But if you insist on analytical linguistics, my statement is that:
At age X I read Atlas Shrugged, at an earlier age when individuation from socialization was an important evaluation of myself. The sociopathological themes of AS appealed to my teenage mind. But reading it again at age Z, as an adult with much more understanding of ontology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics, I realized how wrong Rand is--hence I "grew up."
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA I read it as a teenager and as an adult. If I had to give a bromidic speech such as portrayed in this clip, I'd say we are different, because I grew up, and you didn't.
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
Comment removed
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@soyerpanzen Hey somebody removed my comment! And it wasn't me...hmmm what do you think @TheCommonManUSA ? I wonder if the admin of this channel had something to do with it? Lol.
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For jcat3022''s comments below: "I've always thought that it was those who read Atlas Shrugged, and think its a great book were the ones who understood it the least."
This is probably the most narrow minded point of view I have ever heard. This kind of person makes the world has more war than peace, more argument than discussion and more enemy than friend........
tzeleung 4 months ago
....and thats how Fed-meetings looks like.
sinredml85 4 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA Why would you be offended by Atlas Shrugged? It is a novel.
trha2222 4 months ago
where is this from?
LibeRevolution 4 months ago
People with kids aren't always self interested. Often, they put their kids first. Ayn Rand never got that. Her main characters never seem to have kids.
Plus she couldn't write a decent novel.
mimesis6mime 5 months ago
@mimesis6mime Protecting what you value is the very definition of self-interest. People with kids they value are protecting what they value when they put their kids first.
It is not a selflessness if you are willing to die for your wife if you value your wife's life more than yours. That is an act of high selfishness. However it is selflessness if you value her more then yourself, and yet you let her suffer & die.
antinominianist 5 months ago
@antinominianist In a world without a God ideals are meaningless, human happiness is the only thing of value.
Kids aren't characters in the movie of your life that you have to improve your own happiness, marriage doesn't work like that either. Love is something that involves suffering, we choose it anyway, we choose to set aside our self interests for something more important. deliberate is not selfish.
we often don't really even KNOW what's good for us, that Rand's folly. intuition tells us
mimesis6mime 5 months ago
@mimesis6mime I see many Asian-Americans from an atheist heritage (non-traditional theistic account) who are happy, meaningful, and idealistic. You don't need God, nor Ayn Rand to live a moral life. (Sometimes one can say about Americans that they don't need religion at all too in general, since they have consumerism. But I would say that's ideological too on par with the desires prescribed by religion). I agree that love requires much work, altruism, and self-interest. Love is complicated.
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@mimesis6mime having kids is done entirely in self-interest. that's how evolution works.
orospakr 5 months ago
@orospakr Conception is done out of self interest, some of the time. Raising kids is work and sacrifice, but its in our instinct.
Wanting kids is either wanting to sacrifice or wanting a person you can control. Does Rand lean toward the latter? the desire to fill out a family picture you idealized. these are the worst kind of parents.
Sacrifice isn't a bargain or a trade off, love is not a contract. Its a spiritual experience that involves giving up self interest and control of your happiness
mimesis6mime 5 months ago
@orospakr so at one instant, child-bearing is an innate activity, but on another instant Rand's theory of emotions as from intellectual premise (out of one's volition) is not innate, which would include self-interest. make up your minds, objectivists.
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
I talked to a guy once who loved Ayn Rand. He said she was the best philosopher in the world and that no one had manged to put a hole in her logic. He told me about her objectivst philosophy and I shuddered. I then mentioned A Christmas carol story about of Scrooge learning that his selfish ways earned him nothing. The objectivst stood there like a question mark? "A Christmas carol? Never heard of it". The moral:
You may know much, but sometimes not the most important stuff.
AndyAce83 5 months ago
@AndyAce83 There isn't a dumbass out there who would be willing to work for Scrooge. He pays sub-par wages and skimps on every cost. In real life, he'd go out of business the second someone else offered a better deal to his employees (which they would, since they could make a profit by doing so).
TheDrCN 5 months ago
@TheDrCN Like communism this works in theory. In real life people are still working at minimal wages all across the world. Not everybody is born with the midas touch, some are unlucky and get the *bleep*y end of the stick. I am not against freedom, or see anything wrong with moderate liberalism, but to believe that if everybody got unlimited freedom everything would work out great is naive at best. The best way to make a million is to start with two.
AndyAce83 5 months ago
@TheDrCN In your logic, syndicalism and unionism would also be in the self-interest of the employee (but of course, not the employer who privileges profit independent of whether profit-making raises or lowers standards of life and qualities of life in others) Randian idealization is ironically Platonic when examples in "real life" are indicated but have no historical and sociological concretes to materialize the claims. (Also see neoliberal corporations in Global South for more counterexamples).
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
Don Draper trolled into buying a bad book by weirdo eccentric boss
dhead22 6 months ago
I'm an Objectivist, and I've never met another Objectivist who's an asshole.. Maybe you mean Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly? these aren't Objectivist. Yaron Brook for example is an Objectivist, he isn't an asshole.. People on the internet keep saying Rand is for "self-righteous assholes" -well I've never met one, have you?
stephleom 6 months ago 30
@stephleom literally all of them i've ever met
dhead22 6 months ago
@dhead22 You're speaking about me then good sir. Try not to be so judge-mental.
Identityis 5 months ago
@stephleom the quote you provide from people on the Internet is an opinion. It is most likely a poorly formed opinion. Yaron Brook can easily be seen as self-righteous if one wants to ( I don't), but i am sure that is someone's opinion. As an objectivist, what do you care?
dcorton 4 months ago
@stephleom I have never even met another objectivist
r29 4 months ago
@stephleom I haven't met an Objectivist who isn't an asshole. You are not meeting enough, that's all. Presumably because sociopaths do not have the propensity to be collective, as Ayn Rand has redundantly systematized in her thought.
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@stephleom
objectivist
you mean those people who think we should nuke iraq, and it would be okay because that's selfish and being selfish is the entire point of Atlas Shrugged
magicaIpineapple 3 months ago
@magicaIpineapple Good job showing off your idiocy within these few lines.
Now everyone knows not to give a shit about the nonsense you cough up.
Skullchaser08 3 months ago
@Skullchaser08
wow great point my argument has truly crumbled whatever will i do now
magicaIpineapple 3 months ago
@magicaIpineapple cool story, bro.
Skullchaser08 3 months ago
@Skullchaser08
cool irrelevant meme reply bro
magicaIpineapple 3 months ago
@stephleom
kazooobjectivist.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-solve-americas-terrorism-problem.html
magicaIpineapple 3 months ago
@stephleom That's because assholes can't smell themselves.
NodrogTrax 1 month ago
" I've never met another objectivist whos an asshole". Thats maybe because people like you suffer from Narcissism. Dont ask you if you are an asshole. Ask others.
Astroboy1971 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Astroboy1971 "Dont ask you if you are an asshole. Ask others."
Brilliant
antihero355 1 week ago
@stephleom First off, O'Reilly and Beck don't claim to be Objectivists, they just like Ms.Rand's work (even though I would argue that Bill O'Reilly, as a traditionalist conservative, doesn't actually believe in voluntaryism, minarchism, or liberty like Rand. He's more of a Teddy Roosevelt progressive-lite and Beck likes Rick Santorum, another big spendin' GOPer).
FWYGINOND 1 week ago
Those who bash Rand & Atlas Shrugged always seem to be the ones that understand her & the book the least. If understood without a preconceived bias, it is the most powerful book ever written.
jcat3022 6 months ago 41
@jcat3022 get real.....People who don't like the twilight books just don't understand them.
UH NO! the books just blow dick. Not everything is a conspiracy.
brian4480 6 months ago 2
@jcat3022 Yes, many people say the same about Harry Potter, who oversold Ayn Rand. Global capitalism prefers J.K. Rowling.
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@soyerpanzen There is a big difference between Global Capitalism a.k.a. Monopoly Capitalism (where Governments give protection over the competetion & other advantages) & Free Enterprise Capitalism (Private Property owenership by individuals who compete in the free market). Unfortunatley for Collectivists (like you) you're disease is incurable. Now get the hell out of our way, we've got a society to rescue.
jcat3022 3 months ago
@jcat3022 oh so now collectivism is a disease? can you please cite the current scientific studies using methodology from the physical sciences and natural sciences, i.e. (true) OBJECTIVE (epistemic standpoint), that defines collectivism as a "disease."
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@jcat3022 I think there are many different "gradients" in the stages of capitalism, not just monopoly capitalism. There is also mercantilism, finance capitalism, and when I meant Global Capitalism, I was speaking of neoliberal globalization. [I have to break up my reply in sections due to the character count limit on here].
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@jcat3022 Lastly: Laissez Faire capitalism however is a-historical and will never exist, because reality is never that simple. Monist-reductionism in metaphysics might work, but hardly applicable to the social relations of political economy. Ontologically, yes A is A, but that is reified when imported into negotiations over economics, psychology, and politics. Now for my own ad-hominem rhetoric in return, You guys are so silly.
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@jcat3022 Actually no. It's the most extreme book ever written. I know it has its heart in the right places, but Rand really did not use philosophical insight when writing it. No philosopher would admit that the world is black and white, but Rand did. She refused to acknowledge a middle ground, always portraying people as supremely good or evil. All her characters are either superheroes or villains. That's why idealists like her so much - because they want to see in black and white.
redshark618 3 months ago
@jcat3022 Sorry for the rant, but I too have been through the Rand idealist phase and grown out of it. When you come out the other side, you'll be a lot more insightful.
redshark618 3 months ago
@redshark618 - The analysis of Rand is noted & to a degree your point is correct. However, what is the problem w/ individuals seeking their own self interests over others? Seems to me, the world could use quite a few more Producers instead of Takers these days. There argument of Individualism vs. Collectivism has never been more clear then in today's society, and Rand saw in coming decades ago,
jcat3022 2 months ago
@jcat3022 The problem is many people, and probably you, completely misidentify who the producers are and who the takers are.
aluisious 2 months ago
@redshark618 Amen.
bjbinmke 2 months ago
@jcat3022 From a literacy point of view, It is a poor and very bad written book. And thats the most important fact in a book. The rest, like your opinion, comes obviously from a preconceived bias. Read more, im sure you will find really powerful books.
Astroboy1971 2 weeks ago
Ayn Rand and her "philosophy" gives people who are assholes to begin with "intellectual" cover to continue being assholes.
Zxzm 6 months ago
Back in the 1963 setting here it probably was! But then what would $1.99 be in today's money? Probably more than the $17 I paid for my copy! And by the time obimbo gets thru with America (that would be Jan. 20, 2013), we'll be lucky if it doesn't cost $199 !!!!!
l1nkh0gthr0b 6 months ago
if only that nice big bulky thick paperback publication [as shown in this video] was only a dollar ninety nine..
JackDeville1 7 months ago
It may just be me, but I found Atlas Shurgged to be one of the most depraved books I have ever read.... nor was it even written that well...
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
Part 1
Without freedom the United States is nothing.
Every law is either a freedom law or a slavery law. there is no third possibility. Many people today, without knowing it, cheer on politicians who pass laws that enslave others. If you understand freedom you will understand how incredibly destructive it is to blast freedom out of existence one Communist\Socialist law at a time. If it continues it will be the end of the United States and freedom for centuries.
Part 2 of this post is below
LooksOrange 7 months ago 2
Part 2
Freedom is logical. When government passes and enforces freedom laws, the resulting economic system is based on freedom and it is called Capitalism. When a person attacks Capitalism, they MUST attack freedom directly or indirectly. Freedom and logic make Capitalism "go". To destroy Capitalism, you must destroy the principle(s) it rests on, namely, freedom. Destroy freedom and you destroy Capitalism AND the United States.
Read Atlas Shrugged and you will know what freedom is.
LooksOrange 7 months ago 2
@LooksOrange Can I hire children to work in the name of freedom? I bet the kid won't feel free..
Hirnlego999 6 months ago
@Hirnlego999
In what context?
As I understand it, freedom (in the political sphere), exists when there is an absence of physical force.
The US was the first country to follow this idea and the result is it lifted mans standard of living to its highest level in the history of mankind. The entire world is better off because of America and Freedom. Even the killer low lifes in Iraq and Iran who swear to kill all Americans have a better life because of Freedom and America... Rand defends Freedom.
LooksOrange 5 months ago 2
@LooksOrange Yes, hiring kids is a freedom. Hiring people
USA is losing it's status piece by piece because the world started a few decades ago to compete. A Rand Paul follower should know that USA has toppled democratic regimes for its own benefit. It isn't about freedom, it's about dominance, money and resources. I bet the US MIC kills far more than the "low lifes" in Iraq and Iran. Didn't USA support Saddam, topple a democratic in Iran 1953? "Freedom" is just a slogan.
Hirnlego999 5 months ago
What I got from Atlas Shrugged is that you, as an individual, have a right to live your life for your sake. While it is fine and noble (and even in your best interests) to help others they do not have the right to demand your help as payment for your right to exist.
studentofsmith 7 months ago 2
contd...
on the other hand it has become a bane without any inherent interest to find a solution for eventual resource depletion. For ex, cutting in funding of science and research in universities, NASA which are the only hope for interplanetary mining and exploration. a minor tweak to theory of capitalism is needed to turn a certain loss into a good probability win.
jrswordfish1 7 months ago
@jrswordfish1 you need to see a series of videos. search for the most important video ever. I agree with much of your thinking, but it also needs a reality check.
UpstairsMaid 7 months ago
although i can see the virtues of capitalism to distribute limited resources and services (often succinctly chanted by ayn rand) i cannot see how capitalism can save humanity when the resources run out. on one hand capitalism accelerates consumption/depletion of resources and most often without any regard for environment.
jrswordfish1 7 months ago
It looks like the conversation here has gone off-topic, or at least has taken a turn to some very gray areas.
Let us not forget that the argument has nothing to do with the "drowning child", rather, let us try to focus on this whole sociopathic aspect of the subject.
We cannot ever suggest that Ayn Rand meant 'this' or 'that' without getting into an entirely un-winnable battle, just as we cannot suggest that Ayn Rand did not mean certain things.
What we CAN do is check our premises once again.
ftechinc 7 months ago
@formless777 "justification for sociopaths to abuse the people they depend on."
I will assume by your comment that you are not a leader. You depend on others to improve your union-world through innovation, entrepreneurship, and foresight. Then you complain when it isn't fast enough, user-friendly, or unavailable in 'your size and color.' Your sect is more concerned with the length of the smoke break than the bottom line of the company which made a financial investment into their lives....
BrooksieMD 7 months ago
Even the title of the philosophy "Objectivism" is a conceited lie. There is nothing objective about this philosophy, it is merely a clumsy justification for sociopaths to abuse the people they depend on.
formless777 7 months ago
Bullshit...................
rlibos 8 months ago
@zvnteq7
I'd say "go fuck yourself."
People who think they're "Atlas," are actually always standing on more people's shoulders than anyone else.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@zvnteq7 I concur.
Kasmir145 8 months ago
"Have you ever played Bioshock? Take $19.99 out of that 2500 dollars and buy yourself a copy."
erniehead 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Q: "Who is John Galt?"
A: A juvenile, greedy, self-centered, sociopathic asshole.
Any further questions?
jcapatelli 8 months ago
"Now, let's grab a drink, a cigar, and go flirt with all those $2 an hour secretaries who depend on all our hard work." lol
drewbieark 8 months ago
@qix77
You're not going to like my videos on religion, but you'll like the ones on politics. I agree with Jefferson when he said: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". Of course that's all Liberals do is PICK MY POCKET!
However, if you really want to be able to defend your religious beliefs, you should watch those videos as well and be able to refute them...I look foward to the challenge :-)
sgapplebee 9 months ago
I'm in the process of reading Atlas Shrugged...really like it so far...absolutely into Rand's political views, but not really getting into her philosophy of life.
She seems to be for free enterprise because she doesn't care about others...I'm into free enterprise precisely because I care about others. The best thing for individuals and for society at large is when people provide for themselves and their posterity with the work of their own hands.
Rand doesn't seem to get this...
flizzleFlopper 9 months ago
@qix77
You may want to hold back on your rejoicing until you have watched a couple of my videos. I find that most people who agree with my political views, disagree with my religious views; and those who agree with my views on religion, disagree with my political views.
But for me, and at this point in history, ANYONE who values Freedom is a friend of mine :-)
sgapplebee 9 months ago
@qix77 ,
The problem is most people have NO IDEA what Freedom means anymore, and we're quickly losing our country because of it. If you have time, watch my short video on 'FREEDOM!' and tell me what you think.
sgapplebee 9 months ago
I receive a lot of responses to my original post, but none of them seem to grasp the essence of the Ayn Rand message, which is that America was based on freedom of the individual. It was not based on helping the individual. Helping is a personal choice, and should not be a government mandate. Today we have a welfare state and the only people who want to come here are people who benefit from that. We used to be the greatest country on earth because of our freedoms.
They no longer exist.
Berglernut 9 months ago
@Berglernut , they still exist, but they are no longer respected. It all comes down to this:
Are the needs or miseries of one human being a mortgage on the freedom of another?
That's the ONLY question that needs to be asked because government must either protect the individuals "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" or the government must force one person to be another’s keeper (from each according to his ability to each according to his need". It MUST be one or the other.
sgapplebee 9 months ago
@Berglernut I agreee with you.The idea and history of America has been about freeing people,not being a slave to the state.
MrGene2666 9 months ago
based on the movie attendance , they should rename this "atlas flubbed"
desertrat1111 9 months ago
I am John Galt
americanbandwidth 9 months ago
If your want to see what long term destruction corporatism and socialism can do to a business, state,country and the world, read Atlas Shrugged.
mustang607 9 months ago
It is quite clear this clip is making fun of Cooper/Rand - and is Don trying hard to be polite... It's worrying that some commenters seem to think it's saying the book is good!
theoutlandinstitute 9 months ago
@theoutlandinstitute
Guess you haven't read Rand, or you'd know Madmen is basically Ayn Rand fan-fiction.
Also, the creators have said that this scene was meant to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the book.
JesseForgione 9 months ago
A good TV series but Ayn Rand's book is trite and badly written. It's hard to see what all the fuss is about her work.
shinylondon 9 months ago
Seems a little childish of a philosophy, haven't read it, and I'm not sure I want to.
SgtSpankey 9 months ago
19 people are moochers.
collinct24 10 months ago
@collinct24 But we have souls
VincentPhil 9 months ago
This is from Madmen, which takes place back in the 60s.
SoleMan117 10 months ago
was this in a movie or tv series, which and what ? had to be old unless he buys his books, hardback at a used book store hehe.
MLBrawner 10 months ago
wow, Robert Morse from How to succeed in business without really trying. lol
trogwolf 10 months ago
It's suppose to be ironic. They are ad men. They produce nothing but ads to make people buy things. They are pretty much on par with the people Douglass Adams put on the first ship to colonize the other planets, "with the others coming 'after'". And on top of it, Draper is masking rather deep emotional pain, and Cooper later throws a hissy fit and quits because Draper wrote a letter saying Tobacco Advertising is crap, and the firm wouldn't do it anymore.
Tatarize 10 months ago
This isn't a very good advert for Ayn Rand considering virtually all the characters in Mad Men are supposed to be unsympathetic in some way. Cooper himself is just an old codger. The writers in Mad Men aren't endorsing objectivisn any more than sexism
lolharbandhar 10 months ago
Yes, some people feel no empathy... these people are called sociopaths and have a mental condition that as of present cannot be treated.
DeJach 10 months ago
Why don't you read the book and see the film before you start swearing at people ice cream person. For your information, people with this philosophy are
some of the most generous people.
Berglernut 10 months ago
@Berglernut eyescreamcake is advocating sacrifice.
TeaParty1776 10 months ago
@TeaParty1776, eyescreamacke is advocating theft. "Millions for charity, not a penny tribute" means exactly that. Conservatives are some of the most generous politicals, way more than liberals. So how about quit trying to just TAKE it? Still, if you want to take the money from the rich, can you tell me by Bruce Springsteen lives in a home that sould house 200 families while preaching the same crap you do?
Hanson914 10 months ago
@Berglernut I have yet to meet a generous objectivist, if you find one maybe me and him can go snope or drop bear hunting, or hang out with Bilbo frodo and santa clause
419dman 9 months ago
It's self contradicting, isn't it? If it actually were a good idea to be unashamedly selfish, then what sense is there in recommending the philosophy to others? Surely if you were really selfish, you wouldn't want anyone else to realise being selfish is good for you. You'd benefit the most if you were the only selfish person about.
Mahmhn 10 months ago
@Mahmhn - this presumes that individualists and objectivists are as craven and dishonorable as socialists and communists.
Hiraghm 10 months ago 2
@Hiraghm individualists and objectivists are equally if not more craven and dishonorable then socialists and communists. At least some of the socialists and communists have good intentions.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman - the intent to enslave people is never "good".
Individualists and objectivists are honorable; socialists and communists are craven and dishonorable. The morality of the latter is "anything is moral that achieves the objective of enslaving each man to another".
Hiraghm 9 months ago 2
@Hiraghm Your ridiculous black and white vision is all the proof anyone needs that you are wrong, sorry randite the world is a gray place with subtlety and ambiguity, to assume all people that ascribe to a certain political philosophy are "craven and dishonorable" displays your extreme ignorance and gross naivety, for instance you are most likely not "craven and dishonorable" yourself but simply miss-guided and unaware.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman - nope, the world is not shades of gray; it is digital. Everything can be broken down into binary at its most elemental form.
Collectivists (socialists/communists) = bad; individualists = good. Simple. Nuff said.
It's not ignorance nore naivety, it's decades of experience and exposure to individualists and collectivists.
Of course I'm not craven or dishonorable. I'm not a collectivist.
Hiraghm 9 months ago
@Hiraghm Not only do you have a poor understanding of political science you have an entirely disturbed sense of morality. Selflessness=Good, Selfishness=Good, at least if you were to ask Jesus of Nazareth or the God of the Bible.And my personal experience in business has shown me that all people are flawed, Individualist are just proud of their flaws, and by the way, the rest of us refer to you "Individualists" by your proper name- Sociopaths.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman - individualism is *not* selfishness, just as communism is *not* generosity.
The real sociopaths are those who think they have the right to take from one person to give to another, for any reason whatever, and not call it "theft".
The real sociopaths are those who think they have any moral right to force someone to sacrifice their ambitions, desires or self-respect for others.
As Heinlein said, "generosity is inborn, altruism is a learned perversity."
Hiraghm 9 months ago 2
@Hiraghm you choose to be a part of the system, you could live off the grid if you really wanted to, but you want the benefits of society with out having to pay for it, making you a freeloader much more so than the laborer whose existence is subsidized so you can continue to get the services you want at the prices you like, I would be fine if it all went bely up tomorrow, it's sanctimonious people like you who would quickly succumb to the dangers of a stateless society.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman - I pay for the benefits of society every time I conduct a business transaction, even if it's buying a Coca-cola, and that doesn't include the taxes on the product.
Just because a bunch of leftists want to take from me to redistribute the fruit of my productivity to someone else does not mean I benefit from that redistribution.
No, the people providing the services should determine their price, not leftists in Washington through subsidies that exist to coerce behavior.
Hiraghm 9 months ago 2
@Hiraghm You said "I pay for the benefits of society every time I conduct a business transaction, even if it's buying a Coca-cola, and that doesn't include the taxes on the product." this shows your child like reasoning, how do you account for the fact that the coke-a-cola corp. exist only because of the state, there are no corporations in the jungle.
419dman 8 months ago
@419dman - Put a man in the jungle, don't interfere, and eventually you will have corporations. Coca-cola exists in spite of the state, not because of it. It exists because an individual had an inspiration, worked to make something of it, and others saw the benefit. Only then did the state step in to take a cut of the fruit of his productivity. States arose as a result of free trade, not the other way around.
First came trade, then came government.
Hiraghm 8 months ago
@Hiraghm Corporations are unnatural, cooperation is natural, corporations are knee deep in that coercion crap objectivist and libertarians decry all the time. The biggest problem I have with the pro corp. anti-state spiel is that in your system capital would become equal to people, people are already Commoditized now, without the state indentured servitude or slavery is sure to follow, just because gov't corrupt doesn't mean you should allow corrupt business men to take their place.
419dman 8 months ago
@Hiraghm It must be nice living in your digital, black and white world, But unfortunately My cognitive ability forces me to take notice of subtlety, your viewpoints aren't shocking, you grew up during the cold-war red scare, took the propaganda to heart and never learned to think for yourself, You are already a slave to "free market" but I wouldn't expect you to understand as you are from the most selfish generation in American History.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman - No, that dishonor goes to the current generation of the entitlement mentality that thinks that the fruit of someone else's labor belongs to them, simply because they exist.
Hiraghm 8 months ago
@Hiraghm I am just sickened by the Rand double speak, you nor any other libertarian are enslaved by anyone or anything your all just a bunch of freeloaders who want the benefits of society without trying to pay for it.
419dman 8 months ago
@419dman - I'm not a libertarian, and the benefits of society are best paid for by allowing individuals to pursue their ambitions. History has shown that by enslaving individuals to the collective, society becomes poor, vulgar, and primitive.
Hiraghm 8 months ago
@Hiraghm I believe that creativity is one of the primary driving forces of the world, my problems with Rand are not the romantic notion of the strike of the mind but are objections to the implausibility of anyones ability to consolidate in their mind the idealist black-n-white "objective" Ideas with the non-romantic pragmatic and highly subjective true nature of reality. And c'mon enslaved? really- Ur cracka ass aint been no body's slave.
419dman 8 months ago
@419dman - neither has yours. Not yet. From your "cracka" comment, I imagine you're one of those benighted souls who thinks "slavery" only happened to black people.
Hiraghm 8 months ago
@Hiraghm My mind realized the absolute incongruence of randism and reality long ago. And I am aware of the history of slavery, the egyptians, the romans, ect... but the difference is time, the slavery of blacks was much more recently socially acceptable, I too am a "Cracka" but I use the term to illustrate how down right silly you look, trying to claim you are enslaved by anyone or anything.
419dman 8 months ago
@419dman Nope. The practice of the rounding up and marketing Africans as slaves actually started under the Arab Muslim era around 750 AD. They also made slaving runs along Greece and the Med. coastline, all the way to northern Europe, which not only destroyed the intercoastal commerce of the Med, but actually contributed to the fall of the Dark Ages in EU.
foamulator 8 months ago
@419dman " I am just sickened by the Rand double speak, you nor any other libertarian are enslaved by anyone or anything your all just a bunch of freeloaders who want the benefits of society without trying to pay for it."
LOL....There wouldn't BE any society if it wasn't for the producers, you fukin' moron. Do you think leeches like you will support one?? idiot
foamulator 8 months ago
@foamulator How many Randians and libertardians are actualy producers, is simply making money productive, reality says its often counter productive or destructive, it would be great if you could advance in society based solely on merit, but the system 'yall advocate confuses freedom of capital with individual freedoms.
419dman 8 months ago
@419dman Well , it would be difficult to move around freely without your money, wouldn't it? duh
foamulator 8 months ago
@Mahmhn A rationally self-interested person takes pleasure from seeing other rational people, and doesn't wish to profit from other's ignorance or misfortune.
shamgar001 10 months ago
@shamgar001 It would be nice if this "rationally self-interested person" you speak of existed.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman You're taking for granted that "selfish" is automatically bad. This assumption is crippling your ability to see the rationally self-interested people who exist.
shamgar001 9 months ago
@shamgar001 I take nothing for granted, but selfishness is the epitome of moral bankruptcy, whereas selflessness is the highest moral concept. You could argue selfishness is "better" for society (the one you so selfishly want to live in) but it is simply not a morally superior position, and is merely a fallacy spawned by your false perception of your ego as yourself .
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman Why is selflessness morally superior and selfishness morally bankrupt?
shamgar001 9 months ago
@shamgar001 I defer to a moral master "It is better to give than to receive" The entirety of the message Of Jesus (regardless if you believe him historical or not) was that Love breeds selflessness, I would for instance, sacrifice myself for the well being of my children, if I was morally perfect (which I am not) I would extend that love to all mankind
419dman 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@419dman "I would for instance, sacrifice myself for the well being of my children"
The reason you would do this is because the life and happiness of your children is more important to you than whatever you're giving up. That is a rationally self-interested action.
The way you use "selfish/selfless" is different than they way Rand or egoists use it.
shamgar001 9 months ago
@shamgar001 You are just like Rand in the fact that you just don't get it, "You must not expect anything unearned in life or in love" Ayn Rand, paraphrased of coarse but very illustrative of her lack of understanding, Love can not be "earned" and if you Love somebody because they "earned" it, you don't love them at all. When she said selfishness thats what she meant apologist, she was an egoist and a materialist.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman My soon-to-be wife makes me the happiest man in the world, and I repay her for that service with love. Does that mean my love isn't real, just because she deserves it? The notion that love must not be earned is conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom is often rubbish.
shamgar001 9 months ago
@shamgar001 If you feel your love is contingent on how she makes you happy and not your desire to make her happy, then no your love is not real, everybody deserves love, not just the people that make you happy.
419dman 8 months ago
@419dman My desire to make her happy is an expression of love. To love her because I want to make her happy is to place effect before cause.
shamgar001 8 months ago
@shamgar001 u got it twisted, I was saying that If you love her you should be more concerned with what you can do for her instead of what she does for you. For instance if she were suddenly crippled and couldn't do most of the things she used to do for you and you had to take care of her, would you, like most people, run for the hills?
419dman 8 months ago
@419dman Not at all. My love would drive me to take care of her.
But that's the effect of love, not the cause.
I wouldn't spend my life taking care of a cripple who meant nothing to me. My dearest makes me happy, which means her welfare is a huge part of my rational self-interest.
shamgar001 8 months ago
good points I agree.but if your born rich your already have a leg up and so many more contacts regardless of productivity or talent.Poorer neighbourhood kids,be he talented and driven have so much more of a struggle, I think there should be a system to help out people.and welfare or community centres or whatever system to help the the poor is not going to make them rich.just a slighly better life,and those who do have the talent or drive have some sort of evening out the playing field.
treefrog2108 10 months ago
@treefrog2108 An excellent idea. Personally, I would support an organization (funded voluntarily, not through taxes) which goes into neighborhoods and a) teaches kids to be driven and b) finds the most talented and the brightest and gives them the opportunity to succeed. I think Ayn Rand would support this too, because great men derive selfish pleasure out of seeing others like them find success.
shamgar001 10 months ago
@shamgar001 you like most Randites seem to mistake ruthlessness for greatness, I have yet to meet a "great" man that had a nickel to his name.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman
1. I'm not a "Randite"
2. I don't consider ruthlessness a requirement for greatness
shamgar001 9 months ago
@shamgar001 What are your requirements for greatness?
419dman 9 months ago
my father died when I was 6.My mother struggled and remarried. I went to school,college,joined the military,got a job,all without government assistance. We were poor. Our family and friends helped. I survived without school breakfasts or lunches,day care,color tv. I learned from school and from sports, sometimes you win,sometimes you lose.,but you must try. Not trying is not living
MrGene2666 10 months ago
@MrGene2666
Schools are government programs like the militarily. So that was at least 16 year of government programs you attended, maybe more.
suemtchlrnw 9 months ago
@MrGene2666 you went to school? who provided your schooling? Was it.. the government, maybe?
if tax money didn't provide your schooling, the only alternative I can think of is that you you were lying when you said you were poor.
so who provided for your early education?
Tanksareforcowards 9 months ago
my father died when I was 6.My mother struggled and remarried. I went to school,college,joined the military,got a job,all without government assistance. We were poor. Our family and friends helped. I survived without school breakfasts or lunches,day care,color tv. I learned from school and from sports, sometimes you win,sometimes you lose.,but you must try. Not trying is not living
MrGene2666 10 months ago
@MrGene2666 So you had 2 parents in the house and are whining about poor kids who don't have the support system your mother had getting to be able to eat breakfast and lunch. "Our family and Friends helped" you said, don't you understand that not everybody has that kind of assistance.
419dman 9 months ago
@419dman It's not the governments place to feed children,its the parents. Or parent. If you can't handle or afford children,you shouldn't have them. There is enough education out there on birth control .Having children and being a slave to the system is just cruel.
MrGene2666 9 months ago