There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
Moochers and looters have united. Tearing down production and prosperity. Building up dependency and mediocrity. Instilling envy everywhere. Creating class warfare, stupidity, depression and debt." Working" at it 24 hours a day.
And all the while blaming the free market for their sins.
It's very interesting that my comment below received too many negative votes and is now no longer up for debate. The comment read: ""Nor ask another man to live for mine." Um... Isn't that what capitalists (those who own the business) ask and in fact demand, of their employees every day?" Hey. Call me a spammer. It's just that I dissent with good reason.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I read the book. It's a piece of childish trash. What Cowards. Afraid of being a part of society. lol. I'll bet these people never even saw how Insane Ayn Rand was. Look at her interviews.lmao
As human beings are by nature social animals. John Galt is anti-human.
Ayn Rand takes selfishness and sociopathy, and trys to make a vertue of it.
No man is an island, and we are all of us relientupon our fellow men for our servival. You yourself did not biuld the roud outside your home. Nor did you yourself biuld the car you took to the market. Nor did you grow or pick or deliver that food to the market.
If you hate your fellow man so much, then learn to live without
*The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?
In a democratic, free, peaceful society, what is "the state" but a collection of individuals from all across the nation who are seriously trying to better their nation and keep it strong? To keep order in society
In America, there IS NO "state." There are LEGISLATORS, GOVERNORS, BUREAUCRATS, ETC., most of whom are democratically elected and all of whom can be kicked out by someone else if there's enough support. They are far from dictators. So can it with this "statism" nonsense.
Even Jesus Christ NEVER emphasized anything that extreme in the name of altruism. He did say shit about "the shirt on your back' and whatnot, but that's far from giving up your entire life for someone else.
Simpy helping others in their time of need is anti-individual? Lol. It sure helps the individual getting the aid! And it at least gives the person helping some peace of mind. Seems win-win to me. I don't get why Objectivists have such a distorted view of altruism.
What do you think altruism is?? Because I don't know A SINGLE PERSON who thinks altruism means giving up your entire livelihood to help another person. It may mean temporary aid or even a lot of aid (if you're rich) but not all.
no one asked god to die for them. he did it because he wanted to. there was no peer pressure or force, there is the living and the dead , be sure what you are. god is immortal, if he suffers the pain and humiliation of death to be with us, and it brings him pleasure, good. man should live up to his best, god wants this.
you just dont get it, nobody is asking for you do not respect others rights and values, the oath only ask to live in order to give something passible of value if you demand the same of another being, do not became a leech and do not make the others leech themselves e, do not care for what anothers do with they lives, but that doesnt mean that if something is taking away they rights you shouldnt intervine, its your best interest that everybody have the same chances
I'm a HUGE fan of this book. But guys, you got to remember. It's a book... just a book. and Ayn Rand was a writer, a damn good writer. But she wasn't a politician, or an economist, or any of that. You need to stop trying to apply this book as a solid frame for our lives. The book is black and white our life is very many shades of grey.
@LunarFuror You obviously haven't seen her fight politicians. She personally is crazy, but her book, if applied in the sense it was meant to, which is very literal, whether you like it or not, has both instant and lasting gratification. She was but the first. Her followers have perfected her idea. Objectivism is possible and believe it or not easy. The problem is the crowd posting comments her was raised in a more "progressive" (nowadays liberal) household and is fighting memories of childhood.
John Gault's friends came to save him. "ALL" of Galut's friends turned out. The question you have to ask youself is; how many people do you know and consider friends whould come and save you? I've been through a serious work related incident. Not one of those rats I work or worked with did anything to stand behind me. Not a one! All the bible verses and moral speech's don't matter when your friends don't stand up for you.
If you take care of yourself then you'll help others as well.
Employeers & employes: I've worked with dozens of "good Christians" who at any given time will drop into bible quotes and remind me what they know and do. Oddly enough, those "good Christians" are the first to cut a side deal with management,screw you out of overtime. They talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Are the first to blame you for something they did or were suppose to do. They are the first to pass off their duties on to another person. Yes, they understand what they are doing.
@cuttlefishgem John Galt's Oath has nothing to do with children nor with the other wonderful types of persons who expect nothing in return for their work.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Nor ask another man to live for mine." Um... Isn't that what capitalists (those who own the business) ask and in fact demand, of their employees every day?
@LucyAm97 When you sign a contract of employment, you are agreeing that you will live to a large extent for the sake of the employer who will profit from your doing so.
@cuttlefishgem Sorry about the double post. When one (voluntarily) signs a contract of employment, the employer is also agreeing to pay you for your work. Of course! a company expects to make a profit after all overhead is paid out, else why bother to start a business?
@LucyAm97 A good reason to start a business might be to do some good in the world, provide for the people who collaborate with you, provide a satisfying quality of working life for employees, pay for the education of your children and that of your employees... etc. etc. When one reduces it to the profit motive one simply casts people as money-hungry greedy selfish uncaring sharks.
@shaunconnell Those employees clearly haven't taken the john galt oath. Most teachers, nurses, firefighters and mother theresa types clearly haven't taken the oath either.
@shaunconnell What other option do employees have? If they don't seek employment they starve. Even slaves were fed and taken care of with medicine etc. Saying they "volunteer" and "get paid" is just like a fundamentalist christian saying we are free to voluntarily accept christ or not, (but if we don't we burn in hell for eternity). Its not free choice it's manipulative coersion.
@gocrusaderz So there are some unspoken aspects of the oath that qualify what it is that capitalist employers demand of their employees, that somehow makes the oath consistent with and amenable to a life of employment at Walmart?
The whole notion of reducing human conduct to "living for yourself" or "living for others" seems like an absurdly unrealistic dichotomy. We have rights, that we expect others to respect, and we have obligations to others -- things we must do or refrain from doing, requirements that others expect *us* to respect.
I have obligations to my family, my friends, my business associates, my country and even human beings generally.
@prodprod Yea, it doesn't seem too big an idea to get my head around that we are indiduals AND part of something bigger. To have to choose one or the other seems to me overly simplistic.
@prodprod You're correct, we do have rights. Except for the fact that it takes the government to enforce them, if and when they choose to. One big problem is people & special groups of people can't mind their own business. If people were to pay a little more attention to themselves instead of everyone else the world would be a lot better off.
@prodprod It's interesting to note that in your very statement against Rand, you are supporting what Rand wanted: a relationship between traders. It's when people (the "moochers" and the "looters") expect you to give them anything or everything, while you get nothing in return is what Rand and Galt is speaking out against.
You should pick up one of Rand's nonfictions: would really help to shed light on what Galt/Rand really meant.
@heavens2kadonka I haven't read Rand's non-fiction - I've frankly been chased away by her fiction. What architect (as in the Fountainhead) would say to the people who are paying for his designs -- you have to build the building exactly the way I want because "it's mine"?
Really? Where I come from, the guy who *pays* might actually be able to advance a good case for the building -- and the architect's services and his designs being *his* - and that he has a right to do with them what he wants.
(cont'd) (2) I work as a screenwriter. In my business, you write a script, or get hired to write one -- and then you sell it to a producer. They buy *all rights* -- and they get to do with it whatever they want.
You can always say, "Oh, but you can set own contractual terms."
Sure -- in which case they don't hire you. Then, you get to *not* be a screenwriter. Or *not* be an architect, outside of literary fantasy.
Unless you can finance your own movies or finance your own buildings.
@prodprod I haven't read The Fountainhead yet, so I cannot defend the work or rebuff your criticism. I do agree with your stance on intellectual property, and find it interesting Rand would write such a situation.
I suggest you at least borrow, read a little of "Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal." Very well-researched, very interesting subjects. A lot of what she wrote against is still pertinent today. The Antitrust works and the Historical studies of proto-statism is especially noteworthy.
@gocrusaderz But that, to me, is at the heart of my difficulty with the entire concept, because what any person views as obligatory depends upon his particular values. I may value my family above my life, or my kin, my tribe, my faith, my ethnic group, my country, those who share a common ethos -- or nothing and nobody. But if I die for my country -- I'm still giving something up. On measure, in terms of my values, it may be a worthwhile exchange, but I'm still giving up something of value.
@prodprod The question is -- to what extent does a community with shared values have the right to impose those values upon an individual who doesn't share them?
So we collectively believe in a strong national defense and an interstate highway system and in mandatory taxation to support them. I don't share those values. Can I opt out of paying for them? But what of those who say that I share in the benefit of that defense and in the advantage of that highway system (even if I don't use it)?
@prodprod That's the larger problem -- almost nobody chooses the larger system of government of which they are a part -- even democratic systems. So even though the system says that we get to vote but then we must collectively abide by the outcome of the vote -- well, I don't remember agreeing to that.
That's something that we all inherited. But I'm not bound to an agreement made for me by my grandfather. So should we all be bound by an agreement made for us by the "founding fathers?"
@prodprod Yes but this system allows to achieve what's most valuable to you. You give up what is less valuable. No other system offers you this choice.
@gocrusaderz What if what's "most valuable" to me is simply to stay on my own property, not use any of the services provided by the government (the highways, the schools, the municipal water, the national defense) be completely self-sufficient -- and *not pay for anything* in the form of taxes?
Obviously, the state would take exception to that system of values. If I didn't pay (minimally) my property taxes, they'd throw me in jail.
I'm not advocating this -- just raising the question.
@prodprod But in Rands system all those programs you mentioned would be private. There wouldnt be a tax for those. Except for the National defense. I cant imagine a world in which people wouldnt want to contribute any money for defense. Take into account the costs for defense would be much lower because we wouldnt be waging war in far off countries under her system. But I think her system would COMPLETELY support those values if thats what you chose to do
@gocrusaderz Do you really believe in a system with strictly private highways, road signals, traffic lights etc. - not to mention purely private rules for, say, power production? So there'd be no power grid? No interconnectivity between locally generated power? No interconnectivity between different rail systems? No national or international system governing broadcast frequencies? Anybody gets to just broadcast at any frequency they want at any power they want?
@prodprod Two words. Telecom companies. Just because you are too stupid and unimaginative to imagine a way for this to work, and I don't give enough of a fuck to bother personally, doesn't mean that highly motivated and well payed technicians and entrepreneurs will NOT make it work. This stuff is purely technical, it CAN be solved given enough time and effort. What this is really about, is morality. People once actually believed that fields and mines will not be worked without slaves.
@PeterTheEvilBastard A very good case can be made that slavery, as a strictly economic enterprise, is strictly dependent on the availability of labor, the so-called "dearness" of labor -- and what, exactly, in the strictly self-interested world of Ms. Rand and John Galt, would there there be (other than market forces) that would prevent me from enslaving my neighbors if it personally benefited me? Certainly nothing like morality, or caring about them or their interests or rights or freedoms.
@prodprod Aaaand you in all seriousness think that it was STATES that abolished slavery in the world? Slavery is dependant on the use of legitimized violence. It depends on social acceptance. So yes, it depends on morality, and it depends on the State. Pro tip- morality has NOTHING to do with "caring about others". If you had no state power, no ability to outsource repression to a police force of some sort... Well, good luck enslaving anyone. Plus, nice strawman.
@PeterTheEvilBastard This distinction between private and public is the ultimate strawman. There have been private police forces and public ones. Private fire departments and public ones. And private armies and public ones. And in the absence of public police, public fire departments, public armies -- there will surely be private ones, run by and for private interests and if those interests required slave labor -- what, other than some other bigger private army, would stop them?
When you have a group holding military power over a certain area, thats practically the definition of a state, as in monopoly to initiate violence in a certain geographical area. As for "private" armies... Yeah. I can see it right now. I stand before my board of directors, and tell them that I need funds in order to train and recruit an army to enslave the local population and make sure they buy our products. Can't possibly fail. No dude. To have an army, you need others to pay for it. A state.
@PeterTheEvilBastard Oh, and before you bring up Blackwater and other "private" military contractors- no states, no business for them. They live off of tax money like any other army. No wars between countries- no "private" military contractors.
@PeterTheEvilBastard Right. So when the our workers decide they want to organize and they don't want to buy goods in the "company stores" and the corporation hires a private -- er "police force?" -- to drive in with guns and shoot them down -- oh, right. That's certainly nothing at all like corporations with their own private armies, enforcing their own private law on a population that they dominate by force, money and law.
Yes - that never happens -- in Ayn Rand fantasy land.
@LibertyRealm The question is - was Locke really suggesting that, for instance, taxation was illegal, or that representative governments didn't have the authority to pass laws that imposed fines, taxes, or regulations upon citizens who might disagree with them?
An anarchist interpretation might say so, but on some level one has to ask how much validity does any interpretation have in principle that cannot function in practice?
All organizations must have the means to punish rule breakers.
@desertrat1111 Isaiah 48:11: "For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another." God is the ultimate Objectivist.
Jesus was a martyr~he was captured and killed. At any time he could have wiped out all the evil~ oh wait that didn't work either in another bible story did it. The good shepard protects his flock.
@blackpowderbill He didn't lose in the end -- it was a tradeoff. Suffering for infinite glory. Even God Himself asks, "what shall a man profit if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?" In other words, focus on profit and gain, not sacrifice and suicide. Anyone who preaches the gospel without understanding that it appeals to our desire to be productive, and to find victory and achievement in the end is someone who doesn't understand the gospel.
They are NOT helping others. They are collecting all the power to themselves. They gather that power by appearing altruistic, yes, but that is a diversion. The POWER is what they want, not our benefit.
And THAT, my friends, is the very core of human nature. Selfish greed for power.
Altruism isn't a philosophy, it's a natural human virtue. In fact, there is evidence that our species has evolved the way it did thanks in part to altruism.
This is why I can't take Randians seriously. It's like they're in some kind of cult. I mean really, getting taxed is "theft" or making you a "slave" Oh, brother. Americans really are so sheltered. What I find interesting is that Rand's philosophy tends to appeal to specific racial and cultural groups (namely white males, who are either self-employed, grew up in a rural area or the South/Mountain West) Why is that?
@basscataz So instead of making an argument against my opinion you attack me personally. Nice! I've actually read many books in my 30 years of life including Atlas Shrugged which I mildly enjoyed as a 20 year old but now find childishly simplistic.
It can be difficult to understand force, living for others, and true freedom. Even Rand had a tough time with it. The idea goes like this: If rational thought prevails, then man's greatest strength brings out his best. It is my belief that when rational thought is not afraid of force and obligation, in addition to voluntary interaction and social detachment, society is strongest. But few people can bring the two together in harmony.
I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as a teenager. I did not understand this "pledge" then and I do not now. It does not seem to be a very scientific or indeed "objective" view of life. What is the evidence that this philosphy results in long term happiness for the individual? There may be some short term hedonistic pleasure, but it is highly likely that "might makes right" will become the law of the land. Social instability will follow. The individual loses both freedom and happiness.
@daleshankins "Objective," life views, from Rand's perspective, meant using the mind instead of emotions or feelings. The characters looked at people as people, events as events. In fact, there are several times James and Dagny argue about "feelings vs. thought."
You're trying to make Rand's philosophy akin to Margaret Mead or Alfred Kinsley's, which COMPLETELY misses the mark.
@heavens2kadonka The work of Ramachandran, Church, Damasio and others show that the "division" between emotion and rationality is totally false. Arguments about feelings versus thought are not based on evidence. Granted, Rand did not have benefit of modern neuroscience. So, it is understandable that her arguments continue the Platonic dualistic view of life. However, her idealization of her view of "objective" thought is as "emotional" as those she rails against.
@daleshankins You should re-read Atlas Shrugged, and frame it against what you wrote here.
The evil that Rand wrote against was a mentally unfeasible political and economical ideology - socialist statism, shrouded by a fog of "goodness" and "kindness" and "brotherly-love." The part in Atlas that tells the tale of the Twenty-First Century Automobile Factory is a perfect example.
@heavens2kadonka "Mentally unfeasible"? Ayn Rand portrays a world of only two alternatives - Galt's way or the way of evil parasites. We now know that such "dualistic" thinking is "mentally unfeasible". Damasio provides evidence for why the philosophy Rand espouses is as fanciful as those she criticizes. Both Rand and those who support "social statism" commit a mental error of oversimplification. I will re-read Atlas Shrugged, if you will read "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio. Deal?
@daleshankins I get your point and didn't get it until I looked at this in a way that Ayn Rand didn't exactly intend. I decided to take it as. I won't be demanded to live for someone else, or demand someone live for me, but I will accept others help, and help others at my free will. Which is probably backwards of what was expected, but I love this quote and my way works for me.
@LunarFuror Actually, that is what she meant, down to the letter. look up some of her interviews. She is demented when it comes to sex and marriage, and her view of feminism is outdated (women have changed just a little bit since the fifties and sixties). As long A) as the at your free will is there and B) It is not your source of happiness in life, You have completely "Objectified".
@LunarFuror I recognize I may have incorrectly interpreted Rand. I was going purely on the words of Galt's promise and my memory of her books. I think Rand, like most philosophers - idealizes things a bit too much to be practical. In the real world, it may very well be in an individual's interest to promote the financial well being of society. After all, even Henry Ford increased wages so people could buy his cars after. Excess greed and to much of a "safety net" are destructive to everyone.
@daleshankins it is neither about pleasure nor happiness but rather that the work I do will be recieved with a payment of my choosing and deserves to be free from hands grasping inside my pocket
@Musicnfood1 I don't recall writing about pleasure or happiness in my comments. I was trying to make a point about the fact that pragmatism is more "realistic" and "objective" than idealism such as that espoused by Rand. As for having your work "received with a payment" of your choosing, I believe that Rand would say that your payment will be dictated by the market.
@daleshankins you asked what evidence supports the long term happiness of the individual. The market may represent what people believe your product is worth in a general way, however as stated explicitly in atlas shrugged, the producer has a right to charge whatever price he may like without the interference of any authority whether it be one cent or one million dollars I could sell you whatever I like for whatever i like and it is up to you whether or not you are willing to buy it.
@daleshankins You say, "market may represent what people believe your product is worth in a general way". I think the market is fairly specific, not general. While it's true that you may price your "product" at whatever level you choose, it's equally true that in a free market no one is forced to pay your price. In the end, it is the buyer, not the producer who determines the price or "market value" of any good or service. That is, unless the producer owns a few congressman and/or a president.
"When we think about things in generalities we always come back to ( I)."
"There is no such thing as a collective brain." My ideas are my own, and if I care to keep them to myself it is my business. And if I choose to share them w/others it is I who does the choosing.
Yes - I hope that everyman that wishes to live their life by this motto, finds a cave and walls themselves inside - the ultimate realization of their dream (and mine).
@TZ3k I think then that you should name the person and explain why you feel empowered to enslave that individual today.
As for me, I will never willingly become a slave for you, nor ask anyone to become a slave to me.
If you give even your tacit approval for Government to tax me, you have by force, made me work for you and others. In other words Simon Legree, you make me your slave.
@higgme1ster "made me work for you and others" False. You are never made to do anything, in the end the choice is always yours. If you decide to pay taxes, you are allowing the government to collect your money. And while I don't agree that your being enslaved here, i'll use my first argument now. You are not a slave until you allow yourself to be, basically you are enslaving yourself by allowing your enslavement. No one can make you do anything, its time to take responsibility.
@forttrres In The USA, if you do not pay taxes on income you will ultimately go to prison. That is subjugation which therefore fits the definition of enslavement. How could it be otherwise?
@higgme1ster Then don't pay your taxes, if you feel that strongly about something, protest it and hold your morals in check. It would be subjugation if you got nothing in return from it. You have the possibility to use Medical Care, Wellfare, Social Security. You use roads, public parks, bridges. I imagine you went to a Public School or a Public University, or at the very least have people close to you who have. You have rights, and a wonderful thing called a Constitution to uphold those rights.
@higgme1ster Your rights are constantly being upheld, but, in true capitalist fashion, you constantly demand more. This Ayn Rand mentality where only certain people's rights matter; only the ones that agree with you are the ones that count. Nevermind most of these people are one missed pay check or one lost job away from diving head first into these programs. If that is "enslavement" please read a history book of any time period and then get back to me on enslavement.
I believe in individual rights and that no man should use force and violence to coerce another.
Nonetheless, I also believe in charity, kindness, and goodness.
If everyone exercised these virtues using their own free will, the world would be a better place.
I dont believe that being selfish, greedy, and egotistic makes you a better person, or makes this a better world. However you are free to be as retarded as you want. You are free to chose.
@Ddvex Nothing personal, you seem like a nice guy. But when a creed says that altruism is anti-human, I have to wonder. Trouble is, a little bit of conformity and self esteem through the eyes of others is the glue that holds the worst of us, inside and out, in check..
(Acts 20:35) I have exhibited to YOU in all things that by thus laboring YOU must assist those who are weak, and must bear in mind the words of the Lord Jesus, when he himself said, ‘There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving.’”
The happiness that arises from giving is an individual experience that could NEVER come through coercion and force. It comes through liberty; free will!!!
Jesus teachings are SUPERIOR than any human philosophy.
In Virtue Of Selfishness she states that he foundation of ethics is the happiness and survival of the individual. This premise is incomplete, because individuals almost never survive as individuals. Homo sapiens have always survived in groups. Even in modern cities there is undeniable evidence of our interconnectedness. We can argue about where to draw the line between the individual and society, but individualism vs. collectivism is a false dichotomy. They are never mutually exclusive.
I went out and trained myself and passed in general forklift driving to better myself,problem is there isnt enough jobs,for every 1 of me there are 100 more with the same qualification,there arent enough jobs to go round.
(Colossians 2:8) Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ
(Philippians 2:5-8) Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. 8 More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.
(John 15:13) No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends.
(Mark12:28-31) [...] “Which commandment is first of all?” Jesus answered: [...]The second is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Great idea! It goes against everthing every organized group preaches, be it political, religious or otherwise!! It is easy for the dictators to urge submission! It is good to get together to achieve mutually beneficial goals by the volition of the individuals involved, not by impossition by eternal forces. Well crafted Constitutions should defend the individual's freedom, while also allowing for unity! Tough stuff to be both individual and simoultneaously attached by biology!
You do know objectivism is a cult and that Ayn Rand was a sociopath. Atlas Shrugged was a piece of crap. The John Galt Oath is the definition of greed. Ayn Rand and you obviously had/have no idea what alturism is about.
People caught up in a cult can't see it. Randism has turned into a religion where you point out the glaring contradictions and they simply ignore it because they are afraid to say that Randism requires faith - and then the contradictions becomes a heard of elephants in the living room.
The only thing that this video is missing is Rand coming on stage with some cloak and all the fans standing, swaying, and clapping to the Supreme Egoism of Selfishness Gospel of Randism.
@papertrailTIP Thanks. One could say that Fountain Head is the mini version and Atlas Shrugged the Full version of Rand's Testament.
If you type in "TH1" in the Youtube search box, you'll find the first in a series of 12 for the movie version of Fount.Head. It's actually a fun, naive, charming movie to watch. It's when people take the Rand egoist Ideology seriously, it's mind boggling. The movie renders the novel by presenting main and key points.
@doctorvfs You also have faith that your chair won't collapse beneath you. You have faith that your computer will work. You have faith that the chemical reactions in your body really do permit what you call life. You have faith that the symbolds you're using will be interpreted by others in the same manner in which you interpret the very same symbols. You have faith that your money will be accepted by other people. You have faith that the sun will rise in the morning.
@papertrailTIP Search here for "Greed With John Stossel part 1 of 6"
You will see that objectivism is about enlightened self interest acting as the engine of our social and economic progess.
Greed is not bad if you allow other stakeholders to practice it equally for the benifit of all. Life is not a zero-sum game. In an objective bargin it is possible for all parties to win.
on the one hand the oath is a banal platitude great for those with a complex about impressing their fathers or those who always seem to get romantically attached to bad men. on the other hand it utterly repugnant in its absolutism; the way in unnecessarily forces you to sell your soul to the radical opposite of altruism which is ego-centered subjectivism... nihilism. there is no private language& this fragments identities ethically, politically, epistomologically... spiritually.
Humans are collective and social animals...we depend on each other for survival and success. That's something Rand never could accept. Bitter, hateful and detached from the reality of life...yeah, that's someone to listen to and follow.
An angry, plagiarizing, whiny, immoral, adulteress that died angry, alone, and miserable.
Her only surviving contribution, that has not been discredited is the Church of Satan which is "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ritual and ceremony added"-Anton LeVay, founder of the Church of Satan.
she was jewish. we're all whiny immoral and angry. the plagiarizing thing i dont see. yeah she got the idea for the protagonist being a railroad owner, but the writing is still pretty original. and she always attacked the church, so it makes sense for satanists to agree with her. and how exactly have her contributions been discredited. i mean between you and me, i think she was a bitch, but she was right in her philosophy.
Taking an oath isnt necessary, except maybe as a way of instilling clarity in one's own mind. People only do things because they hope to derive some benefit for themselves. Anyone who engages in supposed acts of selflessness is either lying, confused, or mentally ill, and anyone who expects others to sacrafice for them is a thief. Take Obama, always talking about working for the common good. 7 vacations, 50 rounds of golf, endless evenings of entertainment. That brother is living the high life
this oath is a direct way to superimpose selfishness into a crippled society in an attempt to control the people through self revolt. this seems a lot like the hitler youth agenda...
what the hell are you talking about hitler preached the exact opposite, he told people to put their race and leaders before themselves. it's not controlling people it's pointing out that people shouldn't give up their effort for the sake of someone who hasn't earned it. i hate it when people compare people with different ideas to hitler. its an attempt to demonize them so their opinions won't matter as much and its avoiding the question of who's right. go fuck yourself
"Galt" is the fictional hero in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, the individualist who organizes a strike by the most productive members of society against the organized looters, the socialists, the redistributionists, a strike against the stifling bureaucracies and inept governments, against the idea that man must sacrifice himself to the collective, that others are somehow entitled to the product of his mind, somehow owed the product of his labor.
@randomgai1234 So? Jesus still said that selfsacrifice is the highest virtue, even though one have to have a self before he or she can sacrifice it... youre not making any sense and im pretty sure that you are just copying lines from attlas shrugged.
Those occupy losers should take this oath and a bath.
traceadams67 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
The other, of course, involves orcs.
IndigoVagrant 2 months ago
Moochers and looters have united. Tearing down production and prosperity. Building up dependency and mediocrity. Instilling envy everywhere. Creating class warfare, stupidity, depression and debt." Working" at it 24 hours a day.
And all the while blaming the free market for their sins.
mustang607 2 months ago 13
It's the key to selfishness and a life of moral bankruptcy, if you ask me
Robkinggozer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's very interesting that my comment below received too many negative votes and is now no longer up for debate. The comment read: ""Nor ask another man to live for mine." Um... Isn't that what capitalists (those who own the business) ask and in fact demand, of their employees every day?" Hey. Call me a spammer. It's just that I dissent with good reason.
cuttlefishgem 3 months ago
If there is such thing as anti -christ this is it
bricksnlicks 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I read the book. It's a piece of childish trash. What Cowards. Afraid of being a part of society. lol. I'll bet these people never even saw how Insane Ayn Rand was. Look at her interviews.lmao
edsweb7 4 months ago
@edsweb7
"Afraid of being a part of society." ???
LibertyRealm 3 months ago
@edsweb7
Atlas Shrugged isnt about being afraid of society but about redefining what a society is.
LibertyRealm 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As human beings are by nature social animals. John Galt is anti-human.
Ayn Rand takes selfishness and sociopathy, and trys to make a vertue of it.
No man is an island, and we are all of us relientupon our fellow men for our servival. You yourself did not biuld the roud outside your home. Nor did you yourself biuld the car you took to the market. Nor did you grow or pick or deliver that food to the market.
If you hate your fellow man so much, then learn to live without
Andrewcranky 4 months ago
song?
YoungIvyScholar 5 months ago
what is the song at the start?
YoungIvyScholar 6 months ago
Internal inconsistency much?
I'm going to swear an oath that says I don't have to abide by the oath I just swore. How about I just NOT swear it, since it's the same thing?
JonasPlanck 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?
backlighting 6 months ago
In a democratic, free, peaceful society, what is "the state" but a collection of individuals from all across the nation who are seriously trying to better their nation and keep it strong? To keep order in society
In America, there IS NO "state." There are LEGISLATORS, GOVERNORS, BUREAUCRATS, ETC., most of whom are democratically elected and all of whom can be kicked out by someone else if there's enough support. They are far from dictators. So can it with this "statism" nonsense.
whoo689 7 months ago
Even Jesus Christ NEVER emphasized anything that extreme in the name of altruism. He did say shit about "the shirt on your back' and whatnot, but that's far from giving up your entire life for someone else.
whoo689 7 months ago
Simpy helping others in their time of need is anti-individual? Lol. It sure helps the individual getting the aid! And it at least gives the person helping some peace of mind. Seems win-win to me. I don't get why Objectivists have such a distorted view of altruism.
What do you think altruism is?? Because I don't know A SINGLE PERSON who thinks altruism means giving up your entire livelihood to help another person. It may mean temporary aid or even a lot of aid (if you're rich) but not all.
whoo689 7 months ago
no one asked god to die for them. he did it because he wanted to. there was no peer pressure or force, there is the living and the dead , be sure what you are. god is immortal, if he suffers the pain and humiliation of death to be with us, and it brings him pleasure, good. man should live up to his best, god wants this.
dug340 8 months ago
Comment removed
dug340 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I thought the John Galt oath (a/k/a The Whiny Kid Oath) was "ME! ME! ME!"?
DSMDeadHead 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, Ayn Rand of the Illuminati certainly had a gay following, and yes the Illuminati.
Den12tribe 8 months ago
Excellent oath. Shit philosophy.
TheAwakenedHeretic 8 months ago
you just dont get it, nobody is asking for you do not respect others rights and values, the oath only ask to live in order to give something passible of value if you demand the same of another being, do not became a leech and do not make the others leech themselves e, do not care for what anothers do with they lives, but that doesnt mean that if something is taking away they rights you shouldnt intervine, its your best interest that everybody have the same chances
animejoao 8 months ago
Go to the underwater city Rapture and tell me how that worked out
Svperstarr 8 months ago
Personally, I like the way Shakespeare said it better:
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
daleshankins 8 months ago
I'm a HUGE fan of this book. But guys, you got to remember. It's a book... just a book. and Ayn Rand was a writer, a damn good writer. But she wasn't a politician, or an economist, or any of that. You need to stop trying to apply this book as a solid frame for our lives. The book is black and white our life is very many shades of grey.
LunarFuror 8 months ago
@LunarFuror You obviously haven't seen her fight politicians. She personally is crazy, but her book, if applied in the sense it was meant to, which is very literal, whether you like it or not, has both instant and lasting gratification. She was but the first. Her followers have perfected her idea. Objectivism is possible and believe it or not easy. The problem is the crowd posting comments her was raised in a more "progressive" (nowadays liberal) household and is fighting memories of childhood.
se7en0fclub5 8 months ago
This can't be the John Galt oath!
It's not nearly long-winded enough!
Saiga6 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who is William Hickman?
shilltheshillXXX 9 months ago
John Gault's friends came to save him. "ALL" of Galut's friends turned out. The question you have to ask youself is; how many people do you know and consider friends whould come and save you? I've been through a serious work related incident. Not one of those rats I work or worked with did anything to stand behind me. Not a one! All the bible verses and moral speech's don't matter when your friends don't stand up for you.
If you take care of yourself then you'll help others as well.
blackpowderbill 9 months ago
Employeers & employes: I've worked with dozens of "good Christians" who at any given time will drop into bible quotes and remind me what they know and do. Oddly enough, those "good Christians" are the first to cut a side deal with management,screw you out of overtime. They talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Are the first to blame you for something they did or were suppose to do. They are the first to pass off their duties on to another person. Yes, they understand what they are doing.
blackpowderbill 9 months ago
When you have a child, you live to a huge extent for the sake of that little person. That is what one would hope anyway.
cuttlefishgem 9 months ago
@cuttlefishgem John Galt's Oath has nothing to do with children nor with the other wonderful types of persons who expect nothing in return for their work.
LucyAm97 9 months ago
@LucyAm97 That's exactly the problem I have with it.
cuttlefishgem 3 months ago
OR I will never live my life (as a slave) to another man, nor ask another man to live (as a slave) to me.
LucyAm97 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Nor ask another man to live for mine." Um... Isn't that what capitalists (those who own the business) ask and in fact demand, of their employees every day?
cuttlefishgem 9 months ago
@cuttlefishgem
OR " I will never live my life (as a slave) to another man, nor ask another man to live (as a slave) to me."
LucyAm97 9 months ago
@LucyAm97 When you sign a contract of employment, you are agreeing that you will live to a large extent for the sake of the employer who will profit from your doing so.
cuttlefishgem 9 months ago
@cuttlefishgem Sorry about the double post. When one (voluntarily) signs a contract of employment, the employer is also agreeing to pay you for your work. Of course! a company expects to make a profit after all overhead is paid out, else why bother to start a business?
LucyAm97 9 months ago
@LucyAm97 A good reason to start a business might be to do some good in the world, provide for the people who collaborate with you, provide a satisfying quality of working life for employees, pay for the education of your children and that of your employees... etc. etc. When one reduces it to the profit motive one simply casts people as money-hungry greedy selfish uncaring sharks.
cuttlefishgem 8 months ago
@cuttlefishgem Yes, that's why employees don't volunteer and get paid. Oh wait.
shaunconnell 9 months ago 21
@shaunconnell Those employees clearly haven't taken the john galt oath. Most teachers, nurses, firefighters and mother theresa types clearly haven't taken the oath either.
cuttlefishgem 9 months ago
@shaunconnell What other option do employees have? If they don't seek employment they starve. Even slaves were fed and taken care of with medicine etc. Saying they "volunteer" and "get paid" is just like a fundamentalist christian saying we are free to voluntarily accept christ or not, (but if we don't we burn in hell for eternity). Its not free choice it's manipulative coersion.
cuttlefishgem 8 months ago
@shaunconnell what ist the song used in this Video?
LeonSkottKennedey 3 months ago
@cuttlefishgem Dumb
se7en0fclub5 8 months ago
@cuttlefishgem Ass
se7en0fclub5 8 months ago
@cuttlefishgem no.
TheTopBloke 8 months ago
@cuttlefishgem Youre not grasping the concept haha
gocrusaderz 8 months ago
@gocrusaderz So there are some unspoken aspects of the oath that qualify what it is that capitalist employers demand of their employees, that somehow makes the oath consistent with and amenable to a life of employment at Walmart?
cuttlefishgem 8 months ago
@cuttlefishgem was this a serious question ?
LeonSkottKennedey 3 months ago
Yea, fuck altruism because that's so bad.... really?
anikinippon 9 months ago
I think you are all missing the point. What if there isn't anyone else "out there"? Each person will interpret the words in their own way.
DarArchibald 9 months ago
The whole notion of reducing human conduct to "living for yourself" or "living for others" seems like an absurdly unrealistic dichotomy. We have rights, that we expect others to respect, and we have obligations to others -- things we must do or refrain from doing, requirements that others expect *us* to respect.
I have obligations to my family, my friends, my business associates, my country and even human beings generally.
Mutually respected rights. Mutually acknowledged obligations.
prodprod 9 months ago 2
@prodprod Yea, it doesn't seem too big an idea to get my head around that we are indiduals AND part of something bigger. To have to choose one or the other seems to me overly simplistic.
TheAmazingMorse 9 months ago
@prodprod You're correct, we do have rights. Except for the fact that it takes the government to enforce them, if and when they choose to. One big problem is people & special groups of people can't mind their own business. If people were to pay a little more attention to themselves instead of everyone else the world would be a lot better off.
blackpowderbill 9 months ago
@prodprod It's interesting to note that in your very statement against Rand, you are supporting what Rand wanted: a relationship between traders. It's when people (the "moochers" and the "looters") expect you to give them anything or everything, while you get nothing in return is what Rand and Galt is speaking out against.
You should pick up one of Rand's nonfictions: would really help to shed light on what Galt/Rand really meant.
heavens2kadonka 9 months ago
@heavens2kadonka I haven't read Rand's non-fiction - I've frankly been chased away by her fiction. What architect (as in the Fountainhead) would say to the people who are paying for his designs -- you have to build the building exactly the way I want because "it's mine"?
Really? Where I come from, the guy who *pays* might actually be able to advance a good case for the building -- and the architect's services and his designs being *his* - and that he has a right to do with them what he wants.
prodprod 9 months ago
(cont'd) (2) I work as a screenwriter. In my business, you write a script, or get hired to write one -- and then you sell it to a producer. They buy *all rights* -- and they get to do with it whatever they want.
You can always say, "Oh, but you can set own contractual terms."
Sure -- in which case they don't hire you. Then, you get to *not* be a screenwriter. Or *not* be an architect, outside of literary fantasy.
Unless you can finance your own movies or finance your own buildings.
prodprod 9 months ago
@prodprod I haven't read The Fountainhead yet, so I cannot defend the work or rebuff your criticism. I do agree with your stance on intellectual property, and find it interesting Rand would write such a situation.
I suggest you at least borrow, read a little of "Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal." Very well-researched, very interesting subjects. A lot of what she wrote against is still pertinent today. The Antitrust works and the Historical studies of proto-statism is especially noteworthy.
heavens2kadonka 9 months ago
@prodprod But these actions require no sacrifice. It BENEFITS YOU to uphold these obligations
gocrusaderz 8 months ago
@gocrusaderz But that, to me, is at the heart of my difficulty with the entire concept, because what any person views as obligatory depends upon his particular values. I may value my family above my life, or my kin, my tribe, my faith, my ethnic group, my country, those who share a common ethos -- or nothing and nobody. But if I die for my country -- I'm still giving something up. On measure, in terms of my values, it may be a worthwhile exchange, but I'm still giving up something of value.
prodprod 8 months ago
@prodprod The question is -- to what extent does a community with shared values have the right to impose those values upon an individual who doesn't share them?
So we collectively believe in a strong national defense and an interstate highway system and in mandatory taxation to support them. I don't share those values. Can I opt out of paying for them? But what of those who say that I share in the benefit of that defense and in the advantage of that highway system (even if I don't use it)?
prodprod 8 months ago
@prodprod That's the larger problem -- almost nobody chooses the larger system of government of which they are a part -- even democratic systems. So even though the system says that we get to vote but then we must collectively abide by the outcome of the vote -- well, I don't remember agreeing to that.
That's something that we all inherited. But I'm not bound to an agreement made for me by my grandfather. So should we all be bound by an agreement made for us by the "founding fathers?"
prodprod 8 months ago
@prodprod Yes but this system allows to achieve what's most valuable to you. You give up what is less valuable. No other system offers you this choice.
gocrusaderz 6 months ago
@gocrusaderz What if what's "most valuable" to me is simply to stay on my own property, not use any of the services provided by the government (the highways, the schools, the municipal water, the national defense) be completely self-sufficient -- and *not pay for anything* in the form of taxes?
Obviously, the state would take exception to that system of values. If I didn't pay (minimally) my property taxes, they'd throw me in jail.
I'm not advocating this -- just raising the question.
prodprod 6 months ago
@prodprod But in Rands system all those programs you mentioned would be private. There wouldnt be a tax for those. Except for the National defense. I cant imagine a world in which people wouldnt want to contribute any money for defense. Take into account the costs for defense would be much lower because we wouldnt be waging war in far off countries under her system. But I think her system would COMPLETELY support those values if thats what you chose to do
gocrusaderz 6 months ago
@gocrusaderz Do you really believe in a system with strictly private highways, road signals, traffic lights etc. - not to mention purely private rules for, say, power production? So there'd be no power grid? No interconnectivity between locally generated power? No interconnectivity between different rail systems? No national or international system governing broadcast frequencies? Anybody gets to just broadcast at any frequency they want at any power they want?
And you think this would work?
prodprod 6 months ago
@prodprod Yes you simply need to study market forces
gocrusaderz 6 months ago
@prodprod Two words. Telecom companies. Just because you are too stupid and unimaginative to imagine a way for this to work, and I don't give enough of a fuck to bother personally, doesn't mean that highly motivated and well payed technicians and entrepreneurs will NOT make it work. This stuff is purely technical, it CAN be solved given enough time and effort. What this is really about, is morality. People once actually believed that fields and mines will not be worked without slaves.
PeterTheEvilBastard 6 months ago
@PeterTheEvilBastard A very good case can be made that slavery, as a strictly economic enterprise, is strictly dependent on the availability of labor, the so-called "dearness" of labor -- and what, exactly, in the strictly self-interested world of Ms. Rand and John Galt, would there there be (other than market forces) that would prevent me from enslaving my neighbors if it personally benefited me? Certainly nothing like morality, or caring about them or their interests or rights or freedoms.
prodprod 6 months ago
@prodprod Aaaand you in all seriousness think that it was STATES that abolished slavery in the world? Slavery is dependant on the use of legitimized violence. It depends on social acceptance. So yes, it depends on morality, and it depends on the State. Pro tip- morality has NOTHING to do with "caring about others". If you had no state power, no ability to outsource repression to a police force of some sort... Well, good luck enslaving anyone. Plus, nice strawman.
PeterTheEvilBastard 6 months ago
@PeterTheEvilBastard This distinction between private and public is the ultimate strawman. There have been private police forces and public ones. Private fire departments and public ones. And private armies and public ones. And in the absence of public police, public fire departments, public armies -- there will surely be private ones, run by and for private interests and if those interests required slave labor -- what, other than some other bigger private army, would stop them?
prodprod 6 months ago
When you have a group holding military power over a certain area, thats practically the definition of a state, as in monopoly to initiate violence in a certain geographical area. As for "private" armies... Yeah. I can see it right now. I stand before my board of directors, and tell them that I need funds in order to train and recruit an army to enslave the local population and make sure they buy our products. Can't possibly fail. No dude. To have an army, you need others to pay for it. A state.
PeterTheEvilBastard 6 months ago
@PeterTheEvilBastard Oh, and before you bring up Blackwater and other "private" military contractors- no states, no business for them. They live off of tax money like any other army. No wars between countries- no "private" military contractors.
PeterTheEvilBastard 6 months ago
@PeterTheEvilBastard Right. So when the our workers decide they want to organize and they don't want to buy goods in the "company stores" and the corporation hires a private -- er "police force?" -- to drive in with guns and shoot them down -- oh, right. That's certainly nothing at all like corporations with their own private armies, enforcing their own private law on a population that they dominate by force, money and law.
Yes - that never happens -- in Ayn Rand fantasy land.
prodprod 6 months ago
@prodprod
Have you heard of the Non Agression Principle?
LibertyRealm 5 months ago
@LibertyRealm The question is - was Locke really suggesting that, for instance, taxation was illegal, or that representative governments didn't have the authority to pass laws that imposed fines, taxes, or regulations upon citizens who might disagree with them?
An anarchist interpretation might say so, but on some level one has to ask how much validity does any interpretation have in principle that cannot function in practice?
All organizations must have the means to punish rule breakers.
prodprod 5 months ago
We are about to enter a week where my religion remembers someone who unselfishly died for all of us.. Jesus Christ... what do think of Him.. Mr Galt
desertrat1111 9 months ago 2
@desertrat1111 Isaiah 48:11: "For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another." God is the ultimate Objectivist.
shaunconnell 9 months ago
John 10:11 : “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Sorry, Shaun. You are incorrect.
elleeh27 9 months ago
Annnnnd then rise again for His glory. Read the whole book.
shaunconnell 9 months ago 4
@shaunconnell burned
spencemace 9 months ago
@desertrat1111
Jesus was a martyr~he was captured and killed. At any time he could have wiped out all the evil~ oh wait that didn't work either in another bible story did it. The good shepard protects his flock.
blackpowderbill 9 months ago
@blackpowderbill He didn't lose in the end -- it was a tradeoff. Suffering for infinite glory. Even God Himself asks, "what shall a man profit if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?" In other words, focus on profit and gain, not sacrifice and suicide. Anyone who preaches the gospel without understanding that it appeals to our desire to be productive, and to find victory and achievement in the end is someone who doesn't understand the gospel.
shaunconnell 9 months ago
Altruism. That is NOT what government is doing.
They are NOT helping others. They are collecting all the power to themselves. They gather that power by appearing altruistic, yes, but that is a diversion. The POWER is what they want, not our benefit.
And THAT, my friends, is the very core of human nature. Selfish greed for power.
Goohuman 9 months ago
Altruism isn't a philosophy, it's a natural human virtue. In fact, there is evidence that our species has evolved the way it did thanks in part to altruism.
dan24b 9 months ago
This is why I can't take Randians seriously. It's like they're in some kind of cult. I mean really, getting taxed is "theft" or making you a "slave" Oh, brother. Americans really are so sheltered. What I find interesting is that Rand's philosophy tends to appeal to specific racial and cultural groups (namely white males, who are either self-employed, grew up in a rural area or the South/Mountain West) Why is that?
dan24b 9 months ago
@dan24b dan. your about as lazy as dirt. read a book
basscataz 9 months ago
@basscataz So instead of making an argument against my opinion you attack me personally. Nice! I've actually read many books in my 30 years of life including Atlas Shrugged which I mildly enjoyed as a 20 year old but now find childishly simplistic.
dan24b 9 months ago
It can be difficult to understand force, living for others, and true freedom. Even Rand had a tough time with it. The idea goes like this: If rational thought prevails, then man's greatest strength brings out his best. It is my belief that when rational thought is not afraid of force and obligation, in addition to voluntary interaction and social detachment, society is strongest. But few people can bring the two together in harmony.
landen99 9 months ago
I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as a teenager. I did not understand this "pledge" then and I do not now. It does not seem to be a very scientific or indeed "objective" view of life. What is the evidence that this philosphy results in long term happiness for the individual? There may be some short term hedonistic pleasure, but it is highly likely that "might makes right" will become the law of the land. Social instability will follow. The individual loses both freedom and happiness.
daleshankins 9 months ago 2
@daleshankins "Objective," life views, from Rand's perspective, meant using the mind instead of emotions or feelings. The characters looked at people as people, events as events. In fact, there are several times James and Dagny argue about "feelings vs. thought."
You're trying to make Rand's philosophy akin to Margaret Mead or Alfred Kinsley's, which COMPLETELY misses the mark.
heavens2kadonka 9 months ago
@heavens2kadonka The work of Ramachandran, Church, Damasio and others show that the "division" between emotion and rationality is totally false. Arguments about feelings versus thought are not based on evidence. Granted, Rand did not have benefit of modern neuroscience. So, it is understandable that her arguments continue the Platonic dualistic view of life. However, her idealization of her view of "objective" thought is as "emotional" as those she rails against.
daleshankins 9 months ago
@daleshankins You should re-read Atlas Shrugged, and frame it against what you wrote here.
The evil that Rand wrote against was a mentally unfeasible political and economical ideology - socialist statism, shrouded by a fog of "goodness" and "kindness" and "brotherly-love." The part in Atlas that tells the tale of the Twenty-First Century Automobile Factory is a perfect example.
heavens2kadonka 9 months ago
@heavens2kadonka "Mentally unfeasible"? Ayn Rand portrays a world of only two alternatives - Galt's way or the way of evil parasites. We now know that such "dualistic" thinking is "mentally unfeasible". Damasio provides evidence for why the philosophy Rand espouses is as fanciful as those she criticizes. Both Rand and those who support "social statism" commit a mental error of oversimplification. I will re-read Atlas Shrugged, if you will read "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio. Deal?
daleshankins 9 months ago
@daleshankins I get your point and didn't get it until I looked at this in a way that Ayn Rand didn't exactly intend. I decided to take it as. I won't be demanded to live for someone else, or demand someone live for me, but I will accept others help, and help others at my free will. Which is probably backwards of what was expected, but I love this quote and my way works for me.
LunarFuror 8 months ago
@LunarFuror Actually, that is what she meant, down to the letter. look up some of her interviews. She is demented when it comes to sex and marriage, and her view of feminism is outdated (women have changed just a little bit since the fifties and sixties). As long A) as the at your free will is there and B) It is not your source of happiness in life, You have completely "Objectified".
se7en0fclub5 8 months ago
@se7en0fclub5 Well that's good then :)
LunarFuror 8 months ago
@LunarFuror I recognize I may have incorrectly interpreted Rand. I was going purely on the words of Galt's promise and my memory of her books. I think Rand, like most philosophers - idealizes things a bit too much to be practical. In the real world, it may very well be in an individual's interest to promote the financial well being of society. After all, even Henry Ford increased wages so people could buy his cars after. Excess greed and to much of a "safety net" are destructive to everyone.
daleshankins 8 months ago
@daleshankins it is neither about pleasure nor happiness but rather that the work I do will be recieved with a payment of my choosing and deserves to be free from hands grasping inside my pocket
Musicnfood1 8 months ago
@Musicnfood1 I don't recall writing about pleasure or happiness in my comments. I was trying to make a point about the fact that pragmatism is more "realistic" and "objective" than idealism such as that espoused by Rand. As for having your work "received with a payment" of your choosing, I believe that Rand would say that your payment will be dictated by the market.
daleshankins 8 months ago
@daleshankins you asked what evidence supports the long term happiness of the individual. The market may represent what people believe your product is worth in a general way, however as stated explicitly in atlas shrugged, the producer has a right to charge whatever price he may like without the interference of any authority whether it be one cent or one million dollars I could sell you whatever I like for whatever i like and it is up to you whether or not you are willing to buy it.
Musicnfood1 8 months ago
@daleshankins You say, "market may represent what people believe your product is worth in a general way". I think the market is fairly specific, not general. While it's true that you may price your "product" at whatever level you choose, it's equally true that in a free market no one is forced to pay your price. In the end, it is the buyer, not the producer who determines the price or "market value" of any good or service. That is, unless the producer owns a few congressman and/or a president.
daleshankins 8 months ago
"When we think about things in generalities we always come back to ( I)."
"There is no such thing as a collective brain." My ideas are my own, and if I care to keep them to myself it is my business. And if I choose to share them w/others it is I who does the choosing.
54nomore 9 months ago
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne (1572-1631 England)
davijeph 10 months ago
Yes - I hope that everyman that wishes to live their life by this motto, finds a cave and walls themselves inside - the ultimate realization of their dream (and mine).
TZ3k 10 months ago
@TZ3k I think then that you should name the person and explain why you feel empowered to enslave that individual today.
As for me, I will never willingly become a slave for you, nor ask anyone to become a slave to me.
If you give even your tacit approval for Government to tax me, you have by force, made me work for you and others. In other words Simon Legree, you make me your slave.
higgme1ster 10 months ago 7
@higgme1ster "made me work for you and others" False. You are never made to do anything, in the end the choice is always yours. If you decide to pay taxes, you are allowing the government to collect your money. And while I don't agree that your being enslaved here, i'll use my first argument now. You are not a slave until you allow yourself to be, basically you are enslaving yourself by allowing your enslavement. No one can make you do anything, its time to take responsibility.
forttrres 8 months ago
@forttrres In The USA, if you do not pay taxes on income you will ultimately go to prison. That is subjugation which therefore fits the definition of enslavement. How could it be otherwise?
higgme1ster 5 months ago
@higgme1ster Then don't pay your taxes, if you feel that strongly about something, protest it and hold your morals in check. It would be subjugation if you got nothing in return from it. You have the possibility to use Medical Care, Wellfare, Social Security. You use roads, public parks, bridges. I imagine you went to a Public School or a Public University, or at the very least have people close to you who have. You have rights, and a wonderful thing called a Constitution to uphold those rights.
forttrres 5 months ago
@higgme1ster Your rights are constantly being upheld, but, in true capitalist fashion, you constantly demand more. This Ayn Rand mentality where only certain people's rights matter; only the ones that agree with you are the ones that count. Nevermind most of these people are one missed pay check or one lost job away from diving head first into these programs. If that is "enslavement" please read a history book of any time period and then get back to me on enslavement.
forttrres 5 months ago
@higgme1ster You need to understand the definition of the word slave, you child.
YoungIvyScholar 6 months ago
@YoungIvyScholar enslave (ɪnˈsleɪv) — vb ( tr ) to make a slave of; reduce to slavery; subjugate //Synonyms - enchain, shackle; control, dominate.
If you approve of Government taking a portion of my livelihood against my will or allow it to happen, you clearly fit the definition.
higgme1ster 5 months ago
@higgme1ster No... not even close...
YoungIvyScholar 5 months ago
What is that song?
Sjukurkottur 11 months ago
So being selfish, greedy and egotistical is a virtue?
DawnOfTheDead991 11 months ago
@DawnOfTheDead991
I believe in individual rights and that no man should use force and violence to coerce another.
Nonetheless, I also believe in charity, kindness, and goodness.
If everyone exercised these virtues using their own free will, the world would be a better place.
I dont believe that being selfish, greedy, and egotistic makes you a better person, or makes this a better world. However you are free to be as retarded as you want. You are free to chose.
Ddvex 11 months ago
@Ddvex Nothing personal, you seem like a nice guy. But when a creed says that altruism is anti-human, I have to wonder. Trouble is, a little bit of conformity and self esteem through the eyes of others is the glue that holds the worst of us, inside and out, in check..
DawnOfTheDead991 11 months ago
@DawnOfTheDead991
(Acts 20:35) I have exhibited to YOU in all things that by thus laboring YOU must assist those who are weak, and must bear in mind the words of the Lord Jesus, when he himself said, ‘There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving.’”
The happiness that arises from giving is an individual experience that could NEVER come through coercion and force. It comes through liberty; free will!!!
Jesus teachings are SUPERIOR than any human philosophy.
Ddvex 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Virtue Of Selfishness she states that he foundation of ethics is the happiness and survival of the individual. This premise is incomplete, because individuals almost never survive as individuals. Homo sapiens have always survived in groups. Even in modern cities there is undeniable evidence of our interconnectedness. We can argue about where to draw the line between the individual and society, but individualism vs. collectivism is a false dichotomy. They are never mutually exclusive.
MrSteveSpears 11 months ago
I will never give a fuck about another man,or ask that he gives a fuck about my life.
Whatever4690 11 months ago
I went out and trained myself and passed in general forklift driving to better myself,problem is there isnt enough jobs,for every 1 of me there are 100 more with the same qualification,there arent enough jobs to go round.
Whatever4690 11 months ago
Love it. Atlas Shrugged movie trailer on youtube
yousmokecrackers 11 months ago
And that's why Randroids leave their newborn infants in the woods:
1.) The little bastards don't impinge on the parents' lives.
2.) The little bastards learn self-reliance hours after birth.
bobbygnosis 11 months ago
(Colossians 2:8) Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ
Ddvex 11 months ago
(Philippians 2:5-8) Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. 8 More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.
Ddvex 11 months ago
@Ddvex I prefer Randists to bible thumping retards
DawnOfTheDead991 11 months ago 2
(John 15:13) No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends.
(Mark12:28-31) [...] “Which commandment is first of all?” Jesus answered: [...]The second is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Ddvex 11 months ago
Great idea! It goes against everthing every organized group preaches, be it political, religious or otherwise!! It is easy for the dictators to urge submission! It is good to get together to achieve mutually beneficial goals by the volition of the individuals involved, not by impossition by eternal forces. Well crafted Constitutions should defend the individual's freedom, while also allowing for unity! Tough stuff to be both individual and simoultneaously attached by biology!
iberiaazul 1 year ago
You do know objectivism is a cult and that Ayn Rand was a sociopath. Atlas Shrugged was a piece of crap. The John Galt Oath is the definition of greed. Ayn Rand and you obviously had/have no idea what alturism is about.
papertrailTIP 1 year ago
@papertrailTIP
People caught up in a cult can't see it. Randism has turned into a religion where you point out the glaring contradictions and they simply ignore it because they are afraid to say that Randism requires faith - and then the contradictions becomes a heard of elephants in the living room.
The only thing that this video is missing is Rand coming on stage with some cloak and all the fans standing, swaying, and clapping to the Supreme Egoism of Selfishness Gospel of Randism.
artistphilosopher 1 year ago
@artistphilosopher
Well said. Isn't The Fountainhead the bible of Randism? I've never actually read it myself, but have heard people say that about it.
papertrailTIP 1 year ago
@papertrailTIP Thanks. One could say that Fountain Head is the mini version and Atlas Shrugged the Full version of Rand's Testament.
If you type in "TH1" in the Youtube search box, you'll find the first in a series of 12 for the movie version of Fount.Head. It's actually a fun, naive, charming movie to watch. It's when people take the Rand egoist Ideology seriously, it's mind boggling. The movie renders the novel by presenting main and key points.
Cheers
artistphilosopher 1 year ago
@papertrailTIP
"I've never actually read it"
That explains a lot
Wraith23 1 year ago
@artistphilosopher
Right because Rand was such a religious person XD
I love these so-called "criticisms" of Randian philosophy.
Wraith23 1 year ago
@papertrailTIP Actually, we have: it is death.
doctorvfs 11 months ago
@doctorvfs You also have faith that your chair won't collapse beneath you. You have faith that your computer will work. You have faith that the chemical reactions in your body really do permit what you call life. You have faith that the symbolds you're using will be interpreted by others in the same manner in which you interpret the very same symbols. You have faith that your money will be accepted by other people. You have faith that the sun will rise in the morning.
You have oodles of faith
bobbygnosis 11 months ago
@papertrailTIP Search here for "Greed With John Stossel part 1 of 6"
You will see that objectivism is about enlightened self interest acting as the engine of our social and economic progess.
Greed is not bad if you allow other stakeholders to practice it equally for the benifit of all. Life is not a zero-sum game. In an objective bargin it is possible for all parties to win.
higgme1ster 10 months ago
i live for all before me who lived and died for me and all those after me who live for themselves
thoughtcorrosion 1 year ago
on the one hand the oath is a banal platitude great for those with a complex about impressing their fathers or those who always seem to get romantically attached to bad men. on the other hand it utterly repugnant in its absolutism; the way in unnecessarily forces you to sell your soul to the radical opposite of altruism which is ego-centered subjectivism... nihilism. there is no private language& this fragments identities ethically, politically, epistomologically... spiritually.
willwkrueger 1 year ago
@willwkrueger
The oath is about not becoming a slave or master of anyone which is the logical conclusion of any collectivist system.
Wraith23 1 year ago
Humans are collective and social animals...we depend on each other for survival and success. That's something Rand never could accept. Bitter, hateful and detached from the reality of life...yeah, that's someone to listen to and follow.
redjeffery1 1 year ago
@redjeffery1
Humans are social beings but such interaction must be free and voluntary.
Thats the diference with collectivist slavery.
Wraith23 1 year ago
what is the music before the oath is said?
mrhnm 1 year ago
Ayn Rand,
An angry, plagiarizing, whiny, immoral, adulteress that died angry, alone, and miserable.
Her only surviving contribution, that has not been discredited is the Church of Satan which is "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ritual and ceremony added"-Anton LeVay, founder of the Church of Satan.
A failure in life, and in death.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir Please provide evidence for your statements.
mrhnm 1 year ago
@festdir
she was jewish. we're all whiny immoral and angry. the plagiarizing thing i dont see. yeah she got the idea for the protagonist being a railroad owner, but the writing is still pretty original. and she always attacked the church, so it makes sense for satanists to agree with her. and how exactly have her contributions been discredited. i mean between you and me, i think she was a bitch, but she was right in her philosophy.
pleeppleep 1 year ago
@festdir
I believe she is far more a success than you will ever be XD
Wraith23 1 year ago
@Wraith23 Depends on how you define 'success'.
I am not an adulterer.
I am not so insecure to insist others dress and act similarly to me.
As a result I am not living angry and miserable, nor will I die alone.
I am comfortable with that.....however, apparently she wasn't.
festdir 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@festdir
"I am not an adulterer.
I am not so insecure to insist others dress and act similarly to me.
As a result I am not living angry and miserable, nor will I die alone."
Is that the best you can do? LOL
Post here again when someone knows your name.
Wraith23 1 year ago
Rather hinges on the meaning of 'sake', doesn't it
UsqueAdNauseam 1 year ago
Taking an oath isnt necessary, except maybe as a way of instilling clarity in one's own mind. People only do things because they hope to derive some benefit for themselves. Anyone who engages in supposed acts of selflessness is either lying, confused, or mentally ill, and anyone who expects others to sacrafice for them is a thief. Take Obama, always talking about working for the common good. 7 vacations, 50 rounds of golf, endless evenings of entertainment. That brother is living the high life
NPraiseOfFreedom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Join us on the Atlas Shrugged The Movie's OFFICIAL twitter page here for behind the scenes photos and clips:
@_AtlasShrugged
vtrestrail 1 year ago
this oath is a direct way to superimpose selfishness into a crippled society in an attempt to control the people through self revolt. this seems a lot like the hitler youth agenda...
IXIKiNGSPaDEIXI 1 year ago
@IXIKiNGSPaDEIXI
what the hell are you talking about hitler preached the exact opposite, he told people to put their race and leaders before themselves. it's not controlling people it's pointing out that people shouldn't give up their effort for the sake of someone who hasn't earned it. i hate it when people compare people with different ideas to hitler. its an attempt to demonize them so their opinions won't matter as much and its avoiding the question of who's right. go fuck yourself
pleeppleep 1 year ago
@pleeppleep
jandjwj 1 year ago
@pleeppleep its a common mystic tactic.
mrhnm 1 year ago
@IXIKiNGSPaDEIXI Rather the opposite of the National Socialist agenda.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
I bet you a man wrote this. Ann's husband. Lol. What a tool of a masculine monologue. Fuck this bitch!
unicorn187 1 year ago
Hey guys, if Objectivists are so smart then why doesn't Atlas go ahead and shrug already?
mikmonable 1 year ago
@mikmonable Some of us have.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
"Galt" is the fictional hero in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, the individualist who organizes a strike by the most productive members of society against the organized looters, the socialists, the redistributionists, a strike against the stifling bureaucracies and inept governments, against the idea that man must sacrifice himself to the collective, that others are somehow entitled to the product of his mind, somehow owed the product of his labor.
notbestfriends 1 year ago
oi bitch dont ruin good song
sewagedweller 1 year ago
@sewagedweller What is this song?
mrhnm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrhnm liberatsio , by krypteria . Any reason why you are asking me ?
sewagedweller 1 year ago
Comment removed
courtesyZone 1 year ago
jesus said he who loves his own life will lose it.
thumbs1964 1 year ago
Jesus said that selfsacrifice is the highest virtue.
God damn him for ever creating such a evil myth!
tookonehourtogetthis 1 year ago
@tookonehourtogetthis Even if it were true. Which I don't feel it is. You have to have a "self" first before you can sacrifice it.
randomgai1234 1 year ago
@randomgai1234 So? Jesus still said that selfsacrifice is the highest virtue, even though one have to have a self before he or she can sacrifice it... youre not making any sense and im pretty sure that you are just copying lines from attlas shrugged.
tookonehourtogetthis 1 year a