Atlas Shrugged Trailer

[KeithMcElwain]

Rand is right and it becomes more apparent everyday !

[ColdChicago]

this idiocy is soundtrack and visual for Alan Greenspan. Remember the disgraced and utterly nutzoid head of the Fed- who helped impoverish tens of thousands? Rand was his favorite writer..... follow not just the money but the dialogue....... unspeakable..... like Capitalism.

[atlasshrugged2u]

The book was excellent. I hope they really capture the book through this movie because it deserves no less. I read it only a couple of years ago and it is "eerily" true to form; can't believe Rynd wrote it in the 50's...it's even more relevant today.

[SamusVSMC]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[26Veritas]

I wonder if the individual who made this trailer knows that Atlas Shrugged is actually an allegorical representation of government intervention in capitalism, and that the actual text itself supports individualism and capitalism; as do all of Ayn Rands books.

[Chante0105]

@26Veritas That is what he was showing in this video, he was being facetious.

[SamusVSMC]

@26Veritas He used that fact to draw people in whom he knew would disagree. He's just a simple troll.

[johnnyk67]

It's pretty funny that Conservatives love the book and movie since the book was written by an avowed atheist (Ayn Rand). I'll bet most Republicans are in the dark about this fact. And the Tea Party ignorance continues!

[merkabaradio]

@johnnyk67 Not all conservatives, republicans or tea partiers believe in god. The people who I hear talking about this book the most though are libertarians.

[johnnyk67]

"The people who I hear talking about this book the most though are libertarians"

@merkabaradio : It's funny you said that because according to Ron Paul, Ayn Rand hated libertarians.

[merkabaradio]

@johnnyk67 You'd need historical perspective to understand why she hated Libertarians. Back in the 70's they weren't a serious party (they still aren't for the most part). She thought it was laughable people would run campaigns knowing that they could never win, just to educate the public. She resents them for 'plagiarizing and mishandling her ideas.' w w w . aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pa­gename=education_campus_libert­arians

[johnnyk67]

@merkabaradio : Point taken, but I must say that gal was for Imperialism which is so wrong. It's horribly wrong and a terrible way to run a country. We need Christ-like folks running the country. All successful countries are a hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism, Although in the US we aren't succeeding very well because a relatively small number of corrupt Capitalists sold stocks and derivatives that they then bet AGAINST. We need to close all the loopholes that these greedy fucks exploit.

[merkabaradio]

@johnnyk67 I think the socialist aspect should be limited to basic welfare for those who truly can not take of themselves, ie those who are disabled and single moms. I think the problem is when you make too many programs, people will take advantage of them just like the ultra rich take advantage of corporate welfare. I think the problem is politicians making exceptions. As a corporation, if you aren't lobbying, you're at a disadvantage.Its really hard to refer to what we have as capitalism now.

[metalhed100100]

@merkabaradio you hit right on the head but now it has gone way past politicians making exceptions because the problem is why and that is about buying votes to stay in power. i think that major flaw with our "quasi-republic" is not having terms limits and other necessary rules to keep public office from being somthing that people look to benefit from. public service should be giving back to the public not a career or a way to advance in life other than the experience.

[merkabaradio]

@metalhed100100 Agreed, political dynasties and lifetime careers in Politics is a little ridiculous. Harry Reid for example hasn't worked a day in the private sector since college, how that formulates in him being a millionaire and having any experience I haven't a clue.

[merkabaradio]

Big examples of this are people taking advantage of the 'green' initiatives. Government subsidized electric golf carts, farming subsidies for people like Bon Jovi, Michael Bachmen (sp?), along with other rich folks just so they can avoid property taxes. I mean why are we paying so that Bon Jovi can avoid property tax?

[metalhed100100]

@johnnyk67 being an atheist doesn't necessarily disqualify you from being a Conservative and not all Repubicans are Conservatives as well as not all Tea Party supporters are Repubicans. However, it seems to be pretty standard that Liberals don't believe in Individualism.

[SculptedThoughts]

4.15.11.

[Galtline14]

WE need to take this country back from the looters. Lets start by firing every single politician in Washington.

[notbestfriends]

Read the book. It will change your life, for the better.

[Andrewcranky]

Who is John Galt????

John Galt is a fictinal character who thought that he could take his ball, leave the court, and that the game would some how refuse to keep playing without him. Guess what? That's not how the game is played.

The game never ends. People leave, and they just make room for more people to play.

[redshark618]

@Andrewcranky and the people in the court will keep playing... on and on and on, forever, for whatever excuses they can make for themselves

but at least John will have the satisfaction of knowing he followed his conviction and he enjoyed it.

[Andrewcranky]

@redshark618 Do you know what a millin dollers is worth, sitting in a box, doing nothing? Nothing. Do you know what they call it when a buisness owner takes all the money that was given to him by the banks, his investers and stock holders? A thief.

Investers give monmey to people, exspecting a reward for their investment. They exspect you to play and win.

[panterguy]

Who is John Galt? Which John Galt? The obscure literary character or, the historical footnote?

[chrispall42]

We might offer a question as to how to measure success. More money - right?

[loonmaniac]

We need a comprehensive nuclear war.  Money will cease to have any value once the first warhead detonates. The only thing that would be used as legal tender would be food, which can be held back as punishment or given as compensation for work. The weak die, leaving more food for the strong.

[NathanRomml]

@loonmaniac

Interesting theory .The one about how the money would lose the value and how the food would be currency.

[loonmaniac]

@NathanRomml It's not a theory, it just hasn't happened yet.

[NathanRomml]

@loonmaniac

I see. I can't argue with such logic.

[loonmaniac]

"The Producers" cannot exist without the consumers. They have to keep the poor and middle class at a slight advantage so they can buy products from "The Producer" who hire consumers to assemble and manufacture the crap they "produce". Ayn Rand's view of economic theory makes no goddamn sense. It's like reverse Marxixm and just as stupid.

[notbestfriends]

Never in America's history have we had, until now, such an anti capitalism President and an Administration filled with so many misfits, liars, incompetents, tax cheats, marxists, radicals & big government despots.

Obama can not create pvt. sector jobs. To do so he would have to embrace & support capitalism, not reject & seek to destroy it.

[Joe77477]

Why the fuck did you quote Marx while promoting Ayn Rand, who is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum?

[DinkerTinker1]

The message of Atlas Shrugged is great. Punishing abe men and women is a sin, but somehow (the world over) it seems like the weakest shall get the most. That the laziest of the bunch shall get more than those producing. It's sick.

[BurnBeforeEating]

Wait. WTF?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?! The point of Atlas Shrugged is that capitalism is good.

[Davidrcobb]

@BurnBeforeEating yes dumbass,pure capitalism,not social duty.

[loonmaniac]

Who gives a fuck who John Galt is?

[dannidandannikins]

@loonmaniac You know those fucking massive deficits that your government keeps accruing... when the crows come home to roost on that I think you will be suddenly very concerned with who John Galt is.

[loonmaniac]

@dannidandannikins They're going to be paid down eventually, it's going to take a lot of work and time to clean up the mess, as usual.

The part Rand left out of the book was when everybody in Galt's Gulch dies of starvation and disease because nobody knew how to plant and harvest crops, raise food livestock or have decent medical supplies and surgeons.

[dannidandannikins]

@loonmaniac LOL. If the deficits keep on increasing - as they do - when are they going to be paid down?

Answer: "eventually"

How?

Answer: "somehow"

[loonmaniac]

@dannidandannikins It's happened before. Clinton balanced the budget, paid down the debt and left office with a multi-million dollar surplus.

[dannidandannikins]

@loonmaniac no he didn't there were still massive programs that were left completely unfunded, e.g. social security.

But, you know what... you can carry on pretending that there are no consequences. Honestly, just go on the way you are doing and we'll see what happens.

[loonmaniac]

@dannidandannikins Social Security? Why would a Randian like yourself give a shit about that and other social programs?

[dannidandannikins]

@loonmaniac 1) not 'Randian', Student of Objectivism

2) Because its bankrupting the country; because it's extracted by force from people's pay; because it's a government run Ponzi scheme.

[loonmaniac]

@dannidandannikins Yeah, so what else is new? You like living in a society, don't you? You like having firemen put out your house if it's burning, you like nice well maintained roads and sidewalks to travel on, you like a strong military to keep the barbaric hordes at bay. If you are that "Objectivist", form a Galt's Gulch of your own and move there, because you can't handle civilization.

[dannidandannikins]

@loonmaniac I note that you've just changed the subject. We were talking about the fact that the government is stealing money from people and pissing it up the wall. Now you want to make outrageous non-sequitur implications like 'if there is no government run fire service then there would be no fire service at all' and 'if the gov't didn't maintain the roads then there would be no roads'... I won't bother arguing with you now: you've the mind of a very dim child.

[loonmaniac]

@dannidandannikins I don't count it as "theft", you do. It's a small price to pay for personal freedom and a little safety. It all ties in together, something you dumbass "Objectionists" always fail to get.

[dannidandannikins]

@loonmaniac I didn't call it 'theft', I called it stealing. Theft is done by sneaking in and taking something which doesn't belong to you. E.g. shoplifting.

Stealing is less specific and includes robbery - whereby one uses open force to take something. E.g. an armed raid on a liquor store.

The government uses open force - the threat of being sent to prison. This use of force is something of which your ilk affects ignorance for reasons, no doubt psychological, that I don't care to dwell on.

[loonmaniac]

@dannidandannikins You're deluded. Maybe I'll visit you in Fantasyland when I get tired of reality.

[starvingartist121288]

@dannidandannikins LOL that's right. Get him

[JrFLYnnIV]

No one gives a flying fuck about John Galt.

[MilitaryTacticalGear]

idiots like you are already asking where those of us who do care have gone.

Your economy is in shambles, multiple losing wars, begging taxes for socialist healthcare, unchecked borders.

fool, stay out of my garden and you may live. at least a while.

[sonnetxi]

I GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT JOHN GALT

[Paulwhoisvegan]

@JrFLYnnIV I give a flying fuck about John Galt!

[olipop84]

retard! this video sucks.

[JahLoveOnline]

take this down

[randzl1]

mega lame

[chulski2]

7.3.09 has long since come and gone. Now what, video poster?

[wogsland]

I wish I knew.

[Sokret666]

It seems like everyone forgot this is about the video. It sucks. And the music sucks, too.The book is great, though.

[wogsland]

Isn't it funny the way that happens sometimes?

[semperfried76]

I disagree with number1survivor75's definition of truth as "propositional" and not empirical. Truth is synonymous with fact, and facts are not propositional, but can be empirically proven. A theory (or belief) is propositional, but if proven as fact, that label can be removed. "A is A", as Rand would say, truth is truth, and while there may be argument over who is right, only one can be right and anyone who disagrees, no matter how passionate their argument, is wrong.

[semperfried76]

That being said, most religions tend to be nihilistic in nature, with one's final reward lying beyond the grave, unknowable in life, and attainable only through the surrender of one's self to an unknowable deity. This stands in stark contrast to Rand's philosophy that one's life should be loved and cherished above all else, and that the highest morality was to live one's life for one's own benefit and no others, and to never expect anyone else to live for any but his/her own.

[semperfried76]

Blind faith is one of the things Rand Railed against in Atlas Shrugged, this much is true. However, even as the Bible may be more fable than fact, the existence of God or some other higher power cannot be dis-proven either, and it would therefore be irrational to completely eliminate it as a possibility. Evolution and the Big Bang are both theories as well, unproven as global warming, and yet many adhere as blindly to those ideas as if they were a religion.

[pubbykinz]

Religion is not based on facts, that is true. If there were a way to prove God's existence through facts, then heck, everybody would believe in Him. But there isn't. Does that make religion irrational? You bet. But people who believe in God do so by blind faith. Theists argue that that's God's test: are you willing to believe in Him without having Him prove Himself to you?

Anyway, I have no idea why you guys are talking about religion on an Atlas Shrugged video. I guess that's it. Peace.

[CaninAble]

The current state of the world is so far beyond rational that the point is moot.

Galt is a messenger. The message is OBJECTIVISM. The OBJECT is to lift the spirit and condition of Man...maybe even to a state where we have THE TIME to discover that The Creator's Objective is always perfect.

That being said, I'll bet she was an AYNIMAL in the hot tub. lmao

[tostentwo]

Ayn Rand, expressed autism

[majestia19]

Anyone who doesn't understand this video just needs to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and everything will make sense.

[threelegduck]

random

[wowhornby]

Rand herself was a victim of objectivism. Rand cults are scary! Don't be in one.

[wogsland]

Not so familiar with Rand's bio - it is obvious from her work that she didn't appreciate children, not a problem I have ;)

[summerfae]

propaganda :)

[wogsland]

Too much kitsch?

[kidblood1]

I will wait...I guess

[numberonesurvivor75]

Objectivism, as it is applied by Rand, is ultimately anti-capitalist. Capitalism ultimately requires a belief in God.

[TheMathGuy]

I'd love to see how you come to that conclusion! I have yet to discover anything (besides religion, perhaps) that _requires_ a belief in God.

[numberonesurvivor75]

All of advancement is rooted in reductionist principles and platitudes of causation. However, due to synergistic principles shown in Euclid's work(the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,) all of our reduction and principles of causality are imperfect in real life. We can't make our lives a perfect algorithm, yet all our scientific and engineering advancement rests on an attempt to do so. Hence, the omnipotent and coercive force that is God can't be known but must be believed.

[TheMathGuy]

I don't follow the leap of logic you make between your second to last and last sentence there. How does the fact that a complex logical system cannot be both complete and consistent (I assume you are referring to Gödel Incompleteness here) imply the existence of a creator?

[numberonesurvivor75]

I'm constrained by character count.

I'm not to familiar with the work of Godel(I also can't find an umlaut,) though he's in God Created the Integers which I've read partially.

When people design devices and state principles, they assume direct causality. Since a complex logical system cannot be both complete and consistent, they must be incorrect in their assumption. Hence, they are required to assume the existence of something they know they can't find.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Here's a simpler explanation:

If you believe that anything is possible, but no one is perfect, then you need to accept a God.

[wogsland]

As long as you assume a deity's existence as an axiom you'll have no trouble deriving it. Of course when it comes to picking which group of wahoos has picked the "real" god you'll run into a bit more trouble, so you'll probably want that as an axiom as well.

[numberonesurvivor75]

I assume the existence of omnipotence through infinite reduction as the axiom.

The second question is rather tough because it assumes that people pick the deity they worship. That's fallacious, the deity chooses them.

[iamtheduggler]

if you wanna be a dick about it, explain possibility and perfection plz, cuz I don't understand how God must exist from that argument...

[numberonesurvivor75]

It's not necessarily a question of whether God must exist rather than a question of whether it's rational to believe God exists. All of our science that builds our society assumes fundamental causality, i.e., everything has a cause. If everything has a cause then it makes sense to believe that there is an ultimate causality that you'll never reach.

[iamtheduggler]

So, your trying to say aquinas was right with the whole possible worlds theory?

Why can the universe not be infinite? There does not have to be a start, or a supreme cause...

[numberonesurvivor75]

I'm unfamiliar with the possible worlds theory, but our work assumes that the universe is infinite as does capitalism(as opposed to mercantilism,) so it makes sense to believe that the universe is infinite.

[roofermike2007]

"Objectivism, as it is applied by Rand, is ultimately anti-capitalist. Capitalism ultimately requires a belief in God"

You're stretching miles for that one number one. I can't even measure how you came to that conclusion even with irrationality.

First off, objectivism isn't "applied" to Rand. It is accounted to her.

I just wrote a blog last night, how if I made my decisions based on a god, they would be accepted. But because I'm basing them on my abilities, they're condemned...

[numberonesurvivor75]

I'm constrained by character count:

It's epistemologically implied in human thought and action that every effect has a cause. Capitalism assumes that man should not seek to implement these causes to bring about effects through coercion. The only rational conclusion one can make from this is that ONLY GOD CAN COERCE. If man cannot coerce and something must coerce, the coercer must be the Creator, God.

[wwwdipsticko]

You are constrained by much more than character count! Your biggest constraint is your mysticism. There is nothing rational about your conclusion. A belief in God cannot be rational by definition. A belief in God is a product of Faith...not Reason or Rationality.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Faith is rational. Since all truth is propositional, not empirical, and since it is rational to know truth, it is rational to have propositions. Therefore, it is rational to accept the Bible as truth once one's experienced the grace of God.

Atheism is irrational.

[wwwdipsticko]

If you choose to believe in God, then do so by all means. But stop trying to rationalize your Faith by means of science and philosophy...it does not work, and never has. That's why it is called Faith. Your attempts to make God (a man made creation) a proveable entity is absurd, and borders on the neurotic. Perhaps you are not being honest with yourself about your own doubts, and all of this is a massive over-compensation.

[MrUncomfortableTruth]

numb skull.

[numberonesurvivor75]

In fact, Christianity is the only rational religion. Every event and action must have a fundamental cause. That cause cannot be duplicated by man through his own work and "free will". Therefore, the Fundamental Cause, God, must choose man to know him to be saved.

You Objectivists counter, saying that God's revealed word, The Bible, is not rational. However, that the Bible tells where reason came from so it must be rational. You falsely assume that you know the Bible's meaning.

[wwwdipsticko]

I love the concept of a belief in God, but it is not based on facts...it is purely intuitive.  You need to admit that first or this conversation must end.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Well, that depends what you mean by facts.

Since all facts are based on postulates, you might say that facts are based on a belief in God.

[wwwdipsticko]

Capitalism has nothin to do with God. It certainly does not require a belief in God. You do not understand Capitalism, or God for that matter!

[alvastarr67]

History does show that socialism cannot live peaceably with Christianity. In a socialist govt you have to look to the govt as the giver of our rights and Christians believe that God gives us our rights, so the first thing that the Socialist leaders have to do it create animosity towards the Christians which is happening right now in America.