Based on Ayn Rand's principle that what you earn should be yours, I don't believe in 100% property rights. The earth is interwoven and what you do to or with one part of the earth affects the whole. It always does but to different degrees. No human created the earth so there is no objective reason anybody can earn the right to use the resources. Usage and getting there first are not objective reasons to claim ownership of resources, they're just rules humans thought up.
@914light Yes I'm American. Tell me how someone can earn resources they didn't create? Let me clarify about the 100%, I don't mean you can't earn any property. I just mean that you will always owe a small portion to the whole because you can never take 100% credit for anything you create. Sure your creation wouldn't be there without you but you couldn't have created it but for the earth's resources, which you can't take credit for.
--->> Ron Paul 2012 -- MONEY BOMB --- TODAY!! <<---- ronpaul2012 . com
Donate toward preserving the liberties which our government has grossly perverted since the founding of our nation. Help restore our rights and freedoms.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
Big business is not to blame for coercive monopolies or unfair competition. If government had no power to offer economic carrots (subsidies, soft loans, pull, etc) with peoples tax dollars, corruption in business would not survive. America was born on the principle of individual rights not granted by God. On the contrary, it was a rebellion of force of abuse against individuals by authorities, either religious or government rulers.
@timberskid Big business does not create monopolies, "it's the government's fault". Are you mad? Do you know what companies like AT&T, Microsoft, and Intel go through because the government intervenes to prevent total monopoly?
Yes, intervention exists. It exists because said companies funnel billions of dollars into congress to make it so.
Think what you will about the founding principles of this country. But the reason for monopolies is simple: the profit motive.
@KellyAnnOR As I said, if there were no carrots there would be no lobbying or corruption in back room deals. The government exists to protect each individual from force, not to administer force against individuals. If big business is being dishonest like the Bernie Madoffs, then the governments proper role should be to deal with them in the courts,. . but otherwise they should leave people alone to invent, create, produce, trade and keep the fruits of their own labor.
Is good to point out that she recieve welfare entiltelment after retiring. She did not had a retiring package. Therefore all this can't not actually be apply. Unless you are wealthy.
I didn't know that the entirety of the modern Republic Party dogma was invented by a fictional writer. It's almost scary how a bunch of politicians in 2011 literally parrot her answers to most political questions. You have to ask yourself if Socialism is preferable to Sociopathy.
@drankin2112 Well, she explains why she wrote the way she did for Atlas Shrugged and other fictional stories in "The Romantic Manifesto." She also disliked Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians especially. So your comment suggests that you have not even attempted to read any of her non-fiction books.
@drankin2112 Besides, the 'sociopath' argument is hardly an effective argument except for slander, ever since MaoistRebelNews posted that video, many uninformed people have been saying that. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you see it to see the origins of that argument. Rand was also strictly against the initiation of force.
@AnubisEye009 I haven't read Dianetics either. I just reject the idea that a self absorbed gangster rapper, for instance, is leading a life that is morally superior to a missionary or to Ghandi, for instance. I do see however the attraction to a philosophy that gives a license to engage in unlimited gluttony. She advocates corporate lawlessness.
Again, all I can refer you to is "The Romantic Manifesto" regarding the "gangster rapper" post. She explains herself quite bluntly, and you can judge there. I am no advocate for her, nor am I trying to convince you she's right, my point is that she answers some of your questions. As for your 2nd post, "resentment for the failure of capitalism in Russia." She wanted communism to succeed?
@drankin2112 (Response 2) "Ayn Rand's vision of unbridled capitalism is an invention that comes from her mind only."
My response to that is that many Inventions and Philosophies came from some person's mind, look at history, i.e. Gen. Patton, Buddha, etc... You don't have to like it, all you communicate here though is your dislike of her and it follows through in your words describing her.
@drankin2112 (response 3) The rest of your 2nd comment is based on your assumptions, from not reading any of her non-fiction. Not to mention tying in Scientology with Objectivism, which I see as an attempt at more slander which discredits you, and makes me question whether you read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged. "Dianetics" was termed by L. Ron Hubbard; Lastly, please read "The Romantic Manifesto." It is only 180 pages and I will not do the work for you.
@AnubisEye009 (response 1) I have watched over an hour of Rand explaining her philosphy in interviews of which she is quite clear about her positions. If I disagree with the basic premise of her work, then I am perfectly entitled to argue my opinion without then going on to read the entirety of her work. To accept her premise and extrapolated outcomes, one must put faith into her unproven assertions which defies the foundation for her view.
@AnubisEye009 (response 2) Tying in Scientology with Objectivism is only slanderous if you are predisposed to the notion that Scientology is bad. In reality, I was using the comparison to make an obvious concession of legitimacy to Objectivism as a philosophy relating to the human experience, just not governance. When you responded to my original post I mistakenly assumed you wanted to debate your side. Clearly I misunderstood. Thank you for your suggestions on further reading.
@drankin2112 Thank you for your explanation on the whole Scientology thing. Also, Merry Christmas! Just got 2 books of Dostoevsky, lol. Lastly, from personal experience, I think it's much better to read and watch. Reading allows you to write criticism and expand, confirm, and questions many notions of life, etc. Watching a video is good for getting a generalization and memory of general concepts talked about.
@AnubisEye009 Ayn Rand's vision of unbridled capitalism is an invention that comes from her mind only. Born out of her resentment for the failure of communism in Russia. Her claim that monopolies can't exist in an unbridled capitalist system can't be proven because the world has never created a system that demonstrates that outcome? She is requiring me to put "faith" into her assertion. To accept what my experience and my reasoning mind tells me is false.
@raocool1986 Ayn Rand is not my worst nightmare. I may disagree with her on many issues, but I would have been able to have a rational debate with her. The current crop of conservative politicians who rely on religion and tradition to justify outmoded ways of thinking and successfully block progress is much more nightmarish than anything Ayn Rand envisioned.
Stop making people psychotic like your self, so that people can realise that we are social animals that historically achieve far more when we are united and cooperate together instead of being divided and competing against eachother. Your ideology is what causes violent riots, because it devalues the community and the commons, and puts the selfishness of individual far out of balance in overpowering the well being and tranquillity of society.
@MrDarknessandDeath Who the hell are you arguing with, dumbass? No one I've ever met has supported subverting individual rights. Your challenging a non-existent enemy. fascism, tribalism, and communism are VERY different things, and I have no doubt that you have little to no comprehension of what any of them TRULY are. Turn off Fox News and go learn from REALITY.
This is pretty much all my political views in under 5 minutes...it's nuts how ahead she was of her time and how relevant what she's saying is today.....
As a "philosopher" who promotes a certain way of living, beit objectivism or whatever else, it is expected that that same person lives the way of their philosophy, ie practice what they preach. To accept any kind of government "handout" after spending years damning the practice and calling those who take it "leaches," is blatant hypocrisy at its finest. She wants to take "handouts" fine, go ahead, but then you can stop your condemnation of others for trying to survive.
@forttrres You are clearly ignorant. And you are spreading a classic irrational form of thought and a lie about Ayn Rand. One of Rand's heroic characters stole gold from the government as payback for taxes stolen. Social Security is stolen money, and to get it back isn't wrong, it's appropriate. Social Security is not a handout. It is a meager return on money that was already yours, taken by force.
@promontorium Oh ok, my bad then; her heroic characters are hypocrites in her image. My logic and reason tells me that if I don't like something other people are doing, i'm not going to do it myself. I'm against eating meat, and you won't find me eating it, even if someone gives me some free meat. I might have a sliver of respect for Rand (terrible philosophy aside) had she not betrayed her ideals, but she couldn't even follow the damnation she preached.
@promontorium Oh yeah, and it wasn't just social security: Rand was quite the fan of using medicare, under a false name to boot, when she needed to. So, how did the government owe her this time?
"Conservatism" does mean relying on tradition. And "Liberal" means "new".
"Traditions" can be good, new can be good.
"Tradition" does suggest "Tried and true". "New" does suggest change, sometimes change is needed.
But she is fundamentally right that relying on those things for political judgement is flawed.
But people who apply these don't always base their views on "tradition" or "newness". Sometimes they just happen to agree more with "tradition" or "newness".
Bye the way, I could give a shat if she was on welfare her whole life. Her personal life has absolutely nothing to do with her philosophical points and ideas. You commies and lying religious freaks are not going to discredit her IDEAS by attacking her PERSONAL LIFE.
For all you Tea Partiers and GOP supporters: No one is coming to the rescue. There are no saviours in politics. America is finished because you folks continue your blind allegiance to a failed political system and a failed party. Our country is doomed because of the dumbass voters who keep replacing Democrats and Republicans with more of the same, producing no new ideas or solutions, and each party blaming the other. I say death to all Democrats and Republicans.
America was built under the blood of the natives that only lived their lives in accordance with with nature. And the forced work of African slaves. And at the en we are still profiting from it. So how can we undo this crap ?????
This makes senses now a days. Sounds like the republican party. We are being taught the Soviet union's Communism was a failure because it was't real pure Communism and that were moving towards Fascism.
@qualityrkc Early America was founded by the principles of Christian philosophy is what kept people united. Believing that the "Creator" wanted them to have rights, but Britain was the wall in which exhibited the people from acquiring so. Modern America was founded by individual interest and greed, because people have evolved.
@TheArbiterOfTruth I see why people feel the need to link Christianity with the formation of the U.S. The Constitution does not cite anything biblical, in fact it's very secular. There's nothing in the Bible about individual rights or freedom of speech or freedom of religion, or anything. People just have a vested interest in trying to associate America with Christianity, and they can make a good case just because most Americans are Christian, but ideologically they dont have alot in common.
America wasn't founded on Christianity. It was founded on secularism and freedom of religion in one's personal life but also freedom from it in law. Read the First Amendment.
"When shall it be said in any country of the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance or distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive...when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and government."
Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
That was brilliant. She just summed up the current problems in our political system in a concise well explained fashion. A very intelligent women. ' On the money", any extreme or lack of individual freedom of thought goes against the foundation of American values. Good work Ayn.
Not to say I'm against all hippies, I am in fact trying to help them win. It's very simple, giving flowers is peaceful so long as it's not shoved up a person's nose, I fight for real peace and real philosophy, also Merlin and Epicurus's idea of science. Those with real peace, and who are subjectivists, and don't rebel against the forensic law, & who have the most peace and dignity and honour & glory win, and the mourners rather than the savers of victims are the terrorists, & they lose.
Would it be rational to say I did something I didn't experience, percieve, or feel (or something like it)? No, it wouldn't. If you can't feel a similarity, percieve it, and if you didn't experience it, it doesn't exist. If for instance I'm quasi-religious it makes sense to call me spiritual, it's subjective, but just because you think I talk crap it doesn't make evil exist, I am nice and that's it. If I am the devil, I'll be happy to rebel, since I reject conventional hippyism, I want real peace
I already gave up objectivism, I worship (metaphorically) Ayn Rand. I'm a Mind Expanding Dude, in a behaviour war I say mellow out man, and safeguard your tranquility with science. Pseudoscience is hard to distinguish from it, but with Ayn Rand resistance of philosophy is futile. Mere objective thinking is irrational: i.e. if I say if I don't percieve, experience or feel something done it isn't there & u don't believe me, you're being irrational, the former is rational, it's consistent w reality
@ZENICA95 ..and you just made that up! You speak of Jews as though they are like ants, all working together sharing the same opinion for the same goals and in doing so you reveal yourself to be a pusher of hate and ignorance. I'm right because you cannot defend your comment. All I need to do is find two Jews with opposing opinions and your statement is false. Would you now care to defend you statement...I'm ready
As a member of the Tea Party, and an Objectivist, I find the religious rooting of the movement somewhat unsettling. But, the intent of the Tea Party...disregarding religion is absurd. She is absolutely right that it is both untrue and illogical to claim our country was founded on religion. If the Republic was built on religion, our system would not be nearly as free as it is. The system is built on logic and intellect. Those things are tied to human nature of free will.
@BioHunter1990 You are wrong - and completely at that. Watch "America's Godly Heritage" by David Barton. The founders were largely influenced by the principles of Christianity. In fact, most of America's major colleges evolved from Bible study schools.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I have read both her books... Atlas Shrugged was sick to the core. Anyone who thinks her dog eat dog everyman for himself philosophy would work is hopelessly out of touch with any sense of reality. Ayn Rand was a cold controlling woman blasting conservative propaganda, nothing more. Her own life contridicted her philosophy.
With enough confidence, even a fool can convince others that the perspective is fact--even as this foolish bitch has done. The world is better off without this kind of trash.
@bonnevie9 Yes, your right. Rand is bad. Rich people are evil. Everyone is created equal. We should all have unlimited money. Now do you agree with me?
@bonnevie9 All of your responses are based purely on envy that you misconstrue as "logic". Just because you're personally afraid, or unwilling, to compete on an intellectual or physical level with other people for capital, does not mean that you can force others not to. Not all people are equal. Some will achieve higher success than others, some people are smarter, some people are better at sports, ect. Should we cancel the NFL because "some people" cannot physically play football? Grow up.
@Frontigenics All your respones are dopey at best . You know nothing of logic . I can tell you run on greed . Thier was nothing logical about your examples . Ok , if I see you around I am going to trick you out of your money or just take it from you . wimp
@bonnevie9 No, I just know nothing of "your logic", the logic of emotions. Logic to you, is simply just a thought pattern that satisfies your emotions in a positive way and makes you feel comfortable with yourself. People who use real logic (i.e. premises with NO contradictions) often don't have this luxury. You need to learn to be less cognitive dissonant. Your posts are riddles with inner conflict.
BTW, there is nothing more selfish than expecting (or demanding) others to take care of you.
By existance emotions are things. You can make logical considerations about things when you know facts about them. It is possible to know facts about emotions. Ergo, you can include a consideration of emotion within logic.
The real question from a Christian perspective is whether a country that *fails* to provide for the needy, who's blood is "precious" in God's sight, is still "just." Given Psalm 72, and God's repeated exhortations to charity throughout both testaments, the objective answer is "no."
You cannot serve both God and Mammon. But the religious right sure as hell is trying.
hey witch, what about you guys going for policy, not because it's new...but because you're bought off by the cfr which is the rockefeller queen rothschilds.....ALL SHE IS DOING IS REPEATING WHAT SHE WAS TOLD TO SAY BY THE CLUB OF ROME. PERIOD. I KNOW, I WAS THERE. I WATCHED THE GREAT ONE GET BOUGHT OFF.......CHEAP.
@GrandChessboard That's what led us here in the first place. Nothing requires less thinking than dismissing all who have acquired wealth as selfish and without moral. The human mind naturally takes the least cognitive dissonant route. Which is usually blaming other people, as the ego is constantly trying to protect itself. The people who understand Rand have usually transcended their egos and have truly achieved an objective perspective, those who don't, are usually still in the tribal/ego stage
@bonnevie9 Yes, your right. Rand is bad. Rich people are evil. Everyone is created equal. We should all have unlimited money. Now do you agree with me?
@bonnevie9 Yes, your right. Rand is bad. Rich people are evil. Everyone is created equal. We should all have unlimited money. Now do you agree with me?
As a Christain, I have to say that I totally agree that faith and religion are private matters and reason and individual rights should be preserved. I've studied history and learned that whenever one person forces his/her belief on others, he/she violated others rights & freedom. God gave man free will, He does not force His will on anyone. I try hard not to force my Christian beliefs on anyone. I feel if religious people have a problem with secularlsm, they're free to form their own enclaves.
In Psalm 72, David describes the attributes of a ruler "just" in God's eyes. God sees charity as an enforceable social duty.
"May he defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy...".
"For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight."
Now remember, this David describing what the government should do under a *monarchy.* If it's okay to use government in a hereditary dictatorship to provide for the needy, then surely it's okay to use government to provide for the needy in a modern corporate plutocracy like America. This is so because the pitiable, persecuted rich people Rand defends have *more* say over how their tax money is spent in a plutocracy than in a monarchy.
@newjerus777 Isn't your view of "not forcing Christianity on others" a revisionist view? Is it not required to spread Christianity, even by force, if necessary in the Bible itself? Is it a violation of rights to say that one person should not kill another person. Should it be legal yto kill whomeever you want?
@newjerus777 Then my friend the apostles in your eyes "forced the gospel of Christ" to the masses by preaching repentance and faith in Christ Jesus. You are disobeying the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to every creature. Preaching is not forcing. You are merely making a LOST SOUL aware of there terrible eternal fate of denying Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Where is your burden for the lost friend? Can you just walk on by your family, friends n neighbors and notshare the good news?
@newjerus777 So how do you fulfill the Great Commission by hiding your light under a bushel. I agree that religious freedom is a strength of America but that doesn't mean freedom FROM religion, but rather freedom from having religion FORCED on you which is what God's will is. God always wants willing followers. It was the Pharisees who used force in religion. They stoned Stephen and crucified Christ.
@newjerus777 Definitely, she's just trying to state that by not having arguments pertaining to this world, we open the Marxists and other opponents of freedom to criticize our views as being purely based on faith of something of which we have no proof in this world. She's reminding individualists that we have compelling reasons, better reasons than those of collectivists, Marxists, whomever -- that are independent of faith and that can be and have been empirically demonstrated in the world.
@newjerus777 . Ahahah ! The fact is your policy ( USA policiy ) is a religion. You god is now in the money. Your dogmas contaminated by force others countries in the world. Consumerism is one of your dogma . Materialism is another dogma that USA have obliged European countries to believe. Think at that : the God of the anglo-American is in the market ... tada ... You pray at wall street ... :-)
And finally, please don't forget she had no childhood, no youth, She despised and hated people for her own personal reasons, Her hardcore moral position is a psychological self-defense to the humiliation taken, it's based on a SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE conclusions.
@ilovedlife Why do you say that she had no childhood or youth? Just out of curiosity, how widely known is Ayn Rand in Russia today? What do Russians generally think of her?
@bma051000 cause she fled from the USSR and never sad any good about it, her family property was confiscated twice. all her hatred for "collectivism" is based on pure personal reasons
she's virtially unkonown in russia by the general public, major books were published only recently, so slowly getting closer to mainstream
some people say she's boring, some enjoy her as pure fiction, but some think she's a genious and take her as moral guide
@ilovedlife If you actually read the books though her conclusions are made through a very easy to follow series of logical steps, so they arent purely personal. If anything she plagiarized Aristotle. I think the observation of "universal applying" is interesting considering she came from the Soviets, but "universal applying" is actually a very old idea. You could trace it back to Immanuel Kant and Marcus Aurelius, not just Stalin.
@ilovedlife Her personality is certainly Russian (serious and intense), and she certainly writes very long novels, not unlike some other Russian writers (Tolstoy, Doestoyevsky). Maybe more Russians should be like her. Unfortunately, US and other western countries are becoming more and more like USSR.
Some sociologists say that communism was really a form of monotheist state religion, If it's so, than objectivism is without a doubt just a religious cult. This is a philosophical doctrine that being strictly non-empirical, imitates the scientific picture of the world, replacing critical thinking and conscience with ideology.
Guys, please, stop trusting Utopias! There's no final solution to all the problems!
In both cases deviations from the established behaviour model considered unnatural, harmful and criminal. In USSR they thought that true freedom is possible only after the abomination of capitalism (aka exploitation), by AR true freedom exists only in established capitalism, As a true bolshevik, she is really disturbed by any critisism, because she understands that her theory is the only just and right one, applicable to any society anytime. She is obviously not a teacher, she's a preacher!
you know, sometimes i seriously think that ayn rand is a part of a genius soviet masterplan to destroy US, functioning even after USSR'suicide. As a russian i can say that Ayn Rand is obviously a direct product of soviet system. Here principles are the soviet "universal applying" values turned inside out, brought under the banner of the Enlightment and Reason. In USSR it was 100% altruism, AR has it 100% egoism. In USSR the more you give to the society, the more you benefit, by AR vice versa.
(2) What is objective would be to pursue goals that do not just make an individual happy, but those that benefit the largest number of people, through scientific research (both applied and basic), art, and investment in education (as humanitarian aid while nice and emotionally satisfying only helps someone for a short duration, while an education can provide someone with a fulfilling life, as is obvious).
@Johannes999999999 Well from a philosophic standpoint, calling something "Objective" is saying that something is independent of human perception. Her ethics then would be claimed objective, since they have a specific system of right and wrong, good and bad. Just like Kantianism and Ulitarianism. While Subjectivity has a lot of ego to it, not all things Subjective have to do with selfishness, which respect the individual while looking at the world at large. I'm a fan of Existentialism myself.
(1) I find it humorous that Ayn Rand calls her philosophy objectivism when the concept of egoism is a one way path to subjective thought. This is because when one pursues his own well-being, he puts himself ahead of others, which is not objective (in my opinion it is as subjective as one can get). In reality, an individual is not important, and one’s individual happiness is not important.
@Cab0cl0 There is no hell you moron there is no "extra-dimension" under the ground where non-palpable spirits can burn its just absurd crap your mother( or whatever wet nurse) you had told you to keep you in line
@MrDessirius Oh so you say there's no hell right? So if you are so sure, and you are so much smarter than pretty much everybody else, take a gun to your head and pull the trigger and tell me who's right.
Until you do that, you are nothing but another petty atheist who's angry at the world.
@Cab0cl0 first of all im not angry at the world ( though by the law of projection you may be yourself) second of all only a complete cave-man fucktard would suggest suicide to another individual lastly you may just be another one of those fascist christ-nazi's out to strip the freedom of all other individuals by the random will or your just as petty god who spent the entirity of the old-testament offing people who pissed him off, what kinda god is that hmm. P.S if I'm dead i can't tell you shit
You've just proved me right, all I see are cuss words and personal attacks.
You are full of rage, I will pray for Jesus to soothe your soul, even though you don't believe Him. You will then realize it is futile to go against the order of things and this attitude will bring you only emptiness and despair.
Then, I will greet you with my arms open and I'll be happy to call you my brother.
@Cab0cl0 you know what I admit that my behavior was completly unjustified and even though you have different opinions than I do it doesn't give me the right to completly bash your religious convictions. So as a token of good faith I apologize and hope that you accept it
by the way if you don't like her principles you don't have to wacth the goddamn clip theres a neaty little red X in the right hand corner ( thats if god gave you the ability to tell right from left) that should take care of the problem
@theDeckisStacked Do you have anything specific to say about her philosophy? Or are you content with throwing out quotes from the characters of her novels as direct quotes from her, cherry-picking out-of-context lines from her journals as a youth, misrepresenting her childhood, and blaming her for the actions of an immoral coward who turned his back on her the instant she died? Please google "ad hominem".
@theDeckisStacked Do you have anything specific to say about her philosophy? Or are you just making a bigoted statement about her country of birth (whose politics she renounced, by the way)?
God brought me to Ayn Rand. Now that I'm here she's interesting and dynamic on the surface. I haven't read any of her novels but I'm really wondering if she does reveal an alterioir motive to her philosophy inside of them. When I hear her speak and watch her in interviews i can sincerely enjoy the woman's approach . What she says does make very clear sense. It troubles me to still see a differentiation between her philosophy and Jesus' philosophy of, not Christianity, 'Love'.
@DissREGUARD So for starters, the philosophy of Jesus teaches people to love all of mankind regardless of their faults and their actions. Ayn Rand believes that love is an action that must be earned through your virtues. Jesus preached altruism, that the purpose of your life is to serve others. Anything you do, no matter if it is self-rewarding or self-destructive, must be done with the intent that it is for the good of others, not for yourself. Rand teaches that you are your own highest value.
Objectivism is utterly incompatible with Christianity. John Galt was specifically written as an antichrist. There's a lot to the argument, but the essential point is that Jesus contrasts with Galt, because where Jesus took on mankind's sins in order to save it, Galt refused to accept "unearned guilt" in order to destroy it (or, rather, most of it, except the few deemed worthy).
@DissREGUARD Ayn Rand's philosophy is the antithesis of christianity. Even as an atheist, the core message that I can take away from christianity is the idea of self-sacrifice (I am my brothers keeper, etc.). Objectivism, on the other hand, is a philosophy that values self-interest above all else, which is the exact opposite of christianity. Do you even know that she was an atheist too?
christopher hitchens mother ??
914light 21 hours ago
Based on Ayn Rand's principle that what you earn should be yours, I don't believe in 100% property rights. The earth is interwoven and what you do to or with one part of the earth affects the whole. It always does but to different degrees. No human created the earth so there is no objective reason anybody can earn the right to use the resources. Usage and getting there first are not objective reasons to claim ownership of resources, they're just rules humans thought up.
amalt37 1 day ago
@amalt37 ..Good God ...I hope your NOT American !
914light 21 hours ago
@914light Yes I'm American. Tell me how someone can earn resources they didn't create? Let me clarify about the 100%, I don't mean you can't earn any property. I just mean that you will always owe a small portion to the whole because you can never take 100% credit for anything you create. Sure your creation wouldn't be there without you but you couldn't have created it but for the earth's resources, which you can't take credit for.
amalt37 18 hours ago
Talk about a bunch christian bashing the messanger and not the message...... again. What a waste of commenting.
rcacad 2 days ago
ayn rand must be the secret head of the jewish lobby.
befranklintoo 2 days ago
evil misanthropic woman that poisend the world. Her teachings are one of the main reason of this crisis.
Destroyer of solidarity and charity between people of this world.
Rot in hell evil witch
BalkanibalX 1 week ago
@BalkanibalX you're funny
MrDarknessandDeath 1 week ago
@BalkanibalX "Rot in hell evil witch"
People in hell don't "rot", it's eternal. Assuming it existed, which it doesn't
Witches don't exist.
You wouldn't recognize evil if it bit you in the ass.
jeffiek 5 days ago 2
@BalkanibalX Ignorance is evil. You are full of evil.
195ashes 2 days ago
The sad thing is 51 years later, republicans still try to force their way into our personal lives.
Also to say that capitalism and the Christian God are correlated is evidence that anyone who believes it doesn't read the Bible.
raspberrymuffin 1 week ago
Too bad the Bolsheviks didn't murder this worthless cunt...
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
--->> Ron Paul 2012 -- MONEY BOMB --- TODAY!! <<---- ronpaul2012 . com
Donate toward preserving the liberties which our government has grossly perverted since the founding of our nation. Help restore our rights and freedoms.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
ronpaul2012hope 1 week ago
got any crack?
wblakesx 3 weeks ago
Big business is not to blame for coercive monopolies or unfair competition. If government had no power to offer economic carrots (subsidies, soft loans, pull, etc) with peoples tax dollars, corruption in business would not survive. America was born on the principle of individual rights not granted by God. On the contrary, it was a rebellion of force of abuse against individuals by authorities, either religious or government rulers.
timberskid 3 weeks ago 4
@timberskid Big business does not create monopolies, "it's the government's fault". Are you mad? Do you know what companies like AT&T, Microsoft, and Intel go through because the government intervenes to prevent total monopoly?
Yes, intervention exists. It exists because said companies funnel billions of dollars into congress to make it so.
Think what you will about the founding principles of this country. But the reason for monopolies is simple: the profit motive.
KellyAnnOR 1 day ago
@KellyAnnOR As I said, if there were no carrots there would be no lobbying or corruption in back room deals. The government exists to protect each individual from force, not to administer force against individuals. If big business is being dishonest like the Bernie Madoffs, then the governments proper role should be to deal with them in the courts,. . but otherwise they should leave people alone to invent, create, produce, trade and keep the fruits of their own labor.
timberskid 1 day ago
She speaks the truth.
GunShard 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Holocaust Mind Control:
watch?v=EU4Im5U7wyw
st1ckycheese 1 month ago
take a huge shit in my hand
Dtchmastrkilla7 1 month ago
@Dtchmastrkilla7 if you insist
Drshinobibombay 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
Is good to point out that she recieve welfare entiltelment after retiring. She did not had a retiring package. Therefore all this can't not actually be apply. Unless you are wealthy.
BORYJUSTME 1 month ago
I didn't know that the entirety of the modern Republic Party dogma was invented by a fictional writer. It's almost scary how a bunch of politicians in 2011 literally parrot her answers to most political questions. You have to ask yourself if Socialism is preferable to Sociopathy.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 Well, she explains why she wrote the way she did for Atlas Shrugged and other fictional stories in "The Romantic Manifesto." She also disliked Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians especially. So your comment suggests that you have not even attempted to read any of her non-fiction books.
AnubisEye009 1 month ago
@drankin2112 Besides, the 'sociopath' argument is hardly an effective argument except for slander, ever since MaoistRebelNews posted that video, many uninformed people have been saying that. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you see it to see the origins of that argument. Rand was also strictly against the initiation of force.
AnubisEye009 1 month ago
@AnubisEye009 I haven't read Dianetics either. I just reject the idea that a self absorbed gangster rapper, for instance, is leading a life that is morally superior to a missionary or to Ghandi, for instance. I do see however the attraction to a philosophy that gives a license to engage in unlimited gluttony. She advocates corporate lawlessness.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112
(response 1)
Again, all I can refer you to is "The Romantic Manifesto" regarding the "gangster rapper" post. She explains herself quite bluntly, and you can judge there. I am no advocate for her, nor am I trying to convince you she's right, my point is that she answers some of your questions. As for your 2nd post, "resentment for the failure of capitalism in Russia." She wanted communism to succeed?
As for your 2nd post
AnubisEye009 1 month ago
Comment removed
AnubisEye009 1 month ago
@drankin2112 (Response 2) "Ayn Rand's vision of unbridled capitalism is an invention that comes from her mind only."
My response to that is that many Inventions and Philosophies came from some person's mind, look at history, i.e. Gen. Patton, Buddha, etc... You don't have to like it, all you communicate here though is your dislike of her and it follows through in your words describing her.
AnubisEye009 1 month ago
@drankin2112 (response 3) The rest of your 2nd comment is based on your assumptions, from not reading any of her non-fiction. Not to mention tying in Scientology with Objectivism, which I see as an attempt at more slander which discredits you, and makes me question whether you read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged. "Dianetics" was termed by L. Ron Hubbard; Lastly, please read "The Romantic Manifesto." It is only 180 pages and I will not do the work for you.
AnubisEye009 1 month ago
@AnubisEye009 (response 1) I have watched over an hour of Rand explaining her philosphy in interviews of which she is quite clear about her positions. If I disagree with the basic premise of her work, then I am perfectly entitled to argue my opinion without then going on to read the entirety of her work. To accept her premise and extrapolated outcomes, one must put faith into her unproven assertions which defies the foundation for her view.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@AnubisEye009 (response 2) Tying in Scientology with Objectivism is only slanderous if you are predisposed to the notion that Scientology is bad. In reality, I was using the comparison to make an obvious concession of legitimacy to Objectivism as a philosophy relating to the human experience, just not governance. When you responded to my original post I mistakenly assumed you wanted to debate your side. Clearly I misunderstood. Thank you for your suggestions on further reading.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@AnubisEye009 (response 3) Merry Christmas!
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 Thank you for your explanation on the whole Scientology thing. Also, Merry Christmas! Just got 2 books of Dostoevsky, lol. Lastly, from personal experience, I think it's much better to read and watch. Reading allows you to write criticism and expand, confirm, and questions many notions of life, etc. Watching a video is good for getting a generalization and memory of general concepts talked about.
AnubisEye009 1 month ago
@AnubisEye009 Ayn Rand's vision of unbridled capitalism is an invention that comes from her mind only. Born out of her resentment for the failure of communism in Russia. Her claim that monopolies can't exist in an unbridled capitalist system can't be proven because the world has never created a system that demonstrates that outcome? She is requiring me to put "faith" into her assertion. To accept what my experience and my reasoning mind tells me is false.
drankin2112 1 month ago
Turn on Transcribe Audio and look at what it says at :40!
Bukujutsu 1 month ago
@raocool1986 Ayn Rand is not my worst nightmare. I may disagree with her on many issues, but I would have been able to have a rational debate with her. The current crop of conservative politicians who rely on religion and tradition to justify outmoded ways of thinking and successfully block progress is much more nightmarish than anything Ayn Rand envisioned.
evilanagram 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My message to Ayn Rand:
Stop making people psychotic like your self, so that people can realise that we are social animals that historically achieve far more when we are united and cooperate together instead of being divided and competing against eachother. Your ideology is what causes violent riots, because it devalues the community and the commons, and puts the selfishness of individual far out of balance in overpowering the well being and tranquillity of society.
Please. Just stop.
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere Community cohesion is the principle on which fascism, tribalism and communism are founded.
Don't evade the question. Don't bitch about noble ideals betrayed by human nature.
You discarded individual rights and life. You got what you asked for.
MrDarknessandDeath 1 month ago
@MrDarknessandDeath Who the hell are you arguing with, dumbass? No one I've ever met has supported subverting individual rights. Your challenging a non-existent enemy. fascism, tribalism, and communism are VERY different things, and I have no doubt that you have little to no comprehension of what any of them TRULY are. Turn off Fox News and go learn from REALITY.
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere I don't watch fox.
MrDarknessandDeath 1 month ago
@MrDarknessandDeath Then I guess you're just naturally misinformed.
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere No, it's not natural. I try VERY HARD to misinform myself, with FULL KNOWLEDGE that I'm lying to myself. Wait...
MrDarknessandDeath 1 month ago
Ayn Rand is a liberal's worst nightmare. That is why they trash her every chance they get.
raocool1986 1 month ago
@raocool1986 Ayn Rand was mentally traumatised. Not in an insulting way, but literally she had trauma from childhood experiences.
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
I have only heard negative thins about her, I am impress by her vision. She saw way back, what many people can't even see today.
Listen to any of the gop candidate today. They seems to be attacking the basic principles of our existence. Not that dens are that much better.
myrootsinthejungle 1 month ago
no, nothing wrong with Tradition... its traditional to tell your kids about Ayn Rand..
templedog69 1 month ago
yes,the neo cons have flipped you over!!!
TheANTIGONE3 1 month ago
i agree with her here!
TheANTIGONE3 1 month ago
If you have a passion for justice and liberty , you would probably find this amazing! Great speech!
TheWilderwun 1 month ago
What a bunch of useless noise. Opinions don't equal facts and she has nothing but opinions.
Beholdthearch 1 month ago
@Beholdthearch your are so rite is like an ass
BORYJUSTME 1 month ago
@Beholdthearch
Change "she has" to "I have" and this statement becomes fact.
batfly 1 month ago
This is pretty much all my political views in under 5 minutes...it's nuts how ahead she was of her time and how relevant what she's saying is today.....
drunkdonutboy 1 month ago
As a "philosopher" who promotes a certain way of living, beit objectivism or whatever else, it is expected that that same person lives the way of their philosophy, ie practice what they preach. To accept any kind of government "handout" after spending years damning the practice and calling those who take it "leaches," is blatant hypocrisy at its finest. She wants to take "handouts" fine, go ahead, but then you can stop your condemnation of others for trying to survive.
forttrres 1 month ago
@forttrres You are clearly ignorant. And you are spreading a classic irrational form of thought and a lie about Ayn Rand. One of Rand's heroic characters stole gold from the government as payback for taxes stolen. Social Security is stolen money, and to get it back isn't wrong, it's appropriate. Social Security is not a handout. It is a meager return on money that was already yours, taken by force.
promontorium 1 month ago
@promontorium Oh ok, my bad then; her heroic characters are hypocrites in her image. My logic and reason tells me that if I don't like something other people are doing, i'm not going to do it myself. I'm against eating meat, and you won't find me eating it, even if someone gives me some free meat. I might have a sliver of respect for Rand (terrible philosophy aside) had she not betrayed her ideals, but she couldn't even follow the damnation she preached.
forttrres 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@promontorium Oh yeah, and it wasn't just social security: Rand was quite the fan of using medicare, under a false name to boot, when she needed to. So, how did the government owe her this time?
forttrres 1 month ago
@promontorium tell what force did anybody put a gun in your forehead? That is force. So is ok when she get it beacuse what?
BORYJUSTME 1 month ago
Alan Greenspan must have had some seious beer goggles to have nailed her
DUCATIPUNK 1 month ago
She does make some good points.
"Conservatism" does mean relying on tradition. And "Liberal" means "new".
"Traditions" can be good, new can be good.
"Tradition" does suggest "Tried and true". "New" does suggest change, sometimes change is needed.
But she is fundamentally right that relying on those things for political judgement is flawed.
But people who apply these don't always base their views on "tradition" or "newness". Sometimes they just happen to agree more with "tradition" or "newness".
sicktoaster 1 month ago
Bye the way, I could give a shat if she was on welfare her whole life. Her personal life has absolutely nothing to do with her philosophical points and ideas. You commies and lying religious freaks are not going to discredit her IDEAS by attacking her PERSONAL LIFE.
raocool1986 2 months ago
If America had been operating under Rand's ideals we never would have accumulated so much welfare/warfare and national debt. She is 100% correct.
raocool1986 2 months ago
STOP JACKING OFF AND READ THE BOOK OF REVELATION,,, that's my advice to you swine
analagony 2 months ago
For all you Tea Partiers and GOP supporters: No one is coming to the rescue. There are no saviours in politics. America is finished because you folks continue your blind allegiance to a failed political system and a failed party. Our country is doomed because of the dumbass voters who keep replacing Democrats and Republicans with more of the same, producing no new ideas or solutions, and each party blaming the other. I say death to all Democrats and Republicans.
Mufaso1000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you people understand?
roskey697 2 months ago
America was built under the blood of the natives that only lived their lives in accordance with with nature. And the forced work of African slaves. And at the en we are still profiting from it. So how can we undo this crap ?????
manmachine30 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago in playlist Ayn Rand
This makes senses now a days. Sounds like the republican party. We are being taught the Soviet union's Communism was a failure because it was't real pure Communism and that were moving towards Fascism.
codkiller100 2 months ago
I agree with most everything she says except that she doesn't cite that Christianity was one of the main factors of the formation of America.
TheArbiterOfTruth 2 months ago
@TheArbiterOfTruth religious freedom buddy not christianity. Our country was founded on religious freedom as well as freedom from religion.
qualityrkc 2 months ago 7
@qualityrkc Early America was founded by the principles of Christian philosophy is what kept people united. Believing that the "Creator" wanted them to have rights, but Britain was the wall in which exhibited the people from acquiring so. Modern America was founded by individual interest and greed, because people have evolved.
BlackThouqhts 1 week ago
@BlackThouqhts which principles are these you speak of?name specific principles that america borrowed from christianity.
qualityrkc 1 week ago
@TheArbiterOfTruth I see why people feel the need to link Christianity with the formation of the U.S. The Constitution does not cite anything biblical, in fact it's very secular. There's nothing in the Bible about individual rights or freedom of speech or freedom of religion, or anything. People just have a vested interest in trying to associate America with Christianity, and they can make a good case just because most Americans are Christian, but ideologically they dont have alot in common.
666dagstein 2 months ago
@TheArbiterOfTruth
America wasn't founded on Christianity. It was founded on secularism and freedom of religion in one's personal life but also freedom from it in law. Read the First Amendment.
raspberrymuffin 1 week ago
"When shall it be said in any country of the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance or distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive...when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and government."
~ Thomas Paine
forty911 2 months ago
@forty911 sounds like Canada is getting there
LTopomcFly 2 months ago
Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
logtype47 2 months ago
That was brilliant. She just summed up the current problems in our political system in a concise well explained fashion. A very intelligent women. ' On the money", any extreme or lack of individual freedom of thought goes against the foundation of American values. Good work Ayn.
trustinstinct 2 months ago
Not to say I'm against all hippies, I am in fact trying to help them win. It's very simple, giving flowers is peaceful so long as it's not shoved up a person's nose, I fight for real peace and real philosophy, also Merlin and Epicurus's idea of science. Those with real peace, and who are subjectivists, and don't rebel against the forensic law, & who have the most peace and dignity and honour & glory win, and the mourners rather than the savers of victims are the terrorists, & they lose.
Hoobifta 3 months ago
Would it be rational to say I did something I didn't experience, percieve, or feel (or something like it)? No, it wouldn't. If you can't feel a similarity, percieve it, and if you didn't experience it, it doesn't exist. If for instance I'm quasi-religious it makes sense to call me spiritual, it's subjective, but just because you think I talk crap it doesn't make evil exist, I am nice and that's it. If I am the devil, I'll be happy to rebel, since I reject conventional hippyism, I want real peace
Hoobifta 3 months ago
I already gave up objectivism, I worship (metaphorically) Ayn Rand. I'm a Mind Expanding Dude, in a behaviour war I say mellow out man, and safeguard your tranquility with science. Pseudoscience is hard to distinguish from it, but with Ayn Rand resistance of philosophy is futile. Mere objective thinking is irrational: i.e. if I say if I don't percieve, experience or feel something done it isn't there & u don't believe me, you're being irrational, the former is rational, it's consistent w reality
Hoobifta 3 months ago
I'm giving up on Rand. See accepted Medicare and Social Security like a sneaky little scoundrel.
teapartyxpress 3 months ago
THE JEWISH WITCH AYN RAND KNEW WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE
WHEN IT CAME TO ISRAEL BECAUSE SHE WAS A JEW LIKE ALL
JEWS THEY ATTACK ALL RELIGION BUT NOT THEIR OWN TRIBE.
ZENICA95 3 months ago
@ZENICA95 ..and you just made that up! You speak of Jews as though they are like ants, all working together sharing the same opinion for the same goals and in doing so you reveal yourself to be a pusher of hate and ignorance. I'm right because you cannot defend your comment. All I need to do is find two Jews with opposing opinions and your statement is false. Would you now care to defend you statement...I'm ready
Avidcomp 2 months ago
@ZENICA95 VERY INTERESTING COMMENTARY! KOOL!
Manikhayya 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is NOT the job of government to take care of you.
SemperBeer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Suzy Greenberg
Wrothchild 3 months ago
in europe we have christian parties ruling in many countries and it is quite all right...
TheYouwontgetit 3 months ago
hmm I need to read up I only understood the last part... "Self-reliance" Go get some :D ha ha. But I won't turn down any hand outs :)
DangLao 3 months ago
Her message should have been "Don't read my books, they're horrible."
Rundvelt 3 months ago
As a member of the Tea Party, and an Objectivist, I find the religious rooting of the movement somewhat unsettling. But, the intent of the Tea Party...disregarding religion is absurd. She is absolutely right that it is both untrue and illogical to claim our country was founded on religion. If the Republic was built on religion, our system would not be nearly as free as it is. The system is built on logic and intellect. Those things are tied to human nature of free will.
BioHunter1990 3 months ago 9
@BioHunter1990 You are wrong - and completely at that. Watch "America's Godly Heritage" by David Barton. The founders were largely influenced by the principles of Christianity. In fact, most of America's major colleges evolved from Bible study schools.
st1ckycheese 1 month ago
@UnbiasedIntellectual Wat.
QHJFRD 3 months ago
@UnbiasedIntellectual 0/10
manicbranic 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have read both her books... Atlas Shrugged was sick to the core. Anyone who thinks her dog eat dog everyman for himself philosophy would work is hopelessly out of touch with any sense of reality. Ayn Rand was a cold controlling woman blasting conservative propaganda, nothing more. Her own life contridicted her philosophy.
DanLetts97 3 months ago
Jesus Christ was a Socialist
Ayn Rand was an Atheist
Odd...isnt it.
daguzify 3 months ago
Ok Ayn, when you got cancer who did you run to? Ah yes, you relied on the government.
Sconi71 4 months ago
@Sconi71 What wrong with that? LOL If you're sick with cancer or other illnesses you can't exactly do a lot.
dchains 3 months ago
With enough confidence, even a fool can convince others that the perspective is fact--even as this foolish bitch has done. The world is better off without this kind of trash.
Ninjadelusion 4 months ago
@UnbiasedIntellectual lolololl obvious troll is obvious.
Ninjadelusion 4 months ago
BTW, why would you want to take any money from me? Are YOU greedy?
Frontigenics 4 months ago
Why are so many responses relating Rand's message to religion? Wasn't she an atheist?
fabianmockian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bonnevie9 Yes, your right. Rand is bad. Rich people are evil. Everyone is created equal. We should all have unlimited money. Now do you agree with me?
You sound like a scared 12-year-old...
Frontigenics 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My dog took a dump on her grave
bonnevie9 4 months ago
Ayn Rand is evil , I pissed on her grave today
bonnevie9 4 months ago
@bonnevie9 God bless you.
TheAmazingamerica 4 months ago
@bonnevie9 All of your responses are based purely on envy that you misconstrue as "logic". Just because you're personally afraid, or unwilling, to compete on an intellectual or physical level with other people for capital, does not mean that you can force others not to. Not all people are equal. Some will achieve higher success than others, some people are smarter, some people are better at sports, ect. Should we cancel the NFL because "some people" cannot physically play football? Grow up.
Frontigenics 4 months ago
@Frontigenics All your respones are dopey at best . You know nothing of logic . I can tell you run on greed . Thier was nothing logical about your examples . Ok , if I see you around I am going to trick you out of your money or just take it from you . wimp
bonnevie9 4 months ago
@bonnevie9 No, I just know nothing of "your logic", the logic of emotions. Logic to you, is simply just a thought pattern that satisfies your emotions in a positive way and makes you feel comfortable with yourself. People who use real logic (i.e. premises with NO contradictions) often don't have this luxury. You need to learn to be less cognitive dissonant. Your posts are riddles with inner conflict.
BTW, there is nothing more selfish than expecting (or demanding) others to take care of you.
Frontigenics 4 months ago 19
@Frontigenics maybe you're just a fucking sperglord, ever think of that?
Shamidey 3 months ago
@Frontigenics
By existance emotions are things. You can make logical considerations about things when you know facts about them. It is possible to know facts about emotions. Ergo, you can include a consideration of emotion within logic.
sicktoaster 1 month ago
The real question from a Christian perspective is whether a country that *fails* to provide for the needy, who's blood is "precious" in God's sight, is still "just." Given Psalm 72, and God's repeated exhortations to charity throughout both testaments, the objective answer is "no."
You cannot serve both God and Mammon. But the religious right sure as hell is trying.
MrBaz744 4 months ago
hey witch, what about you guys going for policy, not because it's new...but because you're bought off by the cfr which is the rockefeller queen rothschilds.....ALL SHE IS DOING IS REPEATING WHAT SHE WAS TOLD TO SAY BY THE CLUB OF ROME. PERIOD. I KNOW, I WAS THERE. I WATCHED THE GREAT ONE GET BOUGHT OFF.......CHEAP.
sssssjjjj1 4 months ago
hahaha if you read her oldest stuff, she was TOTALLY different....she meets the rothschilds money......and suddenly, she's a psycho murdering witch.
sssssjjjj1 4 months ago
Rand makes me hard. ;)
xXvolhvXx 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why do people listen to this idiot, grow up and think for yourself.
GrandChessboard 4 months ago
@GrandChessboard That's what led us here in the first place. Nothing requires less thinking than dismissing all who have acquired wealth as selfish and without moral. The human mind naturally takes the least cognitive dissonant route. Which is usually blaming other people, as the ego is constantly trying to protect itself. The people who understand Rand have usually transcended their egos and have truly achieved an objective perspective, those who don't, are usually still in the tribal/ego stage
Frontigenics 4 months ago
@Frontigenics Rand is not objective and you are feeble minded
bonnevie9 4 months ago
@bonnevie9 Yes, your right. Rand is bad. Rich people are evil. Everyone is created equal. We should all have unlimited money. Now do you agree with me?
You sound like a scared 12-year-old...
Frontigenics 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bonnevie9 Yes, your right. Rand is bad. Rich people are evil. Everyone is created equal. We should all have unlimited money. Now do you agree with me?
You sound like a scared 12-year-old...
Frontigenics 4 months ago
@djerwulfe I ignore all advertising.
MrSammo1 5 months ago
@djerwulfe Fair enough, then be happy with your monetary slavery that she condoned.
MrSammo1 5 months ago
@djerwulfe She condoned murder for profit.
MrSammo1 5 months ago
As a Christain, I have to say that I totally agree that faith and religion are private matters and reason and individual rights should be preserved. I've studied history and learned that whenever one person forces his/her belief on others, he/she violated others rights & freedom. God gave man free will, He does not force His will on anyone. I try hard not to force my Christian beliefs on anyone. I feel if religious people have a problem with secularlsm, they're free to form their own enclaves.
newjerus777 5 months ago 26
@newjerus777 i am a CHRISTIAN AS WELL AND AGREE WITH YOU TOATALLY
tonyteb 4 months ago
@tonyteb blah blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
chieflewal 4 months ago
@chieflewal ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok
tonyteb 4 months ago
@newjerus777
In Psalm 72, David describes the attributes of a ruler "just" in God's eyes. God sees charity as an enforceable social duty.
"May he defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy...".
"For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight."
MrBaz744 4 months ago
@newjerus777
Now remember, this David describing what the government should do under a *monarchy.* If it's okay to use government in a hereditary dictatorship to provide for the needy, then surely it's okay to use government to provide for the needy in a modern corporate plutocracy like America. This is so because the pitiable, persecuted rich people Rand defends have *more* say over how their tax money is spent in a plutocracy than in a monarchy.
MrBaz744 4 months ago
@newjerus777 Isn't your view of "not forcing Christianity on others" a revisionist view? Is it not required to spread Christianity, even by force, if necessary in the Bible itself? Is it a violation of rights to say that one person should not kill another person. Should it be legal yto kill whomeever you want?
fabianmockian 4 months ago
@newjerus777 VERY WELL SAID..
PEACE..
omarlyn 4 months ago
@newjerus777 Then my friend the apostles in your eyes "forced the gospel of Christ" to the masses by preaching repentance and faith in Christ Jesus. You are disobeying the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to every creature. Preaching is not forcing. You are merely making a LOST SOUL aware of there terrible eternal fate of denying Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Where is your burden for the lost friend? Can you just walk on by your family, friends n neighbors and notshare the good news?
shyman25 3 months ago
@newjerus777 So how do you fulfill the Great Commission by hiding your light under a bushel. I agree that religious freedom is a strength of America but that doesn't mean freedom FROM religion, but rather freedom from having religion FORCED on you which is what God's will is. God always wants willing followers. It was the Pharisees who used force in religion. They stoned Stephen and crucified Christ.
exenrontexas 2 months ago
@newjerus777 Definitely, she's just trying to state that by not having arguments pertaining to this world, we open the Marxists and other opponents of freedom to criticize our views as being purely based on faith of something of which we have no proof in this world. She's reminding individualists that we have compelling reasons, better reasons than those of collectivists, Marxists, whomever -- that are independent of faith and that can be and have been empirically demonstrated in the world.
NDB1790 2 months ago
@newjerus777 . Ahahah ! The fact is your policy ( USA policiy ) is a religion. You god is now in the money. Your dogmas contaminated by force others countries in the world. Consumerism is one of your dogma . Materialism is another dogma that USA have obliged European countries to believe. Think at that : the God of the anglo-American is in the market ... tada ... You pray at wall street ... :-)
anasthase100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Female sociopaths are so much more believable.
MrSammo1 5 months ago
@MrSammo1 Good one..
rb2112002 5 months ago
And finally, please don't forget she had no childhood, no youth, She despised and hated people for her own personal reasons, Her hardcore moral position is a psychological self-defense to the humiliation taken, it's based on a SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE conclusions.
ilovedlife 5 months ago
@ilovedlife Why do you say that she had no childhood or youth? Just out of curiosity, how widely known is Ayn Rand in Russia today? What do Russians generally think of her?
bma051000 5 months ago
@bma051000 cause she fled from the USSR and never sad any good about it, her family property was confiscated twice. all her hatred for "collectivism" is based on pure personal reasons
she's virtially unkonown in russia by the general public, major books were published only recently, so slowly getting closer to mainstream
some people say she's boring, some enjoy her as pure fiction, but some think she's a genious and take her as moral guide
ilovedlife 5 months ago
@ilovedlife If you actually read the books though her conclusions are made through a very easy to follow series of logical steps, so they arent purely personal. If anything she plagiarized Aristotle. I think the observation of "universal applying" is interesting considering she came from the Soviets, but "universal applying" is actually a very old idea. You could trace it back to Immanuel Kant and Marcus Aurelius, not just Stalin.
smiledammit24 5 months ago
@ilovedlife Her personality is certainly Russian (serious and intense), and she certainly writes very long novels, not unlike some other Russian writers (Tolstoy, Doestoyevsky). Maybe more Russians should be like her. Unfortunately, US and other western countries are becoming more and more like USSR.
bma051000 5 months ago
Some sociologists say that communism was really a form of monotheist state religion, If it's so, than objectivism is without a doubt just a religious cult. This is a philosophical doctrine that being strictly non-empirical, imitates the scientific picture of the world, replacing critical thinking and conscience with ideology.
Guys, please, stop trusting Utopias! There's no final solution to all the problems!
ilovedlife 5 months ago
@ilovedlife I feel like I'm misreading this...Communism isn't objectivism.
smiledammit24 5 months ago
In both cases deviations from the established behaviour model considered unnatural, harmful and criminal. In USSR they thought that true freedom is possible only after the abomination of capitalism (aka exploitation), by AR true freedom exists only in established capitalism, As a true bolshevik, she is really disturbed by any critisism, because she understands that her theory is the only just and right one, applicable to any society anytime. She is obviously not a teacher, she's a preacher!
ilovedlife 5 months ago
you know, sometimes i seriously think that ayn rand is a part of a genius soviet masterplan to destroy US, functioning even after USSR'suicide. As a russian i can say that Ayn Rand is obviously a direct product of soviet system. Here principles are the soviet "universal applying" values turned inside out, brought under the banner of the Enlightment and Reason. In USSR it was 100% altruism, AR has it 100% egoism. In USSR the more you give to the society, the more you benefit, by AR vice versa.
ilovedlife 5 months ago
This woman is the truest American in my eyes...she loved what this country once stood for. She truly loved it.
Ma'am...we could really use your help right now.
IGDogFighter 5 months ago
(2) What is objective would be to pursue goals that do not just make an individual happy, but those that benefit the largest number of people, through scientific research (both applied and basic), art, and investment in education (as humanitarian aid while nice and emotionally satisfying only helps someone for a short duration, while an education can provide someone with a fulfilling life, as is obvious).
Johannes999999999 5 months ago
@Johannes999999999 Well from a philosophic standpoint, calling something "Objective" is saying that something is independent of human perception. Her ethics then would be claimed objective, since they have a specific system of right and wrong, good and bad. Just like Kantianism and Ulitarianism. While Subjectivity has a lot of ego to it, not all things Subjective have to do with selfishness, which respect the individual while looking at the world at large. I'm a fan of Existentialism myself.
forttrres 5 months ago
(1) I find it humorous that Ayn Rand calls her philosophy objectivism when the concept of egoism is a one way path to subjective thought. This is because when one pursues his own well-being, he puts himself ahead of others, which is not objective (in my opinion it is as subjective as one can get). In reality, an individual is not important, and one’s individual happiness is not important.
Johannes999999999 5 months ago
Says the woman born in Soviet Russia. As if she knows our country better than ourselves.
This Satanist is now burning in hell, and has no say on what America is.
Cab0cl0 5 months ago
@Cab0cl0 she knows because she isn't from here. She knew how great America was compared to other countries. You are scum.
wwwgotristancom 5 months ago
@Cab0cl0 There is no hell you moron there is no "extra-dimension" under the ground where non-palpable spirits can burn its just absurd crap your mother( or whatever wet nurse) you had told you to keep you in line
MrDessirius 5 months ago
@MrDessirius Oh so you say there's no hell right? So if you are so sure, and you are so much smarter than pretty much everybody else, take a gun to your head and pull the trigger and tell me who's right.
Until you do that, you are nothing but another petty atheist who's angry at the world.
Cab0cl0 5 months ago
@Cab0cl0 first of all im not angry at the world ( though by the law of projection you may be yourself) second of all only a complete cave-man fucktard would suggest suicide to another individual lastly you may just be another one of those fascist christ-nazi's out to strip the freedom of all other individuals by the random will or your just as petty god who spent the entirity of the old-testament offing people who pissed him off, what kinda god is that hmm. P.S if I'm dead i can't tell you shit
MrDessirius 5 months ago
@MrDessirius Chill out atheist.
You've just proved me right, all I see are cuss words and personal attacks.
You are full of rage, I will pray for Jesus to soothe your soul, even though you don't believe Him. You will then realize it is futile to go against the order of things and this attitude will bring you only emptiness and despair.
Then, I will greet you with my arms open and I'll be happy to call you my brother.
Cab0cl0 5 months ago
@Cab0cl0 you know what I admit that my behavior was completly unjustified and even though you have different opinions than I do it doesn't give me the right to completly bash your religious convictions. So as a token of good faith I apologize and hope that you accept it
MrDessirius 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDessirius I really don't care what you think about me, It's God you should be apologizing to.
Cab0cl0 5 months ago
by the way if you don't like her principles you don't have to wacth the goddamn clip theres a neaty little red X in the right hand corner ( thats if god gave you the ability to tell right from left) that should take care of the problem
MrDessirius 5 months ago
@MrDessirius How can I know her views if I don't watch it first?
Ain't I entitled to an opinion? Are you a nazi who's against freedom of speech ?
Cab0cl0 5 months ago
@Cab0cl0 how could he tell you after he is dead? the only way youd know is if he shoots you
kenny8331 5 months ago
@theDeckisStacked And now we see where you are truly coming from.
christerryatl 5 months ago
@theDeckisStacked Do you have anything specific to say about her philosophy? Or are you content with throwing out quotes from the characters of her novels as direct quotes from her, cherry-picking out-of-context lines from her journals as a youth, misrepresenting her childhood, and blaming her for the actions of an immoral coward who turned his back on her the instant she died? Please google "ad hominem".
christerryatl 5 months ago
@theDeckisStacked Do you have anything specific to say about her philosophy? Or are you just making a bigoted statement about her country of birth (whose politics she renounced, by the way)?
christerryatl 5 months ago
God brought me to Ayn Rand. Now that I'm here she's interesting and dynamic on the surface. I haven't read any of her novels but I'm really wondering if she does reveal an alterioir motive to her philosophy inside of them. When I hear her speak and watch her in interviews i can sincerely enjoy the woman's approach . What she says does make very clear sense. It troubles me to still see a differentiation between her philosophy and Jesus' philosophy of, not Christianity, 'Love'.
DissREGUARD 5 months ago
@DissREGUARD So for starters, the philosophy of Jesus teaches people to love all of mankind regardless of their faults and their actions. Ayn Rand believes that love is an action that must be earned through your virtues. Jesus preached altruism, that the purpose of your life is to serve others. Anything you do, no matter if it is self-rewarding or self-destructive, must be done with the intent that it is for the good of others, not for yourself. Rand teaches that you are your own highest value.
christerryatl 5 months ago
@DissREGUARD
Objectivism is utterly incompatible with Christianity. John Galt was specifically written as an antichrist. There's a lot to the argument, but the essential point is that Jesus contrasts with Galt, because where Jesus took on mankind's sins in order to save it, Galt refused to accept "unearned guilt" in order to destroy it (or, rather, most of it, except the few deemed worthy).
MrBaz744 4 months ago
@DissREGUARD Ayn Rand's philosophy is the antithesis of christianity. Even as an atheist, the core message that I can take away from christianity is the idea of self-sacrifice (I am my brothers keeper, etc.). Objectivism, on the other hand, is a philosophy that values self-interest above all else, which is the exact opposite of christianity. Do you even know that she was an atheist too?
dan24b 3 months ago
@theDeckisStacked
that's exactly what she said, Americans are primarily conservitive & rely on the constitution & its founders.
Which I love. I love the forefathers of this nation.
That's why you vote, Ron Paul for 2012
chippprrr 5 months ago