Ayn Rand took government assistance when she had lung cancer while decrying others who did the same. You're all disgusting people to even consider her philosophy
@17peteclarke I would doubt that giving any philosophy consideration makes anyone "disgusting people".
Her assertion that it's immoral for government to force citizens to pay for medicare is very different than your assertion that she should not use the medicare which government forced her to buy.
If someone doesn't support government-forced retirement savings, yet follows the law and spends all of his life paying into those savings, should his social security be stripped? Of course not.
@17peteclarke - Yes she did, she ['Ann Rind', as Ann Coulter calls her] took advantage of what she would have condemned as 'Socialism'... when it benefitted her own narrow self-interest...
extreme individualism is as malignant as extreme collectivism. human beings do not operate as singular units. there is no society where everyone operates individuals and not components of the greater society. i feel like the absence of middle ground is the primary problem of western politics.
You don't want to pay taxes but you want to go to school and get a decent education so you can progress in life? Public school being only one of many public programs you will take advantage of in life.
[continued]...America's white aristocracy developed a very real addiction to the culture of control and domination, and, more importantly, a vicious dependency on the economic profits of slavery, all supported by a diseased verticalized thought process that was the lifeblood of mythical fantasies of "white superiority". Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and other 'Austrian School' exponents successfully integrated themselves into this emerging system of affirmative action for whites...[continued]...
[continued]...these victims of the Transatlantic slave trade lived under a hard-hearted, unmerciful and unforgivng tyranny of "states rights", where they lived in feudal bondage, toiling under the lash of the 'free market', toiling without compensation as "private property" for the enrichment of individual slavemasters, plantation owners, their families and their children. Ironically enough, in this process of perpetual enslavement, whites developed a dependency, an addiction...[continued]....
Unfortunately, you seem to have [conveniently] ignored Ayn Rand's "Criminal Exception" loophole... Under the US Constitution, slavery is LEGAL as a "punishment for crime"...
Instead of fighting for "laissez faire" in her native Russia, Rand integrated herself into a nation [America] built on slavery, a nation where she could obscure her ethnic Jewish ancestry, and, a nation where Jews did NOT occupy the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder...[continued]...
@ynotfsu - [continued]...a nation where Jews did NOT occupy the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder...a nation where that lowest position was reserved for the African children of God, a truly heroic people who Ayn Rand banished into historical obliteration...
BTW, before you reply, don't forget to "check your premises"...always...
@csilva85 "What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion." -Ayn Rand
Speaking of racism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism, in this clip Ayn Rand says
that America was built by "independent men...industrialists...". Obviously, she had a right to her opinion.
Now, let's look at the facts: the American empire was built on conquest, coercion, submission, control, domination and violence. The European colonizers of "America" created a totalitarian apartheid system where the African children of God were deprived of the privileges of civil liberty [contd]...
Say that shit. They love to edit history for the sake of promoting their own political agenda. "Slavery, genocide and colonialism didn't do anything in affording me my opportunity. Capitalism and industrialization did." -____- #LiesTheirTeachersToldThem
[continued]... Unfortunately, her fabrications re: "the original American system" result in the historical obliteration of the victims of the European conquest of [what is now called] "America", as well as the historical obliteration of the African children of God who were the victims of the Transatlantic slave trade, as well as a totalitarian apartheid system of social engineering, controlled by European colonists, designed to create a permanent dependent underclass...[continued]...
@csilva85 What has the Govt done to help blacks? Allow slavery? The 3/5 compromise? Jim Crow laws? Separate but equal? Affirmative action? All these policies were/are racist. They create more problems than they solve.
There is nothing remotely "totalitarian" about individuals having rights to life, liberty, and property.
Rand opposed a government that could use force against people who have committed no act of force or fraud against another person. You are the one promoting authoritarianism.
affirmative action is not racist and white women have benefitted from affirmative action more than any other demographic. oh, what? you didn't know that? well, you should read about that. :-)
of course, that aspect of affirmative action is left out of mainstream dialogue, because the orchestrators of mainstream dialogue are all white. go figure. -_-
@DivinelyMochaDipped said "affirmative action is not racist" and then in the very same sentence "white women have benefitted from affirmative action more than any other demographic". Who taught you how to argue?
Some Congressmen felt that employers were making race a primary consideration when determining who to hire (It is true that some were), so they enacted Affirmative Action. Now all employers are legally required to make race a consideration when hiring. So much for colorblindness...
@DivinelyMochaDipped - Notice how Mr.Ynotfsu betrays his own [Ayn Randian] diseased verticalized thought process with his insulting "who taught you" remark designed to silence your comment.
What me must understand is that co-existence is not possible for such a person... who can only think in terms of "dominance" and "surrender",or "superiority" and "inferiority". For him, all ideas must be "dominating", or they must "be dominated".
More importantly, he ignores the fact that...[continued]
@csilva85 - [continued] he ignores the fact that the invention of "America" was [in reality] intended to be a system of affirmative action...for whites...!
The original intent of the 'Founding Fathers' was to grant the 'privileges of citizenship' to those who they knew as 'white' and DENY those privileges to EVERYONE ELSE.
@DivinelyMochaDipped - Yes, that aspect of 'affirmative action is left out...' by whites who cry "reverse racism", but the explanation is not mysterious...
Time and again, whites [especially Confederate conservatives...but not only them, of course] have [and continue] to redirect blame for [their] faulty solutions to America's race problems to the VICTIMS of racist assault.
All this leads to the following question: What's wrong with white people?
In this interview clip with Mike Wallace, the Queen of Selfishness, Ayn Rand [or, as Ann Coulter says, 'Ann Rind'] offers her "Austrian School"/"libertarian" sales pitch for a permissive "free market" economic policy, invoking the von Hayek/von Mises talking points of "life", "property", "freedom", and, advocating "absolute laissez faire" - which would result in "peaceful cooperation and harmony and justice among men"...
Yet, she ignores America's history of apartheid totalitariansism...[cont'd
@01lucifersam Yes be selfish and create more wealth for yourself. The only way you can create wealth in a free society is by serving your fellow man. By being selfish you serve your fellow man.
@01lucifersam Yes be selfish and create more wealth for yourself. The only way you can create wealth in a free society is by serving your fellow man. By being selfish you serve your fellow man.
Shut your fucking corn-beef mouth Ayn Rand. You stupid bitch shut it... you selfish, uber-capitalist rightwing crazy (oh and her infantile "philosophy" is a load of BS. Infact its not really a philosophy its more a ideology (a backward, regressive, uttertly proven to not work one at that).And the logical conclusion of her beliefs (much like that of the other idiot Ron Paul) is eventually the developed world would become like Mexico is today, thats where her "philosophy" would ultimately take us.
@TheDevineBeing I know right? How could she ever match up to a "divine being?" I say you shut YOUR fucking mouth. If you want to get into a childish swearing match, I say you are a fucking piece of worthless dog shit. You are nothing; you could never even hope or dream to be anything close to a shadow of a sentiment of what Rand was. Stop trolling on YouTube and do something constructive with your life, you "uber-capitalist rightwing" fool.
@TheDevineBeing - Thanks for the comparison to present-day Mexico.
I would say her self-invented "Objectivist" ideology is actually more like a religion since it requires Faith in the wisdom [and, ultimately, authority] of "market discipline".
I want to emphasize that word 'authority', because despite her sales pitch referencing von Hayek talking points of "laissez faire", "free enterprise" etc., the reality is that her outlook is an authority-based tyranny...[continued]...
@TheDevineBeing -[continued]...tyranny of the same old neo-liberal 'market discipline', a failed economic system that has served to enrich only an aristocratic few at the expense of the many. In Rand's diseased verticalized world, there are only superiors and inferiors...co-existence is not possible. The foundation of her outlook IS in fact based on control...her own writings manifest a personal dualistic obsession with references of "surrender" and "domination"...[to be continued later]...
@TheDevineBeing Let's try to keep the debate reasonable. Ayn Rand was a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro legalization of drugs, anti-war, Atheist. Is this what you mean by "rightwing crazy"?
It's crazy how so many people have been preaching that we are going towards the very systems of gov. we have fought againts and fought to get away from.... Now with NDAA and SOPA... It's already here :( I wish Ron Paul could get into office so he could stop our momentum towards total loss of freedom and liberty
Who is this unskilled labor, school kids? You see, the arguments from leftists don't really add up. First, they insist that we need more production in this country, i.e. more factory work going on rather than "shipping jobs overseas". (Ironically the same argument from the Paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan). Then you turn around and suggest that most labor in America have no marketable skills & training. Even someone who's worked at a grocery story for 2 years is marketable.
@Animeabe said [[remarkable that the interview could be given today and it's just as relevant.]]
Precisely. You might say that she had Cassandra's curse. She foresaw today 50 years ago, and most thought that she was just being strident and exaggerating.
Her notion of liberty was survival of the economically fittest, and a society where the property rights of business owners were more important than the civil rights of everyone else.
Largely correct, except for the last part. I would like to see any sort of evidence for the part where one groups of "rights" were more important then another group's "rights"
@Eterna1snow I guess you wouldn't see how holding the position that the person who holds power over your ability to keep your house and eat should also have the right to sexually molest you and harass you is placing the rights of business owners over the rights of employees.
In Ayn Rands world there would be no civil rights.
@Laughingblades In Rand's world, you would be "the person who holds power over your ability to keep your house and eat". I have yet to see a contract where a person gives up their sexual rights. Business owners need labor and are willing to pay for it. Laborers need money and are willing to work for it. This is an agreement that benefits both sides, and neither has to enter into an agreement they simply choose not to.
@ynotfsu That's a lie. Voluntarism is a lie because it ignores limitations imposed by our environment and conditions and it ignores the coercion of necessity. Hunger is more coercive than a gun to the head, at least with a gun to your head you can get a foolish surge of courage or indifference and pretend it isn't there, but you can't ignore hunger.
Ayn Rand's world is one where the poor will always be slaves to the rich by virtue of want & need. There is no choice, the choice is a lie
@Laughingblades Wrong. You associate "rich" with business ownership. In Rand's world there'd be no regulatory impediments or government-mandated start up costs for a poor person starting a business, or selling their services to the public rather than a corporation. There'd be no expensive permitting process for fishing, hunting, or growing food to feed yourself or sell. There'd be no protection for large corporations, so small business would flourish. Overhead would be lower and wages higher.
@ynotfsu Start up costs are imposed by nature itself, the government is irrelevant. Ayn Rand promoted social darwinism, a world of haves and have nots where the disabled elderly and firmed were looked upon as parasites.
There'd be no costs from regulations so prices would fall, helping the poor more than anyone. There'd be no income taxes, so investment capital would explode. There'd be no Federal Reserve which allows politicians to inflate the currency, which absolutely decimates the poor. There would be no drug laws, which hurt the poor more than the rich. There'd be no minimum wage, so not only would prices fall, helping the poor, but their jobs wouldn't be exported overseas as well. I could go on and on.
@Darthmaio And you think that the largest debtor in the entire history of human civilization has the moral authority to tell businesses how to operate?
Look, I know why you think there are government regulations. But to measure the success of regulations on their intentions rather than there results is asinine. The results are a shrinking middle class, endless deficits, runaway inflation, economic despotism, and ultimately moral detriment.
I'm sorry sir but you couldn't be more wrong. The middle class is shrinking because when corporations' profit margins increase there is no incentive for them to increase pay and benefits for their workers. Doing so is bad for business. And so while costs continue to rise for working people their pay stays largely the same.
@Darthmaio I'm not wrong. Your argument makes the case that profits are bad. Nothing could be more ridiculous. What happens to the profits that corporations make? They are taxed, spent, or saved. Money saved, even in bank accounts, is reinvested into the economy, which is the ONLY source of growth. Growth does not come from any other place. And why would increasing pay or benefits for employees be "bad for business"? That statement is just plain ignorant.
@ynotfsu ....omfg. Here we go. First, Of course profits are good thing... if ur the one making em! And by def. "profit" would mean the money left over AFTER taxes and expenses. Increased discretionary spending amoungst the general public is always better for the economy than the rich investing in their savings account. And Increasing pay is often bad for business because its an investment with a far lower payoff than investing in R&D for a new product or in investing in reaching more customers.
@Darthmaio You say "profits are a good thing... if ur the one making them."
Was Thomas Edison being a greedy capitalist by making profits from his invention of the light bulb? Was he just screwing over all the people who lived in darkness?
Was Jonas Salk being a greedy capitalist when he made profits from his discovery of the polio vaccine? Was he just screwing over all the people who would have dies of polio? What about Alexander Fleming? Henry Ford? Elias Howe? Percy Spencer? Robert Jarvik?
continued: You say "Increased discretionary spending amounst the general public is always better for the economy than the rich investing in their savings account."
If this were true, communist countries would be the richest in the world. But communist societies are among the poorest, most desperate, most poverty-stricken, and most tyrannized in the world.
"There are no contradictions. If you encounter a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -Ayn Rand
@Darthmaio said [[Of course profits are good thing... if ur the one making em!]]
No, actually "greed", or the profit motive in some helps others, especially the poor. Refrigerators, microwave ovens and cell phones were all cost prohibitive when first invented. But capitalistic free market competition drove innovation to find better, faster, and cheaper in successive steps until today the average poor household has all items mentioned above. This is an increase in our standard of living.
@Darthmaio As far as rising costs: Why do you think costs are rising? Answer: Because the government and the Federal Reserve are INFLATING the currency. This absolutely decimates the poor. Please look up the video of Milton Friedman talking about Greed. He makes the same case I would.
@ynotfsu lmao you're changing the subject. The point is that in a free market with no government regulations or worker's unions businesses have very little incentive to give their workers the best wages and working conditions they can afford to give them. Monetary inflation has nothing to do with workers getting robbed of their fair share of the increased profits made by their employers.
@Darthmaio You were the one who first mentioned rising costs. Not me. The big difference between your argument and mine is that you want to use the force of government to rob people on your behalf. At the very basis of your philosophy, at its most fundamental level, you think that it is not just ok, but morally correct to have the government force people to do what you want them to do. There is nothing "liberal" about your point of view. It is far better described as "authoritarian".
Do you seriously believe government should have no role in determining how its citizens should live? Because if there is an area that you think government should interfere in I would love to know what it is and on what grounds you deem it justified.
@Darthmaio I am not an anarchist. A person who uses force or coercion to infringe on another's life, liberty, or property should be held accountable to the government. This covers murderers, rapists, kidnappers, thieves, frauds, and any other real crime you can think of. When government becomes an instrument of plunder, the decider of how you can make a living, what you can do to your own body, who you can marry, etc. then they have become the very thing they were designed to prevent.
@ynotfsu I agree on all counts. However, sometimes it is morally unacceptable to stand idly by and watch people needlessly suffer. Why should african americans have to put up with racist employers? Our constitution calls for equal protection under the law. Why shouldn't an Institution like the FDA protect consumers from con-artists, and needlessly dangerous medical treatments? The constitution says it's the role of gov. to "promote the general welfare".
Freely helping people who are suffering is very different than using force to make others help the people you (or I) think are suffering.
About racism: I would never buy a product from a person I think is racist, and I suspect you wouldn't either. Very few people would. Moral people don't work for racists either. This is exactly how morality is dictated by capitalism: racists go out of business... and hopefully starve.
continued: About the FDA: There's a great video on youtube. Search "End the FDA" and look to the fifth video down titled "End the FDA". It is about this very subject.
@ynotfsu Wow you murdered darth maul or what ever sith lord that guy wants to be lmao keep government out who's to say they dictate my morals. really socialist are the racist they see people as groups and collections. objectivist see people as individuals and judge not by race but by integrity. before the civil rights laws blacks were starting there own businesses and running there communties. plan back fired and now everybody but blacks own businesses in black neighborhoods.
@ynotfsu also socialist made it so blacks are committed to welfare putting them into gang infested housing projects where there's nothing to do but crime. government once again getting in the way.
@IsaiahHarper11, & interestingly enough, Jews & Asians never bought into collectivist bailouts. Not too long ago, they were relegated to ghettos, and now they both dominate in academics & the professions in America. Yet those who are impoverished are having their cultures destroyed by our government subsidizing poverty, unemployment, single motherhood in bad neighborhoods & subsidizing failure in general. If the government gives free money to those who qualify, people will find a way to qualify.
@ynotfsu lol you obviously don't live in the South. Down here racists and bigots would prosper because the general population is racist. And besides if people could always be counted upon to do the right thing on their own, there would be no need for government. Anarchy would be the ideal state. Unfortunately that is not the case and as James Madison wrote while urging the ratification of the US Constitution and a stronger fed. gov., "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
@Darthmaio Wrong again. I was raised in Ga and live in Fl. But what has government ever done to rid the nation of racism? Allow slavery? The 3/5 compromise? Jim Crow laws? Separate but equal? Affirmative action? All of these policies were/are racist.
About the quote from Madison: As I said before, I'm not anarchist so don't contend I'm arguing for anarchy. If you aren't using force or coercion to infringe on another person's life, liberty, or property, then your actions shouldn't be illegal.
@ynotfsu said [[Freely helping people who are suffering is very different than using force to make others help the people you (or I) think are suffering.]]
I'm often bewildered how liberals (in particular) have trouble understanding the difference between volitional help and coercion. If it's good if rich Bob chooses to help poor Steve, then libs often think that it's equally good then for the government to take from Bob by force and give it to Steve.
@Darthmaio asked [[Do you seriously believe government should have no role in determining how its citizens should live?]]
Yes. The proper role of government is to protect recognized rights of the individual. "How" you should live? Your life belongs to you. You own your own life, no matter what paternalistic church and state or their representatives have told you. If no one is violating your rights, or vise versa, then it's no business of the government what you choose to do or not do.
@Darthmaio [[Do you seriously believe government should have no role in determining how its citizens should live?]]
We are supposed to determine the nature of government, not the other way around.
The government is the servant of the people, not our master. They rule programs, not people. Elected politicians and legislators are public servants, not public rulers, despite what vile people like Shirley Jackson and Maxine Waters might think.
@Darthmaio said [[The point is that in a free market with no government regulations or worker's unions businesses have very little incentive to give their workers the best wages and working conditions they can afford to give them.]]
Of course they do. Companies have to compete for skilled workers with pay and benefits.
@ynotfsu said [[Why do you think costs are rising? Answer: Because the government and the Federal Reserve are INFLATING the currency. This absolutely decimates the poor.]]
Actually a small amount of inflation drives the economy forward, & our inflation rate is minuscule. We just went through a massive deflationary period, though no one wants to call it that. We had a massive reduction in the money supply & the credit market was frozen. Economy slowed and prices fell, but debt remained the same.
@LucisFerre1 You're only looking at a very short time scale. We only went through a period of deflation because the free market was correcting the huge amount of inflation created by the Fed and the Federal Government during the housing boom. Yet nearly all commodities are at their all time highs today because of stimulus, quantitative easing, and the unwillingness of our leaders to allow prices to correct from the collapse of the housing bubble, and the subsequent decrease in the money supply.
@ynotfsu, I wouldn't call a housing bubble "inflation" of the economy. Unfortunately, it seems that the money supply was poisoned with debentures created with a false understanding of the worth of real estate. We're currently in a similar bubble with gold as a commodity, but many people are too foolish to see it. Yeah, they're unwilling to let the prices correct from the housing bubble. I'm trying to buy up cheap residential real estate. Prices are finally bottoming out.
@LucisFerre1 Also, you say a small amount of inflation helps the economy. From 1800 to 1900, when we were on a gold standard, the cost of living actually went down by about 13%. This was also the greatest period of growth (the industrial revolution) in American History.
continued: the deflationary correction never really took place because government pursued stimulus after stimulus and the Fed increased the money supply by over 100%.
@Laughingblades There'd be no costs from regulations so prices would fall, helping the poor more. There'd be no income taxes, so investment capital would explode. There'd be no Federal Reserve which allows politicians to inflate the currency, which absolutely decimates the poor. There would be no drug laws, which hurt the poor more than the rich. There'd be no minimum wage, so not only would prices fall, helping the poor, but their jobs wouldn't be exported overseas as well. I could go on.
How, in a truly free market society, or "social darwanist" if you will, would that give anyone the "right" to molest you?
Oh, you're saying the whole "I'll-fire-you-if-you-don't-let-me" bit? THEN FIND ANOTHER JOB.
Psychotic employers rarely ever last long.
And of course there would be civil rights in Rand's world. The right to your life, your liberty, your property. She would probably reject the civil rights bullshit though, if you want to be a racist employer I don't care
@Eterna1snow Ask Ron Paul, he's the one who defends rape as the property right of business owners.
""I'll-fire-you-if-you-don't-let-me" bit? THEN FIND ANOTHER JOB."
So you also believe it's the property right of business owners to sexually harass and rape employees, and that if the employee doesn't like it, they should find another job.
Income is a survival necessity "Just Quite" may as well be "Just Die". Jobs aren't these magical things that are always just there for everyone
@Laughingblades If you can produce an ounce of evidence, preferably video, of Ron Paul defending rape as property right of business owners, I'll be quiet and stop supporting him. Otherwise, you have lost credability.
The right to rape employees? If you rape employees on the job then you have violated them, that is physical force and you should persecute. If you say "I want to have sex with you, or else you lose your job" then however despicable that might be, the employer owns that job.
@Eterna1snow "Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable." Actual Quote
@Eterna1snow Now here comes the rape apologetics where you reason it's ok for an employer to coerce your wife or daughter into sex by holding her job and pay ransom just because Ron Paul said it instead of Obama, because if Obama said it, you'd never defend it and you know it.
@Laughingblades I mean what if your job was to have sex with your employer? (I. E. prostitute).
Jobs aren't magical things that appear, but they also aren't rights. Employers, try as they want, do not own those jobs. Period. Otherwise, you believe that whatever a man creates, it does not belong to him.
@Eterna1snow The right to life, unless you're disabled or poor, Rand believed in Social Darwinism and called those who couldn't take care of themselves "Parasites" and advocated the death of "Parasites" in pretty much all of her works.
The right to liberty? Only if you were rich, otherwise all forms of COERCION other than physical force were ignored, hunger is like a gun to your head, you are only as free as your situation allows
Right to property? Absolute power of business elite
@Laughingblades said [[Rand believed in Social Darwinism and called those who couldn't take care of themselves "Parasites" and advocated the death of "Parasites" in pretty much all of her works.]]
You're lying. She never called for the death of the members of any collectivized group.
@LucisFerre1 She calls for the death of "parasites" (IE the elderly, disabled, poor) throughout pretty much all her works, it's in all of her writings, she vilifies and demonizes them.
Not to mention she practically worshiped a child murdering psychopath and misunderstood Nietzsche's Ubermensch.
Look kiddo if you want to follow a dead economic social darwinist who called for an every man for himself type world be my guest, but live it. We're a social species.
I've read The Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, The Voice of Reason, In Defense of Capitalism and Philosophy-Who Needs It. I know that you have NO idea what you're talking about, as most of Rand's detractors don't. You can't even seem to make up your mind, does she "demonize" them or does she call for their deaths? In her writings, she was positively obsessed with morality, ethics & individual rights, which is the opposite of what you're claiming.
@LucisFerre1 And in all those works the villains are two dimensional vilified parasites holding the good virtuous social darwinist down. It's ok kiddo, your messiah was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle, why oh why didn't serious scientists and economists take her seriously? Why this saintly woman who idolized a pet torturing child killer and cheated on her husband right in front of him without a shred of guilt or social awareness was truly an angel to the poor and infirmed.
@Laughingblades, are you interested in backing up your slanderous lies about calling for the deaths of people, or are you just going to continue to assassinate the character of someone whom you obviously don't understand? I expect it will be the latter as the former would be a responsible thing to do.
@Laughingblades Wrong again. I found NOTHING. If you have a link, post it. This is a typical coercive tactic: just make shit up that sounds bad to personally attack those who you disagree with. These "ad hominem" attacks are nothing more than coercion, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Congrats. It is official now. You just lost the argument. If you were honest, you would admit it.
@ynotfsu It's ok, you won't even Google it, it's cool I understand.
You also don't know what the Ad Hom fallacy is, it's ok. You'll learn one day.
Anyway yeah, Ayn Rand was openly a negative eugenicist, it's in her biography and everything, she was inspired by Spencer and Niche, she wrote "The Virtue of Selfishness" basically espousing social darwinism as a basis for society, and her social darwinism was apparent in her defense of capitalism, the virtues she attributed to it.
@ynotfsu Oh well, try harder. Did you know the man she idolized as a perfect man was a child killer who cut the head off a little girl and sewed her eyes open then threw the head out the window at the father who had already payed the ransomed money, and grew up torturing animals? I mean, none of that really bugs me, but to idolize someone like that requires a certain sort of mental illness.
Ayn Rand was a narcissistic sociopath and she was drawn to hero worship a narcissistic sociopath
@195ashes I feel in the exact same way as you do, but I believe the key, at least according to Rand's principles, lies in your first three words. They mean that your logic, your rational self agrees with her. I still have trouble with the lack of compassion but it is something to think about.
--->> 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
She's against government forcing people to pay through taxation to take care of other people. Jesus Christ himself was against the idea of government forcing people to pay through taxation to take care of other people.
Yes but using that logic couldn't you say that the government shouldn't be able to "force" you to fund wars, or support the enforcement of certain laws that you happen to not agree with? And where exactly did Jesus Christ ever say any such thing?.
When government spends money carelessly and arrogantly then everyone loses.As weknow, They mostly spend it in way that buys them votes or endorses certain sponsors during the elections (big fish).
.
no amount of taxing can mend ,stupid, inefficient and arrogant spending, spending the money of us all for the ego-maniac plans of a few.
.
bank lending to state is a money-hole with no end, "interest" "usury", it's taxes, level above government.
Big , invasive taxes (on just about every segment of our lives) mean LOTS OF SOCIAL ENGINEERING . Taxes aren't simply about "building roads, welfare..." they're deterrent from doing certain things or doing them too much. It's like a parent who takes away your allowance because so and so or even sends you to your room.
.
Less taxes, less pervasive. Means that the people are more free to do as they please without financial consequences.
if the ruling class has, wisdom, strength and greater good in mind, then it matters not if they're an aristocracy or democratic elects.
.
the difference is that an aristocracy is carefully bred to rule and represent stability, and elects often come out of chaos of social engineering, disappointment and desire for "change".
.
discussing government is futile since, it's the banks and corporates that rule it, the slime.
@alliencedful I think that's the point. You'd never let your kid work in that kind of environment. Btw, the industrial revolution marks the greatest period of economic growth in world history- the middle class was created because of it. You can cite the horrible things that happened, but today, we have $15 trillion in government debt that will bankrupt your children, sentencing them to a life of servitude. The middle class will be destroyed because of it. It will be far worse than factory life.
And what of the government's role to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, (and) promote the general welfare"? Is the government really supposed to stand idly by and watch as corporate giants exploit their workers and the political system just to expand their own wealth? Is it not the role of government to create as Just and balanced a society as possible?
@Darthmaio If that is true. Give me an example in American history where the people who sought to "create as just and balanced a society as possible" have done just that?
Well we can starting from the very beginning. The founders of our nation tried to create a just system of government and they have the constitution and bill of rights to show for it. Both of which have a lot of good stuff in them.
@Darthmaio The role of government is to protect liberty. Fannie and Freddy tried to create a "just" housing market- they did the opposite. Social Security is bankrupt- creating social insecurity. Affirmative action tried to eliminate racism- they enforced racism. Dept of Defense has turned into the Dept of Offense. Dept of Energy has done nothing but stifle domestic energy production. Dept of Education has led to nothing but rising costs and lower rankings. See the point?
Fannie and Freddy tried to make money. They're a business and that's what they're supposed to do.
Now, to make sure unbridled greed doesn't cause the entire economy to collapse, like what happened a few years ago, someone has to make sure businesses are making their profits honestly. The only someone strong enough to do this is the federal government. And thus we have government regulations on private businesses.
It is very simple, Socialism has never worked in the history of civilizations. With the way things have been going on in the last twenty plus years what makes you think the "go getter" "intelligent" federal government can fix anything? It is not rocket science, big government doesn't do anyone any good, except the government.
the utter ugliness of the jew... Jews, you can take your communism and your capitalism, your neoconservatism every sick ideology you have introduced to the european world, to Israel and then to hell with you
@scienceatheism well you're name is ''scienceatheism'' therefore you're an intellectual and you can call everyone ignorant... i get it... lol you're a walking stereotype
And your name is borntodie and Im pointing this out because I cant think of anything else to say because Im a fucking idiot and Im not that clever.... my god we have something in common.
@scienceatheism lol, i can tell from the tone of your comments that you spend the overwhelming majority of your lifetime trying to prove to people that you are intelligent. take my FRIENDLY advice and quit... you simply don't got what it takes
Too bad she ended up on welfare claiming state help for cancer treatment. She had nothing to offer the productive economy other than writing novels that make Danielle Steele look like Tolstoy and spouting spitefulness. She didn't have the gumption to run her own financial affairs - no shame in that. Society should help the feeble minded weaklings like poor Ayn who are incapable.
ACTUALLY this country was built on slavery....so her argument is completely false. "This country was made by...industriats who succeeded on pure ability" BULLSHIT. pleeeaaase. So basically, people, if they can, should exploit one another (namely marginalized ppl without a choice and no political power), b/c that's what these "industrialists" have done to be successful all along...
@Thandiwandi look at the projects, welfare section, drug war, and then tell me how socialist care about blacks. capitalist judge people by character, socialist by race such as affirmative action and collectivist ideals. socialism created hitler, stalin, mao, ww1, ww2, vietnam, and every other war. capitalist only fight when attacked. freedom is capitalism, socialism is slavery. the north was capitalist, the south, fuedal you need to wake up because i was like you at one point.
i realize that came out sounding like i totally agree with some of her ideals even though they're off base. i meant i agree with some of what she says BUT some of it's just really off. when people choose to live in societal groups, some form of governing hierarchy is inevitable. and as all things in the universe change & evolve, it's a natural progression to end up having more and more gov'mt - mankind's been doing it for thousands of years and still ain't got it right - man is inherently greedy
man. i totally agree w/some of her ideals and some of it's really off base. but damn, if watchin her ain't like watchin a tweeker eyeballin someone's bag of dope n pipe on the table - holdin a conversation - totally on auto-pilot and only thinking about one thing: when she gonna get her next fix. if all her conversations/speeches are like this, eyeballs jumpin all around all screwball, forget it, i'll stick to her books. that's totally one of the most annoying things i've ever seen, for sure.
Her teeth are as ugly as her thoughts. Look, there is a logical fallacy in her argument. She wants more liberty, but, in actuality, she wants to limit the amount of say we have in government. A constituent of government is the economic milieu. Americans are too obsessed with their BMWs, mansions, and misc. bourgeoisie materials. Wake up! A laissez faire government can give a rats ass about you. Oh dear, and talking about how this country was made; yes, Ayn, they also made slavery legal. Liberty?
ayn rand would support RON PAUL 2012
ENDTHEFED0 1 day ago
She reminds me of Colonel Klebb from the Bond movies.
cockshield 4 days ago
Ayn Rand took government assistance when she had lung cancer while decrying others who did the same. You're all disgusting people to even consider her philosophy
17peteclarke 5 days ago
@17peteclarke I would doubt that giving any philosophy consideration makes anyone "disgusting people".
Her assertion that it's immoral for government to force citizens to pay for medicare is very different than your assertion that she should not use the medicare which government forced her to buy.
If someone doesn't support government-forced retirement savings, yet follows the law and spends all of his life paying into those savings, should his social security be stripped? Of course not.
ynotfsu 4 days ago 2
@17peteclarke - Yes she did, she ['Ann Rind', as Ann Coulter calls her] took advantage of what she would have condemned as 'Socialism'... when it benefitted her own narrow self-interest...
csilva85 2 hours ago
extreme individualism is as malignant as extreme collectivism. human beings do not operate as singular units. there is no society where everyone operates individuals and not components of the greater society. i feel like the absence of middle ground is the primary problem of western politics.
You don't want to pay taxes but you want to go to school and get a decent education so you can progress in life? Public school being only one of many public programs you will take advantage of in life.
DivinelyMochaDipped 5 days ago
[continued]...America's white aristocracy developed a very real addiction to the culture of control and domination, and, more importantly, a vicious dependency on the economic profits of slavery, all supported by a diseased verticalized thought process that was the lifeblood of mythical fantasies of "white superiority". Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and other 'Austrian School' exponents successfully integrated themselves into this emerging system of affirmative action for whites...[continued]...
csilva85 6 days ago
[continued]...these victims of the Transatlantic slave trade lived under a hard-hearted, unmerciful and unforgivng tyranny of "states rights", where they lived in feudal bondage, toiling under the lash of the 'free market', toiling without compensation as "private property" for the enrichment of individual slavemasters, plantation owners, their families and their children. Ironically enough, in this process of perpetual enslavement, whites developed a dependency, an addiction...[continued]....
csilva85 6 days ago
@csilva85 Ayn Rand thought slavery was deplorable. End of argument.
ynotfsu 6 days ago
@ynotfsu - According to you...
Unfortunately, you seem to have [conveniently] ignored Ayn Rand's "Criminal Exception" loophole... Under the US Constitution, slavery is LEGAL as a "punishment for crime"...
Instead of fighting for "laissez faire" in her native Russia, Rand integrated herself into a nation [America] built on slavery, a nation where she could obscure her ethnic Jewish ancestry, and, a nation where Jews did NOT occupy the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder...[continued]...
csilva85 3 hours ago
@ynotfsu - [continued]...a nation where Jews did NOT occupy the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder...a nation where that lowest position was reserved for the African children of God, a truly heroic people who Ayn Rand banished into historical obliteration...
BTW, before you reply, don't forget to "check your premises"...always...
csilva85 3 hours ago
@csilva85 "What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion." -Ayn Rand
ynotfsu 5 days ago
Speaking of racism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism, in this clip Ayn Rand says
that America was built by "independent men...industrialists...". Obviously, she had a right to her opinion.
Now, let's look at the facts: the American empire was built on conquest, coercion, submission, control, domination and violence. The European colonizers of "America" created a totalitarian apartheid system where the African children of God were deprived of the privileges of civil liberty [contd]...
csilva85 6 days ago
@csilva85
Say that shit. They love to edit history for the sake of promoting their own political agenda. "Slavery, genocide and colonialism didn't do anything in affording me my opportunity. Capitalism and industrialization did." -____- #LiesTheirTeachersToldThem
lol
DivinelyMochaDipped 5 days ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped - Thanks!
csilva85 2 hours ago
[continued]... Unfortunately, her fabrications re: "the original American system" result in the historical obliteration of the victims of the European conquest of [what is now called] "America", as well as the historical obliteration of the African children of God who were the victims of the Transatlantic slave trade, as well as a totalitarian apartheid system of social engineering, controlled by European colonists, designed to create a permanent dependent underclass...[continued]...
csilva85 6 days ago in playlist Ann Rind
@csilva85 What has the Govt done to help blacks? Allow slavery? The 3/5 compromise? Jim Crow laws? Separate but equal? Affirmative action? All these policies were/are racist. They create more problems than they solve.
There is nothing remotely "totalitarian" about individuals having rights to life, liberty, and property.
Rand opposed a government that could use force against people who have committed no act of force or fraud against another person. You are the one promoting authoritarianism.
ynotfsu 6 days ago 2
@ynotfsu - According to you, anyway...
csilva85 6 days ago
@ynotfsu
affirmative action is not racist and white women have benefitted from affirmative action more than any other demographic. oh, what? you didn't know that? well, you should read about that. :-)
of course, that aspect of affirmative action is left out of mainstream dialogue, because the orchestrators of mainstream dialogue are all white. go figure. -_-
DivinelyMochaDipped 5 days ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped said "affirmative action is not racist" and then in the very same sentence "white women have benefitted from affirmative action more than any other demographic". Who taught you how to argue?
Some Congressmen felt that employers were making race a primary consideration when determining who to hire (It is true that some were), so they enacted Affirmative Action. Now all employers are legally required to make race a consideration when hiring. So much for colorblindness...
ynotfsu 5 days ago
Comment removed
ynotfsu 5 days ago
Comment removed
ynotfsu 5 days ago
Comment removed
ynotfsu 5 days ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped - Notice how Mr.Ynotfsu betrays his own [Ayn Randian] diseased verticalized thought process with his insulting "who taught you" remark designed to silence your comment.
What me must understand is that co-existence is not possible for such a person... who can only think in terms of "dominance" and "surrender",or "superiority" and "inferiority". For him, all ideas must be "dominating", or they must "be dominated".
More importantly, he ignores the fact that...[continued]
csilva85 2 hours ago
@csilva85 - [continued] he ignores the fact that the invention of "America" was [in reality] intended to be a system of affirmative action...for whites...!
The original intent of the 'Founding Fathers' was to grant the 'privileges of citizenship' to those who they knew as 'white' and DENY those privileges to EVERYONE ELSE.
csilva85 2 hours ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped - Yes, that aspect of 'affirmative action is left out...' by whites who cry "reverse racism", but the explanation is not mysterious...
Time and again, whites [especially Confederate conservatives...but not only them, of course] have [and continue] to redirect blame for [their] faulty solutions to America's race problems to the VICTIMS of racist assault.
All this leads to the following question: What's wrong with white people?
csilva85 2 hours ago
In this interview clip with Mike Wallace, the Queen of Selfishness, Ayn Rand [or, as Ann Coulter says, 'Ann Rind'] offers her "Austrian School"/"libertarian" sales pitch for a permissive "free market" economic policy, invoking the von Hayek/von Mises talking points of "life", "property", "freedom", and, advocating "absolute laissez faire" - which would result in "peaceful cooperation and harmony and justice among men"...
Yet, she ignores America's history of apartheid totalitariansism...[cont'd
csilva85 6 days ago in playlist Ann Rind
her hairstyle is actually pretty hip
:b
MrSmackdab 1 week ago
So now we need someone to teach us how to be selfish???
When the shit hits the fan you'd best be thinking with your heart AND your head...
(to her fans...I suspect Ms. Rand has something she doesn't want to share.)
01lucifersam 1 week ago
@01lucifersam Yes be selfish and create more wealth for yourself. The only way you can create wealth in a free society is by serving your fellow man. By being selfish you serve your fellow man.
USfutbol 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@01lucifersam Yes be selfish and create more wealth for yourself. The only way you can create wealth in a free society is by serving your fellow man. By being selfish you serve your fellow man.
USfutbol 1 week ago
@01lucifersam - If you only knew... how much she didn't want to share....
e.g.: Her "undertaker" remarks about one of her followers - Alan Greenspan,
not to mention the way she ruled her 'inner circle' with an iron fist
[her authoritarian mean streak]...
And these are just a couple of examples...
csilva85 6 days ago in playlist Ann Rind
Shut your fucking corn-beef mouth Ayn Rand. You stupid bitch shut it... you selfish, uber-capitalist rightwing crazy (oh and her infantile "philosophy" is a load of BS. Infact its not really a philosophy its more a ideology (a backward, regressive, uttertly proven to not work one at that).And the logical conclusion of her beliefs (much like that of the other idiot Ron Paul) is eventually the developed world would become like Mexico is today, thats where her "philosophy" would ultimately take us.
TheDevineBeing 2 weeks ago
@TheDevineBeing a childish and ignorant post. keep watching Ayn Rand. there is still hope for you.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@TheDevineBeing I know right? How could she ever match up to a "divine being?" I say you shut YOUR fucking mouth. If you want to get into a childish swearing match, I say you are a fucking piece of worthless dog shit. You are nothing; you could never even hope or dream to be anything close to a shadow of a sentiment of what Rand was. Stop trolling on YouTube and do something constructive with your life, you "uber-capitalist rightwing" fool.
TheRebelOfTyrus 2 weeks ago
@TheDevineBeing - Thanks for the comparison to present-day Mexico.
I would say her self-invented "Objectivist" ideology is actually more like a religion since it requires Faith in the wisdom [and, ultimately, authority] of "market discipline".
I want to emphasize that word 'authority', because despite her sales pitch referencing von Hayek talking points of "laissez faire", "free enterprise" etc., the reality is that her outlook is an authority-based tyranny...[continued]...
csilva85 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheDevineBeing -[continued]...tyranny of the same old neo-liberal 'market discipline', a failed economic system that has served to enrich only an aristocratic few at the expense of the many. In Rand's diseased verticalized world, there are only superiors and inferiors...co-existence is not possible. The foundation of her outlook IS in fact based on control...her own writings manifest a personal dualistic obsession with references of "surrender" and "domination"...[to be continued later]...
csilva85 1 week ago
@TheDevineBeing Let's try to keep the debate reasonable. Ayn Rand was a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro legalization of drugs, anti-war, Atheist. Is this what you mean by "rightwing crazy"?
ynotfsu 1 week ago 4
This lady was so bright and right as well. Amazing!
PureSoapCleans 2 weeks ago 5
It's crazy how so many people have been preaching that we are going towards the very systems of gov. we have fought againts and fought to get away from.... Now with NDAA and SOPA... It's already here :( I wish Ron Paul could get into office so he could stop our momentum towards total loss of freedom and liberty
karaj555 2 weeks ago
I could see it being real cool to have a political convo and the interview sparks a blunt. That would be the day.
omarlives 2 weeks ago
Who is this unskilled labor, school kids? You see, the arguments from leftists don't really add up. First, they insist that we need more production in this country, i.e. more factory work going on rather than "shipping jobs overseas". (Ironically the same argument from the Paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan). Then you turn around and suggest that most labor in America have no marketable skills & training. Even someone who's worked at a grocery story for 2 years is marketable.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
Rand's Collective she developed is still out there secretly controlling economic, politics, and the like. You can read about it here:
slingshotwarrior.tumblr.com
TheSlingshotWarrior 3 weeks ago
@TheSlingshotWarrior said [[Rand's Collective she developed...]]
Contradiction in terms.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
remarkable that the interview could be given today and it's just as relevant.
Animeabe 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Animeabe said [[remarkable that the interview could be given today and it's just as relevant.]]
Precisely. You might say that she had Cassandra's curse. She foresaw today 50 years ago, and most thought that she was just being strident and exaggerating.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
Ayn Rand is a heartless, selfish bitch.
TheTerrorUforgot 4 weeks ago
Ayn Rand was a eugenicist and a social darwinist.
Her notion of liberty was survival of the economically fittest, and a society where the property rights of business owners were more important than the civil rights of everyone else.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
@Laughingblades
Largely correct, except for the last part. I would like to see any sort of evidence for the part where one groups of "rights" were more important then another group's "rights"
Eterna1snow 1 month ago
@Eterna1snow I guess you wouldn't see how holding the position that the person who holds power over your ability to keep your house and eat should also have the right to sexually molest you and harass you is placing the rights of business owners over the rights of employees.
In Ayn Rands world there would be no civil rights.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
@Laughingblades In Rand's world, you would be "the person who holds power over your ability to keep your house and eat". I have yet to see a contract where a person gives up their sexual rights. Business owners need labor and are willing to pay for it. Laborers need money and are willing to work for it. This is an agreement that benefits both sides, and neither has to enter into an agreement they simply choose not to.
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 3
@ynotfsu That's a lie. Voluntarism is a lie because it ignores limitations imposed by our environment and conditions and it ignores the coercion of necessity. Hunger is more coercive than a gun to the head, at least with a gun to your head you can get a foolish surge of courage or indifference and pretend it isn't there, but you can't ignore hunger.
Ayn Rand's world is one where the poor will always be slaves to the rich by virtue of want & need. There is no choice, the choice is a lie
Laughingblades 4 weeks ago
@Laughingblades Wrong. You associate "rich" with business ownership. In Rand's world there'd be no regulatory impediments or government-mandated start up costs for a poor person starting a business, or selling their services to the public rather than a corporation. There'd be no expensive permitting process for fishing, hunting, or growing food to feed yourself or sell. There'd be no protection for large corporations, so small business would flourish. Overhead would be lower and wages higher.
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ynotfsu Start up costs are imposed by nature itself, the government is irrelevant. Ayn Rand promoted social darwinism, a world of haves and have nots where the disabled elderly and firmed were looked upon as parasites.
Laughingblades 4 weeks ago
There'd be no costs from regulations so prices would fall, helping the poor more than anyone. There'd be no income taxes, so investment capital would explode. There'd be no Federal Reserve which allows politicians to inflate the currency, which absolutely decimates the poor. There would be no drug laws, which hurt the poor more than the rich. There'd be no minimum wage, so not only would prices fall, helping the poor, but their jobs wouldn't be exported overseas as well. I could go on and on.
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 10
@ynotfsu You don't seem to understand that we have government regulations in the first place not to help businesses but to protect consumers.
Darthmaio 4 weeks ago
@Darthmaio And you think that the largest debtor in the entire history of human civilization has the moral authority to tell businesses how to operate?
Look, I know why you think there are government regulations. But to measure the success of regulations on their intentions rather than there results is asinine. The results are a shrinking middle class, endless deficits, runaway inflation, economic despotism, and ultimately moral detriment.
All you get is authoritarianism.
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 3
@ynotfsu
I'm sorry sir but you couldn't be more wrong. The middle class is shrinking because when corporations' profit margins increase there is no incentive for them to increase pay and benefits for their workers. Doing so is bad for business. And so while costs continue to rise for working people their pay stays largely the same.
Darthmaio 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio I'm not wrong. Your argument makes the case that profits are bad. Nothing could be more ridiculous. What happens to the profits that corporations make? They are taxed, spent, or saved. Money saved, even in bank accounts, is reinvested into the economy, which is the ONLY source of growth. Growth does not come from any other place. And why would increasing pay or benefits for employees be "bad for business"? That statement is just plain ignorant.
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 2
@ynotfsu ....omfg. Here we go. First, Of course profits are good thing... if ur the one making em! And by def. "profit" would mean the money left over AFTER taxes and expenses. Increased discretionary spending amoungst the general public is always better for the economy than the rich investing in their savings account. And Increasing pay is often bad for business because its an investment with a far lower payoff than investing in R&D for a new product or in investing in reaching more customers.
Darthmaio 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio You say "profits are a good thing... if ur the one making them."
Was Thomas Edison being a greedy capitalist by making profits from his invention of the light bulb? Was he just screwing over all the people who lived in darkness?
Was Jonas Salk being a greedy capitalist when he made profits from his discovery of the polio vaccine? Was he just screwing over all the people who would have dies of polio? What about Alexander Fleming? Henry Ford? Elias Howe? Percy Spencer? Robert Jarvik?
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
continued: You say "Increased discretionary spending amounst the general public is always better for the economy than the rich investing in their savings account."
If this were true, communist countries would be the richest in the world. But communist societies are among the poorest, most desperate, most poverty-stricken, and most tyrannized in the world.
"There are no contradictions. If you encounter a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -Ayn Rand
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 2
@Darthmaio said [[Of course profits are good thing... if ur the one making em!]]
No, actually "greed", or the profit motive in some helps others, especially the poor. Refrigerators, microwave ovens and cell phones were all cost prohibitive when first invented. But capitalistic free market competition drove innovation to find better, faster, and cheaper in successive steps until today the average poor household has all items mentioned above. This is an increase in our standard of living.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio As far as rising costs: Why do you think costs are rising? Answer: Because the government and the Federal Reserve are INFLATING the currency. This absolutely decimates the poor. Please look up the video of Milton Friedman talking about Greed. He makes the same case I would.
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 3
@ynotfsu lmao you're changing the subject. The point is that in a free market with no government regulations or worker's unions businesses have very little incentive to give their workers the best wages and working conditions they can afford to give them. Monetary inflation has nothing to do with workers getting robbed of their fair share of the increased profits made by their employers.
Darthmaio 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio You were the one who first mentioned rising costs. Not me. The big difference between your argument and mine is that you want to use the force of government to rob people on your behalf. At the very basis of your philosophy, at its most fundamental level, you think that it is not just ok, but morally correct to have the government force people to do what you want them to do. There is nothing "liberal" about your point of view. It is far better described as "authoritarian".
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 7
@ynotfsu
Do you seriously believe government should have no role in determining how its citizens should live? Because if there is an area that you think government should interfere in I would love to know what it is and on what grounds you deem it justified.
Darthmaio 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio I am not an anarchist. A person who uses force or coercion to infringe on another's life, liberty, or property should be held accountable to the government. This covers murderers, rapists, kidnappers, thieves, frauds, and any other real crime you can think of. When government becomes an instrument of plunder, the decider of how you can make a living, what you can do to your own body, who you can marry, etc. then they have become the very thing they were designed to prevent.
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago
@ynotfsu I agree on all counts. However, sometimes it is morally unacceptable to stand idly by and watch people needlessly suffer. Why should african americans have to put up with racist employers? Our constitution calls for equal protection under the law. Why shouldn't an Institution like the FDA protect consumers from con-artists, and needlessly dangerous medical treatments? The constitution says it's the role of gov. to "promote the general welfare".
Darthmaio 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio It's wonderful we agree!
Freely helping people who are suffering is very different than using force to make others help the people you (or I) think are suffering.
About racism: I would never buy a product from a person I think is racist, and I suspect you wouldn't either. Very few people would. Moral people don't work for racists either. This is exactly how morality is dictated by capitalism: racists go out of business... and hopefully starve.
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 2
continued: About the FDA: There's a great video on youtube. Search "End the FDA" and look to the fifth video down titled "End the FDA". It is about this very subject.
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 3
@ynotfsu Wow you murdered darth maul or what ever sith lord that guy wants to be lmao keep government out who's to say they dictate my morals. really socialist are the racist they see people as groups and collections. objectivist see people as individuals and judge not by race but by integrity. before the civil rights laws blacks were starting there own businesses and running there communties. plan back fired and now everybody but blacks own businesses in black neighborhoods.
IsaiahHarper11 3 weeks ago 2
@ynotfsu also socialist made it so blacks are committed to welfare putting them into gang infested housing projects where there's nothing to do but crime. government once again getting in the way.
IsaiahHarper11 3 weeks ago 2
@IsaiahHarper11, & interestingly enough, Jews & Asians never bought into collectivist bailouts. Not too long ago, they were relegated to ghettos, and now they both dominate in academics & the professions in America. Yet those who are impoverished are having their cultures destroyed by our government subsidizing poverty, unemployment, single motherhood in bad neighborhoods & subsidizing failure in general. If the government gives free money to those who qualify, people will find a way to qualify.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@ynotfsu lol you obviously don't live in the South. Down here racists and bigots would prosper because the general population is racist. And besides if people could always be counted upon to do the right thing on their own, there would be no need for government. Anarchy would be the ideal state. Unfortunately that is not the case and as James Madison wrote while urging the ratification of the US Constitution and a stronger fed. gov., "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Darthmaio 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio Wrong again. I was raised in Ga and live in Fl. But what has government ever done to rid the nation of racism? Allow slavery? The 3/5 compromise? Jim Crow laws? Separate but equal? Affirmative action? All of these policies were/are racist.
About the quote from Madison: As I said before, I'm not anarchist so don't contend I'm arguing for anarchy. If you aren't using force or coercion to infringe on another person's life, liberty, or property, then your actions shouldn't be illegal.
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ynotfsu said [[Freely helping people who are suffering is very different than using force to make others help the people you (or I) think are suffering.]]
I'm often bewildered how liberals (in particular) have trouble understanding the difference between volitional help and coercion. If it's good if rich Bob chooses to help poor Steve, then libs often think that it's equally good then for the government to take from Bob by force and give it to Steve.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio asked [[ Why should african americans have to put up with racist employers?]]
You don't. You're free to get another job.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio asked [[Do you seriously believe government should have no role in determining how its citizens should live?]]
Yes. The proper role of government is to protect recognized rights of the individual. "How" you should live? Your life belongs to you. You own your own life, no matter what paternalistic church and state or their representatives have told you. If no one is violating your rights, or vise versa, then it's no business of the government what you choose to do or not do.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio [[Do you seriously believe government should have no role in determining how its citizens should live?]]
We are supposed to determine the nature of government, not the other way around.
The government is the servant of the people, not our master. They rule programs, not people. Elected politicians and legislators are public servants, not public rulers, despite what vile people like Shirley Jackson and Maxine Waters might think.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@Darthmaio said [[The point is that in a free market with no government regulations or worker's unions businesses have very little incentive to give their workers the best wages and working conditions they can afford to give them.]]
Of course they do. Companies have to compete for skilled workers with pay and benefits.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@LucisFerre1 said " Companies have to compete for skilled workers with pay and benefits."
For top talent yes. But for unskilled labor? Very unlikely, especially when the unemployment rate is nearly ten percent.
Darthmaio 3 weeks ago
@ynotfsu said [[Why do you think costs are rising? Answer: Because the government and the Federal Reserve are INFLATING the currency. This absolutely decimates the poor.]]
Actually a small amount of inflation drives the economy forward, & our inflation rate is minuscule. We just went through a massive deflationary period, though no one wants to call it that. We had a massive reduction in the money supply & the credit market was frozen. Economy slowed and prices fell, but debt remained the same.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@LucisFerre1 You're only looking at a very short time scale. We only went through a period of deflation because the free market was correcting the huge amount of inflation created by the Fed and the Federal Government during the housing boom. Yet nearly all commodities are at their all time highs today because of stimulus, quantitative easing, and the unwillingness of our leaders to allow prices to correct from the collapse of the housing bubble, and the subsequent decrease in the money supply.
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 2
@ynotfsu, I wouldn't call a housing bubble "inflation" of the economy. Unfortunately, it seems that the money supply was poisoned with debentures created with a false understanding of the worth of real estate. We're currently in a similar bubble with gold as a commodity, but many people are too foolish to see it. Yeah, they're unwilling to let the prices correct from the housing bubble. I'm trying to buy up cheap residential real estate. Prices are finally bottoming out.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@LucisFerre1 Also, you say a small amount of inflation helps the economy. From 1800 to 1900, when we were on a gold standard, the cost of living actually went down by about 13%. This was also the greatest period of growth (the industrial revolution) in American History.
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 2
continued: the deflationary correction never really took place because government pursued stimulus after stimulus and the Fed increased the money supply by over 100%.
ynotfsu 3 weeks ago 2
@ynotfsu
stop with your logic and reason, lol.
GProduct 1 week ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Laughingblades There'd be no costs from regulations so prices would fall, helping the poor more. There'd be no income taxes, so investment capital would explode. There'd be no Federal Reserve which allows politicians to inflate the currency, which absolutely decimates the poor. There would be no drug laws, which hurt the poor more than the rich. There'd be no minimum wage, so not only would prices fall, helping the poor, but their jobs wouldn't be exported overseas as well. I could go on.
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 2
@Laughingblades
How, in a truly free market society, or "social darwanist" if you will, would that give anyone the "right" to molest you?
Oh, you're saying the whole "I'll-fire-you-if-you-don't-let-me" bit? THEN FIND ANOTHER JOB.
Psychotic employers rarely ever last long.
And of course there would be civil rights in Rand's world. The right to your life, your liberty, your property. She would probably reject the civil rights bullshit though, if you want to be a racist employer I don't care
Eterna1snow 3 weeks ago
@Eterna1snow
"if you want to be a racist employer I don't care"
And that my friend is a luxury very few African Americans can afford.
Darthmaio 3 weeks ago
@Eterna1snow Ask Ron Paul, he's the one who defends rape as the property right of business owners.
""I'll-fire-you-if-you-don't-let-me" bit? THEN FIND ANOTHER JOB."
So you also believe it's the property right of business owners to sexually harass and rape employees, and that if the employee doesn't like it, they should find another job.
Income is a survival necessity "Just Quite" may as well be "Just Die". Jobs aren't these magical things that are always just there for everyone
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
@Laughingblades If you can produce an ounce of evidence, preferably video, of Ron Paul defending rape as property right of business owners, I'll be quiet and stop supporting him. Otherwise, you have lost credability.
The right to rape employees? If you rape employees on the job then you have violated them, that is physical force and you should persecute. If you say "I want to have sex with you, or else you lose your job" then however despicable that might be, the employer owns that job.
Eterna1snow 3 weeks ago
@Eterna1snow "Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable." Actual Quote
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
@Eterna1snow Now here comes the rape apologetics where you reason it's ok for an employer to coerce your wife or daughter into sex by holding her job and pay ransom just because Ron Paul said it instead of Obama, because if Obama said it, you'd never defend it and you know it.
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
@Laughingblades I mean what if your job was to have sex with your employer? (I. E. prostitute).
Jobs aren't magical things that appear, but they also aren't rights. Employers, try as they want, do not own those jobs. Period. Otherwise, you believe that whatever a man creates, it does not belong to him.
Eterna1snow 3 weeks ago
@Eterna1snow Oh so you're anti-capitalist I understand now.
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
@Eterna1snow The right to life, unless you're disabled or poor, Rand believed in Social Darwinism and called those who couldn't take care of themselves "Parasites" and advocated the death of "Parasites" in pretty much all of her works.
The right to liberty? Only if you were rich, otherwise all forms of COERCION other than physical force were ignored, hunger is like a gun to your head, you are only as free as your situation allows
Right to property? Absolute power of business elite
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
@Laughingblades said [[Rand believed in Social Darwinism and called those who couldn't take care of themselves "Parasites" and advocated the death of "Parasites" in pretty much all of her works.]]
You're lying. She never called for the death of the members of any collectivized group.
Why do you apparently feel the need to lie?
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@LucisFerre1 She calls for the death of "parasites" (IE the elderly, disabled, poor) throughout pretty much all her works, it's in all of her writings, she vilifies and demonizes them.
Not to mention she practically worshiped a child murdering psychopath and misunderstood Nietzsche's Ubermensch.
Look kiddo if you want to follow a dead economic social darwinist who called for an every man for himself type world be my guest, but live it. We're a social species.
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
@Laughingblades , you're a complete liar.
I've read The Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, The Voice of Reason, In Defense of Capitalism and Philosophy-Who Needs It. I know that you have NO idea what you're talking about, as most of Rand's detractors don't. You can't even seem to make up your mind, does she "demonize" them or does she call for their deaths? In her writings, she was positively obsessed with morality, ethics & individual rights, which is the opposite of what you're claiming.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@LucisFerre1 And in all those works the villains are two dimensional vilified parasites holding the good virtuous social darwinist down. It's ok kiddo, your messiah was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle, why oh why didn't serious scientists and economists take her seriously? Why this saintly woman who idolized a pet torturing child killer and cheated on her husband right in front of him without a shred of guilt or social awareness was truly an angel to the poor and infirmed.
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
@Laughingblades, are you interested in backing up your slanderous lies about calling for the deaths of people, or are you just going to continue to assassinate the character of someone whom you obviously don't understand? I expect it will be the latter as the former would be a responsible thing to do.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@Laughingblades A eugenicist? What warped intellect could determine that individual rights to life, liberty, and property equates to eugenics?
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 2
@ynotfsu She openly supported negative eugenics. Look it up.
Laughingblades 4 weeks ago
@Laughingblades Wrong again. I found NOTHING. If you have a link, post it. This is a typical coercive tactic: just make shit up that sounds bad to personally attack those who you disagree with. These "ad hominem" attacks are nothing more than coercion, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Congrats. It is official now. You just lost the argument. If you were honest, you would admit it.
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 3
@ynotfsu It's ok, you won't even Google it, it's cool I understand.
You also don't know what the Ad Hom fallacy is, it's ok. You'll learn one day.
Anyway yeah, Ayn Rand was openly a negative eugenicist, it's in her biography and everything, she was inspired by Spencer and Niche, she wrote "The Virtue of Selfishness" basically espousing social darwinism as a basis for society, and her social darwinism was apparent in her defense of capitalism, the virtues she attributed to it.
Laughingblades 4 weeks ago
Derp, Nietzsche, lulz
Laughingblades 4 weeks ago
@Laughingblades I did google it, dumbass!
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago
@ynotfsu Oh well, try harder. Did you know the man she idolized as a perfect man was a child killer who cut the head off a little girl and sewed her eyes open then threw the head out the window at the father who had already payed the ransomed money, and grew up torturing animals? I mean, none of that really bugs me, but to idolize someone like that requires a certain sort of mental illness.
Ayn Rand was a narcissistic sociopath and she was drawn to hero worship a narcissistic sociopath
Laughingblades 4 weeks ago
@Laughingblades Yawn...
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 4
@Laughingblades - interesting comments...
Do you have any other comments out there re: her Social Darwinist tendencies?
I would like to read more on that...
csilva85 6 days ago in playlist Ann Rind
Why the fuck do her eyes keep bobbing down and around? Its so creepy.
jsrosenfeld0 1 month ago
Does anyone know of any videos with both Rand and Chomsky in them? If such a thing exists I'll probably wet myself with excitement.
195ashes 1 month ago
She makes sense but I still can't bring myself to agree with her. I find she lacks compassion. Or maybe I've misinterpreted what she's saying.
195ashes 1 month ago
@195ashes I feel in the exact same way as you do, but I believe the key, at least according to Rand's principles, lies in your first three words. They mean that your logic, your rational self agrees with her. I still have trouble with the lack of compassion but it is something to think about.
KLlPPO 1 month 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 month ago
She's against government forcing people to pay through taxation to take care of other people. Jesus Christ himself was against the idea of government forcing people to pay through taxation to take care of other people.
beauandme4evs 1 month ago
@beauandme4evs Can you tell me where it says in the bible what you claim? Or what you read that explains this. I would honestly love to know.
Tacotruck1166 1 month ago
@beauandme4evs
Yes but using that logic couldn't you say that the government shouldn't be able to "force" you to fund wars, or support the enforcement of certain laws that you happen to not agree with? And where exactly did Jesus Christ ever say any such thing?.
Darthmaio 1 month ago
A good parent is a strict but just parent.
.
When government spends money carelessly and arrogantly then everyone loses.As weknow, They mostly spend it in way that buys them votes or endorses certain sponsors during the elections (big fish).
.
no amount of taxing can mend ,stupid, inefficient and arrogant spending, spending the money of us all for the ego-maniac plans of a few.
.
bank lending to state is a money-hole with no end, "interest" "usury", it's taxes, level above government.
.
fullfist 1 month ago
Big , invasive taxes (on just about every segment of our lives) mean LOTS OF SOCIAL ENGINEERING . Taxes aren't simply about "building roads, welfare..." they're deterrent from doing certain things or doing them too much. It's like a parent who takes away your allowance because so and so or even sends you to your room.
.
Less taxes, less pervasive. Means that the people are more free to do as they please without financial consequences.
.
fullfist 1 month ago
it all comes down to human nature.
.
if the ruling class has, wisdom, strength and greater good in mind, then it matters not if they're an aristocracy or democratic elects.
.
the difference is that an aristocracy is carefully bred to rule and represent stability, and elects often come out of chaos of social engineering, disappointment and desire for "change".
.
discussing government is futile since, it's the banks and corporates that rule it, the slime.
fullfist 1 month ago
@fullfist Yes, Kim Jong il represented stability.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs what a stupid little remark.I don't think you understand what i'm talking about.
.
different race, different continent, none of my concern. Communism is out of the question it failed in less that a century.
.
I'm talking about "tzars" and "kaisers". the European nobility ruled (some better some worse) up until 1918.
fullfist 1 month ago
lets all go back to the beginning of the industrial revolution and let our kids work in dangerous industry
alliencedful 1 month ago
@alliencedful I think that's the point. You'd never let your kid work in that kind of environment. Btw, the industrial revolution marks the greatest period of economic growth in world history- the middle class was created because of it. You can cite the horrible things that happened, but today, we have $15 trillion in government debt that will bankrupt your children, sentencing them to a life of servitude. The middle class will be destroyed because of it. It will be far worse than factory life.
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 2
she's such a moron
alliencedful 1 month ago
And what of the government's role to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, (and) promote the general welfare"? Is the government really supposed to stand idly by and watch as corporate giants exploit their workers and the political system just to expand their own wealth? Is it not the role of government to create as Just and balanced a society as possible?
Darthmaio 1 month ago
@Darthmaio If that is true. Give me an example in American history where the people who sought to "create as just and balanced a society as possible" have done just that?
Tacotruck1166 1 month ago
@Tacotruck1166
Well we can starting from the very beginning. The founders of our nation tried to create a just system of government and they have the constitution and bill of rights to show for it. Both of which have a lot of good stuff in them.
Darthmaio 1 month ago
@Darthmaio The role of government is to protect liberty. Fannie and Freddy tried to create a "just" housing market- they did the opposite. Social Security is bankrupt- creating social insecurity. Affirmative action tried to eliminate racism- they enforced racism. Dept of Defense has turned into the Dept of Offense. Dept of Energy has done nothing but stifle domestic energy production. Dept of Education has led to nothing but rising costs and lower rankings. See the point?
ynotfsu 4 weeks ago 2
Comment removed
Darthmaio 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ynotfsu
Fannie and Freddy tried to make money. They're a business and that's what they're supposed to do.
Now, to make sure unbridled greed doesn't cause the entire economy to collapse, like what happened a few years ago, someone has to make sure businesses are making their profits honestly. The only someone strong enough to do this is the federal government. And thus we have government regulations on private businesses.
Darthmaio 4 weeks ago
It is very simple, Socialism has never worked in the history of civilizations. With the way things have been going on in the last twenty plus years what makes you think the "go getter" "intelligent" federal government can fix anything? It is not rocket science, big government doesn't do anyone any good, except the government.
operationNOBO 1 month ago
the utter ugliness of the jew... Jews, you can take your communism and your capitalism, your neoconservatism every sick ideology you have introduced to the european world, to Israel and then to hell with you
BornToDie90 1 month ago
The utter ignorance coming from you makes my brain hurt.
scienceatheism 1 month ago
@scienceatheism well you're name is ''scienceatheism'' therefore you're an intellectual and you can call everyone ignorant... i get it... lol you're a walking stereotype
BornToDie90 1 month ago
And your name is borntodie and Im pointing this out because I cant think of anything else to say because Im a fucking idiot and Im not that clever.... my god we have something in common.
scienceatheism 1 month ago
@scienceatheism no, we don't, scienceatheism... no, we don't...
BornToDie90 1 month ago
Oh good comeback, did you go to school to get that kind of wit or are you born with it? That is the equivalent of you saying 'Nuh Uh'
scienceatheism 1 month ago
@scienceatheism lol, i can tell from the tone of your comments that you spend the overwhelming majority of your lifetime trying to prove to people that you are intelligent. take my FRIENDLY advice and quit... you simply don't got what it takes
BornToDie90 1 month ago
Oh no I know Im not intelligent, not at all. Im not stupid enough to make that mistake. So try again.
scienceatheism 1 month ago
@scienceatheism now how do I respond to that?
BornToDie90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Too bad she ended up on welfare claiming state help for cancer treatment. She had nothing to offer the productive economy other than writing novels that make Danielle Steele look like Tolstoy and spouting spitefulness. She didn't have the gumption to run her own financial affairs - no shame in that. Society should help the feeble minded weaklings like poor Ayn who are incapable.
mostmusicisbad 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why doesn't she speak normal English even though she had lived in the US since she was 21?
Kle7777 1 month ago
wow this woman is a genius!
cyano0126 1 month ago
@crothersdaniel lol. I think it's important to separate good and evil from power. There are good as well as bad people in many wealth classes.
dreamingWisdom 1 month ago
Well, you Americans are wishing you listen to her a little sooner now lol.
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 1 month ago 2
"Capitalism with government help is the worst of all economic phenomena." Exactly.
RON PAUL 2012
KidMillions 1 month ago 2
AYN RAND FOR RON PAUL 2012!!!
IsaiahHarper11 1 month ago
What was the music from the beggining?
Varyalover 1 month ago
ACTUALLY this country was built on slavery....so her argument is completely false. "This country was made by...industriats who succeeded on pure ability" BULLSHIT. pleeeaaase. So basically, people, if they can, should exploit one another (namely marginalized ppl without a choice and no political power), b/c that's what these "industrialists" have done to be successful all along...
Thandiwandi 2 months ago
@Thandiwandi look at the projects, welfare section, drug war, and then tell me how socialist care about blacks. capitalist judge people by character, socialist by race such as affirmative action and collectivist ideals. socialism created hitler, stalin, mao, ww1, ww2, vietnam, and every other war. capitalist only fight when attacked. freedom is capitalism, socialism is slavery. the north was capitalist, the south, fuedal you need to wake up because i was like you at one point.
IsaiahHarper11 1 month ago
1:10 - 1:57 EPIC ANSWER!!!!
diogotomediogo 2 months ago
Does anyone know why her eyes are moving so much? It's almost creepy...is she nervous? I can't imagine why she would be.
Shtonai 2 months ago
i realize that came out sounding like i totally agree with some of her ideals even though they're off base. i meant i agree with some of what she says BUT some of it's just really off. when people choose to live in societal groups, some form of governing hierarchy is inevitable. and as all things in the universe change & evolve, it's a natural progression to end up having more and more gov'mt - mankind's been doing it for thousands of years and still ain't got it right - man is inherently greedy
verbalkungfu 2 months ago
man. i totally agree w/some of her ideals and some of it's really off base. but damn, if watchin her ain't like watchin a tweeker eyeballin someone's bag of dope n pipe on the table - holdin a conversation - totally on auto-pilot and only thinking about one thing: when she gonna get her next fix. if all her conversations/speeches are like this, eyeballs jumpin all around all screwball, forget it, i'll stick to her books. that's totally one of the most annoying things i've ever seen, for sure.
verbalkungfu 2 months ago
Comment removed
verbalkungfu 2 months ago
Her teeth are as ugly as her thoughts. Look, there is a logical fallacy in her argument. She wants more liberty, but, in actuality, she wants to limit the amount of say we have in government. A constituent of government is the economic milieu. Americans are too obsessed with their BMWs, mansions, and misc. bourgeoisie materials. Wake up! A laissez faire government can give a rats ass about you. Oh dear, and talking about how this country was made; yes, Ayn, they also made slavery legal. Liberty?