My absolute, favorite book. Howard Roark is a beautiful man. I hated the depiction of the sex scene in the movie. Dominique was such a useless, helpless creature. To cry? Agh.
Thanks to the Issaac Baranoff guy, I now know there is a scary strain of facism in all the Libertarian/Ayn Rand philosophy.
Every comment that disagrees with HIS opinion is spammed or gets negative votes. Can't have rational debate can we? No, if we openly & honestly discuss, majority would see the error of free market philosophy
@IsaacBaranoff You'll ultimately find that comments by people whom you've flagged for spam with your multiple accounts, aren't going to disappear, & that flagging them all is ultimately a waste of time
Will SOMEONE who knows something about Ayn Rand please watch the following short video and respond? If you find something wrong, please spell out what it is.
Oh, and the only system in which you can have a "truly" free society is where there are no cops so I can kill anybody who doesn't understand at least enlightenment-era political philosophy.
@DeadlyGrim You sound like a psychopath. No rational person would kill at will, even if there were no legal enforcement against it. You confuse liberty with anarchism.
@IsaacBaranoff really? not even if the person you're killing has a really nice pair of shoes and you want em? how does it go against my rational self interest to kill him and take those fine shoes of his? i mean these are some really nice goddamn shoes we're talking about.
@IsaacBaranoff you didn't answer my question. try this one on for size dipshit, HOW is it irrational to murder and steal if you will benefit by it and there will be no legal ramifications? inhumane yes, irrational, i don't think so, and of the two of us you're supposed to be the rational self interest man. so clue me in.
@IsaacBaranoff basic morality? you say it like it's so easy and obvious, and how would you define basic morality? because it seems to me that all of our "basic morality" has come down to us from a mixed heritage of unfounded religious and ethical traditions. there is no rational reason not to be the worst kind of selfish monster so we've held ourselves in check with irrational reasons like "it's immoral" that's just the kind of thinking your precious ayn rand so vehemently hated.
@joemammasboy Yes, there is. Rationality involves not involving others in what you do not want to be asked of you. Is that simple enough for a mind of your kind? Or, you would legitimately come across as a scumbag if I didn't know that you are trolling. Go away.
@IsaacBaranoff oh, and out of curiosity, i'm interested in You're oppinion on this: william edward hickman, does he fall within your parameters of "basic morality" or not? would you say, judging (a thing rand always advocated doing) from his actions, that hickman had a "beautiful soul" like she said.
@IsaacBaranoff did you know rand once wrote articles ardently defending a man who had murdered and dismembered a little girl, because he "was his own man" and later based elements of her fictional howard roark on him? doesn't sound like she was such a solid adherent to this "basic morality" idea of yours
@joemammasboy Do some more research, dumbass. She thought that the guy was a degenerate. The not-giving-a-fuck aspect was the only element that she used to create her character. Shoo, fly.
@IsaacBaranoff i have done research. as far as she was concerned he was being tried by creatures with "worse sins and crimes in there own lives" than hickman himself. (her words not mine) sound like she wouldn't seat murder at the top of any "basic morality" schema. but i look forward to your next post, the one where you'll boo hoo about how i've taken it out of context and say i don't understand anything
@IsaacBaranoff What if I could kill the person in such a way that the chance of me being caught versus the value of the goods I could get from killing them balanced out in favor of killing them? Surely, then, that would be rational?
Free market capitalism is the only system in which you can have a truly free society. The problems that we face today are the result of corporatism/crony capitalism, the extreme left, the extreme right, and big government. We need small government, no regulations, low taxes, freedom in private business and liberty for all.
@IsaacBaranoff no regulations? as in what exactly? do we get to hire asian sweatshop workers for pennies an hour? or better yet, do we get to abolish the minimum wage? (that's a state imposed regulation isnt it?) or how about overturning child labor? (the state shouldn't have any right to keep seven year olds from working in factories) or hell why not just reinstate slavery, get rid of the fourteenth ammendment, that's nothing but the government interfering with the economy isnt it?
@joemammasboy Thank you for the utterly stupid and useless commentary. It's clear that you have no understanding how the world works. We don't have these things because of a basic sense of humanity. It's your type of limited intelligence that allowed for these things in the first place.
@IsaacBaranoff "we don't have these things because of a basic sense of humanity" true enough, and yet the black people in this country are free, children can't work in dangerous factories, and no legal employee in this country can draw less than minimum wage, all of which serve to make america a more humane place. so educate me, what libertarian, free market incentive was it that was responsible for all these good developments?
@IsaacBaranoff Anyone who deals in absolutes, leaves no room for growth. Nothing is eternally the best or only, unless it is a scientific natural law. An economic system is a subjective theory. It works on paper flawlessly just as communism works on paper. No regulations? Nuclear power, national borders, agricultural disease from migration, and on and on and on. Property rights being enforced is regulation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@IsaacBaranoff The word free and market is a contradiction in terms , just as CAPITAL enslaves and exploites WAGE LABOR . The dynamics of World Capitalism whether Corporate dominated or State dictated is the abstract PROCESS of CAPITAL ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION. This abstract process is not smooth or linear but DESTRUCTIVE and enforced by MILLITARY MIGHT. The INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION was underpinned by build up of the BRITISH NAVY and US DOLLAR by world wide millitary bases
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Estragon17 Yeah, I thought this, too, as reading doesn't usually seem to be a really high priority for many on the right. But then I decided that this was perhaps a little unfair. I think some probably did actually read it, but just didn't understand what it said. And I'm almost positive that they weren't even able to recognize that in Shrugged, the psychology of the hero was based on that of a serial child rapist-killer she had been infatuated with in her earlier days. Obvious to the rational
Capitalism is not pro banks or corporations, it is anti government involvement in the economy. Without government backing, a corporation cannot force you to do anything.
Oh yes they can, especially if you work for them... without government regulation to prevent it. All you need to do is look at the history of capitalism before government regulation.
True... but of course that depends on there being a better job to be found somewhere else. Given the low wages paid before regulations you would need that job pretty quick. Basically, you present a simple option that in reality is far from simple and doesn't guarantee you won't just end up with the same or a different kind of oppression. Imagine for a moment if you wanted to quit but were paid in scrip for the company store, not in actual money, and you lived in company housing.
@Estragon17 Never said simple. I said that you are not forced by the corporation to stay. You prefer being stuck in that job that doesn't pay much rather than going out to look for another job or even starting your own business, one where you would pay your employees as much as you think they're worth and not what some bureaucrat tells you to. The reason why there are no jobs is simple: Labor it's too expensive, and like any other product or service, demand goes down. Thanks minimum wage!
Look for another job that pays better? good luck. Start your own business? with what money? Pay your workers what you think they're worth? Yeah, we've seen what the market thinks most labor is worth.. as little as they can get away with paying them. It isn't the minimum wage, which is around the poverty level and was flat for a long time compared to inflation that caused our lack of jobs. It gives people more buying power than even lower wages and is thus good for the economy
@Estragon17 In a free market, it would be much easier to start businesses. You could grow food out of your own back yard and sell it, and not be carted off to jail for doing something you are in your own right to do.
Actually, people can and do do that right now. We don't have food regulations just for the government to spoil your good time, but to actually protect consumers from tainted foods. Yes, we still do get cases of tainted foods and there are problems with the system, one being that it is woefully underfunded/staffed, but overall you buy food, you know it is what it says it is and that it should be safe. Take a little time and research what life was really like before regulations.
Who said they don't protect anyone? There are occasional failings, yes, but that doesn't mean they don't protect anyone. Food is generally far safer than it was in the early 20th century... and thats not because of the free market.
@Estragon17 Food is NOT safer because of regulations. Food is safer because we know more today about, for example, hygiene. We wash our hands more. We're continuing to learn more about handling food. Food is NOT safer because of regulations. We don't need the government to play nanny to us. Your fault is in presuming that everyone who prepares food is as stupid as you are.
Well, you are factually wrong. Look at the meat industry, for example. In fact, go read The Jungle. Its not about washing your hands or about simply the preparation of food. Its about what happens to those foods when they are made and packaged. Perhaps you can share with everyone exactly what YOU think solved the problems we used to have in our food industry and why we started regulating the food industry in the first place.
@Estragon17 Businessmen want to produce products that keep people buying food, thus producing profits for them. If you produce products that kill people, people won't buy your product, because they'll read consumer reports about the products which kill the businesses. Regulations benefit CORPORATIONS, not people.
It doesn't have to kill them to be an unsafe product, and when it is standard practice for the industry as a whole and there is no compulsory labeling, there really is little chance for people to make a real choice. Where will they read these consumer reports, exactly? Who will write them? Who will defend them from the numerous lawsuits from food companies? People will obviously do research on every food product they buy beforehand. Once again, go look at the actual history.
@Estragon17 Doing research on the food you purchase eliminates the need for regulations on food. You act is if I do not eat. I am a human being, remember? I need to eat and drink in order to survive. And I don't want to eat food that will cause me harm. And I still say that we don't need the government to play nanny to us. Because I am not an adult infant. If someone is stupid, that is their own fault, it is your own fault for being ignorant, and the government should not be responsible.
@IsaacBaranoff tell me... what kind of research do you do on the food you eat? Do you do research to see if they have had problems with foreign matter in their packages? How about the fecal content of your meat? The number of maggots that are blended up in your orange juice? Where do you research all of this? Who puts out this information? Would they have access to the data if it were not for regulations about record keeping and such? Better yet, what contaminants are in your tap water?
@Estragon17 Your problem, again, is assuming that people are as incompetent as you are. Most businessmen are not incompetent are evil. The ones that are incompetent or evil don't survive. Piss off and don't come back until you understand how things work.
Businessmen don't tend to be the ones actually manufacturing the food or packaging it... nor do they necessarily inspect and oversee every single aspect of their businesses on a regular basis.. they delegate that.
You claim I don't understand how things work, but you are speaking from the perspective of theory... I'm speaking from the perspective of actual history and the actual functioning of actual capitalism... not theory.
@Estragon17 I own a business. I want to manufacture and promote food with my company's logos and original artwork on the packaging. Only thing is, I want my food to have cannabis in it. Under government regulations, this is illegal, and since I cannot produce food with cannabis in it, I do not want to produce food, because the product would fail without the cannabis. Fuck your regulations.
And yet... what if instead of canabis it were Heroin or crack? Also, really? Cannabis isn't illegal because of FOOD regulations but because of drug regulations. Finding one regulation that you disagree with doesn't mean all regulations are then bad.
@Estragon17 Why do you automatically make the jump from cannabis to heroin or crack? I am not aware of either of those being considered to be particularly tasty, even among drug addicts. Drug issues are not a government problem, they are a health issue. The government has no responsibility over enforcing restrictions on ANYTHING, even harmful things. Drug prohibition is the most expensive waste of money since ALCOHOL prohibition. And we all know how that worked out.
Okay.. how about Morphine or cocaine, which were widely used in patent medicines for years. I will mostly agree with you on the drug issue, but drug regulations are not food regulations. HUGE difference.
@Estragon17 There is no difference between any regulations. As far as food regulations, you can read consumer reports and choose not to purchase items at your own discretion. In a free market, you are given wider choice and are able to spend your money or not any way you please, because it is your own money. As far as drug regulation, I don't drink alcohol, and I don't use drugs. That's not going to change if they legalized everything, which is the only way to stop the prohibition nonsense.
Oh, and did you know that the regulation of guns was created so that the former slaves wouldn't have guns? Gun control is racist. That's something that Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" intentionally did not tell you.
Well, no, the origins of some gun control were racist in the reconstruction era. To try to then paint all gun control as being inherently racist based on that is intellectually dishonest.
@Estragon17 Gun control is unconstitutional and wrong. We should have the right to be able to protect ourselves, even if we're not all gun purchasers. I don't own any guns, but if I wanted to, I should be able to.
Actually, gun ownership is only guaranteed in the Constitution subject to the needs of a 'well-regulated militia". Basically, if you're part of the National Guard, they won't take away your Kentucky rifle.
@Sylderon Your spin is false: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Yes, and qualifies that right by stating it is for "the maintenance of a well-regulated militia", rather than for any explicit personal use. Why would they even put said qualifying phrase in there if they didn't want it to mean something? By bringing in the original text, you are effectively negating your own argument, and while I commend you for doing so, it rather takes all the fun out of it for me.
Again, I am merely quoting the text of the Constitution verbatim, adding not the slightest spin. I am only stating what is there, and pointing out that you are relying on what is not there. You have yet to answer my question, which makes me think you have no answer; or, perhaps, you're simply in denial, which would certainly explain your vehement repetion. Do you even know what a qualifying statement is?
@Sylderon I am repeating myself because you don't seem to understand the words that I am stating even though their meaning is very clear. The constitution doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it specifies the PEOPLE. The people who wrote the constitution had been fighting a war against state militia for two years. It says that the militia can't take away the right of the people.
I understand what you are saying, just as you clearly do not understand early American history. The 'militia' you speak of was fighting against the Redcoats. The Founding Fathers, Jefferson chief among them, felt that standing armies (such as the British had, occupying the Colonies) were a potential instrument of tyranny (I wonder how they could've reached that conclusion?) They felt that the new nation needed to be defended, but by a volunteer army, the 'well regulated militia'.
Reading the Constitution, you might see that it mentions Congress creating a Navy, but not an Army. This was meant to be the Army, an army of volunteers, of citizen soldiers fighting to defend not their commander, but their homes and farms and shops. Your contention, about the militia taking away a right of the people (that is, the militia taking away the right of its own members) is not just reading between the lines: It's reading the coffee stains on the other side of paper.
@Sylderon I am clearly stating what the second Amendment actually says, and you're trying to interpret clear language that says that the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. You're asserting that the founding fathers wanted a strongarm control over the American people despite the fact that the revolution started because they didn't want to be strongarmed by the British. You clearly don't understand this.
I'm interpreting clear language based on what it actually says, along with a knowledge of the historical context in which it was written, something that you seem to lack. You are only stating half of the amendment, while ignoring the rest. The authors didn't put in filler material; every word put in there was carefully considered and has meaning. So I ask you, what is the meaning of the qualifying phrase "well-regulated militia"? Do you even have an explanation for it?
@Sylderon Those are two separate sentences. "A well regulated militia is needed" and "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There is a comma separate one half of the amendment from the other. I posted a link to a video explaining it, perhaps you did not watch it. Here: /watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
@IsaacBaranoff So can you explain to me why the average American needs military grad weapons to defend himself? I believe in defending my property against criminals, but I don't need a fully automatic machine gun to do it and neither does anyone else.
@IsaacBaranoff unless you believe convicted felons, the mentally ill, and children should have unrestricted access to guns, you are a supporter of gun control.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@IsaacBaranoff I think that the kinds of weapons that we have today, and the question of whether or not to restrict or register there ownership is not unconstitutional, but "non" constitutional. Unprepared for by the constitution, and outside the 'scope' of the constitution. The same goes for the question of having a national military, and Air force. Etc.
@IsaacBaranoff It's not "wrong" per se. I don't think the government should be the ones doing the controlling. But communities should have control over who gets guns and who doesn't. Easy-to-get guns lead to the wrong people having guns, it's just a fact. But it should be a democratic board that decides and reviews applications for guns, under the control of the people. Thats also how I think the police should be administered.
@dalellll If you think democratic boards should control gun sales, then your problem isn't with the government, it's with lack of government transparency. That's a huge difference.
Oh, and a comma is a very weak separation as it separates clauses that are still related. If I told you "For the purposes of buying us food, here's $300", I would be very upset if you spent the money on drugs and hookers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Really, you Randians DO realize that we had a rather goodly period of non-regulated capitalism in our past, right? And you do realize it didn't result in utopia but in massive poverty, oppression, unsafe working conditions, unsafe food supplies, low wages, etc.. etc.. etc..., right? That is not opinion. That is historical fact.
@Estragon17 No progress occurred as the result of regulation. Regulation IMPEDES progress. We would all do better without the government telling us what to do. The government should not be responsible for controlling business, speech, or anything else. The government's job is to make sure someone doesn't bomb the shit out of us, NOT to tell businessmen how to do business. Businessmen can do that well enough on their own. You don't have a CLUE about anything you're talking about.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@g0ssage Minimum wage today is 7.25 an hour. Whose work, exactly, do you think is worth less than that? If their work is that worthless, why the hell would you keep them on in the first place? You seriously need to do some research on the history of labor and labor practices, not just theory but actual history.
However, could it also be that demand goes down because people don't have money to spend? After all, the wages that one takes home don't just disappear, it is spent on products and services. Less money to spend, demand goes down.
Well, she certainly can come up with some great fiction... namely that the free market will solve all our problems and that the wealthiest all got there through their own heroic work ethic and brilliance with no help from their workers or the government, but in fact in spite of them inexplicably trying to keep them from succeeding at all.
@Estragon17 And because you want the government to do everything, including wipe your ass, you are against those that can achieve on their own. You have nothing to say here.
@pukedragon...as Ayn stated clearly numerous times, and as is the foundation for ANY theory/hypothesis..."it depends on what your premise is" i.e. it depends on where you start...no?...your premise sucks...therefore we have nothing to discuss (although I like your little equal signs'n stuff...)
Yes, and part of Ayn's premise was that anyone who wasn't wealthy and wasn't one of her fictional epic heroes simply didn't count at all. Her premise sucked and she was a fucking monster... and a hypocrite.
@Estragon17 Ayn Rand's writing was about possessing objective, rational thinking, which you certainly lack. Capitalism does not equal "anyone who isn't wealthy doesn't count". Capitalism benefits those with worth. If you do not put effort into producing a quality product that people want, you will not be benefited by capitalism. This is the sole reason why you criticize capitalism, and your lack of reason is your reason for criticizing Rand. Piss off.
Yes, but not all of us can produce products or be dynamic business owners. Some of us have to work for others. It may seem to you that allowing those who work hard for a living but are not heroic Randian millionaires to be exploited and kept in poverty is objective, rational thinking, but it doesn't quite seem that way to me. Its not a lack of reason you see.. its the presence of actual compassion for people who work their lives away to make others rich.
@Estragon17 You're lazy and stupid. The problem is in you being too lazy and stupid to make a living. Capitalism allows you the right to be lazy and stupid. Under capitalism, you have the choice to only do enough to get by. You don't have that choice under socialism, in which you're slaving to make the government rich. Piss off.
I'm lazy and stupid? Well, I can certainly tell you must be brilliant and dilligent yourself, given your constant name calling. Too lazy and stupid to make a living? So, those who are not born intelligent deserve to be punished for it by working their whole lives for poverty level wages? And who ever said this was a question of capitalism or socialism with no other options? I, like many others, simply want fair wages for the hard work of the non-wealthy.
@Estragon17 Under capitalism, you do get fair wages. A "fair wage" is a wage that supports the cost of hiring a person to work. Yourself alone with no tool will not produce anything, but if you are given the tool to produce, do you expect to be paid more than the person who produced or paid for the tool is being paid? There's no profit that way. Most people understand that. You don't. If you understood how the world works, you wouldn't slam capitalism.
Obviously thats under Rand's fantasy capitalism, not real capitalism. Otherwise people wouldn't make so little working for businesses that are making tons of money off of them. I understand that those who start businesses and run them will make more than their workers, but that doesn't mean workers should be paid poverty-level wages. I'm not slamming capitalism... just Rand's interpretation of it and the idea that the free market automatically solves all problems.
@Estragon17 Capitalism is the exchange of goods and services without enforcement or restriction from any party. Where you are not forced to buy anything in any method, or forced to sell anything in any specific method, where you can do business as you want freely, and your business survives on the merit of your product. Rand's interpretation of capitalism is correct, you just don't know what the word "capitalism" means.
That would be a DEFINITION of capitalism you posted there... not her interpretation of capitalism. Her interpretation goes a bit deeper than simply a description of the basic system itself. Being a Randian, you should know that.
@Estragon17 Rand's philosophy is called Objectivism. Objectivists are followers of her philosophy who share her beliefs on capitalism, atheism, morality, etc. Not everybody agrees with everything she said, and so not everyone who appraises her works is an Objectivist. That catchphrase you toss around, "Randian", means nothing, because it has no relationship to reality.
Rand's writings, then, mean nothing, because they have no relationship to reality.
Obviously not everyone who appraises her work is an Objectivist. I and many others have appriaised it and found it simplistic, unrealistic, and downright foolish. As Christopher Hitchens said "I don't think the problem is that Americans aren't being selfish ENOUGH."
@Estragon17 Actually, Rand predicted our current political and economic climate. We're almost heading to that point where corporations are allowed to regulate free speech under the guise of a bullshit anti-piracy law. Rand was ahead of her time, and her works are as relevant today as they were when they came out. In fact, they're more relevant.
What, you mean economic crisis due to deregulation and nice, honest, self interested bankers who gave out bad loans, bundled and sold them over and over, and thus nearly destroyed the economy? Also, remind me exactly how your free speech is controlled by anti-piracy laws when you aren't using copyrighted materials. Frankly, while there are serious problems Rand's predictions seem of a piece with the constant prophecies of the Rapture and the Anti-Christ.
The economic crisis is the result of regulation. If we deregulated, we would not be in an economic crisis. Free market = no economic crisis. We don't have a free market. We're leaning toward socialism. In regards to your incredibly ignorant statement regarding not using copyrighted materials: corporations intentionally disregard fair use and try to pull any video that doesn't paint their, for example, movie, in the greatest light. That's where you get censorship. Fuck you, you corporatist prick.
Sub prime mortgages, bundled selling of bad debts over and over again.. these were caused by regulation? If the free market = no economic crisis, then explain black friday. That is when we STARTED regulating the markets BECAUSE of that economic crisis.
So, basically your rant is that you don't have free speech on a corporate owned server that you choose to use after signing off on their terms of use? Thats not freedom of speech, pal.. and less regulation won't solve that.
@Estragon17 Again, SOPA would allow corporations to pull videos off of PERSONAL websites. Also, FAIR USE? Have you ever heard of that concept? Corporations ignore fair use to get rid of anything that makes their product look bad. Look up SOPA and stop being a dumbass.
Corporations won't let you post videos against their products on corporate owned video websites, and you think that is a freedom of speech issue? You think THAT is where censorship comes from? And further... you think the solution to that is LESS regulation on corporations? And then you want to call ME a "corporatist prick"? I thought you liked corporations. Or did it just skip your mind that they would have freedom in Objectivist capitalism, too?
@Estragon17 If SOPA passes, they'll be able to take videos off of websites that you own. Pull your head out of your ass, you corporatist prick. Regulations affect small businesses and BENEFIT corporations, you dumb fuck. You get rid of the regulations, it takes control AWAY from the corporations. You really don't know jack shit.
You are talking about one single regulation.. which has not even been passed. There are numerous regulations that DO constrain corporate power. You think small businesses will make corporations just go away in your mythical free market? Keep dreaming. And while I don't agree with SOPA, being a generator of original copyrighted content (thats right... I actually DO produce a product) I am far from willing to just throw out all regulation of copyrighted materials.
@Estragon17 In a free market, your business is controlled by consumers and owned by businessmen. In our current market, the business is controlled by the government and owned by businesmen who have little control. Under socialism, the government would control AND own businesses. The free market is best for businessmen and consumers. Socialism is not good for anyone.
Actually, businesses are not controlled that thoroughly by government and the role of consumers as to what is sold and who stays in business or goes under is still intact. Businessmen still have a great deal of control of their companies. I'm not arguing for Socialism. I'm just arguing against unfettered capitalism, which we have seen in the past and unlike all the theories about how it would be was not very good for consumers or workers.
The best economies in our current climate are the ones with the freest markets. Like Switzerland, Hong Kong, etc. Even Sweden has been edging toward free market medicine. So, I don't know where you get the idea that the government should be in charge of as much as they currently are. The health care thing we've got going? That ain't working. Making health care MORE socialized would fuck it up even more. We should be given options and allowed to choose which private doctors would care for us.
Making health care more socialized (its not very socialized now for most people) would fuck it up even more? How so? Britain has had the National Health for over half a century now and it seems to work pretty well. You want options and to be allowed to choose which doctors care for you? I'd love to have that, too... but see, I, like many others have an insurance company that keeps me from doing that.
@Estragon17 Under a free market, you'd get to have a choice. If you wish insurance, you'd get to choose what works best for you. Under our current corporate-run government, you don't have that choice. Free market takes the power away from the corporations and gives you a choice. The best health care system is not a socialized system, it is a system with choice. Free market health care IS the best health care.
@Pukegragon, alexshrugged, et al...you are not just an idiot, but an EXTREME idiot...IT HAS happened already, numerous times (Now think...I know this hurts...remember WWII?...Do you know where Ayn Rand is from?...)...OUCH!!!!...you moral equivalents are boring....Capitalism IS better than Socialism....nuf said...now shut up, eat your breakfast, and get ready for kindergarten!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@AlexShrugged Can we live in reality instead of these faux imaginary situations you libertarians pull out of your ass? Thanks. It will never happen in America so who gives a fuck about impossible speculations?
@JLoveBomb It's already happening in America. It started with the slow process of health care being desecrated, now they're trying to move on to free speech by trying to pass a law allowing corporations to control what people say under the guise of an absurd "anti-piracy" law. Ayn Rand was way ahead of her time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@AlexShrugged And you can try to convince people in third-world nations that sociialist healthcare is bad, but it fucking isn't. And that is that, you pea-brained Americanized brainwashed objectivist. Your way will never work in a society that needs both capitalism and socialism to survive.
@JLoveBomb Those third world nations you describe are socialist, so your hypothesis has zero basis in reality. Socialism is an affront to progress. You are the one who is brainwashed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@AlexShrugged You know what dude? Fuck your libertarian bullshit, and you're "oh look up these statistics because correlation and causality are the same fucking thing". No, I won't look up your stupid stats, which can be manipulated to show privatization of healthcare works, when it doesn't. Healthcare is not the same as, say, potholes in a road.
@JLoveBomb Those that choose to ignore how things work will always deal in ignorance. By rejecting facts, objective thinking, and rational mindset, you are willingly accepting that you have no idea what you're talking about, and have no assertion to being correct.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@AlexShrugged I don't need to. I've already lived in a socialized health care nation. You might not be seen by a doctor quite as fast, but you WILL be seeb, and that's what matters to those whom are dying.
@JLoveBomb That is fundamentally stupid. You think that people who need immediate treatment should be forced to wait in a socialized system? Tell people in socialist countries that socialism is better for health care, and they'll spit in your face for being such a moron.
general refutation of objectivism: a modernmultinational corporation, as a private, immortal, amoral, objectivist entity, has proven that no good can possible come of objectivism.
proof: PROFIT =[ACCUMULATION, MATERIAL WEALTH]; CHARITY = [WEALTH OF OTHERS]
PROFIT != CHARITY => !CHARITY == PROFIT, ==> PROFIT comes at the cost of CHARITY
justifying the greatest human flaw by praising it as the greatest human aspiration is the pastime of the rich, QED. Greed is Good, Might makes Right.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@RalucadnelpS Being a retard, that couldn't comprehend the simplicity of objectivism, is for retards that can't comprehend how easy it is to understand and except its value that should be obvious to rational men. Thats common sense.
**The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?"
Socialism is bad. You don't have to agree with everything ayn rand ever said or did to get that. And if you don't get that, well, i hope you die of cancer.
@pukedragon To a degree, yes. But saying Capitalism is better than Socialism is like saying a kick in the shin is better than a kick in the crotch. You might technically be right, but at the end of the day you're still walking funny.
@jme6141994 Well, I'd rather take neither and work on a system that doesn't involve anyone getting kicked anywhere. Sadly that'll never happen though.
My absolute, favorite book. Howard Roark is a beautiful man. I hated the depiction of the sex scene in the movie. Dominique was such a useless, helpless creature. To cry? Agh.
SculptedThoughts 1 month ago 6
LOL I love the book, hated the movie, & laughed so hard at this video, thank you!
pauseTV 1 month ago 15
Hilarious
mzhivago925 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks to the Issaac Baranoff guy, I now know there is a scary strain of facism in all the Libertarian/Ayn Rand philosophy.
Every comment that disagrees with HIS opinion is spammed or gets negative votes. Can't have rational debate can we? No, if we openly & honestly discuss, majority would see the error of free market philosophy
katemccloudy 2 months ago
@katemccloudy That's not how it works. You'll ultimately find that trolling me is a waste of time.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff You'll ultimately find that comments by people whom you've flagged for spam with your multiple accounts, aren't going to disappear, & that flagging them all is ultimately a waste of time
tomrees82 1 month ago
Actually, this video's pretty accurate. The triumph of the will, Nietzsche, objectivism, etc.
TheForwardGaze 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ayn Rand was a stupid crank.
aquaticape68 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
33 people don't believe in architecture.
hpshovecraft 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will SOMEONE who knows something about Ayn Rand please watch the following short video and respond? If you find something wrong, please spell out what it is.
youtube.com/watch?v=tjQeeRn6kW0
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well! No need to read the book now.
WhateverSTK 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
N!ggers
StropewafelBWC 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh, and the only system in which you can have a "truly" free society is where there are no cops so I can kill anybody who doesn't understand at least enlightenment-era political philosophy.
DeadlyGrim 3 months ago
@DeadlyGrim You sound like a psychopath. No rational person would kill at will, even if there were no legal enforcement against it. You confuse liberty with anarchism.
IsaacBaranoff 3 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff really? not even if the person you're killing has a really nice pair of shoes and you want em? how does it go against my rational self interest to kill him and take those fine shoes of his? i mean these are some really nice goddamn shoes we're talking about.
joemammasboy 3 months ago
@joemammasboy There's nothing rational about murder OR theft. What you describe is NOT rational self-interest. It's psychosis, plain and simple.
IsaacBaranoff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff you didn't answer my question. try this one on for size dipshit, HOW is it irrational to murder and steal if you will benefit by it and there will be no legal ramifications? inhumane yes, irrational, i don't think so, and of the two of us you're supposed to be the rational self interest man. so clue me in.
joemammasboy 3 months ago in playlist Liked
@joemammasboy Immoral would be the word, and those lacking basic morality are not rational.
IsaacBaranoff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff basic morality? you say it like it's so easy and obvious, and how would you define basic morality? because it seems to me that all of our "basic morality" has come down to us from a mixed heritage of unfounded religious and ethical traditions. there is no rational reason not to be the worst kind of selfish monster so we've held ourselves in check with irrational reasons like "it's immoral" that's just the kind of thinking your precious ayn rand so vehemently hated.
joemammasboy 3 months ago in playlist Liked
@joemammasboy Yes, there is. Rationality involves not involving others in what you do not want to be asked of you. Is that simple enough for a mind of your kind? Or, you would legitimately come across as a scumbag if I didn't know that you are trolling. Go away.
IsaacBaranoff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff oh, and out of curiosity, i'm interested in You're oppinion on this: william edward hickman, does he fall within your parameters of "basic morality" or not? would you say, judging (a thing rand always advocated doing) from his actions, that hickman had a "beautiful soul" like she said.
joemammasboy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff what's the matter you sorry little prick? got nothing left to say? i was just starting to enjoy myself
joemammasboy 3 months ago in playlist Liked
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff did you know rand once wrote articles ardently defending a man who had murdered and dismembered a little girl, because he "was his own man" and later based elements of her fictional howard roark on him? doesn't sound like she was such a solid adherent to this "basic morality" idea of yours
joemammasboy 3 months ago in playlist Liked
@joemammasboy Do some more research, dumbass. She thought that the guy was a degenerate. The not-giving-a-fuck aspect was the only element that she used to create her character. Shoo, fly.
IsaacBaranoff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff i have done research. as far as she was concerned he was being tried by creatures with "worse sins and crimes in there own lives" than hickman himself. (her words not mine) sound like she wouldn't seat murder at the top of any "basic morality" schema. but i look forward to your next post, the one where you'll boo hoo about how i've taken it out of context and say i don't understand anything
joemammasboy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff What if I could kill the person in such a way that the chance of me being caught versus the value of the goods I could get from killing them balanced out in favor of killing them? Surely, then, that would be rational?
DeadlyGrim 3 months ago
@DeadlyGrim No, it's still murder. Being an atheist does not give one a free pass on murder. It's still wrong.
IsaacBaranoff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff Who said anything about atheism?
DeadlyGrim 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Not anarchism... chaos.
Estragon17 2 months ago
Gorram, I love old-school black and white design. The use of light and shadow is really awesome.
DeadlyGrim 3 months ago
Free market capitalism is the only system in which you can have a truly free society. The problems that we face today are the result of corporatism/crony capitalism, the extreme left, the extreme right, and big government. We need small government, no regulations, low taxes, freedom in private business and liberty for all.
IsaacBaranoff 3 months ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff no regulations? as in what exactly? do we get to hire asian sweatshop workers for pennies an hour? or better yet, do we get to abolish the minimum wage? (that's a state imposed regulation isnt it?) or how about overturning child labor? (the state shouldn't have any right to keep seven year olds from working in factories) or hell why not just reinstate slavery, get rid of the fourteenth ammendment, that's nothing but the government interfering with the economy isnt it?
joemammasboy 3 months ago
@joemammasboy Thank you for the utterly stupid and useless commentary. It's clear that you have no understanding how the world works. We don't have these things because of a basic sense of humanity. It's your type of limited intelligence that allowed for these things in the first place.
IsaacBaranoff 3 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff "we don't have these things because of a basic sense of humanity" true enough, and yet the black people in this country are free, children can't work in dangerous factories, and no legal employee in this country can draw less than minimum wage, all of which serve to make america a more humane place. so educate me, what libertarian, free market incentive was it that was responsible for all these good developments?
joemammasboy 3 months ago
@joemammasboy Humanity; it wouldn't be libertarianism without it. Piss off, troll.
IsaacBaranoff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
So, basically, we need magic.
AdNeeb 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff Anyone who deals in absolutes, leaves no room for growth. Nothing is eternally the best or only, unless it is a scientific natural law. An economic system is a subjective theory. It works on paper flawlessly just as communism works on paper. No regulations? Nuclear power, national borders, agricultural disease from migration, and on and on and on. Property rights being enforced is regulation.
rlidrazzah 3 months ago in playlist More videos from mistersmed
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff Actually, that is wrong.
SomethingRules 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff The word free and market is a contradiction in terms , just as CAPITAL enslaves and exploites WAGE LABOR . The dynamics of World Capitalism whether Corporate dominated or State dictated is the abstract PROCESS of CAPITAL ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION. This abstract process is not smooth or linear but DESTRUCTIVE and enforced by MILLITARY MIGHT. The INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION was underpinned by build up of the BRITISH NAVY and US DOLLAR by world wide millitary bases
tomrees82 2 months ago
@tomrees82 That's not capitalism. Try again.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
Egoism is the way , the truth and life.
larsiemannen 3 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Not enough rape or clunky speaches about how awesome being selfish is.
angrydead 3 months ago
Eh, everything else is just filler.
TheGyromorgian 4 months ago
Cliff's Notes, eat your heart out!
SNight322 4 months ago
I would be surprised if liberals got more out of The Foutainhead.
MrOperettalover 4 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrOperettalover
I would be surprised if many conservatives have actually read the Fountainhead or any of Rand's other tomes.
Estragon17 3 months ago 6
@Estragon17, agree. Both parties are a bunch of clueless morons.
MrOperettalover 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Estragon17 Yeah, I thought this, too, as reading doesn't usually seem to be a really high priority for many on the right. But then I decided that this was perhaps a little unfair. I think some probably did actually read it, but just didn't understand what it said. And I'm almost positive that they weren't even able to recognize that in Shrugged, the psychology of the hero was based on that of a serial child rapist-killer she had been infatuated with in her earlier days. Obvious to the rational
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 That's false. Read what I wrote earlier.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 2
You all need to read "Individual Liberty" by Benjamin Tucker. None of you have a clue what capitalism and socialism really is. cripes.
ArcaneDemesne 5 months ago
Capitalism is not pro banks or corporations, it is anti government involvement in the economy. Without government backing, a corporation cannot force you to do anything.
g0ssage 5 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@g0ssage
Oh yes they can, especially if you work for them... without government regulation to prevent it. All you need to do is look at the history of capitalism before government regulation.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 In a Capitalist system you are free to quit.
g0ssage 2 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@g0ssage
True... but of course that depends on there being a better job to be found somewhere else. Given the low wages paid before regulations you would need that job pretty quick. Basically, you present a simple option that in reality is far from simple and doesn't guarantee you won't just end up with the same or a different kind of oppression. Imagine for a moment if you wanted to quit but were paid in scrip for the company store, not in actual money, and you lived in company housing.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Never said simple. I said that you are not forced by the corporation to stay. You prefer being stuck in that job that doesn't pay much rather than going out to look for another job or even starting your own business, one where you would pay your employees as much as you think they're worth and not what some bureaucrat tells you to. The reason why there are no jobs is simple: Labor it's too expensive, and like any other product or service, demand goes down. Thanks minimum wage!
g0ssage 2 months ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@g0ssage
Look for another job that pays better? good luck. Start your own business? with what money? Pay your workers what you think they're worth? Yeah, we've seen what the market thinks most labor is worth.. as little as they can get away with paying them. It isn't the minimum wage, which is around the poverty level and was flat for a long time compared to inflation that caused our lack of jobs. It gives people more buying power than even lower wages and is thus good for the economy
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 In a free market, it would be much easier to start businesses. You could grow food out of your own back yard and sell it, and not be carted off to jail for doing something you are in your own right to do.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Actually, people can and do do that right now. We don't have food regulations just for the government to spoil your good time, but to actually protect consumers from tainted foods. Yes, we still do get cases of tainted foods and there are problems with the system, one being that it is woefully underfunded/staffed, but overall you buy food, you know it is what it says it is and that it should be safe. Take a little time and research what life was really like before regulations.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 If the regulations don't protect anyone, your argument for endorsing them is flawed. You fail again.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Who said they don't protect anyone? There are occasional failings, yes, but that doesn't mean they don't protect anyone. Food is generally far safer than it was in the early 20th century... and thats not because of the free market.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Food is NOT safer because of regulations. Food is safer because we know more today about, for example, hygiene. We wash our hands more. We're continuing to learn more about handling food. Food is NOT safer because of regulations. We don't need the government to play nanny to us. Your fault is in presuming that everyone who prepares food is as stupid as you are.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Well, you are factually wrong. Look at the meat industry, for example. In fact, go read The Jungle. Its not about washing your hands or about simply the preparation of food. Its about what happens to those foods when they are made and packaged. Perhaps you can share with everyone exactly what YOU think solved the problems we used to have in our food industry and why we started regulating the food industry in the first place.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Businessmen want to produce products that keep people buying food, thus producing profits for them. If you produce products that kill people, people won't buy your product, because they'll read consumer reports about the products which kill the businesses. Regulations benefit CORPORATIONS, not people.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
It doesn't have to kill them to be an unsafe product, and when it is standard practice for the industry as a whole and there is no compulsory labeling, there really is little chance for people to make a real choice. Where will they read these consumer reports, exactly? Who will write them? Who will defend them from the numerous lawsuits from food companies? People will obviously do research on every food product they buy beforehand. Once again, go look at the actual history.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Doing research on the food you purchase eliminates the need for regulations on food. You act is if I do not eat. I am a human being, remember? I need to eat and drink in order to survive. And I don't want to eat food that will cause me harm. And I still say that we don't need the government to play nanny to us. Because I am not an adult infant. If someone is stupid, that is their own fault, it is your own fault for being ignorant, and the government should not be responsible.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff tell me... what kind of research do you do on the food you eat? Do you do research to see if they have had problems with foreign matter in their packages? How about the fecal content of your meat? The number of maggots that are blended up in your orange juice? Where do you research all of this? Who puts out this information? Would they have access to the data if it were not for regulations about record keeping and such? Better yet, what contaminants are in your tap water?
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Your problem, again, is assuming that people are as incompetent as you are. Most businessmen are not incompetent are evil. The ones that are incompetent or evil don't survive. Piss off and don't come back until you understand how things work.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Businessmen don't tend to be the ones actually manufacturing the food or packaging it... nor do they necessarily inspect and oversee every single aspect of their businesses on a regular basis.. they delegate that.
You claim I don't understand how things work, but you are speaking from the perspective of theory... I'm speaking from the perspective of actual history and the actual functioning of actual capitalism... not theory.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 I own a business. I want to manufacture and promote food with my company's logos and original artwork on the packaging. Only thing is, I want my food to have cannabis in it. Under government regulations, this is illegal, and since I cannot produce food with cannabis in it, I do not want to produce food, because the product would fail without the cannabis. Fuck your regulations.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
And yet... what if instead of canabis it were Heroin or crack? Also, really? Cannabis isn't illegal because of FOOD regulations but because of drug regulations. Finding one regulation that you disagree with doesn't mean all regulations are then bad.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Why do you automatically make the jump from cannabis to heroin or crack? I am not aware of either of those being considered to be particularly tasty, even among drug addicts. Drug issues are not a government problem, they are a health issue. The government has no responsibility over enforcing restrictions on ANYTHING, even harmful things. Drug prohibition is the most expensive waste of money since ALCOHOL prohibition. And we all know how that worked out.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Okay.. how about Morphine or cocaine, which were widely used in patent medicines for years. I will mostly agree with you on the drug issue, but drug regulations are not food regulations. HUGE difference.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 There is no difference between any regulations. As far as food regulations, you can read consumer reports and choose not to purchase items at your own discretion. In a free market, you are given wider choice and are able to spend your money or not any way you please, because it is your own money. As far as drug regulation, I don't drink alcohol, and I don't use drugs. That's not going to change if they legalized everything, which is the only way to stop the prohibition nonsense.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 6
Oh, and did you know that the regulation of guns was created so that the former slaves wouldn't have guns? Gun control is racist. That's something that Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" intentionally did not tell you.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Well, no, the origins of some gun control were racist in the reconstruction era. To try to then paint all gun control as being inherently racist based on that is intellectually dishonest.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Gun control is unconstitutional and wrong. We should have the right to be able to protect ourselves, even if we're not all gun purchasers. I don't own any guns, but if I wanted to, I should be able to.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Actually, gun ownership is only guaranteed in the Constitution subject to the needs of a 'well-regulated militia". Basically, if you're part of the National Guard, they won't take away your Kentucky rifle.
Sylderon 2 months ago
@Sylderon Your spin is false: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
@IsaacBaranoff
How can I spin something by repeating exactly what it says?
Sylderon 2 months ago
@Sylderon It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Yes, and qualifies that right by stating it is for "the maintenance of a well-regulated militia", rather than for any explicit personal use. Why would they even put said qualifying phrase in there if they didn't want it to mean something? By bringing in the original text, you are effectively negating your own argument, and while I commend you for doing so, it rather takes all the fun out of it for me.
Sylderon 2 months ago
@Sylderon It says that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stop with the spin. /watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Again, I am merely quoting the text of the Constitution verbatim, adding not the slightest spin. I am only stating what is there, and pointing out that you are relying on what is not there. You have yet to answer my question, which makes me think you have no answer; or, perhaps, you're simply in denial, which would certainly explain your vehement repetion. Do you even know what a qualifying statement is?
Sylderon 2 months ago
@Sylderon I am repeating myself because you don't seem to understand the words that I am stating even though their meaning is very clear. The constitution doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it specifies the PEOPLE. The people who wrote the constitution had been fighting a war against state militia for two years. It says that the militia can't take away the right of the people.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
I understand what you are saying, just as you clearly do not understand early American history. The 'militia' you speak of was fighting against the Redcoats. The Founding Fathers, Jefferson chief among them, felt that standing armies (such as the British had, occupying the Colonies) were a potential instrument of tyranny (I wonder how they could've reached that conclusion?) They felt that the new nation needed to be defended, but by a volunteer army, the 'well regulated militia'.
Sylderon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Reading the Constitution, you might see that it mentions Congress creating a Navy, but not an Army. This was meant to be the Army, an army of volunteers, of citizen soldiers fighting to defend not their commander, but their homes and farms and shops. Your contention, about the militia taking away a right of the people (that is, the militia taking away the right of its own members) is not just reading between the lines: It's reading the coffee stains on the other side of paper.
Sylderon 2 months ago
@Sylderon I am clearly stating what the second Amendment actually says, and you're trying to interpret clear language that says that the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. You're asserting that the founding fathers wanted a strongarm control over the American people despite the fact that the revolution started because they didn't want to be strongarmed by the British. You clearly don't understand this.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
I'm interpreting clear language based on what it actually says, along with a knowledge of the historical context in which it was written, something that you seem to lack. You are only stating half of the amendment, while ignoring the rest. The authors didn't put in filler material; every word put in there was carefully considered and has meaning. So I ask you, what is the meaning of the qualifying phrase "well-regulated militia"? Do you even have an explanation for it?
Sylderon 2 months ago
@Sylderon Those are two separate sentences. "A well regulated militia is needed" and "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There is a comma separate one half of the amendment from the other. I posted a link to a video explaining it, perhaps you did not watch it. Here: /watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff So can you explain to me why the average American needs military grad weapons to defend himself? I believe in defending my property against criminals, but I don't need a fully automatic machine gun to do it and neither does anyone else.
StarlordEPhiE 1 month ago
@StarlordEPhiE I never said that. I just expressed a dislike of gun control.
IsaacBaranoff 1 month ago
@IsaacBaranoff unless you believe convicted felons, the mentally ill, and children should have unrestricted access to guns, you are a supporter of gun control.
orchidtender 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff I think that the kinds of weapons that we have today, and the question of whether or not to restrict or register there ownership is not unconstitutional, but "non" constitutional. Unprepared for by the constitution, and outside the 'scope' of the constitution. The same goes for the question of having a national military, and Air force. Etc.
standinstann 4 weeks ago
@IsaacBaranoff It's not "wrong" per se. I don't think the government should be the ones doing the controlling. But communities should have control over who gets guns and who doesn't. Easy-to-get guns lead to the wrong people having guns, it's just a fact. But it should be a democratic board that decides and reviews applications for guns, under the control of the people. Thats also how I think the police should be administered.
dalellll 1 week ago
@dalellll If you think democratic boards should control gun sales, then your problem isn't with the government, it's with lack of government transparency. That's a huge difference.
Oh, and a comma is a very weak separation as it separates clauses that are still related. If I told you "For the purposes of buying us food, here's $300", I would be very upset if you spent the money on drugs and hookers.
DeadlyGrim 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Really, you Randians DO realize that we had a rather goodly period of non-regulated capitalism in our past, right? And you do realize it didn't result in utopia but in massive poverty, oppression, unsafe working conditions, unsafe food supplies, low wages, etc.. etc.. etc..., right? That is not opinion. That is historical fact.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 No progress occurred as the result of regulation. Regulation IMPEDES progress. We would all do better without the government telling us what to do. The government should not be responsible for controlling business, speech, or anything else. The government's job is to make sure someone doesn't bomb the shit out of us, NOT to tell businessmen how to do business. Businessmen can do that well enough on their own. You don't have a CLUE about anything you're talking about.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@g0ssage Minimum wage today is 7.25 an hour. Whose work, exactly, do you think is worth less than that? If their work is that worthless, why the hell would you keep them on in the first place? You seriously need to do some research on the history of labor and labor practices, not just theory but actual history.
Estragon17 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@g0ssage
However, could it also be that demand goes down because people don't have money to spend? After all, the wages that one takes home don't just disappear, it is spent on products and services. Less money to spend, demand goes down.
Sylderon 2 months ago
Ha, okay, that wasn't what I was expecting, I was amused :)
Buffoon1980 6 months ago
I found this very hard to masturbate to...
gracebasherguy92 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Being an asshole is not as good as being kind.
jewellstar3 8 months ago
that's damn funny!... and to think i invested all that time reading it.
EarthPulseTechnologi 8 months ago
Ayn Rand is a genius !!
americanfirst31 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@americanfirst31 if by genius you mean batshit insane sociopath with extreme contempt for her fellow human beings.
Bobbiethejean 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Bobbiethejean And a really creepy rape fetish...
Maphysto 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@americanfirst31
Well, she certainly can come up with some great fiction... namely that the free market will solve all our problems and that the wealthiest all got there through their own heroic work ethic and brilliance with no help from their workers or the government, but in fact in spite of them inexplicably trying to keep them from succeeding at all.
Estragon17 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Estragon17 And because you want the government to do everything, including wipe your ass, you are against those that can achieve on their own. You have nothing to say here.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ayn Rand is shit.
pl3bian 8 months ago
@pukedragon...as Ayn stated clearly numerous times, and as is the foundation for ANY theory/hypothesis..."it depends on what your premise is" i.e. it depends on where you start...no?...your premise sucks...therefore we have nothing to discuss (although I like your little equal signs'n stuff...)
MrEdgarCayce 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrEdgarCayce
Yes, and part of Ayn's premise was that anyone who wasn't wealthy and wasn't one of her fictional epic heroes simply didn't count at all. Her premise sucked and she was a fucking monster... and a hypocrite.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Ayn Rand's writing was about possessing objective, rational thinking, which you certainly lack. Capitalism does not equal "anyone who isn't wealthy doesn't count". Capitalism benefits those with worth. If you do not put effort into producing a quality product that people want, you will not be benefited by capitalism. This is the sole reason why you criticize capitalism, and your lack of reason is your reason for criticizing Rand. Piss off.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Yes, but not all of us can produce products or be dynamic business owners. Some of us have to work for others. It may seem to you that allowing those who work hard for a living but are not heroic Randian millionaires to be exploited and kept in poverty is objective, rational thinking, but it doesn't quite seem that way to me. Its not a lack of reason you see.. its the presence of actual compassion for people who work their lives away to make others rich.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 You're lazy and stupid. The problem is in you being too lazy and stupid to make a living. Capitalism allows you the right to be lazy and stupid. Under capitalism, you have the choice to only do enough to get by. You don't have that choice under socialism, in which you're slaving to make the government rich. Piss off.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
I'm lazy and stupid? Well, I can certainly tell you must be brilliant and dilligent yourself, given your constant name calling. Too lazy and stupid to make a living? So, those who are not born intelligent deserve to be punished for it by working their whole lives for poverty level wages? And who ever said this was a question of capitalism or socialism with no other options? I, like many others, simply want fair wages for the hard work of the non-wealthy.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Under capitalism, you do get fair wages. A "fair wage" is a wage that supports the cost of hiring a person to work. Yourself alone with no tool will not produce anything, but if you are given the tool to produce, do you expect to be paid more than the person who produced or paid for the tool is being paid? There's no profit that way. Most people understand that. You don't. If you understood how the world works, you wouldn't slam capitalism.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Obviously thats under Rand's fantasy capitalism, not real capitalism. Otherwise people wouldn't make so little working for businesses that are making tons of money off of them. I understand that those who start businesses and run them will make more than their workers, but that doesn't mean workers should be paid poverty-level wages. I'm not slamming capitalism... just Rand's interpretation of it and the idea that the free market automatically solves all problems.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Capitalism is the exchange of goods and services without enforcement or restriction from any party. Where you are not forced to buy anything in any method, or forced to sell anything in any specific method, where you can do business as you want freely, and your business survives on the merit of your product. Rand's interpretation of capitalism is correct, you just don't know what the word "capitalism" means.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Way to intentionally miss the point.
That would be a DEFINITION of capitalism you posted there... not her interpretation of capitalism. Her interpretation goes a bit deeper than simply a description of the basic system itself. Being a Randian, you should know that.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 You don't have a point. You're mouthing off about something that you don't know anything about.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Well, clearly I don't have a point... after all, I disagree with you, one of the Randian Ubermenschen.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Rand's philosophy is called Objectivism. Objectivists are followers of her philosophy who share her beliefs on capitalism, atheism, morality, etc. Not everybody agrees with everything she said, and so not everyone who appraises her works is an Objectivist. That catchphrase you toss around, "Randian", means nothing, because it has no relationship to reality.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Rand's writings, then, mean nothing, because they have no relationship to reality.
Obviously not everyone who appraises her work is an Objectivist. I and many others have appriaised it and found it simplistic, unrealistic, and downright foolish. As Christopher Hitchens said "I don't think the problem is that Americans aren't being selfish ENOUGH."
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Actually, Rand predicted our current political and economic climate. We're almost heading to that point where corporations are allowed to regulate free speech under the guise of a bullshit anti-piracy law. Rand was ahead of her time, and her works are as relevant today as they were when they came out. In fact, they're more relevant.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
What, you mean economic crisis due to deregulation and nice, honest, self interested bankers who gave out bad loans, bundled and sold them over and over, and thus nearly destroyed the economy? Also, remind me exactly how your free speech is controlled by anti-piracy laws when you aren't using copyrighted materials. Frankly, while there are serious problems Rand's predictions seem of a piece with the constant prophecies of the Rapture and the Anti-Christ.
Estragon17 2 months ago
The economic crisis is the result of regulation. If we deregulated, we would not be in an economic crisis. Free market = no economic crisis. We don't have a free market. We're leaning toward socialism. In regards to your incredibly ignorant statement regarding not using copyrighted materials: corporations intentionally disregard fair use and try to pull any video that doesn't paint their, for example, movie, in the greatest light. That's where you get censorship. Fuck you, you corporatist prick.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Sub prime mortgages, bundled selling of bad debts over and over again.. these were caused by regulation? If the free market = no economic crisis, then explain black friday. That is when we STARTED regulating the markets BECAUSE of that economic crisis.
So, basically your rant is that you don't have free speech on a corporate owned server that you choose to use after signing off on their terms of use? Thats not freedom of speech, pal.. and less regulation won't solve that.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Again, SOPA would allow corporations to pull videos off of PERSONAL websites. Also, FAIR USE? Have you ever heard of that concept? Corporations ignore fair use to get rid of anything that makes their product look bad. Look up SOPA and stop being a dumbass.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
Corporations won't let you post videos against their products on corporate owned video websites, and you think that is a freedom of speech issue? You think THAT is where censorship comes from? And further... you think the solution to that is LESS regulation on corporations? And then you want to call ME a "corporatist prick"? I thought you liked corporations. Or did it just skip your mind that they would have freedom in Objectivist capitalism, too?
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 If SOPA passes, they'll be able to take videos off of websites that you own. Pull your head out of your ass, you corporatist prick. Regulations affect small businesses and BENEFIT corporations, you dumb fuck. You get rid of the regulations, it takes control AWAY from the corporations. You really don't know jack shit.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaacBaranoff
You are talking about one single regulation.. which has not even been passed. There are numerous regulations that DO constrain corporate power. You think small businesses will make corporations just go away in your mythical free market? Keep dreaming. And while I don't agree with SOPA, being a generator of original copyrighted content (thats right... I actually DO produce a product) I am far from willing to just throw out all regulation of copyrighted materials.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 In a free market, your business is controlled by consumers and owned by businessmen. In our current market, the business is controlled by the government and owned by businesmen who have little control. Under socialism, the government would control AND own businesses. The free market is best for businessmen and consumers. Socialism is not good for anyone.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Actually, businesses are not controlled that thoroughly by government and the role of consumers as to what is sold and who stays in business or goes under is still intact. Businessmen still have a great deal of control of their companies. I'm not arguing for Socialism. I'm just arguing against unfettered capitalism, which we have seen in the past and unlike all the theories about how it would be was not very good for consumers or workers.
Estragon17 2 months ago
The best economies in our current climate are the ones with the freest markets. Like Switzerland, Hong Kong, etc. Even Sweden has been edging toward free market medicine. So, I don't know where you get the idea that the government should be in charge of as much as they currently are. The health care thing we've got going? That ain't working. Making health care MORE socialized would fuck it up even more. We should be given options and allowed to choose which private doctors would care for us.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@IsaacBaranoff
Making health care more socialized (its not very socialized now for most people) would fuck it up even more? How so? Britain has had the National Health for over half a century now and it seems to work pretty well. You want options and to be allowed to choose which doctors care for you? I'd love to have that, too... but see, I, like many others have an insurance company that keeps me from doing that.
Estragon17 2 months ago
@Estragon17 Under a free market, you'd get to have a choice. If you wish insurance, you'd get to choose what works best for you. Under our current corporate-run government, you don't have that choice. Free market takes the power away from the corporations and gives you a choice. The best health care system is not a socialized system, it is a system with choice. Free market health care IS the best health care.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago
@Pukegragon, alexshrugged, et al...you are not just an idiot, but an EXTREME idiot...IT HAS happened already, numerous times (Now think...I know this hurts...remember WWII?...Do you know where Ayn Rand is from?...)...OUCH!!!!...you moral equivalents are boring....Capitalism IS better than Socialism....nuf said...now shut up, eat your breakfast, and get ready for kindergarten!
MrEdgarCayce 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AlexShrugged Can we live in reality instead of these faux imaginary situations you libertarians pull out of your ass? Thanks. It will never happen in America so who gives a fuck about impossible speculations?
Next question please.
JLoveBomb 8 months ago
@JLoveBomb It's already happening in America. It started with the slow process of health care being desecrated, now they're trying to move on to free speech by trying to pass a law allowing corporations to control what people say under the guise of an absurd "anti-piracy" law. Ayn Rand was way ahead of her time.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AlexShrugged And you can try to convince people in third-world nations that sociialist healthcare is bad, but it fucking isn't. And that is that, you pea-brained Americanized brainwashed objectivist. Your way will never work in a society that needs both capitalism and socialism to survive.
JLoveBomb 8 months ago
@JLoveBomb Those third world nations you describe are socialist, so your hypothesis has zero basis in reality. Socialism is an affront to progress. You are the one who is brainwashed.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AlexShrugged You know what dude? Fuck your libertarian bullshit, and you're "oh look up these statistics because correlation and causality are the same fucking thing". No, I won't look up your stupid stats, which can be manipulated to show privatization of healthcare works, when it doesn't. Healthcare is not the same as, say, potholes in a road.
JLoveBomb 8 months ago
@JLoveBomb Those that choose to ignore how things work will always deal in ignorance. By rejecting facts, objective thinking, and rational mindset, you are willingly accepting that you have no idea what you're talking about, and have no assertion to being correct.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AlexShrugged I don't need to. I've already lived in a socialized health care nation. You might not be seen by a doctor quite as fast, but you WILL be seeb, and that's what matters to those whom are dying.
JLoveBomb 8 months ago
@JLoveBomb That is fundamentally stupid. You think that people who need immediate treatment should be forced to wait in a socialized system? Tell people in socialist countries that socialism is better for health care, and they'll spit in your face for being such a moron.
IsaacBaranoff 2 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I'm an architect Jim! Not a Jelly Sandwich!"
nbelsky 9 months ago
I wish I could remember how many times I was told or it was suggested to me that there was something I wanted to do that I would never succeed in.
People ate their words many times during my life.
fatkinson1954 9 months ago 4
general refutation of objectivism: a modernmultinational corporation, as a private, immortal, amoral, objectivist entity, has proven that no good can possible come of objectivism.
proof: PROFIT =[ACCUMULATION, MATERIAL WEALTH]; CHARITY = [WEALTH OF OTHERS]
PROFIT != CHARITY => !CHARITY == PROFIT, ==> PROFIT comes at the cost of CHARITY
justifying the greatest human flaw by praising it as the greatest human aspiration is the pastime of the rich, QED. Greed is Good, Might makes Right.
RalucadnelpS 9 months ago
@RalucadnelpS So you're arguing that is I make a profit, it means that I could have been more generous, but I chose not to?
shamgar001 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@shamgar001 objectivism is for jerks. that's science.
RalucadnelpS 8 months ago
@RalucadnelpS Good retort. Your powers of logic are astounding.
shamgar001 8 months ago
@RalucadnelpS Hahaha! I like this guy! He's funny!
NoremacNotroh 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@RalucadnelpS Being a retard, that couldn't comprehend the simplicity of objectivism, is for retards that can't comprehend how easy it is to understand and except its value that should be obvious to rational men. Thats common sense.
Sumdude54 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
**The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?"
notbestfriends 9 months ago
Needs moar clunky dialogue.
angrydead 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
still way too long
craig3410 9 months ago
Socialism is bad. You don't have to agree with everything ayn rand ever said or did to get that. And if you don't get that, well, i hope you die of cancer.
pukedragon 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pukedragon To a degree, yes. But saying Capitalism is better than Socialism is like saying a kick in the shin is better than a kick in the crotch. You might technically be right, but at the end of the day you're still walking funny.
Maphysto 10 months ago 18
@Maphysto I'll take the kick in the shins.
jme6141994 7 months ago
@jme6141994 Well, I'd rather take neither and work on a system that doesn't involve anyone getting kicked anywhere. Sadly that'll never happen though.
Maphysto 7 months ago
@Maphysto I was a soccer player when I was younger...lol