Is Rand Relevant?

http://www.aynrandcenter.org
http://www.arc-tv.com

Yaron Brook (President of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights) discusses Ayn Rands recent surge in popularity, as well as how the philosophical ethics espoused in Atlas Shrugged hold the key to solving today's economic crisis.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Institute
• Center
• for
• Individual
• Rights
• Yaron
• Brook
• Objectivism
• Rush
• Limbaugh
• Rick
• Santelli
• Atlas
• Shrugged
• Capitalism
• The
• Unknown
• Ideal
• Free
• Market
• Obama
• Financial
• Economic
• Crisis
• Economy

[SouthernContrarian]

Amen.

5stars

[Raykak]

In regards to social issues, yes. He is tolerable in economic issues.

[MrAdvancedAtheist]

@WhyMeMoFo Francisco and Ragnar also engage in terrorism and sabotage by destroying mines, port facilities and cargo ships. If the Occupy Wall Street people started to do that, Objectivists would call for their arrest and execution. I'll laugh if that happens and the perps post photos of themselves on the internet holding up copies of "Atlas Shrugged" as their manifesto.

[MrAdvancedAtheist]

Rand has become popular again, despite her nuttiness and confusions, because the progressive world view acts much like the way she portrays it and makes even less sense.

In a way, Randroids like the guy in the video with the speech impediment (and I can relate to that myself because I have trouble pronouncing R sounds in some words) engage in false advertising. I wish Rand really had written that knockout blow of a philosophy her cultists claim she did.

[kropotkinbeard1]

Marx is also selling more than ever.

[AkaiTsukiShimitsu]

@WhyMeMoFo So running away and not doing anything is "the" rational action to be commited... something tells me you wouldn't be too good as an activist n.nU (that's another real life example :D)

I am not sure, but I am starting to think you didn't read the book, for it do explains how the situations were in their entirety... like almost at the end. But it's only an assumption.

[AkaiTsukiShimitsu]

@WhyMeMoFo Rioting was his way of action based on his moral impulse... pretty much the same impulse you have every time you call him "domestic terrorist".

[AkaiTsukiShimitsu]

@WhyMeMoFo ... Sure you got the idea that the book is fiction, right?

Doing his own thing sounds good, but I shall ask you, what would you have done if you were in his same position, seeing a group of people trying to impose their own views over everybody, including himself... I normally would have expected riots, don't you? Seeing his actions, it was his own way of rioting. He was going to show everybody where they were wrong, even if that meant driving them to despair.

[AkaiTsukiShimitsu]

@WhyMeMoFo I would require specification about Galt being a domestic terrorist... I just don't get what a domestic terrorist is supposed to be.

Anyway... I would say I am not the best qualified for discussing this... have read the book, but haven't entered any discussion rooms or anything related.

So the only thing I can say is... you only saw one side of the picture?

[AkaiTsukiShimitsu]

@WhyMeMoFo My, I have not claimed that the philosophy was right. Why are you changing the burden of proof to me? If I am not trying to convert you, there is no reason why I should try to prove it. If you want "Rand" to prove it, her books are for that reason. If you don't agree on what she said, it's your opinion and desition, not mine. But if you want to disprove or critizise it, please do it as any other "not proven" ideology or phylosophy: with arguments.

[AkaiTsukiShimitsu]

@WhyMeMoFo Let me repeat myself, and this time slllooowwllly... I said "Gimme an argument, like the rest of the world does, and then I'll listen to you". Instead you have been bashing the philosophy with hatred. Please, if you have nothing interesting to say, could you do me the favor of not answering me back? I'd really appretiate that.

[AkaiTsukiShimitsu]

@WhyMeMoFo Quite funny, the fact that you call it a cult, using the word with such disdain as if it was a religion. That single word is quite some good evidence in favor of the idea that you are emotionally attacking the philosophy, instead of, you know, using rational arguments like the rest of the world do, with emphasis on scientific studies.