Ayn Rand - How To Read & Not To Write

Ayn Rand on how to penetrate intentionally unclear analysis with piercing logic. http://www.LibertyPen.com

Book: The Voice Of Reason
Publisher: Blackstone Audio Books
Buy it: http://www.blackstoneaudio.com/audiobook.cfm?id=5150

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• philosophy
• economics
• unclarity
• understanding
• Atlas
• Shrugged
• politics
• New
• York
• Times
• moral
• guidance
• special
• interests
• pressure
• groups
• problems
• solutions
• capitalism
• values
• competitive
• atomistic
• totalitarian
• government
• business
• euphemism
• voluntary
• choice
• envy
• cooperation
• independent
• individualism
• marketplace
• social
• outcomes
• rights
• Ford
• Stalin
• freedom
• democratically
• editorial
• universities
• altruism
• reality
• abundance
• individual

[classic7890]

Primary example and master of this elusive-Alinsky style speak?

.

Barack Hussein Obama

.

[dukef4]

great video!

[AnubisEye009]

@joedk325 Relying on someone else already? I recommend you reread when Dagny was in the Valley.

[joedk325]

Ayn Rand changed my life. Where is OUR John Galt?

[ElJefer]

The tragedy is that those who understand this video already agree with it, and those who don't won't agree because they don't understand

[benthejrporter]

"Is there a rational, post-modern and hermeneutic reason that the proposal vis-a-vis the aforementioned and notwithstranding conditions being appied that all included parties might support the declaration that the inquiery might be posed to ascertain the identitity of citzenship/Common Law existence of the individual known as John Galt?"... LOL! I could have filled the whole comments box with this stuff!

[JesseForgione]

@StudentOfObjectivism

I will concede that all my questions are retarded if you can manage to answer any one of them.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@JesseForgione Excuse me, we were talking about the right to use retaliatory violence. You are shifting the goalposts.

Anyway, like I said at the start of this long and pointless exchange, I'm not interested in debating the matter. You provoked me by accusing me of being a coward... I should have known better than to rise to it. Your questions are retarded and I simply cannot be bothered to explain things to you any longer. Now piss off.

[JesseForgione]

@StudentOfObjectivism

Competition to provide security and arbitration is not the same as "competition to commit violence."

Are you saying "if you do what the state does, the state should throw you in jail"?

What makes a particular use of force a crime?

Does it depend on whether the user of force is aggressing or retaliating?

Or does it depend on whether the user of force has permission from "the state"?

Do you define crime as violating someone's rights? Or as disobeying "the state"?

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@JesseForgione 'what is it about being free from competition that makes the state more objective instead of less?'

The use of violence is not a commodity like teacups or food: competition in violence is violence. If you want to compete in that then I damn sure want a state to throw your arse in jail.

[JesseForgione]

@StudentOfObjectivism

I said nothing about "individual policemen." You made the distinction between "private individuals" who do not have the right to retaliate, and "the state" which does. So as not to put words in your mouth I'll quote you exactly:

"it has a monopoly on the legal use of retaliatory force."

Do you think the state is made of something other than people?

And what is it about being free from competition that makes the state more objective instead of less?

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@JesseForgione Errrr.... excuse me, when did I say that individual policemen have the right to use retaliatory force? When did I say that there are some that have the right to retaliate against their aggressors and some that don't?

I don't know why I am even bothering with this argument. You're more interested in putting words in my mouth (creating straw men) than in thinking about your own retarded, arbitrary ideas. Like I said at the start, I don't consider your position worthy of response.