The Wisdom of Ayn Rand

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

She is really just a Marxist, and shares all the assumptions of a Marxist - she just happens to take the side against the proletariat.

[/quote]

One of the stupidest posts ever. You clearly and obviously don’t know JACK-SHIT about Objectivism.

To the OP - I’m an Objectivist but I found AS overly long and Fountainhead pretty dry. Couldn’t finish reading The Fountainhead, actually.

You’re right, all the shit in Atlas Shrugged is happening but the only thing is the “men of the mind” aren’t doing jack shit because they just can’t magically disappear like in the book.

182

597×869 45.5 KB

The Secret Reason Why Some Hate Ayn Rand (in her own words):

“From its start, this country was a threat to the ancient rule of mystics. In the brilliant rocket-explosion of its youth, this country displayed to an incredulous world what greatness was possible to man, what happiness was possible on earth. It was one or the other: America or mystics.” Atlas, p3, Ch7

Her ideas are a threat to the ideas they have ingested from the ‘rotted cultures of the looters’ continents’.

183

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

A secret about Thunder is that he fancies himself as a member of the ruling elite one day when he is all growed up. He hate freedom because it means he has no future.[/quote]

Yep - just got my Goldman Sachs/Illuminati decoder ring and let’s just say I am pretty excited about it.

184

[quote]saveski wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

She is really just a Marxist, and shares all the assumptions of a Marxist - she just happens to take the side against the proletariat.

[/quote]

One of the stupidest posts ever. You clearly and obviously don’t know JACK-SHIT about Objectivism.

To the OP - I’m an Objectivist but I found AS overly long and Fountainhead pretty dry. Couldn’t finish reading The Fountainhead, actually.

You’re right, all the shit in Atlas Shrugged is happening but the only thing is the “men of the mind” aren’t doing jack shit because they just can’t magically disappear like in the book.

[/quote]

One thing I always find amusing about die-hard Randians (snort) is that their posts are inevitably and liberally peppered with giddy, near-orgasmic, gleefully matter of fact statements asides regarding the prophetic nature of the novel, it’s perfect parallels to the NOW, and the coming apocalypse about to ensue (with the implication that they will be immune from all of the destruction and chaos because they all know the secret handshake that is only revealed at the end of the speech by John Galt (thus ensuring almost no one knows it).

The way I first was introduced to Rand and Atlas Shrugged, actually, was by stumbling on a survivalist website, set up in chapters, by Kurt Saxon, whom some of you will know as the author of The Poor Man’s James Bond. Well, his website seemed pretty interesting to a 19 year old college student just falling in love with philosophy and intellectualism and counter-culture, and I dove into his stuff with all of the passion and excitement you would expect of someone my age. Throughout his very interesting discourse, over and over, he would mention Atlas Shrugged and the coming destruction that had been perfectly predicted in its pages. Eventually, at least to my memory, what had started as a simple survivalist tract literally became a Road Warrior Mad Max Survival Guide, complete with gasoline wars, roadblocks, enemy warlords, and suggestions to learn to make wooden toys so you’d have a trade to ply in the coming new society.

Uhh, yeah. I’m serious.

I stopped reading around the point that I’d already seen the movies, but I went ahead and gave Atlas Shrugged a try. It was certainly not life-changing or much other than too damned long, and I can get through a long book (I read Stephen King’s The Stand original and uncut at that same time).

Anyway, anytime I see someone talk about how the events laid forth in the book are seeing their parallel in society today, and how The End Is Near! it always reminds me of the exact same stuff that Kurt Saxon kept saying over and over again in his kooky tract. And I think about how I read that 16 or 17 years ago, and it had almost certainly been written originally quite a few years before that.

Maybe when Jesus comes, he’ll have Ayn Rand with him, and ALL of us are gonna be like, “Damn, seriously?!”

185

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I guess a final question I have is simply that if a doctrine/institution is so compelling and good, why would it lose long term in an open market?[/quote]

Even the open market lost in itself. Being the people have rejected pure self-governance without the existence of a welfare state. [/quote]

This is a very fair observation and to be honest I don’t disagree with you. As a general rule, people do not like to be (that) free because it is scary and puts the onus on them to determine their lives.

Guys like Mises, Hayek and a lot of the existentialists like Sartre struck upon this same notion- men prefer to be semi-enslaved to take some of the decision making burden and responsibility for their own lives out of their hands. It is easy to blame something like a caste system for your fate than to blame yourself in a free world for not getting anywhere.

That said, the only issue I have with this line of reasoning is no matter what someone’s preferences are it still does not give them the right to force their own preferences on others via third party aggression (because libertarians DO NOT believe in moral relativism as a general rule). So even if someone thinks they would be happier to be a slave (to use some hyperbole) it doesn’t give them the right to force another into slavery.

Again though, I don’t disagree with your observation at all.

186

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

A secret about Thunder is that he fancies himself as a member of the ruling elite one day when he is all growed up. He hate freedom because it means he has no future.[/quote]

Yep - just got my Goldman Sachs/Illuminati decoder ring and let’s just say I am pretty excited about it.
[/quote]

ThunderBolt- I mean this genuinely, don’t forget to answer my previous questions as I am interested in your worldview on those points.

187

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Maybe when Jesus comes, he’ll have Ayn Rand with him, and ALL of us are gonna be like, “Damn, seriously?!”
[/quote]

Funniest thing I’ve read in the past month. Well done, sir. Well done :slight_smile:

188

Twelve hour day and not finished yet, so this will have to be brief.

My critic of Rand has always been more to the following:

In Rand’s mind things occurred (or should have occurred) in this order. One uses reason and logic to access his environment (reality). With reality firmly grasped, one took efficient and effective action to bring the current existence, environment or reality into a higher state of order. The right action and the effects brought about by the action allowed one to experience the emotion that comes with accomplishment, achievement and the realization that one can overcome the environment with right thought.

This is a beautiful concept to me and if the majority of people actually operated like this the world would be a much better place.

The obvious problem is that most people do not think this way. The are never taught to use reason and logic. Emotion is taught to be a means and end unto itself. Also, the spin doctors, manipulators, moochers, etc. have a vested interest in keeping things this way.

In simple terms, most people see the world through a very distorted lens. Logic and reason barely come into the equation. They wait for some emotion to move them and then they appeal to themselves and others through the power of emotion.

Everyone should have a puppy, a Lexus and a five bedroom house. Why? Because. Who should provide these things? Someone.

We are for the most part emotional beasts. That is why we are so easily lead and mislead.

189

Hmm…I can basically sum up the reason why I don’t like Rand.

As a man, I have a duty to give to my God, wife, family, community, and country. Ayn Rand tells me I have no such duty and the only duty I do have is rational greed, or a duty to take.

A man gives all that he can, and well…we can all guess what takes all it can is…

190

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Hmm…I can basically sum up the reason why I don’t like Rand.

As a man, I have a duty to give to my God, wife, family, community, and country. Ayn Rand tells me I have no such duty and the only duty I do have is rational greed, or a duty to take.

A man gives all that he can, and well…we can all guess what takes all it can is…[/quote]

This becomes tedious. You do not know what you are talking about. Why is it acceptable to fill in the blank of “Rand says …” with any nonsense you want and then attack it as though it were verified truth.

Read the material, know what you are talking about, or go to another thread.

And by the way, I read the Bible once. I fond it way too long and difficult to follow. I mean, wow, people don’t talk like that. It was all about favoritism, connections (who you know) taking what you want by warfare. The incest and harems of wives was kind of cool though.

Then Jesus had to come along and do a 180 on everyone. He changed it to psychological warfare. He was anti-family, saying he came to turn them against each other. He seemed to be an anarchist.

Anyway, I read it when I was 14 so don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about…

191

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

So riddle me this Thunderbolt: what is your proposed alternative? If allowing someone the right to not be enslaved by a social institution leads to the nanny state then how do you propose to put more teeth in these social instutions WITHOUT the state helping coerce things? [/quote]

Well, the first thing would be be to abandon the libertarian idiocy of moral relativism. Part of keeping the state out of legislating “morality” is to have this unlegislated “morality” firmly embedded as part of the larger culture where people observe it and respect it even it runs contrary to their individual preferences, and when people don’t abide by a certain level of “morality”, they face some kind of opprobrium for doing so - cultural shame, can’t get hired, etc.

As long as libertarians keep tut-tutting moral relativism, this mission is dead on arrival.

Good Lord, use common sense. Someone’s religion may permit human sacrifice - does that mean that person has a First Amendment defense on a homicide charge? A person’s religion may think nakedness is holiness - does that mean that public nudity laws in your hometown are unconstitutional?

Of course not. The Constitution - or its Establishment Clause - doesn’t authorize “libertarianism” and it doesn’t authorize ‘take it or leave it’ moral relativism. And it never has, unless you think, for example, public nudity laws are unconstitutional.

What is about libertarians having zero common sense?

Goal of society? The good life. Freedom and order. Prosperity and peace. Spiritual and intellectual growth. Holding your piece of society in trust so that your kids find it improved when they inherit it.

Do yourself a favor - do your own homework, and stop parroting the libertarian brochure. Come up with some original material.

It’s not that I disagree with the basic idea of this - but I’m not interested in dumb oversimplifications based on historical revisionism that don’t comport with reality.

192

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

I guess a final question I have is simply that if a doctrine/institution is so compelling and good, why would it lose long term in an open market? Sure people could claim alternative codes are like drugs in that it is an obvious net negative, but addictive and tempting nonetheless. But I would rejoin, that even for the Amish with Rumspringa most choose to get baptized and stick with the strict lifestyle as opposed to the ‘wild and crazy’ modern lifestyle. A good institution will almost always endure if it is worth saving.[/quote]

Ok, if this is true, then why on the “open market of ideas” has no society ever “purchased” long-term libertarianism? Why have people routinely rejected the very ideology you say is deliverance of paradise when given the choice?

193

we once lived without a State… when the more complex weapons were stone spears or a simple bows.

when weapon-making became a real craft, society divided itself in two parts :
those who know how to make the best weapons of the time, who own them and control their distribution.
and those who don’t.

hence the divison between State and Society.

the day we decide to “open all markets” and to get rid of all democratic or pseudo-democratic regulations, we will not see the end of the State and the return of Eden.
We will just see military-industrial companies assuming the mantle of the State directly, for and by themselves.

194

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Hmm…I can basically sum up the reason why I don’t like Rand.

As a man, I have a duty to give to my God, wife, family, community, and country. Ayn Rand tells me I have no such duty and the only duty I do have is rational greed, or a duty to take.

A man gives all that he can, and well…we can all guess what takes all it can is…[/quote]

This becomes tedious. You do not know what you are talking about. Why is it acceptable to fill in the blank of “Rand says …” with any nonsense you want and then attack it as though it were verified truth.

Read the material, know what you are talking about, or go to another thread. [/quote]

She calls it herself, “rational self-interest.”

[quote]And by the way, I read the Bible once. I fond it way too long and difficult to follow. I mean, wow, people don’t talk like that. It was all about favoritism, connections (who you know) taking what you want by warfare. The incest and harems of wives was kind of cool though.

Then Jesus had to come along and do a 180 on everyone. He changed it to psychological warfare. He was anti-family, saying he came to turn them against each other. He seemed to be an anarchist.

Anyway, I read it when I was 14 so don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about… [/quote]

Maybe you should read these forums again, I used to follow Rand.

I tell you what, you guys are fast to turn on your own kind just because they don’t believe 100% what you believe. You sound like fundamental Christians.

195

The state is ordained by God.

196
197

[quote]kamui wrote:
we once lived without a State… when the more complex weapons were stone spears or a simple bows.

when weapon-making became a real craft, society divided itself in two parts :
those who know how to make the best weapons of the time, who own them and control their distribution.
and those who don’t.

hence the divison between State and Society.

the day we decide to “open all markets” and to get rid of all democratic or pseudo-democratic regulations, we will not see the end of the State and the return of Eden.
We will just see military-industrial companies assuming the mantle of the State directly, for and by themselves.
[/quote]

You forgot “and then came the rifled barrel and democratized the ability to kill and suddenly the common man had a voice in public affairs for better or worse.”

The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from this is of course that firearms need to be heavily regulated or some such.

198

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]

Yes read it and then take the analogy of faith, the totality of scripture, and Sacred tradition all into account when you try to make private interpretations…then check against the orthodox teachings of the Catholic Church to make sure you understand what it actually means.

Actually just listen to Fulton J. Sheen and you should get a good grasp of what the gospel means.

199

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

I guess a final question I have is simply that if a doctrine/institution is so compelling and good, why would it lose long term in an open market? Sure people could claim alternative codes are like drugs in that it is an obvious net negative, but addictive and tempting nonetheless. But I would rejoin, that even for the Amish with Rumspringa most choose to get baptized and stick with the strict lifestyle as opposed to the ‘wild and crazy’ modern lifestyle. A good institution will almost always endure if it is worth saving.[/quote]

Ok, if this is true, then why on the “open market of ideas” has no society ever “purchased” long-term libertarianism? Why have people routinely rejected the very ideology you say is deliverance of paradise when given the choice?[/quote]

I suppose you didn’t take the time to read any of the other posts I made ahead of this, but I am not particularly surprised. You would rather throw ad hominems around instead.

Quite simply you are so far wrong on Libertarianism implying moral relativism it is laughable. You are making an incredibly false assumption and then forming your argument on that point. Thus you have an unsound argument.

And yes the freedom of religion our constitution allows now is PRECISELY what would be implied by Libertarianism. If a religion condoned human sacrifice it would not be acceptable because nothing gives you the right to simply kill someone. The non-aggression principle at work here. So this is just a very silly and, dare I say it, straw man-esque argument if ever there was one.

On the open market point, I addressed with another poster earlier when he said the same thing. It is a valid observation and I would refer you to my response to him.

So you really didn’t say much of anything about how you see things working, outside of some vague ‘the good life, I’ll know it when I see it’ sort of tripe we get from all of our political leaders and parties. Also, as I also posted upon earlier, you can most assuredly still use moral opprobrium in a Libertarian setup and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE YOUR OWN PATH IMPLIES THAT YOU CANNOT.

Say what you will about Libertarianism, but at least it has clear and consistent principles you can actually discuss. ‘Order and prosperity’ is a pretty vague statement that is used by every political group under the sun to justify their position regardless of what it is. They use it because it says nothing while justifying anything. Talk about being a hand maiden of the state. Way to go on saying absolutely nothing of substance and then acting like the smartest guy in the room afterwards.

I get it though, you don’t like libertarianism and refuse to see the fact that most of your counter arguments are based on patently false assumptions or misunderstandings of the philosophical disciplines you reference (moral relativism for example). Keep on riding with it though. If you say enough banal, sometimes patently false vagaries in a loud and condescending enough way you might just convince people you have a firmer grip on the issues than you clearly do.

Peace, I’m out.

200

And the simple of it is that typically the only people that reject the ideas of liberty are those that want to enslave us.