Ayn Rand is right. There is no higher state than

Ayn Rand takes a fundamental principle of the rights of the individual to an absurd extreme.

She also denies the obvious fact that mankind is first and foremost a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

Denies, not at all

The questions is one of who should be more in charge of those "social" functions

man or state

you are a faggot. You love sucking men's dick off.

Projecting the horrors imposed on you as a small child by your father, on to others
will not stop the pain you must feel....

Professional help is my best suggestion
:eusa_angel:
 
Ayn Rand takes a fundamental principle of the rights of the individual to an absurd extreme.

She also denies the obvious fact that mankind is first and foremost a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

No she doesn't. Being a social animal does not require government to run everything.

Only a clueless drone would make such a claim.
 
Ayn Rand takes a fundamental principle of the rights of the individual to an absurd extreme.

She also denies the obvious fact that mankind is first and foremost a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

No she doesn't. Being a social animal does not require government to run everything.

Only a clueless drone would make such a claim.

and yet his IQ is probably about 100 points higher than yours. *shrug*

As a political theorist, Ayn Rand is a good novelist and shouldn't be taken as anything more... only randian imbeciles would think otherwise.
 
Rand was a reactionary hack.

The dogma of ‘Objectivism’ is predicated on the bizarre perception of a society without structure, a utopian fantasy that naively fails to take into consideration the need of social contracts, legal doctrine, and the inevitable manifestation of institutions.

Modernity rendered ‘Objectivism’ irrelevant before its inception.


More idiocy rendered by those who probably never even read Ayn Rand. Your claims are total horseshit. The so-called "social contract" is a myth Rousseau invented to justify totalitarianism. The rest of your claims are equally moronic. It's pretentious eyewash intended to fool the gullible.
 
a self serving state. Serving other people and a higher cause is bullshit.



Most of Rand's phiosophy seemed to deal with the rights of the individual as opposed to the goals of the state.

Do you have a link to a quote from Rand that supports your premise?
 
and yet his IQ is probably about 100 points higher than yours. *shrug*

As a political theorist, Ayn Rand is a good novelist and shouldn't be taken as anything more... only randian imbeciles would think otherwise.

Just as predicted, a clueless drone chimes in to offer her own special brand of idiocy.

You're regurgitating stuff you read on DailyKOS and Huffington Post. We all know you never read any Ayn Rand. There are too many multi-syllable words in those books.
 
Last edited:
Rand was a reactionary hack.

The dogma of ‘Objectivism’ is predicated on the bizarre perception of a society without structure, a utopian fantasy that naively fails to take into consideration the need of social contracts, legal doctrine, and the inevitable manifestation of institutions.

Modernity rendered ‘Objectivism’ irrelevant before its inception.



The opposite poles of the political discussion are anarchy and police state or some such demonstration of free agents and total control.

Rand stakes out a position of desiring less governmental control. In her books, she exhorts the value of contracts when Roarke invokes the contract to support the destruction of the buildings that break the rules defined within it.

She exhorts the power of the individual to shape society in Atlas Shrugged when the movers and the shakers form a utopia and society falters in their absence.

She attacks the inefficiency and corruption of any political sytem, be it industry or government, that supresses the individual and denies the strength and integrity of individual thought.

I don't understand why Liberals say that they like these ideas, but hate Rand's ideas. Could it be that they do not understand what they are thinking?
 
Just as predicted, a clueless drone chimes in to offer her own special brand of idiocy.

You're regurgitating stuff you read on DailyKOS and Huffington Post. We all know you never read any Ayn Rand. There are too many multi-syllable words in those books.

the only clueless drone here is you. if your ideas are so terrific, defend them, loon.

I know you're not very bight, but if you think you've read more than i have, i'd suggest your IQ is even lower than i gave you credit for.

oh... and i've NEVER gone on Daily KOS... perhaps that's what glenn beck told you, but he's a wackjob just like you...

only he's rich for it.

you?

p.s. it might be helpful if you actually learned how to link and quote a post. i know that's probably beyond your skill set, but i'd hate to have anyone think that your idiocy emanated from my keyboard.
 
Last edited:
Rand was a reactionary hack.

The dogma of ‘Objectivism’ is predicated on the bizarre perception of a society without structure, a utopian fantasy that naively fails to take into consideration the need of social contracts, legal doctrine, and the inevitable manifestation of institutions.

Modernity rendered ‘Objectivism’ irrelevant before its inception.



The opposite poles of the political discussion are anarchy and police state or some such demonstration of free agents and total control.

Rand stakes out a position of desiring less governmental control. In her books, she exhorts the value of contracts when Roarke invokes the contract to support the destruction of the buildings that break the rules defined within it.

She exhorts the power of the individual to shape society in Atlas Shrugged when the movers and the shakers form a utopia and society falters in their absence.

She attacks the inefficiency and corruption of any political sytem, be it industry or government, that supresses the individual and denies the strength and integrity of individual thought.

I don't understand why Liberals say that they like these ideas, but hate Rand's ideas. Could it be that they do not understand what they are thinking?

everything ayn rand wrote was to justify her own selfishness, including the affair she carried on in the face of her husband.

she believed in nothing but the self. THAT is why anyone with a brain who actually understands the workings of society and the social contract, would reject her idiocy out of hand. i'd also point out that at the end she was very happy to take her government checks.

just sayin
 
ayn rand takes a fundamental principle of the rights of the individual to an absurd extreme.

She also denies the obvious fact that mankind is first and foremost a social animal.

denies, not at all

the questions is one of who should be more in charge of those "social" functions

man or state

bingo!


However,

The Left is willing to regulate only those things that are not important to them.
 
liberals/socialists hate the fact that someone could invent something trmendous, and keep the idea. they feel that anything of value should stripped via virtual eminent domain, and should immediately and automatically "belong to the people." private enterprise should belong even to those who contribute nothing. the best and brightest should simply be happy to support the state, and their effort to "spread the wealth".

this goes along with what ben franklin said... "when the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". this concept of course, is still being tested in the aftermath of the deadly perfect storm, of obama, reid and pelosi. i'd say obama's term so far is touch and go, i am convinced that surviving his agenda will be the greatest feat since the civil war, that if he is reelected, we may not.
 
Last edited:
a self serving state. Serving other people and a higher cause is bullshit.

The best thing about people who quote Ayn Rand..is the same people don't know what a fucking hypocrite she was. In the end, she suffered financial hardship and need government assistance to pay the bills.

Like any good two fisted conservatives..she should have accepted her fate and died quickly.

Ain't that the plan you guys have in mind?
 
Ayn Rand was so right she ended up on SS


Use of a state imposed system does not support your argument
If people had a choice to enter or not enter the system
then your argument might be better, assuming the gov't
did not distort the market place to where it will be the only choice

You know, like Papa Obama Care


How many non Jewish Germans were Nazi's

If you wanted to work, eat and help yourself from not going to prison
you had to join the Nazi party

It is the same under Communism as well
one has to join the party to survive

I love when the Left attempts to show use of forced state programs
as some form of hypocrisy or support of their statist programs

talk about a rigged deal
 
Last edited:
People who call themselves conservatives today are not looking for common sense or common decency solutions for this nation. Solutions that would benefit their families and their community. They are ideologues who want to dismantle any shred of COMMunity and replace it with SELF interest?

That is not 'conservatism', that is narcissism.


A TRUE liberal...

jfk2.jpg


"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future.

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

President John F. Kennedy
Remarks at Amherst College
October 26, 1963
 

Forum List

Back
Top