Do You Agree with Your Enemy Party on Any Issue?

[ScreamingEagle]

that Patton read Rommel.

Would you consider Rand a role model for your children or the children of others.

I find your comical spelling of my party of choice ill mannered and worthy of rebuke.

What do you know of socialism that is not now represented by the gang of thieves that have patterned the party of Lincoln into the very essence of Bolshevism.

Are you also a Hobbsian who would give over to any tyranny for a phantasm of safety?

I have dutifully read all that Rand put into print and uttered in interview. I started reading Rand about the time I started with Thomas Merton. After Rand, I had to delve into all the Russian writers to get some idea of where she was intellectually nourished. I had six years of military service in which to accomplish that task. I am left cold with Rand. What she created is as devoid of human warmth as any thing in modern print. Then I delved into the reports of her personal life by both friend and foe. Rand had a hole in her soul.

I am no fan of Rand except to recommend that she be read only by those who have a depth of intellect that prevents them from excavating a pit in their own soul.

Do not misunderstand my soul talk as being conventionally religious. I am not. I understand the same god to which Einstein made reference and the same to which Hawking does. I even acknowledge that Rand had a concept of that, but it is largely dismissed by those who have cherry picked her ideation.

Here is one



There is a step beyond this rather dreary plaint that Rand did not or could not take. Rand was bound by a Rus soul that is still lingering in that same realm of the lost by many in that place today. Rand had a blossoming of sorts in the West but there is just no completeness to her. There is no point of release. It was telling in her personal life and mores.

Now this is my take on Rand. I make no apologies for my positions or conclusions. I had not given her much thought until the coming of the Neos. I have long been a reader of Francis Fukuyama. I have been fortunate enough to sit in on some of his lectures and appearances. How was it that I chose the very first of the Chicago school to bolt from the tragedy that is now such a Neo-Fiasco. That said, I now find myself back again mining Rand among others.

I AM

Rand was a proponent of capitalism, reason, and individualism and for her political views I admire her. I agree with her that a free market is the only moral system while collectivism only turns man into a serf and that individualism is the basis for a healthy society and that productive achievement is a noble goal. You say Rand was "bound by a Russian soul" and incomplete and that may be true in the sense regarding God, but I think she, having lived through the Russian Revolution and then moved to America, was quite effective in describing political differences between the two systems.

OK, I get it that you hate Republicans, but what is it about the Democrats that thrills you?

Ummmmm... I read a loved Atlas Shrugged. That doesn't mean we should live our lives as coldly as her characters. And DEMOCRATS... (I'm sure if you google it, you can figure out how to spell it correctly) are not socialist. Socialists are socialist. Personally, I happen to be a capitalist, but not an Adam Smith Laissez Faire type. You know, the kind who caused the conditions documented by another briliant author of his day... Upton Sinclair. I'd suggest The Jungle as required reading to offset Rand. And yes, Sinclair actually WAS a socialist and anarchist, but because of him we ended up with some very good laws. One doesn't have to take anyone's philosophy whole... presumably a person with intelligence is able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If you loved Atlas Shrugged (which has been called the second most influential book in America, after the Bible) why do you subscribe to the party that pushes collectivism today? Hardly the position of a capitalist as you so claim. I've read The Jungle and yes, the Democrats in days past pushed some good legislation that made sense. However, I don't see that happening today…maybe you can fill me in?

 

[jillian]

Rand was a proponent of capitalism, reason, and individualism and for her political views I admire her. I agree with her that a free market is the only moral system while collectivism only turns man into a serf and that individualism is the basis for a healthy society and that productive achievement is a noble goal. You say Rand was "bound by a Russian soul" and incomplete and that may be true in the sense regarding God, but I think she, having lived through the Russian Revolution and then moved to America, was quite effective in describing political differences between the two systems.

OK, I get it that you hate Republicans, but what is it about the Democrats that thrills you?



If you loved Atlas Shrugged (which has been called the second most influential book in America, after the Bible) why do you subscribe to the party that pushes collectivism today? Hardly the position of a capitalist as you so claim. I've read The Jungle and yes, the Democrats in days past pushed some good legislation that made sense. However, I don't see that happening today…maybe you can fill me in?

I did love Atlas Shrugged. It is one of my favorite books. But loving the book doesn't mean I adopt her philosophy. It is very easy to sit back and say oh... I am one of the "productive", one of the "builders" and want to reward effort. But then there are moral issues which we, as members of a larger society, have to address. I believe we can be both productive and compassionate.

Now, if you read The Jungle, how can you deny the utility of laws that protect workers; laws that protect consumers; and laws that control what corporations are allowed to do in making a profit off of the sweat of those workers? My feeling? Democrats are the only thing standing between your party and the evisceration of those laws. Sometimes government is useful in keeping the status quo as opposed to passing new legislation.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I did love Atlas Shrugged. It is one of my favorite books. But loving the book doesn't mean I adopt her philosophy. It is very easy to sit back and say oh... I am one of the "productive", one of the "builders" and want to reward effort. But then there are moral issues which we, as members of a larger society, have to address. I believe we can be both productive and compassionate.

Now, if you read The Jungle, how can you deny the utility of laws that protect workers; laws that protect consumers; and laws that control what corporations are allowed to do in making a profit off of the sweat of those workers? My feeling? Democrats are the only thing standing between your party and the evisceration of those laws. Sometimes government is useful in keeping the status quo as opposed to passing new legislation.

Yet right along with your "compassion" you support government managed trade and inhibiting taxes which are detrimental to the very capitalism which you claim you support. It's one thing to regulate for decent working conditions but a whole different issue to push collectivism and destroy individualism which is exactly what the Democrats are in the process of doing. Here's what one of your leaders has to say:

February, 2002: Senator Edward Kennedy (MA-D) said, in a statement read into the Congressional Record following the Super Bowl win by the New England Patriots:

"At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good."

Lady Liberty would like to know when it was that individualism became synonymous with "terrorism" and it became good for our country to face it down. It seems to Lady Liberty that homogenization can only be truly appreciated in whole milk or a Communist state. Oh, yes. And apparently the state of Massachusetts.

http://www.ladylibrty.com/hall_of_shame.html