How Is Ayn Rand Still A Thing?

[eflatminor]

[
By looking at the actual RESULTS of that "help" objectively. For instance, since we began spending other people's money on the so called 'great society', whose idea was to end poverty, the rate of poverty has actually increased. In the decades before spending began, the rate of poverty was dropping precipitously. You caused it to go in the opposite direction! But hey, what's tens of trillions of dollars among friends, right? And who cares if you meddlers made the situation worse, it's the intention that counts, right?

And sorry, you don't get to determine what is and what is not "civilized".

So, I ask again, what exactly is it that you find creepy about the notion of personal responsibility and the promise to not accept charity that is forced from strangers? Be specific now...

The problem with your argument is that spending to help poor people increased poverty.

Nope. Actually, yes. Only a fool would deny the OBVIOUS trend in the rate of poverty: Heading down before the Great Society, leveled off when the spending began, $22 trillion later, it's WORSE.

What increased poverty was that the wealthy Bullshit. You cannot show where any wealthy people took money from the poor and made them poorer. Pathetic, the 1%ers dismantled the unions Bullshit again. People VOLUNTARILY dropped union membership. That's not on anyone but those that made that CHOICE that allowed people to get out of poverty with jobs that paid fair wages. They sent the good paying jobs overseas Because of your burdensome regulations...well done dumbshit, they replaced people with machines Which has ALWAYS been the trend since the beginning of time. and all those fucking poor people who couldn't get jobs as good as their parents just fucking refused to dutifully starve to death Thanks Captain Hyperbole.

You guys complain about the layabouts who wait for their government checks to arrive, but the fact is, 40% of households that get SNAP benefits have at least one person with a job.

And then you wonder why people vote for democrats. I don't wonder because I understand when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.

Fail, fail, fail.

 

[bripat9643]

So why is she "still a thing?" She's a useful political tool for Democrats to use against Republicans. That's why she's still a thing.

Only as much as women on welfare, peace activists, environmentalists, feminists, and vegetarians have been useful political tools for Right-Wingers to use against Democrats.

So get down from your high horse.

What high horse? Republicans have their useful, or useless, boogeymen as well. Bill Ayers comes to mind. This thread, however, is about Ayn Rand.

Yes, and anyone who has claimed to have been greatly influenced (and continues to be) by her writings (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Rafael "Ted" Cruz) should not be anywhere near the presidency. That is fair game for an election.

They same goes for anyone who claims to have been influenced by Saul Alinsky.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Brilliant! Take a good look at your role model, Libertarians and misguided conservatives. Pro-choice, anti-Reagan, anti-religion, anti-native Americans, pro-selfishness...you all picked a winner to emulate.

What a dangerously nazi-style crock of left wing, un-American, democrat socialist propaganda. And it isn't even clever. Just chopped up, out of context propaganda. You lefties must be feeling mighty threatened by the all American concept of individualism and intellectual property as opposed to your sheeple collective socialistic herd think.
Creepy idiocy of the left. Only the mindless vote democrat these days.

Look up False Dilemma.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Saying Rand is a screw ball doesn't automatically mean anyone is threatened by individualism. Nice try but, as you can see, Democrats aren't as mindless as you think. You're the one touting an "ism", usually the signature feature of the mindless.

The entire piece is framed for the purpose of disparaging anyone who references Rand. It's less about her and more about disparaging those whom the left fear. You know, freedom and individual liberty fans.

You seem to be the one disparaging anyone referencing Rand. I'm simply disparaging Rand. The fact that you would tout "individualism" as a be all and end all, just shows that she has polluted the minds of a couple of generations now, the same way Marx did.

Speak for yourself. Individualism is the epitome of freedom and liberty. Last time I checked, those were virtues that our constitution is based upon but are threats to the current democrat way.

 

[konradv]

Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.

Being influenced by Rand is one thing, but too like her writings as novels should be an automatic disqualifier.

 

[konradv]

You seem to be the one disparaging anyone referencing Rand. I'm simply disparaging Rand. The fact that you would tout "individualism" as a be all and end all, just shows that she has polluted the minds of a couple of generations now, the same way Marx did.

Speak for yourself. Individualism is the epitome of freedom and liberty. Last time I checked, those were virtues that our constitution is based upon but are threats to the current democrat way.

I am speaking for myself. I feel that those who tout "isms" as the epitome of anything, gall into the same trap as those who fell for the "isms" of the 20th century. They can be used as an excuse to justify anything. It's just the political way of saying "God is on our side".

 

[Uncensored2008]

Being influenced by Rand is one thing, but too like her writings as novels should be an automatic disqualifier.

"We, the Living" is one of the better novels I've read in my life.

Prejudice is a barricade to knowledge.This is much of the reason that stupidity defines the left.

 

[konradv]

The same goes for anyone who claims to have been influenced by Saul Alinsky.

Newt Gingrich and the Republican Class of '94?!?!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am speaking for myself. I feel that those who tout "isms" as the epitome of anything, gall into the same trap as those who fell for the "isms" of the 20th century. They can be used as an excuse to justify anything. It's just the political way of saying "God is on our side".

This nation is in the midst of a soft civil war. The collectivists (your side) seek to impose central planning and authoritarian structure on the nation. The individualists (my side) seek to retain liberty and free markets. To pretend that the democratic party is not engaged in an assault to alter the fundamental nature of the nation is insulting.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.

Being influenced by Rand is one thing, but too like her writings as novels should be an automatic disqualifier.

Only to those who are threatened by her ideals. This is a total hatchet job. The MO of the left. Rand is a figurative flag bearer for the rising tide of true libertarianism (not the psycho Lyndon LaRouche version) and libertarian sims is a threat to today's left wing democrat party socialism ideals. So the left does what it does best; tear down the opposition with disparagement and character assassinations. Rand is another Palin or Reagan to democrats.

Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.

Being influenced by Rand is one thing, but too like her writings as novels should be an automatic disqualifier.

Only to those who are threatened by her ideals. This is a total hatchet job. The MO of the left. Rand is a figurative flag bearer for the rising tide of true libertarianism and libertarianism is a threat to today's left wing democrat party socialism ideals. So the left does what it does best; tear down the opposition with disparagement and character assassinations and propagate. Rand is another Palin or Reagan to democrats.

 

[konradv]

Being influenced by Rand is one thing, but too like her writings as novels should be an automatic disqualifier.

"We, the Living" is one of the better novels I've read in my life.

Prejudice is a barricade to knowledge.This is much of the reason that stupidity defines the left.

"Atlas Shrugged" was crap. I remember finishing "The Fountainhead" and thinking what an asshole Roarke was.

I'd have to be really bored to give her another chance.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Being influenced by Rand is one thing, but too like her writings as novels should be an automatic disqualifier.

"We, the Living" is one of the better novels I've read in my life.

Prejudice is a barricade to knowledge.This is much of the reason that stupidity defines the left.

"Atlas Shrugged" was crap. I remember finishing "The Fountainhead" and thinking what an asshole Roarke was.

I'd have to be really bored to give her another chance.

OK, so you're not an artist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Atlas Shrugged" was crap. I remember finishing "The Fountainhead" and thinking what an asshole Roarke was.

I'd have to be really bored to give her another chance.

Roark was a rapist - I don't like rapists or see them as heroes.

To call AS "crap" is simply ignorant. I understand that it conflicts with your vision of the world.

 

[Flopper]

But, again, the sub-prime debacle, and the collapse of the housing bubble, should not, and would not, have been enough to have caused the cascading collapse of the entire economy, any more than the dot com collapse, or any other bubble collapse over the last 20 years. It was the trading of those worthless mortgages through derivatives that caused the wider collapse of the financial sector. And that was only possible with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That is the part you keep wanting to pretend didn't happen.

Ignoring of course the Federal Reserve's role in distorting the capital structure of the entire economy, thus causing the collapse.

You mean the Federal Reserve that was headed by Allen Greenspan - a Republican appointee? Actually, Greenspan's efforts were an attenpt to stave off the on-coming disaster created by the selfish, short-sighted behavior of the financial industry. Admittedly, it was a dismal attempt, but are you seriously suggesting that if Greenspan hadn't tried to shore up the industry that it wouldn't have done exactly what it did? Really???? All you're trying to do is find a way to keep from having to admit that the unregulated private sector was the orchestrator of its own demise.

For starters, there was no unregulated private sector, as has been pointed out to you. Absent Glass-Steagall there's a list of regulations far longer than a mile long. As for Greenspan being a Republican appointee, so what? The Republican Party, at least the elites who run the party, are no more interested in the free market than Democrats. They're corporatists through and through, and having Greenspan running the economy as Chairman of the Fed benefited them handsomely. And it's irrelevant what Greenspan claimed his efforts were attempting to do, because what they did was to distort the capital structure of the economy creating the bubble that inevitably popped. That's what central planning of the economy does, and it doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or a Democrat who does it. If Greenspan had actually supported the free market, as so many critics say he did, then he never would have kept interest rates artificially low. In fact, he'd have never accepted the position as Fed Chairman to begin with. The Federal Reserve, as I keep saying, is the antithesis of the free market.

You say that as if the agenda of Corporatism isn't rampant, unfettered "free market" capitalism. The cognative dissonence is almost laughable. Although you're right, the industries were still regulated. They were regulated in totally uselss, stupid ways, but they were regulated.

It would be kind of like having a law that specifically says "You cannot print $5 bills", while you are printing billions of dollars worth of $20 bills, and flooding the market with them. Then, when the economy crashes, you insisting, "Well, I was regulated! And I even obeyed the law! I didn't print one single 5 dollar bill!" Well, yeah! That's because the regulation was completely useless, and did nothing to regulate what you were actually doing.

No, the agenda of corporatism, as we plainly see, is to have the state regulate competition so that the largest already established firms can get away with murder. This is corporatism, otherwise known as fascism. Under free market capitalism, however, competition flourishes because the state does not pick and choose winners. Neither Republicans, Democrats, or Wall Street want that in the least.

And that is exactly why free market capitalism can't work. Initially competition would flourish. Without government regulation, the larger would devour the smaller. Large corporations would pressure the government for regulations favorable to their interest. The public and small businesses would pressure the government for regulation favorable to their interest. The result would regulated capitalism.

 

[dblack]

Because most real sparks of genius come from the demented fringe.

 

[Synthaholic]

Yes, and anyone who has claimed to have been greatly influenced (and continues to be) by her writings (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Rafael "Ted" Cruz) should not be anywhere near the presidency. That is fair game for an election.

Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.

He's named after her. By his father, whom he grew up with and learned his life philosophy from.

No, his name is Randal, and he was called Randy most of his life until his wife decided that was too childish and shortened it to Rand.

He's named after her, I am convinced. Papa Ron was/is a HUGE fan. But he's no dummy, and knows she's a cult figure.

So ignoring the facts because you think you know better. What were you saying about me being delusional?

The only fact is that he added an 'al' to the end.

 

[konradv]

"Atlas Shrugged" was crap. I remember finishing "The Fountainhead" and thinking what an asshole Roarke was.

I'd have to be really bored to give her another chance.

Roark was a rapist - I don't like rapists or see them as heroes.

To call AS "crap" is simply ignorant. I understand that it conflicts with your vision of the world.

As a novel it was crap. It had no characters, just caricatures. As a political instrument, it didn't need to be that long. It was one of the most boring things I ever slogged through, but I did it because it was supposed to be a masterpiece. Sorry, never saw it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Yes, and anyone who has claimed to have been greatly influenced (and continues to be) by her writings (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Rafael "Ted" Cruz) should not be anywhere near the presidency. That is fair game for an election.

Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.

He's named after her. By his father, whom he grew up with and learned his life philosophy from.

No, his name is Randal, and he was called Randy most of his life until his wife decided that was too childish and shortened it to Rand.

He's named after her, I am convinced. Papa Ron was/is a HUGE fan. But he's no dummy, and knows she's a cult figure.

So ignoring the facts because you think you know better. What were you saying about me being delusional?

I didn't say you were delusional. Please don't twist my words.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

One cannot be an absolute supporter of free markets and support the existence of the state. Therefore, she was only a general supporter of free markets.

That is utter nonsense. The state can provide a national defense, yet never move to regulate markets. Localities can provide infrastructure and easements while never engaging in

And they would provide this "defense," historically proven to turn into offense at the earliest possible moment, by looting the population and outlawing private defense. That is the opposite of the free market at work.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well...I understand that this was a wholly Republican crafted piece of legislation. However, as Ike said, "The buck stops here". Clinton was the one that got to choose which battles were worth fighting, and he chose not to fight this one. This is one of the few things about Clinton's presidency that I was less than pleased with him about.

I'm not absolving Clinton. But he was getting advice from Rubin, Greenspan, and Arthur Levitt, who were supposed to be looking out for the American people.

This is very telling:

Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, was quoted as insisting that any bill brought to the Senate Floor would need to be expanded to include prohibitions on SEC regulation of the swaps market.[59]
​

Gramm is a piece of shit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ignoring of course the Federal Reserve's role in distorting the capital structure of the entire economy, thus causing the collapse.

You mean the Federal Reserve that was headed by Allen Greenspan - a Republican appointee? Actually, Greenspan's efforts were an attenpt to stave off the on-coming disaster created by the selfish, short-sighted behavior of the financial industry. Admittedly, it was a dismal attempt, but are you seriously suggesting that if Greenspan hadn't tried to shore up the industry that it wouldn't have done exactly what it did? Really???? All you're trying to do is find a way to keep from having to admit that the unregulated private sector was the orchestrator of its own demise.

For starters, there was no unregulated private sector, as has been pointed out to you. Absent Glass-Steagall there's a list of regulations far longer than a mile long. As for Greenspan being a Republican appointee, so what? The Republican Party, at least the elites who run the party, are no more interested in the free market than Democrats. They're corporatists through and through, and having Greenspan running the economy as Chairman of the Fed benefited them handsomely. And it's irrelevant what Greenspan claimed his efforts were attempting to do, because what they did was to distort the capital structure of the economy creating the bubble that inevitably popped. That's what central planning of the economy does, and it doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or a Democrat who does it. If Greenspan had actually supported the free market, as so many critics say he did, then he never would have kept interest rates artificially low. In fact, he'd have never accepted the position as Fed Chairman to begin with. The Federal Reserve, as I keep saying, is the antithesis of the free market.

You say that as if the agenda of Corporatism isn't rampant, unfettered "free market" capitalism. The cognative dissonence is almost laughable. Although you're right, the industries were still regulated. They were regulated in totally uselss, stupid ways, but they were regulated.

It would be kind of like having a law that specifically says "You cannot print $5 bills", while you are printing billions of dollars worth of $20 bills, and flooding the market with them. Then, when the economy crashes, you insisting, "Well, I was regulated! And I even obeyed the law! I didn't print one single 5 dollar bill!" Well, yeah! That's because the regulation was completely useless, and did nothing to regulate what you were actually doing.

No, the agenda of corporatism, as we plainly see, is to have the state regulate competition so that the largest already established firms can get away with murder. This is corporatism, otherwise known as fascism. Under free market capitalism, however, competition flourishes because the state does not pick and choose winners. Neither Republicans, Democrats, or Wall Street want that in the least.

And that is exactly why free market capitalism can't work. Initially competition would flourish. Without government regulation, the larger would devour the smaller. Large corporations would pressure the government for regulations favorable to their interest. The public and small businesses would pressure the government for regulation favorable to their interest. The result would regulated capitalism.

So the problem is the government, in other words.