Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand

Personally Ayn Rand offers a view of existence so bleak and heartless one has to wonder at her popularity among many on the right. Whittaker Chambers sums her up in the link in the first URL below.

But the individual as the locus and lord of reality and modern life is a powerful meme in American thought. Only in America could a silly kind of Marxism Libertarianism exist. Americans exist in a sort of fantasy that says all this came about from me, Robinson Crusoe without Friday - without history. So yes, the nonsense Rand wrote serves to continue a myth of magic divorced from responsibility for each other. Odd in a nation that calls itself Christian. 'I got mine, tough for you.'

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...on-could-be-a-game-changer-2.html#post5810441
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/164072-ayn-rand-conservatives-tea-party-republicans.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...ult-of-selfishness-on-the-american-right.html


"I was raised to be ashamed of my ignorance, and to try to do something about it if at all possible. I carry that burden to this day, and have successfully passed it on to my children. I don’t believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about—constitutional law, for example, or sailing—a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen, many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don’t believe in it. Worse still (or more amusing, depending on the day) are those who can tell you, and then offer up a stew of New Age blather, right-wing rant, and bloggers’ speculation that’s so divorced from actual, demonstrable fact, that’s so not true, as the kids would say, that the mind goes numb with wonder. “Way I see it is,” a man in the Tulsa Motel 6 swimming pool told me last summer, “if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for us.” Mark Slouka 'Harper's'


Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Paul Ryan on the other hand lives on the street he grew up on, his brother only a block away. After his father died, Ryan drew on his fathers social security to help put himself through college, where he double majored in Economics and Political Science. From college, he went straight to work in Washington.

Ryan went straight from his sheltered life in Janesville to work in government. He has never had a private sector job as his primary and only source of income ( he worked as a waiter and a fitness trainer to suppliment his income he recieved from the government. ) . In fact, as his double major indicates, his goal has always been government.


When the 2008 meltdown occured, Paul Ryan voted AGAINST the GM loan. That had consequences. GM closed the plant in his hometown of Janesville, WI. 3800 middle class jobs lost and Ryan did nothing. Though to his credit, Ryan did vote against the extention of unemployemnt benefits for those same 3800 workers.

In his 13 years in the House, Ryan has passed just two pieces of legislation. The first, in 2000, changed the name of a post office, the second, in 2008 while the country was in full on economic meltdown, changed the way an excise tax was levied on arrows.

At a salary of $174,000 a year, the American taxpayer has paid Paul Ryan 2.26 million dollars, or 1.13 million dollars per piece of legislation. At his current rate of production, if Paul Ryan stays in the House, we should expect to see his next great piece of legislation sometime in 2016.

Ryan, as a foloower of Rands philosophy, believes that a man should only be entitled to that which is produced by his own hand. What has Paul Ryans hand produced? Ryan has said that he believes that welfare, unemployment, social security, medicare are all things the governemnt should not be doing. All things that he wishes to privatize, because government is the problem, NOT the solution.

Yet, the government gave him his fathers social security money so Ryan could got to school. Ryan chose majors which would lead him directly into government. He has never had to rely on a private sector paycheck as his main source of income. And the sweat from Paul Ryans brow produced only 2 pieces of legistlation in 13 years.

it's not "adolescent" to believe in freedom and individualism...:lol:

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. -Ayn Rand

Thank God for good men like Paul Ryan who serve this country....all that he has done has led to his being the VP choice and filling the gap for a much-needed American leader to disarm those who would keep citizens victims....

Its adolescent to expect freedom and individualism at the expense of others. At the expense of others is central to Rands vision, and thus Mr Ryans. And as to your quote? Rand sure didnt mind the government when it paid her bills when she got sick did she?

Its not what someone SAYS but what they DO that matters.

Consider this: Rands Atlas Shrugged is REQUIRED READING to work in Ryans offices. Thus, he is indoctrinating every employee into his own world view through Rands works. Where the individualism in that?

If you expect to hold on to your freedom and individualism, then you must first grow up.
 
Last edited:
Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Pardon me -- if I don't give a rat about Paul Ryan or his review of Ayn Rand. But I DO care about YOUR review Vidi.. Obviously you're quite disturbed about anyone whole heartedly supporting INDIVIDUALISM, logic and Reason over COLLECTIVISM, feelings, and coercion.

If you witnessed as a teenager (as Rand did) , a Marxist regime TAKING your family's pharmacy business and turning your dad into a complete slave for the State -- you'd probably STILL be yearning for "adolescent" ideas about individual freedoms.

Are you GREEDY about your time? Would you object to someone DEMANDING that you spend 2 hours a week LESS on USMB and spending it at a political rally? There's no difference between our choices to spend our lives and the TIME we have allotted and Money and how we share that commodity. You would no doubt RESENT any demand on your TIME that took away from your business, your family, or your pursuits of happiness.

So we are ALL GREEDY actually. The argument is just TOO fixated on money.

Funny thing -- Ayn Rand said immensely nasty things about tthe young Libertarian party, yet she is referenced by them as Ryan has done. Her problem with the Lib Party (which was inspired by her literature) was that they were not JUDGEMENTAL ENOUGH. In an attempt to be "Pro-Choice on Everything" -- the Lib Party forgot that you don't HAVE to CONDONE a behaviour to allow it to be legally pursued.

This brings up the side of Objectivism that leftists won't touch with a 10 Meter pole. And that is the idea of "non-coercion" that backs up the philosophy. It's like garlic to vampires as far as the leftists are concerned. And secretly they object MORE to that -- than anything having to do with Greed or Individualism.. It's just that GREED is their favorite target and they wouldn't want to call attention to COERCION now would they???

Rand "supported" selfisness, greed, and disregard for the welfare of other humans. Hardly unique, many four year old children have the same "philsophy". Overly dramatic, often drawn out, relationship/situational, thrillers. The plots are tangled, and unrealistic. Rand slapped on a harsh, egocentric facade of a theory to set herself apart from Harold Robbins and Frank Yerby.

She shouldn't have bothered, Mary Stewart wrote books that are more interesting, with with actual ideas. Lessing wrote exciting and unique LITERATURE. Rand remains above Robbins, and Susann, but beneath Percy, Tryon, Jackson, and the above referenced.
 
Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Paul Ryan on the other hand lives on the street he grew up on, his brother only a block away. After his father died, Ryan drew on his fathers social security to help put himself through college, where he double majored in Economics and Political Science. From college, he went straight to work in Washington.

Ryan went straight from his sheltered life in Janesville to work in government. He has never had a private sector job as his primary and only source of income ( he worked as a waiter and a fitness trainer to suppliment his income he recieved from the government. ) . In fact, as his double major indicates, his goal has always been government.


When the 2008 meltdown occured, Paul Ryan voted AGAINST the GM loan. That had consequences. GM closed the plant in his hometown of Janesville, WI. 3800 middle class jobs lost and Ryan did nothing. Though to his credit, Ryan did vote against the extention of unemployemnt benefits for those same 3800 workers.

In his 13 years in the House, Ryan has passed just two pieces of legislation. The first, in 2000, changed the name of a post office, the second, in 2008 while the country was in full on economic meltdown, changed the way an excise tax was levied on arrows.

At a salary of $174,000 a year, the American taxpayer has paid Paul Ryan 2.26 million dollars, or 1.13 million dollars per piece of legislation. At his current rate of production, if Paul Ryan stays in the House, we should expect to see his next great piece of legislation sometime in 2016.

Ryan, as a foloower of Rands philosophy, believes that a man should only be entitled to that which is produced by his own hand. What has Paul Ryans hand produced? Ryan has said that he believes that welfare, unemployment, social security, medicare are all things the governemnt should not be doing. All things that he wishes to privatize, because government is the problem, NOT the solution.

Yet, the government gave him his fathers social security money so Ryan could got to school. Ryan chose majors which would lead him directly into government. He has never had to rely on a private sector paycheck as his main source of income. And the sweat from Paul Ryans brow produced only 2 pieces of legistlation in 13 years.

it's not "adolescent" to believe in freedom and individualism...:lol:

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. -Ayn Rand

Thank God for good men like Paul Ryan who serve this country....all that he has done has led to his being the VP choice and filling the gap for a much-needed American leader to disarm those who would keep citizens victims....

Its adolescent to expect freedom and individualism at the expense of others. At the expense of others is central to Rands vision, and thus Mr Ryans. And as to your quote? Rand sure didnt mind the government when it paid her bills when she got sick did she?

Its not what someone SAYS but what they DO that matters.

Consider this: Rands Atlas Shrugged is REQUIRED READING to work in Ryans offices. Thus, he is indoctrinating every employee into his own world view through Rands works. Where the individualism in that?

If you expect to hold on to your freedom and individualism, then you must first grow up.

No way Jose.. Not in evidence.. That bolded part above must come from Boing Boing or some other imaginary expert on Objectivism..
 
Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Pardon me -- if I don't give a rat about Paul Ryan or his review of Ayn Rand. But I DO care about YOUR review Vidi.. Obviously you're quite disturbed about anyone whole heartedly supporting INDIVIDUALISM, logic and Reason over COLLECTIVISM, feelings, and coercion.

If you witnessed as a teenager (as Rand did) , a Marxist regime TAKING your family's pharmacy business and turning your dad into a complete slave for the State -- you'd probably STILL be yearning for "adolescent" ideas about individual freedoms.

Are you GREEDY about your time? Would you object to someone DEMANDING that you spend 2 hours a week LESS on USMB and spending it at a political rally? There's no difference between our choices to spend our lives and the TIME we have allotted and Money and how we share that commodity. You would no doubt RESENT any demand on your TIME that took away from your business, your family, or your pursuits of happiness.
Did I get that right?

So we are ALL GREEDY actually. The argument is just TOO fixated on money.

Funny thing -- Ayn Rand said immensely nasty things about tthe young Libertarian party, yet she is referenced by them as Ryan has done. Her problem with the Lib Party (which was inspired by her literature) was that they were not JUDGEMENTAL ENOUGH. In an attempt to be "Pro-Choice on Everything" -- the Lib Party forgot that you don't HAVE to CONDONE a behaviour to allow it to be legally pursued.

This brings up the side of Objectivism that leftists won't touch with a 10 Meter pole. And that is the idea of "non-coercion" that backs up the philosophy. It's like garlic to vampires as far as the leftists are concerned. And secretly they object MORE to that -- than anything having to do with Greed or Individualism.. It's just that GREED is their favorite target and they wouldn't want to call attention to COERCION now would they???

Rands philosophy as indicated by her books, shows that she would have done the exact same thing to others that the Marxists did to her and her family. What they did was wrong. She overreacted to their persecution of her father and held onto that hate for the entirety of her life. She never let it go and thus never grew up.

If you look at her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, they paint a picture of her ideal human beings using coercision on those "lesser" beings. Her heros rape their women and the women LOVE them for it. Dont believe me? Go read Atlas Shrugged again.

The idea that non coecsion is fundamental to her philosophy is a naive joke.
 
Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Pardon me -- if I don't give a rat about Paul Ryan or his review of Ayn Rand. But I DO care about YOUR review Vidi.. Obviously you're quite disturbed about anyone whole heartedly supporting INDIVIDUALISM, logic and Reason over COLLECTIVISM, feelings, and coercion.

If you witnessed as a teenager (as Rand did) , a Marxist regime TAKING your family's pharmacy business and turning your dad into a complete slave for the State -- you'd probably STILL be yearning for "adolescent" ideas about individual freedoms.

Are you GREEDY about your time? Would you object to someone DEMANDING that you spend 2 hours a week LESS on USMB and spending it at a political rally? There's no difference between our choices to spend our lives and the TIME we have allotted and Money and how we share that commodity. You would no doubt RESENT any demand on your TIME that took away from your business, your family, or your pursuits of happiness.

So we are ALL GREEDY actually. The argument is just TOO fixated on money.

Funny thing -- Ayn Rand said immensely nasty things about tthe young Libertarian party, yet she is referenced by them as Ryan has done. Her problem with the Lib Party (which was inspired by her literature) was that they were not JUDGEMENTAL ENOUGH. In an attempt to be "Pro-Choice on Everything" -- the Lib Party forgot that you don't HAVE to CONDONE a behaviour to allow it to be legally pursued.

This brings up the side of Objectivism that leftists won't touch with a 10 Meter pole. And that is the idea of "non-coercion" that backs up the philosophy. It's like garlic to vampires as far as the leftists are concerned. And secretly they object MORE to that -- than anything having to do with Greed or Individualism.. It's just that GREED is their favorite target and they wouldn't want to call attention to COERCION now would they???

Rand "supported" selfisness, greed, and disregard for the welfare of other humans. Hardly unique, many four year old children have the same "philsophy". Overly dramatic, often drawn out, relationship/situational, thrillers. The plots are tangled, and unrealistic. Rand slapped on a harsh, egocentric facade of a theory to set herself apart from Harold Robbins and Frank Yerby.

She shouldn't have bothered, Mary Stewart wrote books that are more interesting, with with actual ideas. Lessing wrote exciting and unique LITERATURE. Rand remains above Robbins, and Susann, but beneath Percy, Tryon, Jackson, and the above referenced.

Your critique from a "literary" POV is accepted. 13 page soliquays are a bit overdone. But "welfare of others" always starts at home. And I don't know about you -- but I actually work 10 hours a day TO SERVE OTHERS.. Perhaps you've used a couple of the of the medical devices I've helped create the last time you got lab work done..

From a leftist POV -- I could be a greedy bastard while I'm spending most of life in the service of others and maybe actually helping to SAVE LIVES. Just because YOU don't like my politics or my altruism.

Just like Howard Rourke and his "special steel"... Greedy bastards all eh?
 
Last edited:
Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Paul Ryan on the other hand lives on the street he grew up on, his brother only a block away. After his father died, Ryan drew on his fathers social security to help put himself through college, where he double majored in Economics and Political Science. From college, he went straight to work in Washington.

Ryan went straight from his sheltered life in Janesville to work in government. He has never had a private sector job as his primary and only source of income ( he worked as a waiter and a fitness trainer to suppliment his income he recieved from the government. ) . In fact, as his double major indicates, his goal has always been government.


When the 2008 meltdown occured, Paul Ryan voted AGAINST the GM loan. That had consequences. GM closed the plant in his hometown of Janesville, WI. 3800 middle class jobs lost and Ryan did nothing. Though to his credit, Ryan did vote against the extention of unemployemnt benefits for those same 3800 workers.

In his 13 years in the House, Ryan has passed just two pieces of legislation. The first, in 2000, changed the name of a post office, the second, in 2008 while the country was in full on economic meltdown, changed the way an excise tax was levied on arrows.

At a salary of $174,000 a year, the American taxpayer has paid Paul Ryan 2.26 million dollars, or 1.13 million dollars per piece of legislation. At his current rate of production, if Paul Ryan stays in the House, we should expect to see his next great piece of legislation sometime in 2016.

Ryan, as a foloower of Rands philosophy, believes that a man should only be entitled to that which is produced by his own hand. What has Paul Ryans hand produced? Ryan has said that he believes that welfare, unemployment, social security, medicare are all things the governemnt should not be doing. All things that he wishes to privatize, because government is the problem, NOT the solution.

Yet, the government gave him his fathers social security money so Ryan could got to school. Ryan chose majors which would lead him directly into government. He has never had to rely on a private sector paycheck as his main source of income. And the sweat from Paul Ryans brow produced only 2 pieces of legistlation in 13 years.

it's not "adolescent" to believe in freedom and individualism...:lol:

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. -Ayn Rand

Thank God for good men like Paul Ryan who serve this country....all that he has done has led to his being the VP choice and filling the gap for a much-needed American leader to disarm those who would keep citizens victims....

Its adolescent to expect freedom and individualism at the expense of others. At the expense of others is central to Rands vision, and thus Mr Ryans. And as to your quote? Rand sure didnt mind the government when it paid her bills when she got sick did she?

Its not what someone SAYS but what they DO that matters.

Consider this: Rands Atlas Shrugged is REQUIRED READING to work in Ryans offices. Thus, he is indoctrinating every employee into his own world view through Rands works. Where the individualism in that?

If you expect to hold on to your freedom and individualism, then you must first grow up.

Rand payed her taxes just like everyone else. She had a Right to her SS, just like you or I. You can do better than attack little old sick Ladies, especially when they are now gone, and not here to defend themselves. Just saying.

Atlas Shrugged should be required reading in school, just like Animal Farm, and 1984. Sorry if you have a problem with that. The value far outweighs the down side. Individualism is in all of us, in one degree or another. Self Reliance translates to being less of a burden to those around us, not more of a burden. It is a pity that you are not open to learning more about her. It is truly your loss. I say this as a person that honors her life, not as someone who idolizes, which is an offense. One does not need to be 100% agreement with Anyone, to appreciate what another contributes.
 
Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Pardon me -- if I don't give a rat about Paul Ryan or his review of Ayn Rand. But I DO care about YOUR review Vidi.. Obviously you're quite disturbed about anyone whole heartedly supporting INDIVIDUALISM, logic and Reason over COLLECTIVISM, feelings, and coercion.

If you witnessed as a teenager (as Rand did) , a Marxist regime TAKING your family's pharmacy business and turning your dad into a complete slave for the State -- you'd probably STILL be yearning for "adolescent" ideas about individual freedoms.

Are you GREEDY about your time? Would you object to someone DEMANDING that you spend 2 hours a week LESS on USMB and spending it at a political rally? There's no difference between our choices to spend our lives and the TIME we have allotted and Money and how we share that commodity. You would no doubt RESENT any demand on your TIME that took away from your business, your family, or your pursuits of happiness.
Did I get that right?

So we are ALL GREEDY actually. The argument is just TOO fixated on money.

Funny thing -- Ayn Rand said immensely nasty things about tthe young Libertarian party, yet she is referenced by them as Ryan has done. Her problem with the Lib Party (which was inspired by her literature) was that they were not JUDGEMENTAL ENOUGH. In an attempt to be "Pro-Choice on Everything" -- the Lib Party forgot that you don't HAVE to CONDONE a behaviour to allow it to be legally pursued.

This brings up the side of Objectivism that leftists won't touch with a 10 Meter pole. And that is the idea of "non-coercion" that backs up the philosophy. It's like garlic to vampires as far as the leftists are concerned. And secretly they object MORE to that -- than anything having to do with Greed or Individualism.. It's just that GREED is their favorite target and they wouldn't want to call attention to COERCION now would they???

Rands philosophy as indicated by her books, shows that she would have done the exact same thing to others that the Marxists did to her and her family. What they did was wrong. She overreacted to their persecution of her father and held onto that hate for the entirety of her life. She never let it go and thus never grew up.

If you look at her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, they paint a picture of her ideal human beings using coercision on those "lesser" beings. Her heros rape their women and the women LOVE them for it. Dont believe me? Go read Atlas Shrugged again.

The idea that non coecsion is fundamental to her philosophy is a naive joke.

You are confusing Atlas Shrugged with The FountainHead. Did you read either of them? Did you use Cliff Notes?
 
it's not "adolescent" to believe in freedom and individualism...:lol:

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. -Ayn Rand

Thank God for good men like Paul Ryan who serve this country....all that he has done has led to his being the VP choice and filling the gap for a much-needed American leader to disarm those who would keep citizens victims....

Its adolescent to expect freedom and individualism at the expense of others. At the expense of others is central to Rands vision, and thus Mr Ryans. And as to your quote? Rand sure didnt mind the government when it paid her bills when she got sick did she?

Its not what someone SAYS but what they DO that matters.

Consider this: Rands Atlas Shrugged is REQUIRED READING to work in Ryans offices. Thus, he is indoctrinating every employee into his own world view through Rands works. Where the individualism in that?

If you expect to hold on to your freedom and individualism, then you must first grow up.

No way Jose.. Not in evidence.. That bolded part above must come from Boing Boing or some other imaginary expert on Objectivism..




What the hell do you think Atlas Shrugged was about?

It was a story of rebellion. About the individual over the collective right?

Do you remember Francisco d'Anconia? Do you remember what he did? He spent YEARS destroying his fathers copper mine business to keep it out of the hands of the raiders...and hes one of the heroes!!! Rand makes it quite clear that every single employee of of Francisco d'Anconia's inherited business was nothing more than a parasite. Forget the fact that they actually risked their lives digging out the copper, they added nothing of value, and Francisco d'Anconia was a hero for putting them all out of work.

Indivisualism at the expense of others in CENTRAL to Rands works.

I dont need crib notes for this analysis, Ive read the book, several times.
 
Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Pardon me -- if I don't give a rat about Paul Ryan or his review of Ayn Rand. But I DO care about YOUR review Vidi.. Obviously you're quite disturbed about anyone whole heartedly supporting INDIVIDUALISM, logic and Reason over COLLECTIVISM, feelings, and coercion.

If you witnessed as a teenager (as Rand did) , a Marxist regime TAKING your family's pharmacy business and turning your dad into a complete slave for the State -- you'd probably STILL be yearning for "adolescent" ideas about individual freedoms.

Are you GREEDY about your time? Would you object to someone DEMANDING that you spend 2 hours a week LESS on USMB and spending it at a political rally? There's no difference between our choices to spend our lives and the TIME we have allotted and Money and how we share that commodity. You would no doubt RESENT any demand on your TIME that took away from your business, your family, or your pursuits of happiness.

So we are ALL GREEDY actually. The argument is just TOO fixated on money.

Funny thing -- Ayn Rand said immensely nasty things about tthe young Libertarian party, yet she is referenced by them as Ryan has done. Her problem with the Lib Party (which was inspired by her literature) was that they were not JUDGEMENTAL ENOUGH. In an attempt to be "Pro-Choice on Everything" -- the Lib Party forgot that you don't HAVE to CONDONE a behaviour to allow it to be legally pursued.

This brings up the side of Objectivism that leftists won't touch with a 10 Meter pole. And that is the idea of "non-coercion" that backs up the philosophy. It's like garlic to vampires as far as the leftists are concerned. And secretly they object MORE to that -- than anything having to do with Greed or Individualism.. It's just that GREED is their favorite target and they wouldn't want to call attention to COERCION now would they???

Rand "supported" selfisness, greed, and disregard for the welfare of other humans. Hardly unique, many four year old children have the same "philsophy". Overly dramatic, often drawn out, relationship/situational, thrillers. The plots are tangled, and unrealistic. Rand slapped on a harsh, egocentric facade of a theory to set herself apart from Harold Robbins and Frank Yerby.

She shouldn't have bothered, Mary Stewart wrote books that are more interesting, with with actual ideas. Lessing wrote exciting and unique LITERATURE. Rand remains above Robbins, and Susann, but beneath Percy, Tryon, Jackson, and the above referenced.

You left out the 3 magic words.... "In Your Opinion."
 
Its adolescent to expect freedom and individualism at the expense of others. At the expense of others is central to Rands vision, and thus Mr Ryans. And as to your quote? Rand sure didnt mind the government when it paid her bills when she got sick did she?

Its not what someone SAYS but what they DO that matters.

Consider this: Rands Atlas Shrugged is REQUIRED READING to work in Ryans offices. Thus, he is indoctrinating every employee into his own world view through Rands works. Where the individualism in that?

If you expect to hold on to your freedom and individualism, then you must first grow up.

No way Jose.. Not in evidence.. That bolded part above must come from Boing Boing or some other imaginary expert on Objectivism..


Yes way Jose.

What the hell do you think Atlas Shrugged was about?

It was a story of rebellion. About the individual over the collective right?

Do you remember Francisco d'Anconia? Do you remember what he did? He spent YEARS destroying his fathers copper mine business to keep it out of the hands of the raiders...and hes one of the heroes!!! Rand makes it quite clear that every single employee of of Francisco d'Anconia's inherited business was nothing more than a parasite. Forget the fact that they actually risked their lives digging out the copper, they added nothing of value, and Francisco d'Anconia was a hero for putting them all out of work.

Indivisualism at the expense of others in CENTRAL to Rands works.


I dont need crib notes for this analysis, Ive read the book, several times.
Boy, did you waste your time if that's what you got out of Atlas Shrugged....Lest I mention your incredible patience for subjecting yourself numerous times to some of the most insipid prose ever set to paper.
 
Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Pardon me -- if I don't give a rat about Paul Ryan or his review of Ayn Rand. But I DO care about YOUR review Vidi.. Obviously you're quite disturbed about anyone whole heartedly supporting INDIVIDUALISM, logic and Reason over COLLECTIVISM, feelings, and coercion.

If you witnessed as a teenager (as Rand did) , a Marxist regime TAKING your family's pharmacy business and turning your dad into a complete slave for the State -- you'd probably STILL be yearning for "adolescent" ideas about individual freedoms.

Are you GREEDY about your time? Would you object to someone DEMANDING that you spend 2 hours a week LESS on USMB and spending it at a political rally? There's no difference between our choices to spend our lives and the TIME we have allotted and Money and how we share that commodity. You would no doubt RESENT any demand on your TIME that took away from your business, your family, or your pursuits of happiness.
Did I get that right?

So we are ALL GREEDY actually. The argument is just TOO fixated on money.

Funny thing -- Ayn Rand said immensely nasty things about tthe young Libertarian party, yet she is referenced by them as Ryan has done. Her problem with the Lib Party (which was inspired by her literature) was that they were not JUDGEMENTAL ENOUGH. In an attempt to be "Pro-Choice on Everything" -- the Lib Party forgot that you don't HAVE to CONDONE a behaviour to allow it to be legally pursued.

This brings up the side of Objectivism that leftists won't touch with a 10 Meter pole. And that is the idea of "non-coercion" that backs up the philosophy. It's like garlic to vampires as far as the leftists are concerned. And secretly they object MORE to that -- than anything having to do with Greed or Individualism.. It's just that GREED is their favorite target and they wouldn't want to call attention to COERCION now would they???

Rands philosophy as indicated by her books, shows that she would have done the exact same thing to others that the Marxists did to her and her family. What they did was wrong. She overreacted to their persecution of her father and held onto that hate for the entirety of her life. She never let it go and thus never grew up.

If you look at her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, they paint a picture of her ideal human beings using coercision on those "lesser" beings. Her heros rape their women and the women LOVE them for it. Dont believe me? Go read Atlas Shrugged again.

The idea that non coecsion is fundamental to her philosophy is a naive joke.

I'd hold on to that hate EVEN IF it wasn't my experience. In fact -- I hate MARXISTS.. There...

Your view of Greed and Coercion must be different from mine. I know a lot of leftists go overboard with the rhetoric and consider working at WalMart the same thing as slavery for example. There is no coercion of others in Objectivism or for that matter in any of Rand's characters. To the contrary -- Rourke et al FLEE the situation of an incompetent GOVT rather than use their resources to further resist or oppose.

Again -- find me coercion and you get a buttery Croissant with Chocolate drizzles. (guess I forgot to eat dinner)..
 
Pardon me -- if I don't give a rat about Paul Ryan or his review of Ayn Rand. But I DO care about YOUR review Vidi.. Obviously you're quite disturbed about anyone whole heartedly supporting INDIVIDUALISM, logic and Reason over COLLECTIVISM, feelings, and coercion.

If you witnessed as a teenager (as Rand did) , a Marxist regime TAKING your family's pharmacy business and turning your dad into a complete slave for the State -- you'd probably STILL be yearning for "adolescent" ideas about individual freedoms.

Are you GREEDY about your time? Would you object to someone DEMANDING that you spend 2 hours a week LESS on USMB and spending it at a political rally? There's no difference between our choices to spend our lives and the TIME we have allotted and Money and how we share that commodity. You would no doubt RESENT any demand on your TIME that took away from your business, your family, or your pursuits of happiness.

So we are ALL GREEDY actually. The argument is just TOO fixated on money.

Funny thing -- Ayn Rand said immensely nasty things about tthe young Libertarian party, yet she is referenced by them as Ryan has done. Her problem with the Lib Party (which was inspired by her literature) was that they were not JUDGEMENTAL ENOUGH. In an attempt to be "Pro-Choice on Everything" -- the Lib Party forgot that you don't HAVE to CONDONE a behaviour to allow it to be legally pursued.

This brings up the side of Objectivism that leftists won't touch with a 10 Meter pole. And that is the idea of "non-coercion" that backs up the philosophy. It's like garlic to vampires as far as the leftists are concerned. And secretly they object MORE to that -- than anything having to do with Greed or Individualism.. It's just that GREED is their favorite target and they wouldn't want to call attention to COERCION now would they???

Rand "supported" selfisness, greed, and disregard for the welfare of other humans. Hardly unique, many four year old children have the same "philsophy". Overly dramatic, often drawn out, relationship/situational, thrillers. The plots are tangled, and unrealistic. Rand slapped on a harsh, egocentric facade of a theory to set herself apart from Harold Robbins and Frank Yerby.

She shouldn't have bothered, Mary Stewart wrote books that are more interesting, with with actual ideas. Lessing wrote exciting and unique LITERATURE. Rand remains above Robbins, and Susann, but beneath Percy, Tryon, Jackson, and the above referenced.

Your critique from a "literary" POV is accepted. 13 page soliquays are a bit overdone. But "welfare of others" always starts at home. And I don't know about you -- but I actually work 10 hours a day TO SERVE OTHERS.. Perhaps you've used a couple of medical devices last time you got lab work done..

From a leftist POV -- I could be a greedy bastard while I'm spending most of life in the service of others and maybe actually helping to SAVE LIVES. Just because YOU don't like my politics or my altruism.

Just like Howard Rourke and his "special steel"... Greedy bastards all eh?

I wrote of the literary value, her 'belief system' if one could the muddled mess of her writing such, is expressed by Nabokov*, Waugh, and of course Solzhenitsyn.

*Nabokov was conservative politically; few cite him, many do not realize he was conservative. He, like Lessing, wrote literature, not 'popular fiction'.
 
Its adolescent to expect freedom and individualism at the expense of others. At the expense of others is central to Rands vision, and thus Mr Ryans. And as to your quote? Rand sure didnt mind the government when it paid her bills when she got sick did she?

Its not what someone SAYS but what they DO that matters.

Consider this: Rands Atlas Shrugged is REQUIRED READING to work in Ryans offices. Thus, he is indoctrinating every employee into his own world view through Rands works. Where the individualism in that?

If you expect to hold on to your freedom and individualism, then you must first grow up.

No way Jose.. Not in evidence.. That bolded part above must come from Boing Boing or some other imaginary expert on Objectivism..


Yes way Jose.

What the hell do you think Atlas Shrugged was about?

It was a story of rebellion. About the individual over the collective right?

Do you remember Francisco d'Anconia? Do you remember what he did? He spent YEARS destroying his fathers copper mine business to keep it out of the hands of the raiders...and hes one of the heroes!!! Rand makes it quite clear that every single employee of of Francisco d'Anconia's inherited business was nothing more than a parasite. Forget the fact that they actually risked their lives digging out the copper, they added nothing of value, and Francisco d'Anconia was a hero for putting them all out of work.

Indivisualism at the expense of others in CENTRAL to Rands works.

I dont need crib notes for this analysis, Ive read the book, several times.

You are so out of context. Did you read Atlas Shrugged and The FountainHead? If you have not even read them, why would you even attempt to engage in a serious debate about them?

In the FountainHead, Rourke was cheated out of his Intellectual Property, something he gave with zero compensation, and only one condition, that the gift be on his terms, no changes in the design. Of course, how he dealt with the betrayal was wrong. Do I need to remind you that we are referring to a fictional character?

In Atlas Shrugged, the World is falling apart because of corruption in the highest places, both in Government and Business. The Parasites are in control, The Visionaries rebel, by walking away from Civilization, and start another, based on Value for Value. That is not greed. Search out the Ten Commandments, tell me what you find about covetousness and what you find out about greed. Private Property, serves both rich and poor, without it we are all lost.
 
Rands popularity is really quite simple. Her entire philosphy is that of an adolesent. Selfish greed wedded to an overblown sense of worth. When I was a teen, I found Rands philosphy enthralling. I found it to be correct and exactly what this country needed.

And then I grew up and I put away childish things.

Paul Ryan on the other hand lives on the street he grew up on, his brother only a block away. After his father died, Ryan drew on his fathers social security to help put himself through college, where he double majored in Economics and Political Science. From college, he went straight to work in Washington.

Ryan went straight from his sheltered life in Janesville to work in government. He has never had a private sector job as his primary and only source of income ( he worked as a waiter and a fitness trainer to suppliment his income he recieved from the government. ) . In fact, as his double major indicates, his goal has always been government.


When the 2008 meltdown occured, Paul Ryan voted AGAINST the GM loan. That had consequences. GM closed the plant in his hometown of Janesville, WI. 3800 middle class jobs lost and Ryan did nothing. Though to his credit, Ryan did vote against the extention of unemployemnt benefits for those same 3800 workers.

In his 13 years in the House, Ryan has passed just two pieces of legislation. The first, in 2000, changed the name of a post office, the second, in 2008 while the country was in full on economic meltdown, changed the way an excise tax was levied on arrows.

At a salary of $174,000 a year, the American taxpayer has paid Paul Ryan 2.26 million dollars, or 1.13 million dollars per piece of legislation. At his current rate of production, if Paul Ryan stays in the House, we should expect to see his next great piece of legislation sometime in 2016.

Ryan, as a foloower of Rands philosophy, believes that a man should only be entitled to that which is produced by his own hand. What has Paul Ryans hand produced? Ryan has said that he believes that welfare, unemployment, social security, medicare are all things the governemnt should not be doing. All things that he wishes to privatize, because government is the problem, NOT the solution.

Yet, the government gave him his fathers social security money so Ryan could got to school. Ryan chose majors which would lead him directly into government. He has never had to rely on a private sector paycheck as his main source of income. And the sweat from Paul Ryans brow produced only 2 pieces of legistlation in 13 years.

it's not "adolescent" to believe in freedom and individualism...:lol:

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. -Ayn Rand

Thank God for good men like Paul Ryan who serve this country....all that he has done has led to his being the VP choice and filling the gap for a much-needed American leader to disarm those who would keep citizens victims....

Its adolescent to expect freedom and individualism at the expense of others. At the expense of others is central to Rands vision, and thus Mr Ryans. And as to your quote? Rand sure didnt mind the government when it paid her bills when she got sick did she?

Its not what someone SAYS but what they DO that matters.

Consider this: Rands Atlas Shrugged is REQUIRED READING to work in Ryans offices. Thus, he is indoctrinating every employee into his own world view through Rands works. Where the individualism in that?

If you expect to hold on to your freedom and individualism, then you must first grow up.

you are way off the mark if you think it was central to Rand's vision that people must sacrifice for others....

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." --Ayn Rand

"It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." --Ayn Rand

Obama is the one who speaks of "sacrifice" and he is the one who "intends to be master"....certainly not Ryan...
 
Its adolescent to expect freedom and individualism at the expense of others. At the expense of others is central to Rands vision, and thus Mr Ryans. And as to your quote? Rand sure didnt mind the government when it paid her bills when she got sick did she?

Its not what someone SAYS but what they DO that matters.

Consider this: Rands Atlas Shrugged is REQUIRED READING to work in Ryans offices. Thus, he is indoctrinating every employee into his own world view through Rands works. Where the individualism in that?

If you expect to hold on to your freedom and individualism, then you must first grow up.

No way Jose.. Not in evidence.. That bolded part above must come from Boing Boing or some other imaginary expert on Objectivism..


Yes way Jose.

What the hell do you think Atlas Shrugged was about?

It was a story of rebellion. About the individual over the collective right?

Do you remember Francisco d'Anconia? Do you remember what he did? He spent YEARS destroying his fathers copper mine business to keep it out of the hands of the raiders...and hes one of the heroes!!! Rand makes it quite clear that every single employee of of Francisco d'Anconia's inherited business was nothing more than a parasite. Forget the fact that they actually risked their lives digging out the copper, they added nothing of value, and Francisco d'Anconia was a hero for putting them all out of work.

Indivisualism at the expense of others in CENTRAL to Rands works.

I dont need crib notes for this analysis, Ive read the book, several times.

See man -- you have a warped definition of "collective rights"... Don't forget the dude in Colorado that set fire to his refinery --- RATHER THEN HAVE IT POSSESSED BY THE COLLECTIVE. That was the motive.

And it's THEIR call. Do you seek permission to do business to serve others and beg their allowance to allow you to stop?

That's not greed. That's justice. And he decided that "serving the collective" as they saw fit was not worth the sacrifice when the collective demands control and ownership of your pharmacy, your copper mine, your oil field or your bakery...
 
Last edited:
No way Jose.. Not in evidence.. That bolded part above must come from Boing Boing or some other imaginary expert on Objectivism..


Yes way Jose.

What the hell do you think Atlas Shrugged was about?

It was a story of rebellion. About the individual over the collective right?

Do you remember Francisco d'Anconia? Do you remember what he did? He spent YEARS destroying his fathers copper mine business to keep it out of the hands of the raiders...and hes one of the heroes!!! Rand makes it quite clear that every single employee of of Francisco d'Anconia's inherited business was nothing more than a parasite. Forget the fact that they actually risked their lives digging out the copper, they added nothing of value, and Francisco d'Anconia was a hero for putting them all out of work.

Indivisualism at the expense of others in CENTRAL to Rands works.

I dont need crib notes for this analysis, Ive read the book, several times.

See man -- you have a warped definition of "collective rights"... Don't forget the dude in Colorado that set fire to his refinery --- RATHER THEN HAVE IT POSSESSED BY THE COLLECTIVE. That was the motive.

And it's THEIR call. Do you seek permission to do business to serve others and beg their allowance to allow you to stop?

That's not greed. That's justice. And he decided that "serving the collective" as they saw fit was not worth the sacrifice when the collective demands control and ownership of your pharmacy, your copper mine, your oil field or your bakery...


Ive warped nothing. It was Rand who warped everything

She would have us believe that EVERY employee is only a parasite offering nothing of value, thus relinquishing the owner of any and all responsibility to the employee. In Rands world view, its an all or nothing, black and white proposition. Either youre a creator and rich or a parasite and poor. That simply doesnt gel with reality.

Its not justice when you throw the baby out with the bathwater. He was well within his rights to walk away, but Galt took a scorched earth policy, destroying everything that others could have stood up and taken charge of because Rand believed that everyone was beneath her "ideal" man, John Galt. They were unworthy and could not possibly rise to the opportunity that Galt walking away could have provided for them. Her ideal man was ALWAYS rich, never middle managment, and never someone who served another.

So Galt railed against the collective...by forming a union and going on strike!

Im going out of town in the morning. My sister is getting married this weeend. Reread Atlas Shrugged and Ill get back to you on Monday. Because you really need to put it in perspective if you, like Rand, believe its an either or, black and white, all or nothing reality we live in.
 
Supposedly the queen of the objectivists, Ayn Rand, was a big influence on Paul Ryan in college. He has since distanced himself from her thinking. Rand championed uber-individualism over collectivism (she was actually Alice Rosenthal or something, a Russian-born Jew, I believe).

Does Ayn Rand have anything to contribute to modern policy? Is "self" the ultimate temporal reality?

She supported abortion.
 
Ayn Rand has nothing at all to offer. Her philosophy Objectivism is the celebration of the sociopath, nothing more. In the end, she was just like every other fool who proclaims boldly that everyone must fend for themselves or be labeled parasite, she took government assistance...to pay for her medical treatments...for lung cancer...because she smoked.

When Ayn was found out, her lawyer said:

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.

Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same - Boing Boing
Aint it great when the hypocrites are found out?




( and yes, I have read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and We, The Living. Ive read some of her non fiction as well as several books by her follower and one time lover, Nathaiel Branden.

Objectivism is a joke. )

The strangest thing about all of the people that are trying to tie Ryan to Rand is that none of them know enough about Rand to discuss the subject. Ryan is the polar opposite of Rand, and no one that has ever read anything she wrote can possibly think otherwise.
 
Yes way Jose.

What the hell do you think Atlas Shrugged was about?

It was a story of rebellion. About the individual over the collective right?

Do you remember Francisco d'Anconia? Do you remember what he did? He spent YEARS destroying his fathers copper mine business to keep it out of the hands of the raiders...and hes one of the heroes!!! Rand makes it quite clear that every single employee of of Francisco d'Anconia's inherited business was nothing more than a parasite. Forget the fact that they actually risked their lives digging out the copper, they added nothing of value, and Francisco d'Anconia was a hero for putting them all out of work.

Indivisualism at the expense of others in CENTRAL to Rands works.

I dont need crib notes for this analysis, Ive read the book, several times.

See man -- you have a warped definition of "collective rights"... Don't forget the dude in Colorado that set fire to his refinery --- RATHER THEN HAVE IT POSSESSED BY THE COLLECTIVE. That was the motive.

And it's THEIR call. Do you seek permission to do business to serve others and beg their allowance to allow you to stop?

That's not greed. That's justice. And he decided that "serving the collective" as they saw fit was not worth the sacrifice when the collective demands control and ownership of your pharmacy, your copper mine, your oil field or your bakery...


Ive warped nothing. It was Rand who warped everything

She would have us believe that EVERY employee is only a parasite offering nothing of value, thus relinquishing the owner of any and all responsibility to the employee. In Rands world view, its an all or nothing, black and white proposition. Either youre a creator and rich or a parasite and poor. That simply doesnt gel with reality.

Its not justice when you throw the baby out with the bathwater. He was well within his rights to walk away, but Galt took a scorched earth policy, destroying everything that others could have stood up and taken charge of because Rand believed that everyone was beneath her "ideal" man, John Galt. They were unworthy and could not possibly rise to the opportunity that Galt walking away could have provided for them. Her ideal man was ALWAYS rich, never middle managment, and never someone who served another.

So Galt railed against the collective...by forming a union and going on strike!

Im going out of town in the morning. My sister is getting married this weeend. Reread Atlas Shrugged and Ill get back to you on Monday. Because you really need to put it in perspective if you, like Rand, believe its an either or, black and white, all or nothing reality we live in.

ALL the overblown Heroes in Rand's books spent their lives serving others.

AND -- there was virtually NO MENTION of treating employees badly or not appreciating their efforts. Just a desire to not have their assets and hard work ADOPTED by incompetent, greedy, caviar eating bureaucrats ALLEDGELY working on behalf of the collective. Scorched earth -- you bet.. When that's the choice.

Read Atlas Shrugged while you go party? What kind of DEMAND ON MY TIME do you think you can make? :tongue:
 
Last edited:
Personally Ayn Rand offers a view of existence so bleak and heartless one has to wonder at her popularity among many on the right. Whittaker Chambers sums her up in the link in the first URL below.

But the individual as the locus and lord of reality and modern life is a powerful meme in American thought. Only in America could a silly kind of Marxism Libertarianism exist. Americans exist in a sort of fantasy that says all this came about from me, Robinson Crusoe without Friday - without history. So yes, the nonsense Rand wrote serves to continue a myth of magic divorced from responsibility for each other. Odd in a nation that calls itself Christian. 'I got mine, tough for you.'

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...on-could-be-a-game-changer-2.html#post5810441
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/164072-ayn-rand-conservatives-tea-party-republicans.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...ult-of-selfishness-on-the-american-right.html


"I was raised to be ashamed of my ignorance, and to try to do something about it if at all possible. I carry that burden to this day, and have successfully passed it on to my children. I don’t believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about—constitutional law, for example, or sailing—a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen, many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don’t believe in it. Worse still (or more amusing, depending on the day) are those who can tell you, and then offer up a stew of New Age blather, right-wing rant, and bloggers’ speculation that’s so divorced from actual, demonstrable fact, that’s so not true, as the kids would say, that the mind goes numb with wonder. “Way I see it is,” a man in the Tulsa Motel 6 swimming pool told me last summer, “if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for us.” Mark Slouka 'Harper's'

Another person who hasn't actually read any of Rand's books commenting about her outlook on the world.
 

Forum List

Back
Top