What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand

[Ragnar]

Rand was an idiot

anyone who holds on high an idiot is an idiot

See the above. Nothing refuting the OP. Nothing demonstrating knowledge of the OP or Ayn Rand in general or specific. An automaton unworthy of regard. For proof of my statement see, "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand". Yeah. This thread, which was above the comprehension of Truthmatersnot.

Worship Rand if you want.

No "worship" is necessary or called for in noting "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand". Warship of anyone or thing is antithetical to Objectivist philosophy. Warship of Ayn Rand herself is idiotic.

(Had any left of center responder to this thread bothered to read the OP then criticism of Ayn Rand might have flowed directly from there and provided therein an interesting point of argument or arguments)

Instead we have all of the above which you have read for yourselves, and all the below which is a given...


- Zero twentieth century philosophers held as on par with Ayn Rand

- Zero refutations of the philosophy of Objectivism

- Zero criticisms of Rand drawn from the multiple criticisms at the link in the OP

- Robotic anti-Randian talking points uttered faster than the OP could be read or responded to.

- Robotic anti-Objectivist talking points entirely unrelated to the OP or link

- Zero use of debate skills common to High School debate teams across America

- Zero refutations (or any note of understanding at all) from multiple notes drawn from the Ayn Rand Lexicon
The Ayn*Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

- Zero contrary philosophical arguments from any philosopher in history

- No attempt to engage in the OP/original link whatsoever

- No attempt to engage in independent thought at all or any evidence given whatsoever that any anti-Objectivist poster has even read an entire book on Objectivist philosophy


I am not saying that said books must or should have been read by anyone. There are multiple philosophical world views I have never explored myself and might never (time depending). I admit there are multiple philosophies on this planet I have not heard of or may not understand. Some of them may very well be brilliant. Some of them may well put Ayn Rand to shame. However, unlike some of USMB's typical leftist, I do not reflexively condemn any of them.

The small article "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand" and the typical liberal response to it in this very thread are a modest proof I offer as an America wide problem. The Left is as intolerant, the Left is as anti-intellectual and the Left is as uncompromising as they pretend the Right is.

They fail to see their limitations and they fail to see our common humanity. Rand, for some reason, is verboten in Leftist circles. They don't read her, they don't understand her yet they all fear and despise her ideas.

I wonder why.

Common humanity? Coming from people who call fellow Americans on Medicare and Social Security "parasites", "looters" or "moochers" of society?

From everything I typed above you had a problem only with "common humanity"? Not to lower the discourse any but fuck you. Were the words "common humanity" the only two words that failed to go over your head?

I suppose not. Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy actually subscribed very specific meanings to the terms "parasites, looters and moochers". Each in fact, had their own meanings what with their being entirely different words and all. Objectivism even requires it's very own lexicon.

Sadly you don't know what those words mean in context as you don't know Rand. More sadly you don't know the topic of this thread as you did not read the OP or it's short attached article. Saddest of all you probably were only able to take the words "fuck you" from this post and that can't advance the argument in any possible fashion and that's assuming you know what the argument is about to begin with. (audible sigh)




Like the great Keven Bacon said in A Few Good Men... "these are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed..."

- Zero twentieth century philosophers held as on par with Ayn Rand

- Zero refutations of the philosophy of Objectivism

- Zero criticisms of Rand drawn from the multiple criticisms at the link in the OP

- Robotic anti-Randian talking points uttered faster than the OP could be read or responded to.

- Robotic anti-Objectivist talking points entirely unrelated to the OP or link

- Zero use of debate skills common to High School debate teams across America

- Zero refutations (or any note of understanding at all) from multiple notes drawn from the Ayn Rand Lexicon
The Ayn*Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

- Zero contrary philosophical arguments from any philosopher in history

- No attempt to engage in the OP/original link whatsoever

- No attempt to engage in independent thought at all or any evidence given whatsoever that any anti-Objectivist poster has even read an entire book on Objectivist philosophy

 

[Ravi]

The funniest thing about this thread is the fact that actual conservatives think Rand is an idiot, too.

But the OP would never admit that.

Why don't you start a thread debating the merits of Adolph Hitler? I bet you'll get similar derision.

 

[Ragnar]

The funniest thing about this thread is the fact that actual conservatives think Rand is an idiot, too.

But the OP would never admit that.

Another aliterate genius. The funny thing about this thread is that leftist apparently like to show off their ignorance and anti-intellectualism. I've noted multiple problems that conservatives have with Rand and the linked article goes even further.

The thread title is clearly wrong though. It should not be called "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand" like the article linked in the OP. It ought to be titled "What Liberals Will Never Understand About Ayn Rand".

Why don't you start a thread debating the merits of Adolph Hitler? I bet you'll get similar derision.

Socialist like Hitler have no merits and as an objectivist I am obviously anti-socialist and anti-communist. Just as obviously the discussion would be hugely different. People have informed opinions on Hitler. This is not the case with liberals at USMB where Rand is concerned.

 

[Bfgrn]

See the above. Nothing refuting the OP. Nothing demonstrating knowledge of the OP or Ayn Rand in general or specific. An automaton unworthy of regard. For proof of my statement see, "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand". Yeah. This thread, which was above the comprehension of Truthmatersnot.



No "worship" is necessary or called for in noting "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand". Warship of anyone or thing is antithetical to Objectivist philosophy. Warship of Ayn Rand herself is idiotic.

(Had any left of center responder to this thread bothered to read the OP then criticism of Ayn Rand might have flowed directly from there and provided therein an interesting point of argument or arguments)

Instead we have all of the above which you have read for yourselves, and all the below which is a given...


- Zero twentieth century philosophers held as on par with Ayn Rand

- Zero refutations of the philosophy of Objectivism

- Zero criticisms of Rand drawn from the multiple criticisms at the link in the OP

- Robotic anti-Randian talking points uttered faster than the OP could be read or responded to.

- Robotic anti-Objectivist talking points entirely unrelated to the OP or link

- Zero use of debate skills common to High School debate teams across America

- Zero refutations (or any note of understanding at all) from multiple notes drawn from the Ayn Rand Lexicon
The Ayn*Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

- Zero contrary philosophical arguments from any philosopher in history

- No attempt to engage in the OP/original link whatsoever

- No attempt to engage in independent thought at all or any evidence given whatsoever that any anti-Objectivist poster has even read an entire book on Objectivist philosophy


I am not saying that said books must or should have been read by anyone. There are multiple philosophical world views I have never explored myself and might never (time depending). I admit there are multiple philosophies on this planet I have not heard of or may not understand. Some of them may very well be brilliant. Some of them may well put Ayn Rand to shame. However, unlike some of USMB's typical leftist, I do not reflexively condemn any of them.

The small article "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand" and the typical liberal response to it in this very thread are a modest proof I offer as an America wide problem. The Left is as intolerant, the Left is as anti-intellectual and the Left is as uncompromising as they pretend the Right is.

They fail to see their limitations and they fail to see our common humanity. Rand, for some reason, is verboten in Leftist circles. They don't read her, they don't understand her yet they all fear and despise her ideas.

I wonder why.

Common humanity? Coming from people who call fellow Americans on Medicare and Social Security "parasites", "looters" or "moochers" of society?

From everything I typed above you had a problem only with "common humanity"? Not to lower the discourse any but fuck you. Were the words "common humanity" the only two words that failed to go over your head?

I suppose not. Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy actually subscribed very specific meanings to the terms "parasites, looters and moochers". Each in fact, had their own meanings what with their being entirely different words and all. Objectivism even requires it's very own lexicon.

Sadly you don't know what those words mean in context as you don't know Rand. More sadly you don't know the topic of this thread as you did not read the OP or it's short attached article. Saddest of all you probably were only able to take the words "fuck you" from this post and that can't advance the argument in any possible fashion and that's assuming you know what the argument is about to begin with. (audible sigh)




Like the great Keven Bacon said in A Few Good Men... "these are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed..."

- Zero twentieth century philosophers held as on par with Ayn Rand

- Zero refutations of the philosophy of Objectivism

- Zero criticisms of Rand drawn from the multiple criticisms at the link in the OP

- Robotic anti-Randian talking points uttered faster than the OP could be read or responded to.

- Robotic anti-Objectivist talking points entirely unrelated to the OP or link

- Zero use of debate skills common to High School debate teams across America

- Zero refutations (or any note of understanding at all) from multiple notes drawn from the Ayn Rand Lexicon
The Ayn*Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

- Zero contrary philosophical arguments from any philosopher in history

- No attempt to engage in the OP/original link whatsoever

- No attempt to engage in independent thought at all or any evidence given whatsoever that any anti-Objectivist poster has even read an entire book on Objectivist philosophy

I will REPEAT what you have ignored...

What liberals DO understand about Ayn Rand

We DO understand the vile anti social contempt that comes from the mouths of her believers. We DO understand the horrible implications of policies proposed by Ayn Rand followers like Paul Ryan.

Ayn Rand is dead. So there is nothing to understand, EXCEPT what her true believers believe and what they perceive her philosophy to be.

 

[Greenbeard]

One may pick and choose ideas and arguments ...

This does seem to be a common sentiment among rank-and-file Randians. That one can "borrow" this or that precept from her worldview without purposefully embracing the narcissistic atheism that provides their philosophical underpinning. Good luck with that.

 

[Avatar4321]

What liberals dont understand about any topic could fill encyclopedias.

In fact, it does.

 

[Ragnar]

I will REPEAT what you have ignored...

What liberals DO understand about Ayn Rand

We DO understand the vile anti social contempt that comes from the mouths of her believers. We DO understand the horrible implications of policies proposed by Ayn Rand followers like Paul Ryan.

Ayn Rand is dead. So there is nothing to understand, EXCEPT what her true believers believe and what they perceive her philosophy to be.

There is nothing anti-social about the passionate defense of individual rights, it's individual rights that make a healthy, prosperous and just society even possible. Just look at it's opposite, Soviet Russia or North Korea to learn how anti-social a country can be without strong protections for individuals.

When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.

If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations.

“What Is Capitalism?”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 20

“Common Good” — Ayn Rand Lexicon

And not for nothing but no liberal here, as yet, has demonstrated that they know the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. Nor have they demonstrated that they can even define Objectivism. They can and have shown an ability to call it names though. That's something.

In any case, one need not be a believer ("true" or otherwise) to understand a philosophy. Here, the Left could not fill a decent sized bumper sticker with what they know about Ayn Rand.

 

[Bfgrn]

I will REPEAT what you have ignored...

What liberals DO understand about Ayn Rand

We DO understand the vile anti social contempt that comes from the mouths of her believers. We DO understand the horrible implications of policies proposed by Ayn Rand followers like Paul Ryan.

Ayn Rand is dead. So there is nothing to understand, EXCEPT what her true believers believe and what they perceive her philosophy to be.

There is nothing anti-social about the passionate defense of individual rights, it's individual rights that make a healthy, prosperous and just society even possible. Just look at it's opposite, Soviet Russia or North Korea to learn how anti-social a country can be without strong protections for individuals.

When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.

If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations.

“What Is Capitalism?”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 20

“Common Good” — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

And not for nothing but no liberal here, as yet, has demonstrated that they know the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. Nor have they demonstrated that they can even define Objectivism. They can and have shown an ability to call it names though. That's something.

In any case, one need not be a believer ("true" or otherwise) to understand a philosophy. Here, the Left could not fill a decent sized bumper sticker with what they know about Ayn Rand.

Still avoiding addressing my undeniable truths.

Here is what you REALLY need to do: explain Ayn Rand to your comrades, you know, the ones who call citizens on Medicare and Social Security parasites, moochers and leaches. Explain to your comrades "common humanity".

I don't need Ayn Rand to teach me what is innate in liberal upbringing.

 

[Ragnar]

I will REPEAT what you have ignored...

What liberals DO understand about Ayn Rand

We DO understand the vile anti social contempt that comes from the mouths of her believers. We DO understand the horrible implications of policies proposed by Ayn Rand followers like Paul Ryan.

Ayn Rand is dead. So there is nothing to understand, EXCEPT what her true believers believe and what they perceive her philosophy to be.

There is nothing anti-social about the passionate defense of individual rights, it's individual rights that make a healthy, prosperous and just society even possible. Just look at it's opposite, Soviet Russia or North Korea to learn how anti-social a country can be without strong protections for individuals.

When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.

If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations.

“What Is Capitalism?”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 20

“Common Good” — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

And not for nothing but no liberal here, as yet, has demonstrated that they know the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. Nor have they demonstrated that they can even define Objectivism. They can and have shown an ability to call it names though. That's something.

In any case, one need not be a believer ("true" or otherwise) to understand a philosophy. Here, the Left could not fill a decent sized bumper sticker with what they know about Ayn Rand.

Still avoiding addressing my undeniable truths.

Here is what you REALLY need to do: explain Ayn Rand to your comrades, you know, the ones who call citizens on Medicare and Social Security parasites, moochers and leaches. Explain to your comrades "common humanity".

I don't need Ayn Rand to teach me what is innate in liberal upbringing.

Still confused, off topic and throwing out straw men? Get over your ignorance already.

I don't speak for, or need defend these phantom comrades.

You don't have what you might learn from Rand through sheer close-minded self denial and an eagerness to accept blind simplistic propaganda from those whose beliefs are threatened by a freer world.

 

[edthecynic]

Socialist like Hitler have no merits and as an objectivist I am obviously anti-socialist and anti-communist. Just as obviously the discussion would be hugely different. People have informed opinions on Hitler. This is not the case with liberals at USMB where Rand is concerned.

CON$ervoFascist Hitler was the original OBJECTIVIST. Rand simply plagiarized Hitler, her first Superman who was "a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

 

[edthecynic]

I will REPEAT what you have ignored...

What liberals DO understand about Ayn Rand

We DO understand the vile anti social contempt that comes from the mouths of her believers. We DO understand the horrible implications of policies proposed by Ayn Rand followers like Paul Ryan.

Ayn Rand is dead. So there is nothing to understand, EXCEPT what her true believers believe and what they perceive her philosophy to be.

There is nothing anti-social about the passionate defense of individual rights, it's individual rights that make a healthy, prosperous and just society even possible. Just look at it's opposite, Soviet Russia or North Korea to learn how anti-social a country can be without strong protections for individuals.

When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.

If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations.

“What Is Capitalism?”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 20

“Common Good” — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

And not for nothing but no liberal here, as yet, has demonstrated that they know the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. Nor have they demonstrated that they can even define Objectivism. They can and have shown an ability to call it names though. That's something.

In any case, one need not be a believer ("true" or otherwise) to understand a philosophy. Here, the Left could not fill a decent sized bumper sticker with what they know about Ayn Rand.

Objectivism is PC for Naziism.

 

[Ravi]

Socialist like Hitler have no merits and as an objectivist I am obviously anti-socialist and anti-communist. Just as obviously the discussion would be hugely different. People have informed opinions on Hitler. This is not the case with liberals at USMB where Rand is concerned.

CON$ervoFascist Hitler was the original OBJECTIVIST. Rand simply plagiarized Hitler, her first Superman who was "a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

Thanks, Ed....I guess there was something I could learn about Rand. Or rather something I had forgotten. She wasn't just a poor novelist and a hypocrite, she also had a philosophy very similar to Hitler. Social darwinism embraced by both. The belief that compassion was a weakness embraced by both (though I must point out, at least Hitler didn't become a leech on government programs in later life ), the belief that people could only be dominant or sheeple embraced by both....didn't she also believe in abortion as a means of weeding out undesirables, just like Hitler?

 

[Ravi]

What liberals dont understand about any topic could fill encyclopedias.

In fact, it does.

Is that the book of mormon?

 

[editec]

I probably read ATlas Shurgged before most of the people here were born.

I understand her philosophy quite well.

I simply think it makes no more sense than Marxist economic theory.

Why?

Because in both cases they imagine that human nature is going to change to accomodate their new economic systems.

 

[Ragnar]

Socialist like Hitler have no merits and as an objectivist I am obviously anti-socialist and anti-communist. Just as obviously the discussion would be hugely different. People have informed opinions on Hitler. This is not the case with liberals at USMB where Rand is concerned.

CON$ervoFascist Hitler was the original OBJECTIVIST. Rand simply plagiarized Hitler, her first Superman who was "a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

Now you are truly off the rails, beyond Orwellian newspeak, well into cloud-koo-koo-land. Driven insane by the constant failure of your own philosophy or simply struck dumb by banging your head constantly against a wall of ignorance.

Ayn Rand is damn near the polar opposite of Hitler. The entire point of Objectivist philosophy is a rejection of the use or force or fraud both by man and by State.

You are dumbassery personified. FWIW - A man "with no regard" for what "society holds sacred", "with a consciousness all his own" a man who can make his way in the world with little need of others, has no reason, motive or plan to rule said society. To what end? You can't enforce Laissez-faire capitalism at the point of a gun and Objectivism denies one the initial use of force in the first place.

The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.

The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.

The dictionary definition of fascism is: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism . . .” [The American College Dictionary,
New York: Random House, 1957.]

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.

Needless to say, under either system, the inequalities of income and standard of living are greater than anything possible under a free economy—and a man’s position is determined, not by his productive ability and achievement, but by political pull and force.

Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis—and “the public good” is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national “greatness.” The socialist-communist axis proclaims some grandiose economic plan, which keeps receding year by year. The fascist-Nazi axis merely extols leadership—leadership without purpose, program or direction—and power for power’s sake.

“The Fascist New Frontier,”
The Ayn Rand Column, 98

Now you are just desperately slinging poo waiting for me to get bored and leave.

I will admit this much, that poo plan of yours will eventually work. I'll tire of teaching long before you tire of wallowing in ignorance.

 

[edthecynic]

Socialist like Hitler have no merits and as an objectivist I am obviously anti-socialist and anti-communist. Just as obviously the discussion would be hugely different. People have informed opinions on Hitler. This is not the case with liberals at USMB where Rand is concerned.

CON$ervoFascist Hitler was the original OBJECTIVIST. Rand simply plagiarized Hitler, her first Superman who was "a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

Now you are truly off the rails, beyond Orwellian newspeak, well into cloud-koo-koo-land. Driven insane by the constant failure of your own philosophy or simply struck dumb by banging your head constantly against a wall of ignorance.

Ayn Rand is damn near the polar opposite of Hitler. The entire point of Objectivist philosophy is a rejection of the use or force or fraud both by man and by State.

Rand is Hitler's twin sister from another mother.

 

[del]

CON$ervoFascist Hitler was the original OBJECTIVIST. Rand simply plagiarized Hitler, her first Superman who was "a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

Now you are truly off the rails, beyond Orwellian newspeak, well into cloud-koo-koo-land. Driven insane by the constant failure of your own philosophy or simply struck dumb by banging your head constantly against a wall of ignorance.

Ayn Rand is damn near the polar opposite of Hitler. The entire point of Objectivist philosophy is a rejection of the use or force or fraud both by man and by State.

Rand is Hitler's twin sister from another mother.

she had a better mustache

 

[Ragnar]

Thanks, Ed....I guess there was something I could learn about Rand. Or rather something I had forgotten. She wasn't just a poor novelist and a hypocrite, she also had a philosophy very similar to Hitler. Social darwinism embraced by both. The belief that compassion was a weakness embraced by both (though I must point out, at least Hitler didn't become a leech on government programs in later life ), the belief that people could only be dominant or sheeple embraced by both....didn't she also believe in abortion as a means of weeding out undesirables, just like Hitler?

Your thinking of Margaret Sanger. Ayn Rand, however was pro-choice, though Ravi, I have to say, if this is to become your new standard defense of the pro-choice viewpoint you should consider an alternate argument.

Anyway, back to your best debate pal: No not editec, I mean Hitler. While you and "idiotec" try to Godwin's Law your way into futility the facts just keep piling up against you.

If the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism—the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies—which has characterized most of human history.

In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. Although previous dictators (and many today, e.g., in Latin America) often preached the unlimited power of the state, they were on the whole unable to enforce such power. As a rule, citizens of such countries had a kind of partial “freedom,” not a freedom-on-principle, but at least a freedom-by-default.

Even the latter was effectively absent in Nazi Germany. The efficiency of the government in dominating its subjects, the all-encompassing character of its coercion, the complete mass regimentation on a scale involving millions of men—and, one might add, the enormity of the slaughter, the planned, systematic mass slaughter, in peacetime, initiated by a government against its own citizens—these are the insignia of twentieth-century totalitarianism (Nazi and communist), which are without parallel in recorded history. In the totalitarian regimes, as the Germans found out after only a few months of Hitler’s rule, every detail of life is prescribed, or proscribed. There is no longer any distinction between private matters and public matters. “There are to be no more private Germans,” said Friedrich Sieburg, a Nazi writer; “each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in this service.” “The only person who is still a private individual in Germany,” boasted Robert Ley, a member of the Nazi hierarchy, after several years of Nazi rule, “is somebody who is asleep.”

In place of the despised “private individuals,” the Germans heard daily or hourly about a different kind of entity, a supreme entity, whose will, it was said, is what determines the course and actions of the state: the nation, the whole, the group. Over and over, the Germans heard the idea that underlies the advocacy of omnipotent government, the idea that totalitarians of every kind stress as the justification of their total states: collectivism.

Collectivism is the theory that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be sacrificed for the group whenever it—or its representative, the state—deems this desirable.

Leonard Peikoff,
The Ominous Parallels, 16

Fascism/Nazism — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

 

[Ragnar]

Rand is Hitler's twin sister from another mother.

When losing an argument just try to learn or leave. Combining Godwin's Law with chemical predestination only makes you that much more pathetic. That's not just flinging poo, that is flinging diseased poo.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

“Racism,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 126

 

[edthecynic]

Rand is Hitler's twin sister from another mother.

When losing an argument just try to learn or leave. Combining Godwin's Law with chemical predestination only makes you that much more pathetic. That's not just flinging poo, that is flinging diseased poo.

Of course YOU brought up Rand's mentor and guiding light HITLER before me, I merely replied to YOUR HITLER post..

Originally Posted by Ragnar
Socialist like Hitler have no merits and as an objectivist I am obviously anti-socialist and anti-communist. Just as obviously the discussion would be hugely different. People have informed opinions on Hitler. This is not the case with liberals at USMB where Rand is concerned.