Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fascism is definitely not what she preaches.
Fascism is definitely not what she preaches.
In practice, it is, because both systems are inherently plutocratic in nature.
Neither allow power to be obtained through the will of the people or through the ballot box, but through access to power and money.
This is the very essence of fascism, which is why facism is considered the most extreme right wing form of government possible.
Lay out your case. Let's discuss. Please be cordial.
Thanks!
Nothing, in my opinion. Atlas Shrugged was prophetic, as was Ayn Rand. Of course it is too late to work in present society, for we have elected officials whose political ambitions for America, have been counterproductive. We are seeing the result of collectivism.
From Wikipedia:
The book [ Atlas Shrugged ] explores a dystopian United States where many of society's most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations and go on strike.
The refusal evokes the imagery of what would happen if the mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the world. They are led by John Galt. Galt describes the strike as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the minds that drive society's growth and productivity.
In their efforts, these people "of the mind" hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society.
SNIP:
Total sales of the novel in 2009 exceeded 500,000 copies.[68] The book sold 445,000 copies in 2011, the second-strongest sales year in the novel's history. At the time of publication the novel was on the New York Times best-seller list and was selling at roughly a third the volume of 2011.[
Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you object to her view on Heroism?
If being a hero - say in the Military - doesn't in some way serve one's self, she believes that to be altruism and evil. Do you agree?
A job I love.
No, because "power" is only obtained through force or Government, and without their help - you are at the whim of your Customers.
Nothing, in my opinion. Atlas Shrugged was prophetic, as was Ayn Rand. Of course it is too late to work in present society, for we have elected officials whose political ambitions for America, have been counterproductive. We are seeing the result of collectivism.
From Wikipedia:
The book [ Atlas Shrugged ] explores a dystopian United States where many of society's most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations and go on strike.
The refusal evokes the imagery of what would happen if the mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the world. They are led by John Galt. Galt describes the strike as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the minds that drive society's growth and productivity.
In their efforts, these people "of the mind" hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society.
SNIP:
Total sales of the novel in 2009 exceeded 500,000 copies.[68] The book sold 445,000 copies in 2011, the second-strongest sales year in the novel's history. At the time of publication the novel was on the New York Times best-seller list and was selling at roughly a third the volume of 2011.[
Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you object to her view on Heroism?
If being a hero - say in the Military - doesn't in some way serve one's self, she believes that to be altruism and evil. Do you agree?
I will have to research her thoughts and assertions on that, before I can answer, and I am only willing to do that in another forum. I have long seen how these type of threads, quickly deteriorate within a forum with no boundaries. I do appreciate the question, though.
But right now, I must log off and get ready for work.
I have long seen how these type of threads, quickly deteriorate within a forum with no boundaries.
No, because "power" is only obtained through force or Government, and without their help - you are at the whim of your Customers.
Was I.G. Farben at the whim of their customers?
No, because "power" is only obtained through force or Government, and without their help - you are at the whim of your Customers.
Was I.G. Farben at the whim of their customers?
It was at the whim of International Law.
Rand didn't believe in a Police-less society. They committed war crimes, not sure how that applies.
Was I.G. Farben at the whim of their customers?
It was at the whim of International Law.
Rand didn't believe in a Police-less society. They committed war crimes, not sure how that applies.
Rand did not believe in a police-less society, but probably did believe in a society in which courts would support the right of the plutocrats to govern - and not to support the rights of the Great Unwashed to question that right.
Can you imagine an Objecticist society in which environmental protection would be able to prevent a massive coal mine being opened, for instance?
In an obejecitvist society, business would always triumph over justice.
Ya can't use probably's, because then you're arguing with a possible straw man and not actively discussing what's in front of you.
She didn't favor plutocrats being anywhere near Government, and that was her biggest point. Government is what helps the rich-run-amok more-so than anything.
As far as the Environmental considerations, people would need to Vote with their dollars, and if they didn't then who would deserve a destroyed Earth MORE then the Customers that made it so?
As far as the Environmental considerations, people would need to Vote with their dollars, and if they didn't then who would deserve a destroyed Earth MORE then the Customers that made it so?
The problem is that adversely affects everyone else too.
Ya can't use probably's, because then you're arguing with a possible straw man and not actively discussing what's in front of you.
She didn't favor plutocrats being anywhere near Government, and that was her biggest point. Government is what helps the rich-run-amok more-so than anything.
As far as the Environmental considerations, people would need to Vote with their dollars, and if they didn't then who would deserve a destroyed Earth MORE then the Customers that made it so?
We can't argue with that is in front of us, because there is no objectivist society, nor has there ever been. It's a theoretical discussion.
But I think it's a given in any plutocratic society that the need to make profit supercedes human rights - and in doing so supercede the right to recourse through a court system.
Objectivism IS a form of government, but one in which the government itself can be reduced to a very small size by effectively outsourcing the role of government to industry.
If we imagine various ministries and authorities being closed, then the role played by those ministries and authorities would in some cases disappear - allowing private companies the right to do what they want without oversight - and in other cases would be run by private companies.
People can vote with ther dollars only where they have choice - there is every likelihood that in a completely deregulated society, much of that choice would disappear.
Do you really think a Randist state would forbid cartels, monopolies or price-fixing?
Ya can't use probably's, because then you're arguing with a possible straw man and not actively discussing what's in front of you.
She didn't favor plutocrats being anywhere near Government, and that was her biggest point. Government is what helps the rich-run-amok more-so than anything.
As far as the Environmental considerations, people would need to Vote with their dollars, and if they didn't then who would deserve a destroyed Earth MORE then the Customers that made it so?
We can't argue with that is in front of us, because there is no objectivist society, nor has there ever been. It's a theoretical discussion.
In Rand's theory, Monopolies were only and can only *ever* be created with the help of Governments.
.
Nothing, in my opinion. Atlas Shrugged was prophetic, as was Ayn Rand. Of course it is too late to work in present society, for we have elected officials whose political ambitions for America, have been counterproductive. We are seeing the result of collectivism.
From Wikipedia:
The book [ Atlas Shrugged ] explores a dystopian United States where many of society's most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations and go on strike.
The refusal evokes the imagery of what would happen if the mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the world. They are led by John Galt. Galt describes the strike as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the minds that drive society's growth and productivity.
In their efforts, these people "of the mind" hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society.
SNIP:
Total sales of the novel in 2009 exceeded 500,000 copies.[68] The book sold 445,000 copies in 2011, the second-strongest sales year in the novel's history. At the time of publication the novel was on the New York Times best-seller list and was selling at roughly a third the volume of 2011.[
Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So it was collectivism that was prevalent during the Great Compromise that led to Civil War also.
I think the point would be that without collectivism, there never would have been the need for a Civil War to begin with.
As far as the Environmental considerations, people would need to Vote with their dollars, and if they didn't then who would deserve a destroyed Earth MORE then the Customers that made it so?
The problem is that adversely affects everyone else too.
Yea, I'm not leaning one way or another on this whole theory, even, I'm just hashing out the "devil's advocate" role on both sides, just to burn time and enjoy it.
But the adversely affecting others thing would spread, and people would/should stop buying - that, or people would start moving.
In Rand's theory, Monopolies were only and can only *ever* be created with the help of Governments.
.
Which is totally disengenuous of Rand, of course. Companies do not need government to form cartels or monopolies - they will very happily do it themselves.
In an Objectivist world, your Windows WILL come with Internet Explorer, and will not allow you to use Firefox.
I agree that welfare is a problem, but we get people off welfare by enabling them through good healthcare and education, and then set them on their way with no excuses.
In Finland, every child has access to excellent schools and doctors. And then they are expected to get out and get a job.
By and large they do, because they have been empowered to do so.
