What's so wrong with Rand's Objectivism?

[G.T.]

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.

Yes there would have been....Slavery was still around.

Without the collectivism, in theory, there is no slavery.

 

[thanatos144]

I think the point would be that without collectivism, there never would have been the need for a Civil War to begin with.

Yes there would have been....Slavery was still around.

Without the collectivism, in theory, there is no slavery.

What Sophistry bullshit. Without arrogance and elitism there wouldn't be slavery....Collectivism was just a by product of them. I am not a collectivist but I dont lie about what made it.

 

[G.T.]

Let me paint you a not-too-fanciful hypothetical that more or less undermines that entire premise. Chinese industry earns boatloads of profit selling goods to the United States, customers in the US buy it because it's cheap. US customers also don't give a rat's ass about the destruction of the environment in China because they don't live there. So when exactly does the invisible hand of the Objectivist free-market step in and impose environmental regulations on Chinese industry? Perhaps the Chinese workers should opt to go hungry rather than be party to destroying their own environment. I don't know, but meanwhile a billion people are fucked.

This is a complete failure of Humanity in General. If there are a Billion people under that boot and can't do anything about it, what is their Net worth in the food chain except for being born into and accepting what was handed to them like lemmings? Feel bad for them? I guess if their pictures were thrown in my face everyday when I go to make my purchases, maybe I actually would. There are a Billion of them, you say? USA has free speech, Chinese can travel here - where is their big push to end their own injustices?

If they're going to stand idly by and take it, I know that it's a blame the victim mentality but when, if what you say is true, there's a billion of them ..... you have to have perspective I think.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lay out your case. Let's discuss. Please be cordial.

Thanks!

Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman | Michael Prescott

This is the Hickman whose "outside" so intrigued the young Ayn Rand.

Now here are some of Rand's notes on the fictional hero she was developing, with Hickman (or what he "suggested") as a model:

"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel'other people.' "

"He shows how impossible it is for a genuinely beautiful soul to succeed at present, for in all [aspects of] modern life, one has to be a hypocrite, to bend and tolerate. This boy wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of."

Apparently what Hickman suggested to Ayn Rand was "a genuinely beautiful soul." The soul of Marian Parker, the murdered girl, evidently did not suggest any comparably romantic notions to her.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is a term for a person who has "no organ" by which to understand other human beings -- a person who "can never realize and feel 'other people.'" That word is sociopath. I mean this quite literally and not as a rhetorical flourish. A sociopath, by definition, is someone who lacks empathy and cannot conceive of other people as fully real. It is precisely because the sociopath objectifies and depersonalizes other human beings that he is able to inflict pain and death without remorse.

It is also fair to say of any sociopath that he "wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of." How this relates to having "a beautiful soul" is unclear to me -- and I earnestly hope it will continue to be.

In her notes, Rand complains that poor Hickman has become the target of irrational and ugly mob psychology:

 

[G.T.]

Yes there would have been....Slavery was still around.

Without the collectivism, in theory, there is no slavery.

What Sophistry bullshit. Without arrogance and elitism there wouldn't be slavery....Collectivism was just a by product of them. I am not a collectivist but I dont lie about what made it.

I'm not going to continue talking to you. Have a good day.

 

[manifold]

Let me paint you a not-too-fanciful hypothetical that more or less undermines that entire premise. Chinese industry earns boatloads of profit selling goods to the United States, customers in the US buy it because it's cheap. US customers also don't give a rat's ass about the destruction of the environment in China because they don't live there. So when exactly does the invisible hand of the Objectivist free-market step in and impose environmental regulations on Chinese industry? Perhaps the Chinese workers should opt to go hungry rather than be party to destroying their own environment. I don't know, but meanwhile a billion people are fucked.

This is a complete failure of Humanity in General. If there are a Billion people under that boot and can't do anything about it, what is their Net worth in the food chain except for being born into and accepting what was handed to them like lemmings? Feel bad for them? I guess if their pictures were thrown in my face everyday when I go to make my purchases, maybe I actually would. There are a Billion of them, you say? USA has free speech, Chinese can travel here - where is their big push to end their own injustices?

If they're going to stand idly by and take it, I know that it's a blame the victim mentality but when, if what you say is true, there's a billion of them ..... you have to have perspective I think.

I'm not sure I follow your stream of consciousness here, but I thank you for the reply.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is an entire Institute devoted to the study of objectivism. Why don't you go there and get some real answers instead of biased personal opinion.

It's like trying to explain astrophysics to someone who got told what the sky looks like.

 

[thanatos144]

Without the collectivism, in theory, there is no slavery.

What Sophistry bullshit. Without arrogance and elitism there wouldn't be slavery....Collectivism was just a by product of them. I am not a collectivist but I dont lie about what made it.

I'm not going to continue talking to you. Have a good day.

 

[G.T.]

Lay out your case. Let's discuss. Please be cordial.

Thanks!

Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman | Michael Prescott

This is the Hickman whose "outside" so intrigued the young Ayn Rand.

Now here are some of Rand's notes on the fictional hero she was developing, with Hickman (or what he "suggested") as a model:

"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel'other people.' "

"He shows how impossible it is for a genuinely beautiful soul to succeed at present, for in all [aspects of] modern life, one has to be a hypocrite, to bend and tolerate. This boy wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of."

Apparently what Hickman suggested to Ayn Rand was "a genuinely beautiful soul." The soul of Marian Parker, the murdered girl, evidently did not suggest any comparably romantic notions to her.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is a term for a person who has "no organ" by which to understand other human beings -- a person who "can never realize and feel 'other people.'" That word is sociopath. I mean this quite literally and not as a rhetorical flourish. A sociopath, by definition, is someone who lacks empathy and cannot conceive of other people as fully real. It is precisely because the sociopath objectifies and depersonalizes other human beings that he is able to inflict pain and death without remorse.

It is also fair to say of any sociopath that he "wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of." How this relates to having "a beautiful soul" is unclear to me -- and I earnestly hope it will continue to be.

In her notes, Rand complains that poor Hickman has become the target of irrational and ugly mob psychology:

I didn't see a previous post?

Anyways, she believed in individual liberties - i.e. you have as much freedom as not infringing on someone else's; thus, a Sociopath doesn't fully comply with her theories.

 

[G.T.]

Let me paint you a not-too-fanciful hypothetical that more or less undermines that entire premise. Chinese industry earns boatloads of profit selling goods to the United States, customers in the US buy it because it's cheap. US customers also don't give a rat's ass about the destruction of the environment in China because they don't live there. So when exactly does the invisible hand of the Objectivist free-market step in and impose environmental regulations on Chinese industry? Perhaps the Chinese workers should opt to go hungry rather than be party to destroying their own environment. I don't know, but meanwhile a billion people are fucked.

This is a complete failure of Humanity in General. If there are a Billion people under that boot and can't do anything about it, what is their Net worth in the food chain except for being born into and accepting what was handed to them like lemmings? Feel bad for them? I guess if their pictures were thrown in my face everyday when I go to make my purchases, maybe I actually would. There are a Billion of them, you say? USA has free speech, Chinese can travel here - where is their big push to end their own injustices?

If they're going to stand idly by and take it, I know that it's a blame the victim mentality but when, if what you say is true, there's a billion of them ..... you have to have perspective I think.

I'm not sure I follow your stream of consciousness here, but I thank you for the reply.

You're welcome.

To be more clear: if you're not willing to fight for your freedom when someone threatens it - you don't deserve it. The same goes with success - if you're unwilling to work for it - you don't deserve it.

 

[manifold]

This is a complete failure of Humanity in General. If there are a Billion people under that boot and can't do anything about it, what is their Net worth in the food chain except for being born into and accepting what was handed to them like lemmings? Feel bad for them? I guess if their pictures were thrown in my face everyday when I go to make my purchases, maybe I actually would. There are a Billion of them, you say? USA has free speech, Chinese can travel here - where is their big push to end their own injustices?

If they're going to stand idly by and take it, I know that it's a blame the victim mentality but when, if what you say is true, there's a billion of them ..... you have to have perspective I think.

I'm not sure I follow your stream of consciousness here, but I thank you for the reply.

You're welcome.

To be more clear: if you're not willing to fight for your freedom when someone threatens it - you don't deserve it. The same goes with success - if you're unwilling to work for it - you don't deserve it.

So Abe Lincoln was a douche for freeing the slaves since they should have merely fought to free themselves, otherwise they get what they deserve?

 

[G.T.]

I'm not sure I follow your stream of consciousness here, but I thank you for the reply.

You're welcome.

To be more clear: if you're not willing to fight for your freedom when someone threatens it - you don't deserve it. The same goes with success - if you're unwilling to work for it - you don't deserve it.

So Abe Lincoln was a douche for freeing the slaves since they should have merely fought to free themselves, otherwise they get what they deserve?

Exactly wrong - the slaves did fight. And even if they didn't, I wouldn't call someone a douche exactly for standing up for others necessarily, as Rand would (unless it had mutual benefit, according to her philosophy).

 

[Katzndogz]

One of Rand's best quotes:

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.

Share your prosperity. From barakula obama.

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm not sure I follow your stream of consciousness here, but I thank you for the reply.

You're welcome.

To be more clear: if you're not willing to fight for your freedom when someone threatens it - you don't deserve it. The same goes with success - if you're unwilling to work for it - you don't deserve it.

So Abe Lincoln was a douche for freeing the slaves since they should have merely fought to free themselves, otherwise they get what they deserve?

Not quite. If the slaves had said "We don't care whether or not we're slaves" then of course it's why bother freeing them. They deserve to be content and if they are content in slavery leave them be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not all GOP by any means, but our conservative Christians certainly overlook it.

Ayn Rand was God-hating atheist and therefore nothing she thought or said should be taken seriously by Republicans.

Or do they overlook that litmus test in her case?

 

[Pho_King]

Randism is fundamentally anti-democratic, and is closer to fascism than many so-called "Libertarians" are to admit.

Whereas democracy seeks to allow all people fundamental rights, Objectivism seeks to allow the rich and the powerful the right to usurp the rights of others.

Rand believes the rich and the powerful have the right to do as they place, because this enriches society. In fact, it enriches the rich and the powerful.

We know trickle-down economics do not work, and Objectivism is a step along the road from trickle-down.

It's not that trickle down economics doesn't work, it's that you OWS parasites prefer trickle up misery.

 

[G.T.]

Randism is fundamentally anti-democratic, and is closer to fascism than many so-called "Libertarians" are to admit.

Whereas democracy seeks to allow all people fundamental rights, Objectivism seeks to allow the rich and the powerful the right to usurp the rights of others.

Rand believes the rich and the powerful have the right to do as they place, because this enriches society. In fact, it enriches the rich and the powerful.

We know trickle-down economics do not work, and Objectivism is a step along the road from trickle-down.

It's not that trickle down economics doesn't work, it's that you OWS parasites prefer trickle up misery.

This thread has been relatively free of insults and rudeness toward one another.

 

[Pho_King]

Randism is fundamentally anti-democratic, and is closer to fascism than many so-called "Libertarians" are to admit.

Whereas democracy seeks to allow all people fundamental rights, Objectivism seeks to allow the rich and the powerful the right to usurp the rights of others.

Rand believes the rich and the powerful have the right to do as they place, because this enriches society. In fact, it enriches the rich and the powerful.

We know trickle-down economics do not work, and Objectivism is a step along the road from trickle-down.

It's not that trickle down economics doesn't work, it's that you OWS parasites prefer trickle up misery.

This thread has been relatively free of insults and rudeness toward one another.

Was someone insulted? What's wrong with the term " trickle up misery"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pho_King the Parasite ignores his culpability of course.

It's not that trickle down economics doesn't work, it's that you OWS parasites prefer trickle up misery.

This thread has been relatively free of insults and rudeness toward one another.

Was someone insulted? What's wrong with the term " trickle up misery"?

 

[Saigon]

There is an entire Institute devoted to the study of objectivism. Why don't you go there and get some real answers instead of biased personal opinion.

It's like trying to explain astrophysics to someone who got told what the sky looks like.

Because Objectivisit sites do not allow free speech - the only opinions you will see there are filtered, screened and purified.

It is, after all, the Scientiology of politics.