A Great Article on Ayn Rand

[geauxtohell]

The author of the Slate joke and you don't have any understanding what so ever of Rand's writing, your post and that imbecile's "article" prove it.

To quote the academic in your picture:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Perhaps you could actually address my points instead of insulting?

Until that time, I wouldn't be so quick to call anyone an "imbecile".

 

[sitarro]

Two biographies of Ayn Rand. - By Johann Hari - Slate Magazine

Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote lavish torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses"—her readers—were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live. Yet she remains one of the most popular writers in the United States, still selling 800,000 books a year from beyond the grave. She regularly tops any list of books that Americans say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess. With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only virtue," she is the patron saint of the tea-partiers and the death panel doomsters. So how did this little Russian bomb of pure immorality in a black wig become an American icon?

Poor Ayn .. or Alisa ... her entire life-story reduced to an article in a Slate magazine. Reduced it was very well though ... it affords us a very good glimpse into Rand's life and "philosophy" that gathered so many and such high-profile followers.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years - WSJ.com

I think I will have to go with the Wall Street Journal and Political Chick on this one, the slate "writer" is a hack and couldn't work as a janitor at the WSJ.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

She cements the right's "we, the people are not worthy, let the oligarchy commence"

* * * *

A sentiment that is not now and never was one validly attributed to "the right."

Bigfuckingrin gets today's dishonest post of them morning award nomination!

Bfgrn, what a douche.

I agree that the right doesn't ubiquitously embrace Rand's philosophy. I thought it was disingenuous of Slate to state that.

That doesn't mean we can't discuss Rand's screwy logic on this matter. My problem with Rand is that, like the bible, people selectively adhere to some of her principles without embracing the whole thing.

If everyone is only motivated by pure self interest, society breaks down. It's another term for anarchy.

I have NO problem at all discussing the alleged "screwiness" of any part of Rand's philosophy. I actually disagree with portions of her expressed beliefs; but I think it is perfectly reasonable to pick and choose. I see no purpose served in slavishly accepting the whole of ANY philosophy, necessarily.

My prior comment, as you appear to note, was addressed to the stupid spin which had been made-up, out of thin air, by bigfuckingrin.

 

[sitarro]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-x5SXijKxI&feature=related]YouTube - Howard Roark makes a case against Barack Obama[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

A government school grad, no doubt.

That depends on if you are talking about High School, College, or Medical School.

Where did you obtain your education?

Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune, often referred to as Turgot (10 May 1727 – 18 March 1781), was a French economist and statesman. Today he is best remembered as an early advocate for economic liberalism. In a 1778 letter, he described America as “the hope of mankind” because it “must show the world by example, that men can be free and tranquil, and can do without the chains that tyrants and cheats of all garb have tried to lay on them…It must give the example of political, religious, commercial and industrial liberty. The shelter which it is going to offer to the oppressed of all nations will console the earth.”

Let me bold one particular line from Levy, in direct reponse to your post:

The French Philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy noted in a 2006 interview with the WSJ: “In France, with the nation based on roots, on the idea of the soil, of a common memory…the very existence of America is a mystery and a scandal…The ghost that has haunted Europe for two centuries is America’s coming together as an act of will, of creed. It shows that there is an alternative to organic nations.” [A society that took shape through conscious decisions and willful sculpting by its various founders and builders. –Medved]


And here is a response re: self-made folks:

“In most countries in the world your fate and your identity are handed to you; in America, you determine them for yourself. America is a country where you get to writh the script of your own life. Your life is like a blank sheet of paper, and you are the artist. This notion of being the architect of your own destiny is the incredibly powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of America.” Dinesh D’Souza, born in India.

I don't really disagree with any of the above sentiments (though I destest D'Souza). None of them were made by Rand and are much more reasoned and logical than Rand's position.

All the above still ignores my point, and the basic flaw of Rand's line of thinking: our society, which allows man to prosper is secured by the selfless act of other people who are not motivated by money or self interest. If no one is around to keep the barbarians out of the gates, no single man is free to be selfish.

Ask the Romans.

I imagine you are unaware that 97% of the millionaires in America did not inherit their money.

Where did I ever indicate that inheritance had anything to do with any of this?

Wise up.

You too, and do try to stay on topic. Perhaps they didn't teach you that at your non-government school.

Or do you just obtain your education through Neil Boortz talking points?

I'm one of those Ivy League Conservatives: Columbia and Vassar.
Meet your standards?

My reference to gov. school grad is those who have imbibed the left wing nonsense and didn't educate themselves out of it.

As to the 'millionaires' item, it's in response to your 'believe they are self-made.'

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm one of those Ivy League Conservatives: Columbia and Vassar.
Meet your standards?

Tulane for undergrad and a State School for the M.D. (of which I am currently working on).

I didn't really have "standards", I just felt the need to ask after your attacked my educational background (simply because you didn't agree with my points - how intelligent).

My reference to gov. school grad is those who have imbibed the left wing nonsense and didn't educate themselves out of it.

Really? It smacks of snobbery. Frankly, I am less concerned with "where" someone got their degree and more concerned with what they got their degree in and what they ended up doing with it. I got my undergrad degree in finance. I have done zilch with it and really have lost whatever knowledge I had of the matter.

As to the 'millionaires' item, it's in response to your 'believe they are self-made.'

Great. None of which has anything to do with Rand or my points about the major weaknesses of her "philosophy", Objectivism.

Did you major in Rhetoric or something?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm one of those Ivy League Conservatives: Columbia and Vassar.
Meet your standards?

Tulane for undergrad and a State School for the M.D. (of which I am currently working on).

I didn't really have "standards", I just felt the need to ask after your attacked my educational background (simply because you didn't agree with my points - how intelligent).

My reference to gov. school grad is those who have imbibed the left wing nonsense and didn't educate themselves out of it.

Really? It smacks of snobbery. Frankly, I am less concerned with "where" someone got their degree and more concerned with what they got their degree in and what they ended up doing with it. I got my undergrad degree in finance. I have done zilch with it and really have lost whatever knowledge I had of the matter.

As to the 'millionaires' item, it's in response to your 'believe they are self-made.'

Great. None of which has anything to do with Rand or my points about the major weaknesses of her "philosophy", Objectivism.

Did you major in Rhetoric or something?

Unlike you, I didn't ask for credentials.

I have seen you post re: med school, and wondered why you felt it necessary to keep bringing it up.

I have a theory.

How about this, you no longer have to expound on your education and I'll stipulate that you are intelligent, articulate, well-read...just wrong in your leanings. But I have faith that you will see the light...some day.

Everyone is eligible to post.

Economics.

 

[Bfgrn]

Democracy...mob rule was less attractive to our founders than the right of kings..

Free market economy...we don't have free markets and the people you support don't want them...they are rigged markets through subsidies (corporate welfare)

Small government...we need effective government... we see the wrath of castration...

Robust defense...antithesis to small government

Private charity... total me, myself and I cop out... better find the most secure gated community PC...total chaos leads to violence and lawlessness

Did you notice how I defined my beliefs without once referring to you as a moron? Got me there moron...

That is another distinguishing feature between us...No, I'm innately intelligent and you are programmed...

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

I love it when you expose yourself as the smug, non-intellectual boor that you are.


Surely you don't think your verbosity is a response.

Since you have proven to be less than intelligent, and love nothing better than throwing words and hoping that it appears cogent, and will continue such ad infinitum, it appears that terminal lonliness is your raison d'etra.

So sad.

Hey PC, you are never able to respond to any of my points. And, when I expose the mindless right wing propaganda you post, like the totally false out of context slander of Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel...you evaporate...I figure you're just about done spewing your programmed propaganda on this topic...now, you're cornered, to continue this conversations requires reasoning and cognitive ability...you fire blanks, so you feign victory and disappear...

So typical...

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm one of those Ivy League Conservatives: Columbia and Vassar.
Meet your standards?

Tulane for undergrad and a State School for the M.D. (of which I am currently working on).

I didn't really have "standards", I just felt the need to ask after your attacked my educational background (simply because you didn't agree with my points - how intelligent).



Really? It smacks of snobbery. Frankly, I am less concerned with "where" someone got their degree and more concerned with what they got their degree in and what they ended up doing with it. I got my undergrad degree in finance. I have done zilch with it and really have lost whatever knowledge I had of the matter.

As to the 'millionaires' item, it's in response to your 'believe they are self-made.'

Great. None of which has anything to do with Rand or my points about the major weaknesses of her "philosophy", Objectivism.

Did you major in Rhetoric or something?

Unlike you, I didn't ask for credentials.

I have seen you post re: med school, and wondered why you felt it necessary to keep bringing it up.

I have a theory.

How about this, you no longer have to expound on your education and I'll stipulate that you are intelligent, articulate, well-read...just wrong in your leanings. But I have faith that you will see the light...some day.

Everyone is eligible to post.

Economics.

Great. Don't bemoan a digression into one's personal history, when you initiated the personal attack.

How about we stay on topic? You know, the topic of Ayn Rand?

 

[Oddball]

We're all self-made men and women.

It's only the successful ones who will admit it.

I enjoyed that quote when you had it on your siggie.

As it relates to me, I put myself through college and am putting myself through graduate school. I have never asked for a "hand out".

However, I recognize that a society that puts "selfishness" as it's main virtue is destined to fail.

There is not enough compensation in the world to pay people who risk their lives to provide security to others.

But those people are also acting in a manner that is in alignment with how they believe their best interests are served.

Altruism is a myth.

 

[geauxtohell]

We're all self-made men and women.

It's only the successful ones who will admit it.

I enjoyed that quote when you had it on your siggie.

As it relates to me, I put myself through college and am putting myself through graduate school. I have never asked for a "hand out".

However, I recognize that a society that puts "selfishness" as it's main virtue is destined to fail.

There is not enough compensation in the world to pay people who risk their lives to provide security to others.

But those people are also acting in a manner that is in alignment with how they believe their best interests are served.

Altruism is a myth.

Absolute altruism is a myth, but so is absolute selfishness (for lack of a better term).

Furthermore, many people that serve do not do so out of their best interest. Without sounding like a recruiting poster, many people serve as soldiers, firemen, policeofficers, etc. for the "greater good".

I didn't want to be a "do-gooder" my entire life, so I just served for four years and now am embarking on another venture.

 

[Oddball]

Then that's what they believe is the best use for their life.

Values systems work that way.

 

[Bfgrn]

I was going to post this, but Neser beat me to the punch. Obviously, the article is from Slate so it surely is biased to a degree. However, that doesn't mean it's total bunk.

I realize that many people subscribe to Rand's philosophy. I personally find it to be ridiculous for the reason that was outlined in the article:

In a country where almost everyone believes—wrongly, on the whole—that they are self-made, perhaps it is easier to have contempt for people who didn't make much of themselves. And Rand taps into something deeper still. The founding myth of America is that the nation was built out of nothing, using only reason and willpower. Rand applies this myth to the individual American: You made yourself. You need nobody and nothing except your reason to rise and dominate. You can be America, in one body, in one mind.

America didn't spring forth de novo and our society, from which Rand's protagonists like Roark, believe they should be allowed to operate in a completely unfettered manner was created and secured by men and women who acted in a selfless, collectivist manner. People are enabled to make their fortunes in this country, because somebody carries a rifle, or walks the beat, or puts out fire, to give them that opportunity. These people are not mere chattle for the Rand's Ubermensch to trod on as they move up Maslow's hierarchy.

On a literary note, I personally find Rand hard to read and don't think she is a good writer. Her characters are static and the themes come across with the tone and tenor of bible versus as opposed to challenging the reader to consider her point of view.

A government school grad, no doubt.

Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune, often referred to as Turgot (10 May 1727 – 18 March 1781), was a French economist and statesman. Today he is best remembered as an early advocate for economic liberalism. In a 1778 letter, he described America as “the hope of mankind” because it “must show the world by example, that men can be free and tranquil, and can do without the chains that tyrants and cheats of all garb have tried to lay on them…It must give the example of political, religious, commercial and industrial liberty. The shelter which it is going to offer to the oppressed of all nations will console the earth.”

Great forward looking optimistic economic philosophy...but in 1778, the America he wrote about was a much different country...

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan: Abolish Corporate Personhood

 

[geauxtohell]

Then that's what they believe is the best use for their life.

Values systems work that way.

Have to disagree with that. Many people view their service as a digression from a future career path in order to serve a greater good, before moving on to another path. The "best use of their life" would be not to digress.

At any rate, this still ignores the silliness that is objectivism.

 

[Oddball]

Then that's what they believe is the best use for their life.

Values systems work that way.

Have to disagree with that. Many people view their service as a digression from a future career path in order to serve a greater good, before moving on to another path. The "best use of their life" would be not to digress.

At any rate, this still ignores the silliness that is objectivism.

Then they're still acting on their highest values, insofar as it relates to their subjective opinion of what constitutes a "greater good".

 

[geauxtohell]

Then that's what they believe is the best use for their life.

Values systems work that way.

Have to disagree with that. Many people view their service as a digression from a future career path in order to serve a greater good, before moving on to another path. The "best use of their life" would be not to digress.

At any rate, this still ignores the silliness that is objectivism.

Then they're still acting on their highest values, insofar as it relates to their subjective opinion of what constitutes a "greater good".

I guess I won't argue that, but it still doesn't square with objectivism that places the highest emphasis on monetary gain. Even if the actors in Rands world were motivated by achievement alone, i.e. Roark's only goal was to be the greatest architect in the history of the profession, those goals are secured by people that Rand and her protagonists view as worthless.

 

[Oddball]

It's not just objectivism.

NLP practitioners and clinical hypnotists (at least) use this one every day to help people sort out their baggage.

 

[geauxtohell]

It's not just objectivism.

NLP practitioners and clinical hypnotists (at least) use this one every day to help people sort out their baggage.

Fair enough. My comments are directed towards Rand's particular take on what does or should motivate man. Granted, Slate is biased, but I enjoyed the article. Needless to say, her philosophy has some serious holes in it, and I just find it to be goofy.

At any rate, got to run. I'll check back in later to see if anything interesting is on here.

 

[Neser Boha]

I was going to post this, but Neser beat me to the punch. Obviously, the article is from Slate so it surely is biased to a degree. However, that doesn't mean it's total bunk.

I realize that many people subscribe to Rand's philosophy. I personally find it to be ridiculous for the reason that was outlined in the article:

In a country where almost everyone believes—wrongly, on the whole—that they are self-made, perhaps it is easier to have contempt for people who didn't make much of themselves. And Rand taps into something deeper still. The founding myth of America is that the nation was built out of nothing, using only reason and willpower. Rand applies this myth to the individual American: You made yourself. You need nobody and nothing except your reason to rise and dominate. You can be America, in one body, in one mind.

America didn't spring forth de novo and our society, from which Rand's protagonists like Roark, believe they should be allowed to operate in a completely unfettered manner was created and secured by men and women who acted in a selfless, collectivist manner. People are enabled to make their fortunes in this country, because somebody carries a rifle, or walks the beat, or puts out fire, to give them that opportunity. These people are not mere chattle for the Rand's Ubermensch to trod on as they move up Maslow's hierarchy.

On a literary note, I personally find Rand hard to read and don't think she is a good writer. Her characters are static and the themes come across with the tone and tenor of bible versus as opposed to challenging the reader to consider her point of view.

Very well put!

On a literary note ... reading Atlas Shrugged made me think of Russian propaganda paintings/drawings in the style of Socialist Realism. I think she's yet another ugly product of Soviet Totalitarianism and its poor attempt at communism. All of her philosophy came out of hatred. Actually, calling that a philosophy is being too nice - rather, it was one huge reaction.

 

[Neser Boha]

And here is a response re: self-made folks:

“In most countries in the world your fate and your identity are handed to you; in America, you determine them for yourself. America is a country where you get to writh the script of your own life. Your life is like a blank sheet of paper, and you are the artist. This notion of being the architect of your own destiny is the incredibly powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of America.” Dinesh D’Souza, born in India.

I imagine you are unaware that 97% of the millionaires in America did not inherit their money.

Wise up.

That is such naive and unadulterated bullshit.