A Great Article on Ayn Rand

[Oddball]

It's unadulterated truth.

Deal with it.

 

[Toro]

I'm one of those Ivy League Conservatives: Columbia and Vassar.

Who's the other one?

As a charter member of my undergrad's Objectivist Club, as a former paying member of the Intellectual Activist, and as the owner, still, of five of her books - Capitalism The Unknown Ideal, Philosophy Who Needs It, Atlas Shrugged, Anthem and The Fountainhead - plus a few others that I have lost along the way, I quite liked Rand. I remember rushing home in high school after work to read 100 pages a night of Atlas Shrugged. I liked her books.

She was a bit of a nutter though. She believed that there was nothing wrong with smoking, and that the government was lying about the health implications of smoking. Her entourage all smoked, and if a member didn't, they were looked at askance. She publicly had an affair with a young man 25 years her junior. I think he may have even been a teenager, but I can't remember. She anointed him as her successor then banished him from the movement when he dumped her. She certainly wouldn't square with the Rapture Crowd that dominates the GOP today, since she believed so much so in self-interest that screwing outside of marriage - as she did - was something to be celebrated. I chalk that up to being an artist though, as most creative geniuses usually are a little touched.

Here is the NYT review of her book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html

 

[Toro]

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.

No, its true. There is something very American about "The American Dream" and the belief that anyone can become anything. That is deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

One of the great things about American culture is that it is perfectly fine to fail. Americans will happily give you a second, third, forth, fifth, sixth chance to succeed if you just keep trying.

However, there is more social mobility in other Western countries. There have been several studies that have confirmed this. It is easier to become rich in countries such as Sweden and Canada if you are poor than it is in America because poverty tends to be deeper here, and the ladder to climb out steeper.

1. Americans enjoy more economic opportunity than people in other countries.

Actually, some other advanced economies offer more opportunity than ours does. For example, recent research shows that in the Nordic countries and in the United Kingdom, children born into a lower-income family have a greater chance than those in the United States of forming a substantially higher-income family by the time they're adults.

If you are born into a middle-class family in the United States, you have a roughly even chance of moving up or down the ladder by the time you are an adult. But the story for low-income Americans is quite different; going from rags to riches in a generation is rare. Instead, if you are born poor, you are likely to stay that way. Only 35 percent of children in a family in the bottom fifth of the income scale will achieve middle-class status or better by the time they are adults; in contrast, 76 percent of children from the top fifth will be middle-class or higher as adults.

The United States is exceptional, however, in the opportunity it offers to immigrants, who tend to do comparatively well here. Their wages are much higher than what they might have earned in their home countries. And even if their pay is initially low by American standards, their children advance quite rapidly.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/93667-5-myths-about-our-land-of-opportunity.html

 

[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.

No, its true. There is something very American about "The American Dream" and the belief that anyone can become anything. That is deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

One of the great things about American culture is that it is perfectly fine to fail. Americans will happily give you a second, third, forth, fifth, sixth chance to succeed if you just keep trying.

However, there is more social mobility in other Western countries. There have been several studies that have confirmed this. It is easier to become rich in countries such as Sweden and Canada if you are poor than it is in America because poverty tends to be deeper here, and the ladder to climb out steeper.

1. Americans enjoy more economic opportunity than people in other countries.

Actually, some other advanced economies offer more opportunity than ours does. For example, recent research shows that in the Nordic countries and in the United Kingdom, children born into a lower-income family have a greater chance than those in the United States of forming a substantially higher-income family by the time they're adults.

If you are born into a middle-class family in the United States, you have a roughly even chance of moving up or down the ladder by the time you are an adult. But the story for low-income Americans is quite different; going from rags to riches in a generation is rare. Instead, if you are born poor, you are likely to stay that way. Only 35 percent of children in a family in the bottom fifth of the income scale will achieve middle-class status or better by the time they are adults; in contrast, 76 percent of children from the top fifth will be middle-class or higher as adults.

The United States is exceptional, however, in the opportunity it offers to immigrants, who tend to do comparatively well here. Their wages are much higher than what they might have earned in their home countries. And even if their pay is initially low by American standards, their children advance quite rapidly.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/93667-5-myths-about-our-land-of-opportunity.html

The quote is pure and unadulterated bullshit - just as I stated earlier. Let me remind you - we're also talking the bullshit "philosophy" (or as I call it - a shitty reaction to bad childhood and totalitarianism) OBJECTIVISM here. So let me explain to y'all step by step how NOBODY EVER writes the story of their life ... ANYWHERE.

You're born - that includes a doctor and your mother's willingness to even carry you to term. Most mothers and fathers LOVE their child and have it not for their enrichment, but out of utter selflessness. Then for about 12 years you're totally incapable to take care of yourself (in the modern world)... you DEPEND 100% on your parents and their love and sense of duty to take care of you. They FEED you, they CLOTHE you, they HUG you when you're down. How much do you exactly have to do with that? Nothin', nada, zip.

You listen to music that gets you through the day - while some artists created the music just for their enrichment I will argue the best music was created because the artist LOVED music and wanted to SHARE it with other people. You get hurt, you go to a doctor. While there might be some that do it just for their enrichment, I will argue most doctors at least started out on the premise they want to HELP PEOPLE.

Etc and so on.

And there is hardly a difference between most countries around the world the way we all DEPEND on each other for better or worse.

In the US there are plenty of kids that haven't seen real WORK before they ended college because their mommies and daddies paid for their college, paid for the car, etc. Most kids in your dreamy "all-self-made" USA get parents' assistance way after they can actually take care of themselves. In GA, a kid can get the HOPE scholarship while in college that pays for all school-related expenses and tuition as long as one's GPA is above a certain mark (I believe it's 3.0 ... only idiots and slackers don't get a 3.0 at a US college that is just my observation). The college curricula in US are even created in such a way that allows students to hold at least part-time jobs even though many manage to hold full-time jobs while studying full-time. Try that in Sweden - when you're going full-time at a Swedish university you have hardly the time to wipe your ass not to mention work full-time (if - like me - you have craving for straight A's) ... you can get a part-time weekend gig at the most.

Even in the USA, people that have 'connections' or 'friends in the right places' can get farther and faster without half as much effort as other folks.

I'm sorry .. the MYTH of America being somehow an exception is just bunch of feel-good American propaganda. I'll give you that you have less laws and more chances to fuck up than in other countries, but NOBODY's life - even in America - is written by him/herself only. And NOBODY has their success handed to them in Europe either.

About immigrants as I was one of them ... you have EXTREMELY unregulated job market ... that is why you have so many people working in the US illegally. That extremely unregulated job market actually hurts American citizens - but guess who... the POOR because the higher you climb on the job ladder - the more REGULATED it is. It's completely laissez faire unregulated only at the very bottom - the shit cleaning jobs, the sweaty construction work, etc. Also, which you might not know as you're high on your America-the-best koolaid - most immigrants come to the US for one purpose only - MONEY - and they could give two shits about all your freedoms that you think you have.

That said .. if America was really such a fairytale place of unregulated markets and make it or die attitude - how come PROSTITUTION isn't legal? Or selling drugs? Why, my dear laissez faire Americans?

About the poor ... that make it all the way to the top - the American success stories that you like to wave in everyone's face. If that is your main claim to fame, why are companies still more likely to hire a little rich kid that actually could afford to do unpaid internship and travel to Africa and what have ya, yet the poor bugger that spent the past 5 years studying and working - paying it all out of his/her own pocket - doesn't get a motherfuckin' break? Because the poor are supposed to struggle while the rich sit there grinning at them from above? The fuck, people?!

Why do you Americans always have to feel so special? Why do you always feel the need to try to prove to others how good you have it. For fuck's sake. It's so damn annoying ... especially to me because I know you're full of shit as I lived there for almost a decade.

FYI: I'm not anti-American in any way ... I do miss Atlanta for various reasons (have many amazing friends there, etc.) ...and of course... there is something different about America just as there are different things about different countries. And I love it for what it is, not because it is 'better'. Yet, I have not found a reason for the US to be called the best country on earth or whatever some ultra-nationalists/patriots like to call it. Live there, love it, but don't try to make it sound like other countries are inferior to you. Why? Because many are not and also because people that make such statements are usually the most clue-less portion of your society. Btw, I can write something like this about CZ and SWE as well ...

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

The article hit on that. Rand basically had a Bolshevik mentality about capitalism. She was the opposite side of the same coin.

On an completely unrelated note: my unit in the Army, the 27th Infantry Regiment, was created to go into Russia and fight the Bolsheviks and saw action in Siberia. A little known fact of American History that we committed troops to try and help the Czar (whether right or wrong).

We were fighting commies before it was cool.

27th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh yeah, we were also the unit portrayed in the book/movie "From Here To Eternity"

/threadjack

 

[Toro]

Neser

A few things.

First, all nations have their myths. Just like all people have their myths. That does not mean the myths are wrong or untrue. There are a lot of truths in myths but there misconceptions as well. Myths allow people to feel better about themselves as it defines them in a way that make people feel unique. Is it true that only in America can a poor person become wealthy? Of course not. Is it true that only in America that if you work hard, you will succeed? Or even succeed at all? Of course not. I know some very wealthy Swedes who became rich on their own. I was in Stockholm a few months ago visiting them.

However, America, more than any country I know of, was founded on an ideal. The ideal was that whatever you were wherever you came from, that is forgotten and you can become anything here. This was an ideal that began almost 400 years ago. Anything that has been ingrained in its people for almost 400 years becomes a deep-seated notion, I don't care who you are or where you come from. Now, are these principals always applied? No, of course not! Americans are human, just like everyone else on the planet, and humans are complex with different motivations that often get in the way of ideals. But that does not mean the ideals don't mean anything to the people who believe them.

Europe is different. Europe evolved out of tribalism, where nations came about based on bloodlines, geography, religion, etc. Of course, bloodlines, geography and religion all play a significant part in American culture, but this country was not founded based on one's background. The individual is sovereign. Sovereignty derives from each individual, which is different than, say, the UK where sovereignty is derived from the monarch. That is true in much of Europe, including, I believe, the country in which you now reside as the existence of a monarch usually presages sovereignty from above, even if the country is a participatory democracy and the country is de facto no longer ruled by a king or queen.

Are Americans arrogant and insular about their place in the world? Sure. But how is that different from any other great power, or most nations today? New Yorkers are arrogant about their place in America. Parisians are arrogant and insular about their place in France. Londoners are arrogant about their place in England. Torontonians are arrogant and insular about their place in Canada. That's the nature of the beast. If you are the center and most important of something, anything, you are likely to be more insular and arrogant about whatever is around you. That is not an inherently American thing. That's a human thing. Like it or not, America is the most important and powerful country in the world, by far, so it is not surprising Americans act this way.

Second, Objectivism is not The American Dream, or America itself. You appear to be equating the two.

Third, most people in America who are rich do get rich on their own. I don't know if it is 97%, but this is fairly well documented. Whether or not that is any different than anywhere else, I don't know, but it is true in America.

Fourth, the idea that America is an unregulated market is mythology often misunderstood by those from outside this country. Generally, Americans want government not to be involved in their lives, but that does not mean they never want government involved in their lives. Its no different than here where many people have misunderstandings about Islamic terrorism, or "lazy Europeans." Just because Europeans want an elaborate welfare state does not mean they want communism. Europeans often think Americans as being selfish or greedy because they do not have as extensive of a welfare system than in Europe. I don't think that's true at all. Americans give far more in terms of private charities than Europeans do. Americans are generous. They just don't want the government doling out the charity.

As for jobs, America has produced literally tens of millions more jobs than Europe has over the past 30 years. Most immigrants came here not because they loved America. They came here for a better life. That was true 200 years ago and that is true today.

 

[Anguille]

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.

Thanks for the link. I just read an aricle this morning in the New Yorker also comparing the two new biographies of Ayn Rand.

The Fountainhead was the first really bad book I ever read. She was a complete nutcase and egomaniac but it's very entertaining to read about her.


Possessed
Ayn Rand and the people who loved her.
by Thomas Mallon

 

[Anguille]

"Both biographers overestimate the literary achievement of their subject, whose intellectual genre fiction puts her in the crackpot pantheon of L. Frank Baum and L. Ron Hubbard."

The cult of Ayn Rand : The New Yorker

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Your accuracy has never been too impressive. As with your ability to articulate.

"In the Millionaire Next Door," Stanley and Danko tell us that "most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich." They earned their money themselves. Not through inheritances or dad's teachings. "Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy."
Secrets of becoming a millionaire [Archive] - NFL Football Picks | College Football Picks

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich. How is it possible for people from modest backgrounds to become millionaires in one generation? Why is it that so many people with similar socioeconomic backgrounds never accumulate even modest amounts of wealth?
washingtonpost.com: The Millionaire Next Door


It seems that your aim is to attack any of my posts that you feel able, rather than to examine or debate a point.

That is perfectly acceptable.

But it might make you appear bright(er) if you actually knew something about the subject before you post, as you now appear more frothy-mouthed than intelligent.

Just trying to be helpful.

 

[geauxtohell]

I am not concerned with where the "wealthy" got their money or how.

I am pointing out the notion that people who became wealthy did it "all on their own" is bullshit as is the assumption that currency provides the highest degree of stability in this world.

In a stable nation that might be true. As order breaks down, guns and bullets are more important than money. Rand crafted her model out of a society where other people, not motivated by money, provided that security and stability for her "supermen" to accomplish their goals.

All the architectural prowess in the world isn't going to help you when you have a loaded gun pointed at your head.

A person's superior brain power is not going to stop a bullet and the skilled elites are powerless against an angry mob.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am not concerned with where the "wealthy" got their money or how.

I am pointing out the notion that people who became wealthy did it "all on their own" is bullshit as is the assumption that currency provides the highest degree of stability in this world.

In a stable nation that might be true. As order breaks down, guns and bullets are more important than money. Rand crafted her model out of a society where other people, not motivated by money, provided that security and stability for her "supermen" to accomplish their goals.

All the architectural prowess in the world isn't going to help you when you have a loaded gun pointed at your head.

A person's superior brain power is not going to stop a bullet and the skilled elites are powerless against an angry mob.

Trying to follow your tortuous track. Are you restricting this discussion to the specific literature of Rand, or are you applying it to the economic realities of society today?

Or is your fevered posting above some offshoot of the usual themes in your posts re: security, and your great efforts to protect others, and some quasi- PlayStation 2 view of the world.

And, to further muddy the waters, you have added the addle-brained rantings of a know-nothing who grumbled something about those who have money, not having earned it...at least I think that was her other point, right next to the point on her head.

Here is where I think we diverged: I favor Rand's work, not just as literature, nor even as a "life imitates art' tale, but because so much of what we see today in the ObamaNation is an attempt to take from the achievers and " I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

See that in Rand's work?

It's as though everyone doesn't have a chance for success in this America, even though there are over 9 million millionaire familes, very few of whom did not earn their money. And 33% more millionaires in '08 than there were in '07.

Now, if this is not the path you choose to examine, to discuss, I can get behind that.

But, as an indication of how far wrong you are going, take a look at who thanked you for a useful post. That's an 'Uh-Oh'.

 

[Neser Boha]

I am not concerned with where the "wealthy" got their money or how.

I am pointing out the notion that people who became wealthy did it "all on their own" is bullshit as is the assumption that currency provides the highest degree of stability in this world.

In a stable nation that might be true. As order breaks down, guns and bullets are more important than money. Rand crafted her model out of a society where other people, not motivated by money, provided that security and stability for her "supermen" to accomplish their goals.

All the architectural prowess in the world isn't going to help you when you have a loaded gun pointed at your head.

A person's superior brain power is not going to stop a bullet and the skilled elites are powerless against an angry mob.

Trying to follow your tortuous track. Are you restricting this discussion to the specific literature of Rand, or are you applying it to the economic realities of society today?

Or is your fevered posting above some offshoot of the usual themes in your posts re: security, and your great efforts to protect others, and some quasi- PlayStation 2 view of the world.

And, to further muddy the waters, you have added the addle-brained rantings of a know-nothing who grumbled something about those who have money, not having earned it...at least I think that was her other point, right next to the point on her head.

Here is where I think we diverged: I favor Rand's work, not just as literature, nor even as a "life imitates art' tale, but because so much of what we see today in the ObamaNation is an attempt to take from the achievers and " I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

See that in Rand's work?

It's as though everyone doesn't have a chance for success in this America, even though there are over 9 million millionaire familes, very few of whom did not earn their money. And 33% more millionaires in '08 than there were in '07.

Now, if this is not the path you choose to examine, to discuss, I can get behind that.

But, as an indication of how far wrong you are going, take a look at who thanked you for a useful post. That's an 'Uh-Oh'.

Everything in your posts is copied and pasted from somewhere else. The only original text includes almost excusively attacks at people with whom you are supposedly leading a 'discussion' of the subject matter.

How am I supposed to take you seriously? Plus the point of my post went waaay over your head... In the end, I didn't expect anything else.

What a conceited little bitch you are ... now that took me a little by surprise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am not concerned with where the "wealthy" got their money or how.

I am pointing out the notion that people who became wealthy did it "all on their own" is bullshit as is the assumption that currency provides the highest degree of stability in this world.

In a stable nation that might be true. As order breaks down, guns and bullets are more important than money. Rand crafted her model out of a society where other people, not motivated by money, provided that security and stability for her "supermen" to accomplish their goals.

All the architectural prowess in the world isn't going to help you when you have a loaded gun pointed at your head.

A person's superior brain power is not going to stop a bullet and the skilled elites are powerless against an angry mob.

Trying to follow your tortuous track. Are you restricting this discussion to the specific literature of Rand, or are you applying it to the economic realities of society today?

Or is your fevered posting above some offshoot of the usual themes in your posts re: security, and your great efforts to protect others, and some quasi- PlayStation 2 view of the world.

And, to further muddy the waters, you have added the addle-brained rantings of a know-nothing who grumbled something about those who have money, not having earned it...at least I think that was her other point, right next to the point on her head.

Here is where I think we diverged: I favor Rand's work, not just as literature, nor even as a "life imitates art' tale, but because so much of what we see today in the ObamaNation is an attempt to take from the achievers and " I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

See that in Rand's work?

It's as though everyone doesn't have a chance for success in this America, even though there are over 9 million millionaire familes, very few of whom did not earn their money. And 33% more millionaires in '08 than there were in '07.

Now, if this is not the path you choose to examine, to discuss, I can get behind that.

But, as an indication of how far wrong you are going, take a look at who thanked you for a useful post. That's an 'Uh-Oh'.

Everything in your posts is copied and pasted from somewhere else. The only original text includes almost excusively attacks at people with whom you are supposedly leading a 'discussion' of the subject matter.

How am I supposed to take you seriously? Plus the point of my post went waaay over your head... In the end, I didn't expect anything else.

What a conceited little bitch you are ... now that took me a little by surprise.

It must be difficult for you trying to navigate though a would you don't understand.

My sympathy.

Here, let me try to help you out: which way did you come in?

No, really. The point of pasting and documenting is to lend support to my point which you claimed...well, I won't use the language that you chose, but you implied was untrue.

In America, all have an opportunity to succeed. Often, poor life style choices stand in the way of our success.

What galls me is when folks cheer on bad choices and lack of effort, and then blame society. And, in short, I am defending the values of our society.

And, at the risk of antagonizing you again, I see in Ayn Rand a fictional view of a world such as ours, where those in charge feel that confiscation, or 'redistribution' is other than killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

We need the achievers, the successful to let the rest of us have the lives we wish to lead. Who do you think pays the bulk of taxes, creats most of the real jobs, is reponsible for progress?

Did you actully think that your previous post wasn't an attack? And you must know by now that I don't shy away from a fight. And why are you commenting on my being 'little'?(The rest may be true)

 

[geauxtohell]

Trying to follow your tortuous track. Are you restricting this discussion to the specific literature of Rand, or are you applying it to the economic realities of society today?

I have always been discussing Rand. You are the one that has been introducing other philosophers and their ideals into this thread. So to answer your question: yes, I am talking about Rand's particular philosophy and why I think it is flawed.

Or is your fevered posting above some offshoot of the usual themes in your posts re: security, and your great efforts to protect others, and some quasi- PlayStation 2 view of the world.

Oh, I thought we weren't going to make this personal anymore? If we are going to make personal attacks, allow me one: I'd expect someone with a graduate degree in economics from a Tier I University to be able to argue their point without making baseless personal attacks.

And, to further muddy the waters, you have added the addle-brained rantings of a know-nothing who grumbled something about those who have money, not having earned it...at least I think that was her other point, right next to the point on her head.

If you are addressing me, address me. I can't speak for other posters. Especially when they seem quite capable of speaking for themselves.

Here is where I think we diverged: I favor Rand's work, not just as literature, nor even as a "life imitates art' tale, but because so much of what we see today in the ObamaNation is an attempt to take from the achievers and " I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

And my point is that no one achieves anything in this society without the collective sacrifices, be it monetary of physical, of many people who don't buy into the belief that selfishness is the Golden Rule.

That is the flaw in Rand's philosophy. Accomplishment takes a stable society. A stable society requires sacrifice.

It's as though everyone doesn't have a chance for success in this America, even though there are over 9 million millionaire familes, very few of whom did not earn their money. And 33% more millionaires in '08 than there were in '07.

At no point, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise, have I stated on this thread that people in this country can't be successful or should feel guilty about being successful or weren't entitled to their success.

My point was that, despite what they might think, they did not do it all on their own.

Now, if this is not the path you choose to examine, to discuss, I can get behind that.

Please do. I am getting more than a little annoyed with you insisting that I have said things that I have not said.

But, as an indication of how far wrong you are going, take a look at who thanked you for a useful post. That's an 'Uh-Oh'.

Take your catfight elsewhere. It doesn't interest me, and I find it wholly insipid and childish.

You seem to have a hard time following my points. Let me give you the cliff notes version so you won't confuse yourself anymore:

Rand's "Objectivism" philosophy requires a stable society to work. A stable society requires a number of individuals who are motivated by something beyond money and selfishness (which we can both agree are two virtues that Rand held to be paramount) to secure.

Who protects "Gault's Gulch" from the masses? Paid security? The Romans tried that. Eventually, the protectors realize that their brute force and knowledge of violence is the true fiat currency and install themselves as master.

Therefore, IMO, Objectivism is a poorly thought out "candy bar" philosophy. It tastes good for a while, but you aren't going to survive on it.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Actually, I feel sorry for Rand due to the fact that she lived, first hand, in Stalinistic Russia and learned to hate everything that was used to empower the communists.

Government, people, dogma, society....

 

[Anguille]

Only thing I like about Ayn Rand is that she didn't like Ronald Reagan.

 

[Liability]

Only thing I like about Ayn Rand is that she didn't like Ronald Reagan.

That was a powerful & important sharing of your already known & way vapid opinion.

Bravo.

 

[Neser Boha]

Only thing I like about Ayn Rand is that she didn't like Ronald Reagan.

That was a powerful & important sharing of your already known & way vapid opinion.

Bravo.

Why don't you go trolling someplace else. Assclown.

 

[Neser Boha]

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.

Actually, I feel sorry for Rand due to the fact that she lived, first hand, in Stalinistic Russia and learned to hate everything that was used to empower the communists.

Government, people, dogma, society....

I feel sorry for her for exactly the same reason.

 

[Liability]

Only thing I like about Ayn Rand is that she didn't like Ronald Reagan.

That was a powerful & important sharing of your already known & way vapid opinion.

Bravo.

Why don't you go trolling someplace else. Assclown.

And leave the field all to asswipes like you, douchey?

I think not. And stick that whip up your ass, take a picture of the occasion and you too can be a famous liberal "artist," ya moron.

Besides, pointing out the import of that absurd post is perfectly proper response, not "trolling," you arrogant, pompous shithead.

Thank me.