"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[Bern80]

Heres an argument

Atlas Shrugged has been out for over 50 years and not one singe nation on earth has embraced objectivism as a practical theory

Actually that's not an argument at all. That isn't evidence that there is a problem with the philosophy much less specifically what that problem is. Keep trying righty.

 

[Mr Liberty]

Atlas Shrugged will NOT change the face of American Politics.

It is shite written by a particularly ugly propagandist who didn't have the balls to sign up for medicare and social security under his/her own name. However, blame the liberal elite Hollywood folk if you like for its poor reviews and failure.

Have fun wanking to it.

.....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.

It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?

Heres an argument

Atlas Shrugged has been out for over 50 years and not one singe nation on earth has embraced objectivism as a practical theory

Yes and they are all in deep financial trouble because of progressive socialism.

 

[draper]

Atlas Shrugged will NOT change the face of American Politics.

It is shite written by a particularly ugly propagandist who didn't have the balls to sign up for medicare and social security under his/her own name. However, blame the liberal elite Hollywood folk if you like for its poor reviews and failure.

Have fun wanking to it.

.....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.

It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?

OK, constructive criticism. Our "hero" Dagny Taggart is the head of a rail road company. Big gubberment is trying to stop him.

Back in the real world, when the liberals wanted to build high speed rail links, what did the conservatives do?

It shows how dated the philosophy is.

That, and if this woman made so much money writing books, why did she not save any of it instead of cowardly signing up for medicare and social security under a different name?

 

[Big Fitz]

He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.

Atlas Shrugged may make a good substitute for Rocky Horror Picture Show

They could show it midnight on Saturdays and the audience can laugh and throw things at the screen

Exactly!

Great Idea. Throw in "1984", "Brave New World", "Future Shock", and "Soylent Green". How about "Animal Farm"??? Party till Dawn! Love it!!! Throw in "Empire Of The Sun" and I'll bring my whole Family!

And in this cavalcade of calamitous hillarity, let's add Schindler's List, Logan's Run and Metropolis (original silent). Laugh! Throw objects! Heckle! Enjoy the fantastic follies of Futurist fantasy fun with fits of fascism! Free armband for the first 200 ticket holders.

 

[boedicca]

Here's how Obama Shrugs:

 

[konradv]

Heres an argument

Atlas Shrugged has been out for over 50 years and not one singe nation on earth has embraced objectivism as a practical theory

Actually that's not an argument at all. That isn't evidence that there is a problem with the philosophy much less specifically what that problem is. Keep trying righty.

Read up. There's been plenty said about what's wrong with her philosophy.

Critiques Of Libertarianism: Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand).

Here's an excerpt from one of the pages included in the above cite:

Although David Kelley, Leonard Peikoff, and others now try to develop her thought into a complete philosophical system, nothing can hide the relative shallowness of her knowledge: She despised Immanuel Kant but then actually invokes "treating persons as ends rather than as means only" to explain the nature of morality. Perhaps she had picked that up without realizing it was from Kant [note]. At the same time, the Nietzschean inspiration that evidently is behind her "virtue of selfishness" approach to ethics seems to have embarrassed her later: She very properly realized that, since the free market is built upon voluntary exchanges, capitalism requires firm moral limits, ruling out violence, coercion, fraud, etc. That was certainly not a concern of Nietzsche, but it was very much a concern of Adam Smith, who realized that, in a context of mutually voluntary exchange, people will always go for the best deal, producing the "invisible hand" effect of mutual and public goods being produced by private preferences. This confuses people enough in regard to Smith; and that makes it all the easier to mistakenly see Rand as advocating a view of capitalists as righteous predators -- especially unfortunate when the popular vision of laissez-faire capitalism is already of merciless and oppressive robber barons. A careful reading of Rand dispels that idea, but her rhetoric works against a good understanding.

Rand also confuses her case with her emphasis on individuals being deliberately "rational." That sets her against the Austrian and Chicago principles of economics that the free market is the means of coordinating limited knowledge, not some place where rationalistic supermen (e.g. the John Galt of Atlas Shrugged) display superhuman intellectual and moral powers. That makes it sound like the free market works just because such supermen exist to control it. Rand herself was actually aware that was not true: At her best moments she asserts only that capitalism is superior because it automatically, through the "invisible hand," rewards the more rational behavior, not because some superrational persons must exist to hand out those rewards. That would have been F.A. Hayek's "intentionalistic fallacy." Nevertheless, one is left with the impression that Rand and her "Objectivist" successors do commit Hayek's "fatal conceit" by supposing that heroic characters will exercise a superrationalistic control over themselves and the economy, and that capitalism is not really a way of coping with ignorance, or with dispersed knowledge. Ayn Rand, Anti-Communism, & the Left

 

[editec]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.

Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?

 

[Bern80]

Atlas Shrugged will NOT change the face of American Politics.

It is shite written by a particularly ugly propagandist who didn't have the balls to sign up for medicare and social security under his/her own name. However, blame the liberal elite Hollywood folk if you like for its poor reviews and failure.

Have fun wanking to it.

.....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.

It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?

OK, constructive criticism. Our "hero" Dagny Taggart is the head of a rail road company. Big gubberment is trying to stop him.

Back in the real world, when the liberals wanted to build high speed rail links, what did the conservatives do?

It shows how dated the philosophy is.

That, and if this woman made so much money writing books, why did she not save any of it instead of cowardly signing up for medicare and social security under a different name?

Still not seeing an argument here.......

 

[Bern80]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.

Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?

Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.

 

[Big Fitz]

.....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.

It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?

OK, constructive criticism. Our "hero" Dagny Taggart is the head of a rail road company. Big gubberment is trying to stop him.

Back in the real world, when the liberals wanted to build high speed rail links, what did the conservatives do?

It shows how dated the philosophy is.

That, and if this woman made so much money writing books, why did she not save any of it instead of cowardly signing up for medicare and social security under a different name?

Still not seeing an argument here.......

Holy Genderbender, Batman!

Dagny's a HE??? Well Hell! Isn't THIS a modern twist. I never realized it or that "he" was gay! Poor poor Hank Rearden. But then again, the steel industry has been gay for decades, hasn't it?

 

[draper]

.....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.

It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?

OK, constructive criticism. Our "hero" Dagny Taggart is the head of a rail road company. Big gubberment is trying to stop him.

Back in the real world, when the liberals wanted to build high speed rail links, what did the conservatives do?

It shows how dated the philosophy is.

That, and if this woman made so much money writing books, why did she not save any of it instead of cowardly signing up for medicare and social security under a different name?

Still not seeing an argument here.......

No argument because you didn't answer my questions.

Peace.

 

[Big Fitz]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.

Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?

You need to read what you're criticizing and not just the cliff notes or wiki.

Big gubmint is not trying to "stop" Taggart Transcontinental. If you read the book you'd get that. They're trying to control Hank Rearden and control ALL industry to be host for their parasitism. Too bad John Galt, Ragnar Danneskold and another whom shall remain nameless to those actually interested in reading the book, keeps ******* up the works for em.

And as for going after Rand personally, it does nothing to help your argument. By the converse, using your logic... why should you be allowed to earn anything beyond what government decides you need to survive and continue to serve them?

 

[editec]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.

Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?

Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.

Refutation of the social contract (that gives capitalists so much of the pie) by the abandoment of the society as they take what they believe is THEIR wealth is the ideals of sociopathic capitalism.

What this philosophy is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..

Now I have NO problem with the social contract that gives capitalist the right to take more than a workers share of the wealth that the workers produce. that system createsthe SEED CORN for future social development.

But when the capitalists take the nation's seed corn and plant it in other nations, and worse, they do so in nations whose workers are in DIRECT COMPETITON with Amnerican workers?

That kind of economic TREASON by CAPITAL I have a serious problem with.

And that is how FREE TRADE is working out, Bern. And that is exactly how it has been (but did not need to be) DESIGNED to work out, too.

The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.

It is not MORALLY the property of the capitalist class...unless you sign on to the Rnndian POV, where society really doesn't exist, and is nothing but childish theory, and where the only the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the individal matters.

I understand you believe that, but I know damned well no society can work that way for very long before it falls apart.

Yeah, ATLAS SHRUGGED is really nothing but a apology for the CLASS WAR that we are currently in, Bern.

And unless you personally happen to be one of those extrmely well heeled capitalists (and my guess is that you are not remotely that) what you believe is justice is anything but justice.

Perhaps you are as yet not bespattered by the economic shitstorm these policies are spewing on most Americans.

But you will be soon enough, believe me.

When societies truly fall apart it tends to be the affluent in society (but NOT the superrich, they're long gone and well protected by that time)that have the MOST to lose.

You may think that your guns or your MREs will be enough resources that you be able to weather a complete breakdown in society, but history indicates that people like you aren't going to like the outcome of that RANDIAN philosphy when it achieves ENDGAME.

the ENDGAME of Atlas Shrugged is a complete breakdown of society.

And when the people go mad and things just don't work anymore, you are going to MISS civilization, sport.

That cicilization is sustaining you in ways you apparently cannot see,

But I promise you you'll recognize how much it was doing for you when it STOPS functioning.

 

[MarcATL]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.

Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?

Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.

Refutation of the contract that gave capitalists so much, by the abandoment of the society as the wealth is taken out of the economy is the ideals of sociopathic capitalist.

What this philosophy is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..

Now I have NO problem with the social contract that gives capitalist the right to take more than a workers share of the wealth that the workers produce, that is supposed to be SEED CORN for future development.

But when the capitalist take the nation's seed corn and plants it in other nations, and worse nations whose workers are in DIRECT COMPETITON with Amnerican workers>

That economic TREASON I have a problem with.

And that is how FREE TRADE is working out, Bern. And that is exactly how it is DESIGNED tpow work out, too.

The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMJERICAN workers did not get as pay, and is not MORALLY the property of the capitalist class...un;ess you sign on to the RAndian POV where society is a childish theory and only the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the individal matters

Yeah, ATLAS SHRUGGED is really nothing but a apology for the CLASS WAR that we are currently in.

And unless you personally happen to be one of those extrmely well heeled capitalists (and my guess you are not remotely that) what you believe is justice is anything but justice.

Perhaps you are as yet not bespattered by the economic shitstorm these policies are spewing on most Ameircans.

But you will be soon enough, believe me.

Whenh societies fall apart it tends to be the affluent in society (but NOT the superrich, they're long gone and well protected by that time)that have the MOST to lose.

You may think that your guns or your MREs will be enough resources that you be able to weather a complete breakdown in society, but history indicates that people like you aren't going to like the outcome of that RANDIAN philosphy when it achieves ENDGAME.

When the people go mad, which is what happens when time truly get weird, nobody does well.

Post of the thread!

 

[Samson]

The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.

Sometimes I can pick an amusing nugget out of the pile of mindless blather that usually represents your thoughts.

Why aren't 20 million Mexican Migrants following "wealth that is migrating offshore?"

 

[editec]

The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.

Sometimes I can pick an amusing nugget out of the pile of mindless blather that usually represents your thoughts.

Why aren't 20 million Mexican Migrants following "wealth that is migrating offshore?"

You question indicates to me that nothing I wrote made much sense to you.

I can live with that, Sam.

You'll get it soon enough when this formerly wealthy society collapses.

You see, Sam, contrary to what you apparently believe, the wealthy are not the foundation of wealth in a capitalistic society.

Workers are.

And when the system allows its capitalist to migrate that wealth away from the society that originally created it, that society, much like a farm without seed corn, lays fallow.

ATlas has been systematically moving American made WEALTH offshore. That is why millions and millions of otherwise prodductive Americans cannot find work. Their jobs have migrated with the capital.

WE are just now beginning to see the net result of that foolish policiy.

Why do you think the USD is collapsing?

Overspe4nding?

Well certainly that is half the problem.

The other half, and the only half that we might be able to do anything meaningful about, is our trade policies.

I am on board with the Founding fathers in this regard.

They understood, as most apologists for the Randian POV do not, that protecting a nations industrial based demands sane trade policies,

That is why for the most part during first nearly 200 years that this society existed, we had protective tariffs to encourage investment into our industrial growth.

Behind that curtain of tariffs, this nation grew from a small agricultural nation of little consequence, to the largest wealthiest CREDITOR nation on earth.

Now note that we are the lasrgest DEBTOR nation on earth?

Why?

Because millions of us do not work, and the government is trying to offset that change in policy with various (mostly useless) social programs.

They aren't the CAUSE of our insolvency, they are the SYMPTOMS of it.

 

[Bern80]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.

Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?

Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.

Refutation of the social contract (that gives capitalists so much of the pie) by the abandoment of the society as they take what they believe is THEIR wealth is the ideals of sociopathic capitalism.

What this philosophy is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..

Now I have NO problem with the social contract that gives capitalist the right to take more than a workers share of the wealth that the workers produce. that system createsthe SEED CORN for future social development.

But when the capitalists take the nation's seed corn and plant it in other nations, and worse, they do so in nations whose workers are in DIRECT COMPETITON with Amnerican workers?

That kind of economic TREASON by CAPITAL I have a serious problem with.

And that is how FREE TRADE is working out, Bern. And that is exactly how it has been (but did not need to be) DESIGNED to work out, too.

The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.

It is not MORALLY the property of the capitalist class...unless you sign on to the Rnndian POV, where society really doesn't exist, and is nothing but childish theory, and where the only the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the individal matters.

I understand you believe that, but I know damned well no society can work that way for very long before it falls apart.

Yeah, ATLAS SHRUGGED is really nothing but a apology for the CLASS WAR that we are currently in, Bern.

And unless you personally happen to be one of those extrmely well heeled capitalists (and my guess is that you are not remotely that) what you believe is justice is anything but justice.

Perhaps you are as yet not bespattered by the economic shitstorm these policies are spewing on most Americans.

But you will be soon enough, believe me.

When societies truly fall apart it tends to be the affluent in society (but NOT the superrich, they're long gone and well protected by that time)that have the MOST to lose.

You may think that your guns or your MREs will be enough resources that you be able to weather a complete breakdown in society, but history indicates that people like you aren't going to like the outcome of that RANDIAN philosphy when it achieves ENDGAME.

the ENDGAME of Atlas Shrugged is a complete breakdown of society.

And when the people go mad and things just don't work anymore, you are going to MISS civilization, sport.

That cicilization is sustaining you in ways you apparently cannot see,

But I promise you you'll recognize how much it was doing for you when it STOPS functioning.

There is no justice in you believing you are entitled to anything of mine. There is no justice in the notion that an American entreprenuer is obligated to provided jobs only to Americans.

Capitalism nor Rand say that one should take whatever they can. They say people should be able to freely associate and engage in transactions based on terms agreed upon by both parties without anyone elses interference.

In atlas shrugged there were actually two societies, Galt's valley did not deteriorate because everyone agreed on the terms soceity operated under. The outside world did not. That is the civilization that deteriorated. It deteriorated because those that were holding up society through the jobs and technology they created refused to go on not having a say over their lives or how what they produced was distributed. So they took their proverbial ball and left. The outside world decided it was entitled to what other's produced. The member's of Galt's society said 'no you are not entitled to what I produce. You are welcome to compensate me in exchange for what i produce, but I don't owe you or society at large anything with no sacrafice on our part.

THAT is how society fell apart in atlas shrugged ed. The producers said they were tired of you whinning sniveling ungrateful pieces of shit, labeling them as the enemies of society all while reaping the benefits of the compensation of the jobs they created and the technology they produced. They decided to say '**** you parasites, you want a society without us 'evil' capitialists. Well. here it comes. Enjoy." And ta da society fell apart.

 

[editec]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.

Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?

You need to read what you're criticizing and not just the cliff notes or wiki.

Big gubmint is not trying to "stop" Taggart Transcontinental. If you read the book you'd get that. They're trying to control Hank Rearden and control ALL industry to be host for their parasitism. Too bad John Galt, Ragnar Danneskold and another whom shall remain nameless to those actually interested in reading the book, keeps ******* up the works for em.

And as for going after Rand personally, it does nothing to help your argument. By the converse, using your logic... why should you be allowed to earn anything beyond what government decides you need to survive and continue to serve them?

I don't really understand how you think my quote has anything to do with what you wrote above, Fritz.

I wasn't addressing that issue or any issue involving the plot, at all.

And I admit I haven't read AS, probably since before you were born, but I suspect I probably still know more about that book that the vast majority of people here who claim to have read it and love it.

For example, Dafney is a FEMALE.

Now how could anybody who read that book forget that?

She was, after all, RAPED.

As I recall that was the only time that women ever got laid, too.

It was so obvious that rape was Ayns fantasy, too,

I mean I got THAT when I was like 14 and still a virgin.

Rand was so obviously a sick women. Her characters and her values are very confused and sociopathic.


Go reread that rape scene and tell me that you think that is what goes the head of a woman who is REALLY being raped.

The woman (and her misanthropic insanity) is a transparent as a pane of glass.

 

[konradv]

The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.

Sometimes I can pick an amusing nugget out of the pile of mindless blather that usually represents your thoughts.

Why aren't 20 million Mexican Migrants following "wealth that is migrating offshore?"

Can't swim?

 

[Immanuel]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.

Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?

I'm just about half way through the book, but isn't that what Rand was warning against? I mean, the government in "Atlas" seems to have dismissed the "public" as nothing more than sheep to be sheared.

Come on people! This is a work of fiction. That is all it is. It shows what would happen if big government were to be allowed to run its progressive course unimpeded. As far as I am concerned it shows why we need conservatives AND liberals in government. It is a far-fetched reality, because things are not going to be allowed to go to those extremes... er at least I hope they won't!

Immie