Zone1 Who Is Destroying The World?

[fncceo]

Hitler tried to do that for a whole nation in opposition to lesser nations, ergo, he was a good man.

If you were at all familiar with Rand's work, you would know she abhors collective statism above all things.

The welfare of the state is always subordinate to the welfare of the individual.

To destroy one, or millions, to ensure the welfare of a collective is precisely the opposite of Ms. Rand's philosophy.

 

[Clyde 154]

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.

Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral.

Do not expect them to produce , when production is punished and looting rewarded.

Do not ask, “Who is destroying the world?” You are."

-- Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)

Its "apathy" that is attempting to destroy this republic (there are to many 30 somethings still living with their parents under the false premise that they are owed their existence from the State, their neighbors through income redistribution, all they need do is vote correctly, we as parents by majority, apparently have failed our children greatly).......evil has existed since time immemorial. Edmund Burke provided the answer in 1795 (truth never evolves.....what was true 1 year ago or 2000 years ago is just as true today or it was never truth in the beginning). Quote -- "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil.........is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Platitudes are useful....when they contain truth as logcially reasoned.

 

[BreezeWood]

It might be entertaining to see how you derived that out of Rand's quote. Irrationality always has entertainment value.

But, it wouldn't be conducive to others who might be attempting to actually discuss the quote.

- that wouldn't include you would it ...

 

[Riff Raff]

The Left.

the Left is typically for anti-capitalist movements, namely socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and syndicalism, each of which arose in the 19th and 20th centuries.

In addition, the term left-wing has also been applied to a broad range of culturally radical social movements, including the black radical movement, feminist movement, queer movement, abortion movement, anti-war movement, global warming movement, defund police movement and anti-Americanism.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why is Hitler the "go-to" personification of evil. Many have killed many more for less noble reasons.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others are perfect examples of "upper echelon sociopaths" who seize power for their own ends. What excuses they may use matter not at all. Ideology, religion and ethnicity are merely manipulative devices for them.
"Evil" is a theological term. Its use in political discussions distorts dialog.

 

[surada]

You say that everytime her name comes up. No one has cared yet...

Are you into navel gazing?

 

[ding]

If you were at all familiar with Rand's work, you would know she abhors collective statism above all things.

The welfare of the state is always subordinate to the welfare of the individual.

To destroy one, or millions, to ensure the welfare of a collective is precisely the opposite of Ms. Rand's philosophy.

What about if it is done not for the welfare of the state but for the welfare of the individual? In other words, if Hitler had done those things for his own good, wouldn't what he did be defined as good under Rand's philosophy?

 

[fncceo]

What about if it is done not for the welfare of the state but for the welfare of the individual? In other words, if Hitler had done those things for his own good, wouldn't what he did be defined as good under Rand's philosophy?

No. The sacrifice of one person (physical or economic) to benefit or even save another is evil in Ms Rand's philosophy.

The state has no right to a person's life or their property in an Objectivist view.

No person is entitled to the work, the ideas, the property, or the life of another.


That doesn't eliminate altruism. A person is perfectly justified in giving to another as a voluntary act. Because that act, if truly voluntary, benefits the giver as well as the recipient (perhaps even more).

But, a coerced or forced sacrifice is evil in the Objectivist view.

 

[ding]

No. The sacrifice of one person (physical or economic) to benefit or even save another is evil in Ms Rand's philosophy.

The state has no right to a person's life or their property in an Objectivist view.

No person is entitled to the work, the ideas, the property, or the life of another.


That doesn't eliminate altruism. A person is perfectly justified in giving to another as a voluntary act. Because that act, if truly voluntary, benefits the giver as well as the recipient (perhaps even more).

But, a coerced or forced sacrifice is evil in the Objectivist view.

Still not seeing how if Hitler did those things for his own good and not the good of the state that that wouldn't be defined as good under Rand's philosophy.

 

[fncceo]

Still not seeing how if Hitler did those things for his own good and not the good of the state that that wouldn't be defined as good under Rand's philosophy.

Then you're being obtuse.

"No person is entitled to the work, the ideas, the property, or the life of another."

No person could interpret, imprisoning and killing millions of people, looting most of Europe, and causing more death and destruction than any other single person in History as not violating that very simple precept.

 

[fncceo]

"If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others."

-- Ayn Rand (The Virtue of Selfishness)

 

[alang1216]

If you were at all familiar with Rand's work, you would know she abhors collective statism above all things.

The welfare of the state is always subordinate to the welfare of the individual.

To destroy one, or millions, to ensure the welfare of a collective is precisely the opposite of Ms. Rand's philosophy.

I've read several of her books but I put them in the genre of Fantasy. Classic tales of good vs. evil in a world that does not reflect the real world with people that have been projected into 2 dimensions.

 

[BreezeWood]

Then you're being obtuse.

"No person is entitled to the work, the ideas, the property, or the life of another."

No person could interpret, imprisoning and killing millions of people, looting most of Europe, and causing more death and destruction than any other single person in History as not violating that very simple precept.

the converse of exclusion is no different - judaism. the reason for the reactionary response.

 

[ding]

Then you're being obtuse.

"No person is entitled to the work, the ideas, the property, or the life of another."

No person could interpret, imprisoning and killing millions of people, looting most of Europe, and causing more death and destruction than any other single person in History as not violating that very simple precept.

I'm not being obtuse. You aren't being objective. If Hitler did those things for his own good (i.e. selfishness) according to Rand's philosophy that would be defined as good.

 

[ding]

Rand's philosophy is irrational. Good coming from bad does not make the bad good.

 

[Jaxson]

God is destroying the world. Just look at all the messed up religious people.

 

[there4eyeM]

God is destroying the world. Just look at all the messed up religious people.

It is less than clear that "religious people" have more than the most tenuous connection with "God".

 

[Clyde 154]

God is destroying the world. Just look at all the messed up religious people.

The "World" does not belong to the people......its belongs to God and is subject to the natural laws of physics that He put in place to regulate His creation. Its more than arrogant to suggest the "remainder" is greater than the whole from which it came. The math simply does not add up. Man was created for the "glory" of God not the inverse.

The reason that societies around the world are falling...........not the world, but the inhabitants therof are failing is once again.........a matter of apathy and self centeredness. There is something missing.......the innate need for God to which we are all born, crying Abba, Abba! Its man that needs God..........God does not need man. (Acts 17:24-25)

Failure comes when God is removed from the equation. Plain and Simple. Why? "I know O Lord, that a man's way is not in himself, nor is it in man who walks to direct his own steps." -- Jer. 10:23

The fact that God does not need man is also reflected with the Psalsms, "For every beast of the forest is Mine........and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the fields are Mine......for the world is mine and all its fulness...." -- Ps. 50:10-12.

Example: When man abides by the founding principles of this nation.........he finds success and happiness, when he strays from those founding roots.......chaos always insues. This nation was constructed upon a philosophy grounded in the Judeo/Christian principles of Gloryifing the God of Creation and the attempt to walk in the path as directed through His revelations to mankind. Its reflected in our legal system, our government structures, and the faith that once existed in this republic.

This nation needs guidance, a guidance that can come only by a restoration of our founding principles.

 

[there4eyeM]

The group of humans dedicated to themselves don't care about anyone else's feelings, nor about any "God" anyone may identify. They take control, they run things for their benefit, and if the world is destroyed, well, they know they aren't going to live forever so, what does it matter?

 

[Jaxson]

The "World" does not belong to the people......its belongs to God and is subject to the natural laws of physics that He put in place to regulate His creation. Its more than arrogant to suggest the "remainder" is greater than the whole from which it came. The math simply does not add up. Man was created for the "glory" of God not the inverse.

The reason that societies around the world are falling...........not the world, but the inhabitants therof are failing is once again.........a matter of apathy and self centeredness. There is something missing.......the innate need for God to which we are all born, crying Abba, Abba! Its man that needs God..........God does not need man. (Acts 17:24-25)

Failure comes when God is removed from the equation. Plain and Simple. Why? "I know O Lord, that a man's way is not in himself, nor is it in man who walks to direct his own steps." -- Jer. 10:23

The fact that God does not need man is also reflected with the Psalsms, "For every beast of the forest is Mine........and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the fields are Mine......for the world is mine and all its fulness...." -- Ps. 50:10-12.

Example: When man abides by the founding principles of this nation.........he finds success and happiness, when he strays from those founding roots.......chaos always insues. This nation was constructed upon a philosophy grounded in the Judeo/Christian principles of Gloryifing the God of Creation and the attempt to walk in the path as directed through His revelations to mankind. Its reflected in our legal system, our government structures, and the faith that once existed in this republic.

This nation needs guidance, a guidance that can come only by a restoration of our founding principles.

The different bibles and korans... have messed people up and you still quote it. We're made in god's image, so he must be a real asshole.