manimal
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2007
- 13,559
- 8
- 0
her abominably bad writing which too many seem to believe are a blueprint for social change.
this...
her abominably bad writing which too many seem to believe are a blueprint for social change.
So, the movie hits select theaters tomorrow. Is anyone going to go see it? Personally, I can't stand to spend $8-10 for a movie ticket, so I'd have to wait for it to hit the cheap seats though I no longer have access to a second run theater. I'm guessing I'll see it when it comes to the $1 Redbox or airs on Showtime. (I've been waiting for a an Atlas Shrugged movie since I read it back in 1990. I can wait some more.)
Actually she did not oppose violence. Rand cult member Barbara Branden, wife of Nathaniel Brandon, in her biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand, wrote that Rand wanted the head of a large American corporation murdered because he supported FDR. Rand was not above being a parasite, such as by borrowing $2,000 from relatives when she first arrived in the US without ever paying it back and later accepting medical treatment under the government Medicare program for her lung cancer (I guess she wasn't able to use smoking to prove man's mastery over fire after all).Still, you can't say that that's what she advocated or that that's what her philosophy stands for. She made it abundantly clear that she opposed that sort of violence and it would be intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
Of course you've taken that quote out of the context and intentionally left out the pretext to this action which caused Francisco to take such drastic measures (i.e. governmental extortion and corruption being justified by using appeals of authority under the guise of "The People".) and left out what the term "Looters" is actually referring to in the novel:
Hence Francisco d'Anconia's actions against his own company are done out of desperation to fight against the government backed corruption and extortion which are threatening to bring down his family's business empire.
Ayn Rand was living in desperate times in Russia. Bolshevism had all of dick to do with the "left" in Russia. She came from a family who supported the Kerensky government who disposed the Czar in the first place.
Ayn Rand's hate of the left is the biggest case of sour grapes of the 20th century as her support of kerensky was just the type of "useful idiots" which Lenin needed to concentrate "all power to the soviets" during those fateful days in wintery Petragrad during WW1.
I am glad she escaped the CCCP when she did, things got worse with uncle joe. But she took the anti part to the extreme to win fame with her new host countries elites. Her endless pandering to the rich gets really transparent in her awful books.
Another fun fact about early Ayn life in Russia, her family ran into the arms of the white armies in the Crimea.
I wonder how many jews she watched being rounded up and slaughtered in the height of the pogroms?
![]()
Did her family help or just watch and do nothing?
Good company she kept! She is a fascist traitor from the start. The rest of her shit is more of the same bad knucklehead logic as she descended into sociopathy and started rationalizing her insanity.
If you would like a far more unbiased view of the horrors of early bolshevism and the inner dramas of the soviets coming to power I would get the real libertrian point of view from a woman who was exiled from the USA to Russia at that period of time.
-A woman far more bold then Ayn Rand who confronted Lenin face to face and called him out for turning Petragrad and Russia into a slave camp. (and barely escaped the CCCP to tell the story)
My Disillusionment in Russia
And I suspect that many advocates of a mixed economy such as myself wouldn't disagree with that. The big issue is what exactly is in a person's rational selfish interest and how best can that be attained. In my view, things like environmental regulations, labor regulations, various business regulations, international trade regulations, immigration restrictions, K-12 public education, government funded and maintained infrastructure, and socialized medicine are part of people's "personal success".
I suspect that a great many self-proclaimed "self-made" people, especially the free market dogmatist types, completely take for granted just how much the structure of their society contributed to their "personal success".
One of the big issues is what do we do when people end up having conflicts of interest. Being able to pay people in China 50 cents/hour so that you can earn a higher profit margin might be in a business owner's selfish interest and part of his "personal success", but it might also result in other Americans being driven into poverty by market forces, conflicting with their selfish interest and "personal success".
That is a good point. First off, in many instances there aren't any alternatives to Chinese-made electronic items. Secondly, it doesn't make any sense for me to forgo those products in the same way that it doesn't make sense for someone not to despoil the commons if everyone else is doing it.
If purchasing an American product at greater expense were a benefit to me then I would do that. However, if everyone else is purchasing foreign goods and services I'll just be hurting myself by spending more than I need to without benefiting from that extra expense in some sort of a way (higher wages, lower unemployment, etc.).
The global labor arbitrage situation is very much akin to a tragedy of the commons. Everyone benefits more if the commons is regulated and not despoiled, but without any regulation then it makes sense for people to try to squeeze as much out of it as they can for themselves. Likewise, Americans would benefit more without being exposed to global labor arbitrage.
You realize, of course, that the very thing you are decrying is increased regulation regarding food labels, all the while stating how you want more regulation of what goes on food labels.As a side note :
To make another statement of democracy and a proper free market, i wish to decide myself if i buy genetically altered food products. Yet US corporations are lobbying world wide and in the EU to prevent proper ways of indications and labeling on food products that make it very obvious what is contained in these food products. Taking away the freedom of choice. How can i make a proper choice to steer the free market in a certain direction(as should be intended) when i am not allowed to have a choice ? This is an example of why sometimes regulations are needed to enforce honest business and reduce white collar criminal practices.
We might call the moon "cheese" too, but that doesn't make the moon cheese. No one in the US will ever work for the same wage as someone in China because of simple math as long as we are consuming the most goods. The wages of American workers will be equal to those of China plus the cost of transporting raw materials to China and finished goods back to the US.I don't think it's slavery, but depending on the standard of living that affords them we might call it "slave wages". If American wages fell to that level most people would refer to it as "slave wages".
Really? You think it's ok to completely bastardize what I said by assuming that the insertion of an entire word is a typo, thereby reversing the meaning of my statement? Obviously you're not interested in having an honest discussion, so DIAF.Did you mean to say that "the market dictates the percentage of revenue kept by a business owner"? (I'm guessing that the "doesn't" part was a typo.)
Uh, yeah...duh...we get that. The issue isn't about how markets work, but the conditions of the playing field such as the supply of labor and what that means in terms of wages and standard of living.
You realize, of course, that the very thing you are decrying is increased regulation regarding food labels, all the while stating how you want more regulation of what goes on food labels.
Thank you, i will be reading this. ^_^
The important thing to learn about Rand, is there is no differentiation between someones personal interest, and ones personal success. They are one and the same.And I suspect that many advocates of a mixed economy such as myself wouldn't disagree with that. The big issue is what exactly is in a person's rational selfish interest and how best can that be attained. In my view, things like environmental regulations, labor regulations, various business regulations, international trade regulations, immigration restrictions, K-12 public education, government funded and maintained infrastructure, and socialized medicine are part of people's "personal success".
I suspect that a great many self-proclaimed "self-made" people, especially the free market dogmatist types, completely take for granted just how much the structure of their society contributed to their "personal success".
One of the big issues is what do we do when people end up having conflicts of interest. Being able to pay people in China 50 cents/hour so that you can earn a higher profit margin might be in a business owner's selfish interest and part of his "personal success", but it might also result in other Americans being driven into poverty by market forces, conflicting with their selfish interest and "personal success".
They exist because of Government, today. They are merely an extension of Government, today.In your view, there's no place for insurance and lawyers in a free society? (Without lawyers the only way people can really resolve their differences is through physical force.)
They exist because of Government, today. They are merely an extension of Government, today.
They serve no purpose whatsover, but to stifle Man, today.
-John
Because in a Socialistic State, individuals don't count. So there is no need for Lawyers or Insurance companies, as they represent individuals.
In our growing Socialistic State, we see that Government, Lawyers, and Insurance companies, are becoming one.
-John
First of all, I am right here Craig. I'm not some "thing," I am an individual and I am right here.And another righty spews ignorance yet again.
Socialism *values* the individual - more than any right-wing ideology.
As far as oppressive concentrated wealth and power - whether it be 'government' (think King George III), the private insurance industry, or a monopoly - that is oppression, when too few own too much and there is a lack of opportunity for most people, a less wealthy public - and you have to be careful with labels for it.
The right is the side that makes its top priority the interests of these concentrated few over the public interest. The left is the side that wants everyone to have opportunity.
Ultimately, the right demands for 'excess people' to not be given anything and to have them killed off by poverty; and for others to get by in a bit less poverty.
Those are the choices for most - starve or accept working poverty, for the benefit of the owners.
This group never invests in major services that help the masses - they did not lead the way to free public education, free public healthcare, or any of many other services.
When the public had people retire into poverty (90%and starve, that was what they wanted. The right did not create a retirement security system for people.
But if you are just an ignorant liar who decides 'individuals don't matter in socialism', you can reach wrong opinions why 'socialism' is bad.
Much of the right rests on just such lies.
Now, there are times 'the public good' outweighs an 'individual interest'. If Bill Gates wants to buy the best beach in California for his private enjoyment, the public can say 'sorry Bill, it's more important that the public can use the best beach however much you will spend. But you can buy something still nice elsewhere'.
The right takes these issues that SERVE individuals - the public who benefit - and lies about them, too, turning them into some Stalinist tyranny.
As I've shown for months, 95% of what is said about the left here is wrong or lies. So the opinions based on lies are pretty wrong.
When we discuss a policy, instead of shouting a label and saying 'socialist bad!', how about asking what actually is better for the individual in society.
The right-wing ideology falls apart quite quickly when actually measured against its PR claims.
Take the lawyers cited above. Lawyers come in many flavors, some doing harm and others good. But the hype against lawyers is largely based on the good ones - the ones where the 'rule of law' actually worked in democracy and on paper protects an INDIVIDUAL from abuse by a powerful entity - but when that powerful entity wrongs someone, the law does no good unless enforced, which means a lawyer winning a trial for the individual.
Well, the powerful few would prefer not to have anyone they screw be able to do much about it, and if they can't kill the law, they can try to kill the trials.
The normal case in which an INDIVIDUAL is protected from abuse by a powerful entity is attacked by these interests most often by citing some extreme exception by cherry-picking from any trial they can find - but even then they rarely can find a good real example and misrepresent the examples they use.
If you support individual rights you support a robust court system and for wrong individuals to be able to get legal representation and make wrongdoers compensate.
We're not talking about the real abuses - law firms who look for 'loopholes to exploit', which are legitimate targets for reform.
We're talking about the denial of very legitimate justice for people wrong by powerful interests for no reason but those interests want it, hidden behind lies.
Insurance is an important thing for the public - but the private insurance industry is a huge case of how not to serve the public. Public insurance works far better.
The private insurance system has many protections for its own profits that do nothing but drain wealth from the public. That's not 'pro individual'.
But people like the quoted poster are like zombies in their ideology - simplistic and wrong. They're the enemies of the public interest.
The left can get things wrong, can have excesses, but it's rare we get a chance to discuss any of them because the right posts lie after lie after lie instead.
And another righty spews ignorance yet again.
Socialism *values* the individual - more than any right-wing ideology.
As far as oppressive concentrated wealth and power - whether it be 'government' (think King George III), the private insurance industry, or a monopoly - that is oppression, when too few own too much and there is a lack of opportunity for most people, a less wealthy public - and you have to be careful with labels for it.
The right is the side that makes its top priority the interests of these concentrated few over the public interest. The left is the side that wants everyone to have opportunity.
Ultimately, the right demands for 'excess people' to not be given anything and to have them killed off by poverty; and for others to get by in a bit less poverty.
Those are the choices for most - starve or accept working poverty, for the benefit of the owners.
This group never invests in major services that help the masses - they did not lead the way to free public education, free public healthcare, or any of many other services.
When the public had people retire into poverty (90%) and starve, that was what they wanted. The right did not create a retirement security system for people.
But if you are just an ignorant liar who decides 'individuals don't matter in socialism', you can reach wrong opinions why 'socialism' is bad.
Much of the right rests on just such lies.
Now, there are times 'the public good' outweighs an 'individual interest'. If Bill Gates wants to buy the best beach in California for his private enjoyment, the public can say 'sorry Bill, it's more important that the public can use the best beach however much you will spend. But you can buy something still nice elsewhere'.
The right takes these issues that SERVE individuals - the public who benefit - and lies about them, too, turning them into some Stalinist tyranny.
As I've shown for months, 95% of what is said about the left here is wrong or lies. So the opinions based on lies are pretty wrong.
When we discuss a policy, instead of shouting a label and saying 'socialist bad!', how about asking what actually is better for the individual in society.
The right-wing ideology falls apart quite quickly when actually measured against its PR claims.
Take the lawyers cited above. Lawyers come in many flavors, some doing harm and others good. But the hype against lawyers is largely based on the good ones - the ones where the 'rule of law' actually worked in democracy and on paper protects an INDIVIDUAL from abuse by a powerful entity - but when that powerful entity wrongs someone, the law does no good unless enforced, which means a lawyer winning a trial for the individual.
Well, the powerful few would prefer not to have anyone they screw be able to do much about it, and if they can't kill the law, they can try to kill the trials.
The normal case in which an INDIVIDUAL is protected from abuse by a powerful entity is attacked by these interests most often by citing some extreme exception by cherry-picking from any trial they can find - but even then they rarely can find a good real example and misrepresent the examples they use.
If you support individual rights you support a robust court system and for wrong individuals to be able to get legal representation and make wrongdoers compensate.
We're not talking about the real abuses - law firms who look for 'loopholes to exploit', which are legitimate targets for reform.
We're talking about the denial of very legitimate justice for people wrong by powerful interests for no reason but those interests want it, hidden behind lies.
Insurance is an important thing for the public - but the private insurance industry is a huge case of how not to serve the public. Public insurance works far better.
The private insurance system has many protections for its own profits that do nothing but drain wealth from the public. That's not 'pro individual'.
But people like the quoted poster are like zombies in their ideology - simplistic and wrong. They're the enemies of the public interest.
The left can get things wrong, can have excesses, but it's rare we get a chance to discuss any of them because the right posts lie after lie after lie instead.
95% of what Craig posts are lies, and nobody gives a damn about the other 5%.
First of all, I am right here Craig. I'm not some "thing," I am an individual and I am right here.
The left has always been for the people, and government over the people, you are right. I am for the individual, which you can't seem to comprehend.
Randian ideas are that the individual, by being himself, and by seeking to maximize his happiness, are what makes the world go around.
This is also economics, 101, that people try to maximize their happiness.
Government, and particularly Socialism and Comunism, limit individuals rights in favor of "society."
This Society, is what leftists like to call normal, when instead it is unabashedly immoral.
-John
The left, let's go ahead and call it Government, have placed us where we are today.
The only correlation between Government and Corporations, is that they both want workers and consumers.The government has never been owned by "the left". By nature government is just a democratic farce to the actual industries who run the machines of capitalism. The left fights this every once in awhile and wins liberties through fighting this machinery.
You may want to try a history book sometime.
Pretty laughable, the whole concept that "The Left" could ever get its shit together enough to agree on anything to create these big paranoid conspiracies of government you guys come up with.
Very few times in USA history do you see "The Left" get credit for anything. Most folks think womens vote and 8 hour workdays just magically appeared since the USA is blessed by god unlike Indonesia or something who still have literal wage slavery like we had 100 short years ago.
The only correlation between Government and Corporations, is that they both want workers and consumers.