Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 (Movie)

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,958
55,346
136
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.)

It's supposed to be terrible. Like... it's currently clocking in at 0% on Rottentomatoes.
 

bryanl

Golden Member
Oct 15, 2006
1,157
8
81
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.
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).

Those of you who believe in Rand are either sociopaths or suckers.
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
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.

Thus we can safely assume what she was really talking about is that she actually really just hated communism and the people prior to the communistic system and those who created the system. But at the same time she did not had any problem thinking(not behaving) the same way as those looters who she despised so much.

The reality is that at that time frame, a psychologically scarred woman was trying to create something for herself in a free world where seemingly everybody could get rich(the US). The only problem is that one has to do honest work for it and has to be at the right moment at the right place. I see her as a failed actress turned into a political activist where she based her ideology on her own personal history.

During the cold war, it was easy for her to find momentum. Look at how the US people visualized the USSR and the time where she promoted her views...

I guess she learned(in reality she did not) her lessons in 2 ways :
If you are honest and caring(altruistic), always somewhere somebody will have the view that he or she is entitled to more then you and will try to scam(read lie) you from your possessions.

Instead of learning how to recognize and avoid those people(or entities), she partially became one of them promoting the selfishness...
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
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?
Ekaterinoslav1905.jpg

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

Thank you, i will be reading this. ^_^
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
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".


You have hit the rose ! :thumbsup:
I fully agree.
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
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.

Of course you are right in some sense. And here is also the flaw of a true free market. According to true free market apologists, the market will correct itself. But at what expense ?

Hypothetical situation :
We start an US based company that produces clones of foxconn components with the same quality. When we have made all these materials, we make an appointment with the sales department and executives of for example Apple( but can be Sony or Microsoft or IBM or HP or even Google) and say : "Hey Apple, we have components for you at 5 times the price but without cheap labor and with environmental regulations". We are as green and karma as you can get.


# First they will start to call out that the product will be more expensive and the competition will get ahead. This is a customer(free market competition) originated problem.

# Then the shareholders start to become pissed because there is less profit.

# Then the employees do no longer see any raise in salary.

# Then the products get worse with less new innovations and of less quality.
.

The issue here is not the price of the components only, the issue is how much profit does there have to be made to justify a new design or to keep a company open. How much profit must end up in pockets ?

The problem is multitude.
# An economy based on infinite production, infinite sales and infinite resources.
# People expected everything for free and take everything for granted.
When some people actually do not take everything for granted, it is because they worship and idolize whatever they view is holy(Yes atheists, i mean some of you too)... :|


The problem is with an unregulated free market, there is no collective conscience about what is best for everybody. The market just need to continue no matter what. This is a system that will destabilize very quickly.
It functions in cycles while creating great hurt and suffering.

Proper regulations can act as a mathematical form of integration. Smoothing out sudden changes that would otherwise for sure cause collapse of the system. But for example stimulations when applied properly could act as differentiators. Which is not a bad thing because the integration effect has to be set up to be dominant. But again the issue here is who will decide what is best ?

Certainly not Rand followers. That is one thing i know for sure.
 
Last edited:

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
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.
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.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
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".
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.
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.
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.
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
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.

Woops.

What i mean in this case is that i want the food label to honestly mention what is in the food. If that may be some chemical or genetically altered vegetables.

If that is impossible because of size limitations, a link to a website explaining the ingredients will suffice. And the information on the website is legally attackable. By this i mean that what is written on that website, can be used as evidence in the case the company is dishonest about the information.
By this i also enforce that the company must take proper reasonable measures preventing web attacks and hijacking of web pages and using this as a scapegoat to avoid prosecution.

All i want is to know what is in the food. Regardless the reason why. If i am susceptible to food allergies or perhaps a bit paranoid about food ingredients from certain companies(with a bad track record when it comes to being honest) is up to myself to decide. Not the manufacturer. That is freedom in a free western world.

Well, it would be if i had my way that is.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Thank you, i will be reading this. ^_^

Good stuff10 Days that shook the world
Written by a Portland, OR newspaper reporter trapped in Petrograd during the October revolution gives the full story first hand.

With the greatest interest and with never slackening attention I read John Reed’s book, Ten Days that Shook the World. Unreservedly do I recommend it to the workers of the world. Here is a book which I should like to see published in millions of copies and translated into all languages. It gives a truthful and most vivid exposition of the events so significant to the comprehension of what really is the Proletarian Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. These problems are widely discussed, but before one can accept or reject these ideas, he must understand the full significance of his decision. John Reed’s book will undoubtedly help to clear this question, which is the fundamental problem of the international labor movement.
-Vladamir Lenin 1919

John Reed was the only American citizen to be buried with full honors in Red Square.



There is a must see movie called REDS about John Reeds life and death in the new USSR and how he went from being just another American to a hero of the Revolution. It also has Emma Goldman in it. "The most dangerous Libertarian in America". (the actress won a academy for E.G.s role)

The director also spent 2 decades finding folks still alive to interview who remember WW1, John Reed and the events back then. There are some very cool old people who have had their life stories captured.

"Go back to Russia then!" lol REDS is still 100% relevant even though it takes place in 1917.

REDS gets 3 Academy awards and the Ayn Rand movie will go straight to late night tv showings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
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".
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.

Your personal interests may include, environmental regulations etc., but that is also a factor of your personal success. You are happy to have environmental regulation, even if it costs you dollars.

That's fine, and that is Randian. She isn't going to stop you from doing what makes you "happy."

Most anti-Randians I know of get stuck on this "oh, I must be free at all cost," thing, which could not be further from the truth. Ayn Rand's Objectivist theory only states that you must maximize happiness.

It's not maximizing realism, or profits, or anything, but happiness.

What is wrong in the world, is when Men stifle other Men's happiness.

This, obviously leads to Government, which exists only to stifle Men.

Note: I didn't say their happiness... because sometimes stifling men is correct.

But, the second Government starts stifling men's happiness, is when it has gone too far.

-John {I ego}
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
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
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
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

Actually in a pure socialistic society, there'd be no lawyers.

It has to do with profiting.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
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
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
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

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.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
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.
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
 
Last edited:

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
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.

What a wall of absolute horseshit.

You are quick to demonize libertarianism as being a right-wing view, which stands in direct conflict with your absurd notion that socialism places a higher value on the individual (LMAO) over any right-wing view.

95% of what Craig posts are lies, and nobody gives a damn about the other 5%.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
95% of what Craig posts are lies, and nobody gives a damn about the other 5%.

Everytime you guys post this garbage and one-liners others go back and read his usually well thought out and researched posts and you discredit yourselves even more.

I would suggest breathing something besides you guys own rw farts. You smell like shit to everyone else regardless if you realize it collectively within the cult or not.

Just goes to show how inherently weak your arguments are. If anything it shows you are just more anti-intellectual extremists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
First of all, I am right here Craig. I'm not some "thing," I am an individual and I am right here.

Yes, you are. And I did not say you aren't. You wasted your first paragraph with a non-statement.

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.

The left has always been for the people, period, and that means being for the people having a good government that helps the people in ways only government can.

That means things like the government building roads rather than individual citizens, for example, it does not mean the right-wing delusions.

It doesn't mean the "government over the people"; the left doesn't have an agenda to remove the constitution's limits on the government's power to violate individual rights.

Liberals are the ones fighting for individual rights most, such as through the ACLU.

Liberals are the only side who recognizes the concept of 'economic freedom' - that freedom isn't only pretty words about free speech on paper, but that people's rights are also protected by protecting their economic rights, by having some limits to the wealthy putting everyone else in poverty.

The right looks at a society of people impoverished and living practically as farm animal labor where a few own almost everything, and calls it 'success'.

Randian ideas are that the individual, by being himself, and by seeking to maximize his happiness, are what makes the world go around.

You don't know what Randian 'ideals' are, and you can't understand the difference between simplistic slogans used to sell them and the real tyranny they excuse.

This is also economics, 101, that people try to maximize their happiness.

Like no other 'ideology' understands that. Not all such ideologies are equally good at DELIVERING and providing the OPPORTUNITY to people.

The right, frankly, supports a system that reduces or eliminates opportunity for nearly everyone, but praises the few who have so much, and claims that in this system which by definition there can be only a few who are very rich and others much worse off, that it's the fault of the many who have little that they aren't one of the few. End of their story - they really not only do not case, they DEMAND that wealth stratification.

You talk economic happiness - which has more for more people, a country like Sweden with more egalitarianism, or the right-wing utopias like Pinochet Chile or Somoza Nicaragua filled with peasants who can pursue economic happiness by getting one of the jobs there aren't enough of to slave away collecting fruit?

Government, and particularly Socialism and Comunism, limit individuals rights in favor of "society."

Wrong. The right supports the rich and powerful denying rights - especially economic rights - to others. Ultimately, it's incompatible with democracy - democracy being the very notion that everyone deserves 'one vote' despite the massive disparities in wealth and power.

In short, the left looks at society and while it wants some limited inequality, for reasons such as incenting productivity, it wants to prevent things like inherited wealth from denying opportunity to people, and to give opportunity to all, while the right EMBRACES the inequality, takes pride in the subjugation and humiliation of the masses while worshiping the rich in some sort of sick Stockholm syndrome.[/quote]


This Society, is what leftists like to call normal, when instead it is unabashedly immoral.

-John

Human history is nearly entirely filled with flavors of one model - the masses oppressed, suffering, providing primarily the fruits of their labor for the benefit of the elites whether that be food or military service, in a highly hierarchical structure with a ruler and a noble class exploiting them.

The current situation has many flaws, but never (say, post-WWII US) have so many been so well off in terms of individual freedom, political and economic.

It's a golden age that should be getting better, but instead the right is doing its utmost to trash and overthrow the FDR 'revolution' and return to oppression.

They have led the nation that direction since Reagan.

And I suspect if the right wins, as they are so far doing, there's no apparent way for the people to come back and get back any such rights.

The right offers all the bad in 'government' in their private hands, unelectable, unaccountable. They've had enough of this ridiculous 'experiment in democracy'.

And they have willing partners with their wealthy counterparts around the world - in China, in Russia, in the Middle East and Latin America among others.

The right has become expert in the well-funded propaganda, to sell tyranny as freedom to people who eat it up, people like you.

The right offers only tyranny - naming it freedom, in a felonious assault on the word.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
The left, let's go ahead and call it Government, have placed us where we are today. Indebted up to out knees, without any means of production, and subservient to a world of tyrants.

Individual and (Religious) freedom are what this country was founded apon, and what made us great.

The Government, has stolen, stolen, corrupted, taxed, and spent, with no regard to the individual.

There is no incremental theft left for the Government. The S&P 500 have said the US Government is NEGATIVE in their ability to pay their debts.

It's close to done, Craig. You can't maintain the US Government is this great thing, when the fact is that they have been spending money they don't own.

All, in the name of what?

-John
 
Last edited:

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
The left, let's go ahead and call it Government, have placed us where we are today.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I watched Dr. Zhivago the other night, and there is a scene where the Red Army comes across a group of devestated individuals. The Red Army asks, "Why are your running?"

Woman: Soldiers.
Red Army Soldier: Reds or Whites?
Woman: Soldiers.

-John
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
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.

Now who is it that has priced workers out of the Amrricsn market, and drove consumers into debt?

-John
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
The only correlation between Government and Corporations, is that they both want workers and consumers.

:eek: This is as naive a statement as saying Chernobyl didn't hurt anyone. Ok John you are off in another dimensional flight now. I will not tie up your subspace channel since you are so right. :sneaky: