Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 (Movie)

[alkemyst]

Reading a part?

I'm not sure I understand. Either, you know who Ayn Rand is, and discount her ideas, without reading her books, or, you have read her books, and know who Ayn Rand is.

-John {Galt}

Didn't Ayn Rand invent tea bagging?

 

[CycloWizard]

You missed the entire point. The point was that free trade combined with widespread worldwide poverty (people willing to work for lower wages in one form or another) would result in an averaging out of the U.S. standard of living to third world levels.

Whether or not competition is good and beneficial for society depends on the nature of the competition. I'm not sure Americans benefit from a worldwide competition to see who can work for the least amount of compensation without environmental and labor regulations. Perhaps the top 2% of the population that owns the businesses and that could keep a larger percentage of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth production would benefit, but not the other 98% that's becoming impoverished.

I'm not inherently opposed to having a free market and to competition. I think it's very beneficial under the right circumstances. The issue is whether it is beneficial and good for us as an absolute. One financial writer once said something to the effect that capitalism is good as an internal economic policy but not so good for international trade.

So Americans are the only ones that should be considered in the calculation of whether or not a policy benefits society? I thought the entire point of anti-free market policies were to help society as a whole. I also thought that people were people, regardless of which side of the pond they happened to be born on - or is that only true when we're blowing them up? Either people are people or some people are more important than others, so choose your position carefully. If people are people, then Americans have no claim to a higher standard of living unless they're willing to do what is required to achieve it. If, on the other hand, one works under the assumption that there are people and there are Americans, then your position holds up to scrutiny and the only problem becomes the other ancillary consequences of holding such a position as an axiom of your world view.

 

[Steeplerot]

Didn't Ayn Rand invent tea bagging?

I think it was one of the dudes she supported and kept around actually. :awe:

 

[UberNeuman]

Tax Day is the 18th....

\haha - Rand - foiled again!

 

[nick1985]

Our resident lefty blowhards wont be seeing the film and are up in arms over it. Whoda thunk it

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Our resident lefty blowhards wont be seeing the film and are up in arms over it. Whoda thunk it

You would think it is kind of odd that someone who consistently championed individualism and doggedly adhered to the philosophy that the rights of the individual overrule the rights of the majority would be so vilified by those who always seem to wrap themselves up in the mantle of: "Defenders of Personal Freedoms". Of course when you look at the support of personal freedoms by the left it's only really done in a rhetorically laced political manner to help ease their "For the People" (appeal to authority) views on other issues which if followed through would completely and consistently violate this idea of supporting "Personal Freedoms" (i.e. in the economic sphere of society).

In truth I believe it is Ayn Rand's wholly consistent adherence to protecting individual's rights via her support of capitalism which makes her the devil incarnate to those on the left who espouse a socialist (aka, progressive) and/or communist ideals. However Ayn Rand was no big fan of political social conservatism based on "faith" either. In fact she thought it to be a complete anathema to her views on the protection of individual rights and her pro-individualism philosophy as a whole. She also had no kind words for anyone else that consider themselves "Libertarian". Furthermore she never made mention or associated herself as a "Libertarian" in her life. Her main concerns and self identification in public for her ideas were always as a ardent supporter of "capitalism" and "individual rights".

Edit: Yeah sorry for long response.

 

[William Gaatjes]

A free market without regulation will inherently fail.

Because the people of a country are the consumers, if you do not protect the people by a minimal but necessary amount of regulations, you create an instability. Because every time in general the entire consumer market(and thus the country) will fail and then must restart. Of course before the restart, there will be poverty and problems. This means that the cash flow is not constant any longer. This also means serious problems for individuals which will cause problems on their own (think for example an increased probability of increase in crime rate because people need to eat too or less extreme want luxury too). Some would call it chaos theory. It is not. It is easy and obvious to understand that some variables can never be correctly predicted with absolute precision. But one must also not want this. What can be done however, is set limits to the value a variable can have. Market regulation models should greatly benefit from implementing fuzzy logic (Which i would not be surprised if this already happened in some countries). One does not need exact answers, just insurance that there is no realistic possible way to derail a given section of the market the regulations apply to.

Now you can choose the evolutionary way and hope people will learn to implement proper regulations on the free market after an amount of failures. Or you create an stability by using (regulations)in advance and therefore avoid serious problems.

 

[Zebo]

Good theory but doesn't work so well as robber barrons proved when we had practically no government. We just ended up with private tyranny and that was a time when any white man could get free land and mineral rights.. Would be infinitely worse today in our job/debt to property society. Now they just co-opted government and the FED but all that's required is people to wake up and take back their government for the people by the people.

 

[nick1985]

You would think it is kind of odd that someone who consistently championed individualism and doggedly adhered to the philosophy that the rights of the individual overrule the rights of the majority would be so vilified by those who always seem to wrap themselves up in the mantle of: "Defenders of Personal Freedoms". Of course when you look at the support of personal freedoms by the left it's only really done in a rhetorically laced political manner to help ease their "For the People" (appeal to authority) views on other issues which if followed through would completely and consistently violate this idea of supporting "Personal Freedoms" (i.e. in the economic sphere of society).

In truth I believe it is Ayn Rand's wholly consistent adherence to protecting individual's rights via her support of capitalism which makes her the devil incarnate to those on the left who espouse a socialist (aka, progressive) and/or communist ideals. However Ayn Rand was no big fan of political social conservatism based on "faith" either. In fact she thought it to be a complete anathema to her views on the protection of individual rights and her pro-individualism philosophy as a whole. She also had no kind words for anyone else that consider themselves "Libertarian". Furthermore she never made mention or associated herself as a "Libertarian" in her life. Her main concerns and self identification in public for her ideas were always as a ardent supporter of "capitalism" and "individual rights".

Edit: Yeah sorry for long response.

A well thought out response. :thumbsup:

 

[thraashman]

Our resident lefty blowhards wont be seeing the film and are up in arms over it. Whoda thunk it

I doubt that's true at all. Most on the left that I know are very open to other points of view. I bought Atlat Shrugged last year to read it. Unfortunately I realized shortly after purchasing it that the version I bought has a print size so small I found it hard to read. And now I no longer take mass transit to work so my main read time is gone. I still have the intent to read it eventually, but who knows when.

I have read up on objectivism and know I pretty much entirely disagree with it. I personally feel the only path to true happiness is putting the well being of other before yourself, and her philosophy is pretty much put yourself before others if you even care about others to begin with (perfect Republican philosophy). I'll probably give the movie a shot, but redbox it or something. Or maybe stick it to her and download it bypassing capitalism

 

[alkemyst]

People adopt libetarianism today because it's the cool thing to do...it's like how most Republican / Democratic people pick their party.


I don't agree with a lot of Rand's philosophy, but capitalism and individual rights are the keystones of America.

These are great things for those with backbones and the desire to improve their positions.

Today people are pushing for socialism and public right.

This is the slacker mentality and those afraid of what's outside.

 

[Possessed Freak]

People adopt libetarianism today because it's the cool thing to do...it's like how most Republican / Democratic people pick their party.

I picked my party because they were the cool ones!? I thought I picked it based on my beliefs. Damn it.

 

[CycloWizard]

I picked my party because they were the cool ones!? I thought I picked it based on my beliefs. Damn it.

If your beliefs are accurately represented by either party, it's probably time to rethink your beliefs.

 

[alkemyst]

If your beliefs are accurately represented by either party, it's probably time to rethink your beliefs.

QFT...this is really easy to hash out with any 'party' member. Ask them what they inherent beliefs are and they tend to run off a laundry list that is easy to google up.

Then have them tell you how is their party going about doing that.

Fact is the bipartisan system is great for those that head it. You get gang mentality and mob-like behavior for a cause even if it's bad for those doing the voting.

Most just vote looking for that R or D next to the issue and feel vilified that they stuck up for the cause.

 

[fskimospy]

QFT...this is really easy to hash out with any 'party' member. Ask them what they inherent beliefs are and they tend to run off a laundry list that is easy to google up.

Then have them tell you how is their party going about doing that.

Fact is the bipartisan system is great for those that head it. You get gang mentality and mob-like behavior for a cause even if it's bad for those doing the voting.

Most just vote looking for that R or D next to the issue and feel vilified that they stuck up for the cause.

I know very few people who actually line up with either party on all issues, but as has already been mentioned that's mostly irrelevant. The Constitution was poorly written in this way, and they left us with an electoral system that mandates only two competitive parties in each election. Therefore any rational person will vote for one of those two parties. (actually, for most elections it is not rational to vote at all, but I digress)

 

[nick1985]

I doubt that's true at all. Most on the left that I know are very open to other points of view.

Have you read the comments in this thread? You'd think she was the devil reincarnate

 

[fskimospy]

Have you read the comments in this thread? You'd think she was the devil reincarnate

You do realize that you can be open to other points of view, but still determine that some points of view are bad/stupid/whatever after considering them, right?

 

[nick1985]

You do realize that you can be open to other points of view, but still determine that some points of view are bad/stupid/whatever after considering them, right?

Sure, but thats assuming the people foaming at the mouth over this are open to the point of view. I think that's quite a stretch.

 

[alkemyst]

I know very few people who actually line up with either party on all issues, but as has already been mentioned that's mostly irrelevant. The Constitution was poorly written in this way, and they left us with an electoral system that mandates only two competitive parties in each election. Therefore any rational person will vote for one of those two parties. (actually, for most elections it is not rational to vote at all, but I digress)

I doubt believe it mandates two-parties...but that's what it's become due to historical reasons.

Many think the constitution also spells out democratic and republican and that any other party is against the United States.

Then again a lot still think the President is capped at a $200k a year salary because their learning stopped at 17.

 

[fskimospy]

I doubt believe it mandates two-parties...but that's what it's become due to historical reasons.

Many think the constitution also spells out democratic and republican and that any other party is against the United States.

Then again a lot still think the President is capped at a $200k a year salary because their learning stopped at 17.

It's become true because any system where the person that gets 50.0001% of the vote gets 100% of the representation tends to coalesce into two parties. (the whole 'don't throw your vote away' phenomenon') Our current system is the logical outcome of the way they set things up.

It sucks, but it's only one of many mistakes that were made when they drafted the Constitution. (it's another reason why the whole Constitution fetishism some people display is so ridiculous, they screwed plenty of stuff up)

 

[alkemyst]

It's become true because any system where the person that gets 50.0001% of the vote gets 100% of the representation tends to coalesce into two parties. (the whole 'don't throw your vote away' phenomenon') Our current system is the logical outcome of the way they set things up.

It sucks, but it's only one of many mistakes that were made when they drafted the Constitution. (it's another reason why the whole Constitution fetishism some people display is so ridiculous, they screwed plenty of stuff up)

Well not really a mistake at the time...however; the whole electoral college needs to end...much of our voting methods are out-dated and only serve to help the candidate/party and not the people.

Cash is the most sacred thing 'the people' have and we all do our banking/etc electronically. Meanwhile to vote I have to go down, show my card and ID to some old lady that probably has no clue what day it is and then cart my ass into a booth where I have to vote on things that may be wrapped up with other things. WTF is that?

Open up the polls online. Use the same level that banking requires and swap out the technology behind voting booths so the poor can vote as well.

The fear is hacking attacks and people 'buying' votes. Buying votes has never proven worth it...and lobbying in and of itself is really buying votes anyway and that's been around since the dawn of time.

If votes are hacked, unique identifiers make it easy to back out.

Another problem is people fear that other people are incapable of popular vote and that somehow Paris Hilton will end up as President.

I am not buying it.

 

[werepossum]

You missed the entire point. The point was that free trade combined with widespread worldwide poverty (people willing to work for lower wages in one form or another) would result in an averaging out of the U.S. standard of living to third world levels.

Whether or not competition is good and beneficial for society depends on the nature of the competition. I'm not sure Americans benefit from a worldwide competition to see who can work for the least amount of compensation without environmental and labor regulations. Perhaps the top 2% of the population that owns the businesses and that could keep a larger percentage of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth production would benefit, but not the other 98% that's becoming impoverished.

I'm not inherently opposed to having a free market and to competition. I think it's very beneficial under the right circumstances. The issue is whether it is beneficial and good for us as an absolute. One financial writer once said something to the effect that capitalism is good as an internal economic policy but not so good for international trade.

You would think it is kind of odd that someone who consistently championed individualism and doggedly adhered to the philosophy that the rights of the individual overrule the rights of the majority would be so vilified by those who always seem to wrap themselves up in the mantle of: "Defenders of Personal Freedoms". Of course when you look at the support of personal freedoms by the left it's only really done in a rhetorically laced political manner to help ease their "For the People" (appeal to authority) views on other issues which if followed through would completely and consistently violate this idea of supporting "Personal Freedoms" (i.e. in the economic sphere of society).

In truth I believe it is Ayn Rand's wholly consistent adherence to protecting individual's rights via her support of capitalism which makes her the devil incarnate to those on the left who espouse a socialist (aka, progressive) and/or communist ideals. However Ayn Rand was no big fan of political social conservatism based on "faith" either. In fact she thought it to be a complete anathema to her views on the protection of individual rights and her pro-individualism philosophy as a whole. She also had no kind words for anyone else that consider themselves "Libertarian". Furthermore she never made mention or associated herself as a "Libertarian" in her life. Her main concerns and self identification in public for her ideas were always as a ardent supporter of "capitalism" and "individual rights".

Edit: Yeah sorry for long response.

Two very well framed posts with totally divergent views. I find myself drawn to both as I'm a big supporter of capitalism and economic freedom, but also not fond of free trade outside of those nations with similar or high labor and regulatory costs.

Still can't read Rand though, even though I generally support what I think are her views. Also, it needs to be emphasized that while her point is unarguably correct, we're a very long way from government being so crushing as to discourage highly productive and successful people from working. Most high wage earners also have capital gains and pay a similar of lower level of income as taxes compared to the middle class.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Anyone ever seen the objectivist forums/dating sites? It's a bunch of nerdy dudes saying that they're Howard Roark and looking for their Dominique. Really pathetic stuff.

In other news, The Fountainhead was a good book. Haven't read Atlas Shrugged.

Dominique was a total slut by the way.

 

[fskimospy]

Anyone ever seen the objectivist forums/dating sites? It's a bunch of nerdy dudes saying that they're Howard Roark and looking for their Dominique. Really pathetic stuff.

In other news, The Fountainhead was a good book. Haven't read Atlas Shrugged.

Dominique was a total slut by the way.

Ayn Rand's books all have a lot of REALLY creepy sexuality going on in them. She appears to have some issues in that respect. Those Objectivist dating sites are hilarious to me as they all believe themselves to be the Lone Few Of Ability.

Then again, I guess nobody wants to believe they are average.

 

[alkemyst]

Most high wage earners also have capital gains and pay a similar of lower level of income as taxes compared to the middle class.

Unless that high wage earner owns a business they are getting raped like anyone else on taxes. This is what people don't understand. I pull in a high income, but only have my home interest ($11k), school loans ($1k), and whatever I give to charity to write off. Outside of that I get the same deductions.

Once someone owns a corporation and ties their income to it, it's very easy to play games with income vs business expenses.