Atlas Shrugged today?

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I've thought about reading an Ayn Rand book, but the people I know who seem to really like her stuff are self-centered assholes who make atheism their religion and have evacuated all sense of spirituality from their being. That is a sweeping stereotype, but is it possible to appreciate her work and not turn into a selfish fvck? I am being serious (I've not read any posts in this thread yet, so please nobody take offense! ).

So what religion are you?

 

[lightstar]

great article- thanks for the post :thumbsup:

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I've thought about reading an Ayn Rand book, but the people I know who seem to really like her stuff are self-centered assholes who make atheism their religion and have evacuated all sense of spirituality from their being. That is a sweeping stereotype, but is it possible to appreciate her work and not turn into a selfish fvck? I am being serious (I've not read any posts in this thread yet, so please nobody take offense! ).

Whats wrong with atheists?

I bet we share most of your values....we just don't twist ours up with mythology and we don't pretend to have some "god given" justification for our beliefs(the average atheist, not the ones who just want to upset people)

my beliefs are a result of my life...i've seen a lot of bad shit happen (relative of course) ..I don't believe that any being is watching over and protecting us...I don't think that means that I don't have depth..its quite insulting to see someone who i generally respect say crap like that

I will agree that many Rand fans are quite obnoxious....but that doesn't mean that the ideals are not valid, it just means that human beings have a hard time holding their tongue and thinking before they say things..and maybe..just maybe..the reason that those people are so obnoxious is because they are often young (just being introduced to philosophy and politics) ..I know adults who are Rand fans who are quite kind individuals..

The biggest problem with rand..and others who come up with strong viewpoints about how life should be or is , of course is tunnel vision..any ideology when not challenged by rationality can be turned into something quite disgusting

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Skoorb
...self-centered assholes who make atheism their religion...

Whats wrong with atheists?

Nothing in general, but the fundamentalist ones are self-centered assholes.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Skoorb
...self-centered assholes who make atheism their religion...

Whats wrong with atheists?

Nothing in general, but the fundamentalist ones are self-centered assholes.

yeah, its sad how fundamentalists of all ilks end uo being the ones who color our views of a group. I blame the media for only ever showcasing the most extreme views of any group and never the "normal" members.

 

[McCarthy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
That's... good... logic.... saying McCarthy was right

Thanks! Objectivism is my preference; minarchism being acceptable.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: McCarthy

Originally posted by: Craig234
That's... good... logic.... saying McCarthy was right

Thanks! Objectivism is my preference; minarchism being acceptable.

Like I say about all fascist, follow your leader..POW..right in the mouth!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
ATLAS SHRUGGED: THE ABRIDGED VERSION (with spoilers)

......
READER
Wait, what?

ATLAS
(Shrugs)

THE END

-Copied with NO permission because I am a collectivist sonofabitch like that -Red

Classic

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: JS80
very good read.

-------------------------
Romney/Jindal 2012

Wow, how fake can you really get? What a hilarious farce.

What the fuck is my alternative? Support Ron Paul who will lose and effectively be a +1 to Obama 2012?

If everyone who said that would just vote for Ron Paul then he would be President-elect today.

The biggest con job politicians have ever pulled off is getting Americans to accept that it is possible to ?waste? your vote.

This I think it a problem with thinking short term. We are only concerned with the next election. For a third party to come to power people have to start voting for them. Every vote cast for a third party is one vote the Repulicrats didn?t get, and one small step up for that third party. Enough people do that and eventually we will have a many party system.

 

[fskimospy]

DP

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: JS80
very good read.

-------------------------
Romney/Jindal 2012

Wow, how fake can you really get? What a hilarious farce.

What the fuck is my alternative? Support Ron Paul who will lose and effectively be a +1 to Obama 2012?

If everyone who said that would just vote for Ron Paul then he would be President-elect today.

The biggest con job politicians have ever pulled off is getting Americans to accept that it is possible to ?waste? your vote.

This I think it a problem with thinking short term. We are only concerned with the next election. For a third party to come to power people have to start voting for them. Every vote cast for a third party is one vote the Repulicrats didn?t get, and one small step up for that third party. Enough people do that and eventually we will have a many party system.

He really wouldn't have been. He wouldn't even have been close.

EDIT: To reflect your edit: We won't have a multi party system either. As I have mentioned many times such a system under our current structure is nearly impossible due to structural problems with how our officials are elected. Any time 51% of the votes = 100% of the representation, you will pretty much always have a two party system. Fact.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: JS80
very good read.

-------------------------
Romney/Jindal 2012

Wow, how fake can you really get? What a hilarious farce.

What the fuck is my alternative? Support Ron Paul who will lose and effectively be a +1 to Obama 2012?

If everyone who said that would just vote for Ron Paul then he would be President-elect today.

The biggest con job politicians have ever pulled off is getting Americans to accept that it is possible to ?waste? your vote.

This I think it a problem with thinking short term. We are only concerned with the next election. For a third party to come to power people have to start voting for them. Every vote cast for a third party is one vote the Repulicrats didn?t get, and one small step up for that third party. Enough people do that and eventually we will have a many party system.

He really wouldn't have been. He wouldn't even have been close.

I don't know about that. It seems every time I talk to someone I hear the same thing, "I would have voted for him, but he had no chance of winning" But then again I live real close to his home district, so my purely anecdotal evidence could be way off.

But that does not stop the main point from being true, that voting for a candidate you don't like just so you don't waste your vote is as stupid as buying a product you don't want because it is on sale.

EDIT: To reflect your edit: We won't have a multi party system either. As I have mentioned many times such a system under our current structure is nearly impossible due to structural problems with how our officials are elected. Any time 51% of the votes = 100% of the representation, you will pretty much always have a two party system. Fact.

Yea, sorry about the late edit, I wanted to say more and didn't want to post twice in a row.
I don't see any reason why that system must lead to a two party system. It encourages a two party system, but does not require one. We have had other powerful parties in the past.
The main reason we have a two party system today is that the two parties work together to block out any other parties.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: JS80
very good read.

-------------------------
Romney/Jindal 2012

Wow, how fake can you really get? What a hilarious farce.

What the fuck is my alternative? Support Ron Paul who will lose and effectively be a +1 to Obama 2012?

If everyone who said that would just vote for Ron Paul then he would be President-elect today.

The biggest con job politicians have ever pulled off is getting Americans to accept that it is possible to ?waste? your vote.

This I think it a problem with thinking short term. We are only concerned with the next election. For a third party to come to power people have to start voting for them. Every vote cast for a third party is one vote the Repulicrats didn?t get, and one small step up for that third party. Enough people do that and eventually we will have a many party system.

He really wouldn't have been. He wouldn't even have been close.

I don't know about that. It seems every time I talk to someone I hear the same thing, "I would have voted for him, but he had no chance of winning" But then again I live real close to his home district, so my purely anecdotal evidence could be way off.

But that does not stop the main point from being true, that voting for a candidate you don't like just so you don't waste your vote is as stupid as buying a product you don't want because it is on sale.

EDIT: To reflect your edit: We won't have a multi party system either. As I have mentioned many times such a system under our current structure is nearly impossible due to structural problems with how our officials are elected. Any time 51% of the votes = 100% of the representation, you will pretty much always have a two party system. Fact.

Yea, sorry about the late edit, I wanted to say more and didn't want to post twice in a row.
I don't see any reason why that system must lead to a two party system. It encourages a two party system, but does not require one. We have had other powerful parties in the past.
The main reason we have a two party system today is that the two parties work together to block out any other parties.

runoff's are a counter to this correct?

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I've thought about reading an Ayn Rand book, but the people I know who seem to really like her stuff are self-centered assholes who make atheism their religion and have evacuated all sense of spirituality from their being. That is a sweeping stereotype, but is it possible to appreciate her work and not turn into a selfish fvck? I am being serious (I've not read any posts in this thread yet, so please nobody take offense! ).

"Anthem" is a very short book. Start there, and decide for yourself whether to tackle her longer works.

I don't think Objectivists are any more rabid than P&N Democrats or Republicans.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Yea, sorry about the late edit, I wanted to say more and didn't want to post twice in a row.
I don't see any reason why that system must lead to a two party system. It encourages a two party system, but does not require one. We have had other powerful parties in the past.
The main reason we have a two party system today is that the two parties work together to block out any other parties.

I think your Ron Paul support is pretty anecdotal. Even when they polled people when the field of candidates was large and without a significant front runner (thus removing a lot of the bias from strategic voting) Ron Paul still did not poll well. People just don't like his ideas very much. They simply don't want to get rid of the federal government in the way he does.

The reason we have two parties is not because of collusion on the part of the Democrats and Republicans. It is a fundamental collective action problem that's codified in something called Duverger's law, and it has to do with strategic voting. It's not ironclad, but it's pretty close. and you can read about it here.. Important caveat to the wiki entry though, while it mentions regional parties it also uses them as 'counterexamples', which isn't really accurate. The point of Duverger's law is that in any one election there will only be two competitive parties. It doesn't technically have to be the same two parties in all elections.

In short, while other parties can and do exist, and occasionally even win offices in the US, until our electoral system fundamentally changes we're stuck with the two party system. The one thing where I will agree there is a danger of collusion is that our electoral system is only changed through legislative action, and in that case we're going to have to rely on our two ruling parties to vote themselves out of power. Unlikely.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Dissipate-

If you are talking about a radical violent revolution, there is no hope in that either. Quiet, non-violent secession is the only route to true freedom.

Heh. The last time there was actual secession, it wasn't peaceful, and it was actually in support of slavery, touted as the freedom of "States' Rights"...

Some things never change, particularly the mind numbing jingoism of the Right, Rand being one of the more successful perps of such fantasy.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Argo

I would be interested on hearing your take on why you think she's wrong.

She's the opposite version of the Communist Manifesto. She has juvenile, overly simplistic ideas that ignore human nature in order to straightjacket it into an ideology that could never work in reality.

People usually get over her at about the same age they get over Marxism, 21-22 or so.

human nature IS simple

um, no?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Argo

I would be interested on hearing your take on why you think she's wrong.

How about the fact she believes people only a select few are super human and deserve everything they get and the rest of us are lucky to have them around to save us from our stupidity? Never mind people are born into different circumstances with different opportunities.

How is that different in a socialist or communist environment?

it isn't, thats the point.



Its ironic the rand inspired politicians and policy makers caused this, and then idiots look to sane people cleaning up the mess as vindication that they were right in the first place.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: XMan
One thing I do agree with Ayn Rand about, there's only so much you can soak the ants for before they throw up their hands and say "screw it". Look at the migration from California and New York for a real-world example.

new york and California both have increasing populations. did you have a point, or was that just a dumb anecdote?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: JS80
very good read.

-------------------------
Romney/Jindal 2012

Wow, how fake can you really get? What a hilarious farce.

What the fuck is my alternative? Support Ron Paul who will lose and effectively be a +1 to Obama 2012?

If everyone who said that would just vote for Ron Paul then he would be President-elect today.

The biggest con job politicians have ever pulled off is getting Americans to accept that it is possible to ?waste? your vote.

This I think it a problem with thinking short term. We are only concerned with the next election. For a third party to come to power people have to start voting for them. Every vote cast for a third party is one vote the Repulicrats didn?t get, and one small step up for that third party. Enough people do that and eventually we will have a many party system.

He really wouldn't have been. He wouldn't even have been close.

I don't know about that. It seems every time I talk to someone I hear the same thing, "I would have voted for him, but he had no chance of winning" But then again I live real close to his home district, so my purely anecdotal evidence could be way off.

But that does not stop the main point from being true, that voting for a candidate you don't like just so you don't waste your vote is as stupid as buying a product you don't want because it is on sale.

EDIT: To reflect your edit: We won't have a multi party system either. As I have mentioned many times such a system under our current structure is nearly impossible due to structural problems with how our officials are elected. Any time 51% of the votes = 100% of the representation, you will pretty much always have a two party system. Fact.

Yea, sorry about the late edit, I wanted to say more and didn't want to post twice in a row.
I don't see any reason why that system must lead to a two party system. It encourages a two party system, but does not require one. We have had other powerful parties in the past.
The main reason we have a two party system today is that the two parties work together to block out any other parties.

investigate game theory, a two party system is inevitable.

every now and the you might have another party do well, but thats very rare.

 

[RU482]

Originally posted by: JS80

Even if you withdraw all support for politicians (whom I despise), in a democracy, people will take that oppotunity to just crush you. You might as well join the party that will do less damage. There are too few of you to make any impact, and all it does it give more power to the party that wants more power and bureaucracy. Trust me I would love to see a revolution in America, but it is just not viable IMO.

err, how about being an individual, instead of a "heil hitler" esque party member. Cmon, this country has been a big pinball machine bouncing between left and right (though not as quickly as some would like, and not as subtly as many would like)

The thing is, none of us are completely rubugnicants, or democraps...are we?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: RU482

Originally posted by: JS80

Even if you withdraw all support for politicians (whom I despise), in a democracy, people will take that oppotunity to just crush you. You might as well join the party that will do less damage. There are too few of you to make any impact, and all it does it give more power to the party that wants more power and bureaucracy. Trust me I would love to see a revolution in America, but it is just not viable IMO.

err, how about being an individual, instead of a "heil hitler" esque party member. Cmon, this country has been a big pinball machine bouncing between left and right (though not as quickly as some would like, and not as subtly as many would like)

The thing is, none of us are completely rubugnicants, or democraps...are we?

Most people seem to say the two parties are ineffective goofballs who screw up Washington. After watching Congressional hearings for a number of years I tend to think that it is the other way around. Most people are goofballs who want to think they know everything, and on certain issues when most people start paying attention to them and throwing their dumbass hat into the ring, politicians end up having to maneuver in ways that make Washington ineffective. Watch a typical boring House investigation on some issue nobody cares about and I think you'll find a lot more bipartisanship and intelligent questioning than you might expect.

I'm not saying cut the people out of the process, I just wish people would know the boundaries of their own opinions. Me for example, I am not at all qualified to judge most economic matters as far as what their impact will be. I do know more than the average joe about economics but not enough to be able to give any sort of reasonable analysis to changes in the tax code or whatnot. A lot of people can't hold themselves back.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Farang
I'm not saying cut the people out of the process, I just wish people would know the boundaries of their own opinions. Me for example, I am not at all qualified to judge most economic matters as far as what their impact will be. I do know more than the average joe about economics but not enough to be able to give any sort of reasonable analysis to changes in the tax code or whatnot. A lot of people can't hold themselves back.

Lot of truth to that comment. Many of our problems are caused by the manipulation of people who don't understand it.

Politics is quite able to manipulate with the carefully chosen phrase. For example, if you want people to agree to pay for something, you might use words about duty or the nation's greatness or the word 'investment'. If you want them to oppose paying for a program, you might pander to them with the phrase, "Who knows how to spend your money better - you or the politicians in Washington?", which reliably gets resentment stirred up and opposition to whatever the spending is.

It's why you see Republicans so idiotically but effectively always talk about lower taxes - not why their choice of 20% is better than 19% or 18% or 1% and actually defend the value as the right one in an honest debate, but rather just 'for lower taxes' to get people to say 'ya, lower taxes! ya!' Forget about the actual issues like how the corrupt spending forces the choice to be between fiscal responsibility of taxing to pay the bills, and borrowing. Reagan ran up the nation's credit card for the political popularity that borrowed money brings when it's spent freely, yet many praise his economic policies as if he had done the difficult but right politicies (which to the extent they were done, were largely by Carter appointee Paul Volcker).

As you say, Washing often turns into a 'dog and pony show' where the quality work is behind the scenes, and if the public pushes the point, they get the Terri Schiavo fiasco.

No wonder politicians correctly view so much of the public as clueless (even while they might really want to serve their legitimate interests), even while the public bleats about things like 'all the politicians are crooks'. Some of them are, but it's thanks largely to the most clueless in the public who fall for the manipulation. One need look no further than half our nation choosing Bush, or McCain/Palin, with *clearly* better opponents.

What we need are people who are willing to fix the real problems - such as the corporations' right to spend vast sums to manipulate the political culture, whether it's through the enormous army of lobbying or the ownership of mass media and its corresponding censorship of the anti-corporation news.

 

[First]

Ayn Rand seems like great dogma in some alternate world, perhaps some exoplanet 20 lightyears away. But in this world and at this time, humans simply don't respond to economics and business the way she believes. It's why she never came up with an effective model to predict people's reactions to economic distress even when gov't hadn't intruded into the market as severely as they are now. And save for a couple juvenile kooks who believe in no gov't and taxes (see Grinch), this is still quite clearly the superior alternative to doing nothing and allowing unemployment to skyrocket to 15% (like in the early Depression).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I've thought about reading an Ayn Rand book, but the people I know who seem to really like her stuff are self-centered assholes who make atheism their religion and have evacuated all sense of spirituality from their being. That is a sweeping stereotype, but is it possible to appreciate her work and not turn into a selfish fvck? I am being serious (I've not read any posts in this thread yet, so please nobody take offense! ).

"Anthem" is a very short book. Start there, and decide for yourself whether to tackle her longer works.

I don't think Objectivists are any more rabid than P&N Democrats or Republicans.

Indeed, start with "Pamphlet" and most likely you'll see no need to keep reading Rand.