SPLIT: Off-topic Ayn Rand, "A free economy will not break down"

[Kraig]

"Acts of God" can break economies.

There is no god! Only the natural world. :)

Moderator Note:
These off-topic posts were split from the thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188109

[BeFranklin]

There is no god! Only the natural world. :)

Ayn Rand would agree with you. The entire American nation at the beginning of the Revolution would not.

Who is actually the founders of the freedom philosophy?

[Kraig]

Ayn Rand would agree with you. The entire American nation at the beginning of the Revolution would not.


Sorry, but I think for myself, what you are saying has no relevance to me. Who did what and when has no relevance to the fact that there is no evidence that god exists.


Who is actually the founders of the freedom philosophy?

Thomas Jefferson would certainly be one of them.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

[BeFranklin]

Sorry, but I think for myself, what you are saying has no relevance to me. Who did what and when has no relevance to the fact that there is no evidence that god exists.



Thomas Jefferson would certainly be one of them.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

Might question Ayn Rand's relevancy while you are at it :)

[Josh_LA]

Ayn Rand would agree with you. The entire American nation at the beginning of the Revolution would not.

Who is actually the founders of the freedom philosophy?

Our founding fathers founded a country, via might, not found the freedom philosophy. Certain if it was God given, it look long enough to deliver to humans, sucks for people who lived before 1789

[BeFranklin]

Our founding fathers founded a country, via might, not found the freedom philosophy. Certain if it was God given, it look long enough to deliver to humans, sucks for people who lived before 1789

God is mightier than all. The only way I agree with you that "might makes right".

[Josh_LA]

God is mightier than all. The only way I agree with you that "might makes right".

better than not agreeing at all.

So you admit that the only reason something is "wrong" based on "because God said so" is because "Might makes right"?

But you still have the burden of proof, if God is mightier than all, where was he before 1789?

[BeFranklin]

better than not agreeing at all.

So you admit that the only reason something is "wrong" based on "because God said so" is because "Might makes right"?

But you still have the burden of proof, if God is mightier than all, where was he before 1789? 1776.

Right there as always. As Samuel Adams traced the history out for the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

Samuel Adams Speech
COUNTRYMEN AND BRETHREN: I would gladly have declined an honor, to which I find myself unequal. I have not the calmness and impartiality which the infinite importance of this occasion demands. I will not deny the charge of my enemies, that resentment for the accumulated injuries of our country, and an ardor for her glory, rising to enthusiasm, may deprive me of that accuracy of judgment and expression which men of cooler passions may Possess. Let me beseech you, then, to hear me with caution, to examine without prejudice, and to correct the mistakes into which I may be hurried by my zeal.

Truth loves an appeal to the common-sense of mankind. Your unperverted understandings can best determine on subjects of a practical nature. The positions and plans which are said to be above the comprehension of the multitude may be always suspected to be visionary and fruitless. He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all.

Our forefathers threw off the yoke of popery in religion: for you is reserved the honor of levelling the popery of politics. They opened the Bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion. Are we sufficient for the comprehension of the sublimest spiritual truths, and unequal to material and temporal ones? Heaven hath trusted us with the management of things for eternity, and man denies us ability to judge of the present, or to know from our feelings the experience that will make us happy. “You can discern,” say they, “objects distant and remote, but cannot perceive those within your grasp. Let us have the distribution of present goods, and cut out and manage as you please the interests of futurity.” This day, I trust the reign of political protestantism will commence. We have explored the temple of royalty, and found that the idol we have bowed down to, has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. We have this day restored the Sovereign, to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought, and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.

...
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/american-independence-speech-by-samuel-adams-august-1-1776.html

[Objectivist]

Leave it to a believer to add their two cents to a Ayn Rand thread.:eek:

[BeFranklin]

Leave it to a believer to add their two cents to a Ayn Rand thread.:eek:

Ayn Rand was pompous, cultist, and invented little but covered up a number of things.

Not that she didn't say some things well, but why swallow the rest :D

[Josh_LA]

1776.
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/american-independence-speech-by-samuel-adams-august-1-1776.html

You didn't answer my question did you?

Life just sucked for people before 1789 (First President inaugurated), didn't it? Where almighty God just let people live under oppression.

[Josh_LA]

Ayn Rand was pompous, cultist, and invented little but covered up a number of things.

Not that she didn't say some things well, but why swallow the rest :D

how is she different from our founders? Our founders kissed God's ass?

[BeFranklin]

You didn't answer my question did you?

Life just sucked for people before 1789 (First President inaugurated), didn't it? Where almighty God just let people live under oppression.

I answered it. You can easily find God moving things throughout history, exactly as Samuel Adams did.

If you mean I didn't stand on one foot and go throughout human history for you, well lol :D

[Josh_LA]

I answered it. You can easily find God moving things throughout history, exactly as Samuel Adams did.


So then freedom isn't that important, since God was always around moving things even during oppression and suppression?



If you mean I didn't stand on one foot and go throughout human history for you, well lol :D

So what our founders did was unnecessary and insignificant since God was always around?

[BeFranklin]

So what our founders did was unnecessary and insignificant since God was always around?

A republic if you can keep it.

[Josh_LA]

A republic if you can keep it.

If not, too bad?

Almighty God only helps those who help themselves?

[Objectivist]

Ayn Rand was pompous, cultist, and invented little but covered up a number of things.

Not that she didn't say some things well, but why swallow the rest :D

I guess by your remarks you have read or understand Ayn Rand. Could it be you haven't reached that level yet? I'd say so by your past remarks.

[Josh_LA]

I guess by your remarks you have read or understand Ayn Rand. Could it be you haven't reached that level yet? I'd say so by your past remarks.

don't count on him to.

[Objectivist]

don't count on him to.

I've had people read the Objectivist Philosophy and most people have a problem with intellectual writings such as Rand'. It's easier to read SPorts Illustrated or be spoon fed in a junior college PS class.

Even the Bible is written at an elementary level so that children can be brainwashed. It makes it easier to allow for conformity under the immorality of religious doctrine. If the Bible was difficult for people to comprehend they would be turned off by it and turn away from it. It's much less difficult reading nursery rhymes than something the magnitude of Rand' Objectivist Philosophy. But if you get it then it's like coming home to momma.

[NMCB3]

Why would you want to go back? It was a big relief for me. Suddenly the world started to make sense. The world is not perfect, its fucked up, but at least now it makes sense for me.It was my attempt at humor...I guess you didn`t get it. :)

[Josh_LA]

I've had people read the Objectivist Philosophy and most people have a problem with intellectual writings such as Rand'. It's easier to read SPorts Illustrated or be spoon fed in a junior college PS class.

Even the Bible is written at an elementary level so that children can be brainwashed.


O rly? I must be severely retarded if I didn't buy the Bible then...



It makes it easier to allow for conformity under the immorality of religious doctrine. If the Bible was difficult for people to comprehend they would be turned off by it and turn away from it.


According to many Christians I know, that's exactly why.



It's much less difficult reading nursery rhymes than something the magnitude of Rand' Objectivist Philosophy. But if you get it then it's like coming home to momma.

Amen.

[BeFranklin]

I've had people read the Objectivist Philosophy and most people have a problem with intellectual writings such as Rand'. It's easier to read SPorts Illustrated or be spoon fed in a junior college PS class.

Even the Bible is written at an elementary level so that children can be brainwashed. It makes it easier to allow for conformity under the immorality of religious doctrine. If the Bible was difficult for people to comprehend they would be turned off by it and turn away from it. It's much less difficult reading nursery rhymes than something the magnitude of Rand' Objectivist Philosophy. But if you get it then it's like coming home to momma.

This is so much crap, I'm a doctoral student. I've also read all her works, including her original newletter, which I very much doubt you have.

Its this attitude here, which is by the way how she also sometimes wrote, especially in her newsletters, that I'd call cultist.

If you like philosophies like that, you can at least do better than follow a fiction writer. She also didn't actually write "a philosophy". Too lazy.

See the part in bold. Its a personal attack.

[BeFranklin]

FYI:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult
by Murray N. Rothbard

Example of one of several former students of Rand. She even had people sign loyality oaths after a split caused by her having affairs or trying to interfere with other people's marriages.

[Josh_LA]

This is so much crap, I'm a doctoral student. I've also read all her works, including her original newletter, which I very much doubt you have.


What do you study?



Its this attitude here, which is by the way how she also sometimes wrote, especially in her newsletters, that I'd call cultist.

If you like philosophies like that, you can at least do better than follow a fiction writer. She also didn't actually write "a philosophy". Too lazy.

See the part in bold. Its a personal attack.

[Objectivist]

This is so much crap, I'm a doctoral student. I've also read all her works, including her original newletter, which I very much doubt you have.

Its this attitude here, which is by the way how she also sometimes wrote, especially in her newsletters, that I'd call cultist.

If you like philosophies like that, you can at least do better than follow a fiction writer. She also didn't actually write "a philosophy". Too lazy.

See the part in bold. Its a personal attack.

Calling people that think like Rand a cult is laughable when you consider religious people believe in the Invisible Man.

Fiction writer? OK I see, but here's some Non-Fiction writings by Rand.

Nonfiction
For the New Intellectual (1961) ISBN 0-451-16308-7
The Virtue of Selfishness (with Nathaniel Branden) (1964) ISBN 0-451-16393-1
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (with Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Hessen) (1966) ISBN 0-451-14795-2
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1967) ISBN 0-452-01030-6 (expanded second edition)
The Romantic Manifesto (1969) ISBN 0-451-14916-5
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1971) ISBN 0-452-01184-1
Philosophy: Who Needs It posthumously edited by Leonard Peikoff (1982) ISBN 0-451-13893-7. The title essay was originally an address to the 1974 graduating class of the United States Military Academy.
[edit]Posthumous works
The Early Ayn Rand (edited and with commentary by Leonard Peikoff) (1984)
The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought (edited by Leonard Peikoff; additional essays by Leonard Peikoff and Peter Schwartz) (1989)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology second edition (edited by Harry Binswanger; additional material by Leonard Peikoff) (1990)
Letters of Ayn Rand (edited by Michael S. Berliner) (1995)
Journals of Ayn Rand (edited by David Harriman) (1997)
Ayn Rand's Marginalia: Her Critical Comments on the Writings of over Twenty Authors (edited by Robert Mayhew) (1998)
The Ayn Rand Column: Written for the Los Angeles Times (edited by Peter Schwartz) (1998)
Russian Writings on Hollywood (edited by Michael S. Berliner) (1999)
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (expanded edition of The New Left; edited and with additional essays by Peter Schwartz) (1999)
The Art of Fiction (edited by Tore Boeckmann) (2000)
The Art of Nonfiction (edited by Robert Mayhew) (2001)
The Objectivism Research CD-ROM (collection of most of Rand's works in CD-ROM format) (2001)
Three Plays (2005)
Ayn Rand Answers (edited by Robert Mayhew) (2005)


Anyone trying to get their ideas out could write a play or story in order to explain a philosophy. I can think of a few others.

She and I think alike so whatever dude.

[Josh_LA]

Calling people that think like Rand a cult is laughable when you consider religious people believe in the Invisible Man.


The difference between a cult and a religion is a few centuries.



Fiction writer? OK I see, but here's some Non-Fiction writings by Rand.


Non-fiction just means the writer isn't getting creative on writing stories, instead he/she is giving his beliefs and opinions, this in no way makes them factual, true or scientific. Looks like most of these were edited and presented by other people who admire her personality anyway.

(playing devil's advocate, don't worry)



Nonfiction
For the New Intellectual (1961) ISBN 0-451-16308-7
The Virtue of Selfishness (with Nathaniel Branden) (1964) ISBN 0-451-16393-1
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (with Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Hessen) (1966) ISBN 0-451-14795-2
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1967) ISBN 0-452-01030-6 (expanded second edition)
The Romantic Manifesto (1969) ISBN 0-451-14916-5
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1971) ISBN 0-452-01184-1
Philosophy: Who Needs It posthumously edited by Leonard Peikoff (1982) ISBN 0-451-13893-7. The title essay was originally an address to the 1974 graduating class of the United States Military Academy.
[edit]Posthumous works
The Early Ayn Rand (edited and with commentary by Leonard Peikoff) (1984)
The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought (edited by Leonard Peikoff; additional essays by Leonard Peikoff and Peter Schwartz) (1989)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology second edition (edited by Harry Binswanger; additional material by Leonard Peikoff) (1990)
Letters of Ayn Rand (edited by Michael S. Berliner) (1995)
Journals of Ayn Rand (edited by David Harriman) (1997)
Ayn Rand's Marginalia: Her Critical Comments on the Writings of over Twenty Authors (edited by Robert Mayhew) (1998)
The Ayn Rand Column: Written for the Los Angeles Times (edited by Peter Schwartz) (1998)
Russian Writings on Hollywood (edited by Michael S. Berliner) (1999)
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (expanded edition of The New Left; edited and with additional essays by Peter Schwartz) (1999)
The Art of Fiction (edited by Tore Boeckmann) (2000)
The Art of Nonfiction (edited by Robert Mayhew) (2001)
The Objectivism Research CD-ROM (collection of most of Rand's works in CD-ROM format) (2001)
Three Plays (2005)
Ayn Rand Answers (edited by Robert Mayhew) (2005)


Anyone trying to get their ideas out could write a play or story in order to explain a philosophy. I can think of a few others.

She and I think alike so whatever dude.

[Objectivist]

The difference between a cult and a religion is a few centuries.



Non-fiction just means the writer isn't getting creative on writing stories, instead he/she is giving his beliefs and opinions, this in no way makes them factual, true or scientific. Looks like most of these were edited and presented by other people who admire her personality anyway.

(playing devil's advocate, don't worry)

No worries, much of her stuff came out after she died. Even some of the personal remarks she had made to people about not treating her like some sort of goddess.

When I'd gone a good number of years trying to figure out why I thought the way I do and why others hold their beliefs it was refreshing to run across Rand. And yeah I think much the same on the matters of race, I don't condemn people and I accept them for who they are but I do recognize our differences, I can swim like a fish and my step dad can't, he could run like the wind when he was young and I'm not built for that type speed. Then there's the matters of technology and that speaks for itself. Some people are made to stack rocks and others design magnificent structures that defy gravity.

On Rothbard, much of his ideals are parroting what he learned, nothing wrong with that but not it doesn't make him a god either.

[Danke]

But you still have the burden of proof, if God is mightier than all, where was he before 1789?

"Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy." Benjamin Franklin

[InterestedParticipant]

I have no idea why this community buys into Rand's Communist-elite double speak. It just floors me to see so many pump her rhetoric. Anyway, here's some points addressing your question and the video:


Of course her rationales are wrong. Laizze Faire brought us monopoloies. She's basically saying that survival of the fittest results in the most 'rational' getting to the top so 'reason' ends all bad things. Look at this video, where she claims racism is inversely proportional to capitalism....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHrHMLeWCrA&feature=related


As long as we have a global elite and an under-education population, the system will be infiltrated and manipulated to the elite' benefit, irrespective of how the system begins.

On a side note, did you notice how the interview started, with Rand saying: "I have no faith at all, I only hold convictions." Whoa!, that's not in keeping with America's concept of unalienable rights.

Rand's notion that everything is done out-of-self-interest is one meant to break our natural humanity. That's pretty evil and is intended to isolate the public against the Oligarchy, as one of humanity's greatest assets is out natural tendency to care for each other.


Rand's material simply provides cover for the psychopaths' behavior.... it's nothing more than psychopathic double-speak to justify them doing whatever they want.

One can't understand Rand until one can understand how to read their double-speak.

[Objectivist]

I have no idea why this community buys into Rand's Communist-elite double speak. It just floors me to see so many pump her rhetoric. Anyway, here's some points addressing your question and the video:


Of course her rationales are wrong. Laizze Faire brought us monopoloies. She's basically saying that survival of the fittest results in the most 'rational' getting to the top so 'reason' ends all bad things. Look at this video, where she claims racism is inversely proportional to capitalism....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHrHMLeWCrA&feature=related


As long as we have a global elite and an under-education population, the system will be infiltrated and manipulated to the elite' benefit, irrespective of how the system begins.

On a side note, did you notice how the interview started, with Rand saying: "I have no faith at all, I only hold convictions." Whoa!, that's not in keeping with America's concept of unalienable rights.

Rand's notion that everything is done out-of-self-interest is one meant to break our natural humanity. That's pretty evil and is intended to isolate the public against the Oligarchy, as one of humanity's greatest assets is out natural tendency to care for each other.


Rand's material simply provides cover for the psychopaths' behavior.... it's nothing more than psychopathic double-speak to justify them doing whatever they want.

One can't understand Rand until one can understand how to read their double-speak.

Then show the monopoly created?
Altruism is not reasonable, immoral really.

WHere do you get the idea that you were placed on this planet to care for other human beings?

[nayjevin]

I have no idea why this community buys into Rand's Communist-elite double speak. It just floors me to see so many pump her rhetoric. Anyway, here's some points addressing your question and the video:


Of course her rationales are wrong. Laizze Faire brought us monopoloies. She's basically saying that survival of the fittest results in the most 'rational' getting to the top so 'reason' ends all bad things. Look at this video, where she claims racism is inversely proportional to capitalism....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHrHMLeWCrA&feature=related
As long as we have a global elite and an under-education population, the system will be infiltrated and manipulated to the elite' benefit, irrespective of how the system begins.
On a side note, did you notice how the interview started, with Rand saying: "I have no faith at all, I only hold convictions." Whoa!, that's not in keeping with America's concept of unalienable rights.
Rand's notion that everything is done out-of-self-interest is one meant to break our natural humanity. That's pretty evil and is intended to isolate the public against the Oligarchy, as one of humanity's greatest assets is out natural tendency to care for each other.


Rand's material simply provides cover for the psychopaths' behavior.... it's nothing more than psychopathic double-speak to justify them doing whatever they want.

One can't understand Rand until one can understand how to read their double-speak.

I make no claims to Rand's intentions, but I take exception to one key point here.

- empathy and volunteerism is clearly in my long term self interest - it fosters friendship, helps me grow, and improves the community to which I am a part.

I think short term hedonistic self-interest is often confused with rational, enlightened, long-term self interest.

I know of no model that tests the question of the OP.

[InterestedParticipant]

Altruism is not reasonable, immoral really.

WHere do you get the idea that you were placed on this planet to care for other human beings?


Is this what you teach your children? Is this really what Ron Paul followers believe?

[BeFranklin]

[4]rand's notion that everything is done out-of-self-interest is one meant to break our natural humanity. That's pretty evil and is intended to isolate the public against the oligarchy, as one of humanity's greatest assets is out natural tendency to care for each other.


+1776.

[DAaaMan64]

Self-interest is a pretty awesome way to get shit done.

What I mean is, you can care about people and you can love them. It becomes in your self interest to help them. Charity is the same way, it is not impossible to be charitable in a randish society, she was charitable herself, you just have to want to do it.

I don't want to be associated with objectivism at this time, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

[Objectivist]

Is this what you teach your children? Is this really what Ron Paul followers believe?

I'm not a follower of Ron Paul. I believe in many of the same ideals but he's not my leader, I am.

Yeah I teach children to believe in themselves and don't put much trust in other people, it saves you from being let down or lied to. How many people do you know that have NEVER lied to you? You might be gullible so count away.

And you really don't have an understanding of Objectivism by your remarks.

[DAaaMan64]

Objectivist, please analyse the accuracy of my post. :) Thanks.

[Objectivist]

Objectivist, please analyse the accuracy of my post. :) Thanks.

You want to know how she and I feel about charity? Charity is fine but none of us should be obligated to others. I give of myself on my own terms, I usually refuse to give my name when I volunteer or donate, but it comes down to others expectations that charity is somehow a duty, it's not. Neither was saving other peoples lives, but I trained for it and I gained personal satisfaction accomplishing the task at hand, so I did it, and I enjoyed doing it, Virtue of Selfishness.

Is that what you are looking for?

On a note, I sent a video clip to a friend from YT on Ayn and they showed up today with a copy of Virtue of Selfishness, I told her I had a copy and then thought about what I was telling her, she gets it that's why she bought her own copy.

[Objectivist]

I'll let her speak for herself, from Playboy and I have this issue.

What was Ayn Rand’s view on charity?

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

[From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”]

[DAaaMan64]

Thanks Objectivist. I figure thats an important part of Objectivism for people from the outside world to understand. Charity I mean.

[tmosley]

Is this what you teach your children? Is this really what Ron Paul followers believe?

Altruism is self destruction. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, give a man a fish every day, you feed him for life, at the cost of your own. TEACH a man to fish, and you will feed him AND yourself for a lifetime.

The principle of mutual action for mutual self benefit reduces to selfish action for self benefit. That principle is the basis for capitalism. If a rich man gives a poor man a fish every day for the rest of his life, then the rich man is the master of the poor man, and he, and his children, and his children's children become slaves to the rich man and his heirs.

"Altruism" creates and perpetuates dependence, and dependence ALWAYS leads to servitude eventually. Look to the crumbling welfare states to see where altruism gets you. The Soviet Union was created by altruism, and they murdered more of their own people than any other nation has in the history of the world. They created slaves from the "ingrates" and the evil "capitalists", then people who insulted party members, etc.

Morality is the reward that comes from receipt of an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, and the ability to spend that pay in any way you see fit. If you want to give it to a beggar, that is your choice, but your charity only hurts him, by keeping him tied to the street corner, rather than trying to improve his lot in life. You, and every person who gives him money is his master. Think about the words the beggar says when you give him alms, they are the same words a feudal serf gives to their master when they show them a slight kindness, or even simply refrain from punishing them.

[Objectivist]

Altruism is self destruction. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, give a man a fish every day, you feed him for life, at the cost of your own. TEACH a man to fish, and you will feed him AND yourself for a lifetime.

The principle of mutual action for mutual self benefit reduces to selfish action for self benefit. That principle is the basis for capitalism. If a rich man gives a poor man a fish every day for the rest of his life, then the rich man is the master of the poor man, and he, and his children, and his children's children become slaves to the rich man and his heirs.

"Altruism" creates and perpetuates dependence, and dependence ALWAYS leads to servitude eventually. Look to the crumbling welfare states to see where altruism gets you. The Soviet Union was created by altruism, and they murdered more of their own people than any other nation has in the history of the world. They created slaves from the "ingrates" and the evil "capitalists", then people who insulted party members, etc.

Morality is the reward that comes from receipt of an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, and the ability to spend that pay in any way you see fit. If you want to give it to a beggar, that is your choice, but your charity only hurts him, by keeping him tied to the street corner, rather than trying to improve his lot in life. You, and every person who gives him money is his master. Think about the words the beggar says when you give him alms, they are the same words a feudal serf gives to their master when they show them a slight kindness, or even simply refrain from punishing them.

Very well put, good day to you!

[Kraig]

I have no idea why this community buys into Rand's Communist-elite double speak. It just floors me to see so many pump her rhetoric. Anyway, here's some points addressing your question and the video:


Of course her rationales are wrong. Laizze Faire brought us monopoloies. She's basically saying that survival of the fittest results in the most 'rational' getting to the top so 'reason' ends all bad things. Look at this video, where she claims racism is inversely proportional to capitalism....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHrHMLeWCrA&feature=related


As long as we have a global elite and an under-education population, the system will be infiltrated and manipulated to the elite' benefit, irrespective of how the system begins.

On a side note, did you notice how the interview started, with Rand saying: "I have no faith at all, I only hold convictions." Whoa!, that's not in keeping with America's concept of unalienable rights.

Rand's notion that everything is done out-of-self-interest is one meant to break our natural humanity. That's pretty evil and is intended to isolate the public against the Oligarchy, as one of humanity's greatest assets is out natural tendency to care for each other.


Rand's material simply provides cover for the psychopaths' behavior.... it's nothing more than psychopathic double-speak to justify them doing whatever they want.

One can't understand Rand until one can understand how to read their double-speak.

You are wrong on so many levels. Monopolies are created by government regulation, not free markets. In other words they are created by the initiation of the use of force, which Rand did not support BTW. Seriously why don't you guys who think this way spend some time studying austrian economics? Rand is by far not the only one who thinks this way, there have been plenty of people who have done the work to support this train of though.

Also, no one here can show any evidence supporting the existence of a god. I'm so sick of you guys pulling out "so and so said this" and pretending like it means anything.

[Mesogen]

Isn't teaching a man to fish altruistic?

Unless he pays you of course, but then if he didn't even have any fish, he won't have any money to pay you.