Ayn Rand: In her own words

[cindy25]

this is up on most torrent sites

anyone see this?

[Sentient Void]

Is it? I did a google search on it, looks interesting. Though I haven't seen it on btjunkie - which torrent site are you seeing it pop up on?

I'll try to download it and violate the intellectual 'property' of it all.

Ayn Rand and Objectivists weep.

muahah

[cindy25]

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6432931/Ayn.Rand.In.Her.Own.Words.2011.DVDRip.XviD-SPRiNTER

[roho76]

Is it? I did a google search on it, looks interesting. Though I haven't seen it on btjunkie - which torrent site are you seeing it pop up on?

I'll try to download it and violate the intellectual 'property' of it all.

Ayn Rand and Objectivists weep.

muahah

Download Vuze (http://www.vuze.com/download/). It searches all the major sites and then some.

[Carehn]

Is it? I did a google search on it, looks interesting. Though I haven't seen it on btjunkie - which torrent site are you seeing it pop up on?

I'll try to download it and violate the intellectual 'property' of it all.

Ayn Rand and Objectivists weep.

muahah

Hehe

edit / I just tried to give you rep and it told me i deducted from you?

[Sentient Void]

Hehe

edit / I just tried to give you rep and it told me i deducted from you?

haha yeah you totally neg -repped me... lol

[low preference guy]

Watched it. It gives the impression that Ayn Rand was human and some idea of what she was like as a person. She seemed to be down-to-earth. I don't think the documentary is hugely valuable. You won't learn anything revolutionary, but I thought the time was well spent.

[low preference guy]

She like TeaP ( neocon wing) probably would have supported revenge attack on Iraqi people based on cooked up lies and racial motivations. Probably would have supported enhanced gropings and secure police state too.

And what does that have to do with the documentary? Did you know that it's bad manners to hijack threads? Why don't you create your own thread?

[Sentient Void]

Watched it. It gives the impression that Ayn Rand was human and some idea of what she was like as a person. She seemed to be down-to-earth. I don't think the documentary is hugely valuable. You won't learn anything revolutionary, but I thought the time was well spent.

Yeah I saw it. Feel the same way.

[doodle]

edit

nm, not clear which words of her "her won words" refers too, starting a seperate thread.

[low preference guy]

There was no video link posted in OP, I assumed "her own words" like these that have been posted here before:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

That was the reason for my comment as IMO current economic collapse and TSA gropings have a lot to do mentality behind words like hers.

more thread hijacking. did you find that video in a torrent? there is a link in the third post.

she is talking about a documentary about ayn rand called in her own words.

your previous post was already removed by a mod. why do you keep hijacking the thread?

[doodle]

I wasn't aware any post was removed. Post was about her words, my response discusses exactky that.. her words. You are unable to defend her neocomnish foreignm welfare/interventions promoting, anti racial equality words it seems. If these words are not included in OP doc, I'll start a seperate thread to discuss her words.

[low preference guy]

I wasn't aware any post was removed. Post was about her words, my response discusses exactky that.. her words. You are unable to defend her neocomnish foreignm welfare/interventions promoting, anti racial equality words it seems.

you're aware now.

again, this thread is about the documentary called "in her own words". if it wasn't clear from the OP, it should've been clear by the third post.


You are unable to defend her neocomnish foreignm welfare/interventions promoting, anti racial equality words it seems.

which part of the documentary talks about racial equality?

[abolitionist]

Seems to me one's time would be better spent reading Atlas Shrugged. Ayn's life choices are based on her life experiences.

One of the core positions her philosophy takes is that one must use one's own judgement and reach your own conclusions. She advocates the freedom to do that, to decide whether you were better as a ballerina or a biologist.

Her individual positions and beliefs are irrelevant. Her philosophy of individualism, however, is very relevant. And much more critical for libertarians to be aware of.

[abolitionist]

I
I'll try to download it and violate the intellectual 'property' of it all.
Ayn Rand and Objectivists weep.
muahah

Rand is dead and I (as an objectivist) don't give a damn if you rip a movie. I'd be lying if I said I'd never pirated anything in my life.

Objectivists hold that no man has the right to enslave another. Thus, if you make a creative work, you can distribute it under whatever terms you choose. The modern "libertarian" objection to intellectual property is based on the current IP laws in the USA, which no objectivist would be able to support.

IF you want to get rid of patents, by all means, amend the constitution. If you want to reduce the copyright laws, repeal all of them, and lets have, say, a 20 year, non-renewably copyright. (Or something. That's just what I think would be good, but it is open for debate.)

It is an error to broadly characterize people -- even adherents to a philosophy-- without understanding that philosophy.

And I think it is difficult to reach libertarian conclusions on issues without understanding objectivism (which at its core, is really the philosophy or liberty. It could have been called libertarianism just as well, since, at the time Atlas Shrugged was written there was no "libertarian" movement using that name.)

[Sentient Void]

Rand is dead and I (as an objectivist) don't give a damn if you rip a movie. I'd be lying if I said I'd never pirated anything in my life.

Objectivists hold that no man has the right to enslave another. Thus, if you make a creative work, you can distribute it under whatever terms you choose. The modern "libertarian" objection to intellectual property is based on the current IP laws in the USA, which no objectivist would be able to support.

IF you want to get rid of patents, by all means, amend the constitution. If you want to reduce the copyright laws, repeal all of them, and lets have, say, a 20 year, non-renewably copyright. (Or something. That's just what I think would be good, but it is open for debate.)

It is an error to broadly characterize people -- even adherents to a philosophy-- without understanding that philosophy.

And I think it is difficult to reach libertarian conclusions on issues without understanding objectivism (which at its core, is really the philosophy or liberty. It could have been called libertarianism just as well, since, at the time Atlas Shrugged was written there was no "libertarian" movement using that name.)

The Constitution is irrelevant when we are talking about morality and just vs unjust laws.

Pretty much every Randian I've met has been pro-IP in some way or another... also, The Fountainhead comes to mind as well as rabidly pro-IP (with the pro-IP terrorism that occurs).

If you agree that no man has the right to enslave another, and if you agree that external property is a logical extension of the property right of self-ownership, then how could you support *any* form of intellectual property?

Intellectual Property grants a legal monopoly to someone/some business, so that no one else may arrange their own justly acquired property in the same fashion as the one with the Statist legal protection mandate. It is a restriction of legitimate property rights, because I am banned from arranging / forming my just property in any fashion I wish to resemble whatever I wish.

I don't see how anyone can logically support free enterprise and the concept of private property and support intellectual property in any form.

[low preference guy]

The Fountainhead comes to mind as well as rabidly pro-IP (with the pro-IP terrorism that occurs).

I disagree. He blows up a building after somebody broke a contract. That's how intellectual work should be traded in a free society, through contracts. Roark didn't react because the patent protection failed or his work was put into the public domain or anything like that. He reacted because a contract was broken. What does that have to do with IP?

[AceNZ]

Pretty much every Randian I've met has been pro-IP in some way or another.

You've met a Randian? Interesting. I'm assuming you mean someone who enthusiastically follows Ayn Rand as a person. I'm an Objectivist, and I've never met one. The Objectivists I know follow Objectivism, not Rand. They may read and appreciate her work, but they aren't blind followers. It's like the difference between being a physicist and an "Einsteinian" or a "Newtonian." Personally, I couldn't care less about what Rand did in her personal life, and I don't take every word she ever said as perfect or literal.

[low preference guy]

AceNZ, out of curiosity, do you support intellectual property?

[AceNZ]

AceNZ, out of curiosity, do you support intellectual property?

There's a very articulate argument in favor of IP in "Capitalism: the unknown ideal." As Ayn Rand says at the beginning of the article (a short quote with a reference is "fair use"): "Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind."

For the most part, I agree with the article's premise. However, my agreement assumes a certain context. For example, patents and copyrights should eventually expire, and only concrete, embodied inventions should be patentable, not discoveries or abstract ideas. Also, the government should not grant patent or copyrights; it should secure them.

However, having said that, I think current law has some gaping holes. For example, I don't support the idea that if you broadcast content over the air (TV or radio), that you can still retain a copyright. By broadcasting it, you've basically made an unlimited number of copies, and given them away (I don't see a moral difference between watching a recording of a show that I made myself when the show was first broadcast vs. one that was made for me by someone else, especially if no money changes hands). If you want to protect something after broadcast, then encrypt it.

I also think industry and the law haven't kept up with the technology. I believe many people would pay to view copyrighted content if there was a mechanism to do so (assuming the price was reasonable). The success of itunes and Netflix are clear indications of that. Many people pirate because that's the only way they can access that content.

[low preference guy]

Thanks for your response. That's one of the few areas where I disagree with Rand.

[abolitionist]

The Constitution is irrelevant when we are talking about morality and just vs unjust laws.

The constitution is relevant because it is what created the protections you oppose. If you want to replace it, I'm open to suggestions. In fact, I made one...


Pretty much every Randian I've met has been pro-IP in some way or another...

Wait, so calling people derogatory names is appropriate in this forum? I just want to make sure. Is it only ok for long time posters, or for people who are not objectivists to use derogatory names? Or can anyone do it?

Plus, you were responding to a post from me where I outed myself as an objectivist, and said I didn't like the laws... and now you're making an "every X" comment?

Why not, instead, respond to the points I made? What you wrote seems more like a justification for your prejudice against "randians" than an interest in understanding the objectivist perspectives on this issue.


also, The Fountainhead comes to mind as well as rabidly pro-IP (with the pro-IP terrorism that occurs).

More characterizations from you.

What I haven't seen from you is a proposal for an alternative. I suggested one. Why aren't you interested in discussing it?



If you agree that no man has the right to enslave another, and if you agree that external property is a logical extension of the property right of self-ownership, then how could you support *any* form of intellectual property?

All ownership comes from labor, or the intrinsic ownership of ones body. If I have an song, that remains in my head, how do you have the right to copy it? You'd have to use violence to force me to reveal it, would you not? How is that not violating self ownership?

Now, if I agree to share it with you on mutually beneficial terms, how are you then released from your contract, simply because you don't recognize my ownership of my own life (which was the source of the property in the first place)?


Intellectual Property grants a legal monopoly to

You're confused. The STATE grants a monopoly. "Intellectual Property" is a concept. It is the belief that one owns one's life, and that one has a right to decide how to share one's ideas with others, on what terms and when.

The state created a monopoly right, and it did so in exchange for increased willingness to share this property. It is a trade off.

If you don't like the tradeoff, feel free to propose an alternative.

But so long as you are arguing against the concept of intellectual property, you are arguing against the concept of self ownership.


The Objectivists I know follow Objectivism, not Rand. They may read and appreciate her work, but they aren't blind followers.

But of course, it is so much easier to call people "Randians", it saves the effort of constructing an argument.

[AceNZ]

But of course, it is so much easier to call people "Randians", it saves the effort of constructing an argument.

A technique often used by the Left when they encounter an ideology that conflicts with theirs goes like this:

1. Discredit the leader of the ideology in any way possible (ad hominems are most welcome). If there isn't a leader, then make one up. If there's nothing to discredit the person, make something up or use something they said out of context.
2. Associate believers in the ideology with the now discredited leader.
3. Claim that the believers have also been discredited.

It's a shame that anyone on the Right would stoop this low. Keeping the focus on ideas and not on people is the more strategic play; as you said: construct arguments.

[abolitionist]

A technique often used by the Left when they encounter an ideology that conflicts with theirs goes like this:

1. Discredit the leader of the ideology in any way possible (ad hominems are most welcome). If there isn't a leader, then make one up. If there's nothing to discredit the person, make something up or use something they said out of context.
2. Associate believers in the ideology with the now discredited leader.
3. Claim that the believers have also been discredited.

It's a shame that anyone on the Right would stoop this low. Keeping the focus on ideas and not on people is the more strategic play; as you said: construct arguments.

You're absolutely right that the left does this. And they do it to such a great degree I could never have imagined it when I was a liberal, years ago. I think this is one of the techniques they use, and Saul Alinsky's "rules for radicals" lays out a bunch more.

Another example of this is how anyone who disagrees with Obama is "racist", how the Glenn Beck Rally in Washington required a "return to sanity" counter rally. They didn't even address any of the points, the whole purpose was smug denigration.

Unfortunately, the right does this very well.... and is a master of a similar technique. Remember when "Liberal" was an insult?

And if you're old enough, you might remember the good old days of "political correctness".

For those who don't, there was no "political correctness" movement in the 1980s. The "movement" was a campaign from the right to denigrate anyone who didn't agree with their ideology as, rather than being a principled individual who reached a conclusion based on analysis, was instead just following "political correctness".

Another example of this is common today, also from the right, and which started during the 1991 gulf war. Whenever people would protest the war, Republicans would show up and chant "support our troops".

This latter tactic was particularly insidious because, obviously, if you really gave a damn about the "Troops" you'd bring them home. (And I find the presumption that anyone in the military is automatically a "hero" or even decent, repugnant. If you commit a crime, then you're a criminal, and it doesn't matter what clothes you wear. IF you're wearing a uniform and you murder an innocent young afghani woman, it is no different than going to a bar in Dallas and murdering a sorority chick.)

---

I've gotten off topic. Please excuse my digression into venting there.

I do wish, as americans, we had a culture that valued arguments and didn't respect these other techniques. At least on this forum, I hope we can do better than these techniques.