It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ayn Rand's Influence on the 21st Century

page: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon



Rand's objectivism is a philosophy, it is a petty attempt at poisoning the well to call it a religion.

It may seem that I'm poisoning the well because of so many people's anti-religion sentiments. I myself am not anti-religion. Religion is a firmly held personal ideal through which we understand our selves, and interact with others. Objectivism was not a bad religion for Ayn Rand, when understood as her religion.



I am having trouble figuring out which tenet of objectivism is, uh, objectionable?

None of it, as far as I can tell. For her. It served her until she died, which is all we can expect from a personal ideal set.


Objectivism is a philosophy created by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand (1905–1982). First expressed in her novels and polemic essays, it was later given more formal structure by her designated intellectual heir, philosopher Leonard Peikoff, who characterizes it as a "closed system" that is not subject to change.
Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)


Anybody who seizes Ayn Rand's proprietary system and adds to it, Sociology, Political Science, Religion, deity, political agenda, or anything else and still calls it Rand's system is being very dishonest.
edit on 28-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


While we're heading upstream on that witchunt, I can only assume our services won't be needed to fish out those tossed over the upstream bridge during our journey?


Yeah....
oh - well, NO! BY NO MEANS is it your responsibility, worry, or care to help those drowning people.....


They'll drown, but that isn't my problem because I'm off to play White Knight against boogeymen that have cost me far less money and time than the folks who have stood around blaming everyone except themselves for their life of shortcomings and disappointments.

Yeah.
tsk....stupid, stupid people. You're so sensible, and right. Of course.



Yeah.


oh, and, by the way: your CHILDREN are in those rapids. And their children.
But, hey -
"Not my circus, not my monkeys."
Right???

I got it. Okay - *scratches your name off the list*. Got it!!!
Have a great night, and sleep sweet, sleep tight, and..... and ..... sleep well!!


edit on 5/28/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


No - you don't. Nobody does


That's not true, Rothbard gave us a solution:

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

Anarcho-capitalism



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: masqua
Now, tell me, if I had rolled that Massey Ferguson when I was a pre-teen and wound up quadriplegic, do you think I'd deserve being tossed off that goddamned bridge and into the rapids?




There are folks who don't mind paying taxes... there are folks who don't mind eating anchovies on their pizza. The difference? CHOICE. There is no choice available which allows those of us who don't want to be taxed to hell to simply say "go screw" to the taxman. You are a very altruistic person, but I already knew that. I'm not (which you also already knew.)

As for the above, that's a trap question of the highest order, my friend. Nobody "deserves" it. Would it be a natural consequence of the situation? I'd argue that it would be. Then again, it's on the extreme end of things. As is usually the case in this argument, the extremes get all the publicity and distract the discussion. Let's get away from the people who clearly CANNOT provide for themselves and look at the more populous middle ground, shall we? Let's talk about those who are fully able bodied and yet live a subsidized life on the tax payer dime. Let's talk about the woman with 4 kids she claims to not be able to feed who is currently trying to have a 5th with her penis of the month. Let's talk about the guy who has drunk his life away and can't get a job because he refuses to break the umbilical cord between his lips and a bottle of hooch. Let's talk about the people who lived many figures above their means and finally had those debts come home to roost. Let's talk about the guy who claims McDonald's doesn't pay enough and applies for subsidized rent while putting new spinnin' rims on his ride. Let's talk about the person who says "I exist, therefore I should be entitled to wealth redistributed from anyone making more than I do." Let's talk about the tripling of my health costs to cover the subsidization of some other dude AND the tax penalty I'll receive if I don't continue to pay for that insurance. Let's talk about the fact that we're surrounded by people who demand handouts because they can't afford to clothe, shelter, and feed their families, yet they seem to have no problems affording iPhones, cable TV, smokes, booze, and bling.

I grew up poor my friend. My dad worked his ass off to provide for his family. We did not have cable TV, we had one insured vehicle at a time and it was always older than I was, and we ate a lot of beans and tortillas... I never had the balls to say "We deserve..." or suggest that someone else's earnings should be redistributed to our family.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Yeah....
oh - well, NO! BY NO MEANS is it your responsibility, worry, or care to help those drowning people.....


The people you are arguing with are arguing under the assumption that you support using government violence to force people into the behaviors that you believe to be moral (like altruism).

If you value voluntary human interaction over coercion, then there is no argument to be had.

If you are going to use government to force me to exhibit the behaviors that you value, then you are my enemy. If you recognize my right to choose in all matters that do not harm others, then we are not enemies.

There is an unspoken fallacy at work here--namely, if government doesn't provide X (forced altruism, charity, roads, "social justice"), then X will never occur.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I assure you, if my kids are ever anywhere near this river of yours, their first action will be to determine if there are salmon in said river. Finding none, they'll be on their way.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon


The people you are arguing with are arguing under the assumption that you support using government violence to force people into the behaviors that you believe to be moral (like altruism).

And WHEN, (pray tell?, do tell!), WHEN did I suggest "violence" or "forcing" people to give a damn about the drowners or the starfish?



If you value voluntary human interaction over coercion, then there is no argument to be had.

Yep!
That is exactly correct.

You can either stand there and laugh voyeuristically and be perfectly within your bounds, high-fiving with your friend there...... with no repercussions whatsoever..... no one to judge or say "Hey, why are you just standing there laughing!?" (because we wouldn't dare, you know.)


or, you can roll up your sleeves, put on your waders, and go in to help those floundering people.
Maybe teach them how to swim. Then ask them what the hell happened that they got thrown into the river.

Or at least, point put to them which way to higher ground.

OR! Not!!!

I never mentioned "force" or "violence", anywhere. Not once.


BUT NO! Don't trouble yourself.



So, if you and burdman would like to just observe while the rest of us are risking our own necks to fish the drowners out of the rapids, to dry them off, give them a meal, and send them on their way ----
well - sucks to be us!!! We're just a bunch of stupid, sucker, bleeding-heart, lily-livered liberals. Gah. Maybe we should just go fling ourselves off of that bridge! Save you all the double trouble!!!

NOTHING, nada, zip, zero out of YOUR POCKET.

COOL!!!!



edit on 5/28/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Did I miss something here? Are we or are we not discussing taxes and the redistribution of wealth via them? If we are, in fact, talking about taxes then you are absolutely talking about forced *ahem* "altruism." If we're talking about voluntary charitable giving, by all means proceed... what a person does with their own earnings, voluntarily, is nobodies business but their own.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


I assure you, if my kids are ever anywhere near this river of yours, their first action will be to determine if there are salmon in said river. Finding none, they'll be on their way.

Well, judging by modern environmental pollution, there won't be.

So - okay then. Never mind the body-count of human beings.

I get it.
I really do.

And, if you are squashed in an accident or poisoned by whatever - and your bank account is cleaned out to try to keep you alive - or stow you in a private old-folks-home for several years...and then you die anyway ---- then what?

What if your kids are slipping down the muddy embankment then? Or they wander onto the bridge when they get near the river ???? Then what?

Oh - well, sucks to be them. "No soup for you!"

*sigh*

Okay, I'm going to bed now. Have a good night. It's been fun and lively. Thanks for sharing.
(Your thoughts, that is. You know - thanks for sharing your thoughts.)

G'nite!



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




a reply to: tetra50

What you quoted isn't a judgement of your life's choices and totality of what your spirit has become because of those. Instead, what you quoted justifies doing whatever necessary when finding yourself in any given situation

Yes - suppose you could interpret it that way. I interpret it another way

You told me not to judge. Should I just accept Ms. Rands words and not think about what they mean? Or, If I don't agree with them, should I just keep my mouth shut?



No, I certainly don't want you to keep your mouth shut, not think, and certainly don't want you to be not free to disagree.

The fact is, I paid little attention to her life after she wrote those books. My knowledge of her is based in those books, which I agree with your friend, btw, are life altering. When I say that judgement isn't ours, I am saying it in a broader sense, because necessarily we must make judgements all day long, many, in fact, to even live.



I put to you sincerely, that, perhaps, we all find it necessary to do such, if we've any chance at happiness.

Happiness? What is that? Is it something that only some of us can have? Is it something only certain people can understand? So, true enough - as individuals we all make choices. Our choices are often selfish. Do you think her philosophy was meant to benefit you - or all of us?

My writing skills are exceedingly poor, indeed, if I have led you to believe that I, in any way, whatsoever, interpret happiness that way. But this is, in fact, an excellent example of what the books, and Howard Roark's story represent, and how misunderstood it can be.

It's not about my happiness at your expense. It's about us all having the chance to have our version of happiness and be allowed to pursue it with the abilities we were born with, and not having that last bit muted in any way because one person's abilities are different than another's. How does that necessarily mean to you that a person born with more natural ability has more chance at being happy, and should therefore, be forced by government or any other entity to take care of others, by religious decree or interpretation or any other forced, adopted philosophy.
It doesn't mean that said person shouldn't help others to some degree, but that they shouldn't be forced or guilted into it. In the story, Roark had actually been competing for the same government contract to build housing tenements for the poor, and had drawn beautiful plans to give these people a better place to live than his counterparts. He won the bid, if I remember correctly, only to be sued by the company man he once worked for whose plans he beat out in the bid, which ruined his own budding business. He was younger, better looking, smarter, a better architect and his plans were giving the poor a better place to live, in fact. But the court battle that ensued flattened much of the opportunity all that had presented for him. A real example of levelling the playing field.

In the end, he was forced to go back to work for the same man….
Why should his happiness or talent been flattened? He was trying to help people perhaps more than the other guy.
The outcome was less chance of happiness for everyone involved, particularly those who needed it most.



Religion is used as an opiate.

Are you a Randian - or a Marxist? :-)


I am neither, actually.
Or perhaps am unwilling to apply such labels to myself of other people's beliefs.



The rest of your post is an interesting mix of philosophies and politics - a lot like Rand. It kinda figures. There's nothing wrong with that - by the way

I'm an atheist tetra - and I have my own issues with religion. Some are the same as Rands - but not all of them

She was a lonely, bitter woman - and a cynic. She saw altruism as a weakness. But, she was sick, abandoned and alone at the end of her life - at the mercy of people who were fortunately a little warmer and fuzzier than she was

I am all about the peeps tetra50 - and that isn't going to change. We need each other - especially because we are selfish


I don't think I'd say I was an atheist either, btw. But some days I am truly given to wonder, as my faith has been in crisis due to health and other issues which challenge it greatly.

I'm all about the peeps, as well, Spiramirabilis. And I appreciate your thoughtful response. I am not a "Randian," either. The point of my telling Buzzywigs in my first post how I'd voted in the past is that it's clear from that I don't even like to label myself politically. It's a case by case basis, when I used to vote. I no longer do.
I don't figure my input is needed, and certainly feel it makes no difference. The other point to my telling her that is to let her know I am neither Libertarian nor Republican, and never declared either of those when voting.

Happiness should not be limited nor mutually exclusive for anyone, the chance at it. What is it? I wouldn't know, because I perceive most of my life to have been defined by suffering. I have many abilities. They were all wasted.
Did I do that? Of course, I have a part and responsibility in it. And I take it, when necessary. But some of my opportunities in life were greatly controlled and in that way, destroyed. And anything I was ever trying to do, would have also benefitted others. I was always looking towards that. In fact, it's what and how I would label myself, for it's in my nature, and I have to work, actually to not be a mark for panhandlers in an urban environment, not that I have money to give them, usually. But the only time I leave the house happens to be to buy something, so there's always someone waiting to ask me for my change….
It comes naturally to me to want to help others however I can. This, however, isn't the way to do it. But now, I sit in my house all day, suffering in varying degrees of pain, waiting for that shoe to drop and things to get worse.
Fun, huh. But the saddest part of that is those abilities to really help others, again, are all being wasted.
Thanks, again, for your reply.
tetra



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Did I miss something here? Are we or are we not discussing taxes and the redistribution of wealth via them?

I don't recall bringing up "taxes." Don't recall that at all.
If I did, please show me where....

I am talking about Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Good night, burdman!!!
Perhaps we can, between us, find a better way.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

From you, the quadriplegic would get the same as the sot who can't disconnect from the bottle... NADA, right? Or do you wish to impose a court system to parse the worthy from the rest?

You hate government. I get that. The less you give them to run the country, the better for you and screw the rest, right?

I grew up poor too and my father worked his ass off as well, so I wasn't born with any silver spoon in my mouth. That bird won't fly, my friend. Nothing came easy to us and we never went begging either.

I look around my home town and, yes, there's some who I'd rather not associate with. There's addicts, drunks, thieves and the kind that beat their wives. Thing is, most of those assholes are driving nice new F250's or Dodge Rams and go hunting/fishing every season with their loud, obnoxious, beer-swilling buddies because it's their bloody right to do so. They're working' folk, making a good buck and loving life. Did I mention it's a redneck town? We do Country around these parts and every truck bumper is sporting chrome bulls balls and the split back window has a rifle rack and Harley decals. Yeehaw.

Then there's some that actually get on the dole, mostly because they got caught being total assholes, did jail time, and now can't work. Either that or it's some young girl who got pregnant by some loud obnoxious asshole and he turned his back on her. Maybe she can afford to go to court to prove he's the father and maybe she can't... whatever the deal, she's in trouble and it's going to cost big bucks to raise that baby when it comes (and don't mention abortion to me either, that's a whole other story).

But no matter what got these people into the mess they're in now, you won't be paying them a dime in taxes, so don't fret. The town I live in isn't in America, home of the free that used to be so welcoming of all those huddled masses.

edit on 28/5/15 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Hasn't all governments that have existed no matter what form used violence?

Hasn't all laws that have ever been made required enforcement?

Our Country both the colonists used violence to settle here then later when we rebelled from the crown it required violence? But even before the new world was settled the native tribes used violence to settle disputes or to counting coup between them?

Every aspect of our society uses force or the threat of punishment if one doesn't conform. Right or wrong human nature is violent so it makes since our society would also be violent.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs



I don't recall bringing up "taxes." Don't recall that at all.

A bit of thread drift.

Just remember this is Political Ideology not Political Mudpit.

Perhaps suggest to those desirous of talking government violence thru taxation maybe start their own thread in the mudpit.

Good thread. Very Educational.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

Good reply tetra - nothing more I can say to any of that

Have yourself a very good night



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




If they paid into the system for their lives and are simply looking towards what was promised to them by the system, I have no beef with them


Oh I do considering how those schemes are created, and funded.

Employers paying,employees paying small percentages. The difference is made up by other taxation.

Through taxation, and regulation which we know destroys job creation. By getting paid for what people 'think' they are worth instead of the work they do, and the market dictates.


All created that so called need for social programs, and 'safety' nets.

With the creation of social security,medicare, and medicaid that were created, and never intended to fund themselves.

Then a certain group in Rand haters, Lots of threads of here about her for some odd reason.

They never for one second think where ALL that government decreed money ends up.

In the very pockets Rand haters demagogue. Them evil corporations.

We hear things like gun violence, and by mob rule, and the lack of critical thinking skills. We ended up with decades of regulations like the NFA, and Gun control Act, and the ASWB of the 90s.

Those regulations for example killed jobs, that created wealth where the people didn't need government benevolence to survive.

Same thing with the banking regulations, and every other asinine regulation that doesn't stop anything.

Didn't stop 'gun violence'. Didn't stop the Enrons, or the 'financial crisis', and it didn't stop the Maddoff's.

It is sheer insanity. That some people think that our government exists to pay their bills.

When that government can't pay it's own.

Never satisfied they add more, and more programs.

More, and more people are being born.

More, and more regulations.

Thus the cycle has been continually repeated since before Rand was ever born, and they honestly think Rand has it wrong.

The bigger issue is the sheer amount of people on those programs that can never be paid for, and will never be paid for.

Ultimately though in a nutshell Rand haters support corporate fascism.

Hell they even mandate government intervention to make corporate products human rights!

Birth control. That makes big pharma billions per year for example, and the new kid on the block alternative energy corporations. Creating government agencies like the FDA, and the EPA that make politicians billions per year, and guaranteed campaign contributions for LIFE.

Rand critics are the biggest fascist's out there. According to how they describe fascism.

Or as Mussolini said:



Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” ― Benito Mussolini


www.goodreads.com...

ALL social programs are fascism by Mussolini's definition.

And yet Rand is wrong.
edit on 28-5-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua




You hate government. I get that. The less you give them to run the country, the better for you and screw the rest, right?
'
'
I don't see why anyone would trust/like/love our government.

They lie,cheat,steal,spy,make their own rules up as they go along.

Government has been screwing the people over bigger, and long than anyone else.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
... particularly with the "Then we will be like all the other nations"


But you ARE like any other nation.

USA are not gods chosen people, you are not "special" or superior beings. USA is just a country made up of the same meat sacks everywhere else.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Show me any other country that has 18 trillion dollars in DEBT.

www.usdebtclock.org...

Government mandated corporate welfare.

Mostly created by Rand haters.

We are not EVEN CLOSE to being like any other country.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Show me any other country that has 18 trillion dollars in DEBT.

www.usdebtclock.org...

Government mandated corporate welfare.

Mostly created by Rand haters.

We are not EVEN CLOSE to being like any other country.

Ok your epically # at managing your finances


Congratulations you are "special" just not in a good way


Though lets be fair? The EU is not far off. USA is hardly alone in its race to the financial bottom is it now? And god only knows what economic skeletons are hidden in Chinas closet.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join