Ayn Rand's Influence on the 21st Century

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I agree that Carnegie - who started the "public library" movement - did well by Americans. Did you happen to watch that series on History channel "The Industrial Revolution"? Some of those men were ruthless, and cared NOTHING about what happened to the 'laborers' - how they lived, how they starved, how hard they worked, whether they were in good health or not.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I did. And the business practices they used were no better or worse than those at other levels of the spectrum. Workers rights were not a very high agenda item during the late 1800's and early 1900's. They operated within the parameters, good or bad, that the system permitted.

While I am not a fan of modern day unions the early unions were instrumental in improving the lives of the laborer.

As a side note, the others I mentioned gave as much or more than Carnegie to their various philanthropic intrests and we still reap the benefits of those efforts today.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So - what are the things she says (if any), that you disagree with? Or what, in your opinion, did she "miss" in her assessments?

I disagree with Rand's assertion that the CEO's of large corporations are "super heroes." They, just like the state, are using their money to strip liberty by buying politicians.

At the same time, though, government is not our hero.

What people fail to realize is that, capitalism and socialism are two distinct economic models--they have nothing to do with state or government, and have everything to do with the organization of markets.

One side errs because they decry capitalism for being the favorite tool of the state, and the other side decries socialism for the same reason. Neither side realizes that both economic models can coexist side-by-side, and flourish, when state-intervention is taken out of the equation.

When the state controls a capitalist economy you get fascism, one form of authoritarian rule.

When the state controls a socialist economy you get Communism, a second form of authoritarian rule.

At the heart of Rand's philosophies, she never ties together the common denominator, the monopoly of power, that destroys both economic markets and human lives for personal gain--which is, and will always be--government.

She was, at her core, a Minarchist. Even if we whittle government down to its most bare-minimum of functions, that being the protection of human liberty according to natural law philosophy, in another few hundred years we would be right back where we started--living in a growing police state; and this cycle of liberty and tyranny will continue ad infinitum.

Oh, and she completely ignored environmental issues, which is a lie by omission. I know that woman was intelligent enough to know that we are destroying the environment.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

The course I am taking makes it very clear that she recognized "Capitalism" as the only 'good system.' She also recognized that the US is a mixed economy, which it is. It is not a "Capitalist" society in its entirety.

I agree with your views of CEO worship being inappropriate, and climate change needing to be admitted - I don't recall exactly what it was, but she was addressing exploitation of our resources as a "good thing."

I think....

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: neo96

Wow. You're a poster boy for the Military/Industrial Complex.

And Rand haters are the poster child for the Welfare Industrial complex.

Pssssst ?

It's bigger, and more costly.

Should them evil corporations be guaranteed income ?

Rand haters say no then created social programs that ALL guarantee them evil corporations money.

The MIC is bad!

The WIC is GOOD!

Pot calling the kettle.

a reply to: neo96
Really?

Hm. Here's a couple of charts showing the facts:



Just thought it might be helpful for you to know this.

And even if War WAS CHEAPER, which it isn't......well, is WAR ever good? Death, destruction, misery, devastation....yeah, all so that those middle-class weapon-makers have jobs?
It causes nothing but harm.

Please.
Whatever.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Buzzywigs:

First, thanks for your response.
Second, I wonder if you've read my earlier responses, because they would reflect that I am certainly no fan, nor is it what was portrayed in the story of these novels, of putting square pegs in round holes…nor not recognizing or holding back the talents of people to serve either others (by making a "level playing field") or forcing them to perform jobs that don't serve their talents and abilities in the most capacitous manner. People who are born artists, for instance, should be valued for their art.

Let's not mix that with people with learning disabilities, shall we, as that's a whole different conundrum. Autism, which is primarily the problem being mixed in, here, is a whole different situation, though how autistic people are treated in our culture is certainly reflective of the problem we are discussing. Having said that, the way autistic people are regarded and the square peg/round hole system we are discussing comes from people whose politics Rand despised, and the stories were an illustration of how this worked, in practice, not theory.

As for this:

If a person is simply unable to 'get it' (any particular subject - like being tone-deaf, or not), that is what it is. It's not "good or bad" , or "elite or disenfrachising." It is meeting the person where they are and then nurturing that set of qualities - not forcing them to be someone who they simply are not.

Exactly. What my posts reflect is exactly what you are, in fact, saying. But you are mixing people with actual and real disabilities in there. And certainly, not everyone can be an architect and not everyone can be a mathematician.
The mathameticians shouldn't be forced to serve the financial district to be accountants, either, because the system will award them better opportunities there than it would for them to be involved in either physics research or teaching math.

The job market should also be diverse enough that artists can find their way, as well as mathematicians. And even a savant's abilities could somehow be utilized which benefits us all, in the long run.

The things you are laying at the feet of people who agree with what was put forth in those books isn't their fault, in short. It was made the way it is now, by those who hated the ideas she represented in her writing. And religion only plays a part in that it's used to bolster the policies…..

It's a complex issue. One can say, politically, that they "stand" for something, when the policies they promote do exactly the opposite of what they claim to stand for. This is a significant reality. Religion is invoked in a way that simply clouds the issue, completely, and usually it's used to promote the idea of "sacrifice," when it serves no purpose, and "helping," when it really isn't help.

That was the point of the novels. And it isn't so easily discussed in a forum if one hasn't read the books. There's press out there about many people that destroys the integrity of the message they stood for. This is kind of the point of the MSM. As well, along the same lines, "mainstreaming" children in the education system we have now, is equally ineffective in promoting the goals you stand for, Buzzy.
tetra50

a reply to: neo96

Actually, neo96, I agree with the first part of a lot of what you say. But then you bring examples which seem to represent a mixed conundrum. Like this:

Rand haters say no then created social programs that ALL guarantee them evil corporations money.

The MIC is bad!

The WIC is GOOD!

Pot calling the kettle.

Amen, to what you say about Rand haters. But then you get to mixing the MIC and supposedly an idea that people who think the MIC has sponsored bad things, which it has, think WIC is good. WIC is good if it gives women who can't afford good pre natal vitamins a chance to get them, and gives their children the chance to have formula, if they wouldn't because of the situation their mothers live in, which MIC lovers helped create.

So….just sayin.
tetra

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: neo96

Like WAR is ever good??
It causes nothing but harm.

Whatever.

Yeah it is created middle class jobs, technology that we are all using now.

GPS, and in dash navigations systems in most modern vehicles, and the internets' to to medicines, and pharmaceuticals

And provideds relative stability so people,can go to work,grow food, make products, and everything else modern society needs to function.

Mostly it provides resources that people just can't live without.

In my book the most dangerous creation of man is POLITICS.

War has been a part of society since he started calling himself civilized.

a reply to: tetra50

Amen, to what you say about Rand haters. But then you get to mixing the MIC and supposedly an idea that people who think the MIC has sponsored bad things, which it has, think WIC is good. WIC is good if it gives women who can't afford good pre natal vitamins a chance to get them, and gives their children the chance to have formula, if they wouldn't because of the situation their mothers live in, which MIC lovers helped create.

People can rationalized the WIC all they want, but the current state of the union tells the real story.

Too many 'mouths to feed' not enough soup to go around, and the people are screaming they want steak.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Fact eh ?

LOL everyone has charts.





Once again

www.usdebtclock.org...

Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are WELFARE programs

Over 2 trillion dollars alone per year.

The big three of the welfare industrial complex.

In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services.

The American republic has endured for well over two centuries, but over the past 50 years, the apparatus of American governance has undergone a radical transformation. In some basic respects—its scale, its preoccupations, even many of its purposes—the U.S. government today would be scarcely recognizable to Franklin D. Roosevelt, much less to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson.

www.wsj.com...

a reply to: tetra50

Yes, I have read your posts. Guess I've been preoccupied with addressing those who DO NOT get what she is talking about, but THINK they do.

Certainly don't want contributors like you and TrappedPrincess to feel like you were "benched." I appreciate your participation.

As well, along the same lines, "mainstreaming" children in the education system we have now, is equally ineffective in promoting the goals you stand for, Buzzy.

I worked with kids with special needs for years. Years and years. Behavioral and emotionally disturbed kids, learning disablity kids, degenerative cognitive maladies, Oppositional Defiant kids, fetal alcohol syndrome, mentally challeged, intermitent explosive disorders, autism spectrum......all of them.

My own kids were routed into "Special Ed" in the TAG (Talented and Gifted) program from Kindergarten on. (Now both in mid-20s). Even so - the TAG system was warmly embraced by my daughter, but my son felt "singled out" and hated it, despite the extra freedom to self-direct and receive advanced credits, etc.

I know and agree with what you are saying.
Education should absolutely be tailored to the child, from birth to adulthood. And after that, their productive work-life should also be matched to their talents, abilities, and interests.

a reply to: neo96
and here, another for instance:

And Rand haters are the poster child for the Welfare Industrial complex.

Pssssst ?

It's bigger, and more costly.

You can read estimates that say yes and ones that say no, it isn't very big: welfare….or more costly. You can't really have a cogent convo about that unless you're willing to include statistically the millions of jobs that are created by social welfare programs, as well. I don't see that issue reflected in one pie chart or graph you've supplied. And it's a real offset of what is spent. How much do social welfare problems provide employment in the job market?

In many states, Medicaid, for instance is almost entirely gutted, won't pay for anything except er treatment if you break your leg, because the governors of those states haven't taken federal funds for their Medicaid programs. In those places, the disabled receiving small stipends that don't count as income, being given Medicaid, which also won't treat medically their disabilities, fall through the cracks because their small stipend doesn't count as income for Affordable Care Act Insurance, as an aside. The point is like many programs that appear to better a situation, it may actually not address those that are suffering the most. And, in some cases, may actually make the situation pretending to be addressed, far worse. But politicians who voted for those programs can go back to their districts and look like they've done something to help those in need.

Welfare is part of the problem, but so is big business. Our current paradigm pays college athletes who are first line draft choices more to play football than it does to be teachers. And after football, will they be crippled? And will they have any skills for a later job, or will football be all they know?

Solving the problems is more subtle than the perceptions you choose to illustrate the true problems with, is all I'm saying. The problem is more government intrusion in how and what is taught in schools, how we live our lives, and making politics theater and nothing more, for 24 hour news stations to stay in business---and I think you'd find the MIC has a hand in creating that paradigm, no matter how many it may employ, and making problems so we can make jobs for people to, again, appear to fix it, rather than really fixing it, the fear being that with most of these issues fixed, what would people do with themselves.
tetra

a reply to: neo96

Those were five years ago, genius.
And one of them is a 10-YEAR span.
Irrelevant.

Laugh all you want.
You'd still be wrong.

Social 'safety net' services:

Safety net programs: About 11 percent of the federal budget in 2014, or $370 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.
www.cbpp.org...

And this one:


THIS ONE is the government chart from www.nationalpriorities.org... A0KEZoGWGMqhoCf9bw_wcB - the 2015 military budget.




PS: BTW, are you sure your gas mask fits correctly?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: tetra50

Amen, to what you say about Rand haters. But then you get to mixing the MIC and supposedly an idea that people who think the MIC has sponsored bad things, which it has, think WIC is good. WIC is good if it gives women who can't afford good pre natal vitamins a chance to get them, and gives their children the chance to have formula, if they wouldn't because of the situation their mothers live in, which MIC lovers helped create.

People can rationalized the WIC all they want, but the current state of the union tells the real story.

Too many 'mouths to feed' not enough soup to go around, and the people are screaming they want steak.

I'm not "rationalizing" anything. That's laughable. You are simply comparing unlike things for the sake of making your argument seem plausible, when if you didn't do that, you'd have some real points. You're also lumping people and their attitudes together that don't belong together. This obfuscation of reality serves no one, but you, for the sake of your argument here. And if you won that argument, millions would suddenly be unemployed and there would be more starving, uneducated children.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs



Discretionary spending is a tangent.

It's not the real totals.

a reply to: xuenchen

oh, okay.

Can you point me to the "real" numbers, then?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

oh, okay.

Can you point me to the "real" numbers, then?

oh, okay.....

tables


by the Numbers, 2014

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Lastly, I'd like to highlight just this that you've said, just so we're clear about the message of Rand's books, for it is mostly illustrated by this one thing, and how our current system and politics is so off on this:

It is a fact that some people are brighter than others (the Bell Curve, you know - that's a real thing),

How many politician's have you heard say in speeches that we should create "a level playing field." Most social welfare programs are designed to keep people on social welfare. It drags them down, rather than identifying problems, fixing them, identifying strengths and bolstering them. While conversely, our education system and business/economic system, is designed to hold back the natural talents of the smartest. Religion is used in this politically in ways I've already outlined and to justify that as policy.

Our current system serves neither the children from poor families, their parents, nor those having the chance at college, nor the brightest amongst us, nor those with learning disabilities, but who may be unidentified savants, or not. That's what that level playing field truly is, and it hasn't served any of us, whether we are smarter, whether we are disadvantaged, whether we are learning disabled.
tetra
P.S. It's an extremely complex issue, this, and I see you trying to do your best at representing what you can…..But this, here, is the primary point of her story of The Fountainhead. It didn't make her an opponent to religion, so much as how it was used against the living, nor make her an opponent of helping the disadvantaged (after all, in that story, Roark, the architect was competing for a govt. bid to build better public housing, rather than boxy tenements with no garbage collection and bad plumbing because of structure and no green spaces for children to get out of doors.)

a reply to: xuenchen

No, I'm not accepting a right-wing propaganda site's "tables and numbers".

I want .org or .gov sources, if you please.
I provided some.
Can you do that?

I do understand there is a difference in mandatory vs discretionary.....however, it is CLEAR that the "discretionary" spending is MOSTLY focused on Mliitary....NOT infrastructure, poverty, education, etc.