It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A voice from the past.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:36 PM
If one will examine what our founding fathers suggested and strived for, it was a very conservative society, just short of what Rand proposed.

They realized that we needed as a society, in the interest of unity, a central government that was to determine a common coin, provide for national defense, and provide for the general welfare of the nation.

That didn't mean welfare in general, which is the prime source of many of our growing intrusion and thus problematic federal government.

If theories of a society can be graphed, hers would consist of a sharp gradient, rather than what we typically think of as a Bell curve.

Her sharp gradient would be on the opposite end of a totalitarian concept, which too would be a sharp gradient, but opposite.

She is correct however, in how intrusion of government, often with the best of intentions, usually creates even more problems, of greater negative impact, than are solved.

Her philosophy is one extreme, totalitarianism is the opposite extreme. Hers however, has basis in human nature.

Meaning, personal greed is the engine of human advancement, and the pursuit of personal greed will be pursued to the maximum allowed by a society.

Private highways? Private armies? Private coinage? Private inspection of food, products, and private determinations of law?

No. But those are the only areas where a central government should be allowed to assist a common people. Anything more is too much, and the direct source of our current problems.

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by TheRandom1

She seems would fit right in with the satanists seeing how that fits right in with her views, caring only for yourself and such.

Antoine LaVey said that satanism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand with ritual added in

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by TheRealDonPedros

I agree Brave New World is one of my all time favorites along with "The Doors of Perception, Heaven and Hell"

I didn't realize he was such an elitist regarding the use of hallucinogens. Could you provide some quality links?

Anyway I appreciate your reply and stand by my statement that Aldous Huxley's vision of our current life is far more prescient than Ms. Rand. In fact he predicted the consequences of Ayn Rands philosophy.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Leo Strauss]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:04 PM
There was a movie out that dramatizes and represents this Rand Nazi, and it's called 'One Million Years B.C.', starring Raquel Welch. In it, the cavemen are journeying to some other area, but the grandpa caveman has (like the commercial) "fallen, and I can't get up." They all leave him there, because he has become weak, and only the strong, who can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, (as rightwingers love to hear)survive. Then a pterodactyl flies down and eats grandpa.
Do you Libertarians know that your beloved US military ("the troops!") have a saying that goes, "We are only as strong as our weakest link." What a bunch of charitable Christian Hippies those military troops are. Aye?
Rand had those same darting round dead black eyes that I could see in Charlie Manson, Adolph Hitler, and sharks.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by simonecharisse]

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:20 PM
I have thought of "Atlas Shrugged" a number of times over the past few months. As much as I have read and re-read that book over the years, I honestly never thought I would see it coming true. And since October, it is happening... the unraveling, the crooked sense of entitlement so many people have... the connections from one industry to others. Ayn Rand was brilliant to see it all and connect all the dots decades ago.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by Leo Strauss

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Also I would like to comment on the early days of television. I am amazed that thinkers of this magnitude were given an open forum to discuss their views.

There does indeed seem to be a material difference in the quality of it between then and today.

I have to give Mike Wallace credit... We might as well go for the trifecta:

Erich Fromm interviewed by Mike Wallace (1 of 3)

Erich Fromm interviewed by Mike Wallace (2 of 3)

Erich Fromm interviewed by Mike Wallace (3 of 3)

Quite a different view than Ayn's.

IMO, I find him the least persuasive of the bunch.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by loam]

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:19 AM
Get a load of this interview with Frank Lloyd Wright.

Also fascinatingly relevant for today.

Wright Interview 9/28/1957 clip1

Wright Interview 9/28/1957 clip2

[edit on 9-2-2009 by loam]

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by Leo Strauss

Leo, watch the movie "Hoffmans Potion". The doctors from the Universtity of Saskatchewan (Canada) that were working with alcoholics using '___' and therapy in the 50's talk about Huxley's views concerning the common man. You could also check out his wikipedia entry which states precisely the opposite, that he was a man that encouraged his associates to try psychedelics. The thing about that though, is that all his friends were part of the intellectual elite.

Regardless, "Brave New World" blew the doors off my mind. You're absolutely correct that is extremely relevant today.


posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:17 AM
YES well...

You guys are worried about socialism?

So you think the way is to give your voice to a couple hundred of the wealthiest men?

At least with government you can change things -

Instead you guys would purpose handing over your say to the most wealthy?

What would be your means or recourse if it impacted INDUSTRY in a negative way?

LEAD in PAINT was a good cheap filler - INDUSTRY across the board fought tooth and nail to keep lead "legal".

We would all suffer from lead poisoning and early death in this modern and packed world.

LEAD in your water, 200 pounds on your walls, god knows how much in your toothpaste
and women's makeup, medicine, beverages.

Thats one of countless things that our intrusive government has afforded us.

Not to mention that intervention spurs innovation...

For all you know we could only have the choice of death trap cars that took 8 to the gallon.

That would save tons of money on R&D and give ton more money to the oil industry.

Back to lead - The cost of healthcare would became astronomical if the GOVERNMENT didn't step in...

Seatbelts and airbags were born of government intervention. Both provide jobs - but are not cost effective...

I could give many example were government increased efficiency, standards which spurred innovation.

In the last year we have a fine example of the power of irresponsible industry and government.

I suggest that to eliminate either is ludicrous.

We need to gain control of our government and elect principled men, not millionaires.
We also need to hold our officials and financial giants to the same laws and principles that govern us...

Rands ideas in practice are just as extreme as Lennons.

If you wanted to be parceled and bought/sold up by the wealthy take a nap and dream about it all you want. For the opposite side of SOCIALISM is FASCISM...

Plus we can see how well this worked in FRANCE all those years ago -

[edit on 9-2-2009 by mental modulator]

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:00 AM
During the 19th century, when the 'robberbarrons' controled capitalism, little children lived and died in factories.
These past three Christmas's, it was hard for me to find any re-runs on TV, of the old original, 'A Christmas Carol'. That film is not re-run often enough. People need to see where the giant ghost of plenty, open his robe to Scrooge, showing two skin-and-bones little children, and he says, "are there no workhouses?" (The rabble have to be swept somewhere out of sight and mind). (Especially to a place where they might be profit-making). There were also 'debtors prisons'. Who in their right mind would want a society like that again? (Besides robberbarrons).
The 19th century was a survival-of-the-fittest charityless society. That is what they look like. 'Lest We Forget'.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:07 PM
Well, one thing I was very impressed with was: Wow! Wasn't the mainstream media incredible back then? They actually had intelligent discussions during prime time! Could you imagine that today? How the mighty have fallen!

Now, it is true that Ayn Rand's philosophy is incredibly naive. Her individualism emphasis could be said to be the driving force behind the financial system's collapse. Things can't be solved with "-ism's" that try to paint the entire sphere of human endeavor with one large brushstroke. Sorry, Ayn, it isn't "socialism" that drives the two corrupt political parties. It's greedy self-interest. They don't want to lose any power. In fact, they will do anything to gain it. And money is power. The issue is lining their pockets, whether it is their campaign fund or that little secret account they have in Zurich or some Caribbean island. I remember taking my advanced economic classes in college and they were nothing but an excuse for more calculus equations. And I don't remember the variable for greed. It reminds me of Michael Douglas' character in "Wall Street."

Her hatred for the common man certainly comes across. It reminds me of the Snoopy poster: I love mankind. It's people I can't stand. Too bad. We're here. Deal with it.

Our problems are much more difficult to solved by one philosophy. One problem may be solved by the socialistic approach, another problem may be handled by the capitalist approach. For example, cell phones can certainly be made my anybody but the infrastructure and its standards must be uniform.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by David9176
Why do people always seem to pass up the good threads?

This is must see stuff IMO.

How is anyone going to know it's a "good thread" when the OP just writes a few lines that reveal nothing of the video with no review,no opinion what so ever and finishers with the line "What did you all think?"

What I think is if the OP has no Opinion on his post than it's not worthy of viewing.


posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by Zelong

Largely because this thread isn't about my opinion, but Ayn Rand's and the contemporary nature of it.

I did get a chuckle out of your point though.

I have hardly ever been accused around here of not having an opinion about something.

Watch the video clips.

I think you will see why I approached this thread in this manner.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by loam]

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:08 AM
Ayn Rand had a lot of good points to make. She opened my eyes to the value of the individual and to trusting one's own intellect, and the value of Reason in one's life. Nathaniel Brandon was her favorite disciple until they had a falling out. I consider him as great an intellect as Rand. We wouldn't be discussing Ayn Rand if Brandon hadn't started the Objectivist movement. Those of you who are struggling with childhood ghosts should read his "Breaking Free" book. Yet, I believe there should be moderation in all things, a view that Rand was diametrically opposed: something is either right or wrong, black or white, no middle ground. This view I now hold is wrong because extremism either on the left or right is a curse.
One thing that Rand completely ignored is the origin of the individual. Where does the individual originate? The individual has its origin in society. Any person that has its origin outside of a society is a feral person. That person is wild and behaves and reacts like an animal. We have historical examples of persons such as these who were raised by wild animals that had to be civilized. In other words, none of us invented language, or math, or literature. We can add to them or make new discoveries, but always withing the context of the building blocks that went before.
So when we define ourselves it is within the context of a society. The question to Rand is: do we now have any obligation to society for giving us civilization? What do you think?

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by Ameneter

Originally posted by Ameneter

...The individual has its origin in society...

...So when we define ourselves it is within the context of a society. The question to Rand is: do we now have any obligation to society for giving us civilization? What do you think?

I imagine she would answer no. But I'd also need to understand more clearly what you think such an "obligation" would mean to be more certain.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:50 AM

That woman has a lovely mind. I think some of the people in here did not get the overall message she was trying to get through(though most of you did).
I share a lot of her views, if not all of them. Control, is the issue here, and how to control as well. People allow themselves to be controlled because they have never been offered otherwise, they have been made to believe that the options that they have on the table are the best options that they have, and that those options would represent their best ideals whether they understood it or not. People look at selfishness today as if it were a bad thing, but in all reality, selfishness can be used to better the world. How? Well if you were paying attention to what she was saying, she was saying that she shouldnt be made to do anything, she shouldnt have to be made to pay for someone elses inconvienences, but to rather pay for it out of selfishness meaning that if she wanted to help them, it wouldnt be because she had to, but because she wanted to, not only to help the next man, but to help herself. On the other hand, you shouldnt be forced to do anything, just because the majority of the people believe thats how you should spend your money. If everyone in America told you that you had to buy a car, but instead you wanted a motorcycle, in todays age, you would have to buy the car, for youhave no choice what to do with your money. But if it was up to your own self interest, you would say "I dont care what you want me to do with my money, its my money, and I will buy what I want with it". That is just an example of what she was saying, and that message relates not only to ones self, but to the entire nation. Simple fact of the matter is, people really dont have a choice anymore, I dont think that they ever did. Reason, is the only way that this world can survive living much longer, instead of acting out on pure emotion or belief, cause that(emotion/belief) in itself is being very naive and ignorant in nature.
Like I stated earlier, I think that the broader message here is that we(as a people) not our govt, should be the ones setting the rules regarding whether or not things are needed for the better interest of ourselves, and we should be able to make our own choices in life about how to live our lives instead of being told how to live it by outside opinions and interests as a whole. The people who are running things(our govt) knows this, and they probably spend a lot of money to make sure that people dont catch onto the fact that they have been playing us since the dawn of time. We are meerly sheeple without a voice being crackwhipped into doing what they want us to do, all while they smile and tell us that everything is going to be alright. I think anyone who acts on emotion or beliefs are not only hurting themselves, but they are hurting the common good of the people.
The world we live in will not change unless the mindset of the people change, and Im sorry to say, thats not going to happen anytime soon, but the more we fight, the closer we get to absolute harmony. Reason, outwieghs beliefs, because reason is the only true balance of right and wrong.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Common Good]

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by loam

I did get a chuckle out of your point though.

Ha ha thanks.
I've been caught before eg. look what I found.....what do you think.

Okee-Dokee OP loam I shale view your resource now with fondness for black & white TV.
Thanks for your response


posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:42 AM
It comes down to the fudamental question of pragmatism vs idealism.

Those who claim Rand's ideas are selfish, uncaring and heartless are absolutely right.

But you know what? So is human nature. People are driven by personal greed; they are driven by greed for their family and others that they care for.

To deny it is to deny reality and truth; and any system which goes against reality is pointless as it will ultimately not work.

The only form of collaboration (outside core functions such as military, infrastructure) which should exist should be mutual and willing- ie charity. The problem with mandated collectivisim (left wing economics) is that eventually charity is mistaken for a birthright. People assume they have an equal right to wealth even if they don't work for it (IMO the situation in the UK at the moment).

I believe human exist consists of hierarchical layers. Our primary allegiance is to ourselves, then our family, then our neighbours and country. When the sovereignty of any of these layers is breached, humans will be unhappy and less productive.

We are all selfish, and we are all greedy in one way or another be it the businessman who strives for greater profit or the liberal who wants the rich to be taxed at a higher rate. Greed is all pervasive through our genes and our mind.

The only solution is to harness greed for progression along the individual path AND the collective path through voluntary collaboration, not authoritarian dictats.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:52 PM
"Common Good" < why the name?) "That woman has a lovely mind". Of course -- she has a lovely mind; to guys like Satan the Devil and Hitler.
Just like that movie title, 'A Beautiful Mind'. ( Bong, kookoo....)

[edit on 10-2-2009 by simonecharisse]

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by simonecharisse

are you on your meds?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in