"Who is John Galt?"

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seethelight

 

There you go again refusing to offer any logical reasons as to why I might be wrong or incorrect and insisting on using only fallacious arguments to state your case. Along with Ad Hominems, Needling and Argument by Dismissal we can now add the list; Inflation of Conflict, Argument from Adverse Consequences, Excluded Middle, Psychogenic Fallacy, Argument by Emotive Language, Begging the Question, and Fallacy of Composition just to name a few.

If you wish to engage in debate then do so. If you wish to do otherwise and are attempting to derail this thread then I will simply ignore you and have an intelligent discussion with those who are interested in intelligent discussion or debates.

I'm not sure you'd see logic if it bit you on the ass, but here goes.


Democracy can not exist if we're all selfish. Working together in ANY CAPACITY requires sacrifice.

Ayn Rand believed that the world needed an elite ruling class. That's antithetical to democracy.

Many of Rand's followers have conflated religion and Objecitivism to create the concept of a "god given right to rule". This again goes against the very nature of Democracy.

In fact, Ayn Rand was fully and openly against Democracy.

You can read more here:

en.wikipedia.org...:_The_Unknown_Ideal

Some dangerous myths perpetuated by Rand:

Government is unnecessary - This dangerous myth was Greenspan's basis for his anti-regulation credo. Remember how well that worked?

All men can selfishly work together. Not only is this, on it's face, illogical, but it has created a tribe of elite idiots that believe that they are allowed to control others, because if the others had value they'd just be selfish and succeed.

Nonsense and dangerous crap.

What Rand really is, is a permission slip for people to # over the poor and the undereducated predicated on confused psycho-babble.

If you missed all of this then you don't "get" Rand, and you're just one of the masses.

What did Rand think of you?

Well, here's a quote:

"What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"

So there's the totalitarian Rand in full glory, condemning people like you to be fodder for the elites.

Sorry, dood, but you've been punked by your own stupidity.

reply to post by seethelight


Okay, at least were starting to get to a point where a reasoned debate can begin between you and I. First, you keep insisting that I don't understand Rand but all your claimed knowledge of her philosophy and work is referenced by Wikipedia articles. It is doubtful you have ever read her works for yourself and are relying upon other peoples assessment of her work to claim authority now.

Next, Democracy can and does exist when everybody is selfish, however this is not a thread that has even discussed the efficacy or flaws of democracy until you brought it up. Further, the United States is a republic and is so to keep democracy in check. The reason for this is that a pure democracy would allow the populace to vote away individual rights and our Constitutional republic forbids this sort of government.

Again, I don't care to get too drawn into what a democracy requires as I am neither advocating nor railing against democracy in this thread but am instead railing against corporatism. You have suggested or inferred from my posts that you most likely have not read, that I am advocating a rejection of society, but I am advocating a rejection of corporatism and all the meaningless and oppressive regulations that come with such a system. I have not attacked society but have challenged the current system in the U.S. as being too oppressive and creating a ruling class of elites rather than allow for a level playing field where all can compete.

I further reject the whole notion of class systems and advocate an individual approach where each person rises up to their fullest potential without having to obtain any permission from government to do so. I do not argue that government is unnecessary and hold a profound respect for the Constitution of the United States of America which in its preamble makes perfectly clear why a government is necessary.

Your assertions that people can not act together and still act selfishly is misguided. You offer sacrifice as an ideal to be embraced but sacrifice by definition is giving up something of a higher value for something of a lesser value. By most standards this sort of idealism is insane. Sacrifice is demonstrably anti-survival and should be avoided except for in extreme circumstances, i.e., sacrificing ones own life to ensure the survival of loved ones, which in and of itself is still an act of selfishness as sacrificing ones own life to protect loved ones is done so based on their own selfish emotion of love and a need to protect those they love.

This constant insistence of yours that it is the so called "elite" who are being offered as a form of government is yet another mistake of fact or misinterpretation of fact. When I or even Rand offers praise of individuals who have created something of value to society, it is not offered as an advocacy of governmental leadership but as an advocacy of individualism and what is being criticized is the dubious plunder governments will engage in through taxation and licensing schemes and pointless regulations.

I am advocating a system where individuals reclaim their mantle of supremacy and govern themselves, not by dismissing government but by restraining the tyranny of ambitious politicians. Your use of out of context quotes by Rand does not in anyway challenge or effectively show how my arguments are wrong or incorrect. I have certainly not been "punked" by Rand who only wrote novels and endeavored to create a modern philosophy, but I assure you I have been "punked" by this intrusive and uncaring government you so willfully and callously call a democracy.

reply to post by seethelight


I thought I would create a separate post to address your ignorant and shameful Argument by Half Truth where you offer a quote you represent as being a direct quote from Ayn Rand on her beliefs. However, the quote you have supplied:

"What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"

Comes from a draft of We the Living where a character in that novel Kiera admonishes a lover named Andrei who is an idealistic communist for his base views of people being nothing more than the "masses". Kiera is not advocating elitism by this remark but taking Andrei to task and accusing he and others like him of having no respect for people and all to willing to diminish individuals into faceless masses no better than "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it."

Ironically, Rand cut that line from her final draft and in the form this novel was published Kiera never even says this. You, seethelight, have relied far too heavily on Wikipedia articles to "inform" yourself about Ayn Rand. If you don't want to read her works for yourself, you don't have to, but it is clear that you have not read her works for yourself and your reliance on other peoples assessment of her work is bemusing to say the least.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seethelight

 

Okay, at least were starting to get to a point where a reasoned debate can begin between you and I. First, you keep insisting that I don't understand Rand but all your claimed knowledge of her philosophy and work is referenced by Wikipedia articles. It is doubtful you have ever read her works for yourself and are relying upon other peoples assessment of her work to claim authority now.

Next, Democracy can and does exist when everybody is selfish, however this is not a thread that has even discussed the efficacy or flaws of democracy until you brought it up. Further, the United States is a republic and is so to keep democracy in check. The reason for this is that a pure democracy would allow the populace to vote away individual rights and our Constitutional republic forbids this sort of government.

Again, I don't care to get too drawn into what a democracy requires as I am neither advocating nor railing against democracy in this thread but am instead railing against corporatism. You have suggested or inferred from my posts that you most likely have not read, that I am advocating a rejection of society, but I am advocating a rejection of corporatism and all the meaningless and oppressive regulations that come with such a system. I have not attacked society but have challenged the current system in the U.S. as being too oppressive and creating a ruling class of elites rather than allow for a level playing field where all can compete.

I further reject the whole notion of class systems and advocate an individual approach where each person rises up to their fullest potential without having to obtain any permission from government to do so. I do not argue that government is unnecessary and hold a profound respect for the Constitution of the United States of America which in its preamble makes perfectly clear why a government is necessary.

Your assertions that people can not act together and still act selfishly is misguided. You offer sacrifice as an ideal to be embraced but sacrifice by definition is giving up something of a higher value for something of a lesser value. By most standards this sort of idealism is insane. Sacrifice is demonstrably anti-survival and should be avoided except for in extreme circumstances, i.e., sacrificing ones own life to ensure the survival of loved ones, which in and of itself is still an act of selfishness as sacrificing ones own life to protect loved ones is done so based on their own selfish emotion of love and a need to protect those they love.

This constant insistence of yours that it is the so called "elite" who are being offered as a form of government is yet another mistake of fact or misinterpretation of fact. When I or even Rand offers praise of individuals who have created something of value to society, it is not offered as an advocacy of governmental leadership but as an advocacy of individualism and what is being criticized is the dubious plunder governments will engage in through taxation and licensing schemes and pointless regulations.

I am advocating a system where individuals reclaim their mantle of supremacy and govern themselves, not by dismissing government but by restraining the tyranny of ambitious politicians. Your use of out of context quotes by Rand does not in anyway challenge or effectively show how my arguments are wrong or incorrect. I have certainly not been "punked" by Rand who only wrote novels and endeavored to create a modern philosophy, but I assure you I have been "punked" by this intrusive and uncaring government you so willfully and callously call a democracy.

You can trash wiki, but why not go check the sources... There's not a guy named Wiki that writes the articles.

I have read her garbage, when I was younger, and I picked up on her totalitarian slant even then.

The country was founded as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. There's NO BASIS for your assertion that America was founded to curtail democracy. I'm not surprised that someone who's deluded themselves into thinking they're a superman would believe such nonsense...in fact it makes perfect sense.

As far as your stance on Democracy is concerned: the support of Rand and her anti-democratic teachings are your stance.

You don't like people, you think you're better than most of them and you believe it's your right to exploit them.

In other words, you're a fascist.

Nice one fascist.

"Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretence of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal...."

You see, if the ruling elite only believe in the pretence of democracy, as a tool of control, which is what Rand and you believe, then it's not individualism, but fascism.

In fact, all of your claims of high minded individualism can easily be debunked:

Individualism has one of two necessary basis - either all men are equal, or they are unequal.

In Rand's world All Men Are Not Created Equal.

Not only is this blatantly anti-American, but it's again a dangerous delusion. Why?

Because a belief system that creates an unfair playing field is not only destructive, but against the very core beliefs of democracy.

Look no further than Greenspan for examples of all of this behaviour, taken to it's logical conclusion.

You're selfish and delusional belief system is not only using you as fodder, but as a witless tool of propagation. You are creating more sheep for the slaughter.

Rand was just clever enough to sucker people like yourself (a drama major, big surprise), but she wasn't clever enough to make you her puppet; you did that to yourself.

You are not special, you're not chosen, you're not the ruling elite. You need to come to terms with that and realise that democracy and society are not about selfishness, but about the group, not the individual.

We don't and never will live in the demented false-utopia that you don't understand, but wish to promote. Instead, luckily, we live in a (flawed) democracy.

As far as Rand ONLY writing novels, why not use google. If you read her non-fiction you'd probably cop on to the fact that she'd have little use for an idiot of your calibre.

Well, she'd let you kiss her ass and be fuel for her terrible delusional and dangerous machine, but certainly you would not be one of her elite disciples.

Cult of Ayn Rand & the Worship of Fascist Supermen

atheism.about.com...

One more thing:

Individuals cannot all be supreme.

So, as Rand said, the Supreme use the masses as fuel for their enterprises.

That sounds like unbridled capitalism, like AG preached, but not like democracy (in which all votes are equal) or America (in which all men are born with the same opportunities).

I.E. "All men are created equal".

What Rand preached was more like the divine right of Kings:

All kings (i.e. supermen) are given a divine right to rule.

Neo-conservatism/Randism in a nutshell.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by seethelight]

Ayn Rand: Can two new biographies unravel the mystery of the mad, sad heroine of the American right?

www.independent.co.uk... ican-right-1819464.html

Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses" - her readers - were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live.

----

..She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": the "only virtue" is selfishness.

She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces.

Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own... Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy". Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."

It's not hard to see this as a kind of political post-traumatic stress disorder. Rand believed the Bolshevik lie that they represented the people, so she wanted to strike back at them through theft and murder. In a nasty irony, she was copying their tactics. She started to write her first novel, We the Living, and in the early drafts her central character - a crude proxy for Rand herself - says to a Bolshevik: "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them."

----

For her longest novel, Atlas Shrugged, Rand returned to a moment from her childhood. Just as her father once went on strike against Bolshevism, she imagined the super-rich in America going on strike against progressive taxation - and said the US would swiftly regress to an apocalyptic hellhole if the Donald Trumps and Ted Turners ceased their toil. The abandoned masses are described variously as "savages", "refuse" and "inanimate objects". One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash, and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the taxes that made the attack necessary. Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity. They insist they need no one, yet spend all their time fuming that the masses don't bow down before their manifest superiority.

----

I feel sympathy for Rand, even as I know she would have spat it back into my face. What I do find incomprehensible is that there are large numbers of people who see her writing not as psychopathy but as philosophy, and urge us to follow her. Why? Unfortunately, neither of these equally thorough, readable books can offer much of an answer to this great question about her. Rand expresses, with a pithy crudeness, an instinct that courses through us all sometimes: I'm the only one who matters! I'm not going to care about any of you! She then absolutises it in a Benzedrine-charged reductio ad absurdum by insisting it is the only feeling worth entertaining, ever.

This urge exists everywhere, but it is supercharged on the American right. We all live every day with the victory of this fifth-rate Nietzsche of the mini-malls. Alan Greenspan was one of her strongest cult followers and even invited her to the Oval Office to witness his swearing-in when he joined the Ford administration. You can see how he carried this philosophy into the 1990s. Why should the Supermen of Wall Street be regulated to protect the lice of Main Street?

reply to post by seethelight


I don't know what you mean by "trashing wiki" as I have not done any such thing. I have challenged your knowledge of Rand's work and pointed to the fact that you keep supplying Wikepedia as your source.

You seem to want to make this thread about Ayn Rand and I suppose that is my fault for the title I gave this thread and my own reliance on quotes from Atlas Shrugged as a starting point to advocate disengaging from a tyrannical system. However, I am not going to debate Ayn Rand with you and refuse to participate in your derailment of this thread by agreeing to debate whether or not Rand advocated totalitarianism or not. People can read her work for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

As to your assertion that this "country was founded as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.", you are mistaken and you will not find the word democratic or democracy anywhere in the Constitution. Furthermore electing POTUS by electoral college is further evidence of the distinctly undemocratic nature of the Constitution. If it weren't for the 17th Amendment the Senate would still be chosen by state legislatures and not directly elected by the people.

The rest of your Ad Hominem attack on my character is neither here nor there. You have concluded I don't like people based on what exactly? My admiration for Ayn Rand? You can scream as loud and as long as you want that I am stupid but it won't make me any more stupid or fascist or whatever other name you care to toss my way. Calm down, relax and think your arguments through.

It should be noted that while you claim I don't like people you then turn around and attempt to debunk individualism. I don't know about you , seethelight, but all the people I know are individuals. You attempt to debunk individualism by relying upon the fallacious argument of Excluded Middle combined with Argument by Half Truth. In your world an individualist is an either or proposition where they either believe in the equality of people or they don't. It is an Argument of Half Truth in that equality under the law is entirely different than equality of nature.

Under the law all people are equal and have the same rights regardless of who they are, what sex they are, and what creed or religious beliefs they hold. However, outside of the that law, it is demonstrable that people are in fact not equal. Kobe Bryant is remarkably taller than I and a much better basketball player than I. Dolly Parton has much bigger breasts than Kiera Sedgewick and Albert Einstein was, by all accounts, smarter than either you or I and there is no piece of legislation that can change that. However, I can, if I am so inclined, endeavor to be every bit as good a basketball player as Kobe, even if in the end I fail, that effort is mine to make if I so choose. Due to upgrades in medical technology, Kiera Sedgewick can have breast as big as Dolly Parton if she so chooses and either you or I can do our best to educate ourselves and be as smart as Einstein, if we so choose.

You keep attempting to frame my stance as advocating an unfair playing field when I have in fact done quite the opposite and it is demonstrable that the current system is what has given people an unfair playing field. I have in several posts provided numerous examples of this unfairness.

You were almost there in terms of offering a reasoned and sound debate but this last post of yours is mostly nonsensical and extremely emotional. You seem very angry that I would endeavor to be someone special and are willfully misrepresenting my views in a lame attempt to frame me as an elitist or wannabe elitist. Let me be perfectly clear here, seethelight, I advocate that all people find what is inside them that makes them special and to use that specialness to flourish and prosper. Do you truly have a problem with this?

I never claimed that Rand only wrote novels and either you have a hard time reading or you are just too lazy to do so. I made no such claim that Rand only wrote novels. Again, calm down and try to think your arguments through using reason and a rational mind.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I couldn't agree more. Many people take the steps to be self-sufficient, but are completely shut down by the same government that breaks its a** to do for big business what it refuses to do for the citizenry.

Fortunately, we are Americans, and we still believe this is the land of opportunity. So we're just crazy and desperate enough to try even when it seems we're outnumbered, outregulated, and outspent.

That blazing, crazy "courage" has spread over the world. We can now take inspiration from others in other countries, however. Specifically, I'm referring to the concept of microloans.


Real options? Loaning someone $50 to get a business license.

Loaning or giving someone a lawn mower or a rake if they need one to start a little business.

Giving bus fare to someone trying to get a job. Giving them bus fare to get to work for a week or even just lunch money for the first few days.

I have found that there is much good to do, and much of it is very doable.

These are just some examples, but truly this kind of help, the kind that is needed, at the time it is needed, can absolutely make a huge difference.

Those who are trying need our support.

Haven't all of us had someone who did the same for us at some time? Someone whose contribution made all the difference, but didn't amount to a huge financial outlay or sacrifice.

This piece of the puzzle doesn't come with glory and flattery, so a lot of people can't get interested. This makes it even more incumbent on those of us who are aware and who are willing, to plant our feet, and believe that our fellow man is as big a priority as the government.

As always, we are as good as we want to be. Do we truly want good for ourselves and each other? It is within our grasp.

Each of us has eyes to see. Unfortunately, we also possess an amazingly developed ability to justify "not getting involved."

We can't have it both ways. wanting to find something to do to make a positive impact, but shirking even the easiest steps to do it.

Thanks for opening up this conversation, OP! S&F for you. I can't wait to hear what comes from it.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seethelight

 

I don't know what you mean by "trashing wiki" as I have not done any such thing. I have challenged your knowledge of Rand's work and pointed to the fact that you keep supplying Wikepedia as your source.

You seem to want to make this thread about Ayn Rand and I suppose that is my fault for the title I gave this thread and my own reliance on quotes from Atlas Shrugged as a starting point to advocate disengaging from a tyrannical system. However, I am not going to debate Ayn Rand with you and refuse to participate in your derailment of this thread by agreeing to debate whether or not Rand advocated totalitarianism or not. People can read her work for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

As to your assertion that this "country was founded as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.", you are mistaken and you will not find the word democratic or democracy anywhere in the Constitution. Furthermore electing POTUS by electoral college is further evidence of the distinctly undemocratic nature of the Constitution. If it weren't for the 17th Amendment the Senate would still be chosen by state legislatures and not directly elected by the people.

The rest of your Ad Hominem attack on my character is neither here nor there. You have concluded I don't like people based on what exactly? My admiration for Ayn Rand? You can scream as loud and as long as you want that I am stupid but it won't make me any more stupid or fascist or whatever other name you care to toss my way. Calm down, relax and think your arguments through.

It should be noted that while you claim I don't like people you then turn around and attempt to debunk individualism. I don't know about you , seethelight, but all the people I know are individuals. You attempt to debunk individualism by relying upon the fallacious argument of Excluded Middle combined with Argument by Half Truth. In your world an individualist is an either or proposition where they either believe in the equality of people or they don't. It is an Argument of Half Truth in that equality under the law is entirely different than equality of nature.

Under the law all people are equal and have the same rights regardless of who they are, what sex they are, and what creed or religious beliefs they hold. However, outside of the that law, it is demonstrable that people are in fact not equal. Kobe Bryant is remarkably taller than I and a much better basketball player than I. Dolly Parton has much bigger breasts than Kiera Sedgewick and Albert Einstein was, by all accounts, smarter than either you or I and there is no piece of legislation that can change that. However, I can, if I am so inclined, endeavor to be every bit as good a basketball player as Kobe, even if in the end I fail, that effort is mine to make if I so choose. Due to upgrades in medical technology, Kiera Sedgewick can have breast as big as Dolly Parton if she so chooses and either you or I can do our best to educate ourselves and be as smart as Einstein, if we so choose.

You keep attempting to frame my stance as advocating an unfair playing field when I have in fact done quite the opposite and it is demonstrable that the current system is what has given people an unfair playing field. I have in several posts provided numerous examples of this unfairness.

You were almost there in terms of offering a reasoned and sound debate but this last post of yours is mostly nonsensical and extremely emotional. You seem very angry that I would endeavor to be someone special and are willfully misrepresenting my views in a lame attempt to frame me as an elitist or wannabe elitist. Let me be perfectly clear here, seethelight, I advocate that all people find what is inside them that makes them special and to use that specialness to flourish and prosper. Do you truly have a problem with this?

I never claimed that Rand only wrote novels and either you have a hard time reading or you are just too lazy to do so. I made no such claim that Rand only wrote novels. Again, calm down and try to think your arguments through using reason and a rational mind.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

[snip]

You said:

"Rand who only wrote novels"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then just a few posts later said:

I never claimed that Rand only wrote novels and either you have a hard time reading or you are just too lazy to do so. I made no such claim that Rand only wrote novels.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe it's you that needs help, eh?

As for framing your beliefs:

You claim that Rand is the starting point for understanding your belief in supreme individuals, you constantly reference her work, sometimes almost word for word, and yet you want to distance yourself from your shared beliefs.

That's gonna be hard to do.

As for your claim that America is not a democracy... well, it's obviously absurd. You seem to be confusing DIRECT democracy with the more general term democracy.

America is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY as established by the founding fathers:

+ It has elected representatives
+ It's based on individual equality

The main feature of Republics (and the reason why I defined the US as a democratic republic) is that republics don't have monarchs.

That's the reason the FF used that wording.

The systems they created though are pure representative democracy.

I'm starting to think that suggestion of a basic civics class isn't such a bad idea.

I really think that, based on your posts, and your sudden attempt to distance yourself from AR, that you didn't ever really "get" her writing. I also suspect that you're trying to create a new philosophy on the fly... good luck with that.

As for me, I'll stick with my core American values:

Government is good if you elect good representatives.
Democracy is good
No men are god created supermen
Ayn Rand was a completely drug addled nutter
Ayn Rand's philosophy (if you wanna call that selfish nonsense a philosophy) have done the world a lot more harm than good

And finally:

[snip]



You need to learn the basic facts about America from someone other than a talk radio host or a selfish, disingenuous, hack novelist.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by seethelight]



Personal attacks (2) removed

Courtesy is mandatory

[edit on 30-12-2009 by seethelight]



Please do NOT alter in-post moderator notes.

[edit on 30/12/09 by masqua]

BTW: I based the FACT of your dislike for people on your embrace of an author that considers the majority of people worthless insects, grist for enterprise and worthy targets for terrorist attacks.

If you embrace those "ideals" then you DON'T like people.

Nothing hard to understand there.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by seethelight]

reply to post by Copperflower


Bravo Copperflower! Thank you for bringing to this discussion a reasonable advocacy of helping others, not through the blatant plunder of government taxation and wealth redistribution, but through an individual effort where each of us help those we can and do so for reasons of rational self interest.

Micro loans is a great example. I would challenge you on loaning someone money to obtain a license to do business, however, unless that licensing is justified as in opening a saloon, (which would require far more than $50 dollars), or starting a business that involves the transport of toxic materials, there are valid reasons to license a business, but the vast majority of businesses expected to be licensed is unjustified, and instead of loaning a landscaper or cobbler or bookseller money to obtain a license I would encourage them to avoid applying for a license and loan them money if and when it is necessary to fight the governments intrusions in court.

But I am quibbling and it is your example of micro loans that helps bring us to a closer paradigm of how we can as individuals act together, all acting in our own rational self interest towards a common goal, extricate ourselves from this unfair system we find ourselves in today and build a better system. Create a better society, re-establish the American Dream as being one where all people can flourish and prosper instead of waking up each night in a cold sweat from the American Nightmare of over taxation, lower wages, fear of loosing our jobs, fear of loosing our homes while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Thank you Copperflower for your ideas and your willingness to share them here.

BTW: Mods, calling a sucker a sucker isn't being rude.

Ayn Rand proposed that the masses should be chewed up for enterprise.

Anyone that doesn't see that, but supports her (i.e. encourages a lifestyle based on her writing) isn't a superman, but a member of the masses.

Ergo, our OP is suggesting that people follow a philosophy that would, given a chance, use him and spit him out, like the insect they would believe him to be.

How much more a sucker can you be?

That's not an insult.

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seethelight

 

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

[snip]

You said:

"Rand who only wrote novels"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then just a few posts later said:

I never claimed that Rand only wrote novels and either you have a hard time reading or you are just too lazy to do so. I made no such claim that Rand only wrote novels.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe it's you that needs help, eh?

As for framing your beliefs:

You claim that Rand is the starting point for understanding your belief in supreme individuals, you constantly reference her work, sometimes almost word for word, and yet you want to distance yourself from your shared beliefs.

That's gonna be hard to do.

As for your claim that America is not a democracy... well, it's obviously absurd. You seem to be confusing DIRECT democracy with the more general term democracy.

America is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY as established by the founding fathers:

+ It has elected representatives
+ It's based on individual equality

The main feature of Republics (and the reason why I defined the US as a democratic republic) is that republics don't have monarchs.

That's the reason the FF used that wording.

The systems they created though are pure representative democracy.

I'm starting to think that suggestion of a basic civics class isn't such a bad idea.

I really think that, based on your posts, and your sudden attempt to distance yourself from AR, that you didn't ever really "get" her writing. I also suspect that you're trying to create a new philosophy on the fly... good luck with that.

As for me, I'll stick with my core American values:

Government is good if you elect good representatives.
Democracy is good
No men are god created supermen
Ayn Rand was a completely drug addled nutter
Ayn Rand's philosophy (if you wanna call that selfish nonsense a philosophy) have done the world a lot more harm than good

And finally:

[snip]



You need to learn the basic facts about America from someone other than a talk radio host or a selfish, disingenuous, hack novelist.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by seethelight]

 

Personal attacks (2) removed

Courtesy is mandatory

[edit on 30-12-2009 by seethelight]

 

Please do NOT alter in-post moderator notes.

[edit on 30/12/09 by masqua]

Either you are deliberately misquoting me or you do genuinely have a difficult time reading and interpreting others work. You have taken a partial sentence of mine and without using the proper ellipsis to indicate you have done this changed the meaning of my statement. My complete sentence was:

"I have certainly not been "punked" by Rand who only wrote novels and endeavored to create a modern philosophy, but I assure you I have been "punked" by this intrusive and uncaring government you so willfully and callously call a democracy."

You have either misread what I wrote or, and that you have so crudely and blatantly represented a very small portion of that sentence to be the sentence, I am inclined to believe you have willfully misrepresented what I wrote and I don't think I need to explain to you the meaning of that sentence. I was not declaring that Rand only wrote novels in her career but was saying that she has not punked me and only wrote novels and endeavored to create a modern philosophy. What in God's name did you think I meant by endeavored to create a modern philosophy? I think you know exactly what I meant and you are being disingenuous and are revealing your own profound disrespect for people if you honestly believe they will fall for your crude misrepresentations and false accusations.

We all could use a little help now and then, but seethelight, I am sticking with the idea that perhaps you need the help. Let me help you, what I meant by my awkwardly written sentence was that all Ayn Rand was guilty of, writing some novels and works of philosophy, whereas the government is guilty of far more than that and they are the ones who have "punked" me. Did that help? Do you see the light? Can you understand how important it might be to consider all angles before jumping to a conclusion?

You keep attempting to put words in my mouth I never said. Here you say:

"You claim that Rand is the starting point for understanding your belief in supreme individuals, you constantly reference her work, sometimes almost word for word, and yet you want to distance yourself from your shared beliefs."

There is no language where I claimed to believe in "supreme individuals" and what your are referring to is my assertion that individuals reclaim their mantle of supremacy and govern themselves. Now, before you run off and attempt to misquote me again, let me clarify for you what I mean exactly by that statement. I am saying that each and everyone of us as individuals, not as a collective, but as individuals must reclaim our mantle of supremacy. I say this in regards to an out of control government that is works for us and not the other way around. Individuals do not exist to serve the government, governments exist to serve individuals. Got it?

I am not confusing direct democracy with general democracy you are. You are the one who brought democracy into this thread which is a thread where I attempted to encourage individuals to break free of government and corporate intrusion and be free. What has this got to do with democracy unless you think that if a democracy elects an intrusive government that would abrogate and derogate the rights of individuals that the Constitution allows such nonsense, is that what you think? Is this what your civics teacher taught you?

I don't really care if you think I don't "get" Ayn Rand or not. Philosophies are not created on the "fly" and I am not interested in creating one here. You have Appealed to False Authorities in an attempt to discredit Ayn Rand and that is fine, I don't care what you think of Ayn Rand, I think you have demonstrated clearly that you have no respect for individuals and you have foolishly disregarded the heroic nature of people by attempting to frame this argument as "god created supermen", this is your view.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


WHAAAA?

Let's quote you again:

"I have certainly not been "punked" by Rand who only wrote novels and endeavored to create a modern philosophy, but I assure you I have been "punked" by this intrusive and uncaring government you so willfully and callously call a democracy."

In context you say she "ONLY WROTE NOVELS".

How is that me bieng tricky?

I note that you also suggest I'm lazy, but for some reason the MODS don't think that's a personal attack...? Funny that.

You also say:

'There is no language where I claimed to believe in "supreme individuals"'

However here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You say:

"I am advocating a system where individuals reclaim their mantle of supremacy and govern themselves"

You actually restate that again. What the hell is the difference between a individuals "mantle of supremacy" and "individuals supremacy".

Here's a hint:

There is NO difference.

It's difficult to have the intelligent conversation you claim to desire when you refuse to acknowledge your own words and their implications.

Sure, I can go back to my posts, pretend I meant something completely opposite to what I wrote, and then accuse you of misunderstanding my words, but that would be disingenuous.

Next time, before you accuse me of misquoting you, go back and read you posts.

You say:

"Again, I don't care to get too drawn into what a democracy requires as I am neither advocating nor railing against democracy in this thread but am instead railing against corporatism."

Well, I hate to break it to you, but Rand was a staunch advocate of the supremacy of fascist corporatism. She believed and wrote that business leaders were the ethical and practical leaders in a society and they should remain unfettered by the government. I.E. Buisness leaders are out actual leaders and shouldn't be regulated by government.

Let's see, business controlling a country without intervention from a government... that's fascist corporatism almost to a t.

You say:

"I am not confusing direct democracy with general democracy you are. You are the one who brought democracy into this thread which is a thread where I attempted to encourage individuals to break free of government and corporate intrusion and be free."

Actually, by claiming America is not a democracy, you're doing exactly that.

And by propping up Rand's tired character as an example you ARE bringing democracy into it.

Rand's heroes ARE anti-democracy AND pro-fascist corporatism... so that's a double fail.

Real philosophies aren't created on the fly, but Rand's Objectivism isn't a real philosophy at all. It's a hack's attempt to justify her darkest urges.

By trying to distance yourself from the motivations of the character you used as an exemplar of your beliefs and his creator you show that you don't understand either.

If you were trying to encourage freedom, you picked an odd choice by using a would-be fascist character created by a fascist author... especially one that promoted fascist corporatism.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by seethelight]

reply to post by seethelight


The instant you use language such as "...words and their implications." it is necessary to understand that with implications come inferences. To take me to task for clarifying my own words based on your inferences is more artfulness on your part. You can only infer what I implied if I indeed implied anything at all. I have done my very best to say what I mean, and I assure I mean what I say. If I have failed to clearly say what I mean, then I accept this, however, your insistence that I am attempting to "distance" myself from Ayn Rand is, quite simply, disingenuous. All through this thread I have expressed an admiration for her novels and her philosophical writings while also speaking to areas in which I disagree with her. A thinking person is allowed to admire another while not required to accept the totality of their beliefs in that admiration.

Furthermore, where I disagree with Rand has absolutely nothing to do with the nonsense you have attributed to her and I remain convinced you continue to attribute these gross misrepresentations of her philosophy in an attempt to make this thread about her. I keep insisting I used her as a starting point to begin a discussion about how we can affect a peaceful revolution, changing a system I believed needs to be changed.

"The mantle of supremacy" I have referred to is in the supremacy of the individual over government, your bemusing attempts to frame it as otherwise are silly. I will state this as clear as I know how to, seethelight, the individual preexists government and government exists to serve the individual. Thus, the individual is supreme over government. You can try to claim I am back peddling or whatever, I have enough trust in those who read this to believe that they will understand what I meant and what you are attempting to do.

What are you attempting to do? You are attempting to make this a thread about Ayn Rand and her beliefs. I am attempting to use Rand's beliefs and her heroic figure of John Galt as an example of how we as individuals might distance ourselves from tyrants. Whether those tyrants be government officials or people who believe they can vote away the rights of others or vote for legislation oppressing others. I am advocating a respectful refusal to play along with intrusive and tyrannical behavior. This seems to bother you, why? Forget Ayn Rand, forget John Galt, just tell me why you think it is so dangerous that to advocate a refusal to play along with dubious licensing schemes, bogus legislation and abrogations and derogation's of peoples rights?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ayn Rand and the fictional caharcter of: John Galt are idiots!

Fast forward to 2010 - we are in a globalised economy under the threath of a real new feudal order - and you want John Galt to lead us!

Let me remind you; this is not an American New World Order!

Things have changed! - enough said!

Some idiots in the Wall Street banking system got to greedy and broke the Illusion, remember?

How Rand's works have been accepted/interpreted have been very cyclical throughout the decades. There have been periods in which she was greatly criticized for vailainy both towards herself and the characters she created for selfishness and lack of compassion, but of course, her brilliance as a writer and thinker always manages to outshine even that.

It's been many years since I read both novels, but always found them profoundly fascinating. I think at one point I even picked up a small book, "The Virtue of Selfishness", but don't think I ever read it. Probably still here on a bookshelf somewhere. Might try to find it later.
(I had a friend who named a cat "Taggart". lol.

Whatever has been said about Rand and her novels, I like the OP's interpretation best, and it's nice to see someone talking about her again.
Good thread.

reply to post by Chevalerous


I am not interested in any leader and am more interested in how I can flourish and prosper without having to ask the damned government for permission to do so. I remain skeptical that all these anti-Rand and Galt posters have really taken the time to read Atlas Shrugged. Galt was a leader of a movement to withdraw from a bogus system.

You, just like the other poster have declared Ayn Rand and a fictional character both as idiots without offering one argument as to why they are and then remarkably declare: "...enough Said!" All righty then...