"Who is John Galt?"

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
it's nice to see someone talking about her again.
Good thread.

Noo! it's not nice at all! she is and was delusional! and a danger to the world in the form of 'Rand Corporation' which is a military industrial complex think tank based on the ideas of American supremacy, and have incorporated some of this insane ladies ideas for foreign policy studies and advices to foreign Governments!

This is only one more sign of American lunacy!

How can her twisted American fantasy and twisted ideas be any good for the world??

In these days of a New World Order when America is falling behind in the backseat!

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Chevalerous]

Had to add this:

I think it's hilarious how people are accusing the OP of not adding a "spoiler alert", or ruining the ending for them.

At this point, it's sorta like one being careful not to ruin the ending of "Gone With The Wind".

I mean, pleeeze. Who would have thought?

Besides, it's not a "book reveiw". He's discussing the philosophy of the content, in which the entirety need be included. Sorry.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


We are all John Galt. We have the power to collectively (as ironic as it is in this context) drop out, choose our own destiny, and stick it to the man. The only thing we don't have is our own currency for trade.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


It is nice to have someone agree with my interpretation for a moment. Whew! If you have The Virtue of Selfishness still on your bookshelf you might be interested in knowing that it is a compilation of essays and The Virtue of Selfishness is just one of many of those essays. It is an easy read and her essay on the virtue of selfishness worthwhile as she makes the ever so valid point that selfishness gets a bad rap. She makes the even more valid point that selfishness has been commonly defined as a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others, and points out that the comma and qualification that follows only undermines the first part of that definition. She effectively argues that regard for others is in a persons rational self interest and it would be foolish to hold disregard for others.

It is not Ayn Rand who makes fascist arguments it is the proponents of Marxism and collectivism who scream fascism in an amusing attempt to convince people that what they have read and interpreted to mean for themselves can only mean what they tell you it means. All of this is really just a distraction though from what I think is the greater issue here, how do we change the U.S. system back into a level playing field where all people can effectively compete in the market place and flourish and prosper?

The Marxist and socialists keep arguing it can only be done through a gargantuan state and apparently we have not yet achieved that gargantuan state yet and need to keep expanding government until they can impose the level playing field that is now reserved for corporate elites. I argue that going in the opposite direction and limiting government and corporate privileges is the surest way to restoring freedom and opportunity.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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...

Ayn Rand's hero's used terrorism.

Sounds uplifiting.

Here's a quote from Rand about Native Americans:

"They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."

She also openly asked he would-be lover to cheat on his wife... what values.

More about this hero:

Rand had become addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, and her natural paranoia and aggression were becoming more extreme as they pumped though her veins. Anybody in her circle who disagreed with her was subjected to a show trial in front of the whole group in which they would be required to repent or face expulsion. Her secretary, Barbara Weiss, said: "I came to look on her as a killer of people." The workings of her cult exposed the hollowness of Rand's claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was, think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me.

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

We are all John Galt. We have the power to collectively (as ironic as it is in this context) drop out, choose our own destiny, and stick it to the man. The only thing we don't have is our own currency for trade.

Exactly! Your irony is appreciated as well as this is to a degree what I am advocating, not collectivism, but rather individuals working together to, as you put it; "drop out, choose our own destiny, and stick it to the man." In terms of having our own currency, silver and gold works just as well today as it has since time immemorial.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

 

It is nice to have someone agree with my interpretation for a moment. Whew! If you have The Virtue of Selfishness still on your bookshelf you might be interested in knowing that it is a compilation of essays and The Virtue of Selfishness is just one of many of those essays. It is an easy read and her essay on the virtue of selfishness worthwhile as she makes the ever so valid point that selfishness gets a bad rap. She makes the even more valid point that selfishness has been commonly defined as a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others, and points out that the comma and qualification that follows only undermines the first part of that definition. She effectively argues that regard for others is in a persons rational self interest and it would be foolish to hold disregard for others.

It is not Ayn Rand who makes fascist arguments it is the proponents of Marxism and collectivism who scream fascism in an amusing attempt to convince people that what they have read and interpreted to mean for themselves can only mean what they tell you it means. All of this is really just a distraction though from what I think is the greater issue here, how do we change the U.S. system back into a level playing field where all people can effectively compete in the market place and flourish and prosper?

The Marxist and socialists keep arguing it can only be done through a gargantuan state and apparently we have not yet achieved that gargantuan state yet and need to keep expanding government until they can impose the level playing field that is now reserved for corporate elites. I argue that going in the opposite direction and limiting government and corporate privileges is the surest way to restoring freedom and opportunity.

Sorry, but AR (who you don't want to talk about) does make plenty of fascist arguments.

You guys are just oblivious to them because it makes you feel better about your base instincts.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

We are all John Galt. We have the power to collectively (as ironic as it is in this context) drop out, choose our own destiny, and stick it to the man. The only thing we don't have is our own currency for trade.

Exactly! Your irony is appreciated as well as this is to a degree what I am advocating, not collectivism, but rather individuals working together to, as you put it; "drop out, choose our own destiny, and stick it to the man." In terms of having our own currency, silver and gold works just as well today as it has since time immemorial.

Try using Silver and Gold at Wal-Mart.

In fact try buying anything from the Rand website with silver and gold... they'll happily take fiat currencies, but alas no metal.

Originally posted by seethelight

Try using Silver and Gold at Wal-Mart.

In fact try buying anything from the Rand website with silver and gold... they'll happily take fiat currencies, but alas no metal.

If people started trading with each other in silver and gold then Wal-Mart would have no choice in the matter. It would also take silver and gold. I could trade with other individuals in silver or gold, they trade with others, etc... The unfortunate thing is that there are too many people wrapped up in paper fiat currency that a competing system would have a hard time getting established.

reply to post by seethelight


You need to figure out how to keep up, seethelight, we are discussing ways in which we can extricate ourselves from a Wal-Mart world, and leave you and the others to your precious corporatism. We would not attempt to exchange silver or gold for products at Wal-Mart and I am suggesting these metals work just fine in creating a new, more valid and infinitely more resilient currency than the fiat money your precious Wal-Mart accepts. I would hope that you some day come to see the light and join us in our efforts to be as special as we can be and to endeavor to create and invent and to produce great product, but I certainly don't advocate any laws that would force you to join us. Are you advocating laws that would force us to be "equal" with you and less of who would aspire to be? Why not we all be equal under the law in terms of same opportunity and then compete with each other to see who can create the better product, would that be so bad in your world?

Originally posted by SpacePunk

Originally posted by seethelight

Try using Silver and Gold at Wal-Mart.

In fact try buying anything from the Rand website with silver and gold... they'll happily take fiat currencies, but alas no metal.

If people started trading with each other in silver and gold then Wal-Mart would have no choice in the matter. It would also take silver and gold. I could trade with other individuals in silver or gold, they trade with others, etc... The unfortunate thing is that there are too many people wrapped up in paper fiat currency that a competing system would have a hard time getting established.

don't worry about the fact that there's hardly enough precious metal to facilitate the consumerism Rand's hero's need.

There's about as gold (discovered and mined currently) as one year of the US budget.

Fat chance gold is ever coming back, unless Libertarians somehow achieve their Mad Maxian wet dreams.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seethelight

 

You need to figure out how to keep up, seethelight, we are discussing ways in which we can extricate ourselves from a Wal-Mart world...

Without Wal-Mart there is no Galt.

This is where this whole argument comes apart.

Galt didn't believe in socialism, but unfettered capitalism, and in America unfettered capitalism is synonymous with Wal-Mart.

How ridiculous is your argument?

Communities Should Welcome Wal-Mart--in the Name of Freedom and Justice

www.aynrand.org...

There you go, the Ayn Rand centre telling you to encourage more Wal-Marts.

This is the biggest problem with espousing a philosophy which you know little about.

According to the Ayn Rand institute:

Trying to stop Wal-Mart is not only morally wrong, it is un-American.

Now even Galt would think you're un-American.

reply to post by seethelight


You go out of your way, quite literally, to misrepresent both Rand and I, the link you just provided is attacking legislation that seeks to limit or prevent Wal-Mart and other corporations from entering a community. There is absolutely nothing about my language that has advocated creating legislation of any kind to restrict any one including corporations. I have advocated boycotting through individual choice, I have advocated creating businesses and associations that would compete with these corporations but I have not in any thread advocated the type of legislation that is being attacked in that link you provided.

Your foolish attempts to characterize me as one who doesn't understand Ayn Rand or objectivism is still just you attempting to derail this thread. If people want to do business with Wal-Mart, what is wrong with that? Here's the problem, if some average guy wants to sell DVD's on the streets of West Covina or Los Angeles he will at some point find himself harassed by police officers and ticketed for attempting to do what Wal-Mart and other stores do, because of an ordinance that has prohibited the activities of street vendors. Do you honestly believe the Ayn Rand Center advocates this kind of intrusive legislation? Do you? I don't think you understand her philosophy at all, see the light, and relying on other peoples articles to tell you how you should think about her work isn't helping you. I'm not telling you what to think of her work, I am however, suggesting you either read for the first time, or if you are to be taken at your word, re-read her works and come to understand her philosophy.

reply to post by seethelight


You are absolutely mistaken. I was discussing Rand, not my own "base instincts," thank you so very much. I won't discuss myself here, but I will tell you I am not a selfish person, in fact, quite the contrary.

To the OP:

I believe that unrestricted corporate capitalism is dividing our country into several unsavory segments, and worry that if something is not accomplished to get it under control, the middle class will become extinct, and join the ranks of the "have-nots". This is not something I would look forward to.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seethelight

 

You go out of your way, quite literally, to misrepresent both Rand and I, the link you just provided is attacking legislation that seeks to limit or prevent Wal-Mart and other corporations from entering a community. There is absolutely nothing about my language that has advocated creating legislation of any kind to restrict any one including corporations. I have advocated boycotting through individual choice, I have advocated creating businesses and associations that would compete with these corporations but I have not in any thread advocated the type of legislation that is being attacked in that link you provided.

Your foolish attempts to characterize me as one who doesn't understand Ayn Rand or objectivism is still just you attempting to derail this thread. If people want to do business with Wal-Mart, what is wrong with that? Here's the problem, if some average guy wants to sell DVD's on the streets of West Covina or Los Angeles he will at some point find himself harassed by police officers and ticketed for attempting to do what Wal-Mart and other stores do, because of an ordinance that has prohibited the activities of street vendors. Do you honestly believe the Ayn Rand Center advocates this kind of intrusive legislation? Do you? I don't think you understand her philosophy at all, see the light, and relying on other peoples articles to tell you how you should think about her work isn't helping you. I'm not telling you what to think of her work, I am however, suggesting you either read for the first time, or if you are to be taken at your word, re-read her works and come to understand her philosophy.

You must be dizzy from your circles...

You said:

We're trying to break free of a Wal-Mart world (in response to me suggesting you couldn't use gold to shop at Wal-Mart).

The Ayn Rand institute doesn't believe you need to be free from a Wal-Mart world, in fact they, like Galt, praise capitalism that's successful.

You're completely misguided notion that there's something WRONG (wrong enough to boycott) with WM is COMPLETELY undermined by what the ARI says, and I quote:

"Wal-Mart is one of the most impressive success stories in the history of business. Founded some 50 years ago as a single five and dime store in a small Arkansas town, it has grown into a world-wide behemoth under the leadership of its brilliant founder, the late Sam Walton, and his able successors. It is the largest corporation in America in terms of sales, $245 billion. Wal-Mart has over 4,000 stores worldwide, employs 1.3 million people, and serves 100 million customers per week.

It is quite true that Wal-Mart has been successful in outcompeting other stores which sell the same products, such as toys, clothing, and groceries. But how has it been able to do this? By discovering new ways of using computer systems and other technology to better manage its inventory and costs and reap the benefits of economy of scale."

This says two things:

1) You think that there's something wrong with a model US company - ARI disagrees
2) You're a sore loser.

If you could compete you would, but instead you boycott.

It's your right to boycott; your right as a sore loser.

I'm pretty sure Galt wouldn't boycott WM, he'd successfully either blow up all their stores (so there's an idea for you) or he'd come up with a plan to crush them competitively.

Seems you don't have the balls for violence or the brains to compete.

Where's the part in Atlas shrugged where Galt started a petition?

Oh riiiiiight... it's not in there.

And how do I know? I've read her books... and understood them.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by seethelight]

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by seethelight

 

You are absolutely mistaken. I was discussing Rand, not my own "base instincts," thank you so very much. I won't discuss myself here, but I will tell you I am not a selfish person, in fact, quite the contrary.

To the OP:

I believe that unrestricted corporate capitalism is dividing our country into several unsavory segments, and worry that if something is not accomplished to get it under control, the middle class will become extinct, and join the ranks of the "have-nots". This is not something I would look forward to.

If you're a selfless follower of Rand you're either not very bright... or....

Nope, that's about the only option.

If you are NOT selfish AND don't agree with Rand, then huzzah!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seethelight

 

You go out of your way, quite literally, to misrepresent both Rand and I, the link you just provided is attacking legislation that seeks to limit or prevent Wal-Mart and other corporations from entering a community. There is absolutely nothing about my language that has advocated creating legislation of any kind to restrict any one including corporations. I have advocated boycotting through individual choice, I have advocated creating businesses and associations that would compete with these corporations but I have not in any thread advocated the type of legislation that is being attacked in that link you provided.

Your foolish attempts to characterize me as one who doesn't understand Ayn Rand or objectivism is still just you attempting to derail this thread. If people want to do business with Wal-Mart, what is wrong with that? Here's the problem, if some average guy wants to sell DVD's on the streets of West Covina or Los Angeles he will at some point find himself harassed by police officers and ticketed for attempting to do what Wal-Mart and other stores do, because of an ordinance that has prohibited the activities of street vendors. Do you honestly believe the Ayn Rand Center advocates this kind of intrusive legislation? Do you? I don't think you understand her philosophy at all, see the light, and relying on other peoples articles to tell you how you should think about her work isn't helping you. I'm not telling you what to think of her work, I am however, suggesting you either read for the first time, or if you are to be taken at your word, re-read her works and come to understand her philosophy.

And again, btw:

Encouraging capitalism by bashing Wal-Mart - Not to bright

Kinda like encouraging freedom by promoting a fascist.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by seethelight

 

You are absolutely mistaken. I was discussing Rand, not my own "base instincts," thank you so very much. I won't discuss myself here, but I will tell you I am not a selfish person, in fact, quite the contrary.

To the OP:

I believe that unrestricted corporate capitalism is dividing our country into several unsavory segments, and worry that if something is not accomplished to get it under control, the middle class will become extinct, and join the ranks of the "have-nots". This is not something I would look forward to.

I appreciate your concerns and share them with you, I would however, argue that what you call "unrestricted corporate capitalism" is not capitalism at all but is what John Kenneth Galbraith termed as oligopolism. Capitalism has three basic tenets that must necessarily be adhered to in order for it to be capitalism. These three tenets are:

1) A free and unregulated Marketplace.

2.) Massive competition.

3.) A uniform currency backed by real wealth whereby all can agree on the value of this currency.

Not one of these tenets exists in today's "free market" system. Regulation is the order of the day and corporations spend billions of dollars every year to lobby Congress and state legislatures to create even more regulations. You don't think the mom and pop businesspeople are lobbying for more regulation do you? You don't think regulation is accomplished by the sheer will of unions and American socialists do you? It happens because corporations want it to happen, because it helps them to destroy...

Massive competition! Corporations despise competition and both Pepsi and Coca-Cola have conspired to shut out any would be competitors just as every major corporation does. Coca-Cola will tolerate Pepsi and vice versa due to anti-trust laws, but allow massive competition? Right. Fuggedaboutit! Corporations will, through lobbying for intrusive legislation, through aggressive business practices and/or leveraged buy outs, do what they can to destroy competition.

This leaves us with a currency backed by wealth that all can agree upon the value of that currency. You do realize that the U.S. has been relying upon fiat currency since Nixon was President, right? As long as we are reliant on fiat money we have no currency backed by wealth and all we can agree on is that it is useless and can only have any real worth if it is backed by consumer confidence.

Corporatism, or oligopolism is the problem not laissez faire capitalism. Capitalism is what both the poor and middle class need if they are to continue their necessary rise up and to ensure they flourish and prosper. Capitalism will never be allowed to operate under the three tenets I just listed as long as we keep agreeing to the system in place today.



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

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by seethelight

 

You are absolutely mistaken. I was discussing Rand, not my own "base instincts," thank you so very much. I won't discuss myself here, but I will tell you I am not a selfish person, in fact, quite the contrary.

To the OP:

I believe that unrestricted corporate capitalism is dividing our country into several unsavory segments, and worry that if something is not accomplished to get it under control, the middle class will become extinct, and join the ranks of the "have-nots". This is not something I would look forward to.

It's actually pretty clear that you're all right in my book.

I to think that Rand's false-utopia is a recipe for disaster.