Is Ayn Rands “Atlas Shrugged” a prophecy? It’s starting to look likely.

I don't understand how working in self interest is greedy. You start a business of course out of self interest, whether that be for monetary satisfaction or creative satisfaction. That's not greed. It's what humans are supposed to be. To me greed is attempting to get more than what you have worked for and earned. For example: my teen daughter works and my teen son does not. She is working for self interest. She wants the money. She does good, works and earns her money. If she comes home with her money and my son feels he is entitled to it because she3 has some and he doesn't and she fights to keep the money she works for, which one is greedy? What entitles him to what she worked for? Should she be forced to give him money by me the parent or should that be a choice?

You know, I'm going to write a book about a plant that gains consciousness/intelligence through a scientific experiment. The story will focus around this plants hopeless attempts to get the short-sighted and greedy leaders of Business and Government to stop destroying the biosphere before the planet "shrugs" them off. Of course the plant is shunned by the mindless public and is forced to find refuge in a natural paradise before the planet commences its retribution. I will call this book "Gaia Shrugged".

-Ghoster

reply to post by theghoster


I really like this idea.

reply to post by theghoster


It's already been done. It was called "A Little Shop of Horrors"

Except the plant didn't shrug them off, it ate them.

Or were you meaning Planet?

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by theghoster

 

It's already been done. It was called "A Little Shop of Horrors"

Except the plant didn't shrug them off, it ate them.

Or were you meaning Planet?

Oh, I wasn't actually going to write the book; I was merely joking! The message of the book would probably never be listened to anyway. And yes, I meant Planet.

reply to post by theghoster


I look at Atlas Shrugged just as I look at any book I read. Whether it be the Bible, Koran, Torah or any novel that has a philosophical topic, whether it be Sci-Fi, Mystery novel.

I pick and choose the points I agree with and discard the others.

But concerning Atlas Shrugged, I am seeing a correlation between when the novel was written and now.

reply to post by icmom


I don't understand how working in self interest is greedy. You start a business of course out of self interest, whether that be for monetary satisfaction or creative satisfaction. That's not greed. It's what humans are supposed to be. To me greed is attempting to get more than what you have worked for and earned. For example: my teen daughter works and my teen son does not. She is working for self interest. She wants the money. She does good, works and earns her money. If she comes home with her money and my son feels he is entitled to it because she3 has some and he doesn't and she fights to keep the money she works for, which one is greedy? What entitles him to what she worked for? Should she be forced to give him money by me the parent or should that be a choice?

To begin with, there is a difference between what one thinks is in their best interest, and what actually is. I'm not saying someone else should tell you that for you, but education is important for understanding this. More than likely, no one knows enough about the universe to make a truly wise decision.

However, unhealthy decisions will always come back to bite you, as that is their very nature.

Working in your own self interest can be greedy if it involves exploiting others. For example, what if your daughter had your son go out and work for her, then made him pay her 9/10 of what he made, and then when he asked her for help purchasing food, she refused, citing the fact that he was being greedy?

What would happen is in no one's best interest, trust me.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by theghoster

 

I look at Atlas Shrugged just as I look at any book I read. Whether it be the Bible, Koran, Torah or any novel that has a philosophical topic, whether it be Sci-Fi, Mystery novel.

I pick and choose the points I agree with and discard the others.

But concerning Atlas Shrugged, I am seeing a correlation between when the novel was written and now.

Yeah, some themes of her story are relevant to the politics of today, but I would argue that it isn't nearly as dystopic in our times as it is in her novel.

reply to post by darkbake


"For example, what if your daughter had your son go out and work for her, then made him pay her 9/10 of what he made, and then when he asked her for help purchasing food, she refused, citing the fact that he was being greedy? "

And that is how business feels about big government.

No one forces anyone to work. It is a choice. We choose it for our own good. Of course out of that statement I leave out those who absolutely cannot, like the diabled, but even most of those around here do the work they are capable of. One of my daughters is a job coach for the mentally and physically challenged and the people she works with are so proud to work and have their own money.

But in this case, it would be his choice of whether or not to do that. He could say no and look for other ways to sustain himself. I think people spend too much time seeing themselves as dependent victims and it weakens them and the rest of society.

Originally posted by icmom

 

And that is how business feels about big government.

Good point but I think you are lumping all business together when in fact there are two parts. The really big boys who government actually works for and the rest. I think you mean how the rest feel about big government.

No one forces anyone to work. It is a choice. We choose it for our own good.

Actually necesity forces one to work in one way or another.

I think people spend too much time seeing themselves as dependent victims and it weakens them and the rest of society.

It looks like that is what you are doing in the point you made above.

Originally posted by Thepump

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Thepump

 

In her book "the producers" virtually leave society because they are stifled.

yes, now please descibe how being stifled is competetive in any manner.

Atlas Shrugged is a book - it is fiction, I do not believe that it represents our current position.

Can you provide examples where power brokers and producers quit participating in society???
No, because it is a book.

huh ??
options are options ONLY when an opt-out exists.
otherwise it isn't an option.

You can opt out, go for for it, whats preventing you?

But I guess if you opt out, you expect everyone else to pay for you medical care should you be unable to
manage it yourself?

What is it with you Republican types? The Mandate is taylor made for "personal responsibility" conservatives.

i firmly disagree.

And you firmly don't understand Ayn Rand 1 bit - It is scary to think that you cannot even understand
what you are talking about or advocating for.

Rand published a book called the "Virtues of Selfishness"

and this isn't possible and here's why.
self interest cannot be demonstrated by a company or corporation.
it is always a collective interest ... NEVER self interest.

Rand would disagree and tell you, you are full of crap.

Rand would say everyone is an individual motivation by selfish desires. I am not sure why I am even
bothering to talk with you, you are clueless on your Ayn Rand, absolutely lost in the bushes...

you've never studied much about the Stalin regime, have you ?
if you had, you wouldn't be asking such silly questions.

yes, it's a fiction classed book ... so is the Protocols of Zion ... doesn't change the relevance of either.

how many "producers" exist in your neighborhood, today ??
[we still have quite a few here but yes, several have closed and gone elsewhere]
in this region, cigar manufacturers come to mind, immediately.

But I guess if you opt out, you expect everyone else to pay for you medical care should you be unable to
manage it yourself?

have been managing it myself for 1/2 century, why change it now ?

besides, under Obamacare, this is a moot topic ... as there is no "opt-out" option.

What is it with you Republican types? The Mandate is taylor made for "personal responsibility" conservatives

don't know, guess you'd have to ask one

if i don't understand Ayn, what makes you think YOU do ?
i could be wrong here but i think i've been reading her material alot longer than you have.
[speaking of which, did you even READ the book or just watch a movie and claim to know all ?]

yes, i read Virtues too ... disagree with most of it, what's your point ?
Virtues hasn't been made into a movie nor was it recognized as a literary masterpiece ... so again, what's your point here ?

Rand would say everyone is an individual motivation by selfish desires. I am not sure why I am even
bothering to talk with you, you are clueless on your Ayn Rand, absolutely lost in the bushes

soooo, because you watched ONE movie, you're suddenly an expert on all things Rand ??

and as you stated it (which she wouldn't), i happen to agree.
we ARE individuals driven by self-interest since the moment we're born.
what about that ^^^ is wrong ?

i cannot view video so if it's important, please summarize.

Originally posted by theghoster

Yeah, some themes of her story are relevant to the politics of today, but I would argue that it isn't nearly as dystopic in our times as it is in her novel.

It is a novel after all, and as such, must have a accelerated timeline. Otherwise no one would read it.

I believe though, that if you look through the last five decades...this novel is being played out.

For example:

The Cloward-Pliven startegy

“We will take America without firing a shot…….We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. We do not have to invade the United States; we will destroy you from within.” -- Nikita Kruschev

etc..etc

reply to post by darkbake

if you choose to simplify it for your level understanding, feel free.

btw, i seriously doubt you bought and read the item in the 1st link

actually no, his father hails from a communist/socialist structure.
his father was a devout muslim.
Obama Sr wrongly blamed American ingenuity for his own ppl's suffering.

right or wrong, these are the lessons BHO absorbed and chooses to act upon.

hmmmm, ok, which part of social justice or equitable distribution doesn't translate to wealth re-distrbution ??

yes, and those who were air-lifted were also "academically inferior students" so, what's your point here ?

not all efforts go according to plan and Obama Sr did not disrupt the communist influences, he enhanced, encouraged and spread them as far as he possibly could until his eventual demise.

i see you read where JRobinson provided his scholarship but yet you don't address why a muslim would sponsor a NON-muslim's education.

a bit disingenuous aren't ya ?

This would make Obama's dad an anti-communist who came to study in the U.S. and return to Kenya in order to help his people, while simultaneously aiding the U.S. and the C.I.A. in its fight against communism.

only in your dreams.

reply to post by darkbake

I don't think that self-interest is a bad thing. I just think that it is in everyone's self-interest to live in a civilized society. My view of self-interest happens to be more advanced than Ayn Rands, who over-simplifies it

self-interest is simplistic ... no point in complicating the issue.
self-interest has NOTHING to do with society as a whole.
tis a shame you haven't learned this yet.

Originally posted by daskakik

Good point but I think you are lumping all business together when in fact there are two parts. The really big boys who government actually works for and the rest. I think you mean how the rest feel about big government.

Business is business. The really big boys are simply businesses that have been grouped together, as in joining into corporate partnerships or through acquisitions. In any area of life, the larger group has the louder voice. The difference between the corps. and the citizens is the corps are more proactive in having their needs meet.


Actually necesity forces one to work in one way or another.

Always , always, always a choice. I can choose to work for my food. I can choose to dumpster dive for it. I can choose to steal it from another. I can choose to sit in this one spot and starve to death. Nevertheless, necessity is a concept, not an individual. It's about taking personal responsibility and doing what is in your self interest.


It looks like that is what you are doing in the point you made above.

I don't see how

edit on 30-11-2012 by icmom because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-11-2012 by icmom because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by icmom
Business is business. The really big boys are simply businesses that have been grouped together, as in joining into corporate partnerships or through acquisitions. In any area of life, the larger group has the louder voice. The difference between the corps. and the citizens is the corps are more proactive in having their needs meet.

If you can't see the difference then too bad.

Always , always, always a choice. I can choose to work for my food. I can choose to dumpster dive for it. I can choose to steal it from another. I can choose to sit in this one spot and starve to death. Nevertheless, necessity is a concept, not an individual. It's about taking personal responsibility and doing what is in your self interest.

All those things, except for sitting in one spot and starving, are work and the survival instinct won't allow most to do that, so it really isn't a choice.

The concept can be used by individuals.

I don't see how

Saying government is exploiting you is the same as workers saying you are exploiting them, just different levels.

This is why I said businesses split into two catagories.

reply to post by darkbake

i am glad you indicate there is no ulterior motive to your negelgence but that doesn't explain it one bit.

We are individuals, and a pure capitalist society without regulation would allow for a few people to get power... power over other individuals, keeping them from pursuing their self-interest. You and I would very likely end up in this second category.

sorry, can't agree with ya here, not even in parts.
i'm already living it in this "regulated to failure" of a society.

[pure capitalist society ?? what we have is not even close]

On the other extreme, the communists acted in their self-interest as workers and overthrew the bourgeois. In fact, most of Marx' criticism is of the middle-class.

right or wrong, how does this statement apply to the thread ?

fyi, communists do not EVER act in self-interest, that is totally against the principle of communism.

I agree with you, we need to live in a society where people can pursue what is in their best interest. But the answer to that is not a society owned by a few capitalist elite

this mixed ball of wax i kinda agree with, in part.
yes, society should evolve under the auspice of self-interest.
however, the controlling elite are not 'capitalists' in the truest sense of the word. (their actions fit the marxist/nazi teachings almost to a T)

i'm glad we are not polar opposites on this subject.
this book surprisingly was slightly prophetic ... however, i don't see it culminating in the decline of society, rather, i view it as a potential catalyst of a much needed shift in the current paradigm.

reply to post by daskakik

Actually necesity forces one to work in one way or another.

labors of love and labors of an IOU are not comparable under any paradigm.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by icmom
Business is business. The really big boys are simply businesses that have been grouped together, as in joining into corporate partnerships or through acquisitions. In any area of life, the larger group has the louder voice. The difference between the corps. and the citizens is the corps are more proactive in having their needs meet.

If you can't see the difference then too bad.

Touche. As a business owner whose one business was once a proprietorship and is now a corporation, I think I know the difference. Perhaps what you are talking about are publicly traded corps as compared to privately owned? The only difference there are the number of investors. I can sell you shares of my business privately if you want to invest in it. If you wanted to invest in Walmart or an oil company you would buy shares through the stock exchange.. Few investment partners versus multiple investment partners is the difference. In my business my husband and I are the shareholders, in Walmart everyone who has invested is shareholders.

Always , always, always a choice. I can choose to work for my food. I can choose to dumpster dive for it. I can choose to steal it from another. I can choose to sit in this one spot and starve to death. Nevertheless, necessity is a concept, not an individual. It's about taking personal responsibility and doing what is in your self interest.

All those things, except for sitting in one spot and starving, are work and the survival instinct won't allow most to do that, so it really isn't a choice.

The concept can be used by individuals.

If you look back at what you said, you used the example of my daughter forcing my son to work for her and making him giver 9/10ths. I said it is a choice to work for someone else. We choose to look out for our well-being in our own interest. WE can also choose not to.

I don't see how

Saying government is exploiting you is the same as workers saying you are exploiting them, just different levels.

This is why I said businesses split into two catagories.

I disagree. You will not face criminal charges for choosing not to be exploited by me, while a business owner would for choosing not to be exploited by the government. You can quit working for an exploitive employer. An employer cannot quit paying taxes and other mandated benefits, or just ignore government regulations.

And I am sorry I haven't figured out the quote just yet.

edit on 30-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by icmom
Touche. As a business owner whose one business was once a proprietorship and is now a corporation, I think I know the difference. Perhaps what you are talking about are publicly traded corps as compared to privately owned? The only difference there are the number of investors. I can sell you shares of my business privately if you want to invest in it. If you wanted to invest in Walmart or an oil company you would buy shares through the stock exchange.. Few investment partners versus multiple investment partners is the difference. In my business my husband and I are the shareholders, in Walmart everyone who has invested is shareholders.

I mean businesses with close ties to government and those without it.

If you look back at what you said, you used the example of my daughter forcing my son to work for her and making him giver 9/10ths. I said it is a choice to work for someone else. We choose to look out for our well-being in our own interest. WE can also choose not to.

Actually that was another members example. My point is that we are forced to look out for our well being instinctively and this eliminates any real choice.

I disagree. You will not face criminal charges for choosing not to be exploited by my as a business owner would for choosing not to be exploited by the government.

Neither will those businesses with close ties to government. Sometimes they get bailed out.

And I am sorry I haven't figured out the quote just yet.

(quote) at the beggining of the text you want to quote.
(/quote) at the end.
Replace () with [].