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

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

any chance you could be more specific with this comment ?

I mean businesses with close ties to government and those without it
the only businesses i've ever come across that don't have close ties to government are usually illegal ones.

by industry, i cannot think of one.
healthcare, R&D, oil/gas, service, transportation/logistics, legal, construction or demolition ... i know i'm missing quite a few but i cannot think of one that isn't exploiting their "close ties to government", can you ?


My point is that we are forced to look out for our well being instinctively and this eliminates any real choice
this sounds like you are against sacrifice ?
surely that isn't what you meant


plenty of successful ppl have sacrificed alot to be successful.
are you suggesting everyone should make their own cake if they want to eat some ?

if you're best at building and i'm best at baking, why should you have to bake your own cake ?? couldn't you have the best of both worlds even though we are operating under our own self-interests?




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik
 

any chance you could be more specific with this comment ?

I mean businesses with close ties to government and those without it
the only businesses i've ever come across that don't have close ties to government are usually illegal ones.

by industry, i cannot think of one.
healthcare, R&D, oil/gas, service, transportation/logistics, legal, construction or demolition ... i know i'm missing quite a few but i cannot think of one that isn't exploiting their "close ties to government", can you ?

Mom and Pop/small businesses.


this sounds like you are against sacrifice ?
surely that isn't what you meant

All I'm saying is that by instinct we are forced to survive and therefore it isn't a choice. We may choose how we survive but sitting in one spot and starving isn't really an option. Everything else is work. What I posted has nothing to do with what or how much sacrifice someone puts into their endeavors.

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



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

mom/pop businesses is far tooooo general an answer.
plenty of them are members of PACs, plenty of them contribute politcally (tax write-off and all), and plenty of them have family members who are also government employees.

so, how/why do they get a pass when they have their fingers in the same pie ?


All I'm saying is that by instinct we are forced to survive and therefore it isn't a choice.
and this is where we disagree, living/surviving is instinct, dying isn't even a choice of our making any more ... plenty of ppl are denied their choice to be relieved of their ongoing suffering.
what that is ... is a classic example of over-regulation.



We may choose how we survive but sitting in one spot and starving isn't really an option.
sure it is, i see it on corners daily around here, don't you ?


Everything else is work. What I posted has nothing to do with what or how much sacrifice someone puts into their endeavors.
fair enough but you still haven't explained how labors of love (surviving) are equal to labors of an IOU (paycheck).
that is the point, afterall.

i always get a kick out of ppl who belittle service industry workers.
the general consensus is that those employees are either too stupid or too lazy to get a better job. what is hilarious is that many of those ppl CHOOSE to be of service to their neighbors ... what is so bad about that ? (aside from the paltry paycheck)

in my family (many generations ago), so many of us were in servitude of one form or another, that it is actually depicted on the family crest.

ETA -- expanding on the sitting around starving concept.
i am not implying it is a conscious choice, however, it is still a choice.
plenty of ppl who are sitting around starving are quite capable of assisting the next guy ... even if it is as miniscule as weeding his garden.
the motivation to do ANYTHING besides sitting around starving is what is lacking and simultaneously the greatest accomplishment of regulation.
edit on 30-11-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik
 

mom/pop businesses is far tooooo general an answer.
plenty of them are members of PACs, plenty of them contribute politcally (tax write-off and all), and plenty of them have family members who are also government employees.

so, how/why do they get a pass when they have their fingers in the same pie ?

Well the part that isn't "plenty of them" is the general answer.

I don't understand your last question. If you mean why some get a pass while others don't the answer would probably be contribution size.


and this is where we disagree, living/surviving is instinct, dying isn't even a choice of our making any more ... plenty of ppl are denied their choice to be relieved of their ongoing suffering.
what that is ... is a classic example of over-regulation.

This has nothing to do with what icmom and I were discussing. We were discussing the "choice" to work or not work.


fair enough but you still haven't explained how labors of love (surviving) are equal to labors of an IOU (paycheck).
that is the point, afterall.

Might be your point but not mine.


i always get a kick out of ppl who belittle service industry workers.
the general consensus is that those employees are either too stupid or too lazy to get a better job. what is hilarious is that many of those ppl CHOOSE to be of service to their neighbors ... what is so bad about that ? (aside from the paltry paycheck)

in my family (many generations ago), so many of us were in servitude of one form or another, that it is actually depicted on the family crest.

I fail to see where you got the idea that I have anything against service industry workers.

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



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 



"Mom and pop/ small business"

You are confused and led astray. I will attempt to bring you back,lol. My business is a mom/pop small business, but it is also a corporation. At one time it was a sole proprietorship. This meant if our driver drove through a building with our truck if the amount of our insurance coverage could not pay the damage we could be sued for our personal belonging such as our family home. That is very risky. So, we incorporated the business. Now it it is it's own entity, a separate individual if you will. It owns the trucks. It pays us paychecks. We work for it. Now if a driver drives through a building it will be sued instead of us. It owns the trucks and other business equipment and employs the driver while we own our personal non business stuff separately.

A corporation is not really owned by people. It is an individual. But it is not a person. It's an individual in name only. There are shareholders and employees. There is a board that is voted in to make the decisions for it by the shareholders. The more shares you own, the more votes you get to decide who is on the board. Now people get can get as pissed at corporations as they want, but it's like getting made at the boogey man. You can get mad at the board, but that usually doesn't make sense because the board is elected by shareholders. You can get mad at the shareholders, but that is really strange because in the case of publicly traded businesses, the angry public is the shareholders. Some may own more shares and have more votes than others, but it's the public who invests in these corps and it is the behaviour and desires of the public that create the actions of the corp. The public wants cheap goods, the employees and boards of the corp find better ways to get cheap goods to the public so the business continues to make money for the shareholders who are also the public. Watchin unions Occupy Wallstreet was one of the moments when I knew the world had gone nuts. Apparently they don't know where their retirement funds are coming from.

Close government ties?

I know 2 guys in my town who own businessess that require front end loaders and such, one a plumber and one an excavator. The town council passed a bylaw that they cannot drive the equipment through town because it was wrecking a road. Well there is no other way to get to the other side of town without going on a 10 mile jaunt around the town on the highway. This is slow and dangerous to the public on the highway as well as the equipment driver as there are left hand turns on a highway involved and these machines move slow.

So the guys took one of the guys on the council out for a beer and explained their concerns. Having these businesses in town is good for the town. It's convenient and both guys provide a bit of employment in a small town. The council went back and talked with the other council guys and the bylaw was repealed but the businesses have to pay a couple hundred more dollars a year to the town for road repair. Thjis is not criminal behaviour. This is human beings trying to work out what is best for all involved.

Of course there are naysayers. There are some old lades yacking about diesel fumes, old men complaining about imperfect roads, but when they want some work done they are glad to have the business in town.Big corporations can just do it on a bigger level. They can go federal.

And yes there is sometimes corruption, but that is humans, not the fault of business. We have a politician in Canada right now who is accused of giving all the construction work or something to her brother's business. It's not some big corp. It's her brother. That is her corruption that is the problem. It's anti-capitalism actually. Capitalism is about competition. There was no competition for the job. You can't get a much closer tie than than having your sister in government, lol. We should have been able to trust her, but she was not worthy.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by icmom
 

I was replying to Honor93's examples. You actually proved my point. Those willing to scratch the back of government will have government scratch theirs. That is close ties and there really isn't a sector that can be pointed at as inclusive or exclusive of these sorts of actions.

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



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

contribution size ?
are you indicating that those who contribute more or less should get a pass ?
and honestly, isn't that less than fair anyway ?

my point was, they all have their fingers/some a whole hand inside the same cookie jar ... why should contributions determine who gets a cookie ?

same choice, i've made it many times in my life.

surviving is also a choice ... as it should be.

mothers work every day of their lives and do so without a paycheck ... are you inferring they don't?

considering paid vs non-paid work, it's all the same ... it's work.
so, why should some be overly compensated while others are not compensated at all ?


Might be your point but not mine
since it was very intertwined in the book, perhaps it should be.

i never indicated you did, it was a general example.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
actually it is.
doesn't matter if it's on a corporate level or an individual one.
however, without competition, we have -0- progress.

competition is the spark that ignites innovation.
the desire to make an existing thing, better, is still competition.


The desire to make something better is not competition until another individual decided to do it better and the two entities compete for a single market.

These same two indivduals, both having a genuine desire to make something better, would do so faster and more exactly by working together for the betterment of the market they are trying to help through inovation.

Competition is needed in Capitolism to survive. Not in mankind. It is required in the governmental systems mankind created apart from God, not the actual truth of life.

In reality the desire to help others through cooperation has far greater effect on the wolrd as a whole then competition can ever create.

Competition = my way is best
Cooperation = something needs to get better, let's work together and find the best way.

Way of take, way of give.

Service to self, service to others.

Competitiion, Cooperation.

It is NOT required by a humble or meek mankind, but it is required by one full of pride and ambition.

God Bless,



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik
 

contribution size ?
are you indicating that those who contribute more or less should get a pass ?
and honestly, isn't that less than fair anyway ?

I'm not advocating anything. I'm stating how things seem to be.


my point was, they all have their fingers/some a whole hand inside the same cookie jar ... why should contributions determine who gets a cookie ?

Because that is how the game is played.


same choice, i've made it many times in my life.

surviving is also a choice ... as it should be.

Again, no idea what your talking about.


mothers work every day of their lives and do so without a paycheck ... are you inferring they don't?

considering paid vs non-paid work, it's all the same ... it's work.
so, why should some be overly compensated while others are not compensated at all ?

I'm the one that said that everything that people do is work and that the survival instinct drives us to do something so that doing nothing is not really a choice. I don't understand why you seem to keep adding things to what I post.


since it was very intertwined in the book, perhaps it should be.


I wasn't really commenting on the book but on another members post. I don't care for Ayn Rand's ideas.

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



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 

i disagree as the original concept (before someone decided it needed to be better) had a corner on that same market.

any innovation beyond the original concept is competition, that's why we developed patents for explicit periods of time ... to avert competition.


These same two indivduals, both having a genuine desire to make something better, would do so faster and more exactly by working together for the betterment of the market they are trying to help through inovation
in this country, that only works if a patent isn't standing in their way.

competition is needed in any societal stucture as it provides natural advancement.


Not in mankind. It is required in the governmental systems mankind created apart from God, not the actual truth of life
yeah, i'm sure the vikings and gladiators would agree



In reality the desire to help others through cooperation has far greater effect on the wolrd as a whole then competition can ever create.
BS and i think you're either confused or brain-washed.
too much of one without the other leads to apathy on more levels than a mental one.
{see any indigenous tribal collective still operating today - how many innovations, creations or advancements have originated from such societies?}

with this ...

Competition = my way is best
Cooperation = something needs to get better, let's work together and find the best way
i'm going with brain-washed


sts & sto don't even apply in this conversation.
sts is what makes sto possible.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 

The world does not need competition to survive ... it needs co-operation.

You will never understand Wall Street until you realize it is not the money but the game...
...money is just the method of keeping score.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

inferring and advocating are not the same thing.
i did not suggest you were advocating anything.
try again.

what you are doing is avoiding the question (so noted)


Because that is how the game is played
only by those who choose to be players in said game. i'm not one of them.

hmmm, deflect, deflect, avoid ... not such hidden tactics anymore are they?

twisting my commentary to meet yours isn't part of the game.

I'm the one that said that everything that people do is work and that the survival instinct drives us to do something so that doing nothing is not really a choice. I don't understand why you seem to keep adding things to what I post
doing nothing is ALWAYS a choice. one of which plenty of ppl seem to embrace.

if you don't care for the book or Rand's ideas, why are you posting in this thread ?
trolling maybe ?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
you've never studied much about the Stalin regime, have you ?
if you had, you wouldn't be asking such silly questions.


What is the point of that comment?



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.


Not sure of the point here either?

Pretty much the same producers that have been about since before I was born, plus the new ones.



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


Don't buy insurance than



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 ?}


I believe I understand because I have watched her interviews and lectures. What I type is based upon
what she says, it is pretty simply.

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.



If the concept you convey regarding Rand's stated philosophy was semi accurate I wouldn't have responded the way I did.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Well you seem to have missed the point I tried to make.

I am not deflecting, I'm refusing to address things you are bringing up because they were not part of my initial point. They are things that you inferred which I had made no comment about.

Honestly I don't know why you do that. Like the statement about service sector workers and mothers not working. I have no idea where you came up with those. How do you expect me to answer to those types of things when I never mentioned them?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Thepump
 


What is the point of that comment?
foundation, foundation, foundation ... hers and the storyline's.

so, you're not sure of the point, yet you lie anyways ?
why ?

Not sure of the point here either?
Pretty much the same producers that have been about since before I was born, plus the new ones.
without specifics, you're feeding us BS.
what region and which producers ?

agriculture ?? sure, that's been around forever, but, Monsanto hasn't been.
research & development ?? same thing, however, Dupont didn't come without strings attached.

we could go on and on but you refuse to discuss details, why ?

we don't have a choice under Obamacare, why do you think i would ?

unfortunately, what you believe and what you know aren't the same thing.
interviews are not the storyline or the book.

practice makes perfect (quotes) ... at least you're trying


the AS book, that this thread is about, does not encompass all of Rand's philosophies.
why would you think it did ?

if you cannot discuss the content of one story, please take your rants about her philosophy to the proper forum, thanks.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93
 

Well you seem to have missed the point I tried to make.

I am not deflecting, I'm refusing to address things you are bringing up because they were not part of my initial point. They are things that you inferred which I had made no comment about.

Honestly I don't know why you do that. Like the statement about service sector workers and mothers not working. I have no idea where you came up with those. How do you expect me to answer to those types of things when I never mentioned them?




I agree with you

"Honor 93"

Is very big on dragging a discussion into some pointless regions.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I always understood :Atlas Shrugged" as a cautionary tale



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Thepump
 


What is the point of that comment?
foundation, foundation, foundation ... hers and the storyline's.

so, you're not sure of the point, yet you lie anyways ?
why ?


What am I lying about?

If you wanna jerk around and play footsy, find someone else.


without specifics, you're feeding us BS.
what region and which producers ?

Well lets see, the majority of computer companies that were here when I was born, are still here. Do
I have to list them or can you concede that. Same with fast food, beer, dairy, frozen meals, TV stations,
guitar companies, car companies, movie producers, music producers...

It is tiresome that you base your responses on such inane grounds.

What will listing the words

GE
McDonalds
Burger King
Coke,
Pepsi
Apple
IBM
and a million other staples gonna establish??

What details do you want ?

You know, forget it, I don't have the energy.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93
 

Well you seem to have missed the point I tried to make.

I am not deflecting, I'm refusing to address things you are bringing up because they were not part of my initial point. They are things that you inferred which I had made no comment about.

Honestly I don't know why you do that. Like the statement about service sector workers and mothers not working. I have no idea where you came up with those. How do you expect me to answer to those types of things when I never mentioned them?


no, i addressed your points, all of them, however, you are avoiding participating in the basic concept of a conversation. claiming my points are invalid does not invalidate them.

actually, i asked questions, how does that infer anything ?
your refusal to address them or even answer does not lend well to a conversation.
? cooperation you say ?? a demonstration would be nice


workers are workers, whether they get a paycheck or not ... that IS the point.
no group of workers are more important, more valued or more dismissed than that of "mothers".
so, in this society, why are they not compensated at all for their efforts ?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Thepump
 

so, you've got nothing but a personal attack, eh ??
typical.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join