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

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

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


since you don't know the difference between producers and providers, i'll just leave you to your own little fantasy.




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
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.

No you didn't. My first point was a reply to icmom who stated how businesses feel about big government.


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

Your questions don't address my point so what am I supposed to answer?


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 ?

Again can you point out where I said that they are not?

In the point where I mention work, I am not even talking about workers. I'm talking about humans in general and how even if they don't have an official job they still must do something to survive. I have no idea how you twisted that around but, again, it has nothing to do with my point so I have no answer for you.

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



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

ATTENTION!!!!!!



This thread is about Ayn Rand's book...not personal bickering.
It stops NOW!!!!!!!!
You are responsible for your own posts.

Failure to stay on topic will have consequences.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


In a way I agree, but I was pointing out that it is not a certain size or type of business, and that it is not always underhanded. Government regulations are often put in place without things being thought completely through. There is often more ideology than rationality. The laws are put in place depending on who gets there first. There has to be some kind of compromise between government, business and people that will make sense and keep the economy moving. If business is regulated to the point where they can't earn money the businesses won't exist. None of us want to work for nothing. The only way that can happen is if the government owns all the businesses and runs them with no profit while hiring the citizens to work them and that is communism.It doesn't work. Exactly why Atlas Shrugged was written. She lived through that and saw her father's business taken away by the government.

And to stay on topic, the book is not really prophetic, because we keep going through these cycles of economic systems trying to get it right, but the real problem human nature.



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



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by icmom
 


I understand what you mean, the following is the reason I mentioned small businesses, using the story you shared.

Say there is a larger company who wants to grow. They then take the same council members and "present" their case. Before you know it the bylaw is back in effect. The small businesses can no longer build enough pressure to get the law changed. The larger company has to get their equipment trucked in anyway so they are not affected by the bylaw but it lets them compete and maybe even gives them an advantage over the locals.

This grows on every level: city, county, state and federal. At each level the players on that level can negativaly effect those below because of size/wealth. So, while fingers can't be pointed at specific companies, it is the kind of thing that happens.

I understand that Ayn Rand's experience under communism gave form to her stance against it and full support for laissez-faire capitalism, The problem is that neither of them work. You will often come across the claim that what capitalist countries have today is not capitalism. That is true but if you think about it it is what capitalism ended up being.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


reply to post by daskakik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[color=amber] i said ... "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"
the above was my first response to your posting.

then, in a following post, i proceeded to ask several questions ... from there, it's been downhill.

like i said before, cooperation is a two-way street.
you don't want to cooperate, fine, now multiply that times 4 billion or so ppl and what do ya get ?

fortunately, for our sake, Rand was seeing the same principles being exercised today in a much smaller population ... remarkably, the fictional characters in her story were able to overcome their personal selfishness.
In today's world, personal selfishness rules and until that changes, Rand's vision of what may come is more accurately, already in practice in many places upon the Earth.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Well, there is one issue that I would like to bring up that is related to this - the current liberalism might not completely understand the differences in male and female neurology and its effect on male and female psychology, and in particular, the effects of changing gender roles around.

I know that being around 27, gender roles and dating structures have completely changed and gotten confusing or nonexistent. Thinking like a man is shunned in a lot of circles, so sometimes I've had to act more feminine in order to get by.

All I'm saying is, I'm not sure how healthy it is to make *straight* guys *act* as if they were more feminine than they are. I'm also saying that this could be tied to Atlas Shrugged and your statement that "without incentive, why would one work?"

Ayn Rand stated that a lot of her work was written in her quest to express what she thought the ideal man would be like. I've only read summaries of her books - I should read them all the way through in order to get a better idea of the topic.
edit on 1-12-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik
 


reply to post by daskakik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[color=amber] i said ... "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"
the above was my first response to your posting.

then, in a following post, i proceeded to ask several questions ... from there, it's been downhill.

That was because your questions didn't have to do with my points. I was not talking about or comparing "labors of love and labors of IOU".

icmom said that people have a choice to work or not. My point is that even those who do something to survive that is not considered a "job" are still working. Being a stay at home mom, dumpster diving, panhandling, engaging in crime, etc. are all work.


like i said before, cooperation is a two-way street.
you don't want to cooperate, fine, now multiply that times 4 billion or so ppl and what do ya get ?

Actually you get Ayn Rand's ideal of self interest.


fortunately, for our sake, Rand was seeing the same principles being exercised today in a much smaller population ... remarkably, the fictional characters in her story were able to overcome their personal selfishness.
In today's world, personal selfishness rules and until that changes, Rand's vision of what may come is more accurately, already in practice in many places upon the Earth.

I don't understand how you can say that selfishness is bad and at the same time give credit to someone who wrote a book titled The Virtue of Selfishness, where she tries to put across that thinking of selfisness as something bad had caused "the arrested moral development of mankind" and needed to be rejected. Quite a contradiction.


edit on 1-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Easy, they don't. Our infrastructure isn't exactly new. We just keep patching up the old systems for the most part. Unless your seeing something I'm not. When I say they are antiquated I mean there isn't a lot of people that are needed for those fields in this country any more.

I mean you started with trains. Our trains are old. We don't use modern train technology.

Our electrical grid is week in many places and simply needs to be replaced.

And I would wager a lot of people outsource steel needs so while we have a need for steel we don't have to get it from workers from within our own country anymore. (shooting ourselves in the foot)

I'm not saying we don't need people, because we do. But our current system doesn't recognize that for the most part we don't have a lot of people in those fields and while there is a need for change in a great deal of infrastructure, I don't think most people or the government recognizes such and believes if the need for such works should arise that we could simply outsource.

Can you see where I was coming from now?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


How many people do you know that work in those fields off the top of your head. I don't know any, at all.
edit on 3-12-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

actually, you sure are ... working for a paycheck = labors of an IOU
whereas working because you ENJOY it = labor of love.
(some labors of an IOU are also labors of love but not many)

what makes you think your points are the only valid ones ?
are you suggesting the questions i posed aren't worthy an answer ?

icmom is correct.
perhaps you missed this ... quoting icmom ...

On the government side it's crazy. For every $1.00 an employee pays to unemployment insurance we pay $1.50 on their behalf. We're not entitled to unemployment benefits. If there's no work, too bad for us. For every $1.00 an employee pays into CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) we have to match their $1.00. That is for their retirement, not ours. If the employees destroy things, lose contracts, etc. that's just risk, we have no recourse.
this policy is less than beneficial to the employer, so, how is the employer jeopardizing the employee's opportunity to advance him/herself ?
it is not the business that stifles the employee, rather the government that stifles both employer & employee.

in this point, we agree ...

even those who do something to survive that is not considered a "job" are still working. Being a stay at home mom, dumpster diving, panhandling, engaging in crime, etc. are all work
they are all work.

yes, i understand that self-interest seldom translates to selfishness.
(except in Rand's interpretations)
don't you ?


I don't understand how you can say that selfishness is bad and at the same time give credit to someone who wrote a book titled The Virtue of Selfishness, where she tries to put across that thinking of selfisness as something bad had caused "the arrested moral development of mankind" and needed to be rejected. Quite a contradiction.
if you would explain why you equate self-interest to selfishness, then perhaps, i could respond to this fallacy. (remember, i said i dismissed Rand's assertion here)
however, for as long as you equate the two, there will never be an answer.

did it ever occur to you that both pieces are "fictional" for a reason?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Is Ayn Rands “Atlas Shrugged” a prophecy

Maybe not a prophecy ... but more like an insightful warning about what could happen.
And yes .. it looks like it will happen. I do think Atlas will shrug ... sooner rather than later.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 

yeah, i got this when you said it last time and i thoroughly disagree.

When I say they are antiquated I mean there isn't a lot of people that are needed for those fields in this country any more
while the jobs in those fields aren't as plentiful these days, they are certainly far from obselete or antiquated.
(sad to hear that you think otherwise)


I mean you started with trains. Our trains are old. We don't use modern train technology.
yes, some are old and some older models are still being constructed, what's your point here ?
in my region, trains transport commercial product multiple times a day ... how is that antiquated ?

are you suggesting that minus the "bullet train", we have nothing ?
we maintain both commercial and private rail systems.
we provide both commercial and personal transport, so please, tell us again how the industry or those who operate it are antiquated ?


Our electrical grid is week in many places and simply needs to be replaced
yes, this is absolutely true and if we were to proceed with new construction, which of those engineers would NOT be involved ?

yes, i see where you're coming from ... i just don't agree with your outlook. while we are in need of great producers again (steel among others) none of the other industries mentioned are "producers", so what is your point here ?

engineers are not producers
operator of a railroad is not a producer
copper miners are not producers


How many people do you know that work in those fields off the top of your head. I don't know any, at all
quite a few but since names aren't appropriate, let me list them this way ...
i was part of a family that operated the Gautier division of a steel company years ago
(so by count, at least 10 ppl) - www.jaha.org...
4 rail employees (2 operators, 2 engineers)
0 copper miners but 3 coal miners (which used to supply the trains)
2 other unemployed engineers
(unfortunately, i'm familiar with 2 copper thieves as well)

what does it matter who or how many i know ?
how does that figure in to your theory of the industries being antiquated ?
(we all know i'm antiquated
)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepump
Her philosophy is that greed and self interest should be championed, not frowned upon.


Um .. no. She exposed the greed and self interest of the moochers and looters. They were not interested in an honest days work for an honest day's pay .. they weren't interested in actually producing anything for themselves or anyone else ... they just wanted to suck the life out of others and sponge off them (both financially and spiritually).

She frowned upon the greed and self interest of the looters and moochers ...



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 

the first part of this post might serve well as a title for new thread. i wouldn't necessarily agree with this presumption but i would be interested in the theory all the same.

i'm little concerned how or where you got this ?

your statement that "without incentive, why would one work?
i've checked my posts and the closest i could find was the following ... "without self-interest, why would anyone put forth the extra effort to improve themselves ? why bother ?"

those two statements are not the even in the same ballpark.
any chance you'd care to explain how you got one from the other ?
i really don't see a correlation between the two.

i never viewed AS that way but, if you view AS as a comparative of male types (although incomplete) and their desirabilities, i could reasonably see that point being explored.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik
 

actually, you sure are ... working for a paycheck = labors of an IOU
whereas working because you ENJOY it = labor of love.
(some labors of an IOU are also labors of love but not many)

Sorry but I am not. I suggest you stop trying to tell me what I was talking about and just drop it because it is obvious that you missed my point and your not going to make me debate something that I never brought up.


what makes you think your points are the only valid ones ?
are you suggesting the questions i posed aren't worthy an answer ?

They are not but they are the ones I was making.
They may be worthy of an answer but I don't have the answer since they don't address what I was talking about.


icmom is correct.
perhaps you missed this ... quoting icmom ...

On the government side it's crazy. For every $1.00 an employee pays to unemployment insurance we pay $1.50 on their behalf. We're not entitled to unemployment benefits. If there's no work, too bad for us. For every $1.00 an employee pays into CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) we have to match their $1.00. That is for their retirement, not ours. If the employees destroy things, lose contracts, etc. that's just risk, we have no recourse.
this policy is less than beneficial to the employer, so, how is the employer jeopardizing the employee's opportunity to advance him/herself ?
it is not the business that stifles the employee, rather the government that stifles both employer & employee.

I also agree but my point is that larger businesses can manipulate or use government to stifle their competition, so government isn't an equal opportunity stifler.


yes, i understand that self-interest seldom translates to selfishness.
(except in Rand's interpretations)
don't you ?

According to Merriam-Webster Self-interest and selfishness are synonyms so it always translates to selfishness.


if you would explain why you equate self-interest to selfishness, then perhaps, i could respond to this fallacy. (remember, i said i dismissed Rand's assertion here)
however, for as long as you equate the two, there will never be an answer.

See above.


did it ever occur to you that both pieces are "fictional" for a reason?

I have not read either but I have read and heard her speak of her ideals which are non-fiction.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Because you can't miss what's already not there. If what your saying is true then we are past the shrug, in my opinion.
edit on 5-12-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

if you don't wish to discuss details of the piece, then why are you in this thread at all ?


so government isn't an equal opportunity stifler
government has never been an equal opportunity anything, what is your point ?

according to the MW definition of a synonym ... the two words are not synonymous.

www.merriam-webster.com...
synonym -> one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

now, two words that have the same meaning are ONE thing.
two words that have similar meaning are another.
and yet, two words that have nearly the same meaning in some or all senses is something else entirely.
synonymous ?? sure ... but not the same.

and surprisingly, MW lists separate definitions for the two (regardless their synonymous relation)

selfishness - concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others --> [color=amber]a selfish act

self interest - a concern for one's own advantage and well-being --> [color=amber]acted out of self–interest and fear: one's own interest or advantage --> [color=amber]self–interest requires that we be generous in foreign aid

so, now that both definitions are before you, please explain how they are the same in any way, shape or form (both sourced from MW)

imho, it is your inability to clearly define the two, which is enabling your continued confusion and understanding of the material presented in the book.

again, since you haven't read ANY of her material, why are you commenting on it ??



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 

sadly, i'd have to agree.
and yes, this, is exactly why i keep re-reading the material ... the "shrug" has occurred more than once, just in my lifetime.

any chance you remember this ?
calebmaupin.blogspot.com...

or the HUGE marxist/communist agenda circulating in 1934 USA
(just 8 short years after Ayn arrived in the states)

www.marxists.org...


**** ETA -- keeping in mind that Atlas Shrugged wasn't published for another 23yrs.
(Rand arrived around 1930 and AS was first published 1957 ... Ayn had witnessed 2 decades of decline and a world war before penning Atlas -- these things MUST be considered when contemplating her commentary, then and now)
edit on 6-12-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik
 

if you don't wish to discuss details of the piece, then why are you in this thread at all ?

I already told you, I was replying to a point in another members post.


government has never been an equal opportunity anything, what is your point ?

So you agree. Why do you question what my point is when you seem to agree with it?


according to the MW definition of a synonym ... the two words are not synonymous.

I linked the entry where it shows that selfishness is a synonym of self-interest.


so, now that both definitions are before you, please explain how they are the same in any way, shape or form (both sourced from MW)

Despite being worded differently they both seem to be saying the same thing, only with a slight negative slant towards selfishness.


imho, it is your inability to clearly define the two, which is enabling your continued confusion and understanding of the material presented in the book.

I think it is your inability to recognize that Rand doesn't make that distinction either, thereby basing her ideals on self-interest/selfishness. If you don't grasp that then it doesn't matter if you have read her work because you didn't understand the message.

edit on 6-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join