BF2S Forums Rand Illusion

Proof he's either never read, or didn't comprehend Atlas Shrugged.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Proof he's either never read, or didn't comprehend Atlas Shrugged.

Wow, you really don't get Colbert.

why do some people think that if they let everyone know they read Ayn Rand, they are somehow more sophisticated than the average bear?

Last edited by Man With No Name (2009-03-20 00:05:25)

Nah, he's right.  Most Rand followers are conceited assholes.

Calling for a Kapital strike.... The Anti-Marx has risen.

Rand.... What do you expect to some out of the 1950s. Capital strikes, red baiting, Hoover (in a skirt), and McCarthyism. The roots for the 1980s tale of greed. The fact that Reagan was a fan doesn't surprise me.

The ultra rich trillionaires we never here about must be laughing their asses off at all the stupid pretend rich people. Those idiots are owned like the rest of us and we're all in the same boat. If the economy fails we are all going down and good luck trying to create "Galt-land." Colbert has it right, what would the pretend rich do without their illegals to do their house work for them, and the wage slaves to build their products and then buy their products. No consumers means no market and no market means no power and if the market were perfect then unemployment would be 0% but it isn't and the market isn't perfect. Rand's Galt-land utopianism sounds less likely than a Marxian workers paradise. What it does sound like to me is a gated community, or a reverse prison and we have those already. A Capital strike does nothing but further destabilise the economy and make it easier for the ultra rich to bring about the next great depression. I'll have the last laugh when the pretend rich are jumping from their balconies. like this guy. the coward would rather die than face real life. Pretend riche scum.

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Holy shit.

I finally understood what BioShock was about.

Indeed...  it was a grand parody of Objectivism.

With all the blatant evils of Communism, the more subtle variety of evil came from the opposite end.  Unrestrained individuality leads to homicidal greed due to sociopathic impulses.

Objectivism essentially panders to the selfishness inherent in human nature.

What's funny about it all is that Communism and Objectivism are 2 sides of the same coin.  While Communism is Animal Farm, Objectivism is Brave New World.  When taken to extremes, neither collectivism nor individualism are beneficial to society.  One worships the state, while the other worships utter selfishness.

Macbeth wrote:

http://www.popmodal.com/video/815/Ayn-Rand-Mike-Wallace-Interview-1959-part-1
Ayn Rand gets interviewed by Mike Wallace. Explains her views.

Ayn Rand wrote:

...that man needs a rational morality...a morality, not based on faith, not on arbitrary whim, not on emotion, not on arbitrary edict, mystical or social, but on reason, a morality which can be proved by means of logic, which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary...

I would love to hear someone argue against that.

Ayn Rand wrote:

It is immoral if it is a love placed above one's self. It is more than immoral, it is impossible. Because when you are asked to love everybody, indiscriminately, that is to love people without any standard, to love them regardless of the fact of whether they have any value or virtue, you are asked to love nobody.

I'm going to cut Wallace out of this and use it as a lullaby.

no kidding

Firstly

Turquoise wrote:

Rational self-interest generally...

gross

and

Turquoise wrote:

Rational self-interest generally means that the well-being of others is just as important as your own if you hope to keep crime at a tolerable level.  It's this general principle that many Rand followers defy in their often obsessive selfishness.  Capitalism without conscience is no better than totalitarianism.

It is not rational to disrespect another person's right to property, because that means they will not respect your right to property. Rational self-interest leads to a social contract bound by reason, not force.

A thief is the antithesis of an objectivist.

weak man

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Firstly

Turquoise wrote:

Rational self-interest generally...

gross

and

Turquoise wrote:

Rational self-interest generally means that the well-being of others is just as important as your own if you hope to keep crime at a tolerable level.  It's this general principle that many Rand followers defy in their often obsessive selfishness.  Capitalism without conscience is no better than totalitarianism.

It is not rational to disrespect another person's right to property, because that means they will not respect your right to property. Rational self-interest leads to a social contract bound by reason, not force.

A thief is the antithesis of an objectivist.

Your definition of a thief is irrational and extremely short sighted.  There are certain responsibilities we must adhere to in order to have a functional society.

Please tell me my definition of a thief.

Turquoise wrote:

Taxing others for the sake of viable social programs isn't theft anymore than taxing others for roads and the military is.

Do not exist.

If there is a need, a market will provide for it with the sole exception of a standing national defense.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Firstly

Turquoise wrote:

Rational self-interest generally...

gross

and

It is not rational to disrespect another person's right to property, because that means they will not respect your right to property. Rational self-interest leads to a social contract bound by reason, not force.

A thief is the antithesis of an objectivist.

Your definition of a thief is irrational and extremely short sighted.  There are certain responsibilities we must adhere to in order to have a functional society.

Please tell me my definition of a thief.

You said it above.  Given the context of what I said initially, you implied that any measures taken by society to alleviate crime via the "property of others" are theft.  I gave an example that clearly contradicted this.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Taxing others for the sake of viable social programs isn't theft anymore than taxing others for roads and the military is.

Do not exist.

If there is a need, a market will provide for it with the sole exception of a standing national defense.

Oh really?  Why is it then that the entirety of the First World has them, and as a result, they have produced the highest qualities of life?  The last half of a century would contradict you here, even in the U.S.