29 Feb 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI whole-heartedly agree!
It proves she wasn't a loser.
This country was built on freedom. But with freedom comes risk. You are free to eat junk food, skip school, and live in your mothers basement if you wish. But do not think that I will feel respondsible to support you when your kick out to the street, when mommy kicks the bucket and there are no more welfare checks to colect.
You are also free to study hard, work hard, learn a valuable skill, and support a family. You reap what you sow.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by Dace AceHer main problem is obviously her "rationalism".
I just finished reading this great book by Ayn Rand, and was curious on other folk’s opinion of this book.
It seems that many countries are falling into the trap of just worrying about serving peoples needs, at the cost of burdening or destroying the industrial strength that keeps a nation running.
For a book that was written in the 1950's, it is incredible on how keenly it applies to today’s societies.
Arguing an economic structure (what's sole intent is keeping a small group of people rich) on the basis that the human being is rational is obviously too stupid for words.
Only Americans could be suckered by it.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by Dace AceNo, she just didn't have much use for most of what we call 'society'. She saw everone as the rugged individualist/ hero purusing his own happiness/art for its own sake and accountable only to his own personal view of right and wrong.
I am surprized that at the resistance to Ms Rand. Am I to assume that those that are against her theories are for more government control and more taxes to support that ever-so-efficient-way that governments manage themselves?
Same as my 7 year old.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by spruce112358LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
No, she just didn't have much use for most of what we call 'society'. She saw everone as the rugged individualist/ hero purusing his own happiness/art for its own sake and accountable only to his own personal view of right and wrong.
Same as my 7 year old.
29 Feb 08
3 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirDon't be silly. Her intent was to have the cream rise to the top by virtue of their passion and talent. When the rich lose that talent and passion, Rand wanted them to lose their wealth via honorable means (not revolution, business) to those who have that passion and drive.
Her main problem is obviously her "rationalism".
Arguing an economic structure (what's sole intent is keeping a small group of people rich) on the basis that the human being is rational is obviously too stupid for words.
Only Americans could be suckered by it.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingettBeing "true" wasn't a parameter of your argument. You claimed she was a "loser." On the contrary, she was quite successful in a number of endeavors, including her writings, films and philosophy. More importantly, she has bequeathed a formidable legacy for all men to remind them that no one owns them, nor do any have a moral right to help themselves to the fruits of someone else's labors.
I see. Because Ayn Rand had a hard life and did a lot of stuff, that proves her "philosophy" is true? Funny how that works.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt would help if you had read any of the great woman's works before you summarily dismiss them based upon remarks from Redmike or a passage in Falsipedia. Also, you'd know that she always cast communists, socialists, New Dealers, Democrats, etc., as the villains in her stories because she had experienced first hand what it means to live by "each according to his own needs."
Telling response. I guess it doesn't get much more juvenile and self-centered than that. Tossing in 'communists' makes it all the more so.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by shavixmirReally? Then why do so many want to emulate America?
Her main problem is obviously her "rationalism".
Arguing an economic structure (what's sole intent is keeping a small group of people rich) on the basis that the human being is rational is obviously too stupid for words.
Only Americans could be suckered by it.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterShe is a loser because she concocted a ridiculous "philosophy." A "philosophy" that specifically advocates the moral right to help oneself to the fruits of someone else's labor, which is the very essence of capitalism. Whatever else she did is irrelevant.
Being "true" wasn't a parameter of your argument. You claimed she was a "loser." On the contrary, she was quite successful in a number of endeavors, including her writings, films and philosophy. More importantly, she has bequeathed a formidable legacy for all men to remind them that no one owns them, nor do any have a moral right to help themselves to the fruits of someone else's labors.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingettHave read the book?
She is a loser because she concocted a ridiculous "philosophy." A "philosophy" that specifically advocates the moral right to help oneself to the fruits of someone else's labor, which is the very essence of capitalism. Whatever else she did is irrelevant.
You have stated the exact opposite of what she advocates. She advocates the moral right to help oneself to the fruits of "your own" labor, which is the very essence of capitalism. Not the labor of others. In the book, the great minds and managers step aside to allow those with only "needs", those that do help themselves with the fruits of others to run the country. It is not until all of the lights in the nation go out that they realize their need for the capitalist to run the country.
Much like today, those on welfare, are begging for free heath care. They do not contribute to the betterment of the society, but feel society owes them.
Think what would occur if every rich person moved to a different country. If every oil company, car manufacture moved completely overseas. Who would pay all the taxes that support all these welfare programs? Would the "need" for support diminish? No, it would increase. BUT who is going to foot that bill? The rich and major corporations can afford to move if they wish, and will eventually do that if all governments do is heap on more taxes. Is that your answer to helping out society?