• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ayn Rand Was an Idiot But Selfish People Love Her Idiocy

mak2 said:
For one thing I dont believe anyone has actually read that tome. They just pick up bits and pieces from conservative political forum sites.
Click to expand...

Read the whole book in 5 days I actually thought it had a good story.
 
calamity said:
Translation: You didn't build that.
Click to expand...

Atlas Shrugged has plenty of rich capitalist scumbags who build their companies with the help of politician cronies and corrupt civil servants, rather than the sweat of their labour or the quality of their product.
The distinction is quite clear to anyone who has passing knowledge of the book, and you are in fact ranting about one of the very things Rand was ranting about.

Translation: You didn't read that.
 
calamity said:
Ayn Rand adherents are idiots. Pretty much a clear cut, slam dunk situation. I would not expect to have a reasonable conversation with an idiot. So...it is what it is.
Click to expand...

So am I an idiot? Have we not debated several times and have a reasonable conversation? ;)
 
calamity said:
The gist of the argument is that promoting selfish self-interest through the concept of rewarding little other than the accumulation of wealth leads to a lot of selfish people pursuing nothing but wealth, often at the expense of those who are less agile. In short, the sharks in the tank are eating all the guppies and the Randian paradigm calls it good.
Click to expand...

Do you believe in Darwinism, also known as Natural Selection? You should read The Man Versus The State by Herbert Spencer or Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin. Their works attempt to explain how Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest is natural in society. Kropotkin would be considered a Social Darwinist, you know the bunch who favored eugenics. I find Kropotkin's work to be elitist and wrong due to it's down right advocacy for Communal Anarchism. I find those two words to be mutually exclusive.

Ayn Rand was nothing more then the opposite of Kropotkin so they are the ying and the yang.. and you'll find most are in the middle of it in theory. Nobody is 100% backing Ayn Rand ideas. But everybody can understand John Galt.
 
Ayn Rand is no different from Ivan Boesky in their defense of self interest and unbridled greed. The irony in the whole thing is the libertarian hate for the poor's self interest when it's from the state because in their viewpoint that money came from them. At the same time they defend self interest in people willing to rig the system because "greed can be good". In other words, it's okay for one class of people but not for another. A perfect set up for class warfare. The tragic part is they don't see it's set up against them. Only a very few privileged can benefit.
 
mak2 said:
For one thing I dont believe anyone has actually read that tome. They just pick up bits and pieces from conservative political forum sites.
Click to expand...

Nope. I did. Waste of a weekend if ever there was one. The writing was horrible. Terrible. I mean REALLY BAD.

Did I mention it was horrible?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Ayn Rand is no different from Ivan Boesky in their defense of self interest and unbridled greed. The irony in the whole thing is the libertarian hate for the poor's self interest when it's from the state because in their viewpoint that money came from them. At the same time they defend self interest in people willing to rig the system because "greed can be good". In other words, it's okay for one class of people but not for another. A perfect set up for class warfare. The tragic part is they don't see it's set up against them. Only a very few privileged can benefit.
Click to expand...

Libertarians dont beleive in rigging the system.
 
austrianecon said:
Do you believe in Darwinism, also known as Natural Selection? You should read The Man Versus The State by Herbert Spencer or Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin. Their works attempt to explain how Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest is natural in society. Kropotkin would be considered a Social Darwinist, you know the bunch who favored eugenics. I find Kropotkin's work to be elitist and wrong due to it's down right advocacy for Communal Anarchism. I find those two words to be mutually exclusive.

Ayn Rand was nothing more then the opposite of Kropotkin so they are the ying and the yang.. and you'll find most are in the middle of it in theory. Nobody is 100% backing Ayn Rand ideas. But everybody can understand John Galt.
Click to expand...
Do we really want to live in a society which practices social Darwinism? A society where the old, feeble and infirm are left to fend for themselves against the wolves who swindle them and leave them penniless is not one I want to live in. And, a society which lets children wallow in the poverty or depraved indifference of their parents is not helping anyone either.

At the very least we need cooperative efforts to build roads, bridges, airports, schools and other structures which serve the common good. Do we need to nationalize all the State's resources? No. But, we should share the common wealth such that no child is left behind and no one who is sick or unfit is left to starve and live under a bridge. We have enough wealth as a nation to ensure the poorest among us have at least that much.
 
calamity said:
Do we really want to live in a society which practices social Darwinism? A society where the old, feeble and infirm are left to fend for themselves against the wolves who swindle them and leave them penniless is not one I want to live in. And, a society which lets children wallow in the poverty or depraved indifference of their parents is not helping anyone either.

At the very least we need cooperative efforts to build roads, bridges, airports, schools and other structures which serve the common good. Do we need to nationalize all the State's resources? No. But, we should share the common wealth such that no child is left behind and no one who is sick or unfit is left to starve and live under a bridge. We have enough wealth as a nation to ensure the poorest among us have at least that much.
Click to expand...

You might not, but you dont have the right to choose that for others.
 
calamity said:
Do we really want to live in a society which practices social Darwinism? A society where the old, feeble and infirm are left to fend for themselves against the wolves who swindle them and leave them penniless is not one I want to live in. And, a society which lets children wallow in the poverty or depraved indifference of their parents is not helping anyone either.

At the very least we need cooperative efforts to build roads, bridges, airports, schools and other structures which serve the common good. Do we need to nationalize all the State's resources? No. But, we should share the common wealth such that no child is left behind and no one who is sick or unfit is left to starve and live under a bridge. We have enough wealth as a nation to ensure the poorest among us have at least that much.
Click to expand...

Well said!

From the last presidential election campaign:

If it was up to Ron Paul, or many of the Tea Party audience members at Monday night’s GOP presidential debate, churches, not the federal government, would help foot the bill for the medical costs of America’s 50 million residents living without health insurance.
CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer’s hypothetical question about whether an uninsured 30-year-old working man in coma should be treated prompted one of the most boisterous moments of audience participation in the CNN/Tea Party Express.
“What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul responded, adding, “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody…”
The audience erupted into cheers, cutting off the Congressman’s sentence.
After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”
Paul, a doctor trained in obstetrics and gynecology, said when he got out of medical school in the 1960s “the churches took care of them.”
“We never turned anybody away from the hospital,” he said. “We’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves or assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. That’s the reason the cost is so high.”

This was the "let him die" moment that the Right cheered, and AFAIK no one on the Right disavowed.

On a side note, it's sadly ironic that there's so many on the Right who claim evolution is wrong, but believe in social Darwinism....
 
HK.227 said:
Atlas Shrugged has plenty of rich capitalist scumbags who build their companies with the help of politician cronies and corrupt civil servants, rather than the sweat of their labour or the quality of their product.
The distinction is quite clear to anyone who has passing knowledge of the book, and you are in fact ranting about one of the very things Rand was ranting about.

Translation: You didn't read that.
Click to expand...

Sure I did, back in the early 80's, when the Cold War looked like it might go Hot and anti-Marxist tropes like AS were all the rage. I was a fan of Lynn Martin back then--one of the original libertarians, IMO--and found myself highly disappointed when Daddy Bush chose Dan Quayle as his runningmate over her.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Well said!

From the last presidential election campaign:

If it was up to Ron Paul, or many of the Tea Party audience members at Monday night’s GOP presidential debate, churches, not the federal government, would help foot the bill for the medical costs of America’s 50 million residents living without health insurance.
CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer’s hypothetical question about whether an uninsured 30-year-old working man in coma should be treated prompted one of the most boisterous moments of audience participation in the CNN/Tea Party Express.
“What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul responded, adding, “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody…”
The audience erupted into cheers, cutting off the Congressman’s sentence.
After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”
Paul, a doctor trained in obstetrics and gynecology, said when he got out of medical school in the 1960s “the churches took care of them.”
“We never turned anybody away from the hospital,” he said. “We’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves or assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. That’s the reason the cost is so high.”

This was the "let him die" moment that the Right cheered, and AFAIK no one on the Right disavowed.

On a side note, it's sadly ironic that there's so many on the Right who claim evolution is wrong, but believe in social Darwinism....
Click to expand...
Being anti Evolution but pro Social Darwinism is just one of the many inconsistencies on the Right. Yes.

One of the biggest inconsistencies on the Right is this notion that every fetus needs protection, but the impoverished sick should be left to die. Also, as we saw with Terry Schiavo, if you're not impoverished, they want to be sure you remain indefinitely on life support equipment, even if you are brain dead.

These things reinforce my belief that the Right is just a group of dummies being led by the nose from point to point by thier masters, the Church and Big Business.

...oh and the NRA.
 
jonny5 said:
You might not, but you dont have the right to choose that for others.
Click to expand...

You want to bet? People who think my way are the vast majority. Those wanting to let people who can't afford healthcare to die are not.

The battlelines are keeping the majority in the dark versus telling them the truth about what happens to poor people in this country. Fox prefers to keep it's viewers in the dark, blaming poverty on the poor, even. MSNBC blames the rich, calls them thieves. NPR does a better job laying out the facts.

Solutions are not easy to come by. That's why I think we need to work together on this. Sort of a social contract to work on a building a better society.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
You want to bet? People who think my way are the vast majority. Those wanting to let people who can't afford healthcare to die are not.

The battlelines are keeping the majority in the dark versus telling them the truth about what happens to poor people in this country. Fox prefers to keep it's viewers in the dark, blaming poverty on the poor, even. MSNBC blames the rich, calls them thieves. NPR does a better job laying out the facts.

Solutions are not easy to come by. That's why I think we need to work together on this. Sort of a social contract to work on a building a better society.
Click to expand...

Yes, I want to bet, just like the colonists did when the Brits told them what was best for them. If you want a social contract, you have to convince me to want to sign it, you cant just force me. There is no legal law which allows you to take my property and pay for other peoples healthcare.
 
calamity said:
Being anti Evolution but pro Social Darwinism is just one of the many inconsistencies on the Right. Yes.

One of the biggest inconsistencies on the Right is this notion that every fetus needs protection, but the impoverished sick should be left to die. Also, as we saw with Terry Schiavo, if you're not impoverished, they want to be sure you remain indefinitely on life support equipment, even if you are brain dead.

These things reinforce my belief that the Right is just a group of dummies being led by the nose from point to point by thier masters, the Church and Big Business.

...oh and the NRA.
Click to expand...

Problem is, the original Tea Party movement was largely Libertarian. Hardly a group of dummies, by any stretch of the imagination. Libertarians, by in large, are very much pro science across the boards (and pro social darwinism). Tea Party was essentially hi-jacked by the thumpers. Your premise that all Tea Party sympathizers are 'dummies' is rather silly. Personally...and this is going to blow your mind, my of the Libertarian Tea Party people I know are:
1) Pro-gun
2) Pro-constitution (literal interpretation, and yes, I know you're about to say 'pro gun is pro constitution' technical tammy)
3) Pro-gay
4) Pro-abortion
5) Pro-science
6) Pro-capitalism
7) Anti-police state
8) Pro-drug reform

The list of the 'paradox' (by modern standards, since polarized is the way of the world these days) goes on and on.

So, to wrap this up, no, we are not dummies. Couldn't be further from the truth.

And, if she was around, I would have loved to see any of these self professed 'educators' which essentially control the left debate her. She would run circles around them in her sleep.



Maddow vs Rand. Now that would be comical.


I still don't see what is wrong with Rand. Concentration on the "I" and self improvement. I fail to see how this is wrong.
 
MichaelJR said:
Problem is, the original Tea Party movement was largely Libertarian. Hardly a group of dummies, by any stretch of the imagination. Libertarians, by in large, are very much pro science across the boards (and pro social darwinism). Tea Party was essentially hi-jacked by the thumpers. Your premise that all Tea Party sympathizers are 'dummies' is rather silly. Personally...and this is going to blow your mind, my of the Libertarian Tea Party people I know are:
1) Pro-gun
2) Pro-constitution (literal interpretation, and yes, I know you're about to say 'pro gun is pro constitution' technical tammy)
3) Pro-gay
4) Pro-abortion
5) Pro-science
6) Pro-capitalism
7) Anti-police state
8) Pro-drug reform
Click to expand...
Sounds a lot like my politics from the 80's when I was hard Right economically and somewhat Left socially. I have since learned that a Hard Right position economically is as untenable as the Hard Left. Hence, my centrism.

The list of the 'paradox' (by modern standards, since polarized is the way of the world these days) goes on and on.

So, to wrap this up, no, we are not dummies. Couldn't be further from the truth.

And, if she was around, I would have loved to see any of these self professed 'educators' which essentially control the left debate her. She would run circles around them in her sleep.



Maddow vs Rand. Now that would be comical.
Click to expand...

I think the hands-off approach to governing that most libertarians insist upon is a disaster in the making. The game of monopoly shows us what happens when the winners are allowed to just keep on winning without limit. The occasional confiscation of wealth, be it through high taxes after X amount is earned, like 90% after $1 Million, or heavy burdens imposed on heirs after the death of a patriarch which strips a family of most of its personal wealth is in order...at least, to some degree. Family businesses would be exempt or entitled to some loopholes, of course.
 
Cephus said:
Translation: Because he doesn't know any better.

See? I understand just fine.
Click to expand...

You certainly illustrate my point about principles.

The left has proudly purged every hint and last vestige of integrity and ethics from itself.

From socialist to sociopath - the road of the American left in the last decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom