How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon

[fossten]

I just pictured you under a blanket with a flashlight.

 

[foxpaws]

But you can't critique her ideas through her life, especially if you haven't read her ideas.

And shag - when you read Shrug - or Fountainhead - or Anthem - what do you think of her ideas - how would you compare the lead characters in her books - do you think that she falsely idealizes men who cannot exist outside of her utopian thought... Don't you think that she erects a false culture that is unachievable outside of fiction, because she portrays this romantic ideal that isn't in step with how people 'really' are...

 

[foxpaws]

I finished it over three months by reading myself to sleep at night. It's deep stuff; you can't slurp it through a straw. You need your knife and fork.

And a shovel...

 

[fossten]

And a shovel...

You don't remember enough of the book to even realize that what she wrote about is actually happening.

 

[fossten]

And shag - when you read Shrug - or Fountainhead - or Anthem - what do you think of her ideas - how would you compare the lead characters in her books - do you think that she falsely idealizes men who cannot exist outside of her utopian thought... Don't you think that she erects a false culture that is unachievable outside of fiction, because she portrays this romantic ideal that isn't in step with how people 'really' are...

Who doesn't? She's a FICTION WRITER. It's FICTION. Get a clue. Oh, and your 'straw man' premise is flawed. Have you read her intro?

No wonder you can't keep a man, the way you nitpick everything. It's clear you have a problem with any woman who can get a man to fall in love with her. Ayn Rand's books must remind you of your own inadequacies.

You can't refute her capitalist principles, so you instead choose to nitpick her style.

Too bad you don't treat Obama with the same white glove treatment.

 

[04SCTLS]

Well I just ordered the above 2 books plus

1 of: Ayn Rand For Beginners (For Beginners (Steerforth Press)) [Paperback]
By: Andrew Bernstein, Owen Brozman
Condition: New
Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC

1 of: Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed [Paperback]
By: Marlene Podritske, Peter Schwartz
Condition: New
Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC

Scathing denunciation of childhood?
That's too good to pass up

I still think the main premise of Atlas Shrugged is prepostorous

albeit entertaining.

 

[04SCTLS]

BTW, I am curious, do you think there is little intellectual depth to conservatism and libertarianism? If so, why?

That's kind of an open ended question.
It's certainly simpler and more pointed than liberalism.
It follows the KISS rule.
There's more sophistry to chew over in liberalism for intellectuals.
Conservatism says you are in charge of your destiny for better or worse whereas liberalism says fate (being born poor, sick, disadvantaged, unwanted
abused and ignorant or on the other side born rich, smart, healthy, privileged, having 2 parents)
are big shapers of one's life.

 

[shagdrum]

That's kind of an open ended question.
It's certainly simpler and more pointed than liberalism.
It follows the KISS rule.
There's more sophistry to chew over in liberalism for intellectuals.
Conservatism says you are in charge of your destiny for better or worse whereas liberalism says fate (being born poor, sick, disadvantaged, unwanted
abused and ignorant or on the other side born rich, smart, healthy, privileged, having 2 parents)
are big shapers of one's life.

That would be a pretty fair description. You even touched on the idea of "social justice" (in those last couple lines) which is arguably the root of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

 

[shagdrum]

And shag - when you read Shrug - or Fountainhead - or Anthem - what do you think of her ideas - how would you compare the lead characters in her books - do you think that she falsely idealizes men who cannot exist outside of her utopian thought... Don't you think that she erects a false culture that is unachievable outside of fiction, because she portrays this romantic ideal that isn't in step with how people 'really' are...

Not being "in step" with how people really are? You just described the fatal flaw in modern liberal philosophy; it's flawed and idealistic (and therefore unrealistic) understanding of human nature.

Fosten made a good point; it's fiction. You wanna see fiction based on huge flawed assumptions, go look at the techno-atheist-communism that is Roddenberry's Star Trek.

FYI: I have not read Rand's fiction. I would rather read non-fiction like The Road To Serfdom when it comes to gleaning political and/or social insight.

 

[fossten]

Conservatism says you are in charge of your destiny for better or worse whereas liberalism says fate (being born poor, sick, disadvantaged, unwanted
abused and ignorant or on the other side born rich, smart, healthy, privileged, having 2 parents)
are big shapers of one's life.

Not too bad, but you left out something vis-a-vis liberalism: The conclusion that therefore, a handful of elites in government must take control of the situation and determine life's winners and losers in order to make things "FAIR."

 

[04SCTLS]

Not too bad, but you left out something vis-a-vis liberalism: The conclusion that therefore, a handful of elites in government must take control of the situation and determine life's winners and losers in order to make things "FAIR."

You may conclude this but IMO the winners and losers in life still mostly determine themselves.
There's also the great mass of people that aren't quite winners but aren't losers either.
Classifying people as winners and losers is too simplistic.
Some government regulations like car crash worthiness and emissions make things better for everybody as this 59 Belair vs 09 Chev crash test indicates.
The Belair driver would be killed almost instantly vs walking away from the 09.
Thank you Ralph Nader

YouTube- Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air

Regulations also create opportunities.

There's a difference between investing in and improving the infrastructure of society vs just handing out more welfare money that people spend on living.

 

[fossten]

You may conclude this but IMO the winners and losers in life still mostly determine themselves.
There's also the great mass of people that aren't quite winners but aren't losers either.
Classifying people as winners and losers is too simplistic.
Some government regulations like car crash worthiness and emissions make things better for everybody as this 59 Belair vs 09 Chev crash test indicates.
The Belair driver would be killed almost instantly vs walking away from the 09.
Thank you Ralph Nader

YouTube- Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air

Regulations also create opportunities.

There's a difference between investing in and improving the infrastructure of society vs just handing out more welfare money that people spend on living.

You just made my point for me. Ralph Nader isn't part of government.

The free market would have come up with safer cars anyway, as people began to refuse to buy unsafe cars, IF that is what people wanted. What does an '09 cost compared to what a 59 Bel Air cost brand new back in 1959?

Any more anecdotal examples you'd like to cite for your 'exception proves the rule' PWNAGE?

 

[04SCTLS]

You just made my point for me. Ralph Nader isn't part of government.

The free market would have come up with safer cars anyway, as people began to refuse to buy unsafe cars, IF that is what people wanted. What does an '09 cost compared to what a 59 Bel Air cost brand new back in 1959?

Any more anecdotal examples you'd like to cite for your 'exception proves the rule' PWNAGE?

Oh Come on
And you say that with a straight face
Car safety would have come along but change requires leaders.
Nader led the charge for government regulation of corporate america.
With his Nader's Raiders he almost singlehandedly created many government agencies that attempt to protect consumers from unsafe products.
Big business fought him all the way and helped elect Reagan to neutralize his effect.
Marginalized today, he really is the father of modern government regulatory agencies.

A 59 Bel Air was probably 2500.00 new.
I don't what the increased manufacturing costs for safer cars are in today's dollars but I'm sure it's not huge now that all these features have been incorporated into the production process even for the cheapest cars.

People don't know what they want until they have experience of it.

For instance nobody cared much about industrial pollution until they saw rivers catching fire on (newly introduced color) national television.

Safer more sophisticated cars may cost more initially but you're not looking at the reduced injury and fatality costs that result.

Costs are not black and white or merely measured in money.

Under your definition I suppose you can hold the accident causers as strictly liable for the increased safety costs because if you never crashed or got crashed into you didn't need any of the safety features.

When I was 20 I had no problems driving my 68 Firebird 400 4 speed convertible with 4 wheel drum brakes in the snow or at 140 mph on the freeway with the top down.
Used to downshift the car to help brake it from 100+ mph.
Oh what fun it was
But do you really want to send your new driver son or daughter out in a primitive cheaper car because it would be better for corporate america?

 

[fossten]

Oh Come on
And you say that with a straight face

Is this an argument?

Car safety would have come along but change requires leaders.

So you acknowledge my point. Thank you.

Nader led the charge for government regulation of corporate america.

With his Nader's Raiders he almost singlehandedly created many government agencies that attempt to protect consumers from unsafe products.

Big business fought him all the way and helped elect Reagan to neutralize his effect.
Marginalized today, he really is the father of modern government regulatory agencies.

Yes, and now the government OWNS most of our car companies. Well done, Ralphie Boy. You seem to hate corporate America but LOVE big government.

A 59 Bel Air was probably 2500.00 new.

There you go. My point is well taken.

I don't what the increased manufacturing costs for safer cars are in today's dollars but I'm sure it's not huge now that all these features have been incorporated into the production process even for the cheapest cars.

Yeah, an ordinary mid size GM car costs $25,000. Like to try again?

People don't know what they want until they have experience of it.

Ah, the elitist, government will tell you what you need to live mentality. You, sir, are part of the problem. I don't need some know it all like you telling me how to live my life, thanks.

For instance nobody cared much about industrial pollution until they saw rivers catching fire on (newly introduced color) national television.

Okay, you're truly just rambling now. You have introduced an example of media sensationalism now? Are you changing the subject or just mixing your metaphors on the fly? Try to stay on topic.

Safer more sophisticated cars may cost more initially but you're not looking at the reduced injury and fatality costs that result.

Yeah, those airbags have been a real safety plus. How many deaths so far?

Costs are not black and white or merely measured in money.

There are always unintended consequences to government interference. You're not addressing my point that the government is supposed to stay out of our lives.

Under your definition I suppose you can hold the accident causers as strictly liable for the increased safety costs because if you never crashed or got crashed into you didn't need any of the safety features.

Define 'accident causer.' Does this include people who aren't actually involved in the accident, but may have caused it by careless driving?

When I was 20 I had no problems driving my 68 Firebird 400 4 speed convertible with 4 wheel drum brakes in the snow or at 140 mph on the freeway with the top down.
Used to downshift the car to help brake it from 100+ mph.
Oh what fun it was

So you make my point again.

But do you really want to send your new driver son or daughter out in a primitive cheaper car because it would be better for corporate america?

If you had no problems driving a 1968 Firebird at 140, then why are you even making this argument? You're contradicting yourself. Maybe you should read over your posts before hitting the 'submit' button.

 

[shagdrum]

Regulations also create opportunities.

At the expense of other opportunities. It misdirects scare resources and distorts the market.

There's a difference between investing in and improving the infrastructure of society vs just handing out more welfare money that people spend on living.

Agreed.

However, both function under the same flawed assumption that the government can distribute scarce resources as well as, if not better then the free market.

 

[shagdrum]

Car safety would have come along but change requires leaders.

Change simply requires incentive, in this case. As Fossten pointed out, Nader was not part of the government. There is also the case of lawsuits being brought against the car companies (unless they were somehow immune to that in a way I am not aware). A myriad of factors would lead to the free market eventually creating safer cars to reduce costs (though, probably at a slower rate then regulation). But what is the trade off of that regulation in the market? For very few regulations do the benefits outweigh the costs.

Also, as has been discussed earlier on this forum, it is arguable at best weather new cars are safer then they would have been without government regulation; specifically due to CAFE standards and resulting smaller, lighter cars. There is a huge cost there all for the never realized benefit of less use of gasoline nationally and less dependence on foreign oil.

 

[04SCTLS]

Is this an argument?

Nader did all his stuff through government

So you acknowledge my point. Thank you.

You are marginalizing the role of the achiever.

Yes, and now the government OWNS most of our car companies. Well done, Ralphie Boy. You seem to hate corporate America but LOVE big government.

Ford didn't take the bailout money and Nader had nothing to do with the bailout.
Everything seems to be love and hate with you.
There are scoundrels in both government and corporate america.

There you go. My point is well taken.

Yeah, an ordinary mid size GM car costs $25,000. Like to try again?

National average wage indexing series, 1951-2008
1959 $3855.80 2008 $41,334.97

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

2500.00 vs 25,000.00 for car but adjusted cost is less.
Your point is mistaken.

Ah, the elitist, government will tell you what you need to live mentality. You, sir, are part of the problem. I don't need some know it all like you telling me how to live my life, thanks.

I think you're getting a bit carried away here.
I'm not telling you how to live your life or any such thing.
I was just stating a generality.
As an example before we had personal computers and other gadgets we had no experience of them and didn't need them.

Okay, you're truly just rambling now. You have introduced an example of media sensationalism now? Are you changing the subject or just mixing your metaphors on the fly? Try to stay on topic.

I'm just mixing metafors but it's not that far off topic.

There are always unintended consequences to government interference. You're not addressing my point that the government is supposed to stay out of our lives.

Maybe in an ideal world but not this one.

Define 'accident causer.' Does this include people who aren't actually involved in the accident, but may have caused it by careless driving?

Virtually all accidents are caused by some kind of "carelessness"

So you make my point again.

If you had no problems driving a 1968 Firebird at 140, then why are you even making this argument? You're contradicting yourself. Maybe you should read over your posts before hitting the 'submit' button.

I was always a natural behind the wheel, put 3000 miles on a car before I even had a license but as you have stated the exception does not prove the rule.
People crash especially new young drivers.

 

[fossten]

Nader did all his stuff through government

Nader didn't control the government. He petitioned the government and the government gladly began regulating the hell out of businesses.

Nader is a straw man. Use another example.

You are marginalizing the role of the achiever.

No, the government is, through regulation and taxes.

Ford didn't take the bailout money and Nader had nothing to do with the bailout.

You can't read? I said 'most.'

Everything seems to be love and hate with you.
There are scoundrels in both government and corporate america.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

- Thomas Jefferson

National average wage indexing series, 1951-2008
1959 $3855.80 2008 $41,334.97

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

2500.00 vs 25,000.00 for car but adjusted cost is less.
Your point is mistaken.

You're basing this on inflation and the devaluation of the dollar, both of which are unintended consequences of government interference. You fail again.

I think you're getting a bit carried away here.
I'm not telling you how to live your life or any such thing.
I was just stating a generality.

Wrong. You advocate for governmental regulation and control, which takes away my liberty. You're dangerously naive, unwilling to consider the possibility that there might be people in government who want to maximize their power over the masses.

As an example before we had personal computers and other gadgets we had no experience of them and didn't need them.

And how did government convince people they should buy computers? Thanks for proving my point again. The free market wins.

I'll raise you an example of my own - CAFE standards are unnecessary, but people have been convinced that they need to buy economical cars because the government and the media have worked tirelessly to promote their phony global warming hoax, thus convincing people that the world is dying. Moreover, government has limited domestic oil production and exploration thanks to environmental wacko lobbyists who seek to make money off their own oil properties. The supply of oil is restricted, and prices increase. Thus, cars are more expensive, and so is gasoline.

I'm just mixing metafors but it's not that far off topic.

It's completely irrelevant.

Maybe in an ideal world but not this one.

Pretty glib and devoid of substance. I guess you've run out of arguments. Shall I start using anecdotal examples so you can engage in the conversation? The housing collapse is a result of government interference. Our massive, unsolvable debt is a result of government interference. Inflation, devaluation of the dollar, high gas prices, the social security ponzi scheme, Glass-Steagall, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Vietnam, Amtrak, the Great Depression, the Civil War.

Shall I go on?

Virtually all accidents are caused by some kind of "carelessness"

So? Virtually all government takeovers are deliberate.

I was always a natural behind the wheel, put 3000 miles on a car before I even had a license but as you have stated the exception does not prove the rule.
People crash especially new young drivers.

And people weed themselves out of society by living recklessly. Smokers kill themselves too, over time. Is it the government's job to rule our lives and make sure nothing bad ever happens? What are the unintended consequences of too much government interference? Are you even willing to examine that side of the argument?

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - wow - early you stated this...

But you can't critique her ideas through her life, especially if you haven't read her ideas.

and finally you admit this....

I have not read Rand's fiction. I would rather read non-fiction like The Road To Serfdom when it comes to gleaning political and/or social insight.

So you can defend her ideals without reading them in context?

How about reading The Virtue of Selfishness - her outline of Objectivism, presented in a series of short essays, so you can finally get an idea of what you are defending... it is pretty short... and nonfiction... then you could actually discuss her ideals of Objectivism. Or have you read her nonfiction?

Oh, and I would really, really recommend Anthem - Hayek's Road to Serfdom is almost a homage to Anthem - it is sort of creepy how they read like companion pieces. The whole Austrian school that somehow liberty and capitalism are interdependent on each other is just weird, but Hayek certainly pulled a lot from Anthem.

Foss - remember in Objectivism greed is not only good... you need to remove an "o" - Greed is God... the rights of the individual at the expense of the community...

And although some of her work is fiction - it is based on her philosophy of Objectivism - that is what is flawed... and when the philosophy is flawed the fiction crumbles as well.

Howard Roark, her 'hero' in The Fountainhead states: "This country, was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on man's right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else's."

Do you think you could defend that rather central statement of her philosophy Foss?

Rand's form of capitalism is based on the flawed ideal of Objectivism. A flawed philosophy that is based on egocentrism and the idea that unfettered greed is good. In the form she presents capitalism it is despotic as any third world dictatorship.

No wonder you can't keep a man, the way you nitpick everything. It's clear you have a problem with any woman who can get a man to fall in love with her. Ayn Rand's books must remind you of your own inadequacies.

Rand, despite all her rhetoric about moral absolutes, had to 'justifying' her adulterous affair. If this is not casuistry, then what is? My inadequacies pale when compared to Rand's. I have never had to justify any relationship - she continually had to. Selfishness taken to its logical conclusion if you go down the path set by Rand - fidelity means nothing - only unto they self be true.

Why would I want to 'keep' a man? You have some rather old and archaic ideas Foss - do you 'keep' a woman?

The free market would have come up with safer cars anyway, as people began to refuse to buy unsafe cars, IF that is what people wanted. What does an '09 cost compared to what a 59 Bel Air cost brand new back in 1959?

Oh - if you were to buy a 1959 Bel Air in today's dollars it would be about $20,000 as a base msrp (considering inflation - the base price was around $2700) - the Malibu that destroyed it has a base msrp of $21,000, with a laundry list of standard equipment that wasn't even available as optional equipment on the old Bel Air... I rather like safer cars - fewer people end up spending weeks and weeks in the medical system, on my dime, now that the cars are safer...

Getting to your point of...

And people weed themselves out of society by living recklessly. Smokers kill themselves too, over time. Is it the government's job to rule our lives and make sure nothing bad ever happens? What are the unintended consequences of too much government interference? Are you even willing to examine that side of the argument?

So, let them die, and don't spend any government money on them - right? I don't want my money spent on someone who willing smoked, even after the warnings were place on cigarettes. Consequences are to be had-good and bad. Darwinism in action maybe?

 

[shagdrum]

So you can defend her ideals without reading them in context?

So you are already mischaracterizing my actions. Working to make this thread about you, I see.

You don't need to be familiar with an idea to point out a fallacious argument aimed at discrediting the idea that doesn't actually confront the idea in question (ad hominem reasoning).

How about reading The Virtue of Selfishness -

I only said I never read her fiction.

Hayek's Road to Serfdom is almost a homage to Anthem

More distortion.

Anthem was fiction, Road to Serfdom was a scholarly work.
Anthem was published in 1938 while the Road to Serfdom started as a memo to Sir William Beveridge written in the Spring of 1933 to dispute, "the then-popular claim that fascism represented the dying gasp of a failed capitalist system". If you read Road to Serfdom there is no indication that Hayek drew idea's from Rand's work. In fact, in the version of the book I have, it traces Hayek's history and development of the book and it is clear that he did not draw from Rand, but from his own academic pursuits and observations.

The whole Austrian school that somehow liberty and capitalism are interdependent on each other is just weird

More likely it simply doesn't fit into your worldview so your are trying to marginalize and dismiss the idea by calling it "weird".

The idea of individual liberty being inseparable from economic liberty (which is were the connection of liberty and capitalism comes from) stems from long before the founding of this nation (and before Austrian Economics) and is inherent in the founding of the United States. It would only seem "weird" to someone who doesn't truly understand the idea of rights (specifically Natural Rights) and/or who's worldview is incompatible with that truth; like a worldview based in Marxist illusions that reject property rights and Natural Law.

Here are a few quotes to educate you on the inseparable nature of individual liberty and economic liberty:

In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #79 (emphasis Hamilton's)

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
-James Madison Federalist #10

property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty....The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
-John Adams

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
-James Madison​

remember in Objectivism greed is not only good... you need to remove an "o" - Greed is God

"Rational self-interest" is not the same as "greed".

... the rights of the individual at the expense of the community...

"The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options."

Ever considered the possibility that community interests don't have to be achieved through collectivist means but can actually be achieved through reasonable self-interest and a government that is actually restricted by individual liberty?

Rand, despite all her rhetoric about moral absolutes, had to 'justifying' her adulterous affair.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise."

I could go on, but the point is clear. You are only engaged in this thread to mislead and propagandize. There is no chance for a civil, respectful discussion. You stay classy...

 

[foxpaws]

I only said I never read her fiction.

So, shag - what have you read by Rand?

And, since you obviously haven't read Anthem, there really isn't any reason to discuss why a piece that was published in 1938 could have influenced a book (Road to Serfdom) that was finally published in 1944, irregardless of when it was 'started', especially when you compare ideas and concepts that are present in both works (I have read both).

So, once you read Anthem, we can get back to this... until then - how could you claim that "it is clear that he did not draw from Rand"? You don't even have a clue what is in Anthem.

The idea of individual liberty being inseparable from economic liberty (which is were the connection of liberty and capitalism comes from) stems from long before the founding of this nation and is inherent in the founding of the USA. It would only seem "weird" to someone who doesn't truly understand the idea of rights (specifically Natural Rights) and/or who's worldview is incompatible with that truth; like one based in Marxist economic illusions that reject property rights and Natural Law.

As far as individual liberty and economic liberty, I am not debating that this country was founded on the idea that we are based on that concept, obviously we were - the Declaration of Independence states it rather clearly. And the idea that individual liberty and economic liberty are joined at the hip has been around for a long, long time, actually going back to at least ancient Greece isn't in dispute either, I agree.

But, is an economy based on capitalism truly freedom? Where is the liberty? Aren't you just a slave to a different master? How many people truly achieve economic freedom through capitalism?

Property rights are certainly bundled in with natural rights, but, should capitalism, which really isn't about property rights, also be included when natural rights are discussed? Is capitalism a natural right? Why would it be?

Ever considered the possibility that community interests don't have to be achieved through collectivist means but can actually be achieved through a focus on the individual?

Can they shag? If the focus is on the individual, do collective interests rise to any type of prominence at all? I do think that n some cases they can, if a profit is to be had, but as a whole - if allowed, individuals will only do what is best for the individual, collective consequence is a by-product, and quite often isn't present at all.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise."

If you have studied Rand, it is impossible to remove the woman from her writings, she lived Objectivism. She was the living laboratory on how Objectivism would work in her 'perfect' world. It is easy to judge her philosophy on her life-they reflected each other. Her life mirrored her ideals. She made a conscientious effort to live out her philosophical ideals. In her case it is perfectly admissible to link the validity of her beliefs to how she lived her life.

I could go on, but the point is clear. You are only engaged in this thread to mislead and propagandize. There is no chance for a civil, respectful discussion. You stay classy...

So, Shag - you have entered this conversation without having read even one of Rand's fiction works, and who knows what you have read of her rather limited repertoire of nonfiction works, and yet you claim I am misleading and propagandizing?

 

[fossten]

Foss - remember in Objectivism greed is not only good... you need to remove an "o" - Greed is God... the rights of the individual at the expense of the community...

Tsk, tsk, fox, straw man argument again...

And although some of her work is fiction - it is based on her philosophy of Objectivism - that is what is flawed... and when the philosophy is flawed the fiction crumbles as well.

...and you morph from straw man into red herring. Well done! /s

Howard Roark, her 'hero' in The Fountainhead states: "This country, was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on man's right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else's."

I'm not discussing that book, since I haven't read it. Have you?

However, I do agree with that statement. America isn't for everybody. It's not for those who are looking for a handout. If you want a handout, go to Europe or Canada. If you want to succeed and achieve your dreams, obtain liberty, come here.

Do you think you could defend that rather central statement of her philosophy Foss?

I don't have to defend any statement I haven't made.

Rand's form of capitalism is based on the flawed ideal of Objectivism. A flawed philosophy that is based on egocentrism and the idea that unfettered greed is good. In the form she presents capitalism it is despotic as any third world dictatorship.

Please back this up with some real evidence, notably people being thrown into prisons and murdered by the millions by capitalism. Thanks.

Rand, despite all her rhetoric about moral absolutes, had to 'justifying' her adulterous affair. If this is not casuistry, then what is? My inadequacies pale when compared to Rand's. I have never had to justify any relationship - she continually had to. Selfishness taken to its logical conclusion if you go down the path set by Rand - fidelity means nothing - only unto they self be true.

Why would I want to 'keep' a man? You have some rather old and archaic ideas Foss - do you 'keep' a woman?

Tsk tsk, fox, you only know one definition of 'keep?' You're either really stupid or being deliberately obtuse. I'm leaning toward the latter, but you never know...

Oh - if you were to buy a 1959 Bel Air in today's dollars it would be about $20,000 as a base msrp (considering inflation - the base price was around $2700) - the Malibu that destroyed it has a base msrp of $21,000, with a laundry list of standard equipment that wasn't even available as optional equipment on the old Bel Air... I rather like safer cars - fewer people end up spending weeks and weeks in the medical system, on my dime, now that the cars are safer...

Tsk tsk, fox, untimely. I already debunked this point. You really should read all comments before you make a fool of yourself.

So, let them die, and don't spend any government money on them - right? I don't want my money spent on someone who willing smoked, even after the warnings were place on cigarettes. Consequences are to be had-good and bad. Darwinism in action maybe?

Actually, this is what Obamacare will do. He sets the example, why should we be any different?

 

[shagdrum]

But, is an economy based on capitalism truly freedom? Where is the liberty? Aren't you just a slave to a different master? How many people truly achieve economic freedom through capitalism?

Another Marxist deception; mistaking an unattainable, imaginary freedom from economic decisions as "economic freedom". Economic freedom is not something you achieve with enough income, it is something you have naturally. You can never have freedom from economic decisions. Fictions like "social justice" destroy true economic freedom as well as other ideas like Rights, the Rule of Law and true justice.

Fox, you have show (and admitted) time and again that you are not interested in philosophy. Every time you try to engage in those discussions you demonstrate that you are a) in way over your head and b) are only interested in deceiving and distorting in order to defend your worldview. I see no reason to waste my time with someone actively looking to deceive.

 

[foxpaws]

I'm not discussing that book, since I haven't read it. Have you?

However, I do agree with that statement. America isn't for everybody. It's not for those who are looking for a handout. If you want a handout, go to Europe or Canada. If you want to succeed and achieve your dreams, obtain liberty, come here.

Foss - Fountainhead is the best of her fiction - you should read it (however, don't check it out of a public library- that would be socialist) - I have. I have read almost everything she has written - I was quite into the religion of 'Rand' at one point.

So, you agree with Roark/Rand that self sacrifice i.e. such as seen in military service, didn't help make this a great country - you agree with Roark's statement?

Please back this up with some real evidence, notably people being thrown into prisons and murdered by the millions by capitalism. Thanks.

Millions of people are oppressed by capitalism. I am not saying it is wrong - but it is a fact. They might not be thrown into prison, but since they can't get medical care, they have a 'death sentence' imposed on them anyway. Or if you don't have the means to get a good lawyer - you often become a victim of the system, thrown into prison, because you can't buy a defense.

Tsk tsk, fox, you only know one definition of 'keep?' You're either really stupid or being deliberately obtuse. I'm leaning toward the latter, but you never know...

So - you do keep a woman - good to know Foss...

Tsk tsk, fox, untimely. I already debunked this point. You really should read all comments before you make a fool of yourself.

Ah - I was being a good capitalist, and playing with big guns last week - sorry I had to skim. But, you didn't debunk anything - in comparable dollars the old Bel Air costs the same as the new Malibu. You tried to muddle up the discussion with some sort of inflationary crap, but it doesn't matter - the cars have an equal 'value' within the market at the time.

Shag - so you haven't answered my direct question - have you read any Rand?

At least you apparently agree that discussing Road to Serfdom and how it mirrors Anthem in many ways is foolish unless you have actually read both books...

Another Marxist deception; mistaking an unattainable, imaginary freedom from economic decisions as "economic freedom". Economic freedom is not something you achieve with enough income, it is something you have naturally. You can never have freedom from economic decisions. Fictions like "social justice" destroy true economic freedom as well as other ideas like Rights, the Rule of Law and true justice.

Once again, I am not arguing that economic freedom is a natural right, it is - I am trying to find out if you believe that unfettered capitalism is the only road to that natural right. Is it the only path to economic freedom? Liberty has other paths available to it, other than the republic we hold dear. You can achieve levels of personal liberty with a democracy, with anarchism, with a consociationalism, perhaps others.

Fox, you have show (and admitted) time and again that you are not interested in philosophy. Every time you try to engage in those discussions you demonstrate that you are a) in way over your head and b) are only interested in deceiving and distorting in order to defend your worldview. I see no reason to waste my time with someone actively looking to deceive.

Shag - I am really trying to understand how you view unfettered capitalism. I know that economic freedom doesn't mean a handout-it doesn't mean shielding the populace from being 'poor' or 'needy', but does unfettered capitalism, such as touted by Rand, truly give us the best choice when you are looking at protecting the people's natural right of the 'pursuit of happiness'?

Personally I view unfettered capitalism much as I view anarchy - perhaps in small, very isolated groups these types of systems would satisfy the need to foster natural rights - but, in larger soci-economic environments, neither work. Anarchy is absolute liberty-republicanism isn't, it is a compromise. Unfettered capitalism is absolute economic freedom, but don't we have to compromise in this arena as well?

 

[Calabrio]

Don't respond to this post.

Don't make Foxpaws marital status or intimate social life a part of any of these conversation, unless she brings it up first.
Unless it's directly related to the conversation, it's completely inappropriate, offensive, and happening too frequently.
Provided I see them early enough, I will continue to delete them.
And we might have to issue start issuing warnings.

Again, don't hijack the thread by responding to this post.
If you have any questions, just send me a PM.