UMD Libertarians

i just realized that making an Ayn Rand thread on OT is a pretty stupid idea

i’ve been meaning to read this book for a couple years now and this thread reminded me to go get it from the library today. so this thread wasn’t completely useless.

i don’t know about that…i think everyone on OT is pretty libertarian

And to Rand.

Unfortunately, it will literally take a strike of the mind to teach the moochers a lesson

i lost my copies of atlas shrugged and the fountainhead I’m ordering new copies today

i should have said the main forum…not OT in general :
part 2 is

wow there are 25 people in front of me at line for it

just buy it for your kindle

it is VERY eerie how well it relates to the current day

She has more than one book.

I’d suggest The Fountainhead then Atlas Shrugged, but a lot of others suggest the opposite.

They’re worth owning.

my eyes have been opened to how fucked we all are

seriously, someone must be pumping his house full of kool aid

also read "capitalism: the unknown ideal," which is a collection of essays

I’ve been re-reading Atlas Shrugged over the past few weeks, and it’s just fucking spot ON

you’re low level of trolling makes me lol

It shouldn’t be opened by that pseudophilosophical drivel

she doesn’t want programs that take money from the average person to give to poor bastards. Immediately that’s anti-shibster

when was the last time you got your place checked for carbon monoxide poisoning?

Probably so. Most people here can’t read, lawl

in case you run out of toilet paper or need to burn something for warmth?

Peace love and objectivism
her stance on being anti-brother’s keeper makes me want to make sweet love to her

true
I will sum up the moral lesson in Atlas Shrugged for everyone.

The rich are obviously the most productive members (and therefore the most moral) this means the poor are immoral simply because they are poor.
And since her objectivist morals are objective, you are immoral if you disagree.

and thus why no scholar will take her seriously.

every man’s purpose in life is to make themselves happy. I don’t see what is so bad about the idea that no one should be forced to care for the less fortunate. Whatever hapened to "only the strong survive"?

Natural selection works great in nature. Doesn’t really fit social situations. Social Darwinism is lol.

I could just as quickly argue that man, as a very social species requires the presence and work of other humans to survive and improve their situation. Any person who doesn’t adapt and work towards improving their community as a whole should be considered a parasite.

Correct, no one that has had any impact on our country has ever been a fan of Rand’s basic principals, much less a member of her inner circle.
liberals are terrified of Ayn Rand…. just look at this thread

alan greenspan

socialism lol

conservatives are terrified of science textbooks. Just look at the midwest.

Yes, but not for the reason you’re thinking. Everyone and their mom here is a hardcore Objectivist and anarcho-libertarian.

sarcasm?

lol wut?

Case and point. No one who’s ever made a difference in this country.

Will you shut the fuck up? I’m trying to set him up the bomb.

I just suggested We the Living, I’m familiar

Way to twist Rand’s ideas to fit your own sociopathic view of the world

Alan Greenspan
I had Greenspan’s wiki page open already and shit, goddamn oblivious fuckers

sorry

I know about Ayn Rand and who she’s influenced. I’ve read Fountainhead and am currently reading Atlas Shrugged. I was making a joke about RP.

What about Greenspan’s career echoed anything Rand ever said?

well it is true that a lot of hardcore objectivists see greenspan as a traitor

if people want to gather together and share their weatlth, that’s fine. Forcing people to do it is not fine

i guess you missed the two videos i posted on the previous page where she says the same things

Forcing people to do it is the very essence of objective morality. Rand just found it distasteful and thus could never bring herself to admit that the only truly objective moral stance is that might makes right.
I have to say that she showed great courage to say those things, considering the era at the time. great interview.

Objectivism is about selfishness in the most un-evil way possible. In no way does she ever suggest you should step all over everyone else to have your way though. Her philosophy is as much about fairness as it is selfishness.

he wrote several essays for her and even part of a book

‘Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand’s classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I’m confident that we’d get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

The art for a 1999 postage stamp.

Many of us who know Rand’s work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises — that in most cases they themselves created — by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel’s promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn’t Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion — in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That’s the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies — while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated — always in the public interest — into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal — stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand’s political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear — leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you’ll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn’t do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand’s ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture — it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don’t need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
She took things to extreme as a result of her background. Her basic ideals of working for yourself are still interesting and relevant.

He was one of her good friends, actually.

I could write a book detailing the reasons we should eliminate evolution from schools and substitute prayer.
Doesn’t mean I’m ever going to practice such an idea.

oh

government should be invisible to the people. it shouldn’t creep into every facet of its’ peoples’ lives and take their money and freedoms.

Where did i say you should step all over everyone? Fairness is me being in control of my own destiny and wealth. That means if I personally feel zero compassion for my fellow man, i shouldn’t be forced to help them

Greenspan also lauded the idea of a return to a gold standard in an essay he wrote.

Think he ever had any intention of doing that once he was chairman of the fed? How many times do you think it ever got brought up during his work as an economic consultant?

I won’t defend religious nuts…. but

Liberals are never scared of science though amirite? Especially concerning sex differences, racial intelligence differences, or the basis of homosexuality….

You limp wristed chumps get all pussy hurt just the same…. you’re no better than they are.

yeah agreed. not everything she said really applies well to real world situations I think. I think pure capitalism, much like pure communism relies far too heavily on the better angels of people’s natures.

Why do you have this need for a government?

Right, if people were honest and moral, it would be a great system. So would Socialism. People aren’t honest.

yeah that’s one of the primary reasons a lot of objectivists see him as having betrayed her principles. she wasn’t much on the idea of central banks or bakers.

yup, humanity is flawed and there will always be dishonest people

I personally could live in the woods and provide everything that i need for life and happiness. Too bad most humans aren’t capable of that

WHO IS JOHN GALT?

I have the audiobook. I need to listen to it.
I got a copy at my parents. I should get it and reread it. Never read this foundainhead book, I’ll get on that too.

no you couldn’t. You would need another person to teach you those skills.
You would also need another person to avoid going completely nuts from the lack of social contact.

You are wrong.

not rly

We the Living is better

no

sorry but yes. Even Rand can’t beat the way the human brain works.
my, how times have changed

he’s fucking smoking

she’s accessing various parts of her memory
She’s awesome. Her work might not amount to an economic treatise but it’s an awesome heroic morality for rationalists and humanists.
Wallace: "Do you predict dictatorship and economic disaster for the United States?"

Rand: "If the present collectivist trend continues, if the present ???? philsophy continues - yes that is the way the country is going"
wallace did a fantastic job with that interview

such an interview is impossible today on network television

it would be Geraldo self-assuredly espousing the ideals of the status quo, an "expert" in the studio with him, then they would bring on Rand who would be linked in remotely and another "expert" linked in remotely

Then Geraldo would ask one question, Rand would start to answer, and everyone would start talking over her
interviews were so raw back then. Just 2 people sitting down having an intellectual conversation. Good shit

It would be like getting interviewed for The Banner lol

and actually allowing each other to speak with minimal interruption

word

you just now realized this?

Hmm… why is it you seem to be inching towards being an economic socialist and a moral objectivist? (if it were possible to be such a thing)

Not really.
i just started reading atlas

never read ayn rand before

I know, the key word is inching. You seem to be backing away from the form of capitalism objectivism supports. For me, any objectivist leanings I have are due to this economic theory and less the morality… so i find it interesting is all.

I’m just saying the novels serve to portray ideals through the heroic characters but are of insufficient detail to lay out any kind of actual plan for implementing an economic system based on that morality. Also sometimes my personal interest does coincide with social programs. It’s the assumption that I owe it to others to help them that I don’t agree with. But if providing a base poverty line through welfare for example keeps people from rioting and living in shanty towns across the country it could be worth it to me.
ugly ass soviet whore that nerds like to talk about to sound smart on the internet.

I see you took the time out of your busy schedule to watch the videos
i read atlas shrugged traveling through europe on nationalized train rails
objectivism is based on the false belief that humans are innately rationale.

they are not. they are controlled by emotions with logical accents. even if they were innately rationale, capitalism rewards socially negative outcomes for the benefit of a few such as creating products with the byproduct of pollution.

look at the unregulated market for derivative securities and complex instruments that led to the current financial crisis. either the people peddling such securities were logical and knew they would make earn lots of money by swindling these securities to moronic buyers (the buyers thought buying the securities was rationale but was in fact not) or they had no idea what they were selling and neither did the buyer.

either way, you had a socially negative outcome that may have resulted in profits for a few. such outcomes would become profligate under a libertarian government.

werd

i was hungover when i made this thread

watch Al Jazeera English; it’s exactly like that, it’s amazing.

lol at the irony of your screen name and then saying rand is horrible

uhh do you know how many ayn rand leghumpers there are on this forum? she’s probably the most cited author on this site dog.

Kafka would be opposed to Ayn Rand. Read The Trial.

i think hunter s thompson would be ahead of rand

oh i know
i’m not a rand leghumper (don’t really know shit about her)

but those videos are

werd. If you get a chance, read the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. Eerie is the only way to describe them
rand’s self-determination is a big part of my philosophy, but i also believe in the importance of altruism
The Incredibles was chock full of objectivist philosophy.

So does neo-objectivism.
alex jones sunday show is on right now

live streaming:

Fuck that crotchety cunt.

There is a middle ground from her idea of what’s best from what is.
I finished fountainhead for the first time at 6:30 this morning. Spent all night reading it. The end was fucking hectic. It was awesome.

I pretty much felt that these characters are ideals. No human on earth could come close to being what Roark.

And rand knocks on altruism in great detail.
As long as you find pure genuine wholesome joy in seeing someone else benefit from your favor, altruism won’t get the best of you. amirite?

I wanted to say this. Great interview.

lol

Francisco: "Why should you care about the others?"
Dagny: "Because I like to understand things, and there’s something about people that I can’t understand."
Francisco:"What?"
Dagny:"Well, I’ve always been unpopular in school and it didn’t bother me, but now I’ve discovered the reason. It’s an impossible kind of reason.
They dislike me, not because I do things badly, but because I do them well. They dislike me because I’ve always had the best grades in the class. I don’t even have to study. I always get A’s. Do you suppose I should try to get D’s for a change and become the most popular girl in school?"

Francisco stopped, looked at her and slapped her face.

She is offering something prescriptive. People should not be controlled by their emotions. Being rational is something that takes effort; it’s something that people should try to achieve.

WERD. Sometimes i think irrational people outnumber rational people by 100 to 1

Sometimes?

my favorite part was when he asked her if the criticism that she wanted to destroy institutions like religion was true and she was like "uhh yes motherfucker"

Link to where you got these?

"I’m marrying for your own good."

Fuck, she hit the nail on the head.
there are times to submit to your emotions and times to submit to your reason. the key is having the wisdom to know which is best at the time and having the strength control it.

reason and emotion are tools of man, not its master. in the empty space between them, devoid of compulsive thoughts and words, is where i feel i am truly myself.

werd

One of Bruce Lee’s favorite philosophers along with Krishnamurti.
Ayn Rand seems to have become the trend on here recently. I could hardly make it through 10 pages of Atlas Shrugged before losing interest.

makes sense, jeet kune do is philosophically the objectivist approach to fighting lol.

Compelling logic Aristotle.

Yeah pretty much. The philosophy behind JKD is incredible. A true JKD man is not to be fucked with.

You’re the same guy that loved the dark knight, so i can see why

OH…
Atlas Shrugged ftw, still one of the best books i’ve read

Related posts:

1. Anyone ever read Atlas Shrugged? I've read it three or four times I did skip "This is John Galt Speaking" after the first time I've...