PDA

View Full Version : Atlas Shrugged Revisited



Libhater
12-28-2013, 06:43 AM
The Occupy Wall Street gathered in Zuccotti Park and created a little "General Assembly" of sorts similar to that of the United Nations' General Assembly to come up with a set of demands and to allocate resources among competing protestor factions. This assembly of progressive minded occupiers quickly devolved into arguments over who gets what, and whose opinions matter most.

In the fictional Atlas Shrugged, and in the all-too-real catastrophic experiments in socialism put into practice across the world, this is what happens. Where the edict "to teach according to their contribution" is replaced with "to each according to their need," the disastrous results leave most of society--the 99 percent--jobless, angry, hungry, and destitute.

These progressive groups have put Greece into a declining status similar to that of what was witnessed of the destructive aftermath of any and all of the OWS protests. Italy, Spain and a couple other European nations are sure to follow suit.

kilgram
12-28-2013, 06:52 AM
The Occupy Wall Street gathered in Zuccotti Park and created a little "General Assembly" of sorts similar to that of the United Nations' General Assembly to come up with a set of demands and to allocate resources among competing protestor factions. This assembly of progressive minded occupiers quickly devolved into arguments over who gets what, and whose opinions matter most.

In the fictional Atlas Shrugged, and in the all-too-real catastrophic experiments in socialism put into practice across the world, this is what happens. Where the edict "to teach according to their contribution" is replaced with "to each according to their need," the disastrous results leave most of society--the 99 percent--jobless, angry, hungry, and destitute.

These progressive groups have put Greece into a declining status similar to that of what was witnessed of the destructive aftermath of any and all of the OWS protests. Italy, Spain and a couple other European nations are sure to follow suit.
Just a word: LOL.

Green Arrow
12-28-2013, 08:00 AM
It's a terribly boring book written by a psychopath.

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 08:05 AM
Can anyone tell us of a socialist experiment that has not failed and left a trail of death and destruction in its path? Much of what Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged is coming true. Every "socialist" revolution that has shown even a modicum of success was only successful because of its acceptance of some capitalistic systems.

Instead of merely LOLing why don't you tell us how socialism, which flies in the very face of human nature, will work?

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 08:07 AM
It's a terribly boring book written by a psychopath.


A critique from someone with no knowledge of human nature.

Libhater
12-28-2013, 08:20 AM
Can anyone tell us of a socialist experiment that has not failed and left a trail of death and destruction in its path? Much of what Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged is coming true. Every "socialist" revolution that has shown even a modicum of success was only successful because of its acceptance of some capitalistic systems.

Instead of merely LOLing why do you tell us how socialism, which flies in the very face of human nature, will work?

Other than an occasional posting in the humor, the sports and or the hole sub forums here, most of my postings are aimed to expose the utter destructive forces and mindsets of those favoring a socialist/progressive path here in America. So its no surprise that we find a few attacking the messenger (Ayn Rand) etc. when they're helplessly left with no other option concerning reasonable/constructive debate on their failed ideological viewpoints.

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 08:26 AM
Other than an occasional posting in the humor, the sports and or the hole sub forums here, most of my postings are aimed to expose the utter destructive forces and mindsets of those favoring a socialist/progressive path here in America. So its no surprise that we find a few attacking the messenger (Ayn Rand) etc. when they're helplessly left with no other option concerning reasonable/constructive debate on their failed ideological viewpoints.

It is interesting that they never address her points but instead will attempt to vilify her personally. Are they saying that if Hitler were a normal, well adjusted person his political and social beliefs would have been acceptable? Does truth depend on who is making the statement?

If they want to be taken seriously they will need to address the issues raised by Rand and not continue to spout the progressive position of if you disagree with me you are obviously mentally deranged.

As an aside I must state I totally disagree with your position on blacks and Jews. If you truly understood Rand you would realize that in her belief system all people are individuals and are to be judged on that basis alone.

Libhater
12-28-2013, 08:29 AM
It is interesting that they never address her points but instead will attempt to vilify her personally. Are they saying that if Hitler were a normal, well adjusted person his political and social beliefs would have been acceptable? Does truth depend on who is making the statement?

If they want to be taken seriously they will need to address the issues raised by Rand and not continue to spout the progressive position of if you disagree with me you are obviously mentally deranged.

On another note, these same leftists have no problem calling the Tea Party people racists because they disagree with Obama's policies. Another example of the unwillingness of the leftist to engage in reasonable debate. In a way, we really can't blame them for their attempts to avoid a debate, since they know they are on the losing and or wrong side of the issues.

jillian
12-28-2013, 08:42 AM
On another note, these same leftists have no problem calling the Tea Party people racists because they disagree with Obama's policies. Another example of the unwillingness of the leftist to engage in reasonable debate. In a way, we really can't blame them for their attempts to avoid a debate, since they know they are on the losing and or wrong side of the issues.

it is not disagreement with THE PRESIDENT'S policies that make you sound racist.

it could be your support for the KKK.

keymanjim
12-28-2013, 08:50 AM
it is not disagreement with THE PRESIDENT'S policies that make you sound racist.

it could be your support for the KKK.
^^^Talk about doubling down on stupid.^^^

Libhater
12-28-2013, 08:54 AM
As an aside I must state I totally disagree with your position on blacks and Jews. If you truly understood Rand you would realize that in her belief system all people are individuals and are to be judged on that basis alone.

Though I didn't want to sidetrack the message here, I am nonetheless a bit curious of what exactly you think my position is on jews and blacks. I am the epitome of the true individualist as I do my best work in the privacy of my segregated enclave; and being an individualist as such I do respect the individualism of other people as well, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

kilgram
12-28-2013, 09:11 AM
A critique from someone with no knowledge of human nature.
Are you saying that humans are psycopath?

kilgram
12-28-2013, 09:14 AM
On another note, these same leftists have no problem calling the Tea Party people racists because they disagree with Obama's policies. Another example of the unwillingness of the leftist to engage in reasonable debate. In a way, we really can't blame them for their attempts to avoid a debate, since they know they are on the losing and or wrong side of the issues.
For that they are not called racists ;) They are called racists for other issues, like supporting racist groups like Ku-Kux Klan ;)

Green Arrow
12-28-2013, 09:26 AM
Can anyone tell us of a socialist experiment that has not failed and left a trail of death and destruction in its path? Much of what Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged is coming true. Every "socialist" revolution that has shown even a modicum of success was only successful because of its acceptance of some capitalistic systems.

Instead of merely LOLing why don't you tell us how socialism, which flies in the very face of human nature, will work?

I have, repeatedly, across this forum. So has kilgram. Socialism happens every day without failing and leaving "a trail of death and destruction in its path."

Libhater
12-28-2013, 11:13 AM
I have, repeatedly, across this forum. So has kilgram. Socialism happens every day without failing and leaving "a trail of death and destruction in its path."

Could you be a bit more specific in describing where this socialism is actually working?

kilgram
12-28-2013, 11:15 AM
Could you be a bit more specific in describing where this socialism is actually working?
Even Chris has put some examples.

Chris
12-28-2013, 11:28 AM
Could you be a bit more specific in describing where this socialism is actually working?


Marinaleda, the new new socialist utopia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17875-Marinaleda-the-new-new-socialist-utopia?highlight=Marinaleda)

In general, Parecon (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11514-Parecon?highlight=parecon). A specific instance is a gaming company call Valve.

Libhater
12-28-2013, 11:38 AM
Marinaleda, the new new socialist utopia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17875-Marinaleda-the-new-new-socialist-utopia?highlight=Marinaleda)

In general, Parecon (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11514-Parecon?highlight=parecon). A specific instance is a gaming company call Valve.

LOL! Yeah, economic utopias for sure.

Chris
12-28-2013, 11:43 AM
LOL! Yeah, economic utopias for sure.

No, I'm sure they're every bit as messy as free markets.


The problem isn't socialism but state socialism is just as capitalism isn't the problem but state capitalism is. Statism is the problem--somewhat Ayn Rand's message, though she, like Hayek, allowed for some measure of government.

Guest
12-28-2013, 11:49 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jillian http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=470393#post470393)

it is not disagreement with THE PRESIDENT'S policies that make you sound racist.

it could be your support for the KKK.




^^^Talk about doubling down on stupid.^^^


:highfive:

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 11:53 AM
it is not disagreement with THE PRESIDENT'S policies that make you sound racist.

it could be your support for the KKK.

What about those who have never shown support for the KKK but disagree with the socialist policies of the president. Why are they called racist and "you only oppose him because he is black"?

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 11:55 AM
I have, repeatedly, across this forum. So has kilgram. Socialism happens every day without failing and leaving "a trail of death and destruction in its path."

Examples please. I'll wait.

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 11:58 AM
Though I didn't want to sidetrack the message here, I am nonetheless a bit curious of what exactly you think my position is on jews and blacks. I am the epitome of the true individualist as I do my best work in the privacy of my segregated enclave; and being an individualist as such I do respect the individualism of other people as well, regardless of their race or ethnicity.


The fact that you would even consider a segregated enclave would tend to preclude your claim in the belief in the individual.

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 11:59 AM
Are you saying that humans are psycopath?


Well, that's an extremely stupid response now isn't it?

Chris
12-28-2013, 12:01 PM
Marinaleda, the new new socialist utopia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17875-Marinaleda-the-new-new-socialist-utopia?highlight=Marinaleda)

In general, Parecon (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11514-Parecon?highlight=parecon). A specific instance is a gaming company call Valve.


Examples please. I'll wait.


Already posted.

Kalkin
12-28-2013, 12:05 PM
Just a word: LOL.
LOL is an acronym.

kilgram
12-28-2013, 12:10 PM
LOL is an acronym.
Yeah, I know :)

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 12:17 PM
Already posted.


A socialistic commune may work on a small scale but what happens when there is disagreement in the ranks or when you have those who want more for their families because they are producing more. Those events will always happen and eventually this "utopia" will either merely fade away or degenerate into warfare. In any society there will always be those who are leaders and those who are followers and those who produce and those who take from the producers without giving in return. In a capitalistic society those who don't produce but are merely takers don't last long and will die out.

Mainecoons
12-28-2013, 12:23 PM
Or the dissenters can vote with their feet. I think this is an essential element if anything like this is to succeed where people want it. Because some people will not want it and there has to be an outlet.

Chris
12-28-2013, 12:30 PM
A socialistic commune may work on a small scale but what happens when there is disagreement in the ranks or when you have those who want more for their families because they are producing more. Those events will always happen and eventually this "utopia" will either merely fade away or degenerate into warfare. In any society there will always be those who are leaders and those who are followers and those who produce and those who take from the producers without giving in return. In a capitalistic society those who don't produce but are merely takers don't last long and will die out.


I'm not a socialist so I don't have answers to all that.

I don't know for example how socialists solve the economic calculation or coordination problems. They in fact conceded those as insolvable back in the 90s.

In Valve they resolve the issue by simple popular vote, iow, people freely group together on projects, and that's where the company goes. They're a software company that recently this way moved to hardware. An in a small community or firm, you don't get paid or share in produce or services unless you contribute so there's no free rider problem. I don't get how they allocate resources within the company other than just taking them for a project. I do know that as a company they operate in the free market to obtain resources and to sell their products. So they are an island of socialism in the free market. There's really nothing in the free market that rejects it, the free market embraces it.

I think the problems you raise arise from state socialism, same as they do under state capitalism. The problem is, thus, statism.

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 12:31 PM
Or the dissenters can vote with their feet. I think this is an essential element if anything like this is to succeed where people want it. Because some people will not want it and there has to be an outlet.


If a group wants to start a commune more power to them as long as they are a volunteer organization. If a village decides everyone is going to be a carrot farmer and those who are not carrot farmers are to be fined then that is not acceptable. It does not matter what any group wants to do as long as two criteria are met

(1). Its one hundred percent voluntary and you can come and go within the group as you please

(2). It does not interfere with other groups that may or may not wish to participate with your group.

Other than that, live or die on your own.

nathanbforrest45
12-28-2013, 12:33 PM
Define "state capitalism" if you would. I don't understand the concept of "state capitalism" since the very nature of capitalism is free markets and freedom to trade as you see fit. How could the government dictate that in a free market you will do business with a certain group or in a certain manner?

Chris
12-28-2013, 12:34 PM
Or the dissenters can vote with their feet. I think this is an essential element if anything like this is to succeed where people want it. Because some people will not want it and there has to be an outlet.

Right, if I went to work for Valve and didn't like their socialist firm management system, I could walk and work elsewhere. Same with Marinaleda, Spain, I could leave that community for another that better suits me.

The problem arises when you have a huge statist system where one size fits all. There's no easy way out that does carry high transaction costs compare to changing your job or moving to another town.

Chris
12-28-2013, 12:37 PM
Define "state capitalism" if you would. I don't understand the concept of "state capitalism" since the very nature of capitalism is free markets and freedom to trade as you see fit. How could the government dictate that in a free market you will do business with a certain group or in a certain manner?

State capitalism is managed markets like what we have in the US or what China has. The state tries to manage the free market to its, the state's, agenda--mainly to enrich itself and its cronies, though of course a socialist like Robert Reich sugar coats it: The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).

Mainecoons
12-28-2013, 12:37 PM
Exactly my point Chris. I am reminded of an essay on consumerism that I read a while back that basically said that materialism is becoming more and more personalized and less and less mass produced as a result of technologies which enables products to be highly customized at reasonable cost.

Perhaps the answer is to return the central government to its Constitutional role of providing general protection, rule of law, protection of property, free movement of goods, services and people within the common boundary, and otherwise stay the hell out of the way and let people figure it out on a case by case basis.

BTW, has anyone else noticed how the level of discourse rises here when some folks are absent? I won't name any names but one hasn't been around for a week now with his cartoons and constant partisan baiting. Mods might want to take note of what happens here when the trolls are gone.

Green Arrow
12-28-2013, 12:38 PM
Define "state capitalism" if you would. I don't understand the concept of "state capitalism" since the very nature of capitalism is free markets and freedom to trade as you see fit. How could the government dictate that in a free market you will do business with a certain group or in a certain manner?

The concept of "free market capitalism" or "laissez-faire capitalism" were a later addition. The original philosophy of capitalism made no judgement about state involvement, or the lack thereof.

Libhater
12-28-2013, 12:46 PM
The problem arises when you have a huge statist system where one size fits all. There's no easy way out that does carry high transaction costs compare to changing your job or moving to another town.

I don't think that its much of a stretch to include obamacare in with the overall control of our economy when speaking of the problem(s) a nation faces with the enactment of a statist agenda or system.

Chris
12-28-2013, 12:51 PM
I don't think that its much of a stretch to include obamacare in with the overall control of our economy when speaking of the problem(s) a nation faces with the enactment of a statist agenda or system.

Exactly.

Chris
12-28-2013, 12:55 PM
The concept of "free market capitalism" or "laissez-faire capitalism" were a later addition. The original philosophy of capitalism made no judgement about state involvement, or the lack thereof.

The origin of capitalism is Marx. It's no wonder so many progressives share his anti-capitalist views.


It is impossible to exaggerate the enigma within the term “capitalism.” It is in fact one of those big concepts concocted by its enemies, indeed by its chief antagonist Karl Marx. To this very day its central concepts of market and “trickle down” are questioned from the American president to the pope. Even its supporters cannot agree on what it is or even when it began. Marx targets the 14th Century as the end of feudalism and rise of capitalism. However, many proponents point later, some to the Renaissance (15th-16th Centuries), and others to the Reformation (16th Century), the Enlightenment (17th Century), or even the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution (18th Century).

Marx’s capitalism emerges from a long feudal conflict between lord and serf that ends with owners exploiting workers. Somewhat dismayed at capitalism’s longevity, Marx was certain of its final fall. But capitalism’s rise is expressed in a surprisingly positive way: “serfdom had practically disappeared in the last part of the 14th century. The immense majority of the population consisted then and, to a still larger extent in the fifteenth century, of free peasant proprietors, whatever was the feudal title under which their right of property was hidden” (Capital 1:27). It was the fact that the serfs had wrested more and more freedom over their own labor from the lords that allowed the new capitalists to attract the freed labor to create “more massive and colossal productive forces than have all previous generations together” (Communist Manifesto).

...

@ Capitalism’s Enigma And Its Future (http://thefederalist.com/2013/12/23/capitalisms-enigma-and-its-future/)

Green Arrow
12-28-2013, 12:59 PM
The origin of capitalism is Marx. It's no wonder so many progressives share his anti-capitalist views.



@ Capitalism’s Enigma And Its Future (http://thefederalist.com/2013/12/23/capitalisms-enigma-and-its-future/)

The origin of capitalism is Marx? Since when? Adam Smith has always been universally recognized as the father of modern economics and especially capitalism.

Chris
12-28-2013, 01:02 PM
The origin of capitalism is Marx? Since when? Adam Smith has always been universally recognized as the father of modern economics and especially capitalism.

Of the term at least, and all its negative connotations. What Smith described was the free market emerging from the corruption of mercantilism, which mercantilism with its joint stock companies propped by government is not much different than the cory corporatism we've been slipping into for decades.

The Sage of Main Street
12-28-2013, 05:08 PM
A socialistic commune may work on a small scale but what happens when there is disagreement in the ranks or when you have those who want more for their families because they are producing more. Those events will always happen and eventually this "utopia" will either merely fade away or degenerate into warfare. In any society there will always be those who are leaders and those who are followers and those who produce and those who take from the producers without giving in return. In a capitalistic society those who don't produce but are merely takers don't last long and will die out.

Socialism is not the alternative to Capitalism. A corporation is a collectivist entity. The owners produce nothing, so why shouldn't the employees demand more if they collectively produce more? That doesn't exclude more productive employees demanding more than the less productive employees. However, first they have to unionize to get the control away from the unproductive ownership. Owners aren't earners. Investment is static, work is dynamic. Right Wingers are so simple-minded that they think if we don't follow their selfish-parasite economics, we must want either everybody getting equal pay or government ownership. Such a false choice proves that they have no point and can only convince us through scare tactics. "Either absolute authority to Capital or you'll have Stalin and Pol Pot." No one intelligent can be persuaded by such false limitation of choices. So either the Right gets stuck with all the stupid people as flunkies or the intelligent people on their side know it is absurd but cynically preach the nonsense out of self-serving greed.

A rugged individual runs everyone ragged. In the competitive race, which he tries to convince us is a free market, he pushes, shoves, trips, booby traps, and bribes his way to victory. That will put him in a position of so much power that he can set himself up halfway to the finish line in the next race and doesn't need to make the effort to cheat, coasting all the way. Then he passes that sure-victory position on to his no-talent brats and claims being a HeirDad is part of his due reward.

As for those with no head start, the only way they can take care of themselves without getting crushed is to unionize. This doesn't sacrifice individualism but merely puts it on hold until it is no longer suicidal. In order to defend ourselves from our self-appointed rulers, we must use any means of destroying them. It doesn't matter if that will ruin everything for both sides, at least we will have the self-respect of having gotten even, because this class system is insulting, demoralizing, and unbearable. No real man should have to salute some Sissy in a Suitcoat. Besides, most people aren't going to believe that revolution will be disaster. The nasty conceited character of the Greedheads will make us suspicious of all their scare stories, even if we can't show how they are illogical. So the only way to avoid violent class warfare is give equal shares to each employee, with different salaries and no owners. We should grow businesses through bank loans only.

Codename Section
12-28-2013, 05:11 PM
I am a business owner with my friends. I assure you I work and without me it wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

jillian
12-28-2013, 05:15 PM
ayn rand died broke and collecting social security


Ayn Rand [born] Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum which she changed honoring her Rand typewriter.Miss Rand, famously a believer in rugged individualism and personal responsibility, was a strong defender of self-interest. She was a staunch opponent of government programs from the New Deal and Social Security to the Great Society and Medicare.

*snip*

A heavy smoker who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer brings to mind those today who are equally certain there is no such thing as global warming. Unfortunately, Miss Rand was a fatal victim of lung cancer.
However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html

Mainecoons
12-28-2013, 05:16 PM
So what? More of your ad hom? Try discussing her views and the book.


A heavy smoker who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer brings to mind those today who are equally certain there is no such thing as global warming. Unfortunately, Miss Rand was a fatal victim of lung cancer.

What an excellent example of what a crappy source for anything Puffington is. Nothing but personal attack and leftist editorializing about something that has nothing to do with the topic.

I really can see why your reality is so distorted. You actually read and believe this crap.

jillian
12-28-2013, 05:18 PM
It's a terribly boring book written by a psychopath.

the problem is that people mistake it for political philosophy when it is better novel.

jillian
12-28-2013, 05:19 PM
So what? More of your ad hom? Try discussing her views and the book.



What an excellent example of what a crappy source for anything Puffington is. Nothing but personal attack and leftist editorializing about something that has nothing to do with the topic.

I really can see why your reality is so distorted. You actually read and believe this crap.


[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

sorry truth hurts. reality isn't your strong suit.

and your saying it's wrong… doesn't come close to making it wrong.

Mainecoons
12-28-2013, 05:20 PM
It is a novel written around a political philosophy. The fact you don't like or understand that philosophy doesn't change this.

It was a boring book, agreed. And the political philosophy in it was highly simplistic and emotional, much like modern day liberalism.

jillian
12-28-2013, 05:20 PM
A critique from someone with no knowledge of human nature.

no doubt human nature is to stamp one's feet and claim no one else matters.

it's also considered sociopathic to have no empathy after a certain age

Mainecoons
12-28-2013, 05:21 PM
sorry truth hurts. reality isn't your strong suit.

and your saying it's wrong… doesn't come close to making it wrong.

Editorializing can't be wrong. It is just opinion. Unfortunately, your reality is so distorted you don't know the difference between opinion and the manufactured fact that you love to post here. Editorializing isn't truth, it is just editorializing.

Carry on.

Mainecoons
12-28-2013, 05:22 PM
no doubt human nature is to stamp one's feet and claim no one else matters.

it's also considered sociopathic to have no empathy after a certain age

I'd be careful here, you may be slipping into self-description.

jillian
12-28-2013, 05:24 PM
I'd be careful here, you may be slipping into self-description.

i'm not the one pretending ayn rand had it right.

watch yourself.

Mainecoons
12-28-2013, 05:26 PM
I'm not either. Are you exhibiting your reading disability again? Go back and read what I said, word for word, and stop injecting your rancor and biases into the posts of all of us.

On edit, here is what I said again, recognizing that you seem to have a lot of trouble reading things posted only once:


It is a novel written around a political philosophy. The fact you don't like or understand that philosophy doesn't change this.

It was a boring book, agreed. And the political philosophy in it was highly simplistic and emotional, much like modern day liberalism.

Thank you.

jillian
12-28-2013, 05:31 PM
I'm not either. Are you exhibiting your reading disability again? Go back and read what I said, word for word, and stop injecting your rancor and biases into the posts of all of us.

On edit, here is what I said again, recognizing that you seem to have a lot of trouble reading things posted only once:

[/COLOR]

Thank you.

i didn't get past your statements about huffington post somehow being untrue. perhaps you should have gotten to the actual meat before doing that little song and dance.

as for the last, nothing more than the usual attack on liberalism…

though i agree radians are simplistic and fail to understand what their world would look like.

Dr. Who
12-28-2013, 05:54 PM
^^^Talk about doubling down on stupid.^^^

Knock off the personal attacks

Mainecoons
12-28-2013, 07:05 PM
i didn't get past your statements about huffington post somehow being untrue. perhaps you should have gotten to the actual meat before doing that little song and dance.

as for the last, nothing more than the usual attack on liberalism…

though i agree radians are simplistic and fail to understand what their world would look like.

You could have just stopped with. "I didn't get past. . ."

Your Puffington Post piece was just an editorial rant. Nothing more. Like most of your posts. Now we see where you get your style.

We've noticed.

:rofl:

peoshi
12-28-2013, 07:58 PM
BTW, has anyone else noticed how the level of discourse rises here when some folks are absent? I won't name any names but one hasn't been around for a week now with his cartoons and constant partisan baiting. Mods might want to take note of what happens here when the trolls are gone.Don't worry...I'm sure we will once again have the priviledge of reading his brilliant comments after the first of the year.

Ivan88
12-28-2013, 09:12 PM
Moses was an early proponent of the Rights of man and the kind of capitalism that Ayn Rand advocated.

The 10 Commandments lay the foundation for a true capitalist society:
Man has a right to his property and life. He has a right to a society that honors "Truth, Mercy and Faith, the weightier matters of the Law."

What we have in America is not this sort of capitalism. Instead, we have a very unique form of Communism. We call it "capitalism".
5108

Fredy
12-28-2013, 09:29 PM
So what? More of your ad hom? Try discussing her views and the book.



What an excellent example of what a crappy source for anything Puffington is. Nothing but personal attack and leftist editorializing about something that has nothing to do with the topic.

I really can see why your reality is so distorted. You actually read and believe this crap.


[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

Her views were wrong and her book(s) truly, truly sucked.

Green Arrow
12-29-2013, 06:17 AM
the problem is that people mistake it for political philosophy when it is better novel.

No, it's definitely political philosophy. The problem is that people think it is good literature.

jillian
12-29-2013, 06:19 AM
No, it's definitely political philosophy. The problem is that people think it is good literature.

six of one. half dozen of the other.

we can both agree it isn't anything to base a society on.

Peter1469
12-29-2013, 07:42 AM
Her views were wrong and her book(s) truly, truly sucked.

I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and I am not sure if I had ever been so bored in my life.

Peter1469
12-29-2013, 07:44 AM
six of one. half dozen of the other.

we can both agree it isn't anything to base a society on.

I am not sure if this is a good analogy, but her ideas seem similar to how Mitt ran his campaign praising business owners (while attacking the bottom 47%) but forgetting that the majority of people are not business owners, but rather employed by business owners....

jillian
12-29-2013, 07:47 AM
I am not sure if this is a good analogy, but her ideas seem similar to how Mitt ran his campaign praising business owners (while attacking the bottom 47%) but forgetting that the majority of people are not business owners, but rather employed by business owners....

atlas shrugged basically says screw the people who work. it's only the top tier that builds anything...

so yeah, i guess it was sort of like what romney said.

which is yet another reason romney lost.

and a reason not to base our society on social darwinism like paul ryan and rand paul think we should

Libhater
12-29-2013, 08:09 AM
atlas shrugged basically says screw the people who work. it's only the top tier that builds anything...

so yeah, i guess it was sort of like what romney said.

which is yet another reason romney lost.

and a reason not to base our society on social darwinism like paul ryan and rand paul think we should

It didn't take long for some of you to cross over into la-la land by revising everything Ayn Rand had to say in her eye-opening book concerning American Capitalism and
its progressive anti American economy opponent. Do yourself a favor by re-reading the OP to see just how far you've veered from the simple truth of the matter in the battle between Capitalism and the collective society which you so endear. I condensed the OP into a simple form just to make it easy for those of you still having a tough time distinguishing between Capitalism and socialism/collectivism.

Chris
12-29-2013, 08:30 AM
atlas shrugged basically says screw the people who work. it's only the top tier that builds anything...

...

and a reason not to base our society on social darwinism like paul ryan and rand paul think we should



If it does, jillian, then certainly you can cite passages that suggest what you say.

Social Darwinism is a progressive idea.

Mini Me
12-29-2013, 01:54 PM
State capitalism is managed markets like what we have in the US or what China has. The state tries to manage the free market to its, the state's, agenda--mainly to enrich itself and its cronies, though of course a socialist like Robert Reich sugar coats it: The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).

This is sheer hogwash!

What we have in the USA today is FASCISM. Merging of corporatists with the govenment. To the point where corporatists control the government.

And it is NEVER the intent of capitalism to spread the benefits of the productivity. in fact, today, just the opposite occurs! It is purely profit driven, and the end justifies the means. This is how fascism operates.

You need to throw away your "theory" books, and apply the reality principle. You sound like an Ivory Tower intellectual egghead, who never went to college! Too much Burke mixed with Machievelli.

Chris
12-29-2013, 02:01 PM
This is sheer hogwash!

What we have in the USA today is FASCISM. Merging of corporatists with the govenment. To the point where corporatists control the government.

And it is NEVER the intent of capitalism to spread the benefits of the productivity. in fact, today, just the opposite occurs! It is purely profit driven, and the end justifies the means. This is how fascism operates.

You need to throw away your "theory" books, and apply the reality principle. You sound like an Ivory Tower intellectual egghead, who never went to college! Too much Burke mixed with Machievelli.




What we have in the USA today is FASCISM. Merging of corporatists with the govenment.

What I said, just different words. If what i said was hogwash then....


To the point where corporatists control the government.

This was true prior to the 16th amendment, since then government has had direct access to our wealth, no need to consult business which is put i the position of rent seekers. --The result is the same.




In collusion with government, yes, sans government, false. Business is in the business of making profit in return for the risks taken. But if they don't employ political means, but economic means, then the only way they can profit is to provide value to consumers.


You need to throw away your "theory" books, and apply the reality principle.

What, your personal reality? No, thanks though.

Mini Me
12-29-2013, 02:04 PM
If it does, jillian, then certainly you can cite passages that suggest what you say.

Social Darwinism is a progressive idea.

Survival of the fittest is NOT progressive at all!

How in the world can you make such idiotic comments? Just asking, not insulting.

Chris
12-29-2013, 02:06 PM
...

Social Darwinism is a progressive idea.


Survival of the fittest is NOT progressive at all!

How in the world can you make such idiotic comments? Just asking, not insulting.

Social Darwinism is progressive. It's based on a misinterpretation of survival of the fittest.

Your insults are meaningless white flags.

Peter1469
12-29-2013, 03:31 PM
This is sheer hogwash!

What we have in the USA today is FASCISM. Merging of corporatists with the govenment. To the point where corporatists control the government.

And it is NEVER the intent of capitalism to spread the benefits of the productivity. in fact, today, just the opposite occurs! It is purely profit driven, and the end justifies the means. This is how fascism operates.

You need to throw away your "theory" books, and apply the reality principle. You sound like an Ivory Tower intellectual egghead, who never went to college! Too much Burke mixed with Machievelli.

Aren't Ivory Tower intellectual egghead the ones who went to college, and never left? :shocked:

Polecat
12-29-2013, 03:45 PM
Aren't Ivory Tower intellectual egghead the ones who went to college, and never left? :shocked:

That's what I thought. But then I didn't go to college. Didn't even finish high school.

Chris
12-29-2013, 05:54 PM
It's always humorous to see being educated complained about as a negative.

Boris The Animal
12-29-2013, 07:24 PM
^^^Talk about doubling down on stupid.^^^Remember during Hurricane Katrina, Gen. Honore called the press out for being "stuck on stupid"? There's Desh right there :D

The Sage of Main Street
12-30-2013, 11:35 AM
Her views were wrong and her book(s) truly, truly sucked.

They were bait-and-switch rants. She associates Capitalist parasites with inventors. Appropriately, the mythological Atlas was a mindless hulk who held on his shoulders a jungle world where man would have soon gone extinct if hadn't been for the few inventors. Only they prevented the rest of the humans from living like animals. Only they were truly homo sapiens. The rulers both then and today could figuratively be described as homo erectus. Our self-appointed ruling class grunts, howls at the moon, pounds its chest, and mindlessly rules over us by hitting us on the head with a club.

The key cognitive-dissonant moment was John Galt's letting his bosses completely own his trillion-dollar invention. Worse, the mind-pillaging loot went to the spoiled born-to-rule heirs of the bosses, who had not even contributed capital to the invention. The only thing the Stalinist Right Winger Ayn Rand got right was that what poses for the Left is just a clique of Heirheads with the same dominating attitude inherited from their loved/hated fathers. Though Galt takes his invention back, he wouldn't have done so if the heirs had re-invested it to screw other inventors or even if they had blown it on the degenerate lifestyle of our bloated Rich and Famous.

The Sage of Main Street
12-30-2013, 11:43 AM
That's what I thought. But then I didn't go to college. Didn't even finish high school.

The ignorant and dysfunctional grammar of the average college graduate indicates that College Education Is a Fraud and Should Not Be Rewarded. It is un-American class-biased indentured servitude and should be replaced by highly paid professional training. That will guarantee getting the most talented people and motivating them to study. This present system only attracts no-talent bluebloods and brown-noses.