Ayn Rand a Libertarian Jew for Creative Freedom

[Libhater]

Ayn Rand sought freedom for employers and those with money to do what they like and freedom for the worker to quit
(and starve) or not. Work makes free. "Work Makes Free." Oh yes, it was written over the main gateway to Auschwitz
Concentration Camp.

"Individualism" as described by Ayn Rand is the antithesis of national socialism or any ideology that enables and or leads a
government to mass murder.

Ayn Rand, born Alissa Rosenbaum grew up in St. Petersburg, Russia when the communists took power in 1917. Her
Jewish family "endured years of suffering and danger" after her father's small business was confiscated. She wanted to be
a writer but found no hope for that under a new government regime where the freedom to express opinions, to question
authority, to think for yourself, was prohibited. With family help she fled communist Russia for the United States.

Rand's magnus opus Atlas Shrugged is the second-most influential book in history, a distant second to the Bible.

Excerpts from the book...'Don't hurt People and don't take their stuff, by Matt Kibbe


ps: My two favorite books and my two most influential books have been and still are the two best sellers of all time....
the Bible and Atlas Shrugged. Notice the interesting dichotomy between the author and secular atheist Rand and the
Christian GOD of the Bible. Who said atheists and Christians couldn't work together to form a more perfect and
prosperous society? Woops, might have been me. My bad.

[Alyosha]

She was an objectivist, not a libertarian.

[Bob]

Atlas shrugged should be a course in high school. And it should be a required course.

[Bob]

She was an objectivist, not a libertarian.

I believe she self described her as you say.,

[Bob]

Come to think of it, I would describe myself the same way she did herself.

[nathanbforrest45]

She was an objectivist, not a libertarian.
the main difference that I can see is that she believed there should be a moral basis for every action. Libertarians do not. Their morality is "If it feels good, do it"

[Libhater]

She was an objectivist, not a libertarian.

Objectivist yes, but all of her views on finances and or the economy can be directly
related to the views of a Libertarian.

[Chris]

She was an objectivist, not a libertarian.

She despised libertarians. Her and Rothbard really went at it.

[kilgram]

Atlas shrugged should be a course in high school. And it should be a required course.
Why? Can you justify why such book should be a course? What makes this book so interesting? Also should be a course other books, no... like Capital of Marx, no?

[Captain Obvious]

Atlas shrugged should be a course in high school. And it should be a required course.

Along with the Bible, right?

We'll get right on it.

[nic34]

Atlas shrugged should be a course in high school. And it should be a required course.

Yes, right there on the shelf with the Harry Potter books.

[nathanbforrest45]

Why? Can you justify why such book should be a course? What makes this book so interesting? Also should be a course other books, no... like Capital of Marx, no?


You are really funny.

And to answer your question

NO

[nathanbforrest45]

I just donated copies of Rush Revere and the First Patriots to the local elementary school.

[Captain Obvious]

I just donated copies of Rush Revere and the First Patriots to the local elementary school.

Toilet paper shortage?

[nathanbforrest45]

Toilet paper shortage?


Have you read it? I doubt it, its probably over your head anyway.

[Captain Obvious]

Have you read it? I doubt it, its probably over your head anyway.

Or under my ass.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Have you read it? I doubt it, its probably over your head anyway.
What's there to misunderstand? "Greed is good", "the end justifies the means", and "rape by rich hunky people is socially acceptable".

[nathanbforrest45]

Yes, right. If it paints the US in a positive light it obviously is a piece of shit. Suits you very well.

[Libhater]

Along with the Bible, right?

We'll get right on it.

Well seeing how Atlas Shrugged and the Bible are the two most read books, and seeing how those
two books are the most influential books around, it might be wise for us to introduce them into our
public schools. I would also suggest that we not only introduce our school children to Limbaugh's book
'Rush Revere' in which he does a marvelous job of giving our kids a much needed lesson in our Founding
American history, but to also pipe in three hours of Rush's daily radio show into the classrooms for
the middle and high school kids' civic classes.

[GrassrootsConservative]

What's there to misunderstand? "Greed is good", "the end justifies the means", and "rape by rich hunky people is socially acceptable".

This is why you need to read something of his for yourself instead of just listening to the BS media's talking heads and letting them do your research for you.

Those people are no smarter than you are, trust me.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Yes, right. If it paints the US in a positive light it obviously is a piece of shit. Suits you very well.
The 20th Century yielded mountains of great commentary, both positive and negative in slant, on the U.S. and its national spirit. Atlas Shrugged, and the whole Objectivist philosophy by extension, is just that old Gordon Gecko monologue dragged out over a thousand pages.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

This is why you need to read something of his for yourself instead of just listening to the BS media's talking heads and letting them do your research for you.

Those people are no smarter than you are, trust me.
I've read it. Glenn Beck (http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/09/30/beck-i-keep-feeling-like-im-going-all-john-galt/171355) apparently hasn't ("where is John Galt?").

[nathanbforrest45]

99 percent of all technological advancement has come about because someone saw an opportunity to make money by offering improvements to the public. Without that "greed" we would still be eating twigs and berries and living in whatever cave we could find.

Someone once said something to the effect that we can see the future because we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Thank God for Greedy People.

[nathanbforrest45]

Actually, I don't expect someone with no self esteem to understand the philosophy of Rand. If you must have someone else live your life for you all I ask is that you stay out of the way of those who can.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Actually, I don't expect someone with no self esteem to understand the philosophy of Rand. If you must have someone else live your life for you all I ask is that you stay out of the way of those who can.
Seriously, pick up something by Anton LaVey. It's Objectivism with horns and altars. Much more fun, and eloquent too.

[nathanbforrest45]

Seriously, pick up something by Anton LaVey. It's Objectivism with horns and altars. Much more fun, and eloquent too.


Maybe

[nathanbforrest45]

Maybe

No

He has absolutely nothing in common with Rand and if anyone thinks he does they are demented.

[KC]

Along with the Bible, right?

We'll get right on it.

Ironic given Ayn Rand's atheism.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Maybe

No

He has absolutely nothing in common with Rand and if anyone thinks he does they are demented.
Are you Dr. Strangelove?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTR46iU1Do

[Libhater]

Ironic given Ayn Rand's atheism.

I said as much in the OP in that we get the secular view and expertise of Rand on the economic
side of the scale while we get the moral backing of the teaching from the Christian Bible.

Perhaps you could give us two such entities that would be the fuel needed to get America
moving again both in prosperity and in a moral sense.

[Chris]

Seriously, pick up something by Anton LaVey. It's Objectivism with horns and altars. Much more fun, and eloquent too.

A Satanist?

I find all you need to understand Ayn Rand are her own words in Introducing Objectivism:


At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:



Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism


If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:



Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.



Hard to believe she could ever have been so succinct!

[Alyosha]

Ayn Rand was kind of mean and weird, IMO.

[nic34]

Ayn Rand was kind of mean and weird, IMO.

Ya think?

[Alyosha]

Ya think?

I may not think that government is a moral entity, but I do think caring for the poor actively is moral. An objectivist is more "survival of the fittest". That's not me.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes, right there on the shelf with the Harry Potter books. Or the Hairy Pothead books.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=576899#post576899)
Atlas shrugged should be a course in high school. And it should be a required course.


Why? Can you justify why such book should be a course? What makes this book so interesting? Also should be a course other books, no... like Capital of Marx, no?

Yes, sure. Atlas Shrugged is perhaps about 1000 pages long. And full of life lessons. Included one can learn about economics. One can understand government in some areas. One can understand how government can really mess things up. Marx might put too much on a high school kid and confuse them. Rand's teachings are worth comparing to this government Marx, not so.

[Bob]

the main difference that I can see is that she believed there should be a moral basis for every action. Libertarians do not. Their morality is "If it feels good, do it"

Maybe it is just me, but I never looked at Libertarians that way. There is a difference in living one's personal life vs government. Government makes laws. Libertarians don't mind a lot less of them.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=576899#post576899)
Atlas shrugged should be a course in high school. And it should be a required course.


Along with the Bible, right?

We'll get right on it.

You are confused if you think the two books are similar.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=576899#post576899)
Atlas shrugged should be a course in high school. And it should be a required course.


Yes, right there on the shelf with the Harry Potter books.

The Harry Potter books I purchased went to my youngest daughter who enjoyed them a lot.

However, Atlas Shrugged is a very different book. Unlike Nathan, I think it would sharpen a students perception of government, provide a vital knowledge of government problems including taxation. And it gives insights into the business world.

Bear in mind, we are dealing with high school kids and Harry Potter is good for their amusement, but not a course.

Why does the left feel threatened by her books?

[Bob]

I just donated copies of Rush Revere and the First Patriots to the local elementary school.

Now if the kids will only read them.

[kilgram]

You are really funny.

And to answer your question

NO
Why is acceptable one ultra biased book of a bad writer and one of the most important works in politics like the Capital of Marx should not be taught?

[Bob]

The 20th Century yielded mountains of great commentary, both positive and negative in slant, on the U.S. and its national spirit. Atlas Shrugged, and the whole Objectivist philosophy by extension, is just that old Gordon Gecko monologue dragged out over a thousand pages.

FACT

I do not expect left wingers to like the book.

I expect them to despise the book.
But a lot of problems will vanish in this country if we could tone way down the teachings by the left wing.

They say we are greedy.

This has to explain those supporting Obama at well over $40,000 per plate and even $50,000 at some dinners.

Greed is a state of mind it seems to me. To me and Nathan I think, Greed drives progress. If this country kills off the greedy, progress will end. There is good greed where one earns what they got, vs bad greed that puts you in jail.

[kilgram]

99 percent of all technological advancement has come about because someone saw an opportunity to make money by offering improvements to the public. Without that "greed" we would still be eating twigs and berries and living in whatever cave we could find.

Someone once said something to the effect that we can see the future because we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Thank God for Greedy People.
Do you know that many of the most important investments of today come from the "greedy" government? That the investments and advances are thanks to the government and not to private initiatives?

[Bob]

Why is acceptable one ultra biased book of a bad writer and one of the most important works in politics like the Capital of Marx should not be taught?

Well, for some odd reason, you prefer the lack of freedom vs freedom in this country.

Rand is a very accomplished author. And she has a way of telling a story that the left utterly despises.

What is your favorite part of the Marx teaching?

[Bob]

Do you know that many of the most important investments of today come from the "greedy" government? That the investments and advances are thanks to the government and not to private initiatives?

Actually, erase the DOD budget and NASA budget and you pretty well stomped out government.

Most advances comes not from government, which has to be why the left hates Rand so much, but from the public sector using their own funds.

The reason the Government of the US is so bad is it is ultra greedy and loves blowing vast sums on wars.

[kilgram]

Well, for some odd reason, you prefer the lack of freedom vs freedom in this country.

Rand is a very accomplished author. And she has a way of telling a story that the left utterly despises.

What is your favorite part of the Marx teaching?

None, I don't like Marx.

[Bob]

What's there to misunderstand? "Greed is good", "the end justifies the means", and "rape by rich hunky people is socially acceptable".

That is not the Ayn Rand book named Atlas Shrugged that I read.

[Bob]

I may not think that government is a moral entity, but I do think caring for the poor actively is moral. An objectivist is more "survival of the fittest". That's not me.

From the Rand site

Ayn Rand wrote volumes urging people to be selfish.

What? Aren’t people already too selfish? Just do whatever you feel like, be a thoughtless jerk, and exploit people to get ahead. Easy, right? Except that acting thoughtlessly and victimizing others, Rand claims, is not in your self-interest.

What Rand advocates is an approach to life that’s unlike anything you’ve ever heard before. Selfishness, in her philosophy, means:


Follow reason, not whims or faith.
Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.
Earn genuine self-esteem.
Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim.
Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.

At the dawn of our lives, writes Rand, we “seek a noble vision of man’s nature and of life’s potential.” Rand’s philosophy is that vision. Explore it for yourself.

Objectivism, a philosophy for living on earth.

[Bob]

Rand

We’re not born, Rand says, with inexplicable duties to serve God or society. We only have one life, and the good is to live it. Learn to pursue your own happiness by discovering the life-promoting values it requires. Think rationally and don’t bow to authority. Join with other people when you have real values in common and go your separate way when you don’t. Don’t try to be your brother’s keeper or to force him to be yours. Live independently.

[nathanbforrest45]

Do you know that many of the most important investments of today come from the "greedy" government? That the investments and advances are thanks to the government and not to private initiatives?

Which ones? Enlighten us please on these important investments

[nathanbforrest45]

[QUOTE=Bob;577213]That is not the Ayn Rand book named Atlas Shrugged that I read.[/QUOTE

I don't think its the Atlas Shrugged anyone read. I doubt that the biggest naysayers on this forum ever read the book.

[Bob]

We love what we personally value and admire. A “selfless love” is a contradiction in terms: it would mean you have no personal stake in the object of your love. The truth is, romantic love is profoundly selfish: it’s a union of mind and body that both people pursue for their own happiness. And it’s profoundly demanding. To quote a famous line from The Fountainhead: “To say ‘I love you’ one must know first how to say the ‘I.’”

~Ayn Rand

[Ravi]

Atlas shrugged should be a course in high school. And it should be a required course.sure if romance novels are required

[Bob]

~Ayn Rand

Civil Disobedience


Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.
But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.
The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.
The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physicalintimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.


Doesn't she come off as one evil woman? Surely she must be evil the way the left treats her words.

Just as the words of the Bible make them angry.

[Bob]

sure if romance novels are required

I read novels in the high school literature class.

Rand's books provide valuable lessons.

Something the left despises.

[Mister D]

I find the conservative interest in Rand bizarre.

[Bob]

Based on her words, I find the hate of her by the left to be bizarre.

When she wraps this up, one would suppose the left would be in favor of her words.

~Ayn Rand

"WISHING WON'T MAKE IT SO"Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, begins by embracing the basic fact that existence exists. Reality is, and in the quest to live we must discover reality’s nature and learn to act successfully in it.
To exist is to be something, to possess a specific identity. This is the Law of Identity: A is A. Facts are facts, independent of any consciousness. No amount of passionate wishing, desperate longing or hopeful pleading can alter the facts. Nor will ignoring or evading the facts erase them: the facts remain, immutable.
In Rand’s philosophy, reality is not to be rewritten or escaped, but, solemnly and proudly, faced. One of her favorite sayings is Francis Bacon’s: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
Reality — that which exists — has no alternatives, no competitors, nothing “transcending” it. To embrace existence is to reject all notions of the supernatural and the mystical, including God.

[midcan5]

I love the irony of Ayn Rand finally on medicare. Awful person, awful writing, can fathom how any one mentally older than eight can even read her crap.

"While Whittaker Chambers’ famous 1957 condemnation of Rand may sound over-torqued half a century later: “From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!” It remains true that Ayn Rand seems to revel in the death and destruction that follows by disregarding her philosophy: most famously in the ghoulish scene in Atlas Shrugged where Rand details the suffocation of the passengers on a train as it enters a tunnel. Rand explains how everyone on the train deserved to die because they held incorrect ideas: "It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them."" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2705853/posts


"Rand’s popularity tells us two things about the state of modern conservatism...First, it suggests that Rand’s atheism and permissive social views are no longer deal-breakers among conservative thought leaders....Beck and Limbaugh can use the parts of Rand they want to use and not engage the rest.” http://www.frumforum.com/conservatives-make-room-for-ayn-rand



Lots here for the interested reader:

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/27/ayn-rand-really-really-hated-c-s-lewis/
http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/2012/the-system-that-wasnt-there-ayn-rands-failed-philosophy-and-why-it-matters/
http://www.alternet.org/story/154700/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37787.html



"I use the words conservative, revolutionary, and counterrevolutionary interchangeable; not all counterrevolutionaries are conservative - Walt Rostow immediately comes to mind - but what all conservatives are, in one way or another, counterrevolutionary. I seat philosophers, statesman, slaveholders, scribblers, Catholics, fascists, evangelicals, businessmen, racists, and hacks at the same table: Hobbes next too Hayek, Burke across from Palin, Nietzsche in between Ayn Rand and Antonin Scalia, with Adams, Calhoun, Oakeshott, Ronald Reagan, Tocqueville, Theodore Roosevelt, Margaret Thatcher, Ernst Junger, Carl Schmidt, Winston Churchill, Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Nixon, Irving Kristol, Francis Fukuyama, and George W. Bush interspersed throughout." Corey Robin in 'The Reactionary Mind'

[nathanbforrest45]

I find the conservative interest in Rand bizarre.


How so?

I discovered Rand in 1963 and consider her the greatest influence on my thinking. I don't agree with everything she writes but I would say I do over 90% of it. I consider myself a Conservative both social and fiscal. The major area Ms Rand and I part is her extreme disbelief in a Supreme Being. I do believe in God but that does not negate believing in myself and my own abilities as well.

[Bob]

Ummmmm This from a left winger who drags up crap.

I love the irony of Ayn Rand finally on medicare. Awful person, awful writing, can fathom how any one mentally older than eight can even read her crap.

[Alyosha]

How so?

I discovered Rand in 1963 and consider her the greatest influence on my thinking. I don't agree with everything she writes but I would say I do over 90% of it. I consider myself a Conservative both social and fiscal. The major area Ms Rand and I part is her extreme disbelief in a Supreme Being. I do believe in God but that does not negate believing in myself and my own abilities as well.

Do you agree with her heroic rapist?

[Bob]

How so?

I discovered Rand in 1963 and consider her the greatest influence on my thinking. I don't agree with everything she writes but I would say I do over 90% of it. I consider myself a Conservative both social and fiscal. The major area Ms Rand and I part is her extreme disbelief in a Supreme Being. I do believe in God but that does not negate believing in myself and my own abilities as well.

Let's hope that by the time she realized she was dying, she changed her mind about GOD.

But her objective view of the world is accurate.

[Mister D]

How so?

I discovered Rand in 1963 and consider her the greatest influence on my thinking. I don't agree with everything she writes but I would say I do over 90% of it. I consider myself a Conservative both social and fiscal. The major area Ms Rand and I part is her extreme disbelief in a Supreme Being. I do believe in God but that does not negate believing in myself and my own abilities as well.

The hyper individualism of a Rand should repulse you.

[Bob]

Do you agree with her heroic rapist?

No, she was dead set against harming anybody.

[Alyosha]

No, she was dead set against harming anybody.

Hmmm.


“He moved one hand, took her two wrists and pinned them behind her, under his arm, wrenching her shoulder blades.…She fell back against the dressing table, she stood crouching, her hands clasping the edge behind her, her eyes wide, colorless, shapeless in terror. He was laughing.” – Ayn Rand, “The Fountainhead”

[Bob]

The hyper individualism of a Rand should repulse you.

You can't love others more than you love yourself. It is not the way the human is created.

Dr. Phil's wife Robin talks of her mother.

Her mom always put herself last. Robin was on the phone with her and her mom says, I feel funny.

Robin hangs up and finds out that was her moms final words.

Robin says on Dr. Phil, if you won't love yourself first, you won't take good care of yourself. Ayn Rand is correct.

Ayn Rand in the leftists mind is uncaring about others. She cared enough so we could all learn a path that produced the most good.

Robin gained nothing from her mom dying at such a early age.

Robin said, mom simply took great care of the kids. But she did not see doctors. She must have cared more about kids than herself. Well, dying is no reward to kids.

[Bob]

“He moved one hand, took her two wrists and pinned them behind her, under his arm, wrenching her shoulder blades.…She fell back against the dressing table, she stood crouching, her hands clasping the edge behind her, her eyes wide, colorless, shapeless in terror. He was laughing.” – Ayn Rand, “The Fountainhead”

Yes, fiction is a good tool to make a point. But her point is not that she proposed men act like that.


Hmmm.

[Alyosha]

Yes, fiction is a good tool to make a point. But her point is not that she proposed men act like that.

You don't feel the rapists in these two novels were portrayed well?

[nathanbforrest45]

The hyper individualism of a Rand should repulse you.

Not at all. I am not sure I would want to know a John Galt personally but I would certainly understand and respect him

[nathanbforrest45]

Hmmm.

I did say I believe that I did not agree with everything that she wrote. Roark's rape of Dominique Francon or Fancisco's rape of Dagny are not high on my list of the proper way to do things.

[Mister D]

Not at all. I am not sure I would want to know a John Galt personally but I would certainly understand and respect him

Of course not. That's why you lost to your progressive cousins. I said it should.

[nathanbforrest45]

Of course not. That's why you lost to your progressive cousins. I said it should.

So, I should give up my principles in order to win against the progressives?

[Mister D]

So, I should give up my principles in order to win against the progressives?

Embrace defeat. It's what you do.

[KC]

I find the conservative interest in Rand bizarre.

It's as if they've only taken note of half of her philosophy. Sure, she's pro-market, but there are other, more conservative market advocates one can look up to.

[Bob]

It's as if they've only taken note of half of her philosophy. Sure, she's pro-market, but there are other, more conservative market advocates one can look up to.

No, we know all of her views. We appreciate how she fights for human freedom.

We do not require that you believe in GOD. But it is nice if one does.

[KC]

No, we know all of her views. We appreciate how she fights for human freedom.

We do not require that you believe in GOD. But it is nice if one does.

One cannot follow Objectivist philosophy while embracing Christian morality. It's not just a lack of a belief in God-- Rand rejects altruism altogether, leaving little room for conservative notions of private charity or social cooperation.

[Bob]

One cannot follow Objectivist philosophy while embracing Christian morality. It's not just a lack of a belief in God-- Rand rejects altruism altogether, leaving little room for conservative notions of private charity or social cooperation.

She never said that. She was objective and did not believe in GOD but she never claims she rejects what you or I personally do. She stated it is in our self interest. Good enough for me.

Come to think of it, maybe she was on the left. LOL

[KC]

She never said that. She was objective and did not believe in GOD but she never claims she rejects what you or I personally do. She stated it is in our self interest. Good enough for me.

Come to think of it, maybe she was on the left. LOL

She rejected the morality of altruism, Bob.

From aynrand.org (http://www.aynrand.org/ideas/philosophy#inrand'swords-3):


Rand consciously saw herself as a moral radical and revolutionary, who challenges both the conventional damnation of selfishness as evil and the conventional glorification of altruism, the doctrine that man must live for others, as good.
She argues that selfishness, properly understood, does not mean doing whatever you feel like doing or exploiting others, and that altruism does not mean benevolence or goodwill but the opposite.




The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life — and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.

--Ayn Rand

[KC]

Ayn Rand:


"I am against God for the reason that I don't want to destroy reason."

"How can I be against God? I am against those who conceive that idea...[Belief in God] gives man permission to function irrationally... to accept something above the power of reason."

She was against those who conceive of the idea of God, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013). IOW she does reject others' religious faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPspvwQrT1E

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPspvwQrT1E)

[kilgram]

Which ones? Enlighten us please on these important investments
Computers, Internet,...

[Bob]

Ayn Rand:


She was against those who conceive of the idea of God, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013). IOW she does reject others' religious faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPspvwQrT1E

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPspvwQrT1E)

I don't mind. See, I am tolerant. This is how the left wingers ought to be. But they do care. So much so, they call me out because I don't care.

[Bob]

She rejected the morality of altruism, Bob.

From aynrand.org (http://www.aynrand.org/ideas/philosophy#inrand'swords-3):

For her. If you were to ask the woman, I believe she would say...

Nope, not for me, but you do as you please,

Left wingers refuse to operate like that.

[KC]

For her. If you were to ask the woman, I believe she would say...

Nope, not for me, but you do as you please,

Left wingers refuse to operate like that.

She's pretty adamant that all people ought to see things her way if they have any sense, if there is to be justice, if men are to co-exist even.

http://www.atlassociety.org/virtue-selfishness


Rand writes, "[A]ltruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others…it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men…it permits no concept of justice" (VOS, p. ix)

You may hold whatever opinion of Rand you like (I was a Rand fan back in high school), but just note that Rand would flatly reject conservatism at face value. Her ideas are antithetical to conservative values.

[Bob]

She's pretty adamant that all people ought to see things her way if they have any sense, if there is to be justice, if men are to co-exist even.

http://www.atlassociety.org/virtue-selfishness



You may hold whatever opinion of Rand you like (I was a Rand fan back in high school), but just note that Rand would flatly reject conservatism at face value. Her ideas are antithetical to conservative values.

See, I am tolerant. I do not mind. I too an an individual and I don't want to rule others. I am selfish in the same way she was. My goal is to get along.

[Libhater]

but just note that Rand would flatly reject conservatism at face value. Her ideas are antithetical to conservative values.

Just so you know, I may be the most staunch Conservative around here, but if you were to read my postscript from the OP you would find
that I appreciate the opposing viewpoint(s) of the secular/atheist Ms Rand regardless of whether she shares any of my Conservative values.
You see, I am just as tolerant as a Bob is or of anyone who has opposing views.

Not to lose focus of the main theme from this thread is the fact that sharing and implementing both Ms Rand's Objectivist/Libertarian ideals
with the Bible's Christian ethics can only make this world a more wonderful and prosperous place in which to live.

I will glady welcome you or someone else to present a post here giving us the reasons why you think a non Christian Progressive approach
may be the better route in which to take.

[nathanbforrest45]

For her. If you were to ask the woman, I believe she would say...

Nope, not for me, but you do as you please,

Left wingers refuse to operate like that.

She has said in her Objectivist Newsletter that what you do with your money, time, and talent is your business and if you want to earn a zillion and give it all to the poor then go for it. Just don't demand that we all do so by government edict.

[KC]

Just so you know, I may be the most staunch Conservative around here, but if you were to read my postscript from the OP you would find
that I appreciate the opposing viewpoint(s) of the secular/atheist Ms Rand regardless of whether she shares any of my Conservative values.
You see, I am just as tolerant as a Bob is or of anyone who has opposing views.

Not to lose focus of the main theme from this thread is the fact that sharing and implementing both Ms Rand's Objectivist/Libertarian ideals
with the Bible's Christian ethics can only make this world a more wonderful and prosperous place in which to live.

I will glady welcome you or someone else to present a post here giving us the reasons why you think a non Christian Progressive approach
may be the better route in which to take.

I would, but I'm not a progressive. I am a non-Christian though. The best approach to improve schooling in the US seems to be the movement to create more school choice, thus introducing some competition and market forces. Oh, and repeal NCLB.

If Christians want their children to adopt religious values they should personally teach them Christian values, homeschool them or enroll them in a parochial school.

[midcan5]

Ummmmm This from a left winger who drags up crap.

I love the irony of Ayn Rand finally on medicare. Awful person, awful writing, can fathom how any one mentally older than eight can even read her crap. Bob

Huh, I tried to read her several times, but if you have read enough in philosophy and literature you cannot read something on the level of romance novels unless you are mentally still at that level.

Ayn is popular because she is simple, her simplicity gives an excuse to the immature modern American entitled youth. Her easy slogans provide simple answers to complex issues and thus a justification for just about anything at all. The irony is she ended a failure on healthcare we the workers in America provided, but the rich love her still as she provides an excuse for immorality and greed in our society. Lots below for the informed mature reader.


"[Rand] has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts [...] Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic." Gore Vidal


"William F. Buckley, who helped define modern American conservatism by launching and serving as editor-in-chief of The National Review, specifically published Chambers’ critique (and others like it) to purge Rand from conservatism–writing that “her desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral” meant it was unworthy of the noble tradition of conservative politics, and to be cast out with the Birchers, anti-semites, and white supremacists." from link below


"...we are told that things do as they do because they are as they are...." [..] "From axiomatic bases the edifice is built: existence exists and is characterized by identity, which is populated by conscious beings, who must use reason to survive as individuals, and the dictates of reason force us to admit that rational self-interest is the only metaphysically coherent way forward, logically implying capitalism and free markets."


"The fantastically rich find in Rand’s celebration of individual achievement a kindred spirit, and support her work with pecuniary enthusiasm: in 1999, McGill University turned down a million-dollar endowment from wealthy businessman Gilles Tremblay, who had given the money in the hopes of creating a chair dedicated to the the study of her work. Then-president Bernard Shapiro commented that “we can’t just sell our souls just for the sake of being richer,” hopefully aware of the irony: what else is there but getting richer? Rand literally ends her most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, with the dollar sign replacing the sign of the cross, traced in the air–indicating the dawn of a new, bold, daringly sophomoric era."


Conservatives in America once thought.

"Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible." Whittaker Chambers


http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/2012/the-system-that-wasnt-there-ayn-rands-failed-philosophy-and-why-it-matters/




"Even if man has a ‘nature’ in Rand’s sense, our rational aspects are of a piece with our creative capacities, our imaginative selves, our empathetic abilities, our emotional landscape, our sexual drives: to the extent that Rand’s analysis of human nature as rational is meant to be descriptive of what we actually are, it is surely false."




"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms [...] Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief... Turns out selfishness actually destroys society. Who could’ve guessed?" Alan Greenspan




Article mentioned in piece. Nozick on Rand: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102657523/On-the-Randian-Argument-Nozick


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RxKW-P5V8


My original post is here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24598-Ayn-Rand-a-Libertarian-Jew-for-Creative-Freedom?p=577298&viewfull=1#post577298

[Libhater]

I would, but I'm not a progressive. I am a non-Christian though. The best approach to improve schooling in the US seems to be the movement to create more school choice, thus introducing some competition and market forces. Oh, and repeal NCLB.

I agree with you that more school choice and competition would be the best route to take.


If Christians want their children to adopt religious values they should personally teach them Christian values, homeschool them or enroll them in a parochial school.

Many Christian parents already do that, but where 70-75% of Americans call themselves Christians, I don't see the harm
in teaching our children religion in our public schools, afterall, most of the world's history emanates from religion in one form
or another. Most of our Founders were highly religious men as well.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The mythological character, Atlas, was a dumb hulk supporting a world of wild jungles. He let men live like mindless predatory beasts. His world was war of all against all. Since Man had it in him to turn this jungle into paradise, he didn't belong in the jungle unless witch doctors like Rand could convince him that the jungle way was best. Kill or be killed, claws instead of laws, fools victimized by voluntarily making no rules to limit the King Apes. Man would soon have become extinct.

With the few intelligent humans ignored or even despised, Nature could not produce enough to support anything but mutually assured destruction. At the end of the free-market free-for-all, a few winners and their idolizing flunkies survive, but not for long. Rand hoped that situation would lead to a new and better world.

I once saw two dogs playing on a freeway, happy as could be. Then they got crushed by an 18-wheeler.

[Mister D]

@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)

Huh, I tried to read her several times, but if you have read enough in philosophy and literature you cannot read something on the level of romance novels unless you are mentally still at that level.

Ayn is popular because she is simple, her simplicity gives an excuse to the immature modern American entitled youth. Her easy slogans provide simple answers to complex issues and thus a justification for just about anything at all. The irony is she ended a failure on healthcare we the workers in America provided, but the rich love her still as she provides an excuse for immorality and greed in our society. Lots below for the informed mature reader.


"[Rand] has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts [...] Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic." Gore Vidal


"William F. Buckley, who helped define modern American conservatism by launching and serving as editor-in-chief of The National Review, specifically published Chambers’ critique (and others like it) to purge Rand from conservatism–writing that “her desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral” meant it was unworthy of the noble tradition of conservative politics, and to be cast out with the Birchers, anti-semites, and white supremacists." from link below


"...we are told that things do as they do because they are as they are...." [..] "From axiomatic bases the edifice is built: existence exists and is characterized by identity, which is populated by conscious beings, who must use reason to survive as individuals, and the dictates of reason force us to admit that rational self-interest is the only metaphysically coherent way forward, logically implying capitalism and free markets."


"The fantastically rich find in Rand’s celebration of individual achievement a kindred spirit, and support her work with pecuniary enthusiasm: in 1999, McGill University turned down a million-dollar endowment from wealthy businessman Gilles Tremblay, who had given the money in the hopes of creating a chair dedicated to the the study of her work. Then-president Bernard Shapiro commented that “we can’t just sell our souls just for the sake of being richer,” hopefully aware of the irony: what else is there but getting richer? Rand literally ends her most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, with the dollar sign replacing the sign of the cross, traced in the air–indicating the dawn of a new, bold, daringly sophomoric era."


Conservatives in America once thought.

"Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible." Whittaker Chambers


http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/2012/the-system-that-wasnt-there-ayn-rands-failed-philosophy-and-why-it-matters/




"Even if man has a ‘nature’ in Rand’s sense, our rational aspects are of a piece with our creative capacities, our imaginative selves, our empathetic abilities, our emotional landscape, our sexual drives: to the extent that Rand’s analysis of human nature as rational is meant to be descriptive of what we actually are, it is surely false."




"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms [...] Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief... Turns out selfishness actually destroys society. Who could’ve guessed?" Alan Greenspan




Article mentioned in piece. Nozick on Rand: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102657523/On-the-Randian-Argument-Nozick


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RxKW-P5V8


My original post is here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24598-Ayn-Rand-a-Libertarian-Jew-for-Creative-Freedom?p=577298&viewfull=1#post577298

Is that a scene from Nosferatu? :shocked:

[Bob]

@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)

Huh, I tried to read her several times, but if you have read enough in philosophy and literature you cannot read something on the level of romance novels unless you are mentally still at that level.

Ayn is popular because she is simple, her simplicity gives an excuse to the immature modern American entitled youth. Her easy slogans provide simple answers to complex issues and thus a justification for just about anything at all. The irony is she ended a failure on healthcare we the workers in America provided, but the rich love her still as she provides an excuse for immorality and greed in our society. Lots below for the informed mature reader.


"[Rand] has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts [...] Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic." Gore Vidal


"William F. Buckley, who helped define modern American conservatism by launching and serving as editor-in-chief of The National Review, specifically published Chambers’ critique (and others like it) to purge Rand from conservatism–writing that “her desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral” meant it was unworthy of the noble tradition of conservative politics, and to be cast out with the Birchers, anti-semites, and white supremacists." from link below


"...we are told that things do as they do because they are as they are...." [..] "From axiomatic bases the edifice is built: existence exists and is characterized by identity, which is populated by conscious beings, who must use reason to survive as individuals, and the dictates of reason force us to admit that rational self-interest is the only metaphysically coherent way forward, logically implying capitalism and free markets."


"The fantastically rich find in Rand’s celebration of individual achievement a kindred spirit, and support her work with pecuniary enthusiasm: in 1999, McGill University turned down a million-dollar endowment from wealthy businessman Gilles Tremblay, who had given the money in the hopes of creating a chair dedicated to the the study of her work. Then-president Bernard Shapiro commented that “we can’t just sell our souls just for the sake of being richer,” hopefully aware of the irony: what else is there but getting richer? Rand literally ends her most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, with the dollar sign replacing the sign of the cross, traced in the air–indicating the dawn of a new, bold, daringly sophomoric era."


Conservatives in America once thought.

"Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible." Whittaker Chambers


http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/2012/the-system-that-wasnt-there-ayn-rands-failed-philosophy-and-why-it-matters/




"Even if man has a ‘nature’ in Rand’s sense, our rational aspects are of a piece with our creative capacities, our imaginative selves, our empathetic abilities, our emotional landscape, our sexual drives: to the extent that Rand’s analysis of human nature as rational is meant to be descriptive of what we actually are, it is surely false."




"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms [...] Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief... Turns out selfishness actually destroys society. Who could’ve guessed?" Alan Greenspan




Article mentioned in piece. Nozick on Rand: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102657523/On-the-Randian-Argument-Nozick


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RxKW-P5V8


My original post is here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24598-Ayn-Rand-a-Libertarian-Jew-for-Creative-Freedom?p=577298&viewfull=1#post577298

Oh, so, if she is not one of us, she is on your side. That is the gist of your message.

[Bob]

The mythological character, Atlas, was a dumb hulk supporting a world of wild jungles. He let men live like mindless predatory beasts. His world was war of all against all. Since Man had it in him to turn this jungle into paradise, he didn't belong in the jungle unless witch doctors like Rand could convince him that the jungle way was best. Kill or be killed, claws instead of laws, fools victimized by voluntarily making no rules to limit the King Apes. Man would soon have become extinct.

With the few intelligent humans ignored or even despised, Nature could not produce enough to support anything but mutually assured destruction. At the end of the free-market free-for-all, a few winners and their idolizing flunkies survive, but not for long. Rand hoped that situation would lead to a new and better world.

I once saw two dogs playing on a freeway, happy as could be. Then they got crushed by an 18-wheeler.

You have an utter contempt for the free state of the human being.

No thanks. I am trying to turn this nation around and your way makes it much worse.

2.65 million books of law and from the looks of it, you want many millions more.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=577663#post577663)
For her. If you were to ask the woman, I believe she would say...

Nope, not for me, but you do as you please,

Left wingers refuse to operate like that.


She has said in her Objectivist Newsletter that what you do with your money, time, and talent is your business and if you want to earn a zillion and give it all to the poor then go for it. Just don't demand that we all do so by government edict.

And that is why I like her works. She has laid out some of her positions that I personally don't agree with yet she gives me the latitude to be a free person who can take care of my family because I put myself first. It does not mean I love me more than my family, but for the sake of my family, I must be careful with my choices since if they are bad, my family gets hurt.

If there be a philosophy that each of us agrees with 100 percent, we ought to broadcast that person widely.

Ayn is not the only philosopher I have common views with.

Why is it the left wingers trying to talk ill of her so often? She never hurt any of them.

We have a group calling themselves liberals who absolutely love the most powerful government form they can create. Like the spider and it's web tying up insects, their form takes our freedom and binds up to be harvested later on.

Freedom is your most important need. Democrats are not interested in freedom, only the power of the state.
That is the same problem the Soviets had, even Hitler bound up his people with powerful government that took no shit from the public.

God bless Bundy who won in Nv and his cattle can eat on public lands.

[Bob]

Just so you know, I may be the most staunch Conservative around here, but if you were to read my postscript from the OP you would find
that I appreciate the opposing viewpoint(s) of the secular/atheist Ms Rand regardless of whether she shares any of my Conservative values.
You see, I am just as tolerant as a Bob is or of anyone who has opposing views.

Not to lose focus of the main theme from this thread is the fact that sharing and implementing both Ms Rand's Objectivist/Libertarian ideals
with the Bible's Christian ethics can only make this world a more wonderful and prosperous place in which to live.

I will glady welcome you or someone else to present a post here giving us the reasons why you think a non Christian Progressive approach
may be the better route in which to take.

Thank you for making my day. I am aghast at how the left thinks. Arkady Factorovich, formerly of Ukraine in the Soviet Era and I were talking over time and he asked me a question.

"Bob, from what I see here in America, you guys are headed in the direction the Soviets are running from. Why is that Bob"

Well, he knew the Soviets well. I knew how they were from going to the Soviet dominated East Germany, in particular East Berlin and saw how it was up close and personal. I felt fear in East Berlin. I felt free to fly in West Berlin. You must experience how it was to feel the fear. It is like you suddenly are inside a prison with no escape. We in the West never experience armies inside cities roaming all over with machine guns with them. We see cops with a pistol but the difference is that if one wants to leave the city, the cop won't kill you. In the Soviet dominated era, you try to leave and they kill you. You feel the threat as much as if you faced a wild gunman in the mall with a machine gun. The closest I came to that fear in the USA was when I was in the DC area and the killer was roaming around killing a person per day and a mile from my hotel, a woman government worker was gunned down by the killer. That fear left me by the time I got to NY and then to Boston. But in VA, the fear was shown on TV, all day long.

I appreciate freedom. I abandoned the philosophy of the left by the age of 42, actually earlier but my vote for a republican first took place by age 42. It was not Ayn Rand that swayed me. But it was how the left operates. They preach they are for the poor. That is plain bull crap. There would not be any poor if that was true. They claim to be for the negro. That is crap. The negros would have no problems today if that was the truth. They talk, but action is what ought to be how they get judged. I figured out they are con artists.

[Bob]

I would, but I'm not a progressive. I am a non-Christian though. The best approach to improve schooling in the US seems to be the movement to create more school choice, thus introducing some competition and market forces. Oh, and repeal NCLB.

If Christians want their children to adopt religious values they should personally teach them Christian values, homeschool them or enroll them in a parochial school.

School choice has a major flaw. And I like school choice. It is that the money parents pay for public schools, can't be transferred to private schools. Thus the parents pay twice for each education. I am not saying all public schools suck. Believe it or not, there are a lot of public schools that are great. What they turn out as citizens depends on where one lives. Where the school deals with problem children from problem families, naturally the school loses. It is not the schools fault they get garbage in then garbage out. They are there to teach, not stop kids from talking Ebonics or selling crack dope. But when schools deal with druggies, druggies do not care about school. And the parents endorse their own gun toting crack head kids.

[Bob]

She's pretty adamant that all people ought to see things her way if they have any sense, if there is to be justice, if men are to co-exist even.

http://www.atlassociety.org/virtue-selfishness



You may hold whatever opinion of Rand you like (I was a Rand fan back in high school), but just note that Rand would flatly reject conservatism at face value. Her ideas are antithetical to conservative values.

So you think she was really a Democrat left winger huh?

[Libhater]

Thank you for making my day. I am aghast at how the left thinks. Arkady Factorovich, formerly of Ukraine in the Soviet Era and I were talking over time and he asked me a question.

"Bob, from what I see here in America, you guys are headed in the direction the Soviets are running from. Why is that Bob"

Well, he knew the Soviets well. I knew how they were from going to the Soviet dominated East Germany, in particular East Berlin and saw how it was up close and personal. I felt fear in East Berlin. I felt free to fly in West Berlin. You must experience how it was to feel the fear. It is like you suddenly are inside a prison with no escape. We in the West never experience armies inside cities roaming all over with machine guns with them. We see cops with a pistol but the difference is that if one wants to leave the city, the cop won't kill you. In the Soviet dominated era, you try to leave and they kill you. You feel the threat as much as if you faced a wild gunman in the mall with a machine gun. The closest I came to that fear in the USA was when I was in the DC area and the killer was roaming around killing a person per day and a mile from my hotel, a woman government worker was gunned down by the killer. That fear left me by the time I got to NY and then to Boston. But in VA, the fear was shown on TV, all day long.

I appreciate freedom. I abandoned the philosophy of the left by the age of 42, actually earlier but my vote for a republican first took place by age 42. It was not Ayn Rand that swayed me. But it was how the left operates. They preach they are for the poor. That is plain bull crap. There would not be any poor if that was true. They claim to be for the negro. That is crap. The negros would have no problems today if that was the truth. They talk, but action is what ought to be how they get judged. I figured out they are con artists.

Of course you are right in that the majority of leftists are con-artists, but to me its much more serious then that.
Let us not forget that Hillary and obama are two students graduating at the top of their class from Saul Alinsky's
12 step program "Rules for Radicals". Its these rules (which I have posted here) that are being followed faithfully
by any and all leftists having political power in America. We see it coming from the likes of obummer, of hillary, of
pelosi, of reid, of the administration, of holder etc on a daily basis. These nitwits have no intention of creating jobs,
of finding exceptionalism in America, of striving to be the best they can be, and or of carrying on the American tradition
and or legacy of inspiring and fighting for freedom and liberty. In fact, its just the opposite, these nitwits rag on America
and go so far as to say that we have been indifferent, imperialistic and uncaring for the lower class peoples.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

That is not the Ayn Rand book named Atlas Shrugged that I read.

FACT

I do not expect left wingers to like the book.

I expect them to despise the book.
But a lot of problems will vanish in this country if we could tone way down the teachings by the left wing.

They say we are greedy.

This has to explain those supporting Obama at well over $40,000 per plate and even $50,000 at some dinners.

Greed is a state of mind it seems to me. To me and Nathan I think, Greed drives progress. If this country kills off the greedy, progress will end. There is good greed where one earns what they got, vs bad greed that puts you in jail.
You're a Christian, right?

[Gerrard Winstanley]

A Satanist?
I'm no Satanist. Rand and LaVey do share a lot of theoretical ground, though.

[KC]

So you think she was really a Democrat left winger huh?

LOL no. I said I was a fan in High School, didn't I? I'm not a Democrat and I'm not exactly left wing either. When there is a candidate available, I typically vote Libertarian.

Besdies, her philosophy was obviously not liberal in the current sense of the word (nor in the 18th century Smithian sense or the 19th century J.S. Mill sense). Pay attention.

[KC]

School choice has a major flaw. And I like school choice. It is that the money parents pay for public schools, can't be transferred to private schools. Thus the parents pay twice for each education. I am not saying all public schools suck. Believe it or not, there are a lot of public schools that are great. What they turn out as citizens depends on where one lives. Where the school deals with problem children from problem families, naturally the school loses. It is not the schools fault they get garbage in then garbage out. They are there to teach, not stop kids from talking Ebonics or selling crack dope. But when schools deal with druggies, druggies do not care about school. And the parents endorse their own gun toting crack head kids.

My public school was fantastic, but it was an academy where you had to maintain a decent GPA to stay in, and therefore was a lot smaller with small class sizes, allowing teachers to spend a lot of time with each student. High Schools don't have "majors," but at this school you had to choose a subject to specialize in.