Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

Couldn't possibly care less. Her basic philosophy is selfishness. I have never found it particularly stimulating.

Holy crap

 

[Chaka]

Couldn't possibly care less. Her basic philosophy is selfishness. I have never found it particularly stimulating.

Holy crap

WB NC been missing you. Haven't seen you in so long I have to wonder whether this really you or did someone hack the account?

 

[bostonfred]

So are you back? Or just visiting?

 

[Chaka]

I would think that any real academic works which address the depth of logical thinking and decision making would be very complex, just like the human mind. There's a reason every other work recognized as a philosophical classic is far more complex: those works acknowledge the complexity of the matters they are approaching, as opposed to Rand's refusal to acknowledge that any viewpoints not in complete accordance with her own might have any validity.

I am pretty sure that Rand is widely accepted as a complex and critical thinker.

The fact that she raises so much controversy when discussing her work 50+ years after the fact supports that and suggests that we will continue to do so long into the future.

That all may change but I think an outright unilateral rejection of her beliefs is unlikely.

I don't think that's true. I don't know of many college philosophy classes that discuss her at all, let alone in the terms used to describe those more commonly acknowledged as philosophical luminaries.

We talk about her a lot more than a lot of 'luminaries'.

 

[NCCommish]

So are you back? Or just visiting?

Back and good to see you BTW.

 

[NCCommish]

Couldn't possibly care less. Her basic philosophy is selfishness. I have never found it particularly stimulating.

Holy crap

WB NC been missing you. Haven't seen you in so long I have to wonder whether this really you or did someone hack the account?

Would a long liberal screed be convincing? It's me no hacking.

 

[pantagrapher]

This thread took an awesome turn. Here I thought you went Galt.

 

[urbanhack]

Couldn't possibly care less. Her basic philosophy is selfishness. I have never found it particularly stimulating.

good to see you back.

 

[NCCommish]

This thread took an awesome turn. Here I thought you went Galt.

No way. Good to see you.

 

[NCCommish]

Couldn't possibly care less. Her basic philosophy is selfishness. I have never found it particularly stimulating.

good to see you back.

Good to see you as well.

 

[Chaka]

Why now NC?

Hijack complete.

 

[jdoggydogg]

As long as we're on the subject:

Ayn Rand Received Social Security, Medicare

Despite persistent rumors, Rand Paul was not named in honor of influential conservative thinker, Ayn Rand. His name is Randall.

It's good he was not named for Ayn Rand because her real name was 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.

A Library of Congress survey of the most influential books on American readers, "Atlas Shrugged" ranked second only to the Bible. Rand's influence is encyclopedic ranging from Alan Greenspan to Paul "I grew up on Ayn Rand" Ryan (R-Wis), a "Young Gun" who aims to cut or privatize Medicare and Social Security.

The Right should be commended politically for their ability to develop and stick to a unified message. But close inspection of this unified message reveals a disappointing secret identified by a student of the Godfather of Neo-conservatism, --- the University of Chicago's Leo Strauss. The student, Anne Norton ("Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire") identified what she called VIP-DIP meaning Venerated in Public, Disdained in Private. "Do as I say, not as I do." The list of vip-dipers on the Right runs from Harold Bloom to Newt Gingrich, but certainly not Ayn Rand. Right?

Say it ain't so Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum.

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).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.

In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.

 

[Topes]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

Trying to track down the true author of that quote for better part of an hour. Anybody here know?

 

[NCCommish]

Why now NC?Hijack complete.

Seemed like the right time. Been an ugly couple of years here at Chez NCC. But I got a job(finally) about 4 months ago and I have gone from doing part time marketing stuff to Director of Operations for a growing firm. I had to wait until I felt good about me before I could dive back into the rough and tumble here. I was getting too thin skinned. And I finally do feel better so here I am.

 

[NCCommish]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."Trying to track down the true author of that quote for better part of an hour. Anybody here know?

I believe that was John Rogers

 

[Oliver Humanzee]

I would think that any real academic works which address the depth of logical thinking and decision making would be very complex, just like the human mind. There's a reason every other work recognized as a philosophical classic is far more complex: those works acknowledge the complexity of the matters they are approaching, as opposed to Rand's refusal to acknowledge that any viewpoints not in complete accordance with her own might have any validity.

I am pretty sure that Rand is widely accepted as a complex and critical thinker.

The fact that she raises so much controversy when discussing her work 50+ years after the fact supports that and suggests that we will continue to do so long into the future.

That all may change but I think an outright unilateral rejection of her beliefs is unlikely.

I don't think that's true. I don't know of many college philosophy classes that discuss her at all, let alone in the terms used to describe those more commonly acknowledged as philosophical luminaries.

We talk about her a lot more than a lot of 'luminaries'.

Because those interested in seizing power and exploiting others don't often cite Kant, Hegel, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Ayn Rand is widely "discussed" because her specious philosophy offers intellectual cover for exploitative scumbags and sociopaths.

 

[Chaka]

Thanks for making my Saturday night NC.

Wow. I didn't realize I was such an NC fanboy.

And Rand taking from a system she paid into for years is not hypocrisy JDogg. I thought that was covered in the thread dedicated to the article when it first came out.

 

[NCCommish]

Thanks for making my Saturday night NC. Wow. I didn't realize I was such an NC fanboy.And Rand taking from a system she paid into for years is not hypocrisy JDogg. I thought that was covered in the thread dedicated to the article when it first came out.

You're welcome. And I feel honored to still have any fans so thank you also.

 

[Chaka]

I would think that any real academic works which address the depth of logical thinking and decision making would be very complex, just like the human mind. There's a reason every other work recognized as a philosophical classic is far more complex: those works acknowledge the complexity of the matters they are approaching, as opposed to Rand's refusal to acknowledge that any viewpoints not in complete accordance with her own might have any validity.

I am pretty sure that Rand is widely accepted as a complex and critical thinker.

The fact that she raises so much controversy when discussing her work 50+ years after the fact supports that and suggests that we will continue to do so long into the future.

That all may change but I think an outright unilateral rejection of her beliefs is unlikely.

I don't think that's true. I don't know of many college philosophy classes that discuss her at all, let alone in the terms used to describe those more commonly acknowledged as philosophical luminaries.

We talk about her a lot more than a lot of 'luminaries'.

Because those interested in seizing power and exploiting others don't often cite Kant, Hegel, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Ayn Rand is widely "discussed" because her specious philosophy offers intellectual cover for exploitative scumbags and sociopaths.

Yeah because that never happens with other philosophers. Like it or not her beliefs resonate. We can debate why until we are blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that she has had a huge impact. History will ultimately dictate whether or not she should be considered a luminary but 50 years after the fact it seems that she is. What tomorrow brings, who knows.And FTR I agree with most that she superficially appears to be very simplistic in her beliefs but that doesn't mean she is entirely wrong or that her beliefs shouldn't be explored on a deeper level.

 

[timschochet]

Welcome back, NC! Missed your posts quite a bit, especially in political threads.

 

[Chaka]

Is it really wrong to be upset by the notion that your hard work is being wasted upon those that can't/won't work hard?

 

[NCCommish]

And FTR I agree with most that she superficially appears to be very simplistic in her beliefs but that doesn't mean she is entirely wrong or that her beliefs shouldn't be explored on a deeper level.

IMO they resonate because she talks to peoples baser instincts. If you take any of her philosophy to it's logical conclusion it's easy to see it's just not sustainable in any kind of society we would want to live in.

 

[NCCommish]

Welcome back, NC! Missed your posts quite a bit, especially in political threads.

Thanks Tim

 

[timschochet]

I watched the trailer again. OMG, this is going to be soooo bad.

I shamelessly love Atlas Shrugged. It's not literary; it's not even particularly well written. There are tremendously boring speeches and people saying absurd things. The love affair between Dagny and Reardon is probably the most ridiculous in all of fiction. Rand's philosophy has some great points (IMO), particularly with regards to the free market, but it ultimately fails.

But I still love the novel. It's an overall good read, a guilty pleasure. Dagny's fight against the collectivists is heroic and fun. As Matthias pointed out, there are no grays in Atlas, everyone is either totally good or totally evil. While this makes for extremely poor philosophy, it also makes for great melodrama. It's the novelistic equivalent of a Rocky movie. But it just doesn't translate to film. It's going to be Battlefield Earth part 2.

 

[timschochet]

And FTR I agree with most that she superficially appears to be very simplistic in her beliefs but that doesn't mean she is entirely wrong or that her beliefs shouldn't be explored on a deeper level.

IMO they resonate because she talks to peoples baser instincts. If you take any of her philosophy to it's logical conclusion it's easy to see it's just not sustainable in any kind of society we would want to live in.

This is the ultimate conclusion I reached, despite the fact that I was a devout follower in college. Yet she does do something worthwhile in her critique of collectivism and too much bureacracy. I've always felt Atlas Shrugged was the mirror image of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Both books are strong narrative reads. The Jungle is at its best when it criticizes free market capitalism, but at its worst when it attempts to offer a solution- socialism. Rand's novel is at its best when it exposes the flaws of the current "mixed" economy, but at its worst when it attempts to offer a solution: complete free market capitalism and Objectivism.

 

[Chaka]

And FTR I agree with most that she superficially appears to be very simplistic in her beliefs but that doesn't mean she is entirely wrong or that her beliefs shouldn't be explored on a deeper level.

IMO they resonate because she talks to peoples baser instincts. If you take any of her philosophy to it's logical conclusion it's easy to see it's just not sustainable in any kind of society we would want to live in.

Totally agree with the bolded (I stated it previously in this thread) but I am not sure she appeals to baser instincts, in fact I would say that baser instincts are far more represented by the antagonists in her works. Either way I fully recognize that her beliefs taken to their extreme are completely unsustainable. However that does not preclude the notion that much of her belief cannot be incorporated (and, in fact, should be incorporated) into a balanced fully functional free market society.Again I say that it is not wrong for producers to be upset when their works are conscripted to those who cannot, and more importantly, will not produce, as Rand would say, to their own ability.

e.g. Why should my tax dollars pay for those who refuse to work? And don't pretend that there aren't plenty of people who refuse to work in what they perceive to be menial jobs because they feel they are above them and would rather suckle off the government teat instead.

Just because she shouldn't be taken to extremes doesn't mean she doesn't make valid points.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

It's me no hacking.

Run-on sentence. It's him.

 

[Topes]

Why now NC?Hijack complete.

Seemed like the right time. Been an ugly couple of years here at Chez NCC. But I got a job(finally) about 4 months ago and I have gone from doing part time marketing stuff to Director of Operations for a growing firm. I had to wait until I felt good about me before I could dive back into the rough and tumble here. I was getting too thin skinned. And I finally do feel better so here I am.

Welcome back.

 

[NCCommish]

It's me no hacking.

Run-on sentence. It's him.

Well there you go. Hi Pickles.

 

[NCCommish]

And FTR I agree with most that she superficially appears to be very simplistic in her beliefs but that doesn't mean she is entirely wrong or that her beliefs shouldn't be explored on a deeper level.

IMO they resonate because she talks to peoples baser instincts. If you take any of her philosophy to it's logical conclusion it's easy to see it's just not sustainable in any kind of society we would want to live in.

Totally agree with the bolded (I stated it previously in this thread) but I am not sure she appeals to baser instincts, in fact I would say that baser instincts are far more represented by the antagonists in her works. Either way I fully recognize that her beliefs taken to their extreme are completely unsustainable. However that does not preclude the notion that much of her belief cannot be incorporated (and, in fact, should be incorporated) into a balanced fully functional free market society.Again I say that it is not wrong for producers to be upset when their works are conscripted to those who cannot, and more importantly, will not produce, as Rand would say, to their own ability.

e.g. Why should my tax dollars pay for those who refuse to work? And don't pretend that there aren't plenty of people who refuse to work in what they perceive to be menial jobs because they feel they are above them and would rather suckle off the government teat instead.

Just because she shouldn't be taken to extremes doesn't mean she doesn't make valid points.

Care to quantify many? Because I looked for 2 years. I couldn't even get menial jobs and I all but begged for them.

 

[Chaka]

And FTR I agree with most that she superficially appears to be very simplistic in her beliefs but that doesn't mean she is entirely wrong or that her beliefs shouldn't be explored on a deeper level.

IMO they resonate because she talks to peoples baser instincts. If you take any of her philosophy to it's logical conclusion it's easy to see it's just not sustainable in any kind of society we would want to live in.

Totally agree with the bolded (I stated it previously in this thread) but I am not sure she appeals to baser instincts, in fact I would say that baser instincts are far more represented by the antagonists in her works. Either way I fully recognize that her beliefs taken to their extreme are completely unsustainable. However that does not preclude the notion that much of her belief cannot be incorporated (and, in fact, should be incorporated) into a balanced fully functional free market society.Again I say that it is not wrong for producers to be upset when their works are conscripted to those who cannot, and more importantly, will not produce, as Rand would say, to their own ability.

e.g. Why should my tax dollars pay for those who refuse to work? And don't pretend that there aren't plenty of people who refuse to work in what they perceive to be menial jobs because they feel they are above them and would rather suckle off the government teat instead.

Just because she shouldn't be taken to extremes doesn't mean she doesn't make valid points.

Care to quantify many? Because I looked for 2 years. I couldn't even get menial jobs and I all but begged for them.

Ultimately I know very little about you NC (even though what little I know puts you in high regard) but from what I do know I don't think that you qualify as a person who refuses to produce, be it by circumstance or intention.I wish I could quantify it. I wish I could look at someone and determine if they were trying to produce or not. I can't and don't pretend otherwise. However I don't believe that every person without a job (assuming that as a basic definition of production) is sincerely seeking one. I am very open to arguments positing otherwise.

I fully recognize that I don't see any position with perfect clarity and I have very few intractable positions. Most of what I think I think can be changed by well reasoned arguments.

 

[NCCommish]

Ultimately I know very little about you NC (even though what little I know puts you in high regard) but from what I do know I don't think that you qualify as a person who refuses to produce, be it by circumstance or intention.I wish I could quantify it. I wish I could look at someone and determine if they were trying to produce or not. I can't and don't pretend otherwise. However I don't believe that every person without a job (assuming that as a basic definition of production) is sincerely seeking one. I am very open to arguments positing otherwise. I fully recognize that I don't see any position with perfect clarity and I have very few intractable positions. Most of what I think I think can be changed by well reasoned arguments.

I am sure there are some people who are taking a vacation on the taxpayers dime. It is impossible that there aren't. But without all the help I got while I was a "non-producer" I may have never gotten to being a "producer" again. BTW I hate those terms they are dehumanizing and really seem to be a way to make you forget we are talking about people here. When we have Workforce.com reporting over 200 applicants on average per posted job I have to think the vast majority of those who need work are looking. Have some have given up? You bet. I almost did. Long term unemployment destroys you from the inside out. It was one more push that got me the part time position that turned into my current full time gig. But I have had a varied work life and that gave me more options than a lot of people. So by and large I think the whole "people sucking off the public teat" thing is way overplayed.

 

[Chaka]

Ultimately I know very little about you NC (even though what little I know puts you in high regard) but from what I do know I don't think that you qualify as a person who refuses to produce, be it by circumstance or intention.

I wish I could quantify it. I wish I could look at someone and determine if they were trying to produce or not. I can't and don't pretend otherwise. However I don't believe that every person without a job (assuming that as a basic definition of production) is sincerely seeking one. I am very open to arguments positing otherwise.

I fully recognize that I don't see any position with perfect clarity and I have very few intractable positions. Most of what I think I think can be changed by well reasoned arguments.

I am sure there are some people who are taking a vacation on the taxpayers dime. It is impossible that there aren't. But without all the help I got while I was a "non-producer" I may have never gotten to being a "producer" again. BTW I hate those terms they are dehumanizing and really seem to be a way to make you forget we are talking about people here. When we have Workforce.com reporting over 200 applicants on average per posted job I have to think the vast majority of those who need work are looking. Have some have given up? You bet. I almost did. Long term unemployment destroys you from the inside out. It was one more push that got me the part time position that turned into my current full time gig. But I have had a varied work life and that gave me more options than a lot of people. So by and large I think the whole "people sucking off the public teat" thing is way overplayed.

This might be true particularly in a period where we have been unusual rates of unemployment. And I am not a fan of the terms producers & non-producers either, I am just not sure how to state it otherwise and since we are in a Rand thread they seem appropriate. I am completely open to alternative terminology.

Again, even in a period of unique unemployment rates for our country (and accepting that employment is the sole definition of production, which it isn't) I don't think it is unfair to suggest that there is a significant number of people who live off the production of others. The fact that someone is unemployed alone does not mark them among this group and, conversely, having a job does not necessarily exclude them from being a member of this group.

Circling back to the premise of whether or not Rand is viable I completely agree that her beliefs, in a vacuum, are absolutely not. But I still believe that a balance, including a heavy dose of her belief, is necessary for continued progress and improvement of our society.

ETA: I recognize that I am treading on very touchy ground here and am not trying to offend anyone. However I accept the fact that the nature of my posts may offend and I hope those offended recognize my arguments are not personal and that my beliefs are very open to counter arguments. I work very hard at not being intractable in any position. I know that I don't know.

 

[NCCommish]

Ultimately I know very little about you NC (even though what little I know puts you in high regard) but from what I do know I don't think that you qualify as a person who refuses to produce, be it by circumstance or intention.

I wish I could quantify it. I wish I could look at someone and determine if they were trying to produce or not. I can't and don't pretend otherwise. However I don't believe that every person without a job (assuming that as a basic definition of production) is sincerely seeking one. I am very open to arguments positing otherwise.

I fully recognize that I don't see any position with perfect clarity and I have very few intractable positions. Most of what I think I think can be changed by well reasoned arguments.

I am sure there are some people who are taking a vacation on the taxpayers dime. It is impossible that there aren't. But without all the help I got while I was a "non-producer" I may have never gotten to being a "producer" again. BTW I hate those terms they are dehumanizing and really seem to be a way to make you forget we are talking about people here. When we have Workforce.com reporting over 200 applicants on average per posted job I have to think the vast majority of those who need work are looking. Have some have given up? You bet. I almost did. Long term unemployment destroys you from the inside out. It was one more push that got me the part time position that turned into my current full time gig. But I have had a varied work life and that gave me more options than a lot of people. So by and large I think the whole "people sucking off the public teat" thing is way overplayed.

This might be true particularly in a period where we have been unusual rates of unemployment. And I am not a fan of the terms producers & non-producers either, I am just not sure how to state it otherwise and since we are in a Rand thread they seem appropriate. I am completely open to alternative terminology.

Again, even in a period of unique unemployment rates for our country (and accepting that employment is the sole definition of production, which it isn't) I don't think it is unfair to suggest that there is a significant number of people who live off the production of others. The fact that someone is unemployed alone does not mark them among this group and, conversely, having a job does not necessarily exclude them from being a member of this group.

Circling back to the premise of whether or not Rand is viable I completely agree that her beliefs, in a vacuum, are absolutely not. But I still believe that a balance, including a heavy dose of her belief, is necessary for continued progress and improvement of our society.

ETA: I recognize that I am treading on very touchy ground here and am not trying to offend anyone. However I accept the fact that the nature of my posts may offend and I hope those offended recognize my arguments are not personal and that my beliefs are very open to counter arguments. I work very hard at not being intractable in any position. I know that I don't know.

I assumed no offense was meant and none was taken by me.Now there always people who are going to take advantage. Of anything. That's people. But we have to be careful about tossing the baby with the bathwater. Some people getting over shouldn't mean we take a shot at everyone. Most people only use the social safety net when they have to. And that's the reason we shouldn't shred it. Rand saw things through this lens where there were no shades of gray, only black and white. Her philosophy as it were was totally informed by the unfortunate circumstances of her youth and she never outgrew that. The world is far too complex for Rands vision to have much of anything we could apply to good effect I fear.

 

[Chaka]

Ultimately I know very little about you NC (even though what little I know puts you in high regard) but from what I do know I don't think that you qualify as a person who refuses to produce, be it by circumstance or intention.

I wish I could quantify it. I wish I could look at someone and determine if they were trying to produce or not. I can't and don't pretend otherwise. However I don't believe that every person without a job (assuming that as a basic definition of production) is sincerely seeking one. I am very open to arguments positing otherwise.

I fully recognize that I don't see any position with perfect clarity and I have very few intractable positions. Most of what I think I think can be changed by well reasoned arguments.

I am sure there are some people who are taking a vacation on the taxpayers dime. It is impossible that there aren't. But without all the help I got while I was a "non-producer" I may have never gotten to being a "producer" again. BTW I hate those terms they are dehumanizing and really seem to be a way to make you forget we are talking about people here. When we have Workforce.com reporting over 200 applicants on average per posted job I have to think the vast majority of those who need work are looking. Have some have given up? You bet. I almost did. Long term unemployment destroys you from the inside out. It was one more push that got me the part time position that turned into my current full time gig. But I have had a varied work life and that gave me more options than a lot of people. So by and large I think the whole "people sucking off the public teat" thing is way overplayed.

This might be true particularly in a period where we have been unusual rates of unemployment. And I am not a fan of the terms producers & non-producers either, I am just not sure how to state it otherwise and since we are in a Rand thread they seem appropriate. I am completely open to alternative terminology.

Again, even in a period of unique unemployment rates for our country (and accepting that employment is the sole definition of production, which it isn't) I don't think it is unfair to suggest that there is a significant number of people who live off the production of others. The fact that someone is unemployed alone does not mark them among this group and, conversely, having a job does not necessarily exclude them from being a member of this group.

Circling back to the premise of whether or not Rand is viable I completely agree that her beliefs, in a vacuum, are absolutely not. But I still believe that a balance, including a heavy dose of her belief, is necessary for continued progress and improvement of our society.

ETA: I recognize that I am treading on very touchy ground here and am not trying to offend anyone. However I accept the fact that the nature of my posts may offend and I hope those offended recognize my arguments are not personal and that my beliefs are very open to counter arguments. I work very hard at not being intractable in any position. I know that I don't know.

I assumed no offense was meant and none was taken by me.Now there always people who are going to take advantage. Of anything. That's people. But we have to be careful about tossing the baby with the bathwater. Some people getting over shouldn't mean we take a shot at everyone. Most people only use the social safety net when they have to. And that's the reason we shouldn't shred it. Rand saw things through this lens where there were no shades of gray, only black and white. Her philosophy as it were was totally informed by the unfortunate circumstances of her youth and she never outgrew that. The world is far too complex for Rands vision to have much of anything we could apply to good effect I fear.

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

 

[Chaka]

All that being said I am not hopeful that this will be a quality trilogy of films and may end up being a one-off much like Pullman's His Dark Materials (which I sincerely hope is reimagined because IMO it is very deserving of a full and free treatment from Hollywood without interference).

 

[NCCommish]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

 

[cstu]

Why now NC?Hijack complete.

Seemed like the right time. Been an ugly couple of years here at Chez NCC. But I got a job(finally) about 4 months ago and I have gone from doing part time marketing stuff to Director of Operations for a growing firm. I had to wait until I felt good about me before I could dive back into the rough and tumble here. I was getting too thin skinned. And I finally do feel better so here I am.

Good to hear it, GB.

 

[NCCommish]

Why now NC?Hijack complete.

Seemed like the right time. Been an ugly couple of years here at Chez NCC. But I got a job(finally) about 4 months ago and I have gone from doing part time marketing stuff to Director of Operations for a growing firm. I had to wait until I felt good about me before I could dive back into the rough and tumble here. I was getting too thin skinned. And I finally do feel better so here I am.

Good to hear it, GB.

TY

 

[timschochet]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Though Rand's followers would never admit this, the main impediment to her dream of producers being able to create new technology without government involvement or interference is the modern day corporation. There are extremely few large industries which are owned or controlled by a single person in the manner depicted in Atlas Shrugged. Because stockholders demand immediate returns on their investment, every 90 days, it is impossible for a private concern to spend the money and time on research and development that it would take to create, for example, a product like Reardon Metal. Realistically, that sort of technological advancement these days has to come from government investment, or not at all.

 

[krista4]

No interest in reading this thread. Interested only to say to NCC because Mr. krista4 alerted me that he was back. Friend, you have been sorely missed.

 

[NCCommish]

No interest in reading this thread. Interested only to say to NCC because Mr. krista4 alerted me that he was back. Friend, you have been sorely missed.

TY to both you and the mister.

 

[The Ref]

Loved the book. The movie will be a story about trains.

And when I mean a story about trains what I really mean is a

 

[bostonfred]

Now there always people who are going to take advantage. Of anything. That's people.

This is the foundation of the Constitution, one of the central principles of the founding fathers' belief in freedom. It's the reason we have checks and balances.

 

[Chaka]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

We certainly try. It's all about achieving balance and I think America as a whole comes very close to realizing the most realistic possible outcome of Rand's vision.However these things are dynamic so we will see if this is still true in 20 (or more, or less) years.

 

[NCCommish]

Now there always people who are going to take advantage. Of anything. That's people.

This is the foundation of the Constitution, one of the central principles of the founding fathers' belief in freedom. It's the reason we have checks and balances.

True

 

[cstu]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Though Rand's followers would never admit this, the main impediment to her dream of producers being able to create new technology without government involvement or interference is the modern day corporation. There are extremely few large industries which are owned or controlled by a single person in the manner depicted in Atlas Shrugged. Because stockholders demand immediate returns on their investment, every 90 days, it is impossible for a private concern to spend the money and time on research and development that it would take to create, for example, a product like Reardon Metal. Realistically, that sort of technological advancement these days has to come from government investment, or not at all.

Even if a "Reardon Metal" was invented the corporation would hold off releasing it until the rest of their inferior products become unprofitable. They would also buy up any competitors who have even a remote chance of inventing a similar metal. That way they would be able to maximize profits for as long as possible while at the same time having the comfort of knowing they could release "Reardon Metal" if necessary.

 

[OC Zed]

Logical thinking shouldn't be complex. That's the point. And the scope of Atlas Shrugged, like it or not, was broader than just free market economics. It was about all elements of society... (yes) government, economics, but also love, religion, family and individual values.

Thinking should line up to the scope of the problem. If you're talking about fastening two boards together, a hammer and a nail are a simple, but appropriate, solution. If you're talking about the proper ordering of a society, something that fits on a bumper sticker may find itself lacking. And it does. But Rand doesn't concern herself with that probably because to delve into the nuance is to water down the forcefulness of her point. And that's ok. She was an interesting enough writer; I stuck with the book to see what happened to her characters. But it's more pulp literature than it is serious philosophy. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But let's not make it into more than it is.

Rand wrote thousands of pages (in Atlas Shrugged and beyond) and gave countless interviews discussing in detail how her philosophy applies to every nuance in society... in practical everyday terms. The fact that she lived by a coherent ethos shouldn't scare you, but should be celebrated. You don't like her, we get it. But her critics' constant dismissal of her becomes petty and often shows a complete misunderstanding of what she espoused.

 

[OC Zed]

As long as we're on the subject:

Ayn Rand Received Social Security, Medicare

Despite persistent rumors, Rand Paul was not named in honor of influential conservative thinker, Ayn Rand. His name is Randall.

It's good he was not named for Ayn Rand because her real name was 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.

A Library of Congress survey of the most influential books on American readers, "Atlas Shrugged" ranked second only to the Bible. Rand's influence is encyclopedic ranging from Alan Greenspan to Paul "I grew up on Ayn Rand" Ryan (R-Wis), a "Young Gun" who aims to cut or privatize Medicare and Social Security.

The Right should be commended politically for their ability to develop and stick to a unified message. But close inspection of this unified message reveals a disappointing secret identified by a student of the Godfather of Neo-conservatism, --- the University of Chicago's Leo Strauss. The student, Anne Norton ("Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire") identified what she called VIP-DIP meaning Venerated in Public, Disdained in Private. "Do as I say, not as I do." The list of vip-dipers on the Right runs from Harold Bloom to Newt Gingrich, but certainly not Ayn Rand. Right?

Say it ain't so Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum.

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).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.

In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.

I don't know if we can rely solely on the account of a social worker that worked for her law firm, but even if taken at face value, her taking social security and medicare isn't necessarily contradictory to her viewpoint... she paid into those programs for decades and was taking out the money she put back in (probably much less as I think she was fairly affluent from the success of her books and screenplays). That doesn't necessarily exclude her from advocating doing away with these programs altogether.Do you think all of the other libertarian-leaning people in this country are going to turn down these funds?

 

[OC Zed]

I would think that any real academic works which address the depth of logical thinking and decision making would be very complex, just like the human mind. There's a reason every other work recognized as a philosophical classic is far more complex: those works acknowledge the complexity of the matters they are approaching, as opposed to Rand's refusal to acknowledge that any viewpoints not in complete accordance with her own might have any validity.

I am pretty sure that Rand is widely accepted as a complex and critical thinker.

The fact that she raises so much controversy when discussing her work 50+ years after the fact supports that and suggests that we will continue to do so long into the future.

That all may change but I think an outright unilateral rejection of her beliefs is unlikely.

I don't think that's true. I don't know of many college philosophy classes that discuss her at all, let alone in the terms used to describe those more commonly acknowledged as philosophical luminaries.

We talk about her a lot more than a lot of 'luminaries'.

Because those interested in seizing power and exploiting others don't often cite Kant, Hegel, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Ayn Rand is widely "discussed" because her specious philosophy offers intellectual cover for exploitative scumbags and sociopaths.

Right.