What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ayn Rand's main premise (1 Viewer)

You might also enjoy this bit from Last Week with John Oliver if you haven't seen it yet:

I'll give her mine. It's only rightly used when one has just flushed somewhere. She can have it posthumously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll give her mine. It's only rightly used when one has just flushed somewhere. She can have it posthumously.
I'm sure she'd appreciate your charity and generosity while pretending not to.
You're forgetting that's it's a selfish act of mine. I don't care about the degree, and even though she was good friends with Hazlitt and von Mises, who both complimented her, she'd know I was doing it for my own reasons relating to prerequisites for genius on an obscure thread somewhere on a fantasy football website.

Really, she can have it. It's a selfish act of mine to give it to her.

 
In all seriousness, I've read both everything Rand and Rousseau ever wrote at one point in my life, though I forget (and never understood) a lot of it. She's not as stupid nor ignorant as people are painting her in this thread. She was a force in 1950's America, and for that, I'm grateful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll give her mine. It's only rightly used when one has just flushed somewhere. She can have it posthumously.
I'm sure she'd appreciate your charity and generosity while pretending not to.
You're forgetting that's it's a selfish act of mine. I don't care about the degree, and even though she was good friends with Hazlitt and von Mises, who both complimented her, she'd know I was doing it for my own reasons relating to prerequisites for genius on an obscure thread somewhere on a fantasy football website.

Really, she can have it. It's a selfish act of mine to give it to her.
I was forgetting that. Deep. Apparently I have to revisit her work. Hopefully that doesn't mean I also need refreshers on ska music and handjobs.

 
I'll give her mine. It's only rightly used when one has just flushed somewhere. She can have it posthumously.
I'm sure she'd appreciate your charity and generosity while pretending not to.
You're forgetting that's it's a selfish act of mine. I don't care about the degree, and even though she was good friends with Hazlitt and von Mises, who both complimented her, she'd know I was doing it for my own reasons relating to prerequisites for genius on an obscure thread somewhere on a fantasy football website.

Really, she can have it. It's a selfish act of mine to give it to her.
I was forgetting that. Deep. Apparently I have to revisit her work. Hopefully that doesn't mean I also need refreshers on ska music and handjobs.
Listened to tons of ska music while reading Ayn's word. You've pretty much nailed that it was undergrad and for some dumb "thesis" that nobody but the poor professor would ever have to read. But you're wrong about the hand jobs. Total non-starter on that end, even WITH the conservative girlfriend. :thumbup:

 
In all seriousness, I've read both everything Rand and Rousseau ever wrote at one point in my life, though I forget (and never understood) a lot of it. She's not as stupid nor ignorant as people are painting her in this thread. She was a force in 1950's America, and for that, I'm grateful.
Actually she reached the height of her influence in the 1960s. But I'm inclined to agree with you.
 
I'll give her mine. It's only rightly used when one has just flushed somewhere. She can have it posthumously.
I'm sure she'd appreciate your charity and generosity while pretending not to.
You're forgetting that's it's a selfish act of mine. I don't care about the degree, and even though she was good friends with Hazlitt and von Mises, who both complimented her, she'd know I was doing it for my own reasons relating to prerequisites for genius on an obscure thread somewhere on a fantasy football website.

Really, she can have it. It's a selfish act of mine to give it to her.
I was forgetting that. Deep. Apparently I have to revisit her work. Hopefully that doesn't mean I also need refreshers on ska music and handjobs.
Listened to tons of ska music while reading Ayn's word. You've pretty much nailed that it was undergrad and for some dumb "thesis" that nobody but the poor professor would ever have to read. But you're wrong about the hand jobs. Total non-starter on that end, even WITH the conservative girlfriend. :thumbup:
That was from the Last Week bit I linked above. Although I liked the Super Sweet Sixteen comparison a bit more.

 
I'll give her mine. It's only rightly used when one has just flushed somewhere. She can have it posthumously.
I'm sure she'd appreciate your charity and generosity while pretending not to.
You're forgetting that's it's a selfish act of mine. I don't care about the degree, and even though she was good friends with Hazlitt and von Mises, who both complimented her, she'd know I was doing it for my own reasons relating to prerequisites for genius on an obscure thread somewhere on a fantasy football website.

Really, she can have it. It's a selfish act of mine to give it to her.
I was forgetting that. Deep. Apparently I have to revisit her work. Hopefully that doesn't mean I also need refreshers on ska music and handjobs.
Listened to tons of ska music while reading Ayn's word. You've pretty much nailed that it was undergrad and for some dumb "thesis" that nobody but the poor professor would ever have to read. But you're wrong about the hand jobs. Total non-starter on that end, even WITH the conservative girlfriend. :thumbup:
That was from the Last Week bit I linked above. Although I liked the Super Sweet Sixteen comparison a bit more.
Now I've got to watch it. But I already had. How did I forget? Oh yeah, ask me something about Rand's philosophy, that'll clear up how I forgot.

 
NC, your comment about Rand having no economics degree is beneath you. Especially when her main economic ideas were basically in line with Ludwig Von Mises, FE Hayek, and Milton Freidman, among others. We're talking about some pretty brilliant people here.

It's also of note that Alan Greenspan was one of Ayn Rand's protégés and a close personal friend.

 
NC, your comment about Rand having no economics degree is beneath you. Especially when her main economic ideas were basically in line with Ludwig Von Mises, FE Hayek, and Milton Freidman, among others. We're talking about some pretty brilliant people here.

It's also of note that Alan Greenspan was one of Ayn Rand's protégés and a close personal friend.
That's not a point in her favor.

 
NC, your comment about Rand having no economics degree is beneath you. Especially when her main economic ideas were basically in line with Ludwig Von Mises, FE Hayek, and Milton Freidman, among others. We're talking about some pretty brilliant people here.

It's also of note that Alan Greenspan was one of Ayn Rand's protégés and a close personal friend.
That's not a point in her favor.
Another one of her proteges, Nathaniel Branden, likely murdered his 2nd wife.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In all seriousness, I've read both everything Rand and Rousseau ever wrote at one point in my life, though I forget (and never understood) a lot of it. She's not as stupid nor ignorant as people are painting her in this thread. She was a force in 1950's America, and for that, I'm grateful.
Rand took the worst parts of Nietzsche and treated it like she came up with something original.

 
Didn't she also accept state assistance before she died? Seems like she was just pretty much full of #### like any other cult leader.

 
Easy to rip her for s million reasons and you guys seem to have a lot of fun with it.

One aspect of her fiction which I really enjoyed was the struggle between the competent people and the incompetent. I've never understood why so many people who don't know anything about stuff are allowed to #### things up in practically every walk of life. Rand attempts to shed light on this.

 
Easy to rip her for s million reasons and you guys seem to have a lot of fun with it.

One aspect of her fiction which I really enjoyed was the struggle between the competent people and the incompetent. I've never understood why so many people who don't know anything about stuff are allowed to #### things up in practically every walk of life. Rand attempts to shed light on this.
Funny, her beloved capitalism rewards plenty of incompetent people completely out of proportion.

 
Rand loved capitalism and hated aristocracy but is not a capitalism a form of aristocracy?
No, it is not.

Just about everything you have that's good in your life was made available to you because of capitalism.

And never forget that the state has no resources of its own; everything it has is taken by force from the productive class: capitalists, entrepreneurs and workers who voluntarily trade their labor for compensation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
She got as much out of her economics degree as Gates got out of his technology degree.
Gates actually made something while Rand was ####ed in the head and could only blather on for hundreds of pages about how great it is to be a sociopath.
Sure, because people who advocate liberty and voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange are sociopaths.

Perhaps you need to read Hayek's The Road To Serfdom, particularly Chaper 10, "Why the Worst Get on Top."

Go ahead, I dare you.

P.S. Rand did actually make things, including a famous book that has sold over seven million copies. What have you produced in your life that people will voluntarily exchange their resources for?

 
Rand loved capitalism and hated aristocracy but is not a capitalism a form of aristocracy?
No, it is not.

Just about everything you have that's good in your life was made available to you because of capitalism.

And never forget that the state has no resources of its own; everything it has is taken by force from the productive class: capitalists, entrepreneurs and workers who voluntarily trade their labor for compensation.
Everything you wrote is wrong. You get no credit.

 
Rand loved capitalism and hated aristocracy but is not a capitalism a form of aristocracy?
No, it is not.

Just about everything you have that's good in your life was made available to you because of capitalism.

And never forget that the state has no resources of its own; everything it has is taken by force from the productive class: capitalists, entrepreneurs and workers who voluntarily trade their labor for compensation.
Everything you wrote is wrong. You get no credit.
How is it wrong? Please explain. Though I doubt you can.

 
I find it funny how people hate her so much. She certainly didn't advocate the gulag. I mean, she escaped it and her worldview was then shaped by what she had witnessed and escaped.

I remember finding Anthem her most palatable work, until I read Zamyatin's We. But the Ayn Rand hate is predictably strong among religionists and collectivists, the two things she detested more than anything in the world.

If one subscribes to think that nothing in life is richer than defining one's self by one's enemies, her life's work was a success.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it funny how people hate her so much. She certainly didn't advocate the gulag. I mean, she escaped it and her worldview was then shaped by what she had witnessed and escaped.

I remember finding Anthem her most palatable work, until I read Zamyatin's We. But the Ayn Rand hate is predictably strong among religionists and collectivists, the two things she detested more than anything in the world.

If one subscribes to think that nothing in life is richer than defining one's self by one's enemies, her life's work was a success.
Yeah it's so silly that people hate someone who they believe influences the powerful yet feeble-minded to adopt a destructive worldview!

 
Rand loved capitalism and hated aristocracy but is not a capitalism a form of aristocracy?
No, it is not.

Just about everything you have that's good in your life was made available to you because of capitalism.

And never forget that the state has no resources of its own; everything it has is taken by force from the productive class: capitalists, entrepreneurs and workers who voluntarily trade their labor for compensation.
Everything you wrote is wrong. You get no credit.
How is it wrong? Please explain. Though I doubt you can.
Well, it's wrong because what you wrote is false. Not true. Lacking in nuance and genuine understanding/intellect.

 
I find it funny how people hate her so much. She certainly didn't advocate the gulag. I mean, she escaped it and her worldview was then shaped by what she had witnessed and escaped.

I remember finding Anthem her most palatable work, until I read Zamyatin's We. But the Ayn Rand hate is predictably strong among religionists and collectivists, the two things she detested more than anything in the world.

If one subscribes to think that nothing in life is richer than defining one's self by one's enemies, her life's work was a success.
Yeah it's so silly that people hate someone who they believe influences the powerful yet feeble-minded to adopt a destructive worldview!
I think the hatred for 20th century figures other than her is implied in my comment. Hey, if you've got enough to go around, go ahead, but I think you're mistaken. I don't think anybody who reads a lot of Rand and understands is generally feeble-minded. Doctrinaire, maybe. Dogmatic, possibly. But not feeble-minded.

And that Ayn Rand now influences the powerful is almost laughable (not your point, but the situation) to anyone familiar with collectivism and its intellectual impregnability in the '50s and '60s within academic and political circles.

 
Rand loved capitalism and hated aristocracy but is not a capitalism a form of aristocracy?
No, it is not.

Just about everything you have that's good in your life was made available to you because of capitalism.

And never forget that the state has no resources of its own; everything it has is taken by force from the productive class: capitalists, entrepreneurs and workers who voluntarily trade their labor for compensation.
Everything you wrote is wrong. You get no credit.
How is it wrong? Please explain. Though I doubt you can.
Well, it's wrong because what you wrote is false. Not true. Lacking in nuance and genuine understanding/intellect.
And your saying "it's wrong because I say so" is a nuanced and intellectual response?

Laughable.

 
She got as much out of her economics degree as Gates got out of his technology degree.
Gates actually made something while Rand was ####ed in the head and could only blather on for hundreds of pages about how great it is to be a sociopath.
Sure, because people who advocate liberty and voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange are sociopaths.

Perhaps you need to read Hayek's The Road To Serfdom, particularly Chaper 10, "Why the Worst Get on Top."

Go ahead, I dare you.

P.S. Rand did actually make things, including a famous book that has sold over seven million copies. What have you produced in your life that people will voluntarily exchange their resources for?
I read the chapter - if the goal was to turn me off on totalitarianism, a little late for that. However, I found this interesting:

It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative programon the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off than on any positive task.
This is true and why I'm against demonization the '1%'. Making money is great - people should be encouraged to do as well as they can financially and we should celebrate their success. We should also tax those who can most afford it to enable others to follow in their path to success.

By the way, L. Ron Hubbard also wrote and sold millions of books.

 
She got as much out of her economics degree as Gates got out of his technology degree.
Gates actually made something while Rand was ####ed in the head and could only blather on for hundreds of pages about how great it is to be a sociopath.
Sure, because people who advocate liberty and voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange are sociopaths.

Perhaps you need to read Hayek's The Road To Serfdom, particularly Chaper 10, "Why the Worst Get on Top."

Go ahead, I dare you.

P.S. Rand did actually make things, including a famous book that has sold over seven million copies. What have you produced in your life that people will voluntarily exchange their resources for?
I read the chapter - if the goal was to turn me off on totalitarianism, a little late for that. However, I found this interesting:

It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative programon the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off than on any positive task.
This is true and why I'm against demonization the '1%'. Making money is great - people should be encouraged to do as well as they can financially and we should celebrate their success. We should also tax those who can most afford it to enable others to follow in their path to success.

By the way, L. Ron Hubbard also wrote and sold millions of books.
You openly admit to favoring totalitarianism. See, now I can respect that.

I don't know much about Hubbard, so I don't have an opinion on him. But I will point out that no one was forced to buy his books. Individuals voluntarily traded their money for his books. That is, they valued his books more than the money they exchanged for them. That is a win-win exchange.

 
Easy to rip her for s million reasons and you guys seem to have a lot of fun with it.

One aspect of her fiction which I really enjoyed was the struggle between the competent people and the incompetent. I've never understood why so many people who don't know anything about stuff are allowed to #### things up in practically every walk of life. Rand attempts to shed light on this.
I actually agree with Rand on many things but unfortunately she's a extremist, no wonder that her black and white ideas appeal to teenagers.

To wow her young admirers, Rand would often tell a story of how a smart-aleck book salesman had once challenged her to explain her philosophy while standing on one leg. She replied: “Metaphysics—objective reality. Epistemology—reason. Ethics—self-interest. Politics—capitalism.”
The first two I agree wholeheartedly. It's the last two where she lacks nuance and understanding of what it takes for a healthy society to function. Self-interest and capitalism have their place, but if you want to benefit from a society to achieve success then the society has a right to tax a reasonable amount of your success for its continued existence. If someone doesn't like that they have every right to move to a country where the wealthy don't care if the poor die starving in the streets.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top