Ayn Rand Strikes Again!!

14 years ago

She also wrote We the Lliving and Atlas Shrugged, a couple of my favorite books. Her appeal, as a Russian immigrant, (at a time of Soviet's irrational oppression) was being an almost fierce advocate of capitalism and rational self-interest and freedom of intellectual reason such as "neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself" over any form of collectivism. She appears relevant even today as we are witnesses of the violation of individual rights through the initiation of force within our very own system.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2120785].message }}

KenThompson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

She also wrote We the Lliving and Atlas Shrugged, a couple of my favorite books. Her appeal, as a Russian immigrant, (at a time of Soviet's irrational oppression) was being an almost fierce advocate of capitalism and rational self-interest and freedom of intellectual reason such as "neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself" over any form of collectivism.

Is a fierce advocate of all of those things.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2120812].message }}

KenThompson

14 years ago

Hello TL,

I've read some of her books, and I'm generally familiar with
the thinking, or type of approach/thinking, that was behind
the ideas and stories in her books.

Ok, I thought the best thing to do is try to make things a bit
clearer. There's an entire philosophical basis in her books. It's
complex, often misunderstood in my opinion. Some who may
disagree, or criticize, do their brains a disservice and label her
philosophy as selfishness, narcissism, etc.

Such labels reflect rather shallow thought while opting for the
convenience of pidgeon-holing, etc. While some may try to defend
that peculiarity of human thinking, I believe it's a rationalization for
insincerity and laziness. And I do not agree that sincerity is a universal
characteristic, or display, of belief (only) and the lack of objectivity.

Anyway... here...

The Ayn Rand Institute: Introducing Objectivism

Her philosophy is naturally unpopular among those who find their intellectual
homes in the status quo and whose actions flow from fear and existing in fear.

I also saw Fountainhead, with Gary Cooper, many years ago. I read the book,
as well. I also read Atlas Shrugged. I would recommend them to anyone. The
latter is long, I don't know... 500-700 pages or so. Don't remember, but it's
long. But it's engaging and excellent.

Well, topical item of interest having the name, or being named after her. But
it doesn't mean anything, necessarily. But time will tell I suppose.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2120809].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

So I'm thinking she emigrated from Russia after Communism took over and her experiences shaped her philosophy.

- Not of friend of collective action:

- Respect the individual:

TL

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2120948].message }}

Steve Ranger

14 years ago

Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece and I recommend everyone read it at some point.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2125809].message }}

Karen Blundell 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steve Ranger

Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece and I recommend everyone read it at some point.

I agree 100%
Atlas Shrugged changed my life.

Now I'm 100% responsible for my own actions and I create my own reality as a creative individual.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
---------------
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2144239].message }}
- TLTheLiberator 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Karen Blundell
  
  I agree 100%
  Atlas Shrugged changed my life.
  
  Now I'm 100% responsible for my own actions and I create my own reality as a creative individual.
  
  What ever it takes!!
  
  Congrats!
  
  TL
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2147384].message }}

myob

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sgtwhite

I am aware of Allen Greanspan's devotion to Ann; What I know about the FED
and his 'FREE MARKET" PHILOSOPSY, is why the world is broke, and in debt to
the bankers of the world.

So is Ayn Rand or Alan Greenspan to blame for the financial booms, busts and crisis over the last 40 years? Greenspan was shocked, "... because I'd been going for 40 years or so with considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2127310].message }}

TimPhelan

14 years ago

Seems Ayn's namesake is having a hell of a time the past few days. He just became the third person in 62 years to cancel an appearance on Meet The Press. I could say more...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2127356].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Seems Ayn's namesake is having a hell of a time the past few days. He just became the third person in 62 years to cancel an appearance on Meet The Press. I could say more...

He also believes that American wages need to go down.

Here's the video... ( only 50 seconds )

He's a tough lover.

YouTube - Rand Paul Wages Need To Fall?

TL

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2147519].message }}

blalock61

14 years ago

If you have never seen these before, below are links to an interview Ayn Rand did with Mike Wallace in 1959. Listen to her philosophy in her own words. I wish there was still dialog like this on TV today, but instead we have American Idol, Dancing With Stars, etc.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Effort & Attitude!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2127397].message }}

KenThompson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by blalock61

If you have never seen these before, below are links to an interview Ayn Rand did with Mike Wallace in 1959. Listen to her philosophy in her own words. I wish there was still dialog like this on TV today, but instead we have American Idol, Dancing With Stars, etc.

I recently heard Elton John turned down a gig to be a judge on
one of those shows. Don't recall which one it was.

He was offered 33 million for one year. That amazes me. The popularity
of those shows amaze me.

Thanks for the videos. I'll go out and score a cup of joe, and then come
back and watch them.

Ken

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2127444].message }}

KenThompson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sgtwhite

I am aware of Allen Greanspan's devotion to Ann; What I know about the FED
and his 'FREE MARKET" PHILOSOPSY, is why the world is broke, and in debt to
the bankers of the world.

He may have a devotion, but that's where it ends. If you watch the videos, you'll
understand, or should, that his devotion is unrecognizable in the gov'ts policies. And
you should be able to understand the folly of your conclusion stated in your post.

The world is not broke. The results are not from true free market philosophy, either. If
anything, it's from the interference with real free market philosophy as predicted by
Ayn Rand.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2127605].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

I took the time to listen to all 3 parts of the interview and here's want I get...

- No taxes for anything - unless agreed on by everyone.

- No regulations on corporations:

- Totally laissez-faire capitalism ( gov totally hands off business )

Let the marketplace decide everything in society.

- No community hospitals etc.

- Gov should not protect people from bad corporations etc.

- No social safety nets of any sorts.

unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare etc.

- National Gov should not initiate any national projects even if they are sorely needed since that may upset some people.

- She respected Aristotle above all philosophers.

- I enjoyed the movie on HBO.

( If it is to be believed to be true... )

She told her husband she wanted to be with another man named Nathanial Brandon (for intimate purposes) and the hubby accepted it.

I don't think I could sit by while my wife was getting killed by another man.

In the movie, dude gave me the impression that he was "forced" into being her lover ( by her ) because he wanted to be her intellectual and business heir and was afraid if he didn't cooperate he would be cast aside by her.

I hope that wasn't true.

I think her basic philosophy is dangerous in any world.

The individual has rights but they do not supersede the rights of the society.

I agree with Mr. Spock...

... that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but let's be reasonable.

I think her philosophy is an over-reaction to the crap she grew up with in communist Russia but it's an overreach and not needed here.

Very interesting stuff though...

TL

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2128081].message }}

Darren L Carter

14 years ago

@TLTheLiberator -Read Atlas Shrugged

That will give you 100x more value and insight than hearing a description of Ayn Rand or her philosophy than anyone else speaking about it. After you have read it everyone elses views on it will make much more sense (including her own words). Read it.

Peace,
Darren L Carter

p.s. - I don't care what your political views are Atlas Shrugged has amazing value for so many different parts of life that you will get value from it. (I don't talk publicly about my politics but I can say that it differs wildly from the average Ayn Rand advocate)

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2129851].message }}

thunderbird

14 years ago

Would Ayn Rand approve of the looting recipients of taxpayer funded corporate welfare?

(I think not)

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2130179].message }}

myob

14 years ago

This is precisely why Ayn Rand's works has seen such a resurgence of compelling and relevant interest in recent years. Her writings were stirred from her experience from which for her was one of the darkest periods of human history. In her observation we are

..."fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission.... The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1966

Her words sound vaguely similar to some earlier "Objectivists":

"Objectivism holds that because the opportunity to use reason without the initiation of force is necessary to achieve moral values, each individual has an inalienable moral right to act as his own judgment directs and to keep the product of his effort. The fundamental right is the right to life, with other rights following from it, including rights to "liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness."
Ayn Rand, from "The Objectivist"

Without reading Rand's original works, it is easy to be confused about her meaning of individualism. Here is a article she wrote in Reader's Digest for January 1944

The Only Path To Tomorrow

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called "the common good."´

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing "the common good." Napoleon "served the common good" of France. Hitler is "serving the common good" of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by "altruists" who justify themselves by-the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man's happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians' first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen's rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage's whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the "New Order". It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man — the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132623].message }}

KenThompson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sgtwhite

Don't try and bull-s**t me and try to convince me the Free Market System exists, because the greedy sob's control everything. They control all the money, our political
process, our news media, and have us all in debt to them at high interest rates.

What a "Free Market" means to guys like you is "leave us alone, so we can steal with
impunity. Don't ask us to be honest, transparent, or accountable to anyone. How are
we going to pay for our multi-million dollar bonuses, our corporate jets, and our $6000.00 shower curtains if we comply? "

Hey sarge?

You quoted my response to you, but it seems you did a poor job of reading what
I wrote.

Are you talking to me, sir? Accusing me of trying to tell you the free market exists?

Read my post, again. And maybe... again. Ok... I'll try to help you, pal. We are pals,
right? Sure...

"The results are not from true free market philosophy, either. If anything, it's from
the interference with real free market philosophy as predicted by Ayn Rand."

I wrote that. The results - what we've been seeing over the past years. What we have
been seeing for some time, a long time... a very long time, is from the interference...
Ayn Rand predicted, in those videos and I'm sure elsewhere, that there would be
problems if the govt continued to interfere with true free market economy.

And then you write that I'm trying to convince you that the free market exists.

You seem to have a disconnect, somewhere. You see, try reading for comprehension
next time. And that admonishment is extended to the peanut galleries who use the
thank you button.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133632].message }}

Kay King 14 years ago

When I first read Atlas Shrugged many years ago I saw it as fascinating fiction. When I reread it a few years ago it didn't seem so outlandish and now it seems frighteningly realistic.

Greenspan spent years thinking and pontificating from an ivory tower. He's an academic, brillliant but with little imagination - many times he stated flatly that the housing market could not collapse and needed no intervention.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133677].message }}

TimPhelan

14 years ago

I think many would disagree with that assessment. Especially with regards to what has happened in recent events including the gulf oil spill and the financial crisis of 2009. There's been government interference for a long time and some is very justified imo. Would you say the Sherman Anti Trust bill and Teddy Roosevelt were wrong to have the government interfere and break up monopolies?

Originally Posted by KenThompson

The results - what we've been seeing over the past years. What we have
been seeing for some time, a long time... a very long time, is from the interference...
Ayn Rand predicted, in those videos and I'm sure elsewhere, that there would be
problems if the govt continued to interfere with true free market economy.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133766].message }}

KenThompson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I think many would disagree with that assessment. Especially with regards to what has happened in recent events including the gulf oil spill and the financial crisis of 2009. There's been government interference for a long time and some is very justified imo. Would you say the Sherman Anti Trust bill and Teddy Roosevelt were wrong to have the government interfere and break up monopolies?

Hi Tim,

No, I'm mainly referring to the interference with the free market system. I'm not
suggesting the government should never get involved with anything, although
it seems a case could be made for that in certain contexts.

Concerning the anti trust issues, it's interesting you mentioned that because
Mike Wallace asked Ayn Rand that very same question. Yes, of course I could go off and
read up on it, but I'm not going to because it's not that important even for purposes
of forum debate.

Her response was that the government, in all cases, helped to create those
monopolies in the first place. She was very well read, extremely scholarly, and I
don't know if it's a mistake to rely on her own research in those areas. If you can
refute what she said, feel free to do so. And I'm not trying to be sarcastic.

I do believe the govt has caused more problems than it has cured with their
involvement, though.

And yes, I'm very much aware of the events leading to the creation of the Fed, and
the collusion on the part of the govt in it and its continued existence. The govts
decision to abolish the gold standard; introduction of certain programs which seems
(in my opinion) to have guaranteed the dependency status of certain social
segments on the govt, etc.

I don't believe the govt exists to solve everyone's problems, but it's my observation
and opinion that very many people feel differently. I'm not suggesting you, I'm referring
to majority and other segments of US society including corporations.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133838].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

Ms. Rand seems to believe the biggest struggle in human history has been between active man and passive man.

I thought it was between the wealthy, powerful forces in a society and the others.

IMHO history shows that...

( without a fair regulator like a Gov )

...we'd have a world of poor, just getting by semi-slaves/surfs with a small middle class and a even smaller ruling, wealthy elite.

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134543].message }}

KenThompson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Ms. Rand seems to believe the biggest struggle in human history has been between active man and passive man.

I'm not any kind of expert on her overall philosophy, although I did some reading on this
over the weekend as a result of this thread. I read enough to realize it's a huge subject
needing more attention than I have time to devote to it.

I would say, though, that it's not so much the struggle "between" the two groups,
according to Rand, as it is in the various social institutions that promote the ideas (such as
altruism for example) that result in people being the "passive man." I think my
understanding is sufficient to say she believes all people should be "active people" as much
as possible.

I thought it was between the wealthy, powerful forces in a society and the others.

I can certainly understand why anyone would think that. I generally believe that is the
case, but the reason I believe that has to do with my personal feelings/beliefs about those
who I feel wish to impose control on all of us, the entire world. That's another matter,
altogether, and it is one that is at odds with what Rand believes because it then implicates
the "active" men as contributing to keeping everyone else as passive. It's a violation of her
principles, and I think she would consider it a moral violation, as well, and if it's true then I
certainly consider it a moral violation.

IMHO history shows that...

( without a fair regulator like a Gov )

...we'd have a world of poor, get getting by semi-slaves/surfs with a small middle class and a even smaller ruling, wealthy elite.

I'm not sure if you're being purposely ironical here, or not. But it seems to me that's what
we have now. The exception is the middle class is not small. The current state is what I
generally believe is the desired state by those who would want to control.

But there's something more to this that I think Rand did not consider. I'm not sure if she
did consider it, or not. But she advocates people having the qualities of, as she put it,
the active man/person. The only problem with that is I believe most people do not want
to be like that. In some ways it's exactly like the whole online business area, or pursuit.
Most people have no desire to do it. It's hard work, requires taking more responsibility for
one's life, and there's more (perceived) risk than there is with being an employee, although
we all know the deal about job security anymore.

What do you think?

Ken

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134677].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

Originally Posted by KenThompson

I'm not any kind of expert on her overall philosophy, although I did some reading on this
over the weekend as a result of this thread. I read enough to realize it's a huge subject
needing more attention than I have time to devote to it.

I would say, though, that it's not so much the struggle "between" the two groups,
according to Rand, as it is in the various social institutions that promote the ideas (such as
altruism for example) that result in people being the "passive man." I think my
understanding is sufficient to say she believes all people should be "active people" as much
as possible.

I can certainly understand why anyone would think that. I generally believe that is the
case, but the reason I believe that has to do with my personal feelings/beliefs about those
who I feel wish to impose control on all of us, the entire world. That's another matter,
altogether, and it is one that is at odds with what Rand believes because it then implicates
the "active" men as contributing to keeping everyone else as passive. It's a violation of her
principles, and I think she would consider it a moral violation, as well, and if it's true then I
certainly consider it a moral violation.

I'm not sure if you're being purposely ironical here, or not. But it seems to me that's what
we have now. The exception is the middle class is not small. The current state is what I
generally believe is the desired state by those who would want to control.

But there's something more to this that I think Rand did not consider. I'm not sure if she
did consider it, or not. But she advocates people having the qualities of, as she put it,
the active man/person.

The only problem with that is I believe most people do not want
to be like that.

In some ways it's exactly like the whole online business area, or pursuit.

Most people have no desire to do it.

It's hard work, requires taking more responsibility for
one's life, and there's more (perceived) risk than there is with being an employee, although
we all know the deal about job security anymore.

What do you think?

Ken

I think most people simply want a decent paying job that helps them live comfortable and retire in dignity.

If you want more than that you'll have to earn it, be born with it or be in line to inherit it.

I believe there can be a middle ground between Ms. Rand's hands off approach and the other extreme.

TL

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134736].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

A well-paid serf? Serve your master well and retire with dignity.

Yes.

Lots of people don't want to run their own business and all that it entails - etc.

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135486].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Then they will probably be poor, and there's nothing wrong with that. What Rand rails against is those who believe it is their right to live lives of comfort based on the property or ingenuity of others. There is a huge difference between the corporate socialism many call capitalism and a free market economy.

I'm all for Ms. Rand's disdain for those that want to live off the efforts of others in all it's forms.

Welfare and corporate welfare.

One of my problems with Ms. Rand's philosophy is that she seems to believe...

...that man, left to his own devices will create a society where prosperity...

...( for the masses in a society ) will bloom because it's in the self interest of the movers of society to create that prosperity.

But...

One of the founding fathers said it best.

If men were angels we wouldn't need government.

IMHO...

History has proven that men are not angels.

TL

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135674].message }}

Ken Strong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

One of the founding fathers said it best.

If men were angels we wouldn't need government.

IMHO...

History has proven that men are not angels.

Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease... just sayin'.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The RETURN of OBI:
Learn IM From the Experts Who Are Already Doing It!

"Sammy-approved, baby!" -- Offline Brat Pack

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136703].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

Originally Posted by KenStrong

Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease... just sayin'.

Not this time.

With no binders or regs or simply someone that can make them stop bad behavior, the corps would reduce most populations to serfdom at best.

There's plenty of history to support my assertion.

It may take a few generations or even a couple hundred years but chances are that's exactly what would happen in most societies.

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2138671].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi TL,

With no binders or regs or simply someone that can make them stop bad behavior, the corps would reduce most populations to serfdom at best.

There's plenty of history to support my assertion.

So abolish the corporate structure then, rather than allowing a structure designed to buck the system (protect criminals) then regulating it in order to (pretend to) try and stop it from bucking the system (protecting criminals).

Or are you suggesting that regulating a faulty system is better than a system that works adequately for the majority?

corporation = first few minutes

(warning - some shouting :-))

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2138870].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi TL,

So abolish the corporate structure then, rather than allowing a structure designed to buck the system, then regulating it in order to (pretend to) try and stop it from bucking the system.

A corporation is simply a legal form of a business.

There's no need to abolish them.

What no society needs is a bunch of irresponsible companies.

Example:

In America we have a large private insurance industry.

Between 40,000-60,000 people were/are dieing each year due to a medical problem that could be solved - with treatment.

also...

750,000 Americans were fileling for bankrupcy each year due to a medical problem.

Most of these people had medical insurance but...

The insurance company would find a way to weasel out of the contract.

That's 750,000 personal/family bankruptcies and of course there's a domino effect.

Fed Gov intervention will make this practice a thing of the past or drastically curtail those numbers.

There's no need to outlaw the business entity known as the corporation - just make sure they are fulfilling their obligations and not gauging people in the process.

On most local levels...

Power companies are allowed to make a nice profit but without regs they would surely increase rates and start gauging people.

So they are highly regulated and must ask the local governing bodies for permission before raising rates.

Everyone has a right to make money, but I feel you don't have a right to be a destabilizing force within the society.

Corps were under control in the past and they can be brought back under control.

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2138941].message }}

ExRat 14 years ago

Hi TL,

A corporation is simply a legal form of a business

That's a simplistic view - and also inaccurate. The most basic research will confirm this -

corporation

The rest of your post is basically repeating your initial assertion - that the answer to the problem is government regulation. Regulations require civil servants to design, implement and enforce those regulations - it's not the corporations that end up paying for them, it's the 'active man'. The sums don't add up (as we can see from our 'global recession').

As Ken said -

Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease

Doing nothing while hoping that the state will act in your interest is what Rand was referring to as 'passive man' above - the state destroys the active man and then there's no-one left to pay for passive mans' living costs - as history is (again) proving.
- Thanks
Signature

Roger Davis
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2138989].message }}

myob

14 years ago

This may sound more like a quote from Tony Robbins:

Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplacable spark. In the hopeless swamps of the not quite, the not yet, and the not at all, do not let the hero in your soul perish and leave only frustration for the life you deserved, but never have been able to reach. The world you desire can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours.

Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136949].message }}

myob

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I think most people simply want a decent paying job that helps them live comfortable and retire in dignity.

If you want more than that you'll have to earn it, be born with it or be in line to inherit it.

I believe there can be a middle ground between Ms. Rand's hands off approach and the other extreme.

TL

This is reducing Rands' works developed from a life of living in a failed and irrational society of totalitarian repression to just being a trivial pursuit of a well-paying job. You are way off on this one. She escaped from Russia for intellectual freedom with this warning:

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Her philosophy may be flawed when applied blindly to our time, but her advocoacy was for the freedom of rational intellectual thinking and the ideal of capitalism.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135505].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

This is reducing Rands' works developed from a life of living in a failed and irrational society of totalitarian repression to just being a trivial pursuit of a well-paying job. You are way off on this one. She escaped from Russia for intellectual freedom with this warning:

Her philosophy may be flawed when applied blindly to our time, but her advocacy was for the freedom of rational intellectual thinking

I'm all for the rational intellectual thinking stuff.

Actually I was responding to Ken's post about people in general when I wrote that most people simply want a decent job and a decent retirement - not Ms. Rands' philosophy.

TL

Ps.

"Think It Ain't Illegal Yet!"

- Parliament Funkadelic

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135521].message }}

Kurt

14 years ago

Come on people...I always thought what Yellowstone was missing was some casinos, a couple of strip joints and a Pizza Hut.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134656].message }}

KenThompson 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Come on people...I always thought what Yellowstone was missing was some casinos, a couple of strip joints and a Pizza Hut.

lol... how did you miss them, Kurt? I hit all three when I was there.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134686].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

OK Mr. Rat, my def of a corp is technically wrong.

It is a business, a form of a business.

So it seems we have a big difference of opinion on the effectiveness of gov intervention.

So are you for totally hands off capitalism and no regs at all???

I don't know how you view your fed gov over in the UK but in America the correct (IMHO) view of the fed gov is...

...an entity elected and designed to act on the citizenship's behalf and to promote the general welfare.

We don't need too little gov and we don't need too much.

There should be a middle ground.

Here's a quick historical example...

In the 1920's banks were allowed to gamble with depositors money and that ended with the stock market crash of 1929, leading to the American great depression of the 1930's.

Gov stepped in an made banks separate normal banking activity from investment banking.

The law is know as the Glass-Stegall Act.

In 1998 or 1999 gov was induced to repeal that law and the lack of regulations cleared the way for another round of thief.

Now, if that law would not have been repealed, I doubt we'd have the problems we have today in the USA.

and...

When a new financial instrument was created in the 1990's called a derivative, there were no regs put on them that would minimized their danger to the larger society.

If binders had been put on them I also doubt we'd be in the mess we're in today.

So, your assertion that gov regs don't work is not founded in reality - at least not over here.

After WW2, gov programs and regs working with private companies produced the post WW2 boom that generated the largest ( percentage wise and numerically ) and wealthiest middle class the history of the world.

That lasted until the 1980's - 1990's but then regs were slowly repealed or not enforced, industries were not protected, worker rights were slowly eroded leading up what we have now which was almost Great Depression 2.

Mr. Rat...

I'll be the first to admit that the US fed gov has not done a good job as of late, but that problem can be corrected as it was before.

I believe in a blend of regs and no regs.

So are you for totally hands off capitalism and no regs at all???

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139196].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi TL,

So it seems we have a big difference of opinion on the effectiveness of gov intervention.

Yep.

Let's just leave it at that.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139292].message }}

TLTheLiberator

14 years ago

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi TL,

Yep.

Let's just leave it at that.

Sure, but before we do...

Are you for totally hands off capitalism and no regs at all???

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139338].message }}

myob

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

...Are you for totally hands off capitalism and no regs at all???

TL

That would of course be ideal, but in reality that will never happen. We need to relearn capitalism, because we are rapidly becoming a failed socialist state, much like the collapse of Ayn Rand's Soviet Russia. Capitalism, a system theorized by Adam Smith, wasn't for the destruction of the welfare of his fellow Englishman but for their enrichment.

The United States is a republic, and the federal government is the central government entity established by the Constitution, which shares sovereignty with the governments of the individual states. Although not a true democracy, it is a representative body with provisions for protecting individual rights under constitutional law. But since the Civil War, the powers of the federal government have generally expanded greatly, and its expansion has accelerated rapidly especially over the last few years.

As I said at the beginning of this post, Ayn Rand was an almost fierce advocate of capitalism, rational self-interest and freedom of intellectual reason such as "neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself" over any form of collectivism. We are now witnesses of the violation of individual rights through the initiation of force within our very own system by massive government regulation and takeovers in major segments of private enterprise. Government regulation and its growing "collectivism" does not work when it interferes with market forces. Most problems with the economy today has its roots in decades of government intervention, and its inefficiencies.

The philosophy of Ayn Rand covers self-determinism with rational thought and independence with the assumption of a moral integrity basis for which she sought recognition of the intellect and of rationality; the fact that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it. Market forces can have an effect on the irresponsible behavior of corporations, for example. Co-ops for shopping, finance, and even for major medical insurance are becoming an answer to the irresponsible policies of large corporations.

"Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims."
- Atlas Shrugged

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
- Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other."
- Atlas Shrugged

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
- Objectivist

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
- Objectivist

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

"To achieve, you need thought. You have to know what you are doing and that's real power."
- Atlas Shrugged

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it."
- Atlas Shrugged

"I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction."
- Anthem

"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me."
- Atlas Shrugged

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139711].message }}

ExRat

14 years ago

Hi TL,

Are you for totally hands off capitalism and no regs at all???

I don't know for sure, but what I do know is that the more open minded I am to the possibilities, the more likely I am to find the best possible solution.

In other words - I don't see it as black or white, this or that, or one of two extremes.

What I am pretty sure about is that the current set up is faulty and is not working and has been *******ised to the point where if someone wanted to abuse it, that would be far too easy to do.

I'm also pretty sure that when people allow themselves to be 'pigeon-holed' - for example, if they are encouraged to believe that their views should conform to some kind of 'left or right', free-market or unfree-market, libertarian/capitalist/statist - or any other all-encompassing ideological doctrine - then they are less likely to find better solutions than when they refuse to be pigeon-holed and stay open-minded to all possibilities - including any logical and effective mish-mash of left/right or free/regulatory solutions.

And of course, if there were people in positions of power who were trying to abuse the current set up, it would be in their interest to encourage others to become polarised - to restrict their perspective by coercing them into tailoring their opinion to fit some all-encompassing ideological doctrine - which is just another reason why I reject this type of coercion and maintain an open mind.

The 'system' is broken and needs fixing. Without wanting to slight anyone, I can't help but think that anyone who doesn't at least recognise this, in the current circumstances, either has a vested interest in maintaining things as they are, or their thinking is broken and needs fixing. More regulation is simply more of the same - it's an integral part of the system that is currently broken and it's a huge part of the cause of the problem (regulating faulty systems is expensive - which is partly why we are bankrupt).

Analogy - instead of applying another expensive puncture repair solution to our inner tube that has had so many expensive puncture repairs that there is barely room for any more - we should just redesign our inner tube so that it is not so easily punctured.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Roger Davis

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2142227].message }}

TimPhelan

14 years ago

Hi Roger

Sounds like you and TL agree then. I don't see you as being a Randist according to your response here and that was what TL was asking. Aye Rand believed that the only role of the government is to protect the citizens via criminal justice and an Army. That's a pretty extreme viewpoint and I would think a huge majority ( 95% plus? ) of the US citizens would dissagree with her philosophy about goverment's role once they realized what agencies and services that would eliminate.

Tim

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi TL,

I don't know for sure, but what I do know is that the more open minded I am to the possibilities, the more likely I am to find the best possible solution.

In other words - I don't see it as black or white, this or that, or one of two extremes.

What I am pretty sure about is that the current set up is faulty and is not working and has been *******ised to the point where if someone wanted to abuse it, that would be far too easy to do.

I'm also pretty sure that when people allow themselves to be 'pigeon-holed' - for example, if they are encouraged to believe that their views should conform to some kind of 'left or right', free-market or unfree-market, libertarian/capitalist/statist - or any other all-encompassing ideological doctrine - then they are less likely to find better solutions than when they refuse to be pigeon-holed and stay open-minded to all possibilities - including any logical and effective mish-mash of left/right or free/regulatory solutions.

And of course, if there were people in positions of power who were trying to abuse the current set up, it would be in their interest to encourage others to become polarised - to restrict their perspective by coercing them into tailoring their opinion to fit some all-encompassing ideological doctrine - which is just another reason why I reject this type of coercion and maintain an open mind.

The 'system' is broken and needs fixing. Without wanting to slight anyone, I can't help but think that anyone who doesn't at least recognise this, in the current circumstances, either has a vested interest in maintaining things as they are, or their thinking is broken and needs fixing. More regulation is simply more of the same - it's an integral part of the system that is currently broken and it's a huge part of the cause of the problem (regulating faulty systems is expensive - which is partly why we are bankrupt).

Analogy - instead of applying another expensive puncture repair solution to our inner tube that has had so many expensive puncture repairs that there is barely room for any more - we should just redesign our inner tube so that it is not so easily punctured.

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2144083].message }}

Ayn Rand Strikes Again!!

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?