How Ayn Rand ruined my childhood

73 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
I didn't even know of Lady Rand until I was in my late teens but here's someone who claims her childhood was ruined.


How Ayn Rand ruined my childhood - Salon.com
  • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
    I haven't read any of Rand's books (but I have an inclination to, especially now) but I'll tell you what- Ayn Rand is not an excuse for being an asshole.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672385].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
      Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

      Ayn Rand is not an excuse for being an asshole.
      ^^This exactly!
      Signature

      The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

      ...A tachyon enters a bar.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672428].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    When I saw "Tea Party" near the top of the article....it was same old, same old.

    Whines about her parents divorce and her father political views...and then takes one extreme view of "objectivism".

    Objectivism simply means that reality is OBJECTIVE and knowledge is based only on what you OBSERVE to be true. It is a belief based on knowledge and fact rather than on thought and emotion. The simple definition of objectivism is "what you see is what you get". Rand took the word and expanded on it in a work of FICTION.

    Both sides of the aisle have assigned meaning to "objectivism" to suit their purposes....and both sides think they are being insightful and meaningful...:rolleyes: ...and most of them probably never read Atlas Shrugged to begin with (including the author of this fluff piece).

    Urban Dictionary took on the definition and provided insight on "objectivism as Rand presents it" from both sides....I've seldom read anything that better explained the philosophy of right vs left.

    Urban Dictionary: objectivism

    I have to say that #1 in the definition above makes sense to me...and #2 sounds petty and spiteful. I guess it's all in how you look at it.

    Edit: I have read Rand and read Atlas Shrugged more than once. Once you've done that it's easy to tell who is commenting on the work of fiction and who is just chattering to proselytize.
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
    what it is instead of what you think it should be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672434].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      Objectivism simply means that reality is OBJECTIVE and knowledge is based only on what you OBSERVE to be true.
      As is so often the case, the problem comes from the fact that people
      don't always "observe" everything in the equation, and their standard
      for "evidence of truth" is far too lax. This makes it incredibly easy
      to find facts to support what they have already decided to be true.

      I agree that blaming Rand's writings for your father being an asshole--
      or the Tea Party, or Libertarians, or anyone else-- is a bit of a stretch
      by a crybaby.

      If the article is real-- and I question it-- then I wonder if this is the author's
      attempt to justify her father's actions. He is her father, and she wants to
      love him, but finds it difficult, so she puts a core part of the blame on
      someone else?

      Anyway, having read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged repeatedly
      when I was young, these days I have much the same view of her work
      that she held of Aristotle's.
      Signature

      The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

      ...A tachyon enters a bar.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672531].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        This makes it incredibly easy to find facts to support what they have already decided to be true.
        I always thought that was Rand's point - your reality is what YOU experience, what YOU know is true, what has happened to YOU. I thought it was a fairly common sense perspective.

        It's not Rand to look for facts that suit a "view" - it is the THINGS that happen to you that shape your view. I always thought of Rand as against the "collective" experience or the "collective" need or the guilt of a "collective" responsibility.

        More than anything I thought Atlas Shrugged and other Rand writings were good stories (as long as you skip some of the endless speech in the middle of AS, that is).
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672572].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Another weenie refusing to take responsibility for his actions/life.

    Crusty The clown, Rex Trailer and Peewee Herman ruined my life. :rolleyes:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672596].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      I've read the books on Objectivism. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness ...although neither is written completely by Rand.

      I tried to slog through Atlas Shrugged, but it was too dry to hold interest.
      The long speeches as dialog were painful.

      There were recently two movies based on Atlas Shrugged. To me, they were almost unwatchable. (of course, I still watched them both) Only a few people were in the theater, and they were devoted followers.

      Her philosophy appealed greatly to me in my twenties & thirties. I wonder, if I went back and read one of her non-fiction books now, if I would feel the same.

      John Galt.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672662].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        I always thought that was Rand's point - your reality is what YOU experience, what YOU know is true, what has happened to YOU.
        Nope.

        Rand promoted the idea that reality is what it is, regardless of what we wish it to be, what we perceive, or what our opinions of it are. Objectivism is supposed to be the acceptance of that reality, and the rational derivation of principles that arise from and are consistent with it.

        She liked to sum it up using a basic restatement of Aristotle's "Law of Identity." A = A. A thing cannot be itself and something else in the same aspect at the same time.

        People who describe Rand's philosophy as simplistic have usually only read the novels, and given them little thought in the process. They normally have not read her more overtly philosophical stuff.

        There are many reasons one might object to Rand's work. "Simplistic" isn't among the valid ones.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672747].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Nope.

          Rand promoted the idea that reality is what it is, regardless of what we wish it to be, what we perceive, or what our opinions of it are. Objectivism is supposed to be the acceptance of that reality, and the rational derivation of principles that arise from and are consistent with it.

          She liked to sum it up using a basic restatement of Aristotle's "Law of Identity." A = A. A thing cannot be itself and something else in the same aspect at the same time.

          People who describe Rand's philosophy as simplistic have usually only read the novels, and given them little thought in the process. They normally have not read her more overtly philosophical stuff.

          There are many reasons one might object to Rand's work. "Simplistic" isn't among the valid ones.


          Paul
          I Knew it! I knew you read Rand.

          Yeah, In her philosophy books, it's an effort to read a page, without going back to make sure I get the point. The Virtue Of Selfishness was a little easier read. But these are books you have to study, at least I do.

          I always thought of her philosophy as "clear thinking, no matter what".

          The fact that she has followers is interesting to me, because to me, she was all about independent thought and self reliance.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672781].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          You explained it better than I could - and simplistic does not apply to Rand. Is it subjective reality that says "what is real to ME is what I perceive/experience"?

          The message I took away was reality is what it is but only experiencing the hard edges of reality makes it real for you. I've never read much analysis of Rand's work as I formed my own view of it as I read it.

          I'm probably wrong - but that's my reality
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672792].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post


          Rand promoted the idea that reality is what it is, regardless of what we wish it to be, what we perceive, or what our opinions of it are. Objectivism is supposed to be the acceptance of that reality, and the rational derivation of principles that arise from and are consistent with it.

          She liked to sum it up using a basic restatement of Aristotle's "Law of Identity." A = A. A thing cannot be itself and something else in the same aspect at the same time.


          Paul
          It's been years mind you, perhaps a decade, but that is the one that I remember.
          She said that for all his other faults, Aristotle got at least that one thing right,
          and "A=A" is the bedrock foundation of all other human knowledge.

          I like to say the same thing about her... I believe that a lot of the things she
          stated as fact were a bunch of garbage, but she got a few things right that
          kind of blow my mind even to this day.
          Signature

          The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

          ...A tachyon enters a bar.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672799].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Nope.

          Rand promoted the idea that reality is what it is, regardless of what we wish it to be, what we perceive, or what our opinions of it are. Objectivism is supposed to be the acceptance of that reality, and the rational derivation of principles that arise from and are consistent with it.

          She liked to sum it up using a basic restatement of Aristotle's "Law of Identity." A = A. A thing cannot be itself and something else in the same aspect at the same time.

          People who describe Rand's philosophy as simplistic have usually only read the novels, and given them little thought in the process. They normally have not read her more overtly philosophical stuff.

          There are many reasons one might object to Rand's work. "Simplistic" isn't among the valid ones.


          Paul
          So as far as the Objectivism stuff is concerned she believed there is a reality that persists regardless of what our 5 (maybe 6) senses detect?

          That's not all that deep.

          Let me see...

          The tree is outside my window whether I like it or not - wow!

          I can accept that.

          I hope she believed we do interact and can change reality or is reality after the fact of something happening to make a particular reality as in - it is what it is? Depending on the subject etc.

          Of course there is a physical reality.

          Is she talking about any other reality?
          Signature

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

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673288].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
            Claude,
            I Knew it! I knew you read Rand.
            I've read quite a lot of things in my life. I don't accept any of them as whole cloth.
            Where do you get the idea that there is a right or wrong with art? Art isn't fact based, or even reality based. Great art is beautiful, passionate, stirring. It's the opposite of objective thought.
            Have you read "The Romantic Manifesto?" Rand has (and expresses) extensive thoughts on this subject. She believed, and I agree with her on this point, that one's response to a given piece of art can be judged as a "good" or "bad" thing.

            A simplistic example would be the person who laughs at pictures of real violence or destruction. Or the person who sees something beautiful and wants to tear it down or deface it.

            The notion that Objectivism decries emotional passions is a common mistake made by her detractors. She would (and did) argue that emotion is not in conflict with objective reality unless the underlying value structures are based on irrational premises.

            TL,
            So as far as the Objectivism stuff is concerned she believed there is a reality that persists regardless of what our 5 (maybe 6) senses detect?

            That's not all that deep.
            It's really not. What most people have trouble with is truly accepting the idea, and working logically from that point.

            Rigorous thinking is hard. Very few people are willing, or trained, to do the work.


            Paul
            Signature
            .
            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674061].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

              Claude,I've read quite a lot of things in my life. I don't accept any of them as whole cloth.Have you read "The Romantic Manifesto?" Rand has (and expresses) extensive thoughts on this subject. She believed, and I agree with her on this point, that one's response to a given piece of art can be judged as a "good" or "bad" thing.

              A simplistic example would be the person who laughs at pictures of real violence or destruction. Or the person who sees something beautiful and wants to tear it down or deface it.

              The notion that Objectivism decries emotional passions is a common mistake made by her detractors. She would (and did) argue that emotion is not in conflict with objective reality unless the underlying value structures are based on irrational premises.

              Rigorous thinking is hard. Very few people are willing, or trained, to do the work.


              Paul
              Paul; I either never read the Romantic Manifesto, or completely forget it. I've only read most of Atlas shrugged and her two books on Objectivism. Anything outside of that, and I'm taking someone's word for it. Which I do, your's and Larry's.

              Rigorous thinking is maybe the hardest thing I attempt. The brain is wired to fool you into accepting what supports your beliefs.

              And objective thinking has no glamour. Nobody thinks you're cool. Girls don't think you are hot, and most people would be irritated by the conversation.

              In my life, I have changed, through discussion, the minds of three people on why I don't share their beliefs. Nearly impossible stuff. That's three out of a few hundred....maybe a thousand.

              There was no feeling of satisfaction. No reward. They didn't like me more, or feel better about anything. In fact, in rational discussions I've had, I tend to simply tear down a cherished belief. Nobody is happier after that. There is no "win".

              Paul; Do you ever have discussions with friends and, when they ask you about your opinions, try to change their thinking? Do you just let it alone?

              Do you share your rational thought process with others? Your answer is important to me.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674560].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                Joe,

                Ringer is a libertarian, but not strictly an Objectivist. (Note: The capitalization is significant there.) His writings are consistent with some of the tenets of "The Virtue of Selfishness," but he doesn't embrace a Randian view of the world to the point where you'd equate them.

                Close in many ways, but not the same.

                Claude,
                Paul; Do you ever have discussions with friends and, when they ask you about your opinions, try to change their thinking? Do you just let it alone?
                I rarely try to change anyone's opinion on anything. If someone asks me for mine, I'll usually give it to them, and then I drop it unless they keep asking questions. Some do. Most don't.

                I have 3 criteria for debating things publicly, and all 3 must apply:

                1. You must be fairly certain you are right.

                2. You must be fairly certain the other guy is wrong.

                3. You must have some useful purpose in the discussion which does not involve changing the mind of the person to whose comments you are replying. This usually involves learning more for your own consideration, or presenting an argument for the consideration of those who have not yet formed a conclusion.

                The latter is a common reason for engaging in debates with some people here. The most recent example was the "bullying" argument. Didn't change the other guy's opinion one bit, but it served as a useful example for others of how that sort of debater will play the game, and where the flaws are in the tactics.

                But try to make people change their minds to see things my way? Nope. No point.

                Note that there's a difference between discussion and debate...


                Paul
                Signature
                .
                Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674840].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                  Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                  but it served as a useful example for others of how that sort of debater will play the game, and where the flaws are in the tactics.

                  Note that there's a difference between discussion and debate...


                  Paul
                  Paul; For some reason I'm always interested in the structure of the argument, rather than the actual point being made.

                  If I don't agree with a point (not just that I don't know and they do. That happens), I try to see the flaw in their argument. the flaw in the logic. If I can't see it clearly, then I have to assume that I may be misunderstanding them, or I may just be wrong.

                  One of my big joys isn't being right, but finding a clearer answer than my own.
                  And it happens here. It happens frequently in the Offline Forum.

                  Thanks for the response, by the way.
                  Signature
                  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                  What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674977].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I didn't care for her writing at all but the underlying message of freedom, liberty and self reliance was refreshing.

    Something I think everyone would benefit from reading is The Virtue Of Selfishness. It certainly has a provocative title but that title is very misleading.

    The broad theme of this collection of essays is that we need to take care of ourselves first (without harming others) because unless we have things together we are no use to those who truly depend on us.

    This was really an eye opener for me in my early years. I still have the copy I bought many years ago.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672716].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danr62
    I haven't read Ayn Rand, but I have read Terry Goodking's Sword of Truth novels. Definitely a lot of preachy objectivism in those books.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672774].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
      Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

      I haven't read Ayn Rand, but I have read Terry Goodking's Sword of Truth novels. Definitely a lot of preachy objectivism in those books.
      Ugh... Some of it isn't even that... It's just Goodkind trying to promote
      his own views in the same narrow way.

      Don't get me wrong, I love the characters and a lot of the story,
      but "dear spirits" some of his work is just so hard to read. I remember
      being enthusiastic about The Third Kingdom, but after the third chapter
      of them having the same conversation in different words, I was asking
      myself if he used some kind of spinning software to turn each paragraph
      into three paragraphs?

      I've read it twice now, because the first time I realized that I could
      just skip ahead and look for the good parts, and he was going to
      repeat most of the last few chapters, anyway, and I just wanted
      to get to the good parts. In the second reading, I found that I
      hadn't actually missed much. :p
      Signature

      The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

      ...A tachyon enters a bar.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672810].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    I went through an Ayn Rand phase that lasted for a few years when I read all of her major works, fiction and nonfiction. Today, while I still agree with many of her political points I am almost the opposite of an Objectivist.

    What's interesting is that many people who are atheists or who would could be described as skeptics follow a philosophy that's very close to Objectivism, even if they don't realize it. Ayn Rand was an atheist who believed that reality has certain fundamental qualities, independently of what anyone thinks about it (as Paul summarizes very well above).

    The majority of people who agree with Ayn Rand's politics are religious, while the majority of people who share her dogmatic belief in objective reality are liberals or moderates. To me, this very fact is a good argument against Objectivism. It shows that reality cannot be reduced to a formula or Aristotelian syllogism.

    Many of the discoveries of quantum mechanics refute the existence of an independently existing objective reality. For example, the fact that the observer influences the behavior of particles. This could not be true in an Objectivist universe.

    Still, I have to give credit to Ayn Rand for clearly expressing the principles that were the foundation of modern libertarianism. Her novel Atlas Shrugged might be clunky and preachy, but I still agree with its basic points regarding individual freedom. In particular, the belief that no one has the right to initiate aggression, including the state (it's that last part that many people overlook) cannot be repeated too often.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672837].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

      The majority of people who agree with Ayn Rand's politics are religious, while the majority of people who share her dogmatic belief in objective reality are liberals or moderates. To me, this very fact is a good argument against Objectivism. It shows that reality cannot be reduced to a formula or Aristotelian syllogism.
      I see it a slightly different way. The majority of people who agree with Rand's politics are Conservative. And most Conservatives are religious. But it is the Conservative viewpoint that tends to match Rand. Not the religious viewpoint.

      The "Objective reality"? The people who understand it tend to be intellectual, and intellectuals tend to be more liberal. But the attraction is to the intellectual, not the Liberal.

      To me, that's not a good argument against Objectivism. It's a good argument against being either a Liberal or Conservative. Because each party is a point of view. And the crux of Objectivism is that reality exists, and is the same, regardless of our point of view.

      Anyway, that's my take based on reading the books years ago. It's absolutely possible that I'm missing the ball here.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673186].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author LarryC
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        I see it a slightly different way. The majority of people who agree with Rand's politics are Conservative. And most Conservatives are religious. But it is the Conservative viewpoint that tends to match Rand. Not the religious viewpoint.

        The "Objective reality"? The people who understand it tend to be intellectual, and intellectuals tend to be more liberal. But the attraction is to the intellectual, not the Liberal.

        To me, that's not a good argument against Objectivism. It's a good argument against being either a Liberal or Conservative. Because each party is a point of view. And the crux of Objectivism is that reality exists, and is the same, regardless of our point of view.

        Anyway, that's my take based on reading the books years ago. It's absolutely possible that I'm missing the ball here.
        To me the argument against Objectivism as defined my Ayn Rand is that many people who claim to believe in objective reality come to radically different conclusions on many subjects. From the extreme Objectivist point of view, this just proves that many people are irrational -the worst condemnation possible in that philosophy.

        From her point of view, everything from politics to conclusions about art, literature and architecture (see The Fountainhead) logically follows from the intrinsic nature of reality and human beings. So even when it comes to liking a painting or appreciating a piece of music, there is a right and wrong.
        Signature
        Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673772].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

          To me the argument against Objectivism as defined my Ayn Rand is that many people who claim to believe in objective reality come to radically different conclusions on many subjects. From the extreme Objectivist point of view, this just proves that many people are irrational -the worst condemnation possible in that philosophy.
          You hit the nail on the head. If you get a group of intelligent people that are truly objective, they should all have the same conclusions on subjects that are fact based. So, to me...it isn't a problem with the philosophy, but the rationality of the proponents.

          An you are right (in my opinion); most people.... are mostly irrational.... most of the time. But that isn't a problem with the philosophy. The philosophy is based on an ideal. And with any philosophy, any religion, or high standard of behavior...most of us fall short...most of the time.



          Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

          From her point of view, everything from politics to conclusions about art, literature and architecture (see The Fountainhead) logically follows from the intrinsic nature of reality and human beings. So even when it comes to liking a painting or appreciating a piece of music, there is a right and wrong.
          Where do you get the idea that there is a right or wrong with art? Art isn't fact based, or even reality based. Great art is beautiful, passionate, stirring. It's the opposite of objective thought.

          by the way, just because I think that Ayn Rand has a valid philosophy, doesn't mean I think she was ideal herself. Just because her views on interpreting the world are interesting, doesn't mean everything she said was brilliant or even true.

          It's a common mistake (not that you're making it) to think that someone with deep insights in one area is brilliant in other areas. And Gurus tend to start believing that you should listen to them whenever they talk about anything. Its a mistake. One I make too often myself.

          None of us are a perfect ray of sunshine.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673951].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author LarryC
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            You hit the nail on the head. If you get a group of intelligent people that are truly objective, they should all have the same conclusions on subjects that are fact based. So, to me...it isn't a problem with the philosophy, but the rationality of the proponents.

            An you are right (in my opinion); most people.... are mostly irrational.... most of the time. But that isn't a problem with the philosophy. The philosophy is based on an ideal. And with any philosophy, any religion, or high standard of behavior...most of us fall short...most of the time.

            Where do you get the idea that there is a right or wrong with art? Art isn't fact based, or even reality based. Great art is beautiful, passionate, stirring. It's the opposite of objective thought.
            I think the idea of a perfectly rational society is a misguided ideal that can never be realized. Rand was, more than anything else, a utopian. This is most clearly revealed in Atlas Shrugged.

            I don't think Rand's version of utopia is any saner or more realistic than Plato's, Marx's or any other version. The world is not a perfectly rational place and any attempt to make it so can only result in oppression or mindless conformity. That's why Rand's Objectivist circle practically turned into a cult, even though it was supposedly based on individualism.

            Just to be clear, the idea of art being right or wrong is Rand's belief, not mine. As Paul mentions, she wrote a whole book about it. If I recall correctly in the Romantic Manifesto, she even describes some writers as "evil" when she doesn't approve of their point of view (including novelists).
            Signature
            Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674303].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

              I think the idea of a perfectly rational society is a misguided ideal that can never be realized. Rand was, more than anything else, a utopian. This is most clearly revealed in Atlas Shrugged.

              I don't think Rand's version of utopia is any saner or more realistic than Plato's, Marx's or any other version. The world is not a perfectly rational place and any attempt to make it so can only result in oppression or mindless conformity. That's why Rand's Objectivist circle practically turned into a cult, even though it was supposedly based on individualism.


              Just to be clear, the idea of art being right or wrong is Rand's belief, not mine. As Paul mentions, she wrote a whole book about it. If I recall correctly in the Romantic Manifesto, she even describes some writers as "evil" when she doesn't approve of their point of view (including novelists).
              Larry; To be frank, I'm not familiar with Marx, Plato...most of the rest of the known philosophers. I read Friedrich Nietzsche and Rand...and that was about it.

              I think Rand's organization turned into a cult, for the same reason and religious or philosophical movement turns into a "cult". the vast majority of humans are followers. We eat up the thought of "independent thinking"...as long as someone tells us that it's what we should believe in.

              Your last paragraph, I don't doubt. But I'm not familiar with that part of Rand's writings. On the other hand, isn't that just human nature? Don't most people define evil as anything that goes against their point of view?

              The writings of Rand's that I remember were able to withstand a pretty critical examination, by me. The core writings still ring true to me. As for the rest of it? As I said before, none of us are shining personal examples of virtue.

              Most very intelligent people I know are deeply flawed. So was Rand. So are we all.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674496].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                I never read Rand but I was (am) a huge fan of Robert Ringer. I believe that he followed her teachings.

                His books were, and remain outstanding: Winning through Intimidation and Looking Out for #1. I highly recommend them.

                Joe Mobley
                Signature

                .

                Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674540].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
                  Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                  I never read Rand but I was (am) a huge fan of Robert Ringer. I believe that he followed her teachings.

                  His books were, and remain outstanding: Winning through Intimidation and Looking Out for #1. I highly recommend them.

                  Joe Mobley
                  It might interest you to know that Mr. Ringer is a registered member here. He commented on a particularly idiotic thread (it was so embarrassing to meet one of my heroes in the midst of such buffoonery) a few years back.

                  I PM'd him letting him know just how profound an effect his books had on me. He didn't answer me but acknowledged everyone who'd contacted him in private and in the thread. I expect he saw enough childish nonsense that night to head for the hills never to return.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8677723].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                    Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

                    It might interest you to know that Mr. Ringer is a registered member here. He commented on a particularly idiotic thread (it was so embarrassing to meet one of my heroes in the midst of such buffoonery) a few years back.

                    I PM'd him letting him know just how profound an effect his books had on me. He didn't answer me but acknowledged everyone who'd contacted him in private and in the thread. I expect he saw enough childish nonsense that night to head for the hills never to return.
                    I read a few of Ringer's books as well. My favorite was Restoring the American Dream, which actually helped convert me to the libertarian point of view. Unfortunately, I believe Ringer has largely abandoned this position. Apparently 9/11 convinced him that individual rights could not be a priority in such a dangerous world. At least that's what he was saying the last time I read anything by him, which was a few years ago.
                    Signature
                    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8677730].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
                      Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                      I read a few of Ringer's books as well. My favorite was Restoring the American Dream, which actually helped convert me to the libertarian point of view. Unfortunately, I believe Ringer has largely abandoned this position. Apparently 9/11 convinced him that individual rights could not be a priority in such a dangerous world. At least that's what he was saying the last time I read anything by him, which was a few years ago.
                      I wasn't aware of that. A few years back I was checking in to his site/blog from time to time and it appeared he'd become an activist of sorts supporting the Republicans more or less in the vain of the lesser of two evils. It was a surprise to me as he had always seemed to fairly disgusted with both parties.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8677781].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

                        I wasn't aware of that. A few years back I was checking in to his site/blog from time to time and it appeared he'd become an activist of sorts supporting the Republicans more or less in the vain of the lesser of two evils. It was a surprise to me as he had always seemed to fairly disgusted with both parties.
                        I could certainly understand all that. SOME actually think the "two party system" is a plot and all are controlled by people that plan to move us in the same direction either way. True or not, we seem to be following that route.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8678756].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672844].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Enfusia
      I truly love Ayn Rand's philosophy's. The definition that Kay King provided is pretty much the crux of it.

      It's a challenge to break away from our conditioning and accept any new ideals let alone hers that sound so foreign to most.

      However, even the best of the naysayers found it difficult to argue with her.

      Patrick
      Signature
      Free eBook =>
      The Secret To Success In Any Business
      Yes, Any Business!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8672988].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        I've never read any of Rand's books.
        After being accused of being a Rand follower I did watch Atlas Shrugged parts 1&2 last year to get an idea of what she was about.
        I thought they where pretty good movies actually. Not good enough to make me want to read the book or to become a Rand devotee , but I'll watch part 3 when it comes out.

        As for the article TL posted, sounds like a pretty messed up family there. But blaming Rand for her father being a jerk doesn't work for me. I don't believe Rand forced him to act that way, HE made the decisions that effected his family not Rand.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673080].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          I've never read any of Rand's books.
          After being accused of being a Rand follower I did watch Atlas Shrugged parts 1&2 last year to get an idea of what she was about.
          I thought they where pretty good movies actually. Not good enough to make me want to read the book or to become a Rand devotee , but I'll watch part 3 when it comes out.

          As for the article TL posted, sounds like a pretty messed up family there. But blaming Rand for her father being a jerk doesn't work for me. I don't believe Rand forced him to act that way, HE made the decisions that effected his family not Rand.
          I was going to say about the same thing about the article. Personal responsibility seems to be a hard thing to sell.
          Dan
          Signature

          "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673091].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    The author is well-adjusted and articulate. Did being exposed to the different viewpoints and life approaches of her parents help hone her ability to express herself so well? Maybe she should be thankful to Ayn Rand.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673214].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ricardo Furtado
    Ayn Rand is awesome
    Signature

    Ricardo Furtado

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673298].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, I could say several things here, but the gist was stated by others and those against it will not be swayed. A kid(I don't care WHAT the person's age is now) says it's simplistic, and doesn't see what is said and attributes it all to some writer that said NOTHING of the sort!?!?!?!? INCREDIBLE!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674203].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    It's been a very long time since I read Atlas Shrugged and
    The Fountainhead. I have not seen any movies based upon
    her work.

    One thing that stands out to me about her beliefs
    being called unemotional or cold, is that her characters
    seem very passionate to me. The love scenes, the
    attitude towards architecture, and even Rearden's
    appreciation of his powerful car.

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674998].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Claude,
      For some reason I'm always interested in the structure of the argument, rather than the actual point being made.
      That shows things that are different from just looking at the "facts" being presented.

      For example, if the argument is wholly logical but you still have a different opinion, the odds are good you're proceeding from different assumptions. That's a critical thing to know.

      As an example, I once worked with a fellow who loved to debate. He wanted, for some reason, to have the "G-d/not G-d" discussion with me. I told him I'd take either side and make a convincing argument if he would answer one question for me first. He agreed. I said something very close to: "The answer ultimately comes down to the choice to believe either that existence was created or has always existed. That isn't a thing which can be proved, and seems a matter of faith."

      His reply: "That sounds right."

      Me: "So, my question: If we've already established that it's a matter of faith, what is the point of the debate?"

      Most seemingly 'intractable' arguments arise from people operating from different fundamental assumptions, quite often equally unprovable in any logical sense.

      Some arguments, especially the kind you see in main discussion or the SEO section, arise from untested assumptions, or from inaccurately generalizing from a valid specific case to all other situations. The "single/double opt-in" argument is one where untested assumptions are common, and can lead to all manner of bad decisions.

      Looking at the form of the argument is often much more useful than looking at its content. Not to mention what it can show you about the thought process of the person making the argument.


      Paul

      PS: Explaining existence is like teaching a snake to tap dance. (As Heinlein said, "It's easy, once you get the shoes on him.")
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8675121].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        As an example, I once worked with a fellow who loved to debate. He wanted, for some reason, to have the "G-d/not G-d" discussion with me. I told him I'd take either side and make a convincing argument if he would answer one question for me first.
        I was once called to jury duty for a murder trial. I decided that I would take the opposing view of the rest of the jurors, and sway them to my point of view. Then I would swing them back the other way. (I'm a huge fan of the original 12 Angry Men movie).

        Luckily, the trial didn't happen...because later, I realized what a reckless thing that would have been on my end, just to see if I could do it. That was years ago.

        By the way, although I've read Rand, and think she offered much in he way of clear thinking, it's really the logical process that always fascinated me.

        A friend asked me once "Why do you always think you are right?'
        And I said "Well, first, everyone thinks that they are always right. Why would anyone say anything that they knew to be wrong? And secondly, I'm not always right. In fact, my guess is that 70% of everything I know to be true, simply isn't true".

        But I'm working on it.


        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        I haven't read Rand, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I dreamt I was high upon a mountain top, and there was a guru there. I asked him how Objectivists could come to radically different conclusions about reality. He said, "Because our Perception of Objectivity is Subjective."
        Dennis; That was clever.
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8676131].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          <snip>

          Dennis; That was clever.
          Yeah, but did he or didn't he buy those camouflaged "Objectivist®" galoshes?
          Signature

          Project HERE.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8676757].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            Dennis; That was clever.
            Answered as Dennis: Thanks, Claude.

            Answered as Ayn Rand: I KNOW.

            Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

            Yeah, but did he or didn't he buy those camouflaged "Objectivist®" galoshes?
            In a word: YoNK. :rolleyes:
            Signature

            Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8676782].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

      To me the argument against Objectivism as defined my Ayn Rand is that many people who claim to believe in objective reality come to radically different conclusions on many subjects. From the extreme Objectivist point of view, this just proves that many people are irrational -the worst condemnation possible in that philosophy.
      I haven't read Rand, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I dreamt I was high upon a mountain top, and there was a guru there. I asked him how Objectivists could come to radically different conclusions about reality. He said, "Because our Perception of Objectivity is Subjective."

      I placed a baksheesh at his feet and went home, satisfied that I finally understood why there can be square crop circles.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8675152].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        I haven't read Rand, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I dreamt I was high upon a mountain top, and there was a guru there. I asked him how Objectivists could come to radically different conclusions about reality. He said, "Because our Perception of Objectivity is Subjective."

        I placed a baksheesh at his feet and went home, satisfied that I finally understood why there can be square crop circles.
        How was your trip? In the end, did you buy those camouflaged "Objectivist®" galoshes from legendary door-to-door salesman Horace Bartholomew Schmidt, the Man-in-the-Plaid suit himself?

        Signature

        Project HERE.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8675203].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        "Because our Perception of Objectivity is Subjective."
        I was thinking something along those lines but you phrased it way more succinctly than the clunky and convoluted wording I would have subjected readers to (and, doubtless, many would have objected).

        The objects of our perception and the meaning put into it all sure is a dizzying subject.
        Signature

        Project HERE.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8677797].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    Ayn Rand is a romantic. As Paul ably pointed out, she also has the makings of a pretty fair neo-Platonist.

    Her detractors are romantics, too. Most of them romanticize the power of the state and over-estimate the effectiveness of co-ops.

    Any time you see an ardent detractor of Ayn Rand, you can bet that he or she wants something for nothing.
    If anything would make her turn in her grave it would be calling her a neo-Platonist. She considered Plato to be the epitome of evil and irrationality. Yet I can see how someone could put her in that category all the same.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8677605].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

      If anything would make her turn in her grave it would be calling her a neo-Platonist. She considered Plato to be the epitome of evil and irrationality. Yet I can see how someone could put her in that category all the same.
      Even reading some of the statements made about various "philosophies" could make your head spin, but I agree with the rest, and that is why I said thanks.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8677657].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    Robert Ringer
    Eh. There is a reason that he has changed his mind on a lot
    of his old views. They were immature.
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8677777].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Interesting quotes from the lady herself here...

    Ayn Rand Quotes (Author of Atlas Shrugged)
    Signature

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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8678805].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Interesting quotes from the lady herself here...

      Ayn Rand Quotes (Author of Atlas Shrugged)
      I found three there that I love(maybe not the ONLY ones, but these are enough for now.):

      “A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”
      ― Ayn Rand
      1293 likes like

      “Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing.”
      ― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
      tags: independence 1291 likes like

      “People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked…The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on…There are no white lies, there is only the blackest of destruction, and a white lie is the blackest of all.”
      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8680738].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Atlas Shrugged was made into a movie?

    I find that interesting, because - Rand came very close to ruining my childhood, too. I was dating my first boyfriend when the book was assigned and came very close to not getting my report in on time. I would have faced summer school, and been terminally grounded, which would have completely destroyed me. Had Rand been just a tad easier for a kid in high school to grasp, or even muster interest in, everything would have been okay from the start.

    Sigh - it would have been so much easier had the movie been made back then. We had to do everything the hard way -- and that is the REALITY of it.

    I've read a few of her works and, maybe it's just me, but she seems to me to have studied a lot of Plato. Something about her inclinations just ring a tad of "the forms" - she seems to hook on absolutes to me. She never overtly stated anything of the sort that I'm aware of - just leaves that taste in my mouth. Of course, I'm talking about her view on reality, not on conceptualization. Gotta figure that anyone stricken with an obvious admiration for Nietzsche (mia culpa, too) is going to be a tad messed up. LOL.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8678860].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      I could certainly understand all that. SOME actually think the "two party system" is a plot and all are controlled by people that plan to move us in the same direction either way. True or not, we seem to be following that route.

      Steve
      People often cite conspiracies and complain about the "two party system".
      As far as I know, most of them are not advocating a one-party system,
      but want to promote the idea that there should be more than two.

      Yet everywhere that we've seen it happen-- For example in Italy and Israel--
      the weakest party can't get their way on something, so they throw a
      temper tantrum and become obstructionists, blocking everything they
      can out of spite.



      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Atlas Shrugged was made into a movie?

      I find that interesting, because - Rand came very close to ruining my childhood, too. I was dating my first boyfriend when the book was assigned and came very close to not getting my report in on time. I would have faced summer school, and been terminally grounded, which would have completely destroyed me. Had Rand been just a tad easier for a kid in high school to grasp, or even muster interest in, everything would have been okay from the start.

      Sigh - it would have been so much easier had the movie been made back then. We had to do everything the hard way -- and that is the REALITY of it.

      I've read a few of her works and, maybe it's just me, but she seems to me to have studied a lot of Plato. Something about her inclinations just ring a tad of "the forms" - she seems to hook on absolutes to me. She never overtly stated anything of the sort that I'm aware of - just leaves that taste in my mouth. Of course, I'm talking about her view on reality, not on conceptualization. Gotta figure that anyone stricken with an obvious admiration for Nietzsche (mia culpa, too) is going to be a tad messed up. LOL.
      Yep, no doubt she read the works most of the old and well-known philosophers,
      and some that are more obscure as well. ("Philosophy: Who Needs It?")

      It's difficult not to be impressed by Nietzsche, especially because he is one
      of the first philosophers most young (and impressionable!) people are introduced
      to. One thing I like to point out is that many people don't seem to take into
      account is that he spent 30+ years producing his works, and that can bring
      some interesting perspective.

      The same can be said about Rand and most prolific authors, I think? I mean,
      two hours ago I thought it was a fantastic idea to eat some chocolate cereal
      with a bit of rice milk and cranberry juice. Now, my stomach is telling me
      that wasn't a very good idea after all? Imagine what I could learn in 30 years
      if only I paid attention to such things and spent some time thinking about them!

      Oh... And lest someone think that I am criticizing and of the philosophers
      mentioned in this thread, the fact that I don't always agree with them doesn't
      mean that I think I am anywhere near as intelligent as they!

      Nor do I exclude myself from those young and impressionable people who
      were influenced by Nietzsche. Wille zur Macht was perhaps the most
      powerful and moving thing that I ever read in my youth.
      Signature

      The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

      ...A tachyon enters a bar.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8679057].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

        Nor do I exclude myself from those young and impressionable people who
        were influenced by Nietzsche. Wille zur Macht was perhaps the most
        powerful and moving thing that I ever read in my youth.
        I read Nietzsche in my late teens and early twenties. It affected me greatly. It was the only work that sent chills up my spine. I thought of it as profound.

        I wonder, if I read it again today, what I would think?

        I never got that same feeling with Rand. Her books on Objectivism appealed greatly to my intellectual side, but not emotionally. Like I was reading a manual on the rules of chess.
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8679283].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          I read Nietzsche in my late teens and early twenties. It affected me greatly. It was the only work that sent chills up my spine. I thought of it as profound.

          I wonder, if I read it again today, what I would think?

          I never got that same feeling with Rand. Her books on Objectivism appealed greatly to my intellectual side, but not emotionally. Like I was reading a manual on the rules of chess.
          That's actually a brilliant analogy.

          My intellectual side is fascinated with some of the things
          that Fred Reinfield wrote. And Irving Chernev's dry wit
          always has me chuckling.

          But it was the writings of Nimzovich that really felt
          passionate to me. Reading his work, well, it's a glimpse
          into the reasons that he sneaked back into the tournament
          after hours and cut the heads off all the Queens!

          (He had lost a game because of nothing more than
          the slip of his fingers on the Queen.)

          It's an interesting coincidence that just as it is Nietzsche's
          work that is most well-known today among most people
          familiar with philosophy, much of Nimzovich's work in
          Kein System has become standard chess play. Today,
          even young amateurs know the power of putting the
          Rook on the 7th Rank, but it is only because of the
          emotional outbursts in defense of the tactic by a man
          who was being laughed at for his unappreciated genius.
          Signature

          The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

          ...A tachyon enters a bar.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8679358].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

            That's actually a brilliant analogy.

            My intellectual side is fascinated with some of the things
            that Fred Reinfield wrote. And Irving Chernev's dry wit
            always has me chuckling.

            But it was the writings of Nimzovich that really felt
            passionate to me. Reading his work, well, it's a glimpse
            into the reasons that he sneaked back into the tournament
            after hours and cut the heads off all the Queens!

            (He had lost a game because of nothing more than
            the slip of his fingers on the Queen.)

            It's an interesting coincidence that just as it is Nietzsche's
            work that is most well-known today among most people
            familiar with philosophy, much of Nimzovich's work in
            Kein System has become standard chess play. Today,
            even young amateurs know the power of putting the
            Rook on the 7th Rank, but it is only because of the
            emotional outbursts in defense of the tactic by a man
            who was being laughed at for his unappreciated genius.
            Mike; First, thank you for the kind words.

            I don't play Chess. It was an analogy. I barely know some of the rules.

            I didn't want to give you the wrong impression. Chess was just the most intellectual exercise that popped into my mind as I was writing.
            Signature
            One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

            What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8679671].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

        People often cite conspiracies and complain about the "two party system".
        As far as I know, most of them are not advocating a one-party system,
        but want to promote the idea that there should be more than two.

        Yet everywhere that we've seen it happen-- For example in Italy and Israel--
        the weakest party can't get their way on something, so they throw a
        temper tantrum and become obstructionists, blocking everything they
        can out of spite.
        I NEVER said they were advocating a one party system. Quite the CONTRARY! If I hate the way the nation is going, only have "two" viable choices, and BOTH end at the same point, then I would want a REAL choice! I came up with a viable way to have 2 parties as we have now, and allow people to vote for a DOZEN parties, and NOT lose their vote. ALAS, it would NEVER catch on because the CURRENT parties would have to vote for it, and it would make the replacement of any party SIMPLE!

        So WHAT IS IT? SIMPLE!

        Ok, here is STEVES simple election fix! EXACTLY as NOW, except everyone would vote for a NUMBER of potential candidates, though only ONE vote for a candidate, and the first choice would have to get say 60% of the nations vote. If THAT fails, then the top TWO choices would be added up. If THAT fails, the top THREE, etc.... At the end, if 60% don't vote for a candidate, then the person that gets the least votes is dropped, etc... This would have changed MOST of the past races in recent memory where we had 3-5 candidates for a given office. And the winner WOULD, of course, have had more support.

        BTW I don't think I have EVER seen this done!

        I have a friend that wants to vote for a person that might end up in a third party. I would like to vote for him TOO, but it is likely MANY will feel as I do and feel that most WON'T! So it is better to vote for the 2nd choice if the 1st has less of a chance of winning.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8680769].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          On my marker ( a small cheap headstone) it will read "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free." Nikos Kazantzakis

          One of my favorite quotes.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8680907].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          I NEVER said they were advocating a one party system. Quite the CONTRARY!
          Umm, I never said that you were? To clarify, my comment
          was not directed at you, it was just my general thoughts
          extending from that part of the conversation.


          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          EXACTLY as NOW, except everyone would vote for a NUMBER of potential candidates, though only ONE vote for a candidate, and the first choice would have to get say 60% of the nations vote. If THAT fails, then the top TWO choices would be added up. If THAT fails, the top THREE, etc.... At the end, if 60% don't vote for a candidate, then the person that gets the least votes is dropped, etc... This would have changed MOST of the past races in recent memory where we had 3-5 candidates for a given office. And the winner WOULD, of course, have had more support.

          BTW I don't think I have EVER seen this done!
          We did this in elementary. In my completely unscientific analysis that
          I am still quite confident of, I am sure the exact same people still won,
          and the only difference is that there were more people bitter about losing.

          In all seriousness though, that doesn't solve the problem of having the
          minority parties within the government being obstructionists on every
          single issue they can because they didn't get their way on something
          a few years ago? (As is the case with Israel and Italy, for example...)


          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          I have a friend that wants to vote for a person that might end up in a third party. I would like to vote for him TOO, but it is likely MANY will feel as I do and feel that most WON'T! So it is better to vote for the 2nd choice if the 1st has less of a chance of winning.

          Steve
          What saddens me about the current state is that outside of a few local elections,
          I am most often voting against people that are harmful to the community,
          rather than for someone that I actually want.
          Signature

          The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

          ...A tachyon enters a bar.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681017].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
            Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

            What saddens me about the current state is that outside of a few local elections,
            I am most often voting against people that are harmful to the community,
            rather than for someone that I actually want.
            I've been voting against candidates rather than for someone for so long it seems like that's the way it's supposed to be.
            Signature

            Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681072].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

            We did this in elementary. In my completely unscientific analysis that
            I am still quite confident of, I am sure the exact same people still won,
            and the only difference is that there were more people bitter about losing.
            WRONG!

            REAL CASE!

            1. I vote A,C
            2. My FRIEND votes C,A
            3. Another person votes D,C
            4. Another person votes B

            THIS system ends up A,C,D,B DRAW! NOBODY WINS!
            MY System.... A,C,D,B, DRAW! A=2, C=3, D=1, B=1 C gets 75% of the vote, and WINS!

            BTW A and B are the current two parties! ONE person took a chance on the 3rd party, and the 3rd party candidate WON!!!!!!!!!


            In all seriousness though, that doesn't solve the problem of having the
            minority parties within the government being obstructionists on every
            single issue they can because they didn't get their way on something
            a few years ago? (As is the case with Israel and Italy, for example...)
            What if the "minority" party becomes president, and vetos certain laws, etc...?

            What saddens me about the current state is that outside of a few local elections,
            I am most often voting against people that are harmful to the community,
            rather than for someone that I actually want.
            EXACTLY!!!!!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681180].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              WRONG!
              Nah, I'm fairly certain the "cool" kids were going to win no matter what. :p


              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              What if the "minority" party becomes president, and vetos certain laws, etc...?
              Somehow I just don't see a minority party winning the presidency,
              even with "STEVE'S" system? :confused:
              Signature

              The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

              ...A tachyon enters a bar.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8681378].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

                Nah, I'm fairly certain the "cool" kids were going to win no matter what. :p
                Then WHY DON'T THEY?

                Somehow I just don't see a minority party winning the presidency,
                even with "STEVE'S" system? :confused:
                The point is that they COULD! There have been several times in the recent past that a third person, or 4th or 5th, has UPSET things, and my plan WOULD have changed things. It is historical FACT, not conjecture. HECK, in one race, you had a person with a name that would encourage the voters of one party to vote for, and he said whopping LIES that the other party would vote for. He got several percent of the vote. ANOTHER guy was scammer, and someone setup a bunch of sites claiming to be a popular radio host, and tried to get all those voters. I think he actually got in the double digits.

                Though I think that would have merely enforced the winner, it shows how things are done. I COULD name names for presidents that would have LOST under my system, but that is too political. I won't even name the STATE of the senator I described in the last paragraph.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8682097].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  Then WHY DON'T THEY?
                  Umm, they did?


                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  The point is that they COULD! T
                  Okay. Now, to convince 330M+ people to use it.
                  Signature

                  The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

                  ...A tachyon enters a bar.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8682138].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    I had jumped to that conclusion. But then I thought, "Hey, maybe
    I'm jumping to conclusions here? Or, what if my awesomeness
    in running away with the analogy gets someone interested in chess?
    And what's the worst that could happen? If nothing else I'll sound
    like Inigo Montoya and The Man in Black."

    :rolleyes::p
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8679959].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I can understand the call for selfishness in her teachings to a certain point but IMHO too many of her followers have taken it a bridge too far.
    Signature

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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8682315].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I can understand the call for selfishness in her teachings to a certain point but IMHO too many folks have taken it a bridge too far.
      Selfishness and dependency are two different things.

      Selfishness is acting in your own self interest. It may involve(in my use of the word) being productive, providing a service, bettering society...to serve your own self interest.

      Dependency looks like selfishness, but it's really weakness. there is no "giving to get". No reciprocity. Just consuming.

      OK, I feel so much better now.:rolleyes:
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8682401].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    I just came across this article that has some interesting, and a few funny quotes by Ayn Rand. Apparently she briefly had a column near the end of her life. The final few paragraphs were written while she was under the influence of speed and they are quite hilarious. Anyway, these quotes do show a side to Ayn Rand that most people (myself included) never saw.

    John Hodgman: Ask Ayn Rand : The New Yorker
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8684192].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    bwahahahahahahahaa!

    Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

    " and I predict that by 2013 my influence will be profound, and a new generation of leaders will hallow my name, and devotion to self-interest and capitalism and the free market will not be the exception but the rule, and these leaders will naturally share my disapproval of religion, my support of abortion rights, "
    Oh yes... naturally. :p



    And why does this...

    Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

    I did not like how easily the boy escaped Jack Nicholson in "The Shining." I have solved all the hedge mazes in the United States and Europe, and I can tell you they are not that complicated.
    ...remind me of this:

    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8684388].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

      bwahahahahahahahaa!



      Oh yes... naturally. :p



      And why does this...



      ...remind me of this:

      I think you ALL know that that graphic is a *******IZATION of the REAL saying.

      Basically the REAL sayng means that rather than just helping out, which accomplishes NOTHING in the end, you should teach the people to do it THEMSELVES so they can be independent!

      FIGURE IT OUT! If you just give the person a fish(in this one MINOR example), you will have to give out over 1000 fish for each person you "help", and don't forget YOURSELF! Taken to the Nth degree, that is over 3 TRILLION fish a year in the US ALONE! Do YOU want to do that? GO AHEAD! If you die, NO MORE FISH!!!!!!!!

      If you TEACH them to fish, they can fish for THEMSELVES! Maybe Another can teach them to grow vegetables, etc.... All can easily feed THEMSELVES! If you die, LIFE GOES ON!

      You know, they have EVEN found that birds teach birds, and chimps teach chimps! FANCY THAT!

      As for Ayn Rands statement? Well, ICSM!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8685372].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        I think you ALL know that that graphic is a *******IZATION of the REAL saying.
        It's from a TV show called Parks & Recreation.
        Ron Swanson is the goofy "overly manly man" Libertarian
        who leads the department... and hates government.

        It's a combination of tongue-in-cheek, dry wit, and silliness.
        My new favorite comedy on Netflix, now that I've run out
        of episodes of Better Off Ted.

        (Ruling out the British comedies of course, of which I
        grew-up watching and have seen to death. Especially
        Waiting For God, which might be the funniest TV series
        of all time.)
        Signature

        The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

        ...A tachyon enters a bar.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8685901].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

      bwahahahahahahahaa!



      Oh yes... naturally. :p



      And why does this...



      ...remind me of this:



      I watch Parks & Recs with the kid and Ron the gov worker who hates government is a hoot.
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8685381].message }}

Trending Topics