Thursday, January 13, 2011

Ayn Rand's "This is John Galt Speaking": A Summary

If you don't think the entire world is completely fucked, you're not paying attention. Yeah, it's pretty bad out there. But until you realize why things are so out of hand, it's only going to get worse. So listen the fuck up.

Rocks don't have morality because they're not alive. Plants can't be criminals because they can't make choices. 'Right' and 'wrong' describe choices, and every one of you has a fundamental choice: to live or to not live. And since bros are the smartest fucking things in the world, we survive by using our brains. When bros think, they live, and they find happiness. Oh shit, you have to think to be happy? Yup. Rational men are happy men, which is why free trade is so fucking sweet - it lets two thinking bros make a deal, and trade what they have for what they want. Guess who comes out ahead when two bros trade: Both bros. Otherwise, they just wouldn't trade.



On the other hand, 'sacrifice' is fucking stupid, and no thinking being would do it. Don't try to tell me it's 'right' to give up what I have so someone else can get what they want. If it's 'right' that I take less, why is it 'right' that they get more? Because I earned it and they didn't? Does that strike no one else as completely back-asswards? Why the hell am I evil because I have things and they don't? NEWSFLASH: I earned my shit. Before I could have things, I had to make things; if they don't have anything valuable, it's because they don't make anything valuable, which falls right over here into what I like to call the "Not My Fucking Problem" column. 

You think the workers are the victims of capitalism? Seriously?  If working conditions suck that much, then just... stop working. If you really are contributing more than you're getting, then your demands for more will be answered; otherwise, stop fucking whining. There is no such thing as class conflict, not when everyone is rational - hell, workers benefit more than anyone else. So sorry we invented disease-free crops that lower food prices and engines that cheaply deliver food across the country. Why yes, I would like to get paid $25 for saving you $50. Sorry for partying. 

The entire morality of the world tells me I'm guilty for thinking and knowing, creating and trading; for some reason, the soul and the body are incompatible, so I have to kill my body to 'liberate' my soul, whatever the fuck that means. Death is the highest value. That shit doesn't make sense, and as you'd guess, it doesn't last long; but when things go wrong for unthinking idiots, they expect the greatest of us to pay off their debts just because we can

You make life hardest for the greatest bros, the ones who make your life easiest; the more we make, the more you take. Calling it 'taxes' doesn't make it right; it's theft. We've stood by and let it happen, unable to believe that anyone could really be that dumb. Well, Fuck. That. Noise. That ends right now. We are done being made to feel guilty, being blamed and hated, because we make shit happen. We're done being sacrificed. When you make criminals out of the men who build you houses, don't complain when you have to live in caves, bro. There's a guy who built a thing that lets you fly through the sky in an air conditioned room. Of course he's rich, because flying is fucking awesome and people will pay him to do it. If your world says he's evil, I don't want to live in it. 

When you're ready for us to fix shit because you know we can, let us know. We'll be waiting. Until you start thinking, it's only going to get worse out there. 

--

"This is John Galt Speaking" is Chapter Seven of Part Three of Ayn Rand's Novel Atlas Shrugged. If you want more, you can get it here: Atlas Shrugged

70 comments:

  1. Whoa there, bro. You actually read that steamin' pile? You truly are the bravest bro of them all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a steaming pile of the world's refuse thrown in your face to open your eyes, seems you need some stronger smelling salts, bro.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That philosophy is horrible and misfounded. The worlds elite are positioned without burden, which has been given to the lower classes. The only way we could ever have a free market is if everyone started from scratch and all the old money made from slave trading, capital slavery, taxation of the lower and middle class, warfare, etc was dissolved.

    Even then a free market doesn't encourage people to do better, it only encourages them to make profit. The more profit the more available trade, so why not take the low route and cheat people and undermine and abuse the resources of others?

    As for Rand's novel, I liked the story of Atlas Shrugged but I dislike the philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ummm, people "start from scratch" all the time. How is it that all those Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants start with absolutely nothing, are a minority, but then work so hard, do so well, and then have a wildly successful second generation? How about all the immigrants at the beginning of the 1900's... Irish, Italian, Jews... all with nothing but a suitcase and by the second generation, the hard workers among them where the new "privileged middle class" you seem to think are created out of vapor.

      Delete
    2. Damn! Right! People immigrating over and cashing in had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the economy, mom and pop shops, huge employment rates, socioeconomic prosperity, or social programs. I mean, who would even argue such a thing? Crazies that's who! Fuck them...

      Its totally the most moral thing in the world to tell people to pull themselves up by their boot straps with absolutely no support at all. Doesn't matter if they don't have any boots, we shouldn't have to front that bill for them and their fucking boot straps.

      Delete
  4. Mathieu.p.y, if we actually did what you suggest, and someone pushed the magical "economic reset" button, where suddenly everyone has an equal amount of shit, do you know what would happen?

    Within five years, the people who are rich now, would be rich again, and ditto for the poor.

    Rich people get richer because they continue doing the things that made them rich in the first place. Poor people get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. If you don't believe me, hang out at a gas station and see who buys lottery tickets. Do they strike you as rich people? Yeah, that's what I thought.

    As to your comment about the free market, do you think a government controlled one is somehow better? That the perfect, not-flawed-with-greed politicians never "take the low route and cheat peopl and undermine and abuse the resources of others"? If you think that, then you are just not paying attention. The government-controlled system you're talking about is worse for the very reason that they make *their* undermining and theft LEGAL. They give themselves the power of the despot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, for many rich folks the claim that they'd get back what they have may well be correct. But are you seriously telling me that if someone hit "reset" Paris Hilton would be as rich as she is today? Because of her mad money-making skillz and market savvy?

      For the record, I actually agree that a free market offers the best route to mass wealth. But the whole reason a market works to promote wealth is that it allows disparate people to come together efficiently and exchange information about needs and wants (we can call this information exchange mechanism "prices.") And, to the extent that a government controlled economy is likely to be a despotic economy...I agree there too. But here's the thing--the market as we know it is highly, *highly* warped and configured by political regulations and historical fact--all of which give distinct advantages to particular groups of people over others. The conditions for engaging in market exchange are not "ceteris paribus."

      Markets are terrific. But what a market absolutely does not, and cannot do, is account for the consequences of history and political power: people don't start off on a level playing field, and that changes how successful they are able to be in ways that have nothing to do with their innate abilities, or even how hard they work. And, systematically, for social or political or historical reasons--many of these "reasons" based on stupid, backwards, inherited assumptions and superstitions--some people have to play a harder game their whole lives (many of them make it, too, because it's the only option they have. But let's at least recognize how much more impressive that person is than the trust fund baby who coasts into millions through a 6% average market increase on a portion of their parent's earnings that they did absolutely nothing for over the first 18 years of their lives.) It's a big leap from arguing that a market is an amoral institution that provides a mechanism for creating value to the assumption that *everyone* who participates in a market can be assigned personal guilt, on the basis of their choices alone, for the economic outcomes of their lives. Specifically, it's a leap that ignores all those pesky differences and social conditions and brute luck that gets excluded from economic models. It's simply a flawed conclusion.

      It's an open question how best to deal with this problem, but government isn't necessarily the worst option out there (and government as such isn't necessarily anti-free market. Unless you're an anarcho-capitalist, you'll agree that you need some sort of government in place to ensure private property is respected as a right...and last I checked, private property was a *political* right.)

      Delete
  5. As a young Republican I can confirm everything Mrs. Rand said is a God given fact.

    Mathieu, did you ever asked yourself why do only poor people whine about wealth distribution?
    Let me tell you something: This is America! Wealth is distributed fairly amongst everyone. Every single one of us has the opportunity to earn more and to grant himself bigger piece of wealth pie.

    Starting from scratch would be "fair" only for poor people who want to claim something without actually earning it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would bet everything I own that you are white and grew up middle class. And I say that as someone who is white and grew up middle class. It's a logic that comes from extreme naivete regarding our own advantage.

      Delete
    2. There are *tons* of successful people in this country who become successful without starting off with "advantage" as you say. Read my post above about immigrants. Look at Herman Cain. Please!

      Delete
  6. I know we're bros and we hate fucking poor people, but common... fairly distributed? Read the bro's summary of the Communist Manifesto. Poorer classes work harder (more hours, harder work) than the upper crust, yet somehow they don't progress. It's blind luck that someone is born into any particular class.

    ReplyDelete
  7. DD, I don't believe any facts have been given to us by god, and I don't believe that the American dream exists any more.

    At one point in time, all an entrepuener had to do was be at the right place at the right time to make a living. Booms and busts happened quickly all over the country and to make a start you could be indepedant. However with the rise of corporations and the distribution of 90% of the economy beloning to 1% of the elite, this is no longer a possibility.

    Regardless of who you vote for, do you honestly believe you're going to take any of that 90% away from them? That you're going to be given a chance to do better? Regardless of how skilled, inherintly talented, etc or whatever "good" choice you make, the only way you will ever be rich is to imitate them through heavy debts and hope your talents will pay off.

    And most importantly, this belief is dumb because it basically implies that talent and hard work always go rewarded, when time and again it's been proven otherwise. More typically, you win the genetic lottery and get far more opporunities than the working class to prove your "talents" and "hard work".

    Also, there's the issue of the bottom line vs. whats right. IE. whats happening in Africa, as the dictators with money are using military might to oust the popular prime ministers.

    Republicans must be shielded or ignorant to believe this corporate crap.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Brendan, poor people do things typical of their class because they see themselves as poor and have no imagination of upward mobility. This illusion only gets worse and worse as the elite class becomes entitled to more and more.

    If we started from scratch I think we would eventually see the rich doing what they are doing now, but they would be entirely different people. How do you motivate economic slaves if you dont have money? Just chain them up and whip them to work for you!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sorry a, but you've got to sober from communism mindset, look what happened to Russia and other god forsaken communist countries. They eventually realized the only right way to live is the American way.

    You see, some people say, you didn't earn your money, but let me tell you another thing. My family always treated slaves with respect and dignity, we even freed some of them before freeing slaves became mainstream. They got severance packages (in cotton) and we didn't force them to work too much on the Lord's resting day. It is not about how many hours of work one puts in, it is about respect and treating people right. Because when at the end of the day you look yourself in the mirror money really doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That's an awful justification to owning slaves (we treated our slaves better). I admit that there is no sense in denying your past, but slave trading is an example of the human despair that occurs in a truly free market, where neither law nor moral is enforced.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, just wow. Let me guess, dd doesn't actually read this blog or have an interest in philosophy but just googled Ayn Rand and this blog came up right?

    ReplyDelete
  12. rofl at dd. I'm calling troll; too ignorant to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  13. naaw, if he was a troll he'd still be trolling. I gave enough bait to bring him back.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mathieu, let me point out a fallacy in your thinking.

    My uncle co-owns a small factory where he employs 80 people with moderate labor intensity, majority are immigrants compensated with minimum wage. Socialist would argue that he's a capitalist pig who should distribute means of production amongst the workers, that is totally acceptable argument somewhere in Soviet Russia.

    But in modern America nothing would be done that way.
    Try to account responsibility towards workers, every worker comes with an expense (safety gear, meals, health plans, etc).
    Also assets related expenses: machines, forklifts, real estate, computers, updating equipment, repairs, safety measures, insurances... The things that even make it possible for business to operate.

    My uncle is providing a shovel to road worker, we can say he provides working conditions and jobs to to able bodied men. He is giving people jobs. Some of these people might not have inherent ability to create one. Should't that be compensated?

    Business operates at 1.5-3% ROE, not very much considering the risk. So he is not making that much relative to what the business is making. The same goes for the worker, who is not making that much relative to the job he is doing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow, I like the amount of discussion.

    Unfortunately, Ayn Rand doesn't do much to promote polite discussion. I prefer von Mises or Hayek; they didn't make up stories in which all their theories were true (well, aside from brief thought-experiments).

    Hmm, is it possible to discuss Mises' praxeology in brospeak?

    -Wm

    ReplyDelete
  16. dd: as a young thinking person, I take offense at everything you say. Please stop talking about the U.S.S.R. if you want to have a philosophical conversation; observational evidence has no place here, and even Ayn Rand would agree with me on that. As for slavery, that is a wholly different system from any industrial. Marx saw that the way the lower classes were trapped in poverty, with the option to work in the worst conditions imaginable (different from slavery, in that there was a false promise of escape), or to refuse to feed their families, as the direct result of industrial capitalism. He sounds a little like Ayn Rand there, saying that a blindly preached and accepted morality is partly to blame. But I am pretty sure you know this all already.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1) Bring up Ayn Rand.
    2) FLAME WAR.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What capitalism does, that Rand and her ilk prefer to elide over, is create a situation where people require permission to work.

    Under a capitalist system, it is perfectly possible to have a group of homeless people, a huge stockpile of raw materials, and massive unemployment, and yet unless a rich person comes along and lays down some money, no houses will be built. Obviously the capitalist isn't creating demand - homeless people want houses. He isn't creating the materials - they already exist in nature, requiring only work to make useful. He isn't providing the labour - that comes from the workers. In fact, the capitalist contributes nothing at all. Rather, they opperate to block anything from being done unless and until they are permitted to take a massive cut of its benefits for themselves.

    The real contribution of the capitalist class is the same as the contribution of most sensible tyrants throughout history - to allow you to go about your business provided you give the vast majority of the wealth you produce to them, and to punish you if you refuse.

    ReplyDelete
  19. dd
    1) your uncle does not operate a business on a free market system. The expenses listed for the employees are regulatory and expected of anyone who provides a service for you. unfortunately, we have seen large franchises and influential industries reneg on these policies and invest very poorly in their employees in the interest of raising their ROE. That result is closer to free market ideology, and an example of a fundamental flaw.

    Free market is not as much a philosophy as it is a policy (or lack of). It is entirely possible to demonstrate it through real world examples, however only ever possible to imply it's existence. Comparing it to communism is a straw man argument, however, as communism is not related to the free market system. I believe the term you were looking for is totalitarian socialism, which has not yet existed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mathieu.p.y, your arguments are well versed and patient. However, I believe your efforts are futile. No hope in reaching dd le troll, or, if dd is serious, any one who believes slave holders to be generous for providing slaves with a bale of cotton.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, and commenting on the initial argument: I believe the wealthy continue to get wealthy due to previously existing funds, ie it takes money to make money. Not only does existing capital allow for aggressive risk taking and entrepreneurship in the market place, but, in a society like America where higher education comes at a large price, it allows the wealthy access to the most expensive, commonly some of the best, educations.

    So, if the world's economy was reset, old money eradicated and trust funds dissolved, I believe there could be a drastically different wealthy population. However, there is really no way to know without conducting some perverse social experiment.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ayn Rand was an elitist bitch. My bro's slampiece once told us, "She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky." Many natty ice's and high-fives were had after that comment. G' Times.

    ReplyDelete
  23. lmfao...this one sure as hell erupted into NBC vs. Fox News in a hurry, didn't it?

    I take no sides for now. I didn't start the flame war... it was always burning.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nice piece! Forget this debate or whatever is going on in these comments. Your summaries are hilarious and do an excellent job of capturing the essence of the philosophy in question. Very enjoyable and funny, which, unless I'm mistaken, is the point.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dude, that was wicked awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @dd "As a young Republican I can confirm everything Mrs. Rand said is a God given fact."

    Ayn Rand said that Christianity is a "cult of death". She was NOT a fan, and a lot of her philosophy is based on a bitter backlash against the very concept. Try doing a bit of reading before you open your mouth and put your foot squarely in it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks for your summary! I really enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, even though I didn't agree with the entirety of her philosophy, and I think no matter how a person feels the chapter "This is John Galt speaking" provides thought-provoking reading for anyone.

    I actually think the *ideal* of communism isn't so bad, but I also agree with Rand's feeling that what you earn (not make) you shouldn't be obliged to give away. Even then, taxes (ideally) are used for the greater good (infrastructure that everyone uses, etc.).

    Food for thought, bros who say that the rich work just as hard: stick a million dollars in a high-interest account and see how hard you have to work living just off the interest, or to make more. Now try with nothing in the bank account, living off a basic to average wage, trying to *save* a million dollars. Which is easier? Who works harder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Question: Where did the million dollars come from? Did it just come out of thin fucking air? No, either some bro was born into it, which I grant that some are, but there are also many bros who work their ass off to make a million dollars to put into said bank account. Many bros get a million dollars by working their ass off at a decent school, work their ass off at their job, start a company because they have an awesome fucking idea, and then work their ass off every day to ensure that their company continues to make fucking bank. Just because the average person doesn't have a awesome idea to make bank off of doesn't mean that the person who does should be penalized. Both bros work hard, one just has a brotastic idea and the other doesn't, sucks to suck. The world needs ditch diggers to.

      Also, what kind of bank account allows for zero risk, but has a high enough interest rate to earn enough to live off of? Is this a new bank from mamby pamby land called "Never Gonna Happen Bank"? Didn't think so

      Delete
  28. http://www.philosophybro.com/2011/01/wittgensteins-on-certainty-summary.html

    Just sayin', bros.

    ReplyDelete
  29. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM

    Omg Atlas Shrugged is going to be a movie! Wait, wtf? :P

    ReplyDelete
  30. Now read the Camus summary and crack a smile like Sisyphus did when rolling the rock.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I read Atlas Shrugged a short while ago... and am on the final pages of The Fountainhead.

    Ayn Rand's philosophies are deep and accurate to society.

    Thanks for Your fucking post--the World needs a good slap up-side the head.

    Cheers,
    Todd

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1.this blog is fucking awesome
    2.i don't think ayn rand thought bout shit thoroughly enough.
    capitalism ensures viscious poverty cycles. It's an empty lie in which people are forced to work under the false impression that they can become one of the few one day.
    the promise of enough money to stop worrying about money has become an almost religious pursuit in itself. not only that but horrible adverts forcefed to you everyday enable companies to thrive on ritualistic misery of working to spend.
    no wonder so many hard working people from lower classes end up depressed constantly made to think 'i am not good enough'.
    sure everything's rosy as shit when your a white republican refer to story of the cave.
    socialism isn't perfect it hasn't worked (YET) but its a damn site better than capitalism, cause here's the fucking real shit
    capitalism has never, and will never, work.

    keep up the awesome blog dude.
    cheers
    dan. u.k.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 1. Rand was opposed to "moochers" AND "looters," both of which are equally to blame for the suffering in "Atlas Shrugged."

    2. Free trade requires ALL the parties involved to be free people. The degree to which that isn't true has nothing to do with capitalism: it comes from government hierarchies and laws made (or broken) to benefit the assholes mentioned above.

    3. "White Republicans" are some of the most socialist assholes you will ever run across: if you doubt me, take a close look at the laws they push through congress. Every one of them is meant to limit your freedom and keep one or another band of corporate looters' boots on your neck.

    4. A purely capitalist economy is the LAST THING those in power want - most of them wouldn't last one year in direct, uncontrolled competition with the average crew of "people from lower classes" and they damn well know it.

    5. Ayn Rand knew it too. Stop believing the bullshit, both conservative AND liberal. YOU are responsible for your future, good, bad or ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  34. A bunch of people in these comments are making assertions that haven't been justified.

    ReplyDelete
  35. dd has trolled quite a few of these summaries.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This has GOT to be a troll, and as such, its beautiful. Man, Rand really was off her head, no wonder the Simpsons et al all had so much fun ribbing her.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Folks are missing the point. This is a philosophical stance. This is not the gospel of today's economic conditions. It's a concept that does make sense. Also, stress that Rand is speaking IF EVERYONE WAS RATIONAL! It's not rational to find loopholes in the free market and, I agree with the slavery comments, take advantage of people through diabolical means for your own economic success. Of course that's inherently not rational. Also, theft would be irrational right? Period. All forms of theft. Like taking government bailouts when you mislead investors. True capitalism would let these banks "die" and those who made the mistake of taking $300,00 loans would fail for 7 years as well. Government steps in for special interests and status quo agendas and screws up the whole fucking thing.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Wow, you must be kidding? Rand is far from a philosopher. She was a pundit at best and a cult leader at worst.... Her "philosophy" appeals to teenagers and those whose development is arrested at an adolescent stage. Never mind the moral arguments against her fucked up philosophy... It's not even rational!

    For one thing, the more you have, the more you have to lose. The more you benefit from a stable society where people aren't starving in the streets or driven to crime because they can't find a job or (in some cases) don't want to work.

    The cost of the so-called welfare state is nothing compared to the external costs corporations inflict on society in terms of resource depletion, environmental destruction, healthcare expense (because we're eating garbage with no nutritional value), the cost of war, etc. You're whining about food stamps when are oceans of almost depleted of fish because of wasteful industrial fishing, pollution and climate change caused by other industry?

    Wake up, man. It's true that we should benefit from our hard work, I would never argue with that. But I believe that I owe a lot to society, that I have a moral obligation to "give back" and take care of those who haven't had the good fortune I have.

    I believe it's right and rational to care about others. Rand really did not in the final analysis. She thought we were all a universe unto ourselves which is so far from the truth it's a bit crazy...

    ReplyDelete
  39. "brendan said...

    Mathieu.p.y, if we actually did what you suggest, and someone pushed the magical "economic reset" button, where suddenly everyone has an equal amount of shit, do you know what would happen?

    Within five years, the people who are rich now, would be rich again, and ditto for the poor."

    Paris Hilton would make herself rich?
    You kidding me?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Rand is a hypocrite to her own philosophy. She tells people to be awesome (and not to give a shit about people who aren't), but then she goes around not being awesome and trying to bring non-awesome people to her side.

    Not only is that altruistic (as engaging in policy conversation must always be), but she would set a better example by being as fucking amazing as her philosophy wants people to be.

    She got a couple big things right: individualism makes people epic and that collective morality sucks old people (politician) dick, but Nietzsche already said that and was much more of an individualistic badass anyway. Rand is just the ugly bastard child of Nietzsche and someone hopeless bitch whose suckiness is only slightly compensated for by Nietzsche's giant penis.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sorry for language, but I thought it appropriate for a "philosophy bro". Obviously not a regular user on the site, nor do I intend to be. I'll be too busy being awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Did anyone realize how similar Obama's speech last night on the debt crisis sounded like opinions John Galt would decry? As if he were the populace John Galt is ranting at? "We all need to share in the sacrifice"

    ReplyDelete
  43. "We all need to share in the sacrifice"

    Here's a crazy idea, think about that statement in context. Because, ya' know, just maybe he was talking about bipartisan politics that are mucking things up rather than any ideological stance.

    ReplyDelete
  44. pretty sure he was talking about taxing the wealthy people, the private jet owners, to help out the rest of society. i'm not necessarily disagreeing with Obama on this one since if i was that wealthy i probably would give the majority of it away, like a Warren Buffett, but i don't think it's the role of the government to take it away and spend it on inefficient governmental programs. the government should be run more like a business, with the fat being cut off instead of letting it waste tax dollars

    ReplyDelete
  45. This aint Philosophy ,bro. This Is Americans shiting each other in some big kids game of " I'M The King of The Dumb ass and Your'\'re The Lazy Lard ass " . So Much for discussion. To quote Billy Brag , It's just the sound of ideologies clashing" with bad manners thrown in for free. Philosophy indeed, it's hard to love something you aint got.

    ReplyDelete
  46. That's one of the best, and funniest, summary of John G i've ever read. Spot on. The bottom line is that if the looters would just get off of my back, I'll start hiring again. Until then, I'll keep what I've earned and you looters can wallow in your socialist filth and politics of envy. Anyway, I'm going to get back to moving my assets to Belize. Have a nice day, looters.

    ReplyDelete
  47. If you have a strong opinion of Ayn Rand (either way) then you're probably not really thinking...

    ReplyDelete
  48. "If you have a strong opinion of Ayn Rand (either way) then you're probably not really thinking..."

    Nah, it's the other way around...if you do not have a strong opinion of Ayn Rand (either way) then you're probably not really thinking...

    ReplyDelete
  49. "If you have a strong opinion of Ayn Rand (either way) then you're probably not really thinking..."

    i would have to agree with this post. I agree with Rand's philosophy that men should be able to reap the rewards of their hard work as a means to better (financially speaking) themselves, but at the same time where should the line be drawn? At what point should a bro be expected (for lack of a better word) to help his fellow bro? It basically comes down to the question: "when does self preservation become selfish greed?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. helping out another bro should just be what we do. I feel like that's what Rand already expected everyone to know. Helping out bro's with my surplus should be a choice that I consciously make - not a government mandate. It's unlawful for the government to take what is not theirs. The government taking income tax to fund social programs is akin to a football coach calling on his field goal unit on 4th and inches at the goal line of his opponent. Hear me out...The coach is playing it safe to get minimum reward. He could risk it all and go for it and get more or he could have none. The point is if he goes for the field goal, he doesn't have enough faith in his offense to get it done. That being said, if the government is taking money in the form of income tax to redistribute from the haves to the have nots, they are blatantly saying that they have no faith in humanity to take care of one another. I call bullshit on that. We do have the capacity to care. And if a few people don't want to care and share their earnings then that's their choice. Someone else will give. Humanity hasn't been lost. It just hasn't had the chance to spread like the wildfire that it is.

      Delete
  50. Ad hominem attacks are my favorite. They're always a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ayn Rand was a pretty strange character. She was all for science and reason and stuff. The most important role that science has played is to make humanity realize it's position relative to the rest of the world. It is supposed to make us humble, not arrogant. Make us realize that human well-being and comfort is not limited by "ability" alone. There are limiting forces in nature and what is good for one man might not be good for the society. Plus, everyone knows that people are not really rational and do not/cannot foresee or care about consequences of their actions that will occur in the distant future.
    Also, the idea that the profit motive can replace morals or that rational people will self-regulate has been proved to be wrong time and again. Unless some authority is there that is going to set limits on competition and the extent to which people can indulge their profit-motive, everything will go to waste pretty soon.
    Her ideas about scientific research and development can at best be described as childish. If science was left to corporates alone, then anything that did not kill enough people or make enough money will never get developed. Pure science, ie. pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake is something that a lot of "rational" corporates would have trouble justifying.

    ReplyDelete
  52. http://vimeo.com/25966415

    This might contribute to the discussion. Adam Curtis' view.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "dd said: As a young Republican I can confirm everything Mrs. Rand said is a God given fact."

    I think Ayn Rand would beg to differ... God wasn't her thing.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ayn Rand was against evasion, and anyone who understands that while reading her philosophy, has no problem connecting and making sense of most of her ideas. In other words, if you accept evasion is wrong, and apply that while reading Ayn Rand, a lot of things she says makes sense. Unfortunately, most people, evade her ideas on evasion and thus end up looking at her as a nut.

    Take for instance the idea that "people can't be rational." If you teach a human being that people are irrational, and that they have no hope of ever becoming rational, what will be the consequence of such a belief system? What will that person think of human beings and his interactions with them? If you tell a person he was born into sin, that he will always be contaminated by sin and there is nothing he can do about it, how will that affect his view on life? How will that affect the way he views himself? Views humanity as a whole?

    ReplyDelete
  55. It's funny how no one here actually knows what they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Workers who feel the system is unfair should withdraw their labour? Last I checked, this was called a "strike". So what happens when bros organize to strike?

    1. They get what they want, thereby proving that the bros' labour is the one thing that the employer can do nothing without.

    OR

    2. The employer uses force to break up the strike, thereby proving that the bros' labour is the one thing that the employer can do nothing without.

    OR

    3. The employer closes up shop and attempts to relocate to an area without a unionized workforce - the primary reason the union movement is/was internationalist in nature - thereby proving that the bros' labour is the one thing that the employer can do nothing without.

    Rand would have us believe that there is a fourth option:

    4. The employer builds the damn plane - or whatever - hhimself, thereby proving that Ayn Rand was barking moonbat crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  57. So the haters are implying by their dismissal of Rand and her ideas that: Sacrificing others for your own good, is in fact good. Working hard and getting paid for it is bad...and doubly bad if you work hard, get paid, and want to keep your earnings for you and your family, rather than have others decide for you what you should do with your earnings. I see....soooo, to sum up...it is good for a power, such as a government to decide how to rule your body and mind (since you will only fail to do it correctly on your own). It's good to have them carve up your life and take what you earn...it's good for them to decide what to do with your body. I see your points now....Rand is EVIL because she felt humans ought to be FREE to live their own lives so long as they never sacrificed others for their own good.

    ReplyDelete
  58. WRONG. It's just not cool to twist bros words like that. If haters dismiss Rand, it's because they don't like her ideas, not because they all think altruistic totalitarian socialism is the cat's motherflippin' pyjamas. the only conclusion to be drawn from that is that an alternative to BOTH options is desired. IMO, the notion that pure capitalism based on rational self-interest will support a national economy is, as 10:22 put it, barking moonbat crazy. The first thing people will do once they've achieved the "greatness" that capitalism makes them so capable of they will use the "fruit of their labor" to block other bros from getting access. pure capitalism will only work in a perfect world where everyone plays by the rules, but the moment you design a system based off of people's inherent greed you open that system to loopholes called "rich mofos don't wanna compete for their position so they'll monopolize what they need to and create yet another 1%" When you let greed thrive greed wins.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Nobody takes Rand's "philosophy" serious, bro!

    ReplyDelete
  60. I didn't know so many butthurt socialists read your blog. If you hate capitalism, go some place it that's completely strangled by government. Government or the market, there is no third option.

    ReplyDelete