Ayn Rand destroys Socialist philosophy

Ok now we are back to where we started. If I show you a quote where she was against social security....will you admit you were wrong? Its a simple question

 

No we are not back where we started.

My argument is consistent yours is circular and self defeating and you are being terribly dishonest.

Once again read slowly. Opposing theft does not mean one opposes taking BACK what was stolen which is what she did

You have been proven massively wrong and run like a coward from admitting it even though you know you have been

 

You are terriffied of answering yes! What if I am just bluffing? Why won't you take me up on it?

 

You have already been defeated no one is terrified except you

But that is your Mo with every argument which you always lose

babble babble babble on even though you have been proven uneducated and wrong

 

Ok. Everyone can see you are afraid to answer the question. You are afraid of what I will post.

Guess what? I was bluffing. LOL

 

... and horological exactitudes would only be begrudgingly shared (which cues a timely rendition of "My Time Isn't Your Time" by Rudy Vallee as Gault frantically erases the communal clock tower from his latest tentative erection.)

Fade to oblivion.

 

She's a hoot!

The randwanks get flustered when I note that their favourite fantasy writer's aberrant notions that have them so smitten have never been adopted by any nation on the real planet earth. (I can't speak for Kolob or Tralfamadore.)

 

Which is irrelevant of course.

Marx's aberrant notions have not been adopted either although many have tried and ended up with genocide. And no I am not calling you a marxist.

Merely pointing out that such criticism is not valid or intelligent criticism at all.

So what you are stating is not an argument.

 

Can you demonstrate that she only took back what was "stolen" from her? The value of her SS and Medicaid were less than or equal to what she paid in?

 

It's always less

 

Prove that.

 

Your pairing of Marx and Rosenbaum is a curious one. Karl's pamphlet, The Communist Manifesto, certainly had the virtue of brevity. Das Kapital is a bit more ponderous, but he clearly got far more bang for the buck.

Marx has been taken much more seriously, and his screwball notions got quite a bit further than Ms R's (Marxists have repeatedly attempted actually applying them!) but both have had their true believers.

Ultimately, governance is a practical, pragmatic matter, and ideology is an abstract, theoretical one.

 

Except that Marx's screwball notions were evil at their core. And the key word is attempted. Once again your notion that no one has tried an idea does not make it a bad idea.

Rand's is not.

Yes it is true ideology and philosophy are abstractions and theoretical but we do learn from them.

 

I don't read Sowell anymore because he's dead.

I read him for laughs. I didn't find that frustrating. I was amazed that anyone would take his nonsense seriously, much less pay him to write it.

Yes, Ayn Rand has been deep thought for small minds for a long time.

 

I doubt you read either of them.

As usual all you can do is screech ad hom you cannot offer a serious criticism based on merits of their argument or lack there of.

But that is what the small minded REALLY do.

You did not laugh at Sowell you screamed in frustration that he was correct about many things and you have no intelligent refutation. You are quite transparent.

If he were so wrong you could articulate how and why but you cannot

 

What kindness of strangers? Wasn't she forced to pay for those things?

 

Whatever. I talked about Rand's turgid prose and wooden characters as well as her odd obsession with steel and railroads, earlier.

I guess you haven't read her. You would know what I am talking about otherwise.

As for Sowell, I only remember a couple of his diatribes. The one against any and all zoning or environmental regulation was especially offensive, coming, as it did right after and earthquake in San Francisco had conclusively demonstrate the value of both.

 

I have read her and I can agree with many criticisms of her writing style. I will even grant she was turgid and bombastic and yes her characters were one dimensional.

None of that addresses her philosophy however which people shy away from doing.

So she writes a book which involves many characters who are industry leaders and somehow it is obsessive to talk about the professions her fictional characters are involved with.

I saw no obsession with architecture in the fountainhead although she did write a lot about it because her main character was an architect.

But if you feel she was obsessed with such things fine as i said it still does not address her philosophical arguments

Still have no demonstration that Sowell was wrong as you claimed

 

Her fiction is barely readable, but her non-fiction is interesting. Still, she borders on the cultish and frequently makes just-so arguments for her philosophy, drawing bizarre connections, like celebrating smoking as some sort of ultimate symbol of human innovation, insisting that sexual attraction is chiefly an exercise of logic and reason and going a little bonkers over any kind of art or literature that she thought didn't do enough to elevate her philosophy.

In her zeal to attack socialism, she failed to recognize one of the defining aspects of our species: we are social beings.

The similarities between Rand and Nietzsche are greatly, greatly overexaggerated. Rand saw reason as man's most defining feature. Nietzche thought we had given too much attention to Apollonian reason and that we needed to turn more toward Dionysian emotion and an embrace of tragedy.

 

It appears that people believe similarly about a lot of topics on these boards.

 

Link?

 

Snopes gift to this topic.

 

Democrats laws do not give away that which they own, they give away what others own. A quick look at the Federal Budget ought to prove this point rather quickly and effortlessly.

 

Give us the name of his short books. I enjoy him, so let me know so I can get all three pages or several more pages.

 

But much success in the market depends heavily on empathy. And I think it is also worth noting . . .

"How selfish soever man may be suppose, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the misfortune of otheres, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous and humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it." - Adam Smith