Ayn Rand destroys Socialist philosophy

I get a kick out of those who are Democrats or supporters alleging that progressives are the good class yet the earners are the bad class. This country should never have imposed steep constraints on the legal immigrants were it so generous. At the time of the Statue of Liberty, nothing remotely like social security, paid for doctors and hospitals and such existed in the USA.

 

http://www.snopes.com/ayn-rand-social-security/

 

It helps if one sees government as we have it as the KING.

Then think of society as the KING's pawns.

Those advocating for the government are unwittingly, it seems, putting their own fate into the hands of other men and women, rather than themselves.

I am not selfish. I donate to this forum. Check those who argue in favor of government and take notice if they actually pay to support this very forum.

 

Marx's airy-fairy notions were almost as unrealistic as fiction writer Rand's.

His apparently merited actual trials. Hers were more readily consigned to the realm of fantasy.

 

She asked to be allowed to avail herself of the safety net that is the hallmark of an enlightened society, and was accommodated by the magnanimity of her community.

Human decency is a good thing.

 

I keep hoping that you will post something that recognizes and praises the worth of the human being as a person. We are not bees in the hive.

 

Frankly, were society schooled in the virtue and skill needed to obtain wealth, they would be far better off, not need to account to government for things the government takes from some to hand to others.

Nothing you get from government comes with no forms attached, no proof they require nor on your say so. They want you to prove it.

Take SS for instance. I am able to vote with no sign of my birth certificate. This is why Obama had trouble locating his, we don't need it for just about all things. But Government requires it. I was forced to embark on a rather long journey to the county of my birth, wait on them to hand to me for cash payment, my certified as true Birth certificate. Government required it of me. I then had to show them my social security card. This was easier for them to verify. If you seek help from Government, you will learn you will fill out a lot of paperwork, be forced to read a lot of papers, and if some worker says you are worthy, they will then allow you go get such government help.

Government is not this benevolent entity I fear you suppose it is.

i like to compare government to sports. Referees never award touchdowns until they are earned. No umpire will allow a strike to be ruled a hit or home run unless it falls in the rules to do so. We have people, normally Democrats, who want losers to get awards as were they winners. Life does not work that way.

 

I have no problem with Rosenbaum applying for and receiving social security benefits. She was welcomed as a refugee to America, was allowed to espouse her atheism that would have caused her to be persecuted elsewhere at the time, earned a living by writing and peddling her fiction, and contributed to and partook of the commonweal that Americans share. That's how the system works for you.

 

What about his notions merited trials? Universal slavery? Oppressive dictatorship? All tenants of marx's own ideology.

Especially multiple trials ending in the same sort of disaster?

That is the question which many avoid. Constantly putting down her ideas is not a valid criticism. Some specific and articulate criticism would be nice. But no one seems able to give any.

For example I think it is very clear she was way off in her understanding and estimation of human emotion. She ignored the tried and true fact that the heart wants what the heart wants and people often want things that are not in their own best interests. She stated that emotions are a direct reflection of persons values and caused by those same values but in fact her own choices clearly dispute that.

Overall however that is not one of her major points it is a relatively minor one.

Once again constant repitition that her ideas are BS or whatever is not an argument

 

Straw man.

She asked for a return of what was taken from her. Major difference. Collectives cannot have emotions like being magnanimous only individuals can.

Nor is any entitlement for redistribution a safety net or all mark of enlightenment

 

The Hemingway' oeuvre is readily accessible. His ability to concisely render one of Rosenbaum's flatulent tomes in nary a single page is only something for which we might have wished.

 

Thank you. I was unfamiliar with that passage.

The mutual responsibility for members of a community expressed though democratic governance is a practical expression of a shared moral conviction.

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee. ​

 

Were Hemingway a loyal Republican, I have no doubt of any sort you would also run him down.

 

Another puts Hemingway into the same class as Rand is.


https://books.google.com/books?id=9...EIQjAF#v=onepage&q=hemingway politics&f=false

 

Get-rich-quick schemes are the perennial allure of scammers, Thus the proliferation of Trump U- type schemes.

While some are dazzled by the lust for material goods, others are cognizant that some are advantaged by dint of birth, some by an aptitude for acquisition, some by dumb luck in health and other circumstances, some by chance.

Many, at some time in their lives, will need the support available because of the inherent decency of their community, and there will always be those who begrudge it, and resent the imperfect processes by which we try to help one another. There but for fortune ...

The embittered can alway seek an alternative society, but they won't find their Aynrandistan anywhere on earth.

 

Your hyper-partisanship is noted. I respect Papa for his literary facility and do not concern myself with his hygienic habits or political proclivities.

 

Oh but you consider that by Rand a flaw. And you are getting higher and higher on that perch aren't ya Judge Bumpo?

 

I can see Bill Gates volunteer his fortune for causes you enjoy or he enjoys, but that is him giving.

I suggest this nation set forth an education program to ensure all know jobs. It was like that here in CA when i was in high school.

I had two basic choices. Take courses for employment or courses for college. I took college prep courses. This did not help me find a job but did help me learn science, math and much more.

Now it seems you go to high school to study social justice warrior courses. Such as who gets to use the toilets.

I prefer Rand since she teaches the public how to be self sufficient. This nation would be far more stronger were it's citizens self sufficient than being wards of their neighbors and loving it.

 

For those interested http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/objectivisim-to-the-ramparts.513404/

 

I accept your challenge, but over here:http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/objectivisim-to-the-ramparts.513404/ Lets see if your wisdom and knowledge match the quality of your brilliant statements.

 

Rand was a brilliant philosopher and a mediocre novelist. One reads her fiction as a parable regarding her philosophy. It is dry reading, much like The Bible in that sense. but most philosophy book are dry reading. Nonetheless, it doesn't take away one iota her brilliance in her philosophy and the fact that authoritarians and forced collectivists begin wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth at the very mention of her name. And even though I do not agree with everything she put to pen THAT is her brilliance, in a nutshell.

 

Now you do. I'm 51, have a J.D., and I take Ayn Rand very seriously.

A minor quibble, since we agree on most things, Ayn Rand destroyed Nietzsche in one of her books, so she would disagree that anything he wrote underpinned her own writing. She considered herself an Aristotelian.

You might try reading something of it first before dismissing it. Most of what passes for "logical dismantling" of Ayn Rand's philosophy is so much straw man arguments. "She's against charity!" is a prime example. No, she's against the notion that your duty to others trumps your duty to yourself. That's a far different concept than being against charity.

Paul Ryan is no free marketer, however much he may admire Ayn Rand. Paul Ryan is the worst kind of RINO. And I don't know how you figure Rand Paul is any more of an extremist than Bernie Sanders, who not only is an unabashed socialist, but also actually had a shot at the Democratic nomination. Rand Paul never got more than 10% of the Republican vote.

So you would have preferred that she keep her mouth shut about the evils of statism and socialist and communist policies because she a) benefitted from coming to the US and b) benefitted from our generous old-age funds? Tell me, who else should keep quiet? Should Jews not condemn anti-Semitism from Muslims because they benefit from our freedom of religion? Should the New York Times not condemn Donald Trump because it benefits from our freedom of the press? Should anyone who gets unemployment benefits keep quiet about how generous unemployment benefits keep people out of work longer?

By the way, I disagree with every one of those altruistic statements listed before the Ayn Rand quote. No nation's greatness was ever measured by how it treated its poor or elderly. And if our nation's greatness was measured by how we treat our children, we'd be monsters because of abortion.

What sort of half-wit makes ad hominem attacks on the right in whatever threads he comments on without adding anything substantive to the discussion?

So you would have preferred it if she had stuck to her principles and refused Social Security and Medicare and died. She was going to, by the way, William F. Buckley talked her into accepting SS and Medicare as a quid pro quo kind of deal, she'd paid into the system, so she was only hurting herself by not taking them. If she had known that taking them would be used against her philosophy later, no doubt she would have refused them. Note that's an irrelevant argument, by the way, attacking the person rather than the philosophy. Oskar Schindler was a womanizer... does that diminish in any way his noble deed? No.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...to-the-ramparts.513404/page-5#post-1068029210

 

Looks like an interesting essay, but it's pre-Rand, so I'm not sure how that counters my suggestion that you should READ Rand first before dismissing her.

 

Well I guess since you can see me get schooled anyway, I've been able to make all Ayn Rand groupies shut up with one or two sentences - my personnel experience. This, however, presupposes I know WTF they mean in the first place.

OK, maybe it's not that easy...