Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? : You all are missing the message

I can't believe you people, you have missed the message behind the book and the movie. Everything she wrote about is coming to fruition. She followed Thomas Jeffersons teachings. This is becoming a socialist state. Look deeper into what has happened in the last 13 years. Open your eyes work for yourselves not the government. Look up emergency economic stabilization act the government wrote. Food for thought people, it's going to get worse.

It's been eroding for far more than 13 years. It's been eroding since this nation's inception which, may I add, was already in a flawed state.

Sadly, her message was old before it was even delivered.



"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

I am thoroughly enjoying this thread. I am just curious of how people use the terms collectivsm and objectivism, and to whom and where they are applied. Obviously they are not polar opposites.
Collectivism can also be seen as egalitarian can it not? And individualism seems to mesh well with narcissistic thinking of today's youth. I can see that Nationalism - which terrifies me - is collectivist and also isolationist.

---

But to claim that the United States was doomed to destruction from inception is an anarchist fantasy. When this country stuck to the principles of individual rights and laissez faire economics, the United States had the best system in the world, you know, after they dealt with the South's feudalistic laws (slavery)but income tax was a mistake. Any taxes should be voluntary, and income tax is blatantly immoral. And central banking was not established in this country until the 20th century. This was another huge mistake. Shifting away from the gold standard was one of the biggest mistakes this country ever made. But all of these things were not a part of the principles which the U.S. was founded on. So don't preach anarchism to me while deciding that Ayn Rand's novel was "dated" upon release. Rand's message was NOT "old" - it was ahead of its time, which is why the society of today bares resemblance to the society of the novel, and not the society of, say, the 1930s, or the 1960s.

---

I have always found this a little hard to believe. So, basically, you think the USA was doing fine, then politicians changed things, evidently just for the sake of doing it, and then everything got messed up and very few people made the connection? Isn't it possible that those changes were made to help fix an economy that was changing and needed government to change with it? Right-libertarianism is a very rigid ideology. They really can't admit failure without the whole thing imploding. If their ideas failed in the past, it can only continue by putting its spin on the past.

The USA started out as a simpler, more agricultural economy and, if I remember correctly, Thomas Jefferson wanted it to stay that way, which is why he opposed stuff like centralized banking.

Look back to Teddy Roosevelt and then Woodrow Wilson for the major attacks on the Constitution. The progressives, and Roosevelt was a BIG one, have always hated the idea of a weakened central government. They want central planners to make all the decisions, believing that the people are not smart enough to know what's good for them. Women like Hillary Clinton have said as much, especially when it comes to knowing how best to spend our own money. As far as the movies, it was always going to be a daunting task to make this huge novel into a valid motion picture. That's why it took so long. The results are obviously not pleasing and leave people wanting more. Read the book. Just imagine your favorite actors in the roles and be satisfied with that.

The constitution really started eroding since 1910 with the Wilson administration. It has was slowed down in 1920 , accelerated again tin the 1930's-early 1950's slowed down in the 1950's and really speed up since the 1960's with the small slowdown during the Reagan administration. both parties contributed to this destruction.

Awesome, this thread brings the stupid quite nicely!

No. Not since the nation's inception. Your "flawed state" concept is more befitting Howard Zinn than Ayn Rand.

IT's been eroding since the late 50's.

I don't pretend to know everything about Ayn Rand's philosophy, but after reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I am impressed - even shocked - at how ahead of her time she was in her writing. And it's so, a great deal of what she wrote has happened.

Her philosophy is heavily criticized, as are many mainly because they sound great on paper. Then you get people involved and it all goes to hell.

Perhaps it needs to.

You can only prop and patch the leaning tower of Pisa so long before it ends up in pieces on the ground. And as it leans, unusable and a testament to flawed design, sweating and straining against the forces of gravity, shouldn't we simply "shrug" and let it fall so we can rebuild it into a functional, working building?

How long are we to stand by, adding patches and braces to our economy hoping to keep this ridiculously obsolete and flawed system standing?



"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

Yes. Just like propping up the failing Republican Party will only encourage their further incompetence. Better to let them lose. Then people may more easily see how destructive socialist policies are. I would vote for Rand Paul though, but he's about the only one.

But you're right. Misery is the only thing that will wake people up. And better to be quick like removing a band-aid than long lasting misery. But, I don't want the WHOLE system to fail. That would be awful.

I agree. I think our Constitution and Supreme Court work fairly well for the most part. But our bipartisan politics/elections and especially how our Congress goes about things are ridiculously flawed to the point where they really represent very little about our nation and its core beliefs.

Shouldn't we all be working toward a practical, functional system to rise in ascension to replace the current one in its decline?

And how does one go about doing that without being branded a terrorist or inciter?



"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

Was Rand correct about Socialism/Capitalism? Yes. However, not all opinions of Ayn Rand are right/just/moral.

Prisons have existed since the first established civilizations to punish law breakers. It's as simple as that. You shouldn't have a problem with this, since the United States is a Republic and thus, a nation of laws. When the law is broken, the offenders should be punished. Prisons are a necessity to a lawful society.

The only issue we should take with prisons, is that their governance can be changed and twisted/turned to support immoral practices For instance, jailing Japanese, Germans & Italians during WW2, merely for being Japanese, German or Italian.

The drug war was and has been a waste of money, I'll grant you that. However, drugs should not be legalized. They're a common/constant drag on society. Legalizing drugs will not have a beneficial result in the United States. I'm not sure what you're actually looking for to get high all the time, perhaps? But legalizing drugs will only continue to create a complacent, stupefied and dependent population. Even marijuana has lasting effects on your body/brain, which despite common argument, cannot be refuted.

The drug war enforces legal racism? This coming from a guy that claims abortion is a moral "right," when abortion is legalized infanticide and has led to the murdering of millions of black babies every year. Please stop race-baiting Not everything is about race except abortion, that is. Started by a rabid racist and eugenicist.

Mocking gay marriage or just not supporting it? How about getting government out of marriage, altogether? Would that please you? It would please me.

I hear we are getting a Railroad!

Who are you talking about? The lady who railed against social benefits, and then applied for and received social benefits herself?

Do you mean Alisa Rosenbaum?

The message as put is good in theory, but lacking in reality. Then again I find that of all such things. Communism sounds great for people until you put human nature into the mix. Same goes for democracy when you put human greed into the mix. All such ideas are good in paper, impractical in practice.

-
In a fair universe, we would all be better people.

---

The message as put is good in theory

---

i think you're too generous - most of objectivism isn't even good in theory, as it's based on the fantasies of a woman who was profoundly clueless about human nature.

i don't think communism is much better (at least not the version from the communist manifesto), but at least it attempted to address real-world problems of the time.

democracy, wellif we ever have one here in the usa, i'll let you know what i think of it then.

Democracy is scary stuff.

Rand's theories/philosophies were based on the exceptions as opposed to the rule. It's nice that she had enough (faith?) in mankind to see the potential greatness of the few and encourage that in all, but the very fact that her ideas are scoffed, mocked and ridiculed demonstrates that very few people have that kind of faith in mankind.



**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.

forget communism, if you really want to see income leveling on a grand scale, implement true democracy.

you and i have been back and forth on this many times, but my problem with her is that she often misinterprets a strength as a weakness - altruism being a prime example. that you're able to get something positive from her stuff is more a credit to your reworking her concepts into something rational than the actual concepts themselves.

everything i've read of hers shows a profound lack of faith in mankind. only the rarest of men is worth having alive, the rest are mere tools to implement their wills, at best.

But she wasn't opposed to altruism (if that is what the person chooses to do). But she did not see forced altruism as anything but negative. She also saw altruism as something that weakened the benefactor which also she saw as a negative.

I wouldn't say she had a lack of faith in mankind but she saw man's lack of faith in his own ability led to a squandered existence that was ripe for the pickin' by those who strived for achievement.

I think we, today, have a better understanding of human psychology than she could have ever hoped to have. Her philosophy certainly has more applications, if all men were equal. Then it would be up to one's talents, skills and motivations.

As it is, there are entirely too many other factors to consider. I, for one, am not a proponent for leaving a blind and crippled lad on the side of the road and expecting him to make his own way, leech or not.



**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.

i will grant that either rand had not a glimmer of what altruism is, or willfully misrepresented it for whatever purpose. "forced altruism" is, of course, an oxymoron right up there with "forced volunteerism", to argue against it is to argue against nonsense.

how can you say that we have a better understanding of human psychology than she could have ever hoped to have? even the ancient greeks had a better understanding of human psychology than rand! she was a bit too diligent in keeping her mental cupboards clean.

---

how can you say that we have a better understanding of human psychology than she could have ever hoped to have?

---

I say this because I don;t think she really had an interest in it (unlike the Greeks) After all, psychology itself isn;t really measurable and therefore cannot be ruled objectively, can it?
To Rand, it might as well have been a religion.



**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.

Actually, I always thouht Equality had to be Sacrificed in the name of Objectivism anyway. Ater all, omne you dmit there are some peopel who ar Truly innovative and Creative, and then reward them, you admit theeis an unequel distribution of Talent and ABility. Not veryone can be creative innovators.

Equality is a Pipe Dream anyway as we arent all capable fo the same things.

Gang-rapes are democracy in action.

---

Gang-rapes are democracy in action.

---

Boy, I bet the people to whom you say that really HATE that one!
(I also imagine they then proceed to attack your lack of sensitivity toward rape victims, rather than truly analyze what that sentence means)




**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.

perhaps you can explain this offensive gibberish to the rest of us, since you've analyzed it so carefully?

Let me give it a shot:
7 males, albeit demented ones, and 1 female are in a locked room. THey all take a vote to see if the female should be raped. 7 yes votes and 1 no vote, motion carries. He has a valid point, although a sick method of expressing it, as to the fact that pure democracy isn't a concept that can be put into practice.

In the absence of context I can't know for certain, however, since every western democracy I can think of has a constitutional restrictions that protect minorities, the odds are severely against that comparison EVER being valid.

No, far more likely this is a line that gets thrown out to derail an actual discussion, the intelligent people simply roll their eyes and mark him off as having nothing to contribute, the less astute could be very impressed though when they fail to think it through all the way.

---

7 males, albeit demented ones, and 1 female are in a locked room. THey all take a vote to see if the female should be raped. 7 yes votes and 1 no vote, motion carries.

---

Did the female vote "yes" or "no"?




My New Year's resolution is to simply write 2014 2015 instead of 2014"
.

One thign I am always puzzled by is when peopel contrast Communism to Democracy, as if somehow they are two different things. The prohlem is, Communism is Democratic. It is a kind of Democracy. Marx didnt reject Demcoracy, he fully emrbaced it. The enture poitn fo Communism os to create a fully Democratic society.

No, I am not a Communist, I just unerstsnd it.

These were social benefits (social security, Medicare) she had been forced to pay into her entire adult life. Of course she applied for and received them.

There were others who spoke against those things and stayed true to their conviction, refusing to apply for them.

---

Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Pat Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a Ponzi fraud and told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.

---

While I disagree with them, I have to admire their commitment to their ideals. Then there is Rand:

---

In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand , McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality.

---

Basically, her worldview couldn't stand up to the way the world actually worked. And while it is true that she "paid in" to the system, it's been shown time and again that people take out more than they put in, which is why many fear that these programs will eventually fail unless something is done to fix them. Treatment for lung cancer ain't cheap, which Ms. Rand needed due to the fact that she "believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax", and was a two-pack-a-day smoker.

---

"The lady who railed against social benefits, and then applied for and received social benefits herself?"

---

She involuntarily paid into the Social Security "Retirement" program for many years. Receiving a retirement benefit and railing against the plethora of transfer programs which do not require any responsibility by the recipient are not in conflict.

For example: in a 40 year career, my employer and I paid into Social Security $168,205 and Medicare $65,414 - total of $233,619. Those are actual dollars starting in 1965. Adjusted to 2010 money, this would be $397,838. $142/month is deducted from the Social Security check for Medicare Part A, B and D. An additional $112 for Medicare Supplemental insurance is paid monthly. It is a lousy retirement program for those who contribute but great welfare for those who were not responsible enough to think about their elder years.

"The problem with Socialism is, eventually you run out of other peoples' money." Margaret Thatcher

First trillion dollar budget was FY'87 with a 242m population. 2014 - population at 133%, budget up 380%. The folks in the District should be carefully watched in a SuperMax facility - misuse of $3.8 trillion must be a crime.

So you consider legal taxation to be "robbery", and someone who spent a lifetime railing against the "takers" of benefits then taking benefits themselves when they were in need is just "robbing the robbers"? I assume Ms. Rand didn't keep an account of how many of her tax dollars were paid into Social Security and Medicare and only accepted benefits up to that dollar amount. Also, it's plain that even she felt that she was being a hypocriteotherwise, why use an assumed name (which is a crime in itself) to receive those benefits? She was embarrassed, and didn't want to have to tell her emotionally stunted acolytes that while it may be easy to espouse ones' ideals, it's not always easy to adhere to them, and that the black and white world of "makers and takers" that she wrote about wasn't real, and the real world was far more complicated.

That's the point. We have a constitution to limit government and protect the private property of individuals. For legitimate government functions we should pay. However, It is not the function of government to plan your retirement or provide your healthcare.

The takers believe themselves entitled to someone else's property because they need it. Their need justifies the taking. Redistribution of private property by government shows a complete lack of respect for the individual. It assumes that all property belongs to the collective. We should consider ourselves lucky that they let us keep as much as they do.

---

However, It is not the function of government toprovide your healthcare.

---

So in your ideal world people who can't afford to pay for their own healthcare would just be told to go home and die?

Yes we should all pay heed to a work of fiction from a woman who received government handouts for years. The same handouts she dare judged others for using.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html

I see nothing wrong with taking back what was taken from you in the first place.



"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3