Has Anyone Else Read “Atlas Shrugged?”

And here I thought everyone read it in high school and was blown away with how wonderfully rational it all sounded. And within a few years, realized they'd been hornswoggled by one-dimensional politics mouthed by cardboard characters who were basically selfless, flawless, and mindless. Today, Randroids are as rare as Marxists, and for the same reason - political systems contrary to human nature are doomed to be stillborn wherever anyone is dumb enough to try to implement them.

Now, a gadget that could generate useful current out of the "static electricity" that's "in the air" would be a kewl device, save for the fact that Rand's physics was as deep as her politics.

 

I see no evidence that he read the book, however he could have skimmed it and are allowing others to form his opinion for him, at least those that reside in his echo chamber.

 

No, it's about people being property. Since most of us aren't chimpanzees, we're not supposed to handed out to the alpha males favorites to do as they want.

You're trying to pretend voluntary membership in a community is the same as giving the community leaders title to your body.

A person's responsibility to the community he lives in is limited to supporting himself and his family, not becoming a burden to others, and not acting in a manner that causes harm to other persons or their property.

That's it.

The Mayor is not King Obama's subject, liable for every stupid tax the King wishes to impose, nor is he subject to the rule of the all the retards that voted for King Obama, Fascist and Traitor. In the United States of America, ESPECIALLY in the United States, the citizen is a sovereign, not a subject. The Constituiton was written, and ratified, to protect the sovereign individual's freedom FROM GOVERNMENT ABUSE. The RATS have rejected the Constitution, but the sovereign citizens are still not their property.

 

No. In the real world, a national defense is necessary and it is of benefit to everyone in the entire nation. People who do not wish to contribute to this nation's defense have the freedom to move to another nation.

There is not now, and has never been, a national need for, nor Constitutional authority to create, soup kitchens. Compelling people to fund such impositions under threat of death, damage, and property loss, is a direct violation of the person's natural right to say "no". (not "nee").

Remember, FTIW.

 

Libertarians don't sacrifice the communal aspects of life. Most of them will gladly share their bongs, man.

What libertarians recognize is that VOLUNTEER societies are far more functional, and less neurotic than compulsory service of any sort.

Just in case you missed the memo, human societal evolution is Lamarckian, not Darwinistic. That's because genomes can't learn, people can, except, of course, those idiots that re-elected King Obama, Fascist and Traitor. So what may have worked in a family tribe of a few dozen at most isn't practical or efficient, or even right for nation states spanning continents and containing a third of a billion people.

But good try, at least you spelled evolution correctly and realized that human evolution has a role. Just remember, the secret is to keep banging the rocks together.

 

No of course not, don't be ridiculous. But it does take a constitutional ammendment that must be ratified by 3/4 of the states to change even a single part of the "government America is to have". So what the founders said is, to say the least, EXTREMELY important and your attempt to trivialize what they said is kind of ignorant (just sayin). Are you from the U.S.? If not, I can understand where you're coming from.

 

In the fantasy world of Ayn Rand, such arbitrary compliance with societal norms may work wonderfully. In the real world?

Cite a single instance in the history of civilisation where a society did not establish enforceable standards of behaviour for all who advantaged its benefits - under either self-governance as in the US, or under any less democratic regimes.


The natterninnies that constantly spew their pabulum over Americans' twice-electing the President are welcome to retreat into the fictive confections of Rosenbaumland, but distinguishing such escapist pulp from reality is still prudent.

 

AYN RAND AS A PERSON:

She always blamed others. --Walker, pg. 250
Her big break came from stalking Cecil B. DeMille, not meeting him by chance, as she claimed. --Heller, pg. 62
Her former attorney, Hank Holzer, said she was such a prick and a terrible person to deal with . --Walker, pg. 255
She deserved condemnation for her hypocrisy, dishonesty, and megalomania. --Walker, pg. 266
Took Dexadrine every day for 40 yrs --Walker, pg. 267

Smoked two packs of cigarettes a day. Rejected evidence that smoking was harmful. Got lung cancer, then demanded that it be kept secret. --Walker, pg. 268, 269

Led a squalid private life --Weiss, pg. 5
Showed explosive rage. --Branden, pg. 308
There was madness and enormous anger in her eyes. --Branden, pg. 308
Showed near paranoia, violent temper, and blindness to any context but her own. --Branden, pg. 337

Had a need to make severe moral pronouncements at every conceivable occasion, charged with heat and indignation, using the word EVIL frequently. --Branden, pg. 259

Will Rogers in reverse - there were few people she didn't dislike --Weiss, pg. 7
A shockingly amoral belief system --Weiss, pg. 94
Didn't mention the rich relatives she could call upon for help, like when she needed an abortion --Weiss, pg. 13
Hated religion, especially Christianity --Weiss, pg. 143

SOURCES:
Branden “MY YEARS WITH AYN RAND” by NATHANIEL BRANDEN
Burns “GODDESS OF THE MARKET, AYN RAND AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT” by JENNIFER BURNS
Heller “AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE” by ANNE C. HELLER
Walker ”AYN RAND CULT” by JEFF WALKER
Weiss “AYN RAND NATION” by GARY WEISS

 

Of course it's extremely important, but you're missing my point. We don't live back in 1787 when it was signed. We live 225 years later, and a whole lot has happened since. The founders are long gone. It's not the 18th century anymore. Social norms have changed. America's importance on the world stage has changed dramatically. Technology and science have advanced by leaps and bounds. Tons of court rulings have been made and even more laws passed. We had a civil war.

We simply don't and can't have the government we had back then. That was a birth of a nation in another time and culture. Lest you forget, it was one where only land-owning white males were given the vote, slavery was not addressed, and Britain remained a threat. Heck, one third of the population was sympathetic to the crown when the Revolutionary War started. States were much more sovereign. There was no standing army. Life was much more agrarian. Much of North America still belonged to the Native American tribes.

It's just silly. It's like when Christians want to go back to the "purity" of 1st century Christianity, while failing to realize that 1st century Christianity was adapted for that time period and culture. You can't go back, not when you're a 21st century American.

 

I'd love to believe that. Can you give me an real life example of such a society? I'm not talking about a hippie commune or book club here. An actual country where this has been tried.

How is he any more of a fascist or traitor than any other president we've had or congressman? What about SCOTUS? Are they fascists and traitors too? What is Obama uniquely doing that everyone else in government isn't when it comes to violating libertarian principles?

 

Regardless of flaws and Demonization Ayn Rand was Brilliant, she held a high iq, knowledge of the reality of the soviet union FDR was copying with a naive veiw of the realities of stalinist practices. She wrote a book that is still a best seller today showing the timelessness of her work without ever actually becoming popular in the public media. Of course why would she be, she showed such disdain for the "public" in her Novels, both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She did absolutely hate Christianity, Christ was the ultimate contradictory symbol of altruism. However their is much that her book generally predicted correctly, there is also much that was exaggerated, its clear that Any Rand as an intellectual felt alienated in society, misunderstood and as if she did not fit, this is not uncommon for those with higher than average intellegence, neither are socalled mental disorders like bipolar disorder. Randroids are uncommon, but this doesn't mean there is nothing of value to take from Rands stories of crooked politics and media, or of the importance of the individual, especially those of creative prowess.

 

Still worth repeating----

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."----John Rogers

 

The existence of a military is in no way at odds with what I said, if that is what you are implying. I recognize the need of a military as well, but do not think it should be paid for through force or threatened violence or coercion against those that military would serve to protect.

 

ATLAS SHRUGGED'S HITLERIAN HEROES:

JOHN GALT: Tall, trim, blond hair, blue eyes
DAGNY: Tall, trim, blond hair, blue eyes
RAGNAR: Tall, trim, blond hair, blue eyes

HANK REARDEN: Tall, blond hair, blue eyes
FRANCISCO: Tall, trim
DR. AKSTON: Tall, trim, blue eyes

HALLEY: Tall, trim
WYATT: Tall, blue eyes
WILLERS: Blond hair, blue eyes

In some cases, Rand didn't indicate eye color, hair color, height, or build for a character. Only one person in the book, a “Rand bad” government bureaucrat named Cuffy Meigs, had brown eyes. They were described twice as bleary brown eyes and once as blurred brown eyes.

 

Nope, you're missing the point. If you want to change what the founders established it takes an ammendment and ratification by 3/4 of the states. If you don't do that, what the founders said STANDS!

 

So the Federal government has been going by what the founders said, with the exception of the added amendments, since 1781? And no SCOTUS rulings have altered that understanding, nor any laws passed, nor any powers granted during war time? What exactly are you trying to say?

 

RAND'S OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY, RAND & MONEY, & A FREE DOWNLOAD:

Objectivism is preoccupied with contempt and disgust for the real world. --Walker, pg. 17

What always seems to trip up Objectivists is reality --Weiss, pg. 199

Rand declined to debate her philosophy with Dr. Albert Ellis, or any other prominent person who opposed her belief system --Weiss, pg. 74

A sealed world became her only answer --Heller, pg. 48

Ayn Rand's heroes were the accumulators of money; whether earned or inherited, it didn't make a difference --Weiss, pg. 10

FREE DOWNLOAD OF DR. ALBERT ELLIS' BOOK: http://walden3.org/index.htm (Rand was afraid to debate him!!)

SOURCES:
Branden “MY YEARS WITH AYN RAND” by NATHANIEL BRANDEN
Burns “GODDESS OF THE MARKET, AYN RAND AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT” by JENNIFER BURNS
Heller “AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE” by ANNE C. HELLER
Walker ”AYN RAND CULT” by JEFF WALKER
Weiss “AYN RAND NATION” by GARY WEISS
Ellis “ARE CAPITALISM, OBJECTIVISM, & LIBERTARIANISM RELIGIONS? YES!” by DR. ALBERT ELLIS

 

Ironically...those are the hiring qualifications to be a Fox News.host.

- - - Updated - - -

What did the Founders have to say about Internet privacy? Remember, no "interpretations".....ONLY what they said specifically about Internet privacy.

 

They certainly seem to place a premium on looks for their female anchors. As for the males, some of them must have been grandfathered in.

 

Ten pages a day was all I could stand. That in no way hurt my understanding. If anything, it enhanced it. I read the book carefully. After reading it everyday I spent much time entering relevant information into a spreadsheet, which enabled my video and various lists you will see later in the thread. Your post is wrong on many counts but I appreciate polite dissent.

 

You are totally wrong. My stuff is original. Try to find it on the Internet! If something ISN'T original it's ATLAS SHRUGGED, which Rand copied from 1920s business theory and plagiarized from Ernest Bramah's book THE SECRET OF THE LEAGUE.

 

If the actors smoked like the characters in the book, half the cast would have lung cancer by the end of ATLAS SHRUGGED 3

 

Sounds like you are pulling a Rush Limbaugh who is now accusing, from his echo chamber, liberals of being in an echo chamber. You seem to be assuming that the mixed-critique biographies are the honest ones. Are you a fan of false equivalence?

 

I was tempted to donate to PF until I noticed their penchant for shutting down mildly anti-Republican threads while letting egregiously inflammatory, dishonest anti-Democratic threads stay up.

 

An excellent case can be made for the idea that Atlas Shrugged is the opposite of the Bible.