Atlas Shrugged and so did I...

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Values do begin with the individual. The rest is monkey see, monkey do.

Something I notice on LIT is how the LIBS squeal and fling turds at sound reasoning, then adopt it when they think no one's looking.

 

[Pure]

Amicus as devoted to Rand's principle of respect for the individual

ami There will not be a 'black' President for the next thousand years at least because we all know Charlie Wrangell, and Jesse Jackson, and Martin Luther King, very low IQ, very racist, very black, unsophisticated human beings.

Only the left wing liberal media who keep thrusting black Presidents before us in Media entertainment and laughable Black supercops and heroes would even consider the possibility.

The Negro race needs a few thousand years yet to compete on equal terms with the White, or even the Asian or Hispanic, like it or not, it be truth.

i've found some seamy things about Rand, from admiration of a killer, to adultery, to homophobia, but not like this. Rand, like some other rightwing icons, attracts the little-man haters with dreams of glory.

 

[xssve]

You cant eliminate poverty giving people money. You eliminate poverty by creating opportunities for wealth. You create wealth providing people what they want or a viable substitute for a lot less money.

Money should be thought of as Certificates of Esteem.

Now you're correct her inthe first thing, providing opportunity, although ther are times when direct payments are neccessary, a point about which you might be able to argue if you knew the first thing about the history of public welfare, and various ways and means of dealing with the poor and disdvantaged, going back to the middle ages - at least as far as say, transportation.

Still, we'll say that's a the fringe, in the mainline, creating those opportunities still requires taxation and regulation, it requires collective investment and planning in order to build and maintain the public use infrastructure that allows private firms to maximise their market potential, and in doing so creating jobs, furnishing goods and services, etc.

But money has never been any measure of esteem, indeed, people do horrendous things to get it, lie, cheat, steal, etc., and this is really the achilles heel of right wing philosophy, it renders the entire structure suspect by equating wealth with character, indeed, presenting wealth as the only valid measure of character - what this accomplishes is essentially the erosion of character: it no longer matters how you make your money as long as you get it.

Wealth worship is essentially power worship, and is absolutely contadictory to the entire idea of individualism - you can easily see this in the way republicans act in groups, i.e., any attempt to deviate from the script is swiftly crushed, it's the very essence of groupthink.

In fact, it's the collectivist bent of the right that the left finds so disturbing - you can be a liberal and not buy into global warming, you cannot buy into it publically, and still be a conservative, and that pretty much goes for everything labeled as liberal, whether in makes any sense or no, reason has nothing to do with it.

 

[xssve]

~~~

I invest a little time and effort here Xzzve, not for your benefit as you are beyond redemption, but for those who may be following your rants and awaiting my denoument that always follows.

The early colonists mimicked what they knew, it was all they knew, from the old countries; the way of Kings and land baron's and a controlled command economy and a scarcity of land ownership.

Early Americans had to, by necessity, discover amiable means of easement from one parcel of property to another, adjacencies and even through passage and the advent of private ownership and privacy, made that a challenge and it was not overcome easily and required study and codification.

Water transport is another interesting field of study, from ship building to commercialism and to the first attempts to build canals.

Road building methodology also had to be developed, the construction of bridges and land surveyors, a very interesting study in how to maximize facility of travel yet still maintain private ownership and use.

The oil fields in Pennsylvania present another problem of rights and easement for pipeline construction, as did town and city infrastructure as the population grew.

There have always been twits like you who maintain that only central control can facilitate infrastructure and you accomplish it by diminishing or diluting the concept of private ownership and use of land.

We have a long history of trying to keep you fucking politicians out of our pockets and our lives and still create and accomplish the tasks of invention and production and transportation.

You are just baggage on our back, shoo....!

Amicus...

So, you're saying it requires collective effort, consensus, recognition of rights - do tell.

Shoo? Lol, it's the fucking republicans that have put a hole in the boat, you should expend a little bit of that critical energy on your own party - oh wait, that would cast doubt on your "individualist" credentials - unless of course, everybody else is doing it.

 

[xssve]

PURE

I'm not a Rand disciple. I dont obsess about her. I read her stuff and agree with a lot of it. Just like AMICUS. I agree with most of what he posts. Some things I'm ignorant of, and some topics dont particularly float my boat.

Take Richard Dawkins. He's pretty leftist, I think. And his thinking about selfishness pretty much matches Rand's. Like, he's sympathetic to homo's but understands that dippin your stick in a guy's butt dont make babies, and making babies is the name of the game.

There are a few Lefties who've escaped the gravitational pull of the Death Star and see things accurately.

There is no Death Star, Everything about the left is about freeing oneself from coercion - lefties don't pass laws that require you to wear a belt so your underwear doesn't show, prohibit all public discussion of sexuality, or in general, require anyone to "know their place" - minding your own fucking beeswax is enough for us.

You know, just because it has the word "selfish" in the title, does not mean his thinking "matches" Rands - and once again, we see that the private behavior of others becomes a political opportunity for the "individualists", the shallow analysis here leaves little room for any sort of rational discussion, mockery is about all that remains.

So being an individual doesn't apparently mean extending that right to others, which is pretty much why everybody laughs when you idiots start braying about being "individuals" like you have the faintest idea what it means. The right is synonomous with social coercion and homogenization, the very word "diversity" is a cue for derision from the right.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sociopathic.

Anyway, so much for any attempt at in-depth discussion, that water's a fucking inch deep here.

 

[amicus]

There is no Death Star, Everything about the left is about freeing oneself from coercion - lefties don't pass laws that require you to wear a belt so your underwear doesn't show, prohibit all public discussion of sexuality, or in general, require anyone to "know their place" - minding your own fucking beeswax is enough for us.

You know, just because it has the word "selfish" in the title, does not mean his thinking "matches" Rands - and once again, we see that the private behavior of others becomes a political opportunity for the "individualists", the shallow analysis here leaves little room for any sort of rational discussion, mockery is about all that remains.

So being an individual doesn't apparently mean extending that right to others, which is pretty much why everybody laughs when you idiots start braying about being "individuals" like you have the faintest idea what it means. The right is synonomous with social coercion and homogenization, the very word "diversity" is a cue for derision from the right.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sociopathic.

Anyway, so much for any attempt at in-depth discussion, that water's a fucking inch deep here.

~~~

I am beginning to suspect that the entire discipline of sociopathology was formulated by subjective collectivists, in one guise or another, who's only purpose and function is to denigrate the individual human being in all ways possible.

I would think one would classify those who herded individuals into box cars for transportation to concentration camps and the ovens as sociopaths. Or those who formulated and construction the labor camps and Gulags of that graveyard formerly called the Soviet Union, or those little yellow monsters who flew the 'Devine Wind' into eternity to face their honorable ancestors.

The sacrifice of human life and individuality seems to be a key function of socio paths in general and your advocacy of such inhumane treatment of individuals surely qualifies you for the title, Xssve.

Talk about shallow single-mindedness, that is the definition of the left, whom you represent, wherein every word is intended to assault the individual life and liberty of any single individual who demands the right to express himself without your lordly approval.

You, like Pure, do not seem to realize how transparent your tactics are; if you can't rebut an accusation of oppression, you simply turn around and accuse your opponents of oppression and expect no one to see the ruse.

Not.

Amicus...

 

[Oblimo]

I am beginning to suspect that the entire discipline of sociopathology was formulated by subjective collectivists, in one guise or another, who's only purpose and function is to denigrate the individual human being in all ways possible.

...

You, like Pure, do not seem to realize how transparent your tactics are; if you can't rebut an accusation of oppression, you simply turn around and accuse your opponents of oppression and expect no one to see the ruse.

Are you being ironical, here, amicus?

 

[Stella_Omega]

There will not be a 'black' President for the next thousand years at least because we all know Charlie Wrangell, and Jesse Jackson, and Martin Luther King, very low IQ, very racist, very black, unsophisticated human beings.

Only the left wing liberal media who keep thrusting black Presidents before us in Media entertainment and laughable Black supercops and heroes would even consider the possibility.

The Negro race needs a few thousand years yet to compete on equal terms with the White, or even the Asian or Hispanic, like it or not, it be truth.

Amicus has now convinced me utterly-- destroyed my last lingering doubt-- proven conclusively--
that he is completely, irredeemably, delusional. Cracked, coo coo, loony, loopy and nuts. And bananas.

 

[Oblimo]

Amicus has now convinced me utterly-- destroyed my last lingering doubt-- proven conclusively--
that he is completely, irredeemably, delusional. Cracked, coo coo, loony, loopy and nuts. And bananas.

He's just trolling. (I'm an optimist, remember.)

 

[Stella_Omega]

He's just trolling. (I'm an optimist, remember.)

So am I-- I'd far rather assume he were a moron. To see someone so willing to lie to himself is simply heartbreaking. So much fear!

 

[Stella_Omega]

...I would think one would classify those who herded individuals into box cars for transportation to concentration camps and the ovens as sociopaths. Or those who formulated and construction the labor camps and Gulags of that graveyard formerly called the Soviet Union, or those little yellow monsters who flew the 'Devine Wind' into eternity to face their honorable ancestors.

yes, they were sociopaths-- they were selfish and doing what was good for them. Quite Randian, really.

The sacrifice of human life and individuality seems to be a key function of socio paths in general and your advocacy of such inhumane treatment of individuals surely qualifies you for the title, Xssve.

where did xssve advocate such? Wasn't it Rand who said; : "What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

I agree with your homogenization point. Conservatives certainly champion the idea.

I wish I had a nickle for every time I've told Muhammad and Patel they aint in Kansas anymore, and they cant tie their children up and flog them.

Coffee tables are real popular for flogging kids. Lay them face down on the table and bind feet and hands to the legs of the table. Then beat the crap out of them.

Now! I suspect you'll try and chastise me for being mean-spirited about Multi-culturalism.

 

[Pure]

"mean spirited" ? jbj?

surely not! i believe Rand's phrase is "[a] man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

and probably you agree with amicus' amendment, "a man must live for his own sake, with sole concern for his own race ..." ?



jbj I agree with your homogenization point. Conservatives certainly champion the idea.

I wish I had a nickle for every time I've told Muhammad and Patel they aint in Kansas anymore, and they cant tie their children up and flog them.

Coffee tables are real popular for flogging kids. Lay them face down on the table and bind feet and hands to the legs of the table. Then beat the crap out of them.

Now! I suspect you'll try and chastise me for being mean-spirited about Multi-culturalism.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

I subscribe to the motto of the U.S.Marine Corps, "Semper Fidelis." If you dont know Latin I'll translate: HOORAY FOR ME, AND FUCK YOU!

My daddy was a jarhead, and when I asked him what semper fidelis meant, thats what he told me. Other Marines have confirmed it.

I suspect Rand was a Marine at one time.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

yes, they were sociopaths-- they were selfish and doing what was good for them. Quite Randian, really.
[/B]

Rand's bottom line is rationality, because only living on a life based on that foundation allows an individual to acheive happiness. Given that none of us believe those sociopaths or their masters anywhere up the chain were finding happiness and living the good life in spite of or because of their crimes, the statement primarilly shows a lack of understanding of what Rand was really saying.

Real happiness requires a kind of psychological consistency. You can't divide your mind between evil "business" and honest, rational "personal" and truly achieve happiness.

BTW, "rational" doesn't mean robotic, divorced from the senses or passions, atomistically individualistic, free of any Dionysian exuberance, sensuality, etc. Among other things it means you don't adopt dishonest, destructive or unproductive habits and expect good results in your life.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

True. That's what I observe with unethical people. They snare themselves with their intrigues and scams and general manipulations.

On the other hand, people like playing the fool, believing in free lunches and unicorns, and taking zero responsibility (but all the credit for success) for their problems. Honest toil is a pain in the ass, and thinking produces headaches.

 

[Pure]

Originally Posted by Stella_Omega
//yes, they were sociopaths-- they were selfish and doing what was good for them. Quite Randian, really.//
[/B]


RoxRand's bottom line is rationality, because only living on a life based on that foundation allows an individual to acheive happiness. Given that none of us believe those sociopaths or their masters anywhere up the chain were finding happiness and living the good life in spite of or because of their crimes, the statement primarilly shows a lack of understanding of what Rand was really saying.

Real happiness requires a kind of psychological consistency. You can't divide your mind between evil "business" and honest, rational "personal" and truly achieve happiness.


P: What Rox misses, in reading Stella a bit too black-and-white, is that it's not Bill Gates versus Caligula and Bundy, rather the person who cheats a bit on the spouse (like Rand, Reagan, Dole, and Guiliani) and a bit in business (not quite Ken Lay, but more George Samenuk [McAfee] or Kobi Alexander [Comcast])** or on the job (Alberto Gonzales) and is either not found out, or not seriously penalized.

Simply put, does Rand's or Roxannes' ideal rational, consistent person put the interests of those around him (aside from current love partner, and closest friends) on an equal footing to his own.

=====
**refs

George Samenuk
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2028143,00.asp

Jacob 'Kobi' Alexander
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2006/lr19796.htm

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA, at best, always requires something like an AMERICAN PIE translation to get at the 'intelligence' buried in the noise.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

My answer to your question is 'no.'

I think people become mature when they get the idea that altruism and volunteerism and self-denial for the commonwealth are fools-errands.

 

[xssve]

~~~

I am beginning to suspect that the entire discipline of sociopathology was formulated by subjective collectivists, in one guise or another, who's only purpose and function is to denigrate the individual human being in all ways possible.

I would think one would classify those who herded individuals into box cars for transportation to concentration camps and the ovens as sociopaths. Or those who formulated and construction the labor camps and Gulags of that graveyard formerly called the Soviet Union, or those little yellow monsters who flew the 'Devine Wind' into eternity to face their honorable ancestors.

The sacrifice of human life and individuality seems to be a key function of socio paths in general and your advocacy of such inhumane treatment of individuals surely qualifies you for the title, Xssve.

Talk about shallow single-mindedness, that is the definition of the left, whom you represent, wherein every word is intended to assault the individual life and liberty of any single individual who demands the right to express himself without your lordly approval.

You, like Pure, do not seem to realize how transparent your tactics are; if you can't rebut an accusation of oppression, you simply turn around and accuse your opponents of oppression and expect no one to see the ruse.

Not.

Amicus...

Please describe how liberalism was involved in these processes - as I recall, the perpetrators of these acts were equally convinced of their own "natural" superiority and were also quite fond of applying terms like "parasite" to their victims.

Language is coercion, and your linguistics are malignant.

 

[Pure]

?

jbj PURE

My answer to your question is 'no.'

P: Not sure what question you're answering, but thanks for being concise.

 

[trysail]

Whether these guys have a better mousetrap or not is a $64,000,000,000 question. If you're interested, be sure to look at a description of the technology that appears under a separate tab on the website.

http://www.nanosolar.com
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html

In any event, it's nice to know that the operation of a free market system is having the normal beneficial effect (a/k/a encouraging conservation, substitution, risk-taking, and innovation).

"The solution to high prices is..., high prices."

 

[Stella_Omega]

Rand's bottom line is rationality, because only living on a life based on that foundation allows an individual to acheive happiness. Given that none of us believe those sociopaths or their masters anywhere up the chain were finding happiness and living the good life in spite of or because of their crimes, the statement primarilly shows a lack of understanding of what Rand was really saying.

Real happiness requires a kind of psychological consistency. You can't divide your mind between evil "business" and honest, rational "personal" and truly achieve happiness.

BTW, "rational" doesn't mean robotic, divorced from the senses or passions, atomistically individualistic, free of any Dionysian exuberance, sensuality, etc. Among other things it means you don't adopt dishonest, destructive or unproductive habits and expect good results in your life.

They weren't happy and living the good life? What an adorable little Sunday-School homily! Of course they were happy! They lived well, met girls, fell in love with them, married and supported their families in the best of the Kinder kuche und kirche style.

Hitler's program was highly pragmatic. He was positive that the Jews, Gypsies and gays were mud to be trampled underfoot for the betterment of the world-- and he did so. The fact that doings so freed up an enormous amount of personal wealth which diverted itself into his own pockets only proved that he was behaving rationally.

He, Goering, and all the little brownshirts lived very well and very happily for as long as it lasted, until the world (working in concert) managed to stop them. If their brilliant and fate-defying plan (picture perfect Great Men, they were) had succeeded, they and their children would be living happy right now. In fact, we know that a number of ex-Nazi families are living happy and wealthy in South America.

 

[Pure]

the parasite problem:

how does Rand justify her condemnation of a 'parasite' who lives off others, e.g. a con artist, a seller of Florida swampland, etc.

is the parasite being irrational? could you explain to him or her the mistake, without bringing in a moral prinicple like "It's wrong to defraud."
[in the same way you would explain irrationality to someone who owed money on a mortgage payment, and had half of it, and proposed to play the slot machines and win the other half]



is the parasite, as Rand says, leading a less than human life? (yet parasites are pretty common.)

====

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

ned parille

By way of necessary background (which Touchstone doesn't give) Randian ethics have a problem when it comes to what might be called rational parasitism. If life is the standard of value and life requires reason and productivity, what about a person who lives as a parasite on others? People who survive by looting, fraud or mooching off others appear to contradict the premises of Rand's ethics.

Touchstone explains that the general species approach employs the concept of "man qua man." This approach looks to human nature as determinative and "universalizes" ethical requirements. Human beings can't survive unless they use reason and are productive. So to the extent that an individual succeeds as a parasite, he is acting contrary to the requirements of human nature. His behavior is immoral even if it acts to extend his life.

On the other hand, there is the "long-run probability approach." If a person attempts to live as a parasite, the odds of him succeeding are minimal. People who lie ultimately get caught; people who commit crimes ultimately wind up in jail.

Incidentally, I don't think the secondary literature indicates that there are two approaches. Generally speaking, those who try to "get around" the rational parasite problem by universalizing man's ethical requirements concede that Rand didn't take this approach.

 

[gauchecritic]

for those of you who don't know latin from cumquats

semper fidelis = always faithful.