Containing Multitudes Since 2004
That picture makes me RANDY!
Galt-y as charged.
The most overrated "intellectual" in American literary history. Simplistic, one-dimensional rantings and ravings, masquerading as serious political philosophizing. I mean, have you ever actually read "Atlas Shurgged"? It just may be the worst single book ever written in the English language. I forced myself to slog through it in my 20's, and by the time I was done, I thought my brain might never work again. Relentlessly repetitive, sophomoric drivel.And to think a potential Vice-President of the United States considered her "work" to be his great inspiration! Frightening.
Damn. She sorta looks like Patricia Neal in Fountainhead.
The Queen of (Sexy) Solipsism.
Commenting on blogs is collectivist.
And yet, Ayn Rand was right! What WILL happen when the "producers" finally say screw it and let the "takers" fend for themselves?Can Obama fix your toilet or fill a cavity? Can any politician or CEO or media mogul do ANYTHING other than spend other people's money? Nope. As Rand said, only those with marketable skills benefit the world. And only free enterprise and private ownership of property support gaining those skills.For all those who believe the politician can give you a better life, sorry the truth is so upsetting.
Well, that's where Left meets Right. Anarchists of both the Malatesta AND the Libertarian variety see politicians as worthless grifters. But that Randian nonsense about meaningful contributions being bound up in markets... no.
Free Markets reward meaningful contributions -- thus encouraging more of the same. Politicians reward only those things that keep them in power -- thus encouraging corruption, suppression of truth, and statism.
You're stopping short in the analysis -- if governments are tyrannical (and they are), then so-called free markets are coercive and depend on... GOVERNMENTS for their very existence. Chuck it all...
Tyranny is NOT all or nothing! The smaller the govt (less money, less regulation, less power, etc) the FREE-er the market. Tyranny comes in shades (allthough it always seeks to be black). Ideally, people would be bright enough to need no govt at all. But they aren't yet. So we still need some level of govt. As Rand says herself.My point all along has been that Objectivism is the correct view. And those who dismiss it are just wrong. Assuming we all want the best for humanity, that is. Some don't.
Markets ain't never free. I just posted a Bakunin spiel -- speaking of someone who had unappetizing ideas.
I think your comment reflects a "binary" view of the term Free Market. Rand's message of Objectivism is our way out and, dare I say, the way Forward. It will take some time and misery for it to become apparent.
Not binary -- just axiomatic -- markets presuppose private property, full stop. Rand works backwards from her primary assumptions about Capitalism, without acknowledging this basis of markets in legally ensconced theft. Also, Rand was a vile bigot, which is in no way surprising. Her staunchest followers are disproportionately white. So this love embrace of centralized markets is popular among historically privileged people who never discuss the connection between, say, "free" markets and slavery.
Also, let's not forget that markets reward psychopathic behavior...
Projection is a bad trait in an adult. She was hardly a tyrant.
The eye is a projector, not a camera.
As the above posters say, we have two choices. Except they're not the ones they say. Actually you have to choose between politics and perpetual war.
Post a Comment