LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
...to equate economic position with moral position.
He describes Objectivism as Marxism for the Right, but seems to cling to the teachings of Marx!
If you are going to eschew these ideologies, I suggest you do so with the idea of replacing them both with something better.
An idea or ideology can serve to move society forward. But more often, it is simply used to explain why people feel or think about things the way they do.
Marx accused "the rich" (capital) of being criminals.
Rand accuses "the poor" (labor) of being criminals.
The fact is: Criminals are criminals!
Whether or not you can think rationally about survival across the dynamics (be ethical) and show that rationality in your life depends less on your economic or class level than it does on your state of mind.
Criminals who found their ways into positions of power or influence have always tried to paint a picture of the world that hides the fact that sometimes criminals find their way into positions of power or influence!
I don't really know why it is so hard for people to recognize the truth except for the fact that a false picture has for so long been provided to us, and many of us have invested in that picture and so have become party to its dishonesty.
Criminals exist in society.
The major problems of society are caused by criminals.
Presidents can be criminals. Skid row bums can be criminals.
The problem to be solved is the problem of the criminal mind.
It is not particularly a problem of how governments or societies are organized, of banking and monetary systems, of state versus private control over resources and information. It is not even a problem of which ETs are lying to us, or if there are any who are telling us the truth.
It is the problem of the criminal mind.
If you are familiar with my comments, you are aware that I believe this problem has basically been solved, but that criminals have successfully "criminalized" the solution.
But be that as it may, my thesis, if true, provides a marvelous simplification of the problem and a new way to think in terms of solutions.
I hope SOTT readers will consider it.
Sorry but the author bends things outrageously!
As just one example, Greenspan was the shame of the objectivists movement when he was in the reserve - they very much disowned him, and as an example of how he DIDN'T continue to follow her philosophy, one of the essays he contributed to that collection was about how currency must be based on Gold...
Her biggest thing was getting Government OUT of people's lives, almost all the businessman "capitalists" she portrays as evil for manipulating government to give them favors. Her heros are the few that want to be left alone. She hated the same businesses as we do for the same reason we do.
The Altruism she hated was the anti-life philosophy of Kant - famous for saying that if one Gaines in any way from doing something it cannot have been a "good" thing, it can only be Truely "good" if it causes you suffering and loss to do it. Which is Truely sick.
If Objectivism is philosophy for psychopaths then we are in Big trouble because Huge numbers of people find it tremendously life affirming and positive.
I can very much assure you that their would be No room in Ayn Rands world for almost Any modern politician - Especially a neo con.
The closest you would find is Ron Paul. (who named his son Rand Paul)
This is still bugging me - I hate the unfairness of it.
All I can say to Ruth is look at Ron Paul, That is someone who Truely believes in Ayn Rand - He is NOT a psychopath!
From the article:
"The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate"
I really don't find that life affirming or positive at all.
I agree, the author contradicts himself when he says...
" It is harder to see what it gives the ordinary teabaggers, who would suffer grievously from a withdrawal of government"
... I think Rand would have wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
Businesses currently co-opt's the government to cloak their sins and manipulate regulatory law to support their unfair schemes to make money at the expense of a real capitalism in favor of a crony capitalism ... If commerce operated, as Rand suggests government would NOT be able to manipulate commerce, and survival of a business would to more of an extent be contingent on its deeds, reputation / usefulness and quality of it's wares rather than by regulation.
If the system were as Rand Suggests, AIG, GM and all of the other companies that stole and manipulated their way to making billions at the expense of others would today be out of business, however the Government intervened contrary to Rands Moral Hazard concept!
In my view, Rand may well have been trying to describe psychopathology when she talked about the "refuse" and "parasites" which having read Sott for a few years is exactly what Psychopaths are!
I think falling into the left / right debate is as always unhelpful. Like most normal human beings Rand got some things wrong, but more importantly she got some things right, which I think is undeniable in light of the fact that the world looks today pretty much how she predicted it would like.
Do Psychopaths see her book as a manifesto ??? I think Psychopaths have used many "books" as justification to manipulate, steal and control the masses :)
"If Objectivism is philosophy for psychopaths then we are in Big trouble because Huge numbers of people find it tremendously life affirming and positive."
...Why yes, we ARE in Big Trouble (with a capital 'B' and 'T'). Strange that you haven't noticed...
Desire originates in the pure soul, but it becomes perverted with lust, anger, greed, madness, illusion, and envy when it is manifested through a materialistic mind that delves in self interest without any care or concern for welfare of others around us. It is something like pure white light being transformed into colored light when in shines through stained colored glass. And that same desire, when offered in the service of Lord, regains its original pure nature. Messengers of God like Jesus taught us how to regain that love of God. Psychopaths like Ayn Rand teach us how to serve the selfishness within us. This is just animalistic living and not a life a rational and love that we are meant to live as humans.
I've never seen piece as vicious and hate-filled, and as full of lies as this one. I would no more attempt to refute it than I would council a serial killer on civil behavior. Anyone who believes this, deserves what they get.
But there is something else here that does merrit attention.
The author will be getting an education on copyright infringement, and property rights.
Hopefully it will be expensive.
look like the male psychopath from the film "Ain't no country for old men" [Link].
As for Alan Greenspan, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh I am not at all surprised, they are pathologicals to the back bone. Well, listen to Limbaugh's psychopathic interviews on TYT, he's basically hating the poor people, loves the corporate bosses and promotes destruction, can't stop with his racism, etc. [Link] [Link] [Link]
Greenspan did not co-edit Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, he contributed a couple of chapters which were edited by Ayn Rand, as was the entire book.
That's the smallest problem with the above article, which misrepresents Ayn Rand and the events in her novel Atlas Shrugged.
Sometimes the Tea Party movement and similar organizations misrepresent her, such as the so-called "Ayn Rand Institute" founded after her death. You can read about it at
www.ARIwatch.com
George Monbiot you ignorant slut!
You must want to be funny
however
all you can do is play the fool.
You behave like a malevolent child w/ brain damage hurling insults at your betters.
You never read Atlas Shrugged
and
the articles about it went way over your head.
In Ayn Rands philosophy there is "MORAL Capitalism"
and
not many people understand that concept,
especially the billionaires that abound these daze.
An essential component of this Morality
and
of the HIGHEST ideal is the;
"honestly negotiated contract"
most recently presented as
"WIN/WIN" By Steven Covey
although the epistemology lies in Rand's writing.
Another cornerstone of Rand's philosophy is
"the initiation of force is immoral."
You bring up the word Greed as in the "greed is good" line from the Oliver Stone movie "Wall street"
which based on a statement supposedly deliver in a speech by Micheal Milken. I always had a problem with that speech in the movie because Ayn would have written it(she really did) so much better and used the Word "EGO".
EGO is a driving force of a Moral Capitalist.
Rand's writing on EGO is the epistemology of the little
"greed is good line".
A moral capitalist would not
initiate force or engage in a dishonestly negotiated contract
so therefore
would not be of a nature
to commit a crime
against others.
Government would involve gathering an ad-hoc committee of the smartest minds in the field to come together
to find a solution
which would be the singular clearly defined goal.
There are shared concerns in a civilized society e.g. National Defense that people would contribute a head tax too.
Even charity would not be abolished as Ayn Rand wrote,
that it is perfectly natural to want to help out those worse off,
just that it was wrong to allow altruism to create a situation
where those you help
put reins on you.
There are millions of people
that have kept Atlas Shrugged selling
and
in print in different countries
and
languages all these years so it might also inspire the recently produced motion picture based upon it.
Yes it is a long book
and
clearly too much for you to comprehend
however
Ayn did explain,
that a philosophy that you can put in a nutshell
no doubt belongs there.
No
I did not go out
and find the exact Ayn Rand writings
to answer every one of the points you make
that prove
you found the novel
beyond your comprehension.
My altruism in writing this has tired me
and
it is for naught.
To quote the bible
"do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
Any Ayn Rand scholar can discern
from "YOUR RANT"
what the epistemological underpinnings of your philosophy is
and
why you find it hard to think for yourself,
as an individual,
against such an apparently relentless and tragically successful indoctrination
by the agents of immorality,
as that,
is at the core of Ayn Rands work.
Psychopaths must be relieved that they can finally 'celebrate' their lack of humanity using this book as justication. I suppose you can almost pick who is a psychopath, by their response to the book. It's almost like a flag going up.
Well, I suppose those medieval princes had Machiavelli. We have the modern equivalent with Ayn Rand.