ayn rand is a dumb

[HEAD ICE]

i have a collection of ayn rand essays and for laughs i decided to read one. man the bullshit this woman spews is straight hilarity. Here are some quotes from an essay called "The Roots of War"


Men are afraid that war might come because they know, consciously or subconsciously, that they have never rejected the doctrine which causes wars, which has caused the wars of the past and can do it again - the doctrine that it is right or practical or necessary for men to achieve their goals by means of physical force (by initiating the use of force against other men) and that some sort of "good" can justify it.

hahahahhahahhhahahahhahha oh ayn rand you make my materialist heart melt dialectically with your nonsense


Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production.

woooooooooo "free country" wtf woooooooooo


Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.
..... Germany and Russia needed war; the United States did not and gained nothing. (In fact, the United States lost, economically, even though it won the war: it was left with an enormous national debt, augmented by the grotesquely futile policy of supporting former allies and enemies to this day.) Yet it is capitalism that today's peace-lovers oppose and statism that they advocate - in the name of peace.

Great analysis there Rand. Congratulations on graduating from the third grade.

and now for the greatest quote of all time:


Let those who are actually concerned with peace observe that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history - a period during which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world - from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.

make ti stop pleeaaaaaaase make it stop

I refuse to believe that this can convince anybody of anything other than Ayn Rand is a fucking poop brain.

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest, I think that her attempts at philosophy are hilarious (although they were nice targets for high school essays back in the day), and everything else is just kind of there. To be fair, after reading the former I had no real desire to go through the latter in much detail, so I may have missed some of the better bits.

"Guys, I am a consequentialist. Also, we have inalienable rights."

[graymouser]

Objectivism is brain candy for self-centered individuals; it tells them that they are great and society is holding them back. Until recently her main appeal was to young, college freshman aged males. Lately there has been something of an uptick of older, self-absorbed people to read Rand as a "solution" to the current crisis. Note the common thread.

[HEAD ICE]

The best part of Ayn Rand is that you can tell that she knows what she is writing is bullshit, so she injects these flexible meaningless weasel words in so she or her followers can defend it when they get called out. "Free country", "civilized world" etc..

[Lt. Ferret]

Your chances of being an Objectivist rise in accordance with your WoW level, and basement dwell time.

[Amphictyonis]

i have a collection of ayn rand essays and for laughs i decided to read one. man the bullshit this woman spews is straight hilarity. Here are some quotes from an essay called "The Roots of War"

.
"Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production"


And how are 'foreign markets' opened up for exploitation....I mean, trade/production? The US military. It's happening now in the middle east and has been going on since the beginnings of capitalism. Capitalism cannot survive unless it perpetually expands and (below) Japan didn't want to "open up it's economy" to capitalism. In order for capitalism to survive this was achieved at the end of a gun barrel. The story remains the same today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_C._Perry

Rand, like most capitalists, is completely living in a fantasy land of dumb.


Also, how is private ownership of the means of production enforced without a state?

[L.A.P.]

On her wikipedia page it shows that one of the main people influenced by her was Glenn Beck so I think that goes to show how intelligent she was.

[Havet]

Your chances of being an Objectivist rise in accordance with your WoW level, and basement dwell time.

That means that, when I was an objectivist, I was also an outlier! Sweet! Fuck WoW!

[Havet]

Also, how is private ownership of the means of production enforced without a state?

Objectivism supports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Politics:_individual_rights _and_capitalism) a State.

[Revolution starts with U]

I play WoW, and I absolutely abhor objectivism.
Tho I did think that was hilarious Lt. Most WoW'ers (pvp'ers at least) are libertarian fuckwits.

[IcarusAngel]

The statement that unproductive countries might start attacking others might be true - that's why the US has made Latin America its ***** since basically the founding of the United States - "our little workshop that never hurt anybody" to paraphrase FDR.

Other than that that analysis of World War I and World War II is terrible. The US benefited tremendously from World War II, engaged in dollar imperialism, and basically constructed the world in its favor so that it could not be outcompeted by the likes of Japan etc. (the US controlled their oil exports even up to the 70s, giving them "veto power" - it also controlled their industry in other ways and forced them to take unproductive routes in their electronics industry. Now that the US has lost its power Japan is actually pretty stable now, and it and Germany are doing quite well with an economy that isn't so focused on "growth").

[Morgenstern]

Oh Ayn Rand. By the way, OP is drunk. I wouldn't waste my time reading Rand when I'm drunk.

Her quotes are quite good to fool average Americans, I'm pretty sure that last one can fool lots of people. She was the original troll of 20th century politics. Glenn Beck can only try to copy her style.

[NGNM85]

Let's not forget that Objectivism is fundamentally fallacious, there is no such thing as discrete interests, in society.

[Sir Comradical]

"Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance...World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland."

Unforgivable.

[Purple]

Her fiction is amazing though, Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece. Whether or not you agree with her, she certainly makes you think.

And I'm pretty sure I got to know everything about managing a railway company after readings Atlas Shrugged! :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Her fiction is amazing though, Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece. Whether or not you agree with her, she certainly makes you think.

I can't tell if this is a joke post or not. I thought Atlas Shrugged was terrible.

[Bud Struggle]

I can't tell if this is a joke post or not. I thought Atlas Shrugged was terrible.

A lot of people like it--and it's making a big comeback. From Wiki:

Atlas Shrugged received largely negative reviews after its 1957 publication,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged#cite_note-6) but achieved enduring popularity and consistent sales in the following decades. In the wake of the late 2000s recession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_2000s_recession), sales of Atlas Shrugged have sharply increased, according to The Economist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist) magazine and The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times). The Economist reported that the novel ranked #33 among Amazon.com's top-selling books on January 13, 2009.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged#cite_note-7)


I'm far from being a Randian--but it does give you an alternative vision at reality. In a way it's similar to Marxian thinking, if you look through those ideological glasses you see the world in a whole new way.

[#FF0000]

Sure sure, but I think that's because of the ideology and not because of the writing, which is pretty awful I think.

[Revolution starts with U]

She bases it all in "power is being oppressed" as if that could even make sense to begin with.
I can't stand that anyone can buy into that bs.

[Purple]

I can't tell if this is a joke post or not. I thought Atlas Shrugged was terrible.

So you finished a 1500 page book that you thought was terrible? Woah!

No, the book was extremely good. Ayn Rand is a walking philosophical contrast, and if all you choose to draw out of it is her fascist elitist stance, then you are depriving yourself from enjoying a great piece of literature.

[Amphictyonis]

So you finished a 1500 page book that you thought was terrible? Woah!

No, the book was extremely good. Ayn Rand is a walking philosophical contrast, and if all you choose to draw out of it is her fascist elitist stance, then you are depriving yourself from enjoying a great piece of literature.

I prefer Emma Goldmans use of Stirner.

[#FF0000]

So you finished a 1500 page book that you thought was terrible? Woah!

No, I didn't. I made this through a hundred or so pages, maybe less, and then gave up and just started reading bits and pieces of it here and there to be sure that I wasn't missing out.

A book can't have a character go off on a near 100 page monologue and be a good book.

[La Comédie Noire]

Her prose is terrible and her characters are flat, but because I am a completionist I finished Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. What I don't understand is why she even bothered with fiction at all, she could have just wrote a non fiction philosophic work. The effect would have been the same.

[ZeroNowhere]

Her fiction is amazing though, Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece. Whether or not you agree with her, she certainly makes you think.
'I really wish I were reading Dunsany right now.'

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://www.forstudentpower.org/images/ayn-rand-school.jpg

[La Comédie Noire]

^ :lol: I was just thinking of that episode. If you look in the background when they show the classroom you can see "A=A" on the wall.

[Crux]

So you finished a 1500 page book that you thought was terrible? Woah!

No, the book was extremely good. Ayn Rand is a walking philosophical contrast, and if all you choose to draw out of it is her fascist elitist stance, then you are depriving yourself from enjoying a great piece of literature.That is what you are supposed to draw out of it.
It was horrible on every level, although I must admit that it's an interesting experience to feel antipathy towards all the characters in a novel.

[cowslayer]

Political bias aside, Atlas Shrugged was just one of the most boring works ever written.

I think I finished the unabridged version of Les Miseralbes in half the time it took me to read Atlas Shrugged.

[L.A.P.]

I was thinking of that one episode of Futarama where Bender looks threw the library in the sewer and said all of them are crappy porn and Ayn Rand books.

[Jazzhands]

Her fiction is amazing though, Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece. Whether or not you agree with her, she certainly makes you think.

You're right. It makes you think "why am I reading this fucking book?" Atlas Shrugged attempts to be a poor man's 1984 written by and for complete assholes. The only thing it accomplishes there is the "by and for complete assholes" part. When you're trying to make a point about an issue or warn people of the issue, it's usually a good idea to give it at least some degree of subtlety. Even Orwell was more subtle than that. Reading Ayn Rand's "novel" is like being bludgeoned over the head with a club made of pseudo-philosophical feces. Also, anyone who reads that book is sure to be an asshole for at least a month afterwards.

[cowslayer]

I was thinking of that one episode of Futarama where Bender looks threw the library in the sewer and said all of them are crappy porn and Ayn Rand books.


I must thank you good sir for reminding me of the wit of Matt Groening. I had a good lol at that episode.

[NKVD]

In latest news today it has been revealed that Ayn Rand is dumb. This comes as shocking and unexpected news for the communist community.

[Amphictyonis]

Objectivism supports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Politics:_individual_ri ghts_and_capitalism) a State.

While holding it's nose only because Rand had a moment of honesty and could see capitalism in any form cannot exist without a state to subjugate the workers. Try again. All capitalists of every stripe support a state. Be they 'anarcho' capitalists, agorists or whatever silly spin they put on it.

[Havet]

While holding it's nose only because Rand had a moment of honesty and could see capitalism in any form cannot exist without a state to subjugate the workers. Try again. All capitalists of every stripe support a state. Be they 'anarcho' capitalists, agorists or whatever silly spin they put on it.

I was just saying that, contrary to what other ideologies explicitly support, objectivism explicitly supports a State. Whether anarcho-capitalism might require a state to be put into practice is irrelevant to my point.

[Amphictyonis]

I was just saying that, contrary to what other ideologies explicitly support, objectivism explicitly supports a State. Whether anarcho-capitalism might require a state to be put into practice is irrelevant to my point.

I bet you still think altruism doesn't exist. Here's a dose of it. I love you.

[Havet]

I bet you still think altruism doesn't exist. Here's a dose of it. I love you.

You're not being altruist, because you have a selfish reason to annoy me :lol:

[Amphictyonis]

You're not being altruist, because you have a selfish reason to annoy me :lol:

Z-eU5xZW7cU

That baby is such a selfish egoist! :)

[Havet]

Z-eU5xZW7cU

That baby is such a selfish egoist! :)

That's a very interesting video! Thanks for sharing!

Anyway, if we define altruism as the opposite of selfishness, which means, the selfless concern for the welfare of others, then we can only arrive at the conclusion that only those who are forced to act against their own desire are truly altruist.

We usually act always, to some degree, concerning our own selfish desire, even if that desire is partially or totally based on the welfare of others.

Altruism is ultimately linked to the concept of sacrifice, because only by sacrificing yourself you are truly being selfless. But, there's a catch. To quote Rand on this (which, I should add, is practically the only thing I still agree with her)


If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to altruist morality; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate-that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward-if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved that ideal of moral altruist perfection.

This is why I mean that we are never - and couldn't possibly ever be - completely selfless and altruistic. Not only would it be damaging to ourselves but to everyone around us.

The problem is that strict individuality isn't the answer either. If anything let the current financial crisis set the example. When people focus on short-term selfishness, that is disastrous. But long-term selfishness is what you and I call "altruism". There are many instances when being long-term selfish is better than short-term selfish and altruism in that absolute sense I have mentioned above.

[Revolution starts with U]

omg rubbish. like all of the libertarian right's works, that is just redefining terms and then basing theory off them. No reasonable person sees an ethical difference between helping someone, and helping someone at a cost to yourself.



Anyway, if we define altruism as the opposite of selfishness, which means, the selfless concern for the welfare of others, then we can only arrive at the conclusion that only those who are forced to act against their own desire

That just redefines altruism, and selflessness; two close, but unconnected phenomena. Altruism is acting in concern of other's welfare. Selflessness is the opposite of selfishness; acting without concern for one's self (or concurrently, acting with concern for one's self). One need not altruistic to be selfless (suicide), nor selfless to be altruist (extreme home makeover).
Who would condemn someone who works full time for a charity orginization?
Also, not all sacrifice is unselfish, nor altruistic. Renouncing one's dream career for a rival, is not selfless. She rebukes herself in her own descriptions.
The only thing worse than Ayn Rand is that people are actually so want to justify themselves they believe such rubbish.

[Property Is Robbery]

ayn rand is a dumb... ****

[WeAreReborn]

That's a very interesting video! Thanks for sharing!

Anyway, if we define altruism as the opposite of selfishness, which means, the selfless concern for the welfare of others, then we can only arrive at the conclusion that only those who are forced to act against their own desire are truly altruist.

We usually act always, to some degree, concerning our own selfish desire, even if that desire is partially or totally based on the welfare of others.

Altruism is ultimately linked to the concept of sacrifice, because only by sacrificing yourself you are truly being selfless. But, there's a catch. To quote Rand on this (which, I should add, is practically the only thing I still agree with her)



This is why I mean that we are never - and couldn't possibly ever be - completely selfless and altruistic. Not only would it be damaging to ourselves but to everyone around us.

The problem is that strict individuality isn't the answer either. If anything let the current financial crisis set the example. When people focus on short-term selfishness, that is disastrous. But long-term selfishness is what you and I call "altruism". There are many instances when being long-term selfish is better than short-term selfish and altruism in that absolute sense I have mentioned above.
There is a difference though between self interest and selfishness. Self interest is working in favor of yourself and selfishness is working in favor of yourself at all costs. You are right that no one does complete sacrifices but you can be selfless without destroying yourself and others close to you. If anything complete sacrifices are negative, and partial ones seem to be best for everyone. Anyways you can still be altruistic without destroying yourself and the ones around you. The definition is: "showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others". You can help someone even though in no way benefits you without making a massive sacrifice. Though I do understand your post in most cases it is irrelevant to altruism. (Sorry if this post is jumbled, I'm pretty tired currently. :))

[Havet]

That just redefines altruism, and selflessness; two close, but unconnected phenomena. Altruism is acting in concern of other's welfare. Selflessness is the opposite of selfishness; acting without concern for one's self (or concurrently, acting with concern for one's self).

Where are you getting these definitions from? I got mine from wikipedia, and there, altruism is seen as a synonym for selflessness (the selflessness article redirects to the altruism article)


One need not altruistic to be selfless (suicide), nor selfless to be altruist (extreme home makeover).

Why does someone suicide? Is it not because they value death above life? There you have a selfish concern, not a selfless one.


Who would condemn someone who works full time for a charity orginization?

My guess is...Rand?


Renouncing one's dream career for a rival, is not selfless

That I agree with, it all depends on what one values. And people pretty much always act according to their values (aka, their interest). If a person values not competing with a rival more than having a dream career, then it is indeed not selfless action. Then again, the addition of the adjective "dream" in career sort of implies that that is the person's selfish interest, to stay with that career.

[Rottenfruit]

Why is saying ayn rand a opposing ideology :confused:

[WeAreReborn]

Why is saying ayn rand a opposing ideology :confused:
Probably to get more of the community or at least more of the opposing community involved in this thread. In case you were not aware, restricted members can only post in OI so that is most likely the reason why this thread is in this topic.