Atlas Shrugged Part 1

by littlerockguy 126 Replies latest social entertainment

Terry

She's been refuted, Terry. What's more, you did not respond to my point on her inconsistency on the issue of unjustly killing Indians and stealing their land.
Objectivist Philosophy does not consist of statements such as :"Take land from the Indians and kill them." No more so than does Christianity.
No Objectivists were around to kill Indians or steal their land since Rand's philosophy came in the late 40's and early 50's. That is a fact.
Who DID steal the land from the Indians? Christians! First, they labeled the Indians as "savages" and "heathens". Then, they made treaty's which were not honored. No Obectivists around-okay?
So, your argument is just plain silly.
Rand's argument concerned the fact that the American Indian never bothered IMPROVING their lot in life beyond being nomadic hobos.
They never invented the wheel, metalurgy, schools, technology or managed to escape dependency on bison. Women were practically slaves in their society which was also quite brutal (in a Spartan way) with children.
The politically correct writers have dreamed up an American Indian which never existed.
Rand was highlighting the fact you cannot claim something as yours without SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING IT. Ownership is only a right by virtue of your ability to maintain it in the face of challenge.
It was Christianity that destroyed Indian "culture" and not Objectivism.
So, I'm calling this a silly argument.
BizzyBee

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/221335/march-11-2009/the-word---rand-illusion
james_woods

Good lord, people - it is just a novel which has been made into a movie.
There are serious current political issues which are more important than this.
BizzyBee

Good lord, people - it is just a novel which has been made into a movie.
There are serious current political issues which are more important than this.
Actually, James, this is a very topical discussion and quite relevant to serious current political issues. The novel, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand, is a fictional vehicle for demonstrating her philosophy of Objectivism, which is being embraced by a significant and influential portion of the electorate, the Tea Party.
The core of the Randian worldview, as absorbed by the modern GOP, is a belief that the natural market distribution of income is inherently moral, and the central struggle of politics is to free the successful from having the fruits of their superiority redistributed by looters and moochers.
The movie, Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, has been selectively marketed to the Tea Party, a key player in the film's social marketing strategy:
From the start the film's prospects were dim. It was an independent with little backing and decades of false starts. In order to preserve his rights, Aglialoro bankrolled the project with $10 million of his own money. Without a heavyweight distributor they had to be creative. So they hit up the Tea Party circuit for support.
A trailer for the film debuted at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. It was screened for such cultural tastemakers as John Boehner, and Andrew Breitbart. Then they brought in the big guns: FreedomWorks, the AstroTurf Tea Party organizers sponsored by the billionaire Koch brothers. Matt Kibbe, the president and CEO of FreedomWorks went to work promoting the film via his Freedom Connector social network (which has been prominently plugged by Glenn Beck), and a massive email list.
Furthermore, what could be a more serious political issue than the current Federal budget? And who is spokesperson for the GOP on the budget? Rep. Paul Ryan (R) Wisconsin, who has said:
"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand," Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." ...
At the Rand celebration he spoke at in 2005, Ryan invoked the central theme of Rand's writings when he told his audience that, "Almost every fight we are involved in here on Capitol Hill ... is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict--individualism versus collectivism."
I'd say Ayn Rand, her books and now her movie, are fairly serious influences on the current political scene.
Terra Incognita

Terry:
"Objectivist Philosophy does not consist of statements such as :"Take land from the Indians and kill them." No more so than does Christianity.
No Objectivists were around to kill Indians or steal their land since Rand's philosophy came in the late 40's and early 50's. That is a fact.
Who DID steal the land from the Indians? Christians! First, they labeled the Indians as "savages" and "heathens". Then, they made treaty's which were not honored. No Obectivists around-okay?
So, your argument is just plain silly.
Rand's argument concerned the fact that the American Indian never bothered IMPROVING their lot in life beyond being nomadic hobos."
Terry; your arguments are disingenous and absurd. They are a typical straw man argument where you distort the opponents statements and then proceed to demolish those statements that you invented as if they actually represented the opponent's own arguments.
I never said that objectivist magically went back in time and stole Indian lands. I said that Ayn Rand justified the taking of those lands. Your statement about "Christians' Stealing that land is irrelevant since Ayn Rand justified the Europeans (Who were obviously Christians) in their thievery.
Furthermore you are being hypocritical in criticizing European Christians for calling the Indians savages when Ayn Rand called them animals and other names. Your using the word "hobo" is obviously an attempt to water down the actual words she used.
The statement that you made about Ayn Rand criticizing their nomadic life (As if that's justification for anything) may be factual but you should be damn well aware, if you read those statements yourself, of both her obscene name calling and her "might is right" justification for Europeans taking their lands.
If you are not familiar with her well known statements on that matter (You should Google before you speak) then I'll give you an education. Down below
http://books.google.com/books?id=-2D6VqMXfFIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ayn+rand+answers&hl=en&ei=XPexTcPoEpO6sAOMnNX9Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=indians&f=false
“Now, I don’t care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you’re a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn’t know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not.
Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights—they didn’t have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal “cultures”—they didn’t have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It’s wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you’re an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a “country” does not protect rights—if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief—why should you respect the “rights” that they don’t have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too—that is, you can’t claim one should respect the “rights” of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights.
But let’s suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages—which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched—to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it’s great that some of them did. The racist Indians today—those who condemn America—do not respect individual rights.”
Address to West point Academy, 1974
NOW WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ABOVE FACTS ABOUT AYN RAND'S IMPERIALIST PHILOSOPHY INSTEAD OF MAKING UP SILLY STUFF LIKE HER NOT BEING THERE?
Terra Incognita

This is the last post I can make out of my ration of ten (When do they go up?)
James Woods:

"Good lord, people - it is just a novel which has been made into a movie.
There are serious current political issues which are more important than this."
James; it is an important political issue even if others are more important. We're dealing with a corporate funded, authoritarian cult that celebrates the psychopathology of this woman's philosophy. What would you think if a favorable movie on Hitler, based on his book Mein Kampf, were to be broadcasted? And no, it's not about "Freedom of Speech"; it's about such a movie revealing the existence of something evil in our society.
NeckBeard
Terry

I personally don't really care about Ayn Rand's opinions of the American Indian. I'm unaware of the reason why YOU DO.
I don't personally have a stake in the plight of the American Indian. I'm unaware of the reason YOU DO.
I think Objectivist Philosophy is consistent with itself. I assert that Christianity and its practioners is INconsistent.
That's about the total of my contribution to this discussion.
If you want to pick a fight TAKE A STAKE in it.
Where are YOU coming from philosophically?
Until you state YOUR position you are only hiding behind a safe wall and throwing dirt clods.
You are fatuous if you think I have any interest in defending the rantings of silly old woman who shot from the hip.
She had her opinions and made them clear. I have my opinions and I make them clear.
You, on the other hand, seem to have no opinions that you will own. Why is that?
Terry

Ayn Rand quotes.
If you disagree with them say why. That is, give reasons.
1.
"People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked…The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on…There are no white lies, there is only the blackest of destruction, and a white lie is the blackest of all."
— Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) 2.
"I started my life with a single absolute: that the world was mine to shape in the image of my highest values and never to be given up to a lesser standard, no matter how long or hard the struggle."
— Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) 3, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
— Ayn Rand 4.
"Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."
— Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) 5. "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
— Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) 6. "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims."
— Ayn Rand 7. "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."
— Ayn Rand 8. But you see," said Roark quietly, "I have, let’s say, sixty years to live. Most of that time will be spent working. I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of torture. And I can find the joy only if I do my work in the best way possible to me. But the best is a matter of standards—and I set my own standards. I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of one."
— Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead) 9. "Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it."
— Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) 10. "When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit."
— Ayn Rand
Terra Incognita

Terry; you’re beginning to look like a non-Christian version of Perry.
Concerning what you wrote and my responses below let me say that most of your statements are outright meaningless. It looks, though I’m not familiar with them, like they are Objectivist phrases. That reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who habitually state their talking points even though they have no relevance to the point being discussed.
So let the games begin:
I personally don't really care about Ayn Rand's opinions of the American Indian. I'm unaware of the reason why YOU DO.
Her opinions (which are also those of most of her followers) about Indians, or any other persons not having rights, is relevant to the extent that:
· That they contradict her own philosophy.
· That they are followed by Objectivists who would use her rationalizations against any charge of inconsistency.
· That her opinions are actually consistent with her philosophy of Objectivism.
More importantly, Terry, if you didn't care why were you defending her position in the first place?
So I remind you once more of what you said and its being a partial citation of Ayn Rand’s statement. A statement, whose overall context, was the justification of Europeans taking land away from the Indians.
Rand's argument concerned the fact that the American Indian never bothered IMPROVING their lot in life beyond being nomadic hobos."
If you had no interest in defending her ranting, then why did you not simply admit that my reference of her statement was correct and that you simply disapproved of it? You really knew all along what she had said in its entirety.
BOTTOM LINE TERRY, YOU WERE OBVIOUSLY DEFENDING AYN RAND UNTIL I EXPOSED WHAT SHE REALLY SAID. THEN YOU CHANGED YOUR TACTIC WHEN FACED WITH INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE SOFT PEDALING WHAT HER ACTUAL THOUGHTS.

I don't personally have a stake in the plight of the American Indian. I'm unaware of the reason YOU DO.
The reasons I make those statements about Indians is based on something that Objectivism apparently has no comprehension of. Altruism.

I think Objectivist Philosophy is consistent with itself. I assert that Christianity and its practioners is INconsistent.
That's about the total of my contribution to this discussion.
Having consistency in a philosophy is irrelevant to the morality or amorality of that philosophy. As I said before; a psychopath can have a consistent philosophy.

If you want to pick a fight TAKE A STAKE in it.
Where are YOU coming from philosophically?
Until you state YOUR position you are only hiding behind a safe wall and throwing dirt clods.
As for “picking a fight”, I guess that coming to the defense of oppressed people is considered by you to be an aggressive act.
As for where I’m coming from philosophically, don’t you think that a person’s philosophy could be deduced from his writings?
Should it then surprise me that you don’t see the “position” that I clearly took? And hiding behind walls? Why comment any further on this ridiculous point?

You are fatuous if you think I have any interest in defending the rantings of silly old woman who shot from the hip.
She had her opinions and made them clear. I have my opinions and I make them clear.
How amazing that a “ranting”, “silly old woman who shot from the hip” penned such a brilliant philosophy! How logical it is to expect such “consistency” from silly hip shooters.

You, on the other hand, seem to have no opinions that you will own. Why is that?
That question is definitely meaningless and it seems to me that it is another Objectivist phrase that you are flinging at me; like "dirt clods" from behind the "safe wall" of your soulless, don't give a rat's turd about those whose plight you don't have a stake in, philosophy.
Whatever statements I’ve made are either facts or my opinions. There’s no rational basis to claim that “I don’t own” my opinions. I’ve acknowledged my opinions here and now; but in my previous post I had no reason to talk silly, like you are, and explicitly say, “Hey folks, this is one of the opinions that I own”.
Is there a magical word or phrase, that Objectivists believe you should utter, to state the obvious? Or do I have to prove that I own my opinions by presenting a deed or other certificate of ownership?
The silliness or fatuousness is yours.
3,
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Humanity consists of The One, The Few and The Many.

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

Share this