We’re Living in ‘Atlas Shrugged’

[fightingquaker13]

How many can even grasp that concept ? No one who voted for B Ho. Seems like most of the deepest thoughts in Philosophy are like that, very simple on the surface but with many layers of increasing complexity between "hearing" and "understanding".

 

Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the  execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)

 I am something of a recovering Objectivist. But never an apologetic one. I've become a Christian (Epicopalian if that counts) and discovered Burke, Hayek, Mill and Locke along with post-modernism , which for all its sillyness ,does teach a lesson about how much we are unconsciousley shaped/formed by the culture around us. I do, and always will, have soft spot for the woman, because as Michael said she challenged to try to see clearly, and that is a lfe long project. In terms of seeing clearly, remember politics, particularly the presidency can't be boiled down to a single issue. If you do this you are being as selfish as those who put forth lavish earmarks for their districts out of your pocket. Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriousley rehire team GOP if they were a contacter working on your house? They need some time to think things over. This proably an over long post but at least it didn't take 60 pages
fightingquaker13

[Rastus]

 

Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the  execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)

 I am something of a recovering Objectivist. But never an apologetic one. I've become a Christian (Epicopalian if that counts) and discovered Burke, Hayek, Mill and Locke along with post-modernism , which for all its sillyness ,does teach a lesson about how much we are unconsciousley shaped/formed by the culture around us. I do, and always will, have soft spot for the woman, because as Michael said she challenged to try to see clearly, and that is a lfe long project. In terms of seeing clearly, remember politics, particularly the presidency can't be boiled down to a single issue. If you do this you are being as selfish as those who put forth lavish earmarks for their districts out of your pocket. Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriousley rehire team GOP if they were a contacter working on your house? They need some time to think things over. This proably an over long post but at least it didn't take 60 pages
fightingquaker13

Your statements offer no "change".  Either the old and unacceptable or the new and even less acceptable.  This is the box of hopelessness that both the parties seem to desire to put free men in.  Are you comfortable in one camp or the other?  Heck..are you even comfortable being free and do you desire for "big brother" to make things safe and provide security for you in exchange for some of that freedom that was bought with a price.

I would say if after a month or two of BHO, is it really incompetence or is he intentionally trashing the economy?  Can anyone really be so bereft of intelligence...probably not....but then again, ponder his appointments, their (the appointments) lack of respect for the law (paying taxes) as it does not apply to them but must be applied, in fairness, and under threat to the simpleton peasant citizens who obviously in a collective sense fail to recognize their right (the leaderships' right) to have ascended to be our guardians of thought and conscience. 

[metamurph]

 Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriously rehire team GOP if they were a contacter working on your house?

After 8 years if you mean am I financially better off since for some reason that is how we measure the president, I am still financially better off at this point.  I was much better off a year ago but I am still better off.  And you are seriously mistaken if you would lay the financial blame at Bushes feet.  However, as for being better off, which I take personal responsibility for, I know a lot more, I am better prepared.  I am a little older and creakier but hopefully better off.

Think how different we are now, the then http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/sock.htm

[fightingquaker13]

 

Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the  execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)

 I am something of a recovering Objectivist. But never an apologetic one. I've become a Christian (Epicopalian if that counts) and discovered Burke, Hayek, Mill and Locke along with post-modernism , which for all its sillyness ,does teach a lesson about how much we are unconsciousley shaped/formed by the culture around us. I do, and always will, have a soft spot for the woman, because as Michael said she challenged us to try to see clearly, and that is a lfe long project. In terms of seeing clearly, remember politics, particularly the presidency can't be boiled down to a single issue. If you do this you are being as selfish as those who put forth lavish earmarks for their districts out of your pocket. Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriously rehire team GOP if they were a contactor working on your house? They need some time to think things over. This is proably an over long post but at least it didn't take 60 pages
fightingquaker13

 

I just wanted to post this before the flames start coming about how I betrayed a God given right. I was going to have to do so either way I voted. I believe that we have as much (more actually) right to control our own bodies as we do to defend them. This means that I am as serious about pro-choice issues as I am about second amendment ones, which is to say, damn serious. Vote for a (mostly) pro-gun candidate who tries to limit political speech and makes that his signature issue and is anti-choice; or a pro-choice candidate who is anti-gun, but has never run on it or made it a priority, and will be severly hobbled by a Democratic Senate that needs its pro-gun blue dogs? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and (as I am sure the comments will prove) damned by all and sundry either way. Such is the fate of a Libertarian. Oh well, we knew the job was dangerous when we took it.
fightingquaker13  

[fightingquaker13]

Your statements offer no "change".  Either the old and unacceptable or the new and even less acceptable.  This is the box of hopelessness that both the parties seem to desire to put free men in.  Are you comfortable in one camp or the other?  Heck..are you even comfortable being free and do you desire for "big brother" to make things safe and provide security for you in exchange for some of that freedom that was bought with a price.

I'm a pro-choice, pro-gun conservationist (remember those?) Libertarian. I haven't been comfortable in either camp since before I could vote. Its always, every election I've voted in, been about choosing the lesser of two weevils. (And yet somehow I teach politics for a living. Don't even ask, cause damned if I know).
fightingquaker13
PS Big brothers been here for a long time, or are you forgetting the Patriot Act, warrantless wire tapping, extraordinary rendition, firing US Attorneys based ideology and the rest of it. D/R its all the same, you just choose the leser weevil. 

[Sponsor]

[Trevor]

The Virtue of selfishness,  Who is the author ?

Ayn Rand is the author of most of the short essays in the book.  Additional essays are written by Nathaniel Branden.  The essays date from the early to mid 1960s when Rand was promoting Objectivism as a coherent system of ethics.  It is a good book to sample Rand and her ideas.  She is a forceful writer.  Branden's contributions are not of the same caliber, but they do help tease out some of Rand's notions.  For instance, his ideas about what makes for effective individualism have merit.  As an aside, remember that Rand came to the United States from Soviet Russia when she was 21 years old.  She spoke no English when she arrived.  Her determination to master the English language impresses me.  It is hard to believe, when reading her writing, she is working in an adopted language, not a native one.  The fact that she became a bestselling author in her own time, and that her writing still generates controversy 27 years after her death is a tribute to her fierce intelligence and character.  It is also a tribute to America as a society that it would find virtue in her virtues of selfishness.  Yet, she knew this reality to be so when she embarked on her career as a writer.  In other words, only in America.  The book retails for less than $10 and can be had at any decent bookstore. 

[fightingquaker13]

Ayn Rand is the author of most of the short essays in the book.  Additional essays are written by Nathaniel Branden.  The essays date from the early to mid 1960s when Rand was promoting Objectivism as a coherent system of ethics.  It is a good book to sample Rand and her ideas.  She is a forceful writer.  Branden's contributions are not of the same caliber, but they do help tease out some of Rand's notions.  For instance, his ideas about what makes for effective individualism have merit.  As an aside, remember that Rand came to the United States from Soviet Russia when she was 21 years old.  She spoke no English when she arrived.  Her determination to master the English language impresses me.  It is hard to believe, when reading her writing, she is working in an adopted language, not a native one.  The fact that she became a bestselling author in her own time, and that her writing still generates controversy 27 years after her death is a tribute to her fierce intelligence and character.  It is also a tribute to America as a society that it would find virtue in her virtues of selfishness.  Yet, she knew this reality to be so when she embarked on her career as a writer.  In other words, only in America.  The book retails for less than $10 and can be had at any decent bookstore. 

 

All true Trevor. However, the reader does need to know that when reading a book, any book (Bible included), you need to understand that just as the author writes the words on a page, so too have their life experiences been written on the author. I am no Objectivist (anymore) but I still admire Rand and think there is a lot to be learned from her (see my earlier posts). Just understand that a lot of her aversion to collective action is as much a result of the horrors she saw during the purges of the Soviet revolution as anything else. Her biggest flaw was that she liked to think that the human mind could achieve a Vulcan like quality based on pure logic, utterly removed from context. She never got that we are shaped by events. None of us are perfect, and I would still reccomend the book. Just know that asking Rand to even consider a welfare policy would be like inviting a concentration camp survivor out for a ride in your BMW to listen to a recording of Wagner. Don't expect a a response based on pure "objective logic".
fighingquaker13

[tombogan03884]

Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the  execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)

Are you on  crack ?
1) The post you quote is referring to the depth of philosophical insight that can been expressed in  extremely simple terms,such as Jesus' comment "blessed be nothing".

2) In case you missed it, because the MSM is being loudly silent about it, we've WON the war in Iraq, now we are just trying show the Iraqi's how to govern. The only reasons we are still in Afghanistan is that the gutless Europeans who "replaced" us 2 YEARS ago won't come out of their compounds.

3)The historical record BLATANTLY shows (even to a hobbiest like me ) That the "tanking economy" is a direct result of the asinine policies forced through by muddle headed Dems, For example, Johnson stole Social Security to fund his "great Society", (Jimmy Hoffa went to prison for doing that with the Teamsters Pension fund and HE made a PROFIT by funding Vegas) It was the Dems (under Clinton) who decided to give SS bennies to ILLEGAL aliens (Al "I invented the internet" Gore cast the deciding vote) The "housing crunch" is a direct result of Dems,also under Clinton, FORCING banks to give loans to people who could not afford them, Maxine Waters said that verifying credit information was "discrimination against poor people", while Barney Frank was literally in bed with the head of Freddie Mac, at the same time he was on the Committee responsible for it's oversight, (I'll OK that legislation if you let ME be on top tonight) When B Ho was nominated the stock market was at 11,000, it's now below 7,000 and every time he opens his mouth it drops 100's of more points, how do you blame that on Bush ?

4) Sarah Palin was what finally got me to vote for that RINO McCain, She's strongly pro gun, during the campaign her son WAS SERVING IN IRAQ, she was the ONLY Governor to visit her States NG troops overseas. The only truthful bad thing the Dems could find to say about her was that, A: she didn't kill her handicapped baby, B: her unmarried daughter was pregnant ( Which I find REALLY ironic because Obama's mother was underage, not married when she got pregnant, and in 1960 the only white girls who slept with black men were whores)

5) Everyone who voted for Obama because of his speeches is a shallow lazy idiot, "I support the 2nd A" but he ALWAYS voted against, including against the right to self defense IN YOUR OWN HOME, "He's such a wonderful speaker" till the tele prompter goes out then he's a babbling a$$hole, "A LEADER for a new age, but he never led, ran or actually accomplished anything accept hooking up with radical communists domestic terrorists and anti American hate mongers, Not to mention that any one who expects to get an HONEST politician out of the Chicago Dem machine is a effen moron, Buy the way, were did that $360+ MILLION come from anyway, Barry ain't saying. It's really no wonder he won, He spent more than all 4 candidates in the last 2 elections combined.

I am something of a recovering Objectivist. But never an apologetic one. I've become a Christian (Epicopalian if that counts) and discovered Burke, Hayek, Mill and Locke along with post-modernism , which for all its sillyness ,does teach a lesson about how much we are unconsciousley shaped/formed by the culture around us. I do, and always will, have soft spot for the woman, because as Michael said she challenged to try to see clearly, and that is a lfe long project. In terms of seeing clearly, remember politics, particularly the presidency can't be boiled down to a single issue. If you do this you are being as selfish as those who put forth lavish earmarks for their districts out of your pocket. Ask yourself this. If after 8 years of Bush (are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?) would you seriousley rehire team GOP if they were a contacter working on your house? They need some time to think things over. This proably an over long post but at least it didn't take 60 pages Smiley

6) How can you call your self a Christian and at the same time be an apologist for a party that advocates killing babies but abhors executing murderers and rapists ?

7) Am I better off Now ? NO! I had a JOB under Bush, Through it all, 9-11, the High tech bubble, the war. If I lost one job there was another one to go to, under Bush the unemployment rate was under 5% in less than 45 days in office Barry has it over 8%.

Don't sound very "Objective" to me sounds like you are sipping the cup of intellectual dishonesty.

[fightingquaker13]

Uh...beg to differ. But you can blame 8 years of of policy failure (leaving ideolgy aside, just look at the  execution), a bungled war, Rumsfeld, a tanking economy, Caribou Barbie, James Dobson and McCain version 2.0 (and I really, really liked the original 2000 model)

Are you on  crack ?

 

Tom
I thought this would get you attention

I'm sending this to you via email and on the forum, because the board's gotten a bit crowded. Read my subsequent posts and you'll get an idea of why I voted the way I did. Understand this though, I am NOT a conservative, particularly a social conservative. I am a Libertarian. This means an economically conservative fiscal policy (though God knows what means these days because if you have a formula for recovery you're ahead me and every one else) a foriegn policy that is based on realism and a predilection for non-interventionism unless there is little choice, and a fundamental respect for civil liberties; which include frees speech or expression, respect for property, the right to keep and bear arms, reproductive rights, religious liberty and the right to partner with who we will, etc.  I, and my party espouse an essentially Jeffersonian view. I am not James Dobson's or Sarah Palin's friend, because I believe in lassiez faire whole cloth and with no apologies to the fundies or the politically correct set when it comes to defending essential  individual lliberties. Screw 'em both as far as I'm concerned. An authoritarian is an authoritarian I don't care what color their uniform is. If you think I believe Obama shares my goals, it is you, my friend who is on crack. I just think that after eight years of GOP led  disaster, that unless they get a "time out", otherwise known as an ass whoop'n when I was a child, that they will never learn the lessons that are pretty obvious to all of us. As far as D/R,I don't have dog in the fight
I'm putting this post on the board, but including another I hope you'll at least read and consider.
With respect,
fightingquaker13

[tombogan03884]

As an aside, remember that Rand came to the United States from Soviet Russia when she was 21 years old.  She spoke no English when she arrived.  Her determination to master the English language impresses me.  It is hard to believe, when reading her writing, she is working in an adopted language,

That explains the 1100+ pages and the 60 page speech. The only Russian author I could stand was Solzhenitsyn, I waded ALL THE WAY through Gulag Archipelago, The only Russian book I ever ENJOYED was his "One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich"  It covers one January day in the life of a political prisoner in Siberia, and it STILL takes 203 pages it works out to about 11 pages per hour.I tried Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and came to the conclusion that they are to fond of putting ink on paper, I'll probably skip Ayn Rand.


Reply to Fightingquaker,
 I'm not conservative on social matters, I think abortion is a medical procedure, if you NEED one you need it just like a bypass.On defense and the economy I am VERY conservative, as to your comment "though God knows what means these days because if you have a formula for recovery you're ahead me and every one else" It's really pretty simple.
1) Quit the UN abrogate all treaties we have with them and kick them out of America.

2)Get rid of ALL illegal aliens Give them 30 days to leave on their own with their stuff if they register on their way out they get on a fast track to come back LEGALLY (with all the paperwork, medical checks etc. ) After 30 days they get chucked across the border with what they are wearing, everything else is forfeited to compensate for the expense they have cost. This does not violate any amendments as they were proceeds of crime.Sanctuary cities lose all federal funding until they comply with federal law, State and local politicians who implemented them are charged with Federal Conspiracy violations. ( USC Article 1  Sec 8 Clause 4:To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;)

3) Legalize Pot, Heroin and Cocaine, and tax them just like cigarettes and booze. The war on drugs has been a money pit since it's beginning, it was never anything more than a jobs program for Prohibition agents and the drug problem that did not exist BEFORE criminalization only gets worse. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Prohibition led to a huge rise in alcoholism, and made several gangsters very rich, like Joe Kennedy, and Al Capone, it created an entirely new type of criminal in the bootlegger and caused an explosion of violent crime, even the Govt had to admit it was a flop. So then they did the EXACT SAME THING with drugs. Tax income, No DEA fewer judges and police, fewer lawsuits for raiding the wrong place, less incentive for corruption.

4) Do away with "income Tax, and the Fed, National sales tax, those who SPEND more PAY more. If the fed is running the economy what the hell is the Treasury Dept. doing ? Treasury is supposed to be the nations finance Dept, making the collections and payments.

5) Bring home ALL ARMY  troops not engaged in active operations and put them on the borders, cut the size of that force by 50%, The job of the Army is DEFENDING our borders, not spending $ in Korea and Germany, If we need to project force, that is what the Navy and Marine Corps were started for, now the Air Force joins them.

6) Cut Senate and Congressional pay by 25% staff by 75%  limit of 2 terms, no pensions, no senate bank or health care, They need to live the same as the rest of us. (And ENFORCE the damn ETHICS rules)

7) Eliminate Govt. agencies and Departments, the Constitutions first article clearly defines the authority and responsibilities of Govt. no other agencies are needed or legal.

8)Tariffs on imported goods, +10% if made overseas by an American owned Company, No charge for Foreign owned companies manufacturing HERE.

9) No more Foreign aid.

10) No vote for welfare recipients, They do not contribute to prosperity they deserve no say in how it is managed. THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO RETIREE'S or those drawing pensions or unemployment, those are earned benefits not charity. Social Security would be placed back in a trust fund as intended financed in part by a fine levied on the Democratic party,Any future politician who attempted to remove it would be guilty of theft and removed from office with prejudice.

11) Charity returned to the community where it belongs, people who have hard times get help, dead beat leeches can starve.

I can come up with more but it's 5:30 am. Harsh ? Probably. Will people get hurt that don't deserve to ? Some. But it will hurt far less people than if the economy melts down and it is sustainable if severe enough penalties are put in place so the do gooder a$$holes can't screw it up again.