Replies

I fully understand her point about being forced to help. But there's too much emphasis on the "great man" being the ultimate force for good in a lot of Rand's philosophy as it were. When socialists like Obama say that nobody can do anything by themselves, it takes society to make it possible, he's right, but not in the way he means it. Of course, even diehard capitalists understand that nobody can create anything strictly by themselves. In fact, as many advocates have pointed out, capitalism takes a great deal of cooperation to work.

That does not mean I believe whatever an individual does is owned equally by other people. A system like capitalism i.e. the free market allows some to get fabulously rich, but it also makes great lives possible for those who have no hope of achieving great wealth. But even the not so great or so-called takers, as Rand might put it, make wealth possible. Everybody does their part, and everybody prospers. Some more than others. But everybody who willfully participates in a free market system does a lot better than under socialism. But Rand seems to sneer at those who aren't at the top. Nevertheless, they're important too. It's not just the "great men" who make the modern world possible. It's everybody doing their part...great and small. Rand seems to have missed that.

Rand seems to sneer at those who aren't at the top. Nevertheless, they're important too. It's not just the "great men" who make the modern world possible. It's everybody doing their part...great and small. Rand seems to have missed that

The odd thing is, she actually did seem to have noticed it, or at least to have had some intuition about it, but didn't know what to do about it. It's been years since I've read her work, but I remember in Atlas Shrugged, she had two characters who supported her philosophy but weren't "great men": Dagny's childhood friend and her sister-in-law. Rand killed off both characters; I believe they both despaired. It was like Rand couldn't imagine what such characters would do in the world she dreamed of creating.

But even the not so great or so-called takers, as Rand might put it, make wealth possible.

Isolating this specific sentence from your post for a reason: What do the "takers" contribute to our society that makes wealth possible?

When the takers get their "free" Obamaphones, how does that benefit you and I? Fact is, it does NOT. I'll be very specific in my response in saying that Non-American nationals like Carlos Slim of Mexico, a billionaire benefits because he's plugged into the Obama White House. The same Obama White House that's paying 3x, 5x the cost of the phone, the service, and cannot control the program and the corruption within it.

How does that benefit you and I? It doesn't. The "takers" DO NOT PROVIDE ANY BENEFIT to a Capitalistic society whatsoever, thus their name, "takers."

You and I have become tax slaves to "feed the takers." They eat by using the force of the Federal Government via their votes to redistribute our hard earned wealth to them. They drive cars, because our wealth is taken from us by force of Government, and re-distributed to them. They watch cable tv and have all the benefits of our society without contributing one iota of effort to it. The problem: They outnumber us at this point and they vote. They vote each and ever election for bigger, more government to steal my/our wealth, and redistribute it to their no good lazy government cheese eating fat lazy asses. That to me means NOTHING this government does at any level is via my "consent."

My voice is not heard, my voice does not matter to this Government. The only thing that DOES matter to this government is that I keep working so they can keep stealing the results of my labors, and re-distribute it to the TAKERS.

Are those the takes you mean, or did you have a different definition of the word?