If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that man has to reject.
Rand is right, Christianity is wrong. Why should I give a pickpocket the shirt off my back? And why should I feel guilty if I don't see the sense of doing it?
I've found it odd how the party that claims to support family values can hail this vile and morally bankrupt woman as such an iconic hero.
What did she achieve, besides the corruption of souls.
Out of curiosity, did you ever read Atlas Shrugged? The entire thing?
Oh good Grief. Slate has their panties in a wad. Yes she had many bad traits but on the evil of government she was spot on. Now tell me do liberals think .gov is evil. Of coarse they do if it is not socialist. As I said Good Grief.
They make my heart cry.
What she pointed out is that people are individuals and need to be held to that personal responsibility. To contrast, many collectivists are so lost in group-approval syndrome that even when attempting to be manipulative, they spontaneously use group phrases without even realizing it, like "the party that claims." For all of Rands personal faults, she has had an enormously positive effect of millions of people's understanding of personal responsibility in politics, and the absolute evil of collectivism in any form.
As a result, collectivists hate her with a passion few others receive, and can't help using such derogatory, dehumanizing, hate-filled descriptions such as "vile" and "morally bankrupt." Others go so far as to cynically invoke Christian morality through the use of terms such as "family values" and "corrupter of souls," all while trying to turn their audience against a person who fought against the most satanic of all political threats in the world.
All in all, she evokes an interesting reaction from collectivists the world over.
Aww, you’re all wee wee-ed up today. Poor thing.
Perhaps you should read the works before you criticize them.
Even if only under the ‘know your enemy’ department.
I believe you are overdue at your psychiatrists.
Some of the most moral people in the world support evil political ideas. Rand knew the evil of collectivism. As the article states that boot on her neck as a child was never forgotton.
Why is she morally bankrupt? Because she is an atheist? Are you saying no athiest or agnostic can have a home in the party that supports family values?
Can you be a non-believer and still accept that the society you live in was built on the tenets of Judeo Christian values and still adhere to those values and laws?
IBTZ
If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that man has to reject.
Rand is right, Christianity is wrong. Why should I give a pickpocket the shirt off my back? And why should I feel guilty if I don't see the sense of doing it?
Some of Rand’s personal choices, and the ‘romance’ in her novels make me cringe.
That said, she understood ABSOLUTELY what she chose to write about, and her socio-politico-economic philosophy is the only one that works in the long run.
Martin Luther King Jr. was much less than ideal in his personal life... That doesn’t make his “I had a Dream” speech any less true and any less world-changing.
I’ve never read one of her books, and don’t agree with her on everything, but this is an over-the-top hit piece.
Rush Limbaugh has been married three times and addicted to Oxycontin. Would you describe him as "vile and morally bankrupt" and a "corrupter of souls?"
Subjectivists won’t see their paradoxes. They are most often incapable of objective perceptions and tend to project their own weaknesses from their bandwagons. As for communism/fascism, the same effete repeatedly ushered it into their European homelands with their meretricious political putsches and genocidal fantasy threats.
We’ve allowed too much of Europe into America for about 150 years.
Next!
she was deranged but also came up with some good ideas
“What did she achieve, besides the corruption of souls.”
Read the book and you won’t have to ask.