Posted on 11/13/2009 12:51:44 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Don't need to, they understood the relevant limitations quite well.
It should be unnecessary, in this thread, to wade through the Constitutional debates and the Federalist Papers to validate that observation.
I’m not ashamed to admit that I found “atlas shrugged” CLIFF NOTES... I could get up to speed faster.
“The reason her book is so popular at the moment is because people are angry about the masive government intrusions being foisted off onto us, and about the only thing most people know about Rand was that she was “agin’ gubmint,”
Sorry professore TQC, her books have been quite popular since their release in 1943 and 1957. While you may have a personal distaste for Ayn Rand, her mark on Mod. Amer. Lit. has been profound and will continue to be for Libertarians, Conservatives, and all those who hope to defeat the proponents of Socialist idealogy and practice.
My claims to a conservative ideology are mine and they don’t require approbation from anyone else. To say that Rand doesn’t meet your requirements is to toss-out all those lesser than your objet d’ perfection conservatoire for lack of ideological purity.
“For one reason, reading her and the real history of the Soviet Union cured me of the Leftwing baccilus that infected my thinking.”
I had that experience the first time I read Shrugged.
The second time, I was repulsed. But, at least I wasn’t a liberal anymore.
“The reason her book is so popular at the moment is because people are angry about the masive government intrusions being foisted off onto us, and about the only thing most people know about Rand was that she was “agin’ gubmint,”
Sorry professore TQC, her books have been quite popular since their release in 1943 and 1957. While you may have a personal distaste for Ayn Rand, her mark on Mod. Amer. Lit. has been profound and will continue to be for Libertarians, Conservatives, and all those who hope to defeat the proponents of Socialist idealogy and practice.
My claims to a conservative ideology are mine and they don’t require approbation from anyone else. To say that Rand doesn’t meet your requirements is to toss-out all those lesser than your objet d’ perfection conservatoire. for lack of ideological purity.
Lol.............
I agree with Ayn Rand up to her atheism.
No on is 100% correct all the time.
One can have a personal relationship with
GOD without being manipulated by organized
religion.
If one followed Rand completely how would we maintain an army or police? It certainly is not in my interest to put myself in harms way or am I being too simplistic?
She absolutely yanked libertarianism hard to the left, towards accepting far more government control.
Titus - methinks you are a mole, a lurker or a wanker. I doubt you have ever read Rand. This has to be them most inane statement I’ve ever read on FR. Shoosh.
She understood statists like nobody else ever did and way before anyone knew how dangerous they were. Her solutions are lacking but man did she understand the problem.
I have heard alot about Rand on FreeRepublic and have never read her and I am in my 7th decade...Thank you for your reply, I don’t feel bad about never reading her now...I do remember seeing Fountainhead when I was younger and thought it was a dumb movie.....
Thanks for the belly laugh!
Whittaker Chambers was a very fine writer.
A mess of a human being, but he did an amazing job of redeeming himself, at least as far as his responsibility to the nation went.
“I doubt you have ever read Rand”
That appears to be the case with many posts here.
They either never read Ayn or did not understand what they were reading.
Whoa, talk about poo flinging. What is it about Rand that reduces you to such crudeness? It sounds like Rand causes you flashbacks to some very harsh potty training.
I believe you are correct. There loss. Of all the books I’ve read, there are very few I recommend, Rand is always my first recommendation. She has the power to change a person for a lifetime.
That is, she was pro capitalist in a way that called for more government control over peoples lives than libertarianism had hither to accepted, while still being less than what the Democrats were pushing. And she absolutely loathed that personal resposibility stuff that had been a plank in the ideology.
Do not think for a moment there are none of us left who moved on from libertarianism in the wake of the changes she and her hedonist faction wrought.
She absolutely yanked libertarianism hard to the left conservative right, towards accepting far more LESS government control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.