Posted on 04/01/2013 7:47:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The author should look at who has been peddling those things to the public over the last 80 years and why, and then ask himself what really is monstrous.
Most people have never heard of Ayn Rand and have no clue who she was.
That's my take.
Original article was posted to PJ on 3/28.
So yes, the original Author is serious...
And apparently mildly retarded.
Aye, there's the rub.....It's the same with Karl Marx, he could explain all of the problems with Capitalism, but his "cure" was even worse than the disease.
mildly retarded? i think not;)
I disagree with some of the points made by the author.It’s been several yrs since i read “Atlas Shrugged”.But i recall the primary theme addressed the incremental encroachment by the government upon society/economy to the point where big gov had almost total control.The result was an economy that was dysfunctional-at best.I do agree that Rand comes across as a bareknuckles anything goes capitalist and(imo)rather deficient in the empathy department(read “The Fountainhead”).She was certainly flawed(quite a character!).Anyways,I’m not a “Randian”,but I agree with much of her philosophy-to a point.Thanx for the post.
Like anything else, mine the gold and leave the tailings.
“There is no way to rule innocent men...” - Ayn Rand
No need to read past here without a HUGE barf alert. The guy's a rube.
Mr. Kerstein doesn’t seem to know much about U.S. economics and either hasn’t actually read or understood Ayn Rand’s work. In my experience, communists-at-heart find Rand so threatening to their world view that they can’t get a mental grip on her meaning. To protect themselves, they misrepresent her views, and try to take her novels literally, rather than as abstract presentations of principles.
Rand had no problem with VOLUNTARY social activity, specialization of labor, complex integrated societies, and compassion/charity. What she opposed was COERCION. Through the application of reason to experience, Rand knew that socialists inevitably force others to join communal efforts against their interests and will — precisely because the type of people who join freely are the takers, not the makers. Hillary Clinton is a perfect Rand villain; her justification for forcing young healthy people into paying for healthcare for others is classic: “We need their money in the system”. Armed robbery for what she dictates is a “benevolent” purpose is ok.
Rand relentlessly exposed the Left’s game of false benevolence and compulsory altruism as a scam. “Collective” action wherein an elite determines the will of the group turns the group members into dehumanized slaves, who receive more than they contribute temporarily —until it all dries up, and everyone has nothing. Rand’s work argues, correctly, that individuals creating wealth through free market economics bring freedom and higher standards of living for all that are sustainable. But that’s not what the Democrats/Socialists/Leftists really want, is it?
“Beware of the moneychangers”. Even Rand chastized those who sought to make money for the sake of making money, or more aptly, printing money out of thin air, so that they could gamble it to make profits out of thin air. Once currency stopped being a store of value and work, and became nothing more than gambling fodder, is when the financial structure of the west started to fall apart. Once people lose faith in the currency and financial institutions, expect the events that have unfolded in Cyprus and the EU to happen here.
Rand ping. And I don’t mean Paul....
Your time is too valuable to try and rebut this drivel. At worst, you'll get into a game of "whack-a-mole" in a discussion with those who disagree with you.
I get into arguments with my liberal alumni friends all the time. What Rand says to me revolves around personal choice.
For example, I give to my church because I am trading value for value, not because I feel an obligation to do so. My parish plays a large role in strengthening my faith and my family...it's only natural that I would support it through donations of time and money.
My current reading is focused on Hank Rearden and his interactions with his family, and the extreme "danger" of the "guiltless man". A good friend of mine here at work was having the same problem with his daughters (18 & 23) as Hank was having with his mother and brother: the guilt trip being laid on him for not bending to their every whim.
I laughed and said, "going Galt, are you?" When he responded with a WTF look, I responded "you really need to read AS, and focus on the family troubles of Hank Rearden." His daughters are in for a rude awakening! lol
Coining “The Aristocracy of Pull” was brilliant.
mark - maybe read later
I am not sure that Objectivism is compatible with Christianity
This tool doesn’t have even the slightest idea what Rand’s philosophy is all about. There’s nothing “randian” that created the latest crash. There’s nothing evil about helping the poor and greed is not a moral good.
Rand was about keeping to your own values, not subverting them to someone else’s.
Liberals never seem to notice that Ms. Rand glorified "men of the mind" regardless of how lofty or lowly were their professions.
Definitely a double-digit IQ... But can probably tie their own shoes without help.
To Rand, mystics were deceivers of moochers - no better, and possibly worse - than looters.
For comparison, think of Muslim clerics, the Reverend Moon, the Reverend Jessie Jackson and a litany of "spiritual leaders" deceiving their flocks.
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.