Maybe you are too young to know this, but while paying into them is mandatory, claiming the benefit is not. There is no penalty for not claiming the benefit. She let an employee of her attorney file for claiming SS and Medicare.
Maybe you are too young to know this, but while paying into them is mandatory, claiming the benefit is not. There is no penalty for not claiming the benefit. She let an employee of her attorney file for claiming SS and Medicare.
Sun Rand is freakin joke of freshman philosophy that would be irrelevant if it wasn’t the basis of belief for so many equally shallow Repubs.
Rand and Dianetics are on the same level.
If she did, she must have kept it to herself.
mgarrettny wrote:
Will someone please post a rational argument against Rand's philosophy instead of ad hominems and general unsubstantiated assaults:
Crickets.
I smell something burning.
Why would someone go through the effort of constructing a lesson on something you dont want to learn and wont even try to understand?
Just a thought today wrote:
All the liberal chime in saying bad things about this lady and don't like what she has to say. Big surprise.
You do know that her biggest critics were the conservatives? Not surprising that they were not in favor of someone who wanted to eliminate the power of the church specifically and statist organizations in general. After all running peoples lives is one of the key tenants of conservatism.
It is a philosophy that tends to appeal to people who want simplistic answers (high schooler and college kids) to complex problems. Self interest is great and drives a ton of achievement but it has limits. And it isn't very useful given how often people don't follow self interest.
The truth about Ayn and her philosophy is that it was overly simplistic. It didn’t take into account the ways the individual benefits from society’s set up as a whole. Man does not exist in a vacuum where he is pulled forward by nothing but his own inertia.
It wasn’t that each human strove for personal excellence, they also did this at the expense of others. There was no humanism. This is right in line with any rags-to-riches story where the protagonist would then contend that if they can do it, anyone can. There is a complete disregard for circumstance (which includes government policies and the lack thereof), and luck. What I’m stating there is at the heart of the oft-used-out-of-context Obama contention that “you didn’t build that.”
That always makes a particular corner of the right mad. And when you then reside in a place of privilege (and yeah this word is getting rung out but it’s still at times an apt descriptor), you fear a shake up of the game because you don’t want to be in the position these “others” are, even while you’re contending that, you know, they just need to work harder.
On the left you also have a lunatic fringe and it allows the right to persist (at least for the past 40 years or so) because even to a true moderate the verbiage, let alone the policy, seems insane.
I realize I got a bit tangential at the end, yet I hope that gives you a nice basic summary of her flawed philosophy. That isn’t to suggest any philosophy is perfect—I consider this not infrequently and would be hard-pressed to give you my own in concise summary—just that hers is dangerously narrow and ignorant of many prevailing factors in life.
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
Just a thought today wrote:
All the liberal chime in saying bad things about this lady and don't like what she has to say. Big surprise.
You do know that her biggest critics were the conservatives? Not surprising that they were not in favor of someone who wanted to eliminate the power of the church specifically and statist organizations in general. After all running peoples lives is one of the key tenants of conservatism.
Exactly. But modern liberals have now taken over this role, which is why you see the liberals making all the attacks here.
mgarrettny wrote:
Will someone please post a rational argument against Rand's philosophy instead of ad hominems and general unsubstantiated assaults:
Objectivism is
"the concept of man as a heroic being,
with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,
with productive achievement as his noblest activity,
and reason as his only absolute"
Ayn Rand ignores that co-operating with others is productive and individual happiness can sometimes only be increased through collective actions - the only way a factory worker will get a raise in our economic system is if he/she agrees with other factory workers to act as a bloc. There is a low threshold to do the job and many people capable of doing it, preventing any sort of quality-based competition. Instead it's a race to the lowest possible labor cost.
If we accept this, when assessing whether a collective action is a net positive or net negative we become utilitarian, which Rand rejected.
See also the Prisoners' Dilemma.
Tatar wrote:
mgarrettny wrote:
Will someone please post a rational argument against Rand's philosophy instead of ad hominems and general unsubstantiated assaults:
Objectivism is
"the concept of man as a heroic being,
with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,
with productive achievement as his noblest activity,
and reason as his only absolute"
Ayn Rand ignores that co-operating with others is productive and individual happiness can sometimes only be increased through collective actions - the only way a factory worker will get a raise in our economic system is if he/she agrees with other factory workers to act as a bloc. There is a low threshold to do the job and many people capable of doing it, preventing any sort of quality-based competition. Instead it's a race to the lowest possible labor cost.
If we accept this, when assessing whether a collective action is a net positive or net negative we become utilitarian, which Rand rejected.
Nash's equilibrium shows that the sum of individuals maximizing their own utility might not maximize society's utility.
If one's decision-making is conditional on what others are expected to do, the aforementioned strategies will not be optimal for society or the individuals within.
Rand's utopia seeks to resolve coveting.
Rand's solution was for the architect to blow up the housing project, and then defend his actions in an argument that is analogous to saying others painted a moustache on his Mona Lisa.
The country was founded on rights, to include property rights.
Innovation is protected.
Yet I don't think coveting will ever become a minor problem in any society.
The old testament says that Moses was only on the mountain 40 days before much of the rescued clan became licentious.
The ten commandments include not coveting thy neighbors property or wife, but still prevalent.
Limousine Libertarian wrote:
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
You do know that her biggest critics were the conservatives? Not surprising that they were not in favor of someone who wanted to eliminate the power of the church specifically and statist organizations in general. After all running peoples lives is one of the key tenants of conservatism.
Exactly. But modern liberals have now taken over this role, which is why you see the liberals making all the attacks here.
Nope the conservatives still have the role. Both are against freedoms and in favor of liberty. They just happen to favor different things.
R.R.J. Tolkien wrote:
Now, I have not read Ayn Rand's books nor do I know about her philosophy.
No one, except the most determined academic or bizarre fanatic, has read more than one of her books. Try reading 3 chapters of Atlas Shrugged and you will know why. It make the Book of Mormon seem exciting. Apparently the concept of editors was unknown to her publishers. 99% of the people signing Rand's praises, including every single person in this thread doing so, have never read her books. Which, again, are all fiction.
Chauncy Swain wrote:
R.R.J. Tolkien wrote:
Now, I have not read Ayn Rand's books nor do I know about her philosophy.
No one, except the most determined academic or bizarre fanatic, has read more than one of her books. Try reading 3 chapters of Atlas Shrugged and you will know why. It make the Book of Mormon seem exciting. Apparently the concept of editors was unknown to her publishers. 99% of the people signing Rand's praises, including every single person in this thread doing so, have never read her books. Which, again, are all fiction.
One does not need to read Atlas Shrugged to learn about Objectivism. She wrote many non-fictional essays and treatises on the topic.
Chauncy Swain wrote:
R.R.J. Tolkien wrote:
Now, I have not read Ayn Rand's books nor do I know about her philosophy.
No one, except the most determined academic or bizarre fanatic, has read more than one of her books. Try reading 3 chapters of Atlas Shrugged and you will know why. It make the Book of Mormon seem exciting. Apparently the concept of editors was unknown to her publishers. 99% of the people signing Rand's praises, including every single person in this thread doing so, have never read her books. Which, again, are all fiction.
Nah plenty of people read Atlas Shrugged. I wouldn't call it a great novel by any stretch but it is readable. It isn't like Ulysses which is almost unreadable. Rand is just slow moving with very cookie cutter characters.
I'll take the middle road:
She was an atheist which is a perfectly reasonable philosophy (i.e. a recognition of reality). Otherwise she was full of crap.
Yes Ayn Rand discovered the correct philosophy of life, if you are a skinny insecure 13-year old boy who needs a pep talk. It helps if you utterly lack critical thinking skills too.
Armstronglivs wrote:
CrispyChicken wrote:
To understand the writings of Ayn Rand is to understand the classical difference between an egoist and an egotist, but an intellectually lazy modern society can't grasp the difference between the two.
In your case, the distinction would likely be superfluous, as you would satisfy both.
As you are also. Why are you so sadist?
Chauncy Swain wrote:
R.R.J. Tolkien wrote:
Now, I have not read Ayn Rand's books nor do I know about her philosophy.
No one, except the most determined academic or bizarre fanatic, has read more than one of her books. Try reading 3 chapters of Atlas Shrugged and you will know why. It make the Book of Mormon seem exciting. Apparently the concept of editors was unknown to her publishers. 99% of the people signing Rand's praises, including every single person in this thread doing so, have never read her books. Which, again, are all fiction.
That's not true. I've read three of them, AS and the The Fountainhead twice, and thought they were brilliant. To a teenager they were a revelation. To a grown man they are prophetic. I am not an academic or a fanatic, just a well read Midwestern lawyer with a couple of Harvard degrees. Ayn Rand was a genius but to the left she is and must be reflexively dismissed.
Chauncy Swain wrote:
R.R.J. Tolkien wrote:
Now, I have not read Ayn Rand's books nor do I know about her philosophy.
No one, except the most determined academic or bizarre fanatic, has read more than one of her books. Try reading 3 chapters of Atlas Shrugged and you will know why. It make the Book of Mormon seem exciting. Apparently the concept of editors was unknown to her publishers. 99% of the people signing Rand's praises, including every single person in this thread doing so, have never read her books. Which, again, are all fiction.
The Ayn Rand Society is so desperate for people to read her books that they give away booksets to public schools. Sheez.