Why Atlas Shrugged Changes Lives
Hearing about the new Atlas Shrugged movie, I thought back to my first encounter with Ayn Rand’s epic novel. When I read Atlas Shrugged, I was captivated. There were complicated romantic relationships, alliances and treachery, heroes who overcame obstacles, villains who tried to stop them, and an intriguing question that seemed to be behind it all: “Who is John Galt?” And yet, it was unlike anything I had ever read before. My response was far from unique. From CEOs to college students to celebrities, people declare that reading Ayn Rand’s novel has a life-changing effect. Why?
Through her story and characters, Rand turns conventional thinking on its head. Which businessman would you expect to be a hero: the publicly spirited CEO, James Taggart, who calls for corporations to give back to the community and fights for business to be regulated in the name of the public good — or the wealthy entrepreneur, Hank Rearden, who proudly seeks to generate as much profit as possible, the public interest be damned? James Taggart, right? Not in Ayn Rand’s world.
By introducing to us a new kind of hero, Rand challenges our own thinking. Maybe, just maybe, we’ve been pursuing the wrong ideals in life. Should I pursue a career in business to make money, or so that I have something to give away? Should I be a doctor because I have an obligation to help the needy, or because I love the subject and have exceptional skills and training to trade with patients willing to pay me? Should I be proud of what I’ve earned, or should I feel guilty because others have less? Am I required to accept moral ideals on faith, as religions teach, or are there rational standards by which I can determine right from wrong? For Rand’s characters, the answers to these questions are vital to their happiness, and it is a betrayal of self not to ask them.
Among the novel’s heroes are ambitious capitalists unapologetically pursuing money, values, and success. There is Hank Rearden, the industrialist who creates Rearden Metal, a new alloy that is stronger, safer, and cheaper than anything else on the market. There is Dagny Taggart, the executive who risks everything on her own judgment in order to build a great railroad. Both want to make as much profit as possible by perfecting their products. In today’s world, as in Atlas, such people are criticized as “selfish” and “greedy.” In today’s world, as in Atlas, antitrust lawsuits and controls to rein in their greed are brought against such people. But in Rand’s world, when the capitalists are faced with these attacks, we see these people as persecuted victims, not wrongdoers.
I shall have to ask my liberal friends who have attended universities (is that redundant?) as English majors whether this book is even allowed to be read on campus, let alone taught…
In academe, Ayn Rand’s novels are considered to be pop culture, cultist trash. I made a case for their modernism and timely anti-Soviet arguments here on three different blogs: http://clarespark.com/2011/04/16/index-to-ayn-rand-blogs/.
Sure, she is an anti-Marxist in the sense that she understands the labor fetish. But what she did is very Hegelian, which she would be proud of. She substitutes the labor fetish cult for a management fetish cult. There is a sado-masochistic kind of dialectic too. Marxists tend to be control freaks, Randians love the idea they are being controlled by benevolent “industrialists” and such whose lack of altruism makes for a better world for all. Randians are almost totally worthless in highly competitive business settings and whose best use are for fools in, ironically, government settings where the beloved “industrialists” can use the Randians’ stupid pseudo-intellectualism to make some more money off, ironically, the government. The creme of the crop was Alan Greenspan. Ironically, (again) the only use for Randians is in government.
Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
I wouldn’t neglect her inner Trotskyist, Jas. She had a respect for labor, modernity, and technical progress that links her to other radicals. She does not admire all industrialists, as you claim. Consider too that she was writing during the heyday of Stalinism and fellow travelling. I would prefer to historicize her, certainly not worship her, but also to acknowledge that she wrote popular literature that struck a chord in the reader.
There is a Dr.Hugh Akston line in the Atlantis (partIII) of the novel in which he says:
‘And that Dagny, is my full answer.’
You’ll notice as the novel spreads; exponentially, ‘all-over-the-web’ in the next few years, that faculty can only provide answers – down to a certain point, after that it becomes ‘just theory’ and breaks down because you cannot practice Objectivism fully in the predominantly ‘mystic-altruist-collectivist world. This is terribly frustrating to a defender of Ayn Rand’s ideas. After all, Reason-Egoism-Capitalism are the primaries for a completely human existence right? So when faculty tells you that to win back the future of the world you must suffer irrational slings and arrows for it as part of the package, it can get very stressful (bordering on sacrificial).
To reach that John Galt ‘perfectly integrated’ state requires 100% consistent surroundings. That being:
Moral Code : Motive Power and the Motor Unit
So, for your own peace of mind you should be aware that the Galt’s Gulch refuge is the best option and now exists. Come and see it (and the motor she predicted) for yourSelf in June.
And that Debi, is my full answer.
Dr.HughAkston
Rand herself said it was ridiculous to view AS as a literal prescription for living. That idea in itself violates the whole using-your-own-brain-and-judgment thing that is at the core of her philosophy.
Nonsense, that ‘using-your-own-brain-and-judgment thing’ is only the perceptual part of reading any novel. Objectivism is about grasping the concepts and applying them to ‘Living On Earth’. By your interpretation Atlas Shrugged would not provide the analytic tools to real-life situations – solving or knowing the correct solution to actual problems. Look around you, it does.
You’re actually not alone in inability to ‘create and project’ from an existing premise, it’s what’s kept the movement spinnng its wheels in Naturalism’s mud for all these years. So much so that a development of this magnitude is met with Dr.RobertStadler-like denunciation. There are some though, that care able to make the mental-leap to what ‘could be and should be’ and its those non-jaded minds that will see the value in this post. And; as the author herself once said in another parallel situation,
…’the rest are no concern of mine. It is not me or Atlas Shrugged that they will betray – it is their own souls.’
That Galt’s Gulch withdrawl of one’s sanction IS the only moral solution and it now exists. Keep payin’ those taxes Mr.Taxpayer – keep feedin’ the beast and funding your own destruction – The J.G. in your book is not John Galt – it’s Judas Goat.
Dr.Hugh Akston
One must use reason to address the free flow of events and not to wrap oneself in the walls of a mathematical dogma. When it comes to woulda and coulda there can exist a fine line between a dream or vision and a faith that what woulda and coulda is actual reality but shaped and denied by racism, Imperialism and colonialism – that kind of faith can rise to the status of a religion with its own dogma wrapped in blame, excuses and entitlements.
The issue of ‘blame’ tends to be the dividing line between the perceptions of reality of a liberal and a conservative.
Objectivism is what one means when one points at it and not a book of rules; one does not approve or disapprove of tornadoes or trees and withholding such approval will not change a thing. The problem is that we perceive people in an entirely different way, convinced that if we approve of them enough in the way of charity and aid that they will stand beside the best of us and so some force others to not only give but to subscribe to unreality.
It doesn’t work. Everybody on the L.A. Lakers won’t become a Kobe Bryant no matter how much help or complaining is involved – it is reality and one we accept but one we do not accept when it comes to larger social issues. The Enlightenment happened where it happened, done by those who brought it about – that is no reason to start suggesting it should be and could be done elsewhere and by others. Give credit where credit is due by actions and more importantly withhold credit because that is what reality itself does and if you don’t get on board you are detached from reality; this is the great weakness and downfall of American culture in the last 40 years – it denies reality and worships what should be as a reality separated from us only by will rather than by what actually is. Reality has been circumvented and subverted by political correctness by the monstrous politeness we extend to the worst cultures in the world.
In the arena of political correctness, cultures that are demonstrable bench players need to be brought to the level of star players and it simply cannot be – this is what observation teaches us and not rules made by men. Rand is talking about reality as its own dogma to which we must bend or be lost.
Here is my vision of reality based on observation of events past and present: America in 2050 with only half of the European population that are the Kobe Bryant’s of the world and with 420 million people will be a disaster. Our government and culture largely believes that view is a racist one and needs to be shouted down as a fantasy rather than reality, despite the fact that a liberal observation of their version of reality is nowhere to be found in the real world and its history. It is all based on misplaced faith and it is truly monstrous.
In the 1960s America detached itself from reality and went a new way and it has all been downhill since then. Our culture has become more violent, conceited, individually arrogant, coarser, stupider, lazier, more complaining and with more self-loathing then at any time in its history.
America’s solution is to take on even more bench players from the Third World and apply our moronic views of reality on campesinos who in 500 years and despite being right next door to us are only separated from the Age of Copper by the export of American business and ideas.
Even among Conservatives the one issue they will not touch is to call for the end of all immigration and so the one thing that will save us from the machinations of big business and liberal socialists is the one thing that will never be tried. That makes us all de facto politically correct liberals because the religion of our enemies has subverted us.
To argue dogma is to reject objectivism and relegate yourselves to the arena you most wish to avoid. I worship reality and dream of how it can be changed, not dream of how I can change the nature of reality and worship dreams. The reality is that whether you like it or not, the 1965 Immigration Act is the single worst event in America since it happened.
…it has been bad for before the 60′s just the system could handle it then.
there is no effort for the progressives to share the task or debate ..they want it all. and by any method. they foam at the mouth at the mention of Rand.
regards
Well said.
James May…
I read your comment regarding Atlas Shrugged. Read many more written by other people, but went back to yours and read again. You have a new (to me) grasp on whats going on in the world and are totally holding my attention.
I’ve never seen any of your essays anywhere, are you a blogger, a writer, commentator? Please forgive me if you are well known and just happened on this site “Why Atlas Shrugged Changes Lives”.
I happened on the site today in my effort to figure out why Dems in the US are so threatened by Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged that they are busy attempting to reshape her as a “sociopath”. You are absolutely correct in your discernment of the idiocy of the US on the politically correct path.
The Pied Piper has been leading us since the 60′s.
I have read and own every book Ayn Rand wrote, watched a movie a few years ago about her life. While age has tempered my dogmatism, I still believe she is correct in the majority of her ideas and observations. I read Atlas Shrugged in 1978. It is indeed a live changing book, and taught me to be the best, seek the best, give the best, expect the best.
Your writing is very refreshing to me and I am busy reading your essays
and wondering….who is this person? Who is finally saying things that are new and true, or am I so out of touch your voice is commonly accepted and I just haven’t heard it?
Do you do a blog, write articles in a paper…what? I am glad I found you, and would appreciate it if you do blog or write articles, kindly direct me to the correct link.
Best Regards, June
WA, USA
“Dr. Akston,” you fail at your own philosophy. What does the word “prescription” mean? Rand did NOT write AS to tell people this is exactly what must be done to fight the looters. She said this numerous times. She became very frustrated with people who thought AS was dogma.
A is A. The world in AS is FICTION. To address reality by aping what fictional characters do is illogical–and stupid.
How refreshing to see some Objectivist views here
“Am I required to accept moral ideals on faith, as religions teach, or are there rational standards by which I can determine right from wrong?” That’s my biggest problem with Libertarians. They just take for granted, without any study or basis, that religious based morals are irrational. Well, some religions’ morals are irrational (i.e., Islam’s) but not all. Aditionally, Libertarian assumptions of the efficiency of the market depend upon certain moral prerequisites, all of which are Judeo-Christian. Finally, “rational standards” depend upon a rational source; does anyone even a bit familiar with history believe man is capable of such?
Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, she was an Objectivist. As such, her problem with religious morality was that it is based on faith, which is, by definition, irrational (faith = belief without reason). She conceded that some religious tenets (e.g., don’t steal) are morally valid, but they can all be derived from man’s nature in the context of objective reality. In other words, you don’t need a deity issuing moral commandments to figure out how to live your life. That applies to ALL religions.
Market efficiency depends on everyone pursuing their own interest; i.e., rational selfishness. It’s the exact opposite of the Judeo-Christian ideal of self-sacrifice.
Is man capable of rational standards? Since you typed your question into a global electronic communication network instead of praying to heaven for an answer, I think I’ll leave that one up to you.
I’m going to have to speak up for those of us whose lives were completely unchanged by Atlas Shrugged. All Ayn Rand did was give voice to the thoughts we already knew. Unfortunately, she did so by wrapping them up in a poorly-written story with boring, one-dimensional characters.
So when is your superior and non-boring story being published?
There’s always Heinlein.
He didn’t say he was a writer, just that Atlas Shrugged, or Rand in general (for me) wasn’t an event. You don’t have to be a writer to have an opinion about someone else crafting a good novel. Given your response, you need to revisit your Objectivist philosophy.
I didn’t finish AS, and I can’t stand the first half of the Fountain-head. Rand pretty much did nothing for me, as it seemed a slightly more sinister version of reality, and I get enough of veneal, pretentious yet somehow electable blowhards in the news every day. I will say she had a surprisingly accurate take on what progressivism would turn out to be (if unintentionally), perhaps because she described how communist politics, if not economics, would evolves.
Still- she’s not engaging enough for my tastes either.
Agreed….Rand’s fiction is composed of cardboard characters, stilted, wooden dialogue that real people don’t engage in, as well as predictable plot development. But what would you expect from a writer who thought Mickey Spillane a greater artist than Shakespeare? Still, her basic ideas — that collectivism robs the producers for the benefit of the inept — is so appealing, and so right on, that her ideas are popular despite their terrible presentation. Unofrtunately, Rand had a stilted, sterile view of humanity, and so while some of her economic ideas resonate deeply, the rest of her philosophy is just ludicrous, a parody almost of what philosophy seeks.
I started a comment, but it turned into an essay of a length that others might find obnoxious if I were to post it here. If you’re interested, here it is.
I look forward to seeing the movie, probably tomorrow.
That is some essay!
I’m just about to read it. Given its length, thanks for not putting it in the comments.
Francis, a very good essay. Thanks for posting it. It got me to thinking about things I hadn’t thought of for some time.
I recommend it to everyone. It’s a great read. You write very well, indeed.
Your Smith-Jones demonstration is not just a hypothetical… I have had that very discussion! I have my own answer to this conundrum, but I don’t want to spoil it for any other readers who might enjoy your essay, so, no spoilers from me! I will say, however, that my answer is ruthless in the extreme.
Thanks again for a great, thought-provoking read!
Reading Atlas Shrugged changed my life when I read it 30 years ago, as a college sophomore. (It was NOT assigned, BTW.)
I attempted to use my time in college to further explore Rand’s philosophy and literature. The faculty’s reaction wasn’t exactly enthusiastic. For example, in a modern American literature course, we were assigned to write an analysis of any work by any American author during the time period. I proposed to write about Atlas Shrugged, and my prof refused. Naive me asked why, expecting to hear some academically-based, logical argument. Here was his response: “She’s too selfish.”
Needless to say, I conducted my studies of individualist philosophy on my own. This led me to studies of individualist economics, politics, etc. My “shadow education” served me so much more than the “official” education on my transcript.
Same here. My degree is from the University of Saskatchewan, school of economics, at the time a decidedly social environment. I consider myself extremely lucky to have read Rand, all of her works, on my own time. She absolutely saved my sanity.
About that same time period I was teaching in a very elite college prep school. I recommended Atlas Shrugged be required summer reading for rising seniors. I can still hear the outrage. The head of the English department said it was “too selfish.” What a shame. I think it should be required reading for everyone. I have read it three times and am planning to read it again soon. For those who have not read it, I recommend you go to http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/atlasshrugged/characters.html and read about the characters. Also on the same website is a summery of each chapter.
My son’s 11th grade American literature teacher, a young African-American woman and graduate of a very left-liberal university, handed out copies of Atlas Shrugged to her students to read on their own, outside of the official syllabus. I was amazed. My son told me he liked the book.
Prologue,
Why are you surprised that Ayn Rand is promoted by Liberals?
Ayn Rand herself was one of the MOST liberal people of her time. She was a militant anti-Christian, a militant abortion promoter, a militant promoter of wars – even the bombing of innocent people, a militant promoter of evolutionism (the so-called ‘Scientific Reason’ that man is merely an advanced ape) and a promoter of many other Liberal causes.
I think you are another victim of the false definitions of ‘Left versus Right’, ‘Liberals versus Conservatives’. Perhaps you need to extract yourself from these Controlled Paradigms and truly become a free thinker.
… For Liberty’s Sake
Why are there so many people who have no idea what they’re talking about?
“graduate of a very left-liberal university”
It might surprise you that some of the more thoughtful libertarian blogs have been done by professors at these universities. For an excellent example, imo, try:
http://volokh.com/
Eugene Volokh is a Professor of Law at UCLA, others are from George Mason (Law), Georgetown School of Law, Emory Law School, George Washington and others. In fact, this site just hosted a discussion on the death(?) of “liberaltarianism”.
As my favorite writer put it, “Cosmic Coincidence Control Center” is working overtime today. The daily blast from Volokh Conspiracy has a link to pj’s own Instapundit.
I read it some 35 years ago and it did not change my life. For the most part I had already come to believe the same things so it was more an affirmation.
The most significant thing I took from the book was how very logical processes can lead to very different conclusions. While following Rand’s logic flow through the novel, at the end she used abstract art as an indicator AGAINST her philosophy while to me, it actually fit perfectly WITH it.
It became clear that merely laying down a logical argument for a point of view does NOT prove it absolutely. There are MANY routes, all equally logical, which lead to different conclusions. Is that the result of some logic being less ‘logically pure’ than others? Perhaps, or more likely PURE ABSOLUTE LOGIC is actually impossibly.
…the wealthy entrepreneur, Hank Rearden, who proudly seeks to generate as much profit as possible, the public interest be damned?
Both want to make as much profit as possible by perfecting their products.
These observations seem contradictory.
Profiting through “perfecting the product” is serving the public interest.
…we see these people as persecuted victims, not wrongdoers.
I think John Galt would disagree with the characterization “victims”. (unless victims of others’ stupidity)
Here is a link to John Galt’s speech, the lengthy chapter towards the end of Atlas Shrugged
“Profiting through “perfecting the product” is serving the public interest. ”
Yes, it is, but what it seems like you have difficulty with is that the “served public interest” is a consequence of Rearden pursuing his own self interests.
Rearden wants to make money. He does so by improving a product. This would be all for naught if the product cost the same and performed no better than the good ‘ol fashion steel rails. There has to be incentive for the public to make the switch. Rearden’s alloy is not only stronger than the old steel but it’s cheaper too. As a result, Rearden sells more track, railroads pay less for materials, passengers pay less for a tickets and shippers pay lower freight costs. Rearden doesn’t have to give a damn if the average Joe gets a cheaper train ticket. His only concern is the relationship between his business and those who require his product. It’s trickle down economics.
I read Atlas Shrugged as a young G.I. in the Army back in the 1970s. As you can imagine, reading such a book was considered quite abberant in the barracks, … even weird.
I’ve always shunned cults of any kind, and tend to openly confront them whenever I encounter one. I fear that Objectivism has, in many ways, developed into such a cult over the yeas. Here’s why:
a) While Rand strongly denounces faith, and even goes as far as cheap demagoguery towards those of faith (e.g. name-calling like ‘mystics’), and promotes an almost-militant hatred towards Jesus Christ, it might be noted that she and her followers may, in fact, be the ones who are the BIGGEST FOLLOWERS of religion. Cultists are always blinded by hypocracy. Their emotional zeal over-rides all rational thought.
b) The theology of Objectivism is based in ‘Human Reason’ (man’s version of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’). It’s god is ‘The Self’. Zealous appeals to such humananistic and narcissistic abstracts, when marketed to the masses, paradoxically and inevitably lead to cult-like religion.
c) That is, every individual is ‘god’. Therefore, every individual’s ‘Truth’ is set by everyman’s standard of ‘Reason’. When those individual ‘rational thoughts’ conflict with the ‘cult-maker’, then (like all cults who experience dissenting views) they are dismissed or ridiculed by the cult at large. Again, paradoxically, Objectivism becomes GROUPTHINK and socialistic in nature, NOT individualistic like the theory goes. I know this first hand. I’ve persoally encountered it.
d) A perfect example of such Objectivist Contradictions existists in Ayn Rand’s own stance on abortion. She was vehemently ‘Pro-Choice’. I have challenged Objectivists over the years on this question, and sadly I’ve NEVER ONCE encountered anyone willing to go ‘against the cult-leader’. There is a strict adherence here to err on the side of death for the innocent.
e) So … How do ‘Pro-Choice’, pro-abortion, Objectivists deal with Ayn Rands very own stated contradiction: LIFE = DEATH ? It’s easy, they dismiss it in a very irrational and UNSCIENTIFIC manner. The official cult repsponse is, a ‘potential is not an actual’. In another words, the infant in the womb is not ‘quite human’ yet.
f) One can then demonstrate their fallacy (and reak their emotional anger at the same time) by asking with ture reason: a) Were you once a child in the womb? To that, they must answer ‘yes’. And, b) What makes you more human now than you were back in the womb? To that question, Objectivisits are stunned into silence. All equivocations and emotional blather after that become tiresome platitudes. Inevitiably, the cultists resort to name-calling (e.g. mystics’).
g) This is no small issue. If Ayn Rand was truly about liberty, then the FIRST liberty must be life. To dismiss life as a ‘potential’, defies ‘Reason’, defies biology, and defies Liberty itself. After all, without the Right to Life, no other right is really possible. Everything is up for grabs to include the theft of property, and the denial of freedom. Ayn Rand induces a major contradiction and I hope that her cult-followers will at least find the courage of their convictions and TRULY BECOME INDIVIDUALs, and seperate from her on this issue, and even go against the religious dogma that she so adamantly sets forth.
Thanks for reading this. … For Liberty’s Sake
I don’t think of objectivism as articulated by Ayn Rand as a cult.
Instead of starting with some overarching set of rules which an individual must follow in order to be a “moral” person (which is what religion does), her point of origin for morality is individual capacity and talent where an individual hones and develops his intrinsic skill set and uses that in service to his own life and, it so happens, the world.
For Ayn Rand, morality is a strong factor in dealings with others in a capitalist scheme, where both sides of the deal profit.
Objectivism is really all about morality. It’s just a more unconventional form of morality than the one we’ve become familiar with as promulgated by the modern Left*, i.e., “my brother needs me, I must arrange our political and economic structure to give some of your wealth to him”.
*I claim the real motive, as in socialist/communist structures throughout our history, is personal power, not a re-distributive impulse to give more to those with less.
tanstaafl
“I don’t think of objectivism as articulated by Ayn Rand as a cult.”
Answer: However, it has become one nonetheless, and it IS religious in nature.
“Instead of starting with some overarching set of rules which an individual must follow in order to be a “moral” person (which is what religion does), her point of origin for morality is individual capacity and talent where an individual hones and develops his intrinsic skill set and uses that in service to his own life and, it so happens, the world.”
Answer: Thank you very much indeed for proving my point here !!! You avoid this issue like the plague. You totally and dismiss an individual’s Right to Life, their inalienable right to breathe and grow, as some mere ‘overarching set of rules’. This is weak.
Then, to further follow your ‘logic’ … Why should you even be afforded the right to live? Hmmm?
“For Ayn Rand, morality is a strong factor in dealings with others in a capitalist scheme, where both sides of the deal profit.”
Answer: Oh really? Then why does she DELIBERATELY induce the DOUBLETHINK in here militant support of abortion: LIFE = DEATH ?
Capitalism is a mere abstract, if Life cannot be guaranteed. Capitalism CANNOT EVEN EXIST if the decision to take one’s innocent life is dependant upon another man’s ‘reasoning’ and NOT protected as an inalienable right – immutable in all ways. You and Rand use ‘capitalism’ as a fig leaf and a canard to paste-over a very important issue. This is ANTI-intellectualism.
“Objectivism is really all about morality.”
Answer: Then, Ayn Rand has a strange definition of ‘morality’, examples:
LIFE IS DEATH (abortion advocacy)
WAR IS PEACE (advocacy for the bombing of innocent people)
MAN IS BRUTE-ANIMAL (advocacy for evolutionism)
It sounds like you are another victim of this cult, and have fallen for the false ‘Left versus Right’ paradigm. Perhaps it is time to extract yourself from the mass hype and start to TRULY think for yourself.
… For Liberty’s Sake
You totally and dismiss an individual’s Right to Life, their inalienable right to breathe and grow, as some mere ‘overarching set of rules’.
I dismissed
formalized religion in that context and am in agreement (w/Rand) that ethics/morality is seated in individual reason.
There is no stronger believer than I in the existence of human beings’ inalienable rights,
Casting labels like “atheist” at Ayn Rand amused her, her take on formalized doctrines was so much deeper. Actually, Christopher Hitchens’ is, too.
Anyway, read the John Galt chapter I linked above and the Ayn Rand speech.
Objectivist Ethics
Over and out.
“”Over and out.”"
This is the true mark of the cultist.
This is the true sign of ANTI-intellectualism !!!
Shut off the debate because you have been openly caught in your own contradictions.
“”Anyway, read the John Galt chapter I linked above and the Ayn Rand speech. Objectivist Ethics”"
This kind of answer really kills me, and further PROVES my point about the cult.
Instead of tanstaafl being able to mount HIS or HER OWN ‘rational’ defense of why Ayn Rand is a miliatant supporter of the killing of innocent life, we get this preductable cult ‘punt’ … ‘read chapter and verse of the cult bible John Galt. blah, blah, blah.’
In another words, tansfaalfl cannot think for him or herself, rather must rely on the prescribed answer of the cult ‘guru’ (dare I say ‘mystic’).
Answer the question head-on, if you are truly an individualist. Otherwise you are merely a borrower of someone else’s ‘ethics/morality’ and ‘individual reason’. You are, in the most bold sense, an intellectual Second-Hander.
As I previously pointed out, when the cult is confronted with the contradiction:
LIFE IS DEATH (abortion)
Stunned silence and evasion.
Again, thank you for proving my point so well.
Over, and always enthusiastically OPEN for commentary! (My mind is open and working as opposed to yours which is dependant upon what John Galt tells you, and otherwise closed.)
… For Liberty’s Sake
There are a number of Rand’s stances with which I disagree–abortion being one of them. She refused to consider the option that avoids death: giving up an unwanted child for adoption.
She also said a woman could never be President because, essentially, a woman needs a man/hero “above” her to look up to.
Rand was never one to change her mind, at least not publicly. And that’s really too bad. If Objectivism is supposed to be all about judgment based on facts, then one should be willing to adjust his judgment when new facts are presented.
“”There are a number of Rand’s stances with which I disagree–abortion being one of them. She refused to consider the option that avoids death: giving up an unwanted child for adoption.”"
Thank you very much for seperating yourself from the Cult. You are a rare thinker indeed.
“”Rand was never one to change her mind, at least not publicly. And that’s really too bad. If Objectivism is supposed to be all about judgment based on facts, then one should be willing to adjust his judgment when new facts are presented.”"
Well put.
Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”
Thanks.
That was my comment–not sure why it was labeled “Anonymous.”
At any rate, thanks for the compliments. I love Rand but love God more. After all, He is the one who gave us reason.
“When I read Atlas Shrugged, I was captivated.”
When I tried to read it, I found it one of the single most-tedious books I’ve ever encountered.
Logic and reason can do that to those not able to handle it.
And with that we see why Randians can be so annoying.
I’m not a Randian. Love her work but not a follower. I’m a Christian, which is anathema to Rand–she’s not right about everything.
Tedious is an understatement………I like a few of her basic ideas (don’t throttle, by excessive regulation or taxation, the creativity and ingenuity of the individuals in order to “level the field” for the inept), but her fiction is hopelessly stilted. I think she really saw people either as creative, completely independent producers or as parasites: reality is obviously more complex than that. (Rand herself was dependent upon people buying her awful books.) She believed that anyone who put family and human relationships above creative work was immoral. Sort of a Hitlerian tendency to decide who was worth living and who was not…
I think some of you here are making this a right-left paradigm about Ayn Rand. To the poster who said that Mrs. Rand was a liberal, your absolutely WRONG! She was NOT a liberal, and she was NOT a conservative, she was an “Individualist”. This is the problem with some of us conservatives, just because Mrs. Rand didn’t agree with most of the stuff that we believe in doesn’t make her a left winger.
You see folks, Ayn Rand was an devout atheist (she was NOT a militant atheist as one poster said), she said to William F. Buckley Jr., “Your too intelligent to believe in god!”, she never said that people who believe in religion are stupid! Also, Rand was against “croney-capitalism”, ie, take a look at GE/NBC/MSNBC in which over the last two years none of their employees haven’t paid any type of income tax, and to me that’s completely wrong of them for not paying income taxes. Samething can be said for the banks who where bailed out a few years ago by the government, to me that’s not real capitalism, that’s “fiscal socialism”. Now to back to Mrs. Rand, she was an early opponent of the Vietnam war, she claimed, “I am against the war in Vietnam and have been for years, in my view we should fight fascism and communism whey they come to this country.”! You see folks, Rand was anti-communism, anti-fascism, anti-socialism, etc.
“A nation is defined by it’s borders, language & culture!”
Sean
Thank you for showing the courage (er hem) to reply ‘about’ me, but not directly ‘to’ me. I will not respond in the same Randian cowardly manner, but instead will take your argument straight-on.
“”I think some of you here are making this a right-left paradigm about Ayn Rand. To the poster who said that Mrs. Rand was a liberal, your absolutely WRONG!”"
Answer: Then how come she took such a militant approach on so many main-stream Liberal causes? (coincidence?)
“” She was NOT a liberal, and she was NOT a conservative, she was an “Individualist”.”"
Answer: Oh, now I get it. When she is exposed as merely another Liberal-in-Conservative’s-Clothing, we re-invent her legacy under another so-called ‘intellectual’ ideology (e.g. individualism). That’s not going to cut it. That’s weak.
“”You see folks, Rand was anti-communism, anti-fascism, anti-socialism, etc.”"
Answer:
Anti-Communist? She vigorously promoted the Hegelian Diaelectic.
Anti-Fascist? She entusisatically promoted the State’s ‘right’ to take innocent life.
Anti-Socialism? Then how come so many of the masses that follow her cult without criticism and intelletually bow to such collective contradictions:
LIFE IS DEATH (abortion advocacy)
WAR IS PEACE (advocacy for the bombing of innocent people)
MAN IS BRUTE-ANIMAL (advocacy for evolutionism)
It sounds like you are another victim of this cult, and have fallen for the false ‘Left versus Right’ paradigm. Perhaps it is time to extract yourself from the mass hype and start to TRULY think for yourself.
… For Liberty’s Sake
you are a confused poor teen, pity on you because you didn’t read (or understood) Rand. (before you throw at me any of you “randian” “cultist” epithets, no, I am not Randian and I am not a cultist)
The corporate greed machine came up with this movie as desperation propaganda ploy to distract the impoverished populace from their real enemies. The Goldman Sachs and Texaco executives know their greed is the only obstacle to a caring, compassionate society. They know the people are so impoverished that a revolution is brewing in which they will seize all of their wealth and create a society where nobody goes without food, housing,or health care is a real possibility. This crude propaganda might be the last gasp of the corporate overlords.
I can’t believe anybody could take Rand seriously. Her arrogance was exceeded only by her commitment to evil. She seemed to really believe the corporate agenda of unbridled greed,not because she was demoralized by the stream of corporate propaganda shrieking “There is no alternative,” but because she really believed it. She understood compassion and rejected it. I’m sure she tortured kittens as a hobby.
Thanks for showing us all what liberalism is really all about, utopianism. Please describe your perfect society and how it would produce all the things a society needs to function. Or at least cite someone else who has done so.
OTOH, there are people in this world who really are one-dimesional comic book characters, just like the people in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”.
Throbbin’ being a textbook case.
Throb is a dead ringer for James Taggart.
Hey, look who’s back!
This is for For Liberty’s Sake, buddy, the reason why I didn’t respond to your original post of calling Mrs. Rand a “liberal” is because their’s a slight problem with my laptop. FLS, for you to say that Rand aligned herself with the liberal agenda is complete false, you see FLS and others who are brainwashed, Rand emphasize individual rights, she was a laissez-faire capitalist, enforced by a constitutional limited government (that sounds pretty conservative to me, NOT leftist or communist as some of you are claiming). She was against all types of collectivism, statism, welfare state, socialism, communisim. During the 1940s, she became involved in political activism, her and her huband worked full time in volunteer positions for the 1940 presidental campaign of Republican Wendell Willkie. Yes she opposed the military draft during the Vietnam war, but she also was against “draft-dodging” as well, she didn’t favor draft-dodging. She also supported the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, she claimed “civilized men fighting savages”.
FLS, I agree with you on the abortion issue, I don’t agree with Rand abortion, so for you to say that I’m following a cult is an insult to my intelligence, I don’t follow NO type of cult. Yes Rand was for abortion and supported Roe v. Wade, I disagree with her on that, and I know you and I both disagree when it comes to abortion (I to am pro-life myself FLS just like you). So yes she was wrong on abortion, but overall in general she supported individual rights, you must acknowledge that. Yes she was anti-communist, let me give some facts before I log off, when she worked in hollywood, she extended her involvement with the free market and anti-communist activism. She was involved with the “Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, and she also joined the American Writers Association, also an anti-communist organization in it’s day.
“A nation is defined by it’s borders, language & culture!”
Sean, thank you for your courage to address me directly this time.
“”FLS, for you to say that Rand aligned herself with the liberal agenda is complete false, you see FLS and others who are brainwashed, Rand emphasize individual rights …”"
STOP RIGHT HERE. This is where you are contradictory and where Ayn Rand is so wrong.
How can she ‘advocate individual rights’ as you say on the one hand, when on the other hand, she enthusiastically favors the TAKING AWAY THE MOST BASIC OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, the right to life?
Who is REALLY brainwashed here with DOUBLETHINK?
“”… she was a laissez-faire capitalist, enforced by a constitutional limited government (that sounds pretty conservative to me, NOT leftist or communist as some of you are claiming). She was against all types of collectivism, statism, welfare state, socialism, communisim.”"
AGAIN …
How can she support ‘constitutioanl government’ as you say, when she enthusiastically favors the TAKING AWAY THE MOST BASIC OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, the right to life?
That one Pro-Abortion stance puts her more in the category of Collectivist, Statist, Socialist, Communist, and yes, even Fascist, than it does a defender of Constitutional Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. (Hint: without life, liberty and happiness are meaningless).
“”During the 1940s, she became involved in political activism, her and her huband worked full time in volunteer positions for the 1940 presidental campaign of Republican Wendell Willkie. Yes she opposed the military draft during the Vietnam war, but she also was against “draft-dodging” as well, she didn’t favor draft-dodging. She also supported the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, she claimed “civilized men fighting savages”.”"
BIG DEAL … All of these wars and endless serial conflicts are a result of entangling alliances and ‘resolutions’ with the UN, SEATO, and Israel, etc. … wonderful.
However, Constitutional Conservatism as defined by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and the other Founders was:
“Friendship with all, alliances with NONE !!! NO enduring NOR entangling alliances.”
Yet, Ayn Rand seems to get a kick out of seeing America stick Her nose in everyone else’s business, at the behest of any alliance under the sun.
That’s NOT soveriegn Constitutionalism, that’s its very opposite, rogue INTERNATIONALISM !!!
Again, you are the victim of more DOUBLETHINK here.
“”FLS, I agree with you on the abortion issue, I don’t agree with Rand abortion … “”
Thanks for the vindication.
“”Yes Rand was for abortion and supported Roe v. Wade, I disagree with her on that, and I know you and I both disagree when it comes to abortion (I to am pro-life myself FLS just like you).”"
Then why do you support her Pro-Abortion ideology: Objectivism ?
That seems pretty duplicitous to me. It must be torturous to have to reconcile those two extreme contradictions in your mind at the very same time.
““A nation is defined by it’s borders, language & culture!””
Then it seems like you would reject the alliance-loving, international-entangling, stick-our-nose-in-every-war, abortion-loving, American infant killing, Globalist Utopia of Ayn Rand.
Hmmm ???
“Sean, thank you for your courage to address me directly this time.”
LOL, even when Sean said it was a problem in his laptop, you are still fooling yourself about your own false issue of coward/courage of address you or not directly? What a pitiful troll. And you pretend to have any rationality worth be read? double lol for you.
Yes, I am writting this just for fun.
For a thorough demolition of Rand and her “idiotic ‘Objectivism’,” please see David Bentley Hart’s, The Trouble with Ayn Rand in the latest issue of First Things.
I addition to damning her execrable excuse for real literature, he adds:
“And, really, what can one say about Objectivism? It isn’t so much a philosophy as what someone who has never actually encountered philosophy imagines a philosophy might look like: good hard axiomatic absolutes, a bluff attitude of intellectual superiority, lots of simple atomic premises supposedly immune to doubt, immense and inflexible conclusions, and plenty of assertions about what is “rational” or “objective” or “real.” Oh, and of course an imposing brand name ending with an “-ism.” Rand was so eerily ignorant of all the interesting problems of ontology, epistemology, or logic that she believed she could construct an irrefutable system around a collection of simple maxims like “existence is identity” and “consciousness is identification,” all gathered from the damp fenlands between vacuous tautology and catastrophic category error. She was simply unaware that there were any genuine philosophical problems that could not be summarily solved by flatly proclaiming that this is objectivity, this is rational, this is scientific, in the peremptory tones of an Obersturmführer drilling his commandoes.
If that’s the money quote, it’s not a reasoned article but an envy-driven, venom-filled diatribe. It has little chance of changing any but the weakest mind.
Sounds like your Hart simply ripped off Whitaker Chamber’s “review” of Atlas Shrugged in the National Review back in 1957. Why can’t you lefties even be original in your smears?
David Bentley Hart’s article was great — hilarious, and right on. No, it does not pretend to be a scholarly rebuttal of particular aspects of Rand’s writings, but is an entertaining and spot-on overview.
It’s the “greed” of the Texaco’s, U.S. Steel’s, HPs, Boeing’s, Sony’s, etc., etc., etc., that ultimately put you in front of the computer you are using; or the car you are driving; or the house you are living in. These same “corporate greed machines” put millions of people to work, which allowed them to feed, clothe and house themselves. Just ask those that lived in the former Soviet Union before the break-up how well did government control of industry work out for them.
Sorry. The above is a reply to @#14. Throb Yob
I agree with Ken Miller.
Rand was a terrible writer.
Don’t think much of her as a person either. Her overall philosophy was a total joke (if everyone lived the way Ayn Rand did, the human race would die out in a generation or two), but she did have some good observations on the nature of government.
“I don’t think of objectivism as articulated by Ayn Rand as a cult.”
I dunno…looking at Rand and her clique of followers, it looks like a cult to me.
And, not even an interesting cult with wild drug-induced orgies. Just a bunch of losers knuckling their foreheads in time to Rand’s tedious pronouncements.
Boring.
Dear Not For Liberty’s Sake,
Instead of tanstaafl being able to mount HIS or HER OWN ‘rational’ defense of why Ayn Rand is a miliatant supporter of the killing of innocent life, we get this preductable cult ‘punt’ … ‘read chapter and verse of the cult bible John Galt. blah, blah, blah.’
The topic in Atlas Shrugged/in this forum isn’t abortion, it is enlightened self interest and morality based in human reason, as opposed to a morality based in fear and un-thinking belief.
Which I happen to think is pretty cool, that version.
You instantly characterize me as a cultist or something. I don’t call myself an objectivist/Randian whatever and haven’t read her books since I was a teenager, a long
time ago.
Simply put, her writing on those topics matches, to a large degree, what life has taught me. (the speech I link was given 50+ years ago, so you’ll have to imagine that terms such as “metaphysical” and “self-esteem” might not match up with today’s usage. Yeah, much of it is heavy slogging)
You won’t even go so far as to read a chapter or so from Atlas Shrugged to get the gist.
You’re too wrapped up in your own cultist views.
“”The topic in Atlas Shrugged/in this forum isn’t abortion, it is enlightened self interest and morality based in human reason, as opposed to a morality based in fear and un-thinking belief.”"
Oh
… so now we are to accept infanticide (abortion) as ‘enlightened self interest’ and ‘morality based in human reason’.
And
… those who stand up for the right of the very innocent from being brutally impaled to death as ‘morality based in fear’ and ‘unthinking belief’.
Now
… Who is really unthinking here?
… Why are you afraid of discussing this issue of Ayn Rands’ obsession of abortion?
… Upon whose ‘human-based morality’ do you find it a right to take an innocent life?
… Several Ayn Rand followers already have admitted today that she is wrong on abortion, are they unthinking too?
It is you who closes the mind and accepts Ayn Rand’s DOUBLETHINK.
Become Pro-Life and a protector of Freedom.
… For Liberty’s Sake
Become Pro-Life and a protector of Freedom.
Let me tell you something, “not” for liberty.
I consider the entire “i’m pro life” “i’m anti-abortion” alleged conundrum to be one of the dumbest debates in which humankind has ever indulged.
Honestly, we don’t deserve this gift of life, this gift of intelligence, to indulge in such lunacy.
The fact that you keep harping on it and seem completely unpersuaded by the fact that it has nothing to do with the topic here, nothing to do with the book & movie Atlas Shrugged, makes me think that you’re not one of the brightest bulbs in the pack and are just using this venue to “diss” Ayn Rand.
For the record and information you don’t really need to know, the 55+ milllion elective abortions in the US since the passage of roe v. wade (1973) are, generally and specifically, an abomination and a blight on the soul of mankind. Also for the record, this current President offered highly convoluted arguments (as a “constitutional scholar” you know) for voting against a ban on partial birth abortion while a Senator in Illinois.
I lived in Wichita KS for 24 years, where the (now deceased) “abortion doctor to the world”, Dr. George Tiller, practiced his trade. A third rate doctor, who could only make money that way, as do his fellow abortionists.
Any woman who visits such butchers for “release” is a moron. Planned Psrenthood is deeply into the “bizness” of hooking up people with “unwanted” pregnancies with abortionists, and we pay for it, as taxpayers.
Another abomination.
Anyway, my view of abortion goes far beyond some brain dead “choice” between pro life and pro abortion.
And I still agree with Ayn Rand’s arguments on capitalism. The current crowd in Washington DC would be her own, and her protagonist’s, worst nightmare
“”Anyway, my view of abortion goes far beyond some brain dead “choice” between pro life and pro abortion.”"
Then, exactly what is your ‘enlightened’ view ???
Are we to believe that you are Pro-Half-Abortion and Pro-Half-Life ???
You make no sense at all. I sense that you use this kind of generalized statement as a cop-out. That’s intellectually shameful and morally weak.
Defend Life,
… For Liberty’s Sake
You can believe whatever you want.
I believe you are not a worthy debate opponent.
You may (or may not) be correct on the subject of Ayn Rand and abortion.
I’d venture a guess that the extent of your knowledge there is something you got as propaganda from some extreme right wing source. Or maybe a left wing source, one working, covertly, to destroy capitalist principles.
Either way, I’d guess you just absorbed that propaganda into your neural circuits, whole hog, as “the truth and nothing but the truth”, and that is the extent of your knowledge of Rand and her writings.
Fanatics on the far right are as offensive as fanatics on the far left. Those who would manipulate human thought in order to advance an agenda have always counted on Useful Idiots.
Well Said
“The corporate greed machine came up with this movie as desperation propaganda ploy to distract the impoverished populace from their real enemies.”
Hmmmm.
If I know anything about the corporate greed machine, they made this movie using their own money, hoping that people would voluntarily purchase tickets, and that enough tickets would be sold so that the makers of the movie would take in more money than they spent making the movie.
Compare and contrast with how a non-greed machine like the CPB operates.
I think this movie might be a welcome and timely juxtaposition to the ethos of weakness, dependency and human failure that currently permeates the bleeding heart version of the human condition in Washington DC.
That whole crowd of do-nothing, accomplish-nothing élitists that finagles tirelessly, day in and day out, to reconfigure the representative Republic along lines they pretend to believe are “moral”.
All those anti-capitalists that are going to be so immensely surprised when they’ve destroyed capitalist competition entirely and no one is producing their air-conditioned SUV’s and private jets.
And if that sounds melodramatic to you, hey, melodrama seems to be the order of the day.
(BTW, the state sponsored Chevy Volt caught fire in someone’s garage night before last. Barry himself travels around in an 8 mpg hog.)
“There’s always Heinlein.”
Or, Poul Anderson. I’d rather read about Nicholas Van Rijn than Dagny Taggart any day of the week.
Nice article by Ms. Ghate.
Saw the movie and I was impressed with it. The first run on the John Galt Line was well done, I thought it was very inspiring and the highlight of the movie. On the drive back after the movie I was thinking the same thing the article’s author suggested: I need to re-read Atlas Shrugged.
Hopefully, we won’t have to wait too long for parts two and three to come out at the theater!
Capitalism must have moral restraint to function as a benefit to a free society. (otherwise all is fair concerning business is business)
Ayn Rand; as most atheists believe; thinks that man can be his own moral authority and there is no need of a God.
Christians believe God to be the source of morality and His laws should be the foundation of a free self governing society.
We hold these truth’s to be self evident “that all men are endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights”.
How telling was it that Obama left “by their creator” out of 6 consecutive references to this historic declaration.
Christian based laws protect ALL citizens equally but according to Rand and Obama some people are more equal than others.
I prefer Ayn’s approach and I really don’t see any parallel between her atheism and Obama. just bashing atheists?
“Just bashing Atheist’s”
You bet I am and will continue to do so as their beliefs are just as much
a threat to this nation as those who follow Obama but on the other end
of the spectrum.
If an atheist Man independently conducts himself as God would have him do, there is no conflict between those who believe in God and those who do not. Religion is just a way to teach people how to treat others.
That is why I am not a follower of a Religion but of Jesus Christ himself
and have a personal relationship with him; that is what sets Christianity apart from all the “Religions”. He is my moral compass and the author of
this life and He owns this earth so I’d better be a good steward of it.
To sum up my belief as a mere teaching format to follow does it a huge disservice but you’ve closed your mind to the possibility of meeting the author of life itself and prefer a system that would allow manipulation
by replacing his authority with man contrived reason; man cannot be trusted to rule over another man.
Your opinion is noted.
All you need to know about this movie is Hollywood refused to make it or distribute it. They are anti-capitalists not counting their millions of course. Ayn Rand was simply writing about what she observed going on around her.
Ask any Russian immigrant to this country from the old Soviet Union what they see going on around them now in the US.
I hoped somewhere in this list of comments someone would have the common sense and courage to utter the truth. Thank you #26 Joe Mudd Your post wins the blue ribbon. Well done.
So I’ll tell you all how things really are in the physical world that includes humans. Everyone is a little right and it is our job to delineate the weights that are assigned to everybody’s little bit of right. The world is really like the MINT floor wiper and the Rhomba floor vacuum. They use “fuzzy logic” to make decisions. And so do we. That is what gives us the little bit of flexibility we possess so that we can change our minds.
Socialists are right when people are going hungry and dying from treatable diseases, while objectivists are right when people are stymied in trying to be excellent and thus improving the world for everybody. Elections are the mechanism for making mid-course corrections. However, we are always in “mid-course”.
there are many you tube videos of Ayn on talk shows
..where the show is hostile to her and she cleans their collective clocks. there is a lot of mis-information about her that listening to the videos dispels.
In reply to tanstaafl
“”You may (or may not) be correct on the subject of Ayn Rand and abortion.”"
There are Youtube videos that show her being interviewed in support of abortion. (Hint: it will take you a whole 45 seconds to find them).
“”I’d venture a guess that the extent of your knowledge there is something you got as propaganda from some extreme right wing source. Or maybe a left wing source, one working, covertly, to destroy capitalist principles.”"
Oh
So, now someone who desires to protect innocent infants from being brutally killed is now ‘influenced by right wing propaganda’ or some ‘left wing conspiracy’ ???
… Grow up.
Let me ask you to think (yes, actually THINK for yourself).
Question 1: Were you once an infant in the womb ???
If you answered YES,
Question 2: What makes you more human now than when you were in the womb ???
If you answered NO,
Question 2: Where did you learn biology, and how does this work ???
I will not permit you an escape from your defense of abortion without pressing logic and reason.
Ayn Rand fails the logic and reason test miserably.
Mrs. Rand’s argument for abortion is not whether the “state” has the right to commit abortions. Her argument is that the state has no right to stop a person from choosing to get one.
In her philosophy, as is in most philosophy’s that attempt to take a classical liberal standpoint, freedom is a negative state. So in the case of the government, freedom is a state of negative coercive force against you.
Mrs. Rand argues that you can decide for yourself if you are a proponent or opponent of abortion. That is a personal question of morality. As I agree with you, the unborn child is a life and the potential for it I would personally protect if it is my own child.
However her logical argument in favor of it is two fold. One being a scientific standpoint that the unborn child is a fetus (therefore not human) and does not have its own cognition until it leaves the host (mother) and therefore does not have the rights of a human until birth. The second point being that the mother should not be forced to place her life in danger with child birth or economic subjugation with raising a child if such action is not affordable.
With that said, she believes it is not within the power of the state to control a mother’s decision on how to live her life and Mrs. Rand advocates abortion. Rand denounces the case that it is murder by denouncing that the unborn infant is human due to lack of the one attribute she considers necessary to be human which is cognition.
Though I do not agree with abortion personally, I must accept that government must make judgments based on science/reason/logic rather than religious/emotional beliefs. In the case of abortion, the question to determine whether the practice should be allowed is when life actually begins.
I personally believe that if a scientific/biological standpoint must be used, no abortions should be allowed past the point the unborn child can be separated from the mother and still survive. That is the point where I personally believe that government should consider abortion murder. The only exception I personally believe is valid is if the mother is at risk of dying in child birth. The mother then has to make the personal decision then whether to give birth or not.
I understand your argument For-Libertys-Sake, however I am not for any other person telling me how to live my life. Saying that a woman has to give birth, is fundamentally allowing the government to tell her how she has to live.
I only believe government should be present to prevent an anarchist “might over right” society in which any ruffian could take power. So things like murder, where coercive force is initiated between individuals, government is there to right the wrong.
If you can make a case where life begins at conception, the I would agree that abortion is an initiation of coercive force and the government should step in to prevent that. Until you convince me of that point, I personally cannot agree scientifically that a zygote or an underdeveloped mass of cells is a human despite the resemblance.
I believe that government should make no laws based upon religion nor should the make laws in favor or against religions. The reason being is that once there is a majority of one religion, it is only a matter of a vote which would create persecution against the minority. Think if we lived under Sharia law like other countries of the world. The only exception for government intervention in a religious incident would be instances in which religions allow/promote the initiation of coercive force against individuals (ex: honor killings in Islam).
Since I cannot agree with religious law and the only arguments I have heard which say that life begins at conception are all religious. I logically agree with a government standpoint of abortions being legal. I do not however agree with government funding for abortions (or any health care for that matter) because that once again is government subjugation of your life in the form of money which took time in your life to make and is now stolen from you without any agreement.
It’s not religious law that holds the highest moral ground against abortion
it’s science. The mother has no right to harm her baby in or out of the womb
because her baby is a separate being with it’s own DNA it is not a part of her body. Once conceived she (the mother) is bound to protect; her CHOICE has been made and now responsibility takes charge.
If she didn’t want the child she should have CHOSEN to not get pregnant.
Murder is against both mans law and Gods law.
The time to prevent going to jail is before you rob the store; once you
enter with the gun your choice has been made there’s no going back.
I saw the movie yesterday. I thought it was excellent. Unfortunately, part II won’t be aired until a year from now. I really think everyone should encourage their liberal friends to watch it. It’s frightening. It shows the sausage being made in Washington and the devastation that too much government seizures of private companies can do to the economy. It’s really not far from what has happened…the car companies, student loans, health care, banking, you name it. It’s a must watch, but bring your Tums.
Reading the reviews you can see liberals HATE this movie. Some even alluding to the fact it’s so bad you don’t need to see it because it will be a “let down.” Reading the comment above I can see what our problems is. Those of us who have a love of freedom in common are not happy with that. Both objectivists and Christians can’t get over themselves enough to live and let live.
I have a number of disagreements with Ayn Rand, but I have one major agreement. Freedom. In a nation that is free, those who love freedom but disagree on everything else need to stand up for one another. I stand up for those who call themselves Objectivist, even though I call myself Christian.
How much do you love freedom if you can’t stand what other people do with theirs? Really? Get over yourself!
The movie is much better than critics claim. It does not come across as “low budget” and the casting was perfect. I don’t see how a big name actor would have helped this movie except in the marketing area, possibly drawing people who would not ordinarily see the movie.
The movie is an excellent adaptation of the original story; moving it perfectly into our not too distant future. If you wonder what the world will look like after a second Obama administration, go see the movie.
Funny, agree with any aspect of Rand and you are in the cult because it’s complete fantasy; but when tyranny over individuals of any kind has led to failure for all of recorded history and somehow you are… not?
An individual can do far more good for a society, when behaving rationally, and within the scope of rights: life, liberty and property, but when the government tries to help it always makes it worse because it MUST use force:
War on poverty: we now have an extreme barrier to reaching upper levels of wealth creation.
Federal Reserve: By printing money with no value from a gold standard gave power to a hidden tax (devaluing the dollar).
Social Security: money taken was never used as stated and has less value than what could have been saved via simple interest in a bank.
HUD/Fannie/Freddie: now we have the largest portion of homes unoccupied and people purposefully going into foreclosure.
Federal Student Loans: we know have more waiters with “useful” degrees than ever before.
Is there any government program that has improved society… ever? And the sad part, the ones against this are the cultists. Government cannot be proactive it is left with being reactive to protect the rights of citizens – whenever government is proactive it uses money unwisely – outright foolishly. When an individual does it wrong he pays a heavy toll; when the government does it wrong they cover their error with another program. That is why the US Constitution is a document of “negative rights.”
“agree with any aspect of Rand and you are in the cult because it’s complete fantasy..”
No, that’s a straw-man argument. I like some of Rand’s basic ideas about the dangers of collectivism and the resultant stifling of individuals’ creativity and entrepreneurship, but no one would hardly make me out to be a Randroid as a result. No, what gets you into cult status is the all-too-frequent “I am Howard Roark” syndrome that so many of her disciples fall prey to. The symptoms are: complete adherence to virtually EVERYTHING the goddess Rand said; despising anyone who disagrees with her, and ascribing their disagreement to “evasion” or lack of intelligence; tendency to refer to Rand’s characters as if they were real (Galt says….Dagny says…); feelings of being misunderstood and unappreciated by the most of humanity (the unthinking, irrational masses); the inability to believe that any argument against Rand’s ideas have logic or reason behind them.
That’s what gets you the label “Randroid”.
sQuis custodiet ipsos custodes: those illiberal “liberals” speaking from
Congress/Judiciary and Executive, ivory towers/monasteries/ TV talk shows that bring them money beyond the dreams of avarice about what “People” need, are entitled to.
“People” awakened from torpor induced by the drugs of TV and Hollywood tales of demonic, “rich” look at the priests’ manipulations to “protect” them from paying “fair share ” of the costs they impose on people,and notice the discrepancy in their words and their acts. What is “fair share” between a family left with $20,000 after taxes and one with $2,000,000 who decides what is “fair share” for that family with $20,000?
(having paid teams of lawyers small fortunes to “protect” them from a larger tax payment — a “fair share”?)e.g. those paragons of liberalism John Kerry, both Clintons, ALL~ the Kennedys and Obamas… And what about Oprah Winfrey and her ilk?
Plus the poisonous reactions of the priests to those citizens who object to their impositions. As if the people, citizens of the USA, have no voice worth hearing.
Since the priests hold the levers of government and understand government as the power to control people,do not need to hear the voices of citizens who object to their impositions.
“There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money” underscores the writings of Ayn Rand in the people who work, create a better mousetrap, and provide real, honourable benefit to countless others.
In contrast to those who do not work for it but rather as highwaymen take it from those who do work and create observable good for bribes to their vassals to maintain them in their royal status.Such people were once upon a time called thieves and criminals. Today in the USA they’re called “Democrats”/RINOS, liberals, liberal academics and politicians.
My brother suggested I might like this website. He used to be totally right. This submit truly made my day. You cann’t consider simply how a lot time I had spent for this information! Thank you!