This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Rand-ian Writing On The Wall
Submitted by Jeff Thomas via International Man,

When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. – Ayn Rand; Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Pretty strong words… the last four, in particular.
Ayn Rand knew whereof she spoke. Born in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1905, she became politically conscious while still a child and did not favour the existing concept of constitutional monarchy. So, it would not have been surprising if, when the Russian revolution broke out when she was twelve, she bought into the proselytising of Vladimir Lenin, as so many did at that time.
Instead, she quickly surmised that the Bolsheviks’ claim to improve life for the average man was, in reality, a plan to diminish the quality of life for all of the people. In doing so, the Bolsheviks confiscated her father’s business and displaced her family. At one point they were nearly starving, but in 1925, she received permission to emigrate to the US. (She later attempted to get her parents and sisters out, but it proved to be too late.)
A Lesson Hard-Learned
In establishing her now well-known beliefs in governmental systems, Ayn Rand had the benefit of having observed the entire progression from a relatively benign monarchical system to totalitarianism. As a result, she not only learned that political leaders can be deceitful in their claims for social improvement, she also learned, first hand, that those leaders (and/or hopeful leaders) who promise that they are going to change the system in such a way that everyone will “have all they need,” are the most deceitful of all.
In my opinion, the greatest possible threat from the fanciful claims by politicians lies in the willingness of the populace to actually believe such claims. Sadly, it does seem as though the majority of people in any country tend to be extraordinarily gullible in this regard.
The very idea that some method can be found that would make it possible to equalise all people is patently ludicrous. There will always be differences in intellect, talent, and ambition from one individual to the next. The idea that any government should somehow enforce the more gifted or more motivated to continually give up the fruits of their efforts, whilst giving those fruits to others who are less gifted and less motivated is, by definition, unworkable.
The Obvious Choice
Such an idea, whether we consider it laudable or not, cannot ultimately succeed. The most that can be expected is that the idea could successfully be enforced, which would result, eventually, in the gifted and motivated ceasing to make the necessary effort to excel. And, of course, in socialist countries, this is what, over time, we see take place.
There is a direct relationship between the degree of “redistribution” by the government and the decline in effort by the gifted or motivated.
Still, there will always exist those who are less gifted or less motivated who will want to believe that political leaders can somehow make this impossible concept a reality. And of course, these people can fully be expected to vote for, or otherwise support, those who make such empty promises.
Therefore, the realisation that should be taken away from this discussion is that, over time, it is perfectly predictable that a given government might ultimately go in a direction of self-destruction, as it will be likely to pander to the majority, who seek such largesse at the expense of others.
What then, of the minority? What of those who are in that group of more gifted or more motivated people—the ones that do, historically, tend to push a society forward with their abilities and efforts?
They have a choice. They can “go with the flow,” should the country in question go into social and political decline; they can accept it and try to muddle through, as did Ayn Rand’s parents after the revolution. Or they can vote with their feet, as did Rand herself.
The results of these choices are plain: Zinovy and Anna Rosenbaum disappeared into Soviet obscurity, whilst daughter Ayn escaped to become a novelist in a freer and more inspiring country: the US.
This scenario repeated itself in Germany and Austria in the 1930s, when such notables as Albert Einstein, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises made their exits to the US, England, and Switzerland, respectively.
The Writing Is on the Wall
And so it has gone, throughout history. When the writing is on the wall that “the society is doomed,” most people invariably stick it out where they are, hoping either that “things will get better,” or at least, that “it won’t get too much worse.”
In George Orwell’s 1945 book, “Animal Farm,” the pigs convinced the other animals to revolt against the farmer, whom the pigs claimed was oppressing them. When the revolution succeeded, the animals proudly painted the words, “All animals are equal” on the barn. Later, under cover of darkness, the pigs changed the wording to, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
This was literally the writing on the wall—the signal that the moment had arrived when the animals should have either overthrown the pigs or, if that was not possible, hopped the fence and skedaddled.
In real life, making this decision is quite a bit more difficult. However, it can be said that Ayn Rand made the task simpler for us. In the quote above, she offers the “writing on the wall.” It only remains to us to decide whether the point she describes has been reached. We can assume that, if we are presently living in a country that matches her description, and it remains possible at present to make an exit, as she did in 1926, we would be well advised to do so.
Certainly, her parents mistakenly waited longer, and young Ayn was the only one who escaped the Soviet Union.
We cannot control the obsessive behaviour of tyrants. They will forever be amongst us, and the majority of people do tend to “go along” in the end, either through ignorance or in the false belief that they will somehow benefit from such tyranny.
Our one choice, therefore, is the one that was faced by Ayn Rand and her parents. They chose differently and their fates could not have diverged more as a result.
- 20162 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


They Live
Out of bubblegum again?
Where's LTER with her usual idiotic conflations of Greedspam and Rand? She should be all over this.
>you may know that your society is doomed. – Ayn Rand; Atlas Shrugged, 1957
>Pretty strong words… the last four, in particular.
You mean this last 4 words: Ayn Rand; Atlas Shrugged
Listen.
Let them eat Zero!
Ayn Rand was surely one of the ugliest women in recent history. On the inside as well as on the outside.
How profound.
Rand was an intelligent moron.
And yet ...... stunningly accurate. I aspire to be that talented a moron.
Ayn Rand was surely one of the ugliest women in recent history. On the inside as well as on the outside.
Yeah? Well your proctologist tells me you're no oil painting, either.
As it happens, Ayn Rand was a zionist, so the racist old bitch can go fuck herself.
But she still made some very astute observations about the State and the left - i.e., parasitic twats like you.
Finally, a thoughtful analysis of Rand's views based on Rand's actual views. You're going to take all the fun out of bashing her for things she never really said.
speaking of ugly, that was an ugly comment, that contributed nothing to the conversation.
why don't you provide a rational, logical criticism of her work, instead.
Because Obama.
There's no need to kick up a stink.
Could it be your long journey & fascination with missing white women vs missing (whatever skin color) women has finally taken a fork in the road?
Could it just be, that missing ugly women aren't publicized in a media completely obsessed with looks and cosmetic appearence?
There now, go forth and give this to your lily white progressive elites in academia, pry them away their marbled halls and mahogany walled libraries and incessant chin scratching, send them forth into the streets & alleyways in search of AIDS infected, heroin.crack addled prostitutes sleeping next to dumpsters who have gone missing.
They come in all colors Eirik, do let us know what your tenured friends come up with ;-)
There are no perfect people, we all have feet of clay. But Ayn Rand has added greatly to the discussion. As a person she was overbearing and self-centered but she was one of the best political philosophers in 500 years.
Compare the Donahue interview available on youtube in which the audience acts like a bunch of spoiled children and Ayn lashes out to the Tom Snyder interview in which he treats her with respect. Perhaps the most amazing moment is at the end when Tom asks her if she minds the phrase "God bless you," even though she is an atheist. She says the phrase is a compliment and implies giving the highest regard to someone. Tom then says "God bless you, " to Ayn and she responds in kind.
A is A
Tis is... lol
Von Firstenberg!
Meh.....Oh look, new "From Around The Web" ads!!!
AdBlock, dood...
Amen to Rand's quote.
Doomed.
Rand said in the final part of this interview with Tom Snyder that American liberty would see a resurgence coming from the right but not the religious right. Good interview.
1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ex-rVkOFHU
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFy9A7WEzPA
Diffuse costs. Concentrated benefits.
redistribution results=ferguson, mo.
what if the ebt cards went blank.
hmmm, maybe ann was on to something, so fucking obvious.
here have something for nothing whilst we waste billions chasing bogeymen and our nations infastructure deteriorates.
nfu
(nation fucked up)
Well I'm glad Ayn Rand was able to vote with her feet by putting in her request to the proper government authorities and be granted permission to emigrate to the U.S......
i see the "LET THEM EAT RAND " a-hole is sitting this one out.
hey, it's not very nice to call him an a-hole, just because he is one.
Maybe LTER actually has a life, and doesn't have time to post day after day, like some people on here. *cough* like that "Listen." dude *cough*
listen, gallifrey
LTER has no life - he is either trolling another site at the moment, or wanking (to old photos of ayn rand no doubt!), or he has gotten himself so beat up here due to his stupidity that he's run off with his tail between his legs.
These day's it look's like Ayn would have jumped out of the pan and into the fire
She would have probably gone back to Russia. Solzhenitsyn did it, and seems to be just fine...
But what's your point. The Soviet Union was doomed and it collapsed. Virtually the entire world is now capitalist. End of story.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Unknown-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952
Yes, I'm aware that according to this crackpot we are all living in a totalitarian society and just didn't realise it. Sorry, I'm due back in reality now, have to go.
The depth of your argument is astounding.
Da nile ain't just a riva in egypt ya know.
His mind is a mile wide but only one neuron deep. Which doesn't make for many synaptic links. Relying on your brain stem for analytical thinking can at best produce only "mind farts".
Good fucking riddance..
You do not understand capitalism. For if you did, it would be obvious to you that it does not exist. Even FDR eloquently noted such on April 29, 1938.
http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/faculty-research/new-deal/roosevelt-s...
Skip to Section IV
I learned a long time ago that an argument which ends up so categorically (i.e. "end of story", "full point", etc) is invariably BS. For example: US can hardly be called nowaday (in all honesty) a capitalist country... Same with UK... and Japan has never been one to start with...
My point is that the US/UK/Japan, the entire developed West, is not the Soviet Union, and never was. Something that seemed to escape Ayn Rand. Mr Hayek also warned against welfare systems, saying they were the road to a totalitarian society. Excuse me? If you can't see the difference between a liberal democracy with a social safety net and communist Russia, you have a problem in grasping reality.
the problem is always where does "social safety net" end and dissolution begin.
it ends when the net turns into a hammock.....
Nice!
More like a straitjacket!
Absolutely. The left can never get enough government coercion, particularly in the economy, and the end is always the same.
My point is that the US/UK/Japan, the entire developed West, is not the Soviet Union, and never was. Something that seemed to escape Ayn Rand. Mr Hayek also warned against welfare systems, saying they were the road to a totalitarian society. Excuse me? If you can't see the difference between a liberal democracy with a social safety net and communist Russia, you have a problem in grasping reality.
And you appear to have a problem in grasping the difference between inevitable, and imminent.
You may have noticed that the US/UK/Japan become more like the Soviet Union by the day - as Hayek and Rand correctly anticipated.
LOL! Give it another couple of hundred years, and you'll be proved right, eh?
As things have come unglued in this country, debt has mounted, our currency has been drastically reduced in value by those in charge, and income inequality has soared, would you say we have been moving more TOWARDS free market capitalism or AWAY from it? That's the point everyone is trying to explain to you.
If only it would take that long.
Exactly. We'll be lucky if we have a couple of decdes.
Food for thought.
The selfishness of man would let him seek to maximize profits and therefore production to enrich himself and society benefits in return. Even as the selfishness eventually goes to cheap third world resources and labor to maximize profits. This society rots as it's production turns to consumerism. Rand and Adam Smith
The selfishness of man would lead him to live off the welfare state and enjoy the benefits of no work at the cost of others. This society collapses under the weight of debt. Hayek
Both sound Hobbesian. Both lead eventually to demise, both assume man is a beast, not human.
The Affordable Care Act more than doubled my insurance premiums. I'm in a net but it doesn't feel particularly safe.
You're paid too much. Produce more and stop sponging on your more productive neighbours.
That doesn't make any sense. Humor is a fine addition to debate but it should be based on truth rather non-sequitur surrealism.
Why do Supermen need insurance? Build your own health system, Atlas. Physician, heal thyself!
You'll find the supermen in Washington, D.C. They've never met you but they know exactly how you should live your life minute by minute, day by day and year by year. Forward!
All I claim is that I am my own property.
Wtf are you babelling about Prairie? When Rand came to the US in 1926 Britian ruled the world. The US was a relative backwater nation. What is the reason for your hard on with Ann Rand? She made a statement: There are those that produce real things and those that produce nothing and extract wealth from those that produce. That can be seen today with the many laws governing workplaces, taxes, mandatory health care .gov pmts, carbon taxes..... But it can also be seen with the huge hedge funds like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan manipulating commodities, mortgages and anything that they can squeeze a dollar from-at the expense of those that produce. Although she was not aware of the future of finance, her point is well said and spot on.
Now go wash your hands, supper's ready.
...and now we return to our regularly scheduled pogrom.
Yes. Wouldn't you say that Western Europe is rather different? Or perhaps you haven't been there. Yet these are also totalitarian societies, according to the Rand world view.
I recommend reading "The Bubble That Broke The World." Free here: http://library.mises.org/library/bubble-broke-world
You might think differently about "whose" money built/rebuilt Europe's infrastructure and economy which Europe has been living off of even up to today.
Er, so, you're recommending a book written in 1931 that ascribed the causes of the crash to excessive debt and recommended allowing the "correction" to happen. Which policy makers duly did, a period during which industrial production dropped by 30 percent, and the unemployment rate rose to 30 percent. Well hey, maybe it would have worked in time - if the patient hadn't died. Somehow, I suspect that those recommending this policy course of benign neglect were not those sleeping on the streets and lining up at soup kitchens.
Do you ever wonder why Austrian economics became an intellectual backwater with zero credibility after the Great Depression?
Prairie Dog
Right, you're going to reason with Keynesians like you're going to reason with your prison camp guard. Wake up. Disaster is caused by central planning. Every centrally planned decision misallocates more capital, and the heroin boost, zero interest rates, causes the outright consumption of capital.
So tell me again that it was Austrains that are somehow to blame? You fucking idiot.
"You fucking idiot."
Your debating skills and logic are just too powerful for me, I have to concede defeat. I don't say Austrians were to blame - I just say that they have nothing useful to say. As proven by their policy recommendations during the Great Depression, and during the more recent GFC -- when they collectively predicted soaring interest rates and hyperinflation. We're still waiting. The trouble is that you have a model of how the economy works that has been disproved both by theory and experience.
You lie.
Furthermore your wisdom is on the level of a slightly overweight college girl wearing a "Che Guevara" t-shirt without a clue of the murder victims that lie slightly out of view.
Austrian economics has been validated on every level. It's fucking epically accurate in its analysis of the capital structure of the economy, and the interplay of (manipulated) interest rates with that structure.
So rock on, enjoy your futile efforts to try to discredit the only school of economics, period. The rest are Zionist lies designed to distract as your money is stolen, your rights stripped and your people exterminated. This is the legacy of Keynesianism, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, The Rockefellers, Karl Fucking Marx and your Lord and Savior the Rothschilds. Enjoy your destruction of my country, scumbag.
I love Zerohedge!
+1
i have a theory, that the year 2015 is coming, and i've been stating this theory for the last 3 years.
are you going to tell me that my theory is wrong, because it hasn't happened yet?
Last time I checked the dollar is now worth about 1% of what it was when they started the Fed.
Any questions?
You are dreaming if you think that Austrian economics has been validated. Sure, Keynesian Economics is a disaster about to unfold but as I say, just because Keynesian Economics doesn't work, doesn't mean Austrian Economics does. Yes, Austrian Economics has correctly predicted the self-demise of the current exponentially-growing fiat debt-based monetary system. Well congratulations, any 5th grader who understands anything about real world limits and the history of debt based fiat currencies could have predicted that. Austrians were predicting hyperinflation years ago. I try not to think about how many times John Williams has predicted "Hyperinflation coming, this year, for sure!", only to keep saying the same thing year after year. Of course it will end as Austrians, and anyone else with a head pointing forward, have predicted. But Austrians have been absolutely terrible on the timing. And furthermore, the only reason it's going to end is because the West will run out of gold. If it didn't, then the Keynesian oppression could have continued for years or even decades.
"Discredit the only school of economics, period". Are you serious? You think that there are no other schools of economic thought besides Keynesianism and Austrian economics? LOL
It's a straw man argument. Oh the "prediction" didn't come true. Sorry - have you been to the fucking grocery store lately? Anyways they don't "predict" anything. Maybe you've been following internet bloggers. If I were you you I'd spend more time on Mises.org and wake the fuck up.
Seriously, look at the news, and tell me Von Mises' figure of speech - the "crack up boom" isn't happening right before your eyes.
I go to the grocery store and see rising prices -- like we've had for the last 30 years. I don't see hyperinflation ... yet. Oh, I've been to mises.org and I can't believe the hubris, simplistic thinking, and unproven ideology oozing out of every corner. They seem to have some superiority complex in thinking they understand how the world works better than everyone else simply because they can make up some imaginary thought experiment. Well, you know what, I can make up a bunch of my own thought experiments that contradict yours. Who is right? For that you have to go look at, study, and learn about the real world, which ironically is something that the purist Austrian economists actually specifically shun!!! The arrogance is unbelievable.
Wrong. The scholars at von Mises are down to earth. Not sure where you get the "arrogance" bullshit. It's not true.
Er, so, you're recommending a book written in 1931 that ascribed the causes of the crash to excessive debt and recommended allowing the "correction" to happen. Which policy makers duly did, a period during which industrial production dropped by 30 percent, and the unemployment rate rose to 30 percent. Well hey, maybe it would have worked in time - if the patient hadn't died. Somehow, I suspect that those recommending this policy course of benign neglect were not those sleeping on the streets and lining up at soup kitchens.
Lulz. You're either completely ignorant about what the government actually did, or you're a liar. So which is it? (Neither is a good look, by the way)
Just in case you're just ignorant, here's some help about the 'do nothing' Hoover:
http://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/was-herbert-hoover-a-do-not...
and here's what happened when we had a genuine 'do nothing' policy:
http://cdn.cato.org/archive-2014/cbf-11-18-14.mp4
Good luck on your journey out of ignorance.
At some point you realize the safty net is really a spider's web. At that point you have to self justify you're being caught in it, and rail about how everyone should be, too.
Metaphor is always suspect, but I like this one.
"liberal democracy with a social safety net and communist Russia, you have a problem in grasping reality."
Communist Russia?
Obviously you don't have a brain to grasp reality with.
What happens if you stop paying your taxes, part of which goes to graft, droning some folks in other countries, spying on all Americans, bailing out banksters, militarizing the police,...
If you say nothing, you are free in a liberal republic. If you say anything reflecting reality, not free.
Taking hard earned wealth away from someone by force to give it to you, Prairie Dog, so you can have a safety net is not much different than communist Russia. Get back in your prairie dog hole and talk about reality when you learn what the real world is all about.
The so-called social safety net is neither social nor safe. But it does require debt to finance. And Hayek warned that,
The road to serfdom" is debt. You might want to actually read either Rand or Hayek to expand your understanding of why coerced altruism by statist advised by so-called "experts" is doomed.
Yeahhhhhh.
Riiiiiight.
A "capitalism" where big banks get to keep any money they get their hands on but in which the general public has to pay them for their losses, a "capitalism" in which a private central bank issues the currency at its whim and intercedes in every market at its whim. Capitalism!
Riiiiiiight.
lol...... seriously? where's your sarc tag?
Lenin got a city named after him.
Can't really see Obama getting even a butt plug named after him. A disease perhaps?
They just named a landfill in Noth Dakota in his honor.
So did Stalin.
Human nature is as constant as gravity. And yes, our country is doomed. But so what, societies rise and crumble. Who can alter the pattern?
Who can alter the pattern?
Those who won't get fooled again.
as the great george w bush said:
fool me once, shame on you...
fool me twice, well, uh...i won't get fooled again!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
Yes. But there's no need to go off half-cocked.
You can't say you weren't warned.
Speaking of collapse, here's this:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/norad-to-buzz-dc-with-f-16s-toni...
What is this, palace intrigue? A Military-Industrial-Complex threat to DC with a show of obvious force? What do they want? More submission?
All the training in the world won't help if this is real:
What frightened the USS Donald Cook so much in the Black Sea?http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html
A big 'if' there
Agreed. But the quote from that article:
"The more a radio-electronic system is complex, the easier it is to disable it through the use of electronic warfare."
is echoed in this story:
China trumps US in simulated air war
"According to the Rand war scenario developed for the Pentagon, the most expensive military weapon in the history of mankind is a complete and utter failure. The futuristic warplane is supposed to replace all other jet fighters in the US arsenal at a cost of $1 trillion and climbing.
The F-35 didn’t fail because of its recurring engine fires or the problems it’s still having with vertical landings and take-offs. It failed because it was designed to do too many things. And sometimes, especially in war, quantity beats quality."
http://morningmail.org/war-games/
Recall that German tanks of WWII were far superior to the American Sherman but the Sherman was built in mass quantities and was battlefield repairable.
I guess my main issue is that the US MIC have a long history of 'bigging up' potential enemies so their pet legislators will have excuses to give them even more money.
The F-35 is (by most accounts) a near-disaster. But ZATO has so many resources (thanks largely to the USD's petrodollar and reserve currency status) I'm not sure the analogy with German tanks is comparable. The US can flood any battle space with 'superior' weaponry. Even if a lot of that weaponry is a bit flaky, ZATO has the numbers to make up for it.
A big 'if' there
Every junior high school student with a complement of electronic devices knows that before the ICBMs of WWIII are launched, there will be a curtain raiser devoted to one side disabling the enemies communications, satellites and radar, while hopefully protecting its own from a similar attack.
The incident over the USS Cook was Russia saying "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."
It's hard to say if we showed the Russians anything after we saw theirs or whether our Khibiny is still at the dry cleaners?
Clearly. this author is extremely gifted and motivated. /sarc
As yesterdays Platos Republic article pointed out, everyone gravitates to, "their" version of what is provided by the "reality kings".
Why would philosopher kings want the sheep to understand that each individual should live according to their own values rather than sacrifice themselves for someone else's impression of "the common good?"
They don't and the common good is irrelevant to the "common good" of the elites that pay good debt for philosopher kings that can pidgeon hole would be pretenders to their thrones.
Another way of putting it is, "the reality" that you have chosen to accept was provided to you by someone that has a rationale other than the truth.
Remedial thinking:
A=A
Shrugging is not fleeing. It is withdrawing our consent whenever we can. It is finding and embracing ways to become more self reliant and less dependent on sick and warped systems. At a core level, Rand understood that in the end we can only change ourselves.
Withdraw your consent for what? Stop driving on roads, or calling the police. Dont drink water or flush your toilet. Dont use the court system or have your parents on social security.
Not every bit of socialism is bad. Why do we socialize our national defence, water, sewer and transportation? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just fix the broken parts. Like multigenerational welfare.
Just fix the broken parts.
Asking an elite class that has no idea what milions of individuals want out of life and wouldn't care if they did to take care of you is the broken part.
Yes, WHO will fix it? To expect those who created this mess to fix it is the very basis of insanity, and they will most definitely not allow anyone else to ten to it. We can't even fix education, something that gets worse by the day. Proof of failure is only and excuse to double down on the very policies and actions the created the failure.
No, there is no fixing it. There is only collapse....sooner or later.
Good questions.
Regarding those who created this mess, how many of them are there? And how many to they "control?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs
Perhaps the issue is more regarding not the "chain of command" but the "chain of obedience."
Education is going exactly as they've designed. As long as people want "them" to provide the education, then this is exactly what people are going to get.
The fix starts within each and every one of ourselves. It begins with each individual.
National Defense? LOL Clean water? Municipal utilities? I am prepared to defend myself. I have clean well water, a secondary source, independent septic system and do not consider calling the police a solution.
Just fix the broken parts? You cannot "fix" something that is corrupted and rotten to the core.
Check your premises.
Check your premises.
He's going to check his property now, LOL.
Based on his proto-socialist drivel, I would deduce that the only property he has was taken from others in the interest of being "fair."
Rand, for all of her faults, was a pretty sharp cookie.
you and the shopkeeper in Iran or Russia have no reason to fight or fear each other=its the Government that bring us this evil
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ominous-Parallels-Freedom-America/dp/0452011175
Things went downhill ALOT ever since that book got published...
Great book. Ought to be a mandatory read for college students.
If you have not read 1984 in a few years pick up a copy... Then read Atlas Shrugged. Then look around and see if you can see any light from this rabbit-hole that in not flaming poo..
1984 made me so pissed at myself on the reread 15 years later...I should have paid attention.
Save time and watch this outstanding 1954 BBC version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk721su03s4
Enjoy!
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." -- George Orwell
Like Rand (and so many other insightful individuals) Orwell could on occasion say incredibly stupid things. Rand's saving grace was that she always insisted that individuals should live according to their own values, so when she says something stupid it's easy to ignore it and go on to the next paragraph or chapter where you'll likely find something more sensible.
For what it's worth, Tolkien was an anarchist. You a Lord of the Rings fan?
You obviously know nothing about George Orwell. Orwell didn't just write for socialism, he fought for it - in the Spanish Civil War. Anyone who is capable of distinguishing a shade or two between black and white will understand exactly how Orwell's socialist beliefs were consistent with his anti-totalitarianism.
For this great man to be recruited to the cause of twisted libertarian fruit cakes is an irony too great to fathom.
I don't know how your thought processes work but I listen to insightful individuals and glean what I can of value from their works according to my own needs and principles. This gives me access to many more interesting ideas than if I were to only listen to the words of those with whom I have already agreed.
You obviously know nothing about George Orwell.
I've read 1984 and Animal Farm, I know that he plagiarized the plot of 1984 from an Eastern European (?) author from the 1920s and that he lived in the middle of nowhere and was sick and dying when he wrote 1984. But you are correct in suggesting that I never made a study of his life.
Try reading The Road to Wigan Pier, or Down And Out In Paris And London, or Homage to Catalonia. Makes me laugh how Americans of a certain ilk (Rand followers, Zerohedge readers, Republicans) call Obama a "socialist". As if.
Do you laugh at people who say that they own themselves? That's the only real point of contention.
That's a strange expression. Who is the owner and who is the owned? Where is the duality? You are yourself, that is all.
Is that a statement of willful ignorance or the mark of an undeveloped personality? There are plenty of people in the world who believe that they own you. How you respond to that situation determines who you are and what you can achieve.
If you don't believe that individuals own themselves then how could there be any evil in slavery or other acts of theft and violence?
It's just not a question of ownership. You can't "own" yourself because ownership implies a separation between owner and owned. You just are yourself, that is all. Does anyone else own you? No. It's a mark of the Randian libertarian sociopaths that they see everything in terms of property: my gold, my gun, my wood cabin, my year's supply of baked beans. There is a constant assertion of the individual as separate from others and the environment. That's why there is this constant obsession with the allegedly unproductive, who are forever plotting to enslave the self-sufficient superior libertarians and steal their rightfully earned goods (the Fed! the banksters! Obummer!). I view this as an illness rather than a philosophical viewpoint. Human beings are born in connection, exist in connection, find meaning and happiness in connection. I view your attachment to the importance of owning yourself as just another little marker of this psychosis, which characterises many if not most of the people to be found on Zerohedge.
@Prairie Dog
We need more voices like yours on Zero Hedge.
I agree Prairie Dog, but don't forget that truism: Power Corrupts. Most people don't obsess over individual ownership, as you point out, but those that do tend to move towards the top of the pyramid and become our leaders. This seems to be the case now as our financial system is undergoing the final looting before its implosion.
Also, economically, the majority of westerners are indeed "owned" because they are forced into debt slavery in order to buy anything. The ownership of the real world things of value has largely been transferred into a few very powerful hands. Unfortunately,, Randians and ZH'ers seem to argue that the way to fix this situation is to throw all the welfare and social assistance recipients out onto the streets so they will be forced to get to work and "produce" their own wealth! Pure delusions.
Ayn Rand is a sanctimonious hypocrite. She depended on socialism all her life - drove on roads, used the telephone and electircity, drank public water, copyrighted her book, and finally lived on social security benefits in her old age. She benefited from redistibution more than most, and gave back less. Her misguided disciple Greenspan damaged the American economy, perhaps beyond repair.
And yet you do exactly the same thing...
Ayn Rand is a sanctimonious hypocrite. She depended on socialism all her life - drove on roads, used the telephone and electircity, drank public water,
Do you refuse to order pizza? It's still largely a product of the free market and free markets are bad! Best you hold off on the pie until the institution of a pizza tax and the establishment of one-size-fits-all pizzas.
So anyone who thinks that government is not the fountainhead of all evil and may in certain circumstances have a role to play must necessarily hate and despise free markets? Perhaps it's not a binary choice? Just a thought!
Yes. Free markets or voluntarism does not call for government. For what IS government but only a coercive entity.
Of course it's a binary choice. Government is a system of organizing society through violence and threats of violence. Government is the law of the jungle writ large. A free market is a system in which an individual must provide goods or services to other individuals through mutual, voluntary agreement. That is how civilized individuals respond to one another.
The difference between self ownership and government control could not be more stark.
For the record, Ayn Rand would agree with you in part. She was not an anarchist but rather saw a legitimate role for government. That's just one of the points on which she and I disagree.
Hee hee! Love it.
But it is not *meant* to be. Similarly, the West is (partly) functioning according to Rand's vision of what a free market is *meant* to be, although this market is to a considerable extent based on an illusion inspired by greed and the fear of privation. It is human nature that decides whether a system of ordering human life succeeds or not, not the system itself. This is why political philosophy of any kind is superficial and ultimately futile, because it always strikes at the branches and not the root. It doesn't concentrate upon the faults in human nature itself, and instead tries to set right the consequences of those faults.
Ayn Rand's vision is based on the branch-hewing mentioned above. She identified the faults of a particular structure of government/societal system, and concluded that since she was correct in doing so, the apparatus she proposed as a replacement for it must be ideal. In reality, her vision of an ideal society could easily be a nightmare, since rational self-interest is just a pretentious rationale for blind lust and greed.
+1 Bach's bitch
+1. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize a failed system, but much harder to put forth a realistic alternative that works better in the real world.
She identified the faults of a particular structure of government/societal system, and concluded that since she was correct in doing so, the apparatus she proposed as a replacement for it must be ideal.
But did she claim her vision of government would be 'ideal'? Or merely a great deal better than what we have now?
In and of itself, every political system ever conceived is a great deal better than what we have now, since the motivation behind conceiving them is always to make things better. The problem is that putting them into practice never seems to achieve the desired result. That, and the fact that human beings have different definitions of what "better" means, and all of them have someone's ego as the locus.
A socialist selfishly believes it is better for others not to have more than him. A capitalist selfishly believes it is better for him to have more than others.
Billy you need to expand your horizons. I will let you in on a litle wisdom I and many others have learned. When anyone tries to convince you that there are only two, polar opposite, binary choices in an issue, they are messing with your head for their own agenda. Just curious: how old are you? It seems to be a trend that young idealistic people latch on to Rand but then as they get older they understand more of the complexities of the real world and are better able to put Rand's simplistic writings into perspective.
Right, because there's only two options of course -- totally free markets or totally controlled communism. Only oe of those can produce a pizza, and there are no other alternatives that will also produce a pizza.
and yet she came up with this profound statement that we are living through today
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed"
Now don't ever interrupt my football game with your stupid shit ever again. Made me miss a great Elvis Dumervil sack...
You should read more...more of Rand and more of history. Private individuals and companies built the first roads and power grids and libraries and schools and water systems. It was only after government decided that they could do it better and made damned sure they would have no competition to give evidence to the contrary that history was re-written to infer that these "socialized" systems were unchallenged in their necessities.
Read Amity Shlaes "the forgotten man" for a little context.
+1. Government only takes credit for all the good things that "free" society was already improving upon.
Dagney and James Taggart's grandfather who built the railroad was based on J.J. Hill. He was an amazing individual discussed here:
James J. Hill was hardly a "baron" or aristocrat. His father died when he was fourteen, so he dropped out of school to work in a grocery store for four dollars a month to help support his widowed mother. As a young adult he worked in the farming, shipping, steamship, fur-trading, and railroad industries. He learned the ways of business in these settings, saved his money, and eventually became an investor and manager of his own enterprises...
He passed his cost reductions on to his customers in the form of lower rates because he knew that the farmers, miners, timber interests, and others who used his rail services would succeed or fail along with him. His motto was: "We have got to prosper with you or we have got to be poor with you."
https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons
She knew, as you obviously don't, that all of these things government does, are paid for by the free market. The market pays for everything, including government.
Ayn Rand is a sanctimonious hypocrite. She depended on socialism all her life - drove on roads, used the telephone and electircity, drank public water, copyrighted her book, and finally lived on social security benefits in her old age. She benefited from redistibution more than most, and gave back less.
Ayn Rand was a zionist, which is enough to make me consider her an appallingly flawed human being.
However, accusations of hypocrisy won't wash. She was a successful novelist, and obliged to pay taxes on her earnings all her life; having had large sums coercively extracted from her, she would necessarily have less savings available to spend on her healthcare and retirement. Again, as a taxpayer, she was perfectly entitled to use the services government provides. If a mafioso demands 'protection money' on pain of breaking my legs, you can be damn sure I'll ask him for protection if someone else tries to put the squeeze on me. Would that make me a hypocrite?
Furthermore, Government nationalised the roads; what choice would she have had but to use them?
Her misguided disciple Greenspan damaged the American economy, perhaps beyond repair.
And do you think Ayn Rand - a woman who waxed lyrical about the dangers of fiat currency - would have approved of his actions? Or that he was being her 'disciple' while he was serving crony capitalists?
What a mental midget you are.
I understand the beliefs in the supernatural, gods, God, comet following beings, etc., because those beliefs reside in the believer's or beholder's mind. Those beliefs cannot lie or harm. (Yes, a believer can harm, but the beings of the beliefs themselves cannot.)
What I just cannot fathom is the continued belief in pols and crats, governmnet in general, as the harm they produce and cause is apparent and tragic.
An American, not US subject.
Just about everyone alive today is a descendant of believers in government, or deities, or both. Both of those behaviors evolved to promote, in some way, the survival of those who held the beliefs - probably through making larger aggregations. Might makes right in the animal world.
Both beliefs promoted conflict and conquest as a means to enhance the survival of believers at the expense of the survival of the victimized differently-believing.
Which is where we still are today - States and people stealing and killing to get ahead at someone else's expense.