This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Pre-election America Reads In Red And Blue

Tyler Durden's picture


If the following "heatmap" of readership political bent by state from Amazon is any indication of the votership inclination in the coming election, then Mitt Romney, more natural disasters notwithstanding, has nothing to worry about. Then again in the world of oxymorons, there are few quite as potent as "America Reads" (with the exception of the occasional money-losing Kindle for the aspirationally cool reader).

h/t Nolsgrad


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 08/26/2012 - 10:02 | 2738379 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

American voters can read?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 10:05 | 2738384 veyron
veyron's picture

I object to the methodology.  Ayn Rand (#2 red book) would never associate herself with the neocons in the Republican Party.  

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 10:08 | 2738391 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



Someone please tell me who this Galt guy is!!!

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 10:17 | 2738409 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

I guess you don't "read".

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 10:52 | 2738458 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

WTF does this even mean.

Obama's gonna steal the election anyway. Get ready for a lot of overseas Armed Forces ballots to get "lost", and bags of votes to mysteriously materialize in places like the Chicago South Side, or Bridgeport CT, or Philadelphia, at the 11th hour.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:03 | 2738473 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

Ballots from dead voters at that! Too funny...

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:19 | 2738500 Theosebes Goodfellow
Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

Hey, didn't Rahm say something about this being the year for the dead convicted felon vote to reemerge strongly (and frequently)?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:08 | 2738581 lineskis
lineskis's picture

@Buckaroo Banzai

No way! The banks choose their president (look at top contributors of Obama, top contributors of Romney) and it'll be Romney. Where the banks gave more has ALWAYS been the winner of the presidential election, coincidence or not.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:40 | 2738643 mjcOH1
mjcOH1's picture

"If the following "heatmap" of readership political bent by state from Amazon is any indication of the votership inclination in the coming election, then Mitt Romney, more natural disasters notwithstanding, has nothing to worry about."


The leading 'If' in the article is the fatal flaw in the theory.

Reading does not imply voting.   And more importantly voting does not imply either reading or even having the ability to read.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:00 | 2738888 Michael
Michael's picture

Remember Remember the 5th of November.

When they see what we have planned for the 5th of November, all our questions will be answered. We mean on that date a complete and total destruction of the Republican party as we know it today. Here's a hint what will happen; R for Revenge. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:09 | 2738897 HoofHearted
HoofHearted's picture

I've been reading Jacques Rueff, Jim Rickards, and Ferdinand Lips. Are these red or blue books? Lips's _Gold Wars_ is a blue-colored book. What the hell does that mean?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:14 | 2738904 Manthong
Manthong's picture

 Somebody is living in the past..

All that matters anymore is what Mr. Diebold is reading.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:23 | 2738925 Michael
Michael's picture
Obama sold vote count to company in Spain Linked to Soros

When you see what we have planned for the 5th of November with our political paper and pencil strategy, or in this case, computer keyboard strategy, we win the war.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 22:24 | 2739952 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

Never mind the bogus election, or the equally bogus Ron Paul and his bots. Look at the author ethnicity of 8 of the 10 books listed. That tells you who the boundary-keepers are, and who's controlling the country whichever twit wins. Soros? did somebody mention Soros? Yetanother.

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 05:07 | 2740355 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

hate soros like a good neo-con bot.


you must love republicans and democrats spending Trillions on wars....


vote for anybody but repubmocrats if you want real change.


Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:51 | 2738959 rodocostarica
rodocostarica's picture


Ron Paul rally in Tampa. Ron is on live 4>00Pm EST



Sun, 08/26/2012 - 16:05 | 2738977 FreeSlave
FreeSlave's picture
Ron Paul Holds Rally in Tampa, Fl   Live on C-SPAN

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 16:14 | 2738988 Michael
Michael's picture

Here too;

Ron Paul "We are the Future" Rally - Live from USF Sun Dome - Tampa, Florida

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 16:45 | 2739056 Michael
Michael's picture

Florida: Former republica governor endorsed Obama. GAME OVER?

Former Florida Governor, Republican Charlie Crist, has made a stinging attack on Romney and the GOP, and a ringing endorsement of Obama.
Read it at Tampa
There is no path to a win for Mitt now. Just losing Florida is enough to seal his loss. Neocon apologists are already up in arms about it. They KNOW it is the DEATH KNELL for Romney.

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 05:05 | 2740350 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

Mayor Daley [The First] rule applies: Vote early and often.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:10 | 2738582 Dark Space
Dark Space's picture

wouldn't make a difference unless they were electoral college zombies. The popular vote doesn't matter.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:58 | 2738884 Ol Man
Ol Man's picture

To quote Newt when Ripley informed her that the marines were ther to protect her...

Newt: "It won't make any difference..."

Anyone who puts their rights up for a vote deserves to be enslaved...


Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:20 | 2738501 kito
kito's picture

Buckaroo, wake the hell up, the elections have been stolen by both parties working together to limit your choice.......and its been happening for some time.......

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:58 | 2738569 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Heads they win, tails Kito loses.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:30 | 2738855 Lord Blankcheck
Lord Blankcheck's picture

Since Ryan come on board Vegas odds went from -166 to -200 for Obama.basically from a 2/1 fav to 3/1


RNC doesn't want to win.They want to play the blame game and create class wars among the people.


Still just a two party dictatorship anyway.

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 02:35 | 2740246 Indrid Cold
Indrid Cold's picture

RNC doesn't want to win.They want to play the blame game and create class wars among the people.

As opposed to the DNC, who does want to win and has and will continue to play the blame game and create class wards among the people.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:20 | 2738502 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

The false left-right paradigm stole the election process decades ago.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:12 | 2738899 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Yes, the occultist dialectic hard at work.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:52 | 2738553 killallthefiat
killallthefiat's picture

Generally I agree that it is corrupt.  But the election signifies nothing.  All of public and private ed has cousework to tell us how important it is to vote.

What if there was an election and no one came?  More and more, with decreasing turnout, it looks as if this is happening.  It looks as if the government is becoming ever increasing irrelevant, especially as tax rates go higher and the black market in labor, goods and services gets bigger.

Thank goodness!

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 18:23 | 2738873 tenpanhandle
tenpanhandle's picture

I'm sorry for my unpopular opinion here but the notion that "if no one voted it would be best" is the worst nonsense one can believe excepting if simultaniously the non-voters would pick up their squirrel guns and other assorted implements of destruction and take the corrupt system out.  Otherwise you get a smaller and smaller number of people electing the people who control the military and the dictat making machine, etc., etc.

This notion, put into action, would serve to speed up the process of making the US completely over into a dictatorship and therefore may speed up the potential for internal armed response from the populace.  While I am preparing for it, I wish with all my heart that never takes place.

If one must throw their vote away with a non-vote, wouldn't it be better to throw the vote away by casting for one of the myriad lesser parties that populate the ballot.  At least that way it can be a written protest to the two ruling parties and also show where the dissatisfied lean, thus possibly adding new importance to the lesser voices in the public discussion. 

A non-vote means nothing but support for the two parties.  I apoligize to you in advance for the seeming contradiction concerning my statements about armed conflict within our own borders but the bottomline is I do not wish civil war on anybody including myself and family.   

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:45 | 2739532 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

"you get a smaller and smaller number of people electing the people who control the military and the dictat making machine"

No. You get a smaller and smaller number of people electing the puppets at the ends of the globalist strings. You don't really think either Bush or Obama set U.S. foreign policy, I hope. If you do, you have to explain why U.S. foreign policy remains the same, year after year, President after President, decade after decade.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 21:16 | 2739798 Umh
Umh's picture

Pick a number between 1 and 100. Would you pick 99 just so your opponent can pick 98 or perhaps to be discreet they'll pick 85?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:13 | 2738586 spanish inquisition
spanish inquisition's picture

It's a back up plan if they can't hack the preprogrammed Diebold voting machines.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:27 | 2738515 Urban Roman
Urban Roman's picture

Otherwise know as "The Sociopath's Bible".

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:37 | 2738528 Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

Ahhh, I see you have a well reasoned refutation of Objectivism. Good for you!

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:49 | 2738544 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Not that you'll read it because it will challenge your simplistic belief system, but here's a good start if you're interested.


Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:01 | 2738572 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

I like L. Ron Hubbard better. Similar skills as a writer and philospher, but the sci-fi elements are more entertaining. Dianetics vs Atlas Shrugged? Hard call.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:07 | 2738580 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

They both reject existing religions for an absurd new religion of their making, so it is a close call.  But Hubbard has more volcanoes.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:32 | 2738620 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

I wonder which religion has made more money? That would settle any questions on philisophical superiority.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:46 | 2738661 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Certainly by Rand's measure of success.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:58 | 2738676 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

Hubbard wins hands down then.

I mean the guy ran off with a NASA Satanist's wife for crimeny sakes!

Tue, 08/28/2012 - 10:28 | 2743463 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

Don't forget Hubbard has Thetans!!

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:46 | 2738539's picture


Otherwise know as "The Sociopath's Bible".


So a sociopath is someone who promises not to force others to do things against their own will?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:19 | 2738593 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

 I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!” The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture — that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:28 | 2738604's picture



Ayn Rand - Reason vs Force

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 22:33 | 2739973 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

NatRev is a neo-con Jewrag. Ayan Rand a crazy Jewess. When do we stop letting organized Jewry set the boundaries?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 13:01 | 2738608 akak
akak's picture

When it comes to the topic of Ayn Rand, and libertarianism more generally (with which she is inextricably linked, her specious and unjustifiably jealous objections to the contrary), LTER is the ZeroHedge equivalent of AnAnonymous prattling on about his nonexistent 'US Citizenism' and 'blobbing up'.  Make me laugh!

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:08 | 2738812 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

akak, you are part of what is right with ZH.

I always enjoy your contribution.




Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:16 | 2738831 akak
akak's picture

That is much appreciated, mtomato2, although I must admit that my limited contributions here pale in comparison to those of some other ZH posters.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:28 | 2738851 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Hey:  we can't ALL be the love children of George Washington and Cognitive Dissonance...

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:15 | 2738909 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Akak, I'm just curious: On which side of the 911 truth debate are you? Do you think it was an inside job?

Have you ever considered that Rand might have been following the instructions of the Rothschild family in creating AS and other works?

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 00:38 | 2740152 New World Chaos
New World Chaos's picture

Clashfan, you might like these links:

Here's a long, bizzare tale by an ex-witch, including stuff about about Illuminati Satanism, their takeover of the US, and Ayn Rand being a tool of the Rothschilds (guess we are supposed to see them as capitalist superheroes, when nothing could be further from the truth).  Marx was also their tool.  Good ol' dialectic at work:

But there is good news:  "I'LL TELL YOU THIS, THE ONLY THING THE ILLUMINATI FEAR, AS I SAID, IS AN INDEPENDENT PERSON who can live, eat, sleep, stay warm & defend themselves separate from Federal help."

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 01:17 | 2740194 redpill
redpill's picture

The speech stands on its own, regardless of source.

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 02:02 | 2740223 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Yes, NWOChaos, this is what I've been trying to say. The occultists are in charge, Rand is merely one of their proteges, and many on ZH are smitten with a satanic mouthpiece. It's really that simple.

I had seen/heard the Todd stuff but not the other piece--still, yes. You and I are clearly like-minded. Nice interacting w/you. :)

Tue, 08/28/2012 - 02:00 | 2742292 New World Chaos
New World Chaos's picture

Thanks.  Always appreciate your posts.  ZHers often dismiss occultism but I think it is key to understanding the puppetmasters and their agenda. 

You probably know this already, but Ayn Rand idolized a serial killer:

The link gets into sociopathic aspects of her notes, such as:

"Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

When I read about this maybe three years ago, I realized that Ayn Rand was "mindshadowed".  Basically, her precious ego was not her own.  She had a mind within.  Perhaps its purpose was to distract smart people into a cul-de-sac, get them to deny community, deny oneness, see alturism as evil, and blindly support anyone who claimed to be a capitalist.  This is why I have generally posted as an anti-Randian (except for a few choice quotes). 

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 02:04 | 2740226 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Yes, too, the occultist dialectic was taught long before it became known as the Hegelian dialectic. I have not found evidence that Hegel was a member of Thule, but he was clearly interacting w/those folks. Marx was allegedly a member. SSDD

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:06 | 2738805 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

LTER, you are, by far, my favorite pinhead on this entire site.

Furthermore, you have clearly never even cracked open the book Atlas Shrugged.

Even if you did, though, you should be convicted for reading other peoples' mail.

Maybe, oh, I don't know... READ the book before cutting and pasting from other blogs and reviews, trying to support some dogmatic claim you have no intellectual right to espouse.


NOW:  everybody stay tuned as LTER intellectually calls me a "fucker."  It's his best line of defense.



Sun, 08/26/2012 - 16:14 | 2738990 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I love the argument that if you disagree with Rand then you must not have read her works.  Brilliant in its pure circularity.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 17:18 | 2739106's picture

The other option is that you failed to comprehend her works. You've never posted a single criticism that dealt directly with anything the woman actually said. It's always Greenspan this and Greenspan that.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 17:31 | 2739131 akak
akak's picture


How dare you interrupt such skillful axe-grinding!

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:20 | 2739426 Rick Masters
Rick Masters's picture

Didn't Rand take SSI and other gov't benefits for years before her death afer she fell ill. Seems hypocritical. And actions speaker louder than words. She says the social saftey net is evil, then uses it. That's my problem with her. And I think it invalidates all of her work. I haven't read all of Atlas Shrugged as I found But I have read alll of her political essays and innermost thoughts, so I think I have some insight. You can wiki atlas shrugged and get the gist. But the essays show where her heart lies and her actions show who she is.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:56 | 2739562's picture

So if someone took your money against your will and one day you were able to get some back you would refuse because you believe that accepting restitution from a thief is synonymous with condoning the theft in the first place?

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 18:10 | 2742079 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Well, just damn.

That was really good.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:12 | 2738901 centipede
centipede's picture

Can you provide a reference which book of Ayn Rand contains “To a gas chamber — go!”? The text you posted must have been written by a raving psychopath.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 22:41 | 2739988 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

NR text written by a Jewish neo-con. Selfsame who invented "Islamo-fascism". Then sicced it on America via the "War on Terror".   

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 20:25 | 2739658 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

The Devil can quote scripture when it suits his purpose(s).  Check your premises.

"Your argument(s) are WEAK, old man!" -- With apologies to Darth Vader

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:09 | 2738814 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture


Someone please tell me who this Galt guy is!!!

"John Galt was a millionaire, a man of inestimable wealth. He was sailing his yacht one night, in the mid-Atlantic, fighting the worst storm ever wreaked upon the world, when he found it. He saw it in the depth, where it had sunk to escape the reach of men. He saw the towers of Atlantis shining on the bottom of the ocean. It was a sight of such kind that when one had seen it, one could no longer wish to look at the rest of the earth. John Galt sank his ship and went down with his entire crew."

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:15 | 2738830 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Miss Taggart doesn't believe it, but I do...

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:00 | 2738887 rufusbird
rufusbird's picture

Dagney Taggart named her line the "John Galt Line" which surprised many people. She was asked "Who is John Galt?" to which she replied, "A name I'm tired of hearing."

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 18:15 | 2739226 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

I was just quoting an obscure reference to a line spoken by D'Anconia at a cocktail party.  At the Rearden's, I think it was.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 21:24 | 2739820 Umh
Umh's picture

That's not really helping out someone who doesn't know the answer.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 10:21 | 2738414 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Horrifying, but detailed and well-sourced, article about Ayn Rand in her youth, that makes one turn away from her in absolute disgust ... it seemed she had the fascination of the Luciferian elite for the violent death of young children ...

'Paul Ryan's Guru Ayn Rand Worshipped a Serial Killer Who Kidnapped and Dismembered Little Girls'

by Mark Ames

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 10:28 | 2738428 i-dog
i-dog's picture


"Paul Ryan's Guru"

LOL ... Paul Ryan was only 12 when she died. Some guru!

The Marxist propaganda machine is running red hot!

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 10:27 | 2738431 redpill
redpill's picture

You post this same bullshit hit piece every time someone even mentions her.  Shut the fuck up already.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 10:49 | 2738457 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture



To be fair, that's not the only source on the Ryan Rand issue.


Back in 2005, an up-and-coming lawmaker named Paul Ryan credited the polemical novelist and libertarian Ayn Rand as a central inspiration for his entry into public life. Ryan toiled in those days in relative obscurity, a well-respected but low-profile member of the House of Representatives....


But Ryan made no bones about his philosophical influences just a few years ago. He told the Weekly Standard in 2003 that he gave his staffers copies of “Atlas Shrugged” as Christmas presents. Speaking to a group of Rand acolytes in 2005, Ryan said, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”


Even three years ago, Tim Mak of Politico noted, Ryan channeled Rand. “What’s unique about what’s happening today in government, in the world, in America, is that it’s as if we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel right now,” Ryan said. “I think Ayn Rand did the best job of anybody to build a moral case of capitalism, and that morality of capitalism is under assault.”


excerpts from:

Paul Ryan loved Ayn Rand, before he said he didn't



IMO though this just another tempest in a teapot distraction like the Chik-fil-A deal...from our more primary problems like who exactly is it that wrested control of the nation's money in 1913. That issue has direct connections to even more of our most important problems than many realize.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:02 | 2738471 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"IMO though this just another tempest in a teapot distraction."

I disagree.  Rand has become a huge figure in Red Team politics, and many mindless sheep blindly vote for candidates who speak her language.   Her philosophy has become a justification for everything from trickle down economics to lax regulation to "free" trade to endless war for profit.  I am not a religious person, but if there were a dark force in the Universe it would make everyone read Ayn Rand.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:05 | 2738479 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

So you haven't even read the book is what you're saying...

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:12 | 2738485 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture



The 'Money Powers' had captured and usurped our nation long before any Ayn Rand novel came around.

Her books were just one avenue of attempts(among many) at justification of money power activities...imo.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:19 | 2738498 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I don't suggest for a moment that Ayn Rand somehow started the problem, but her philosophy of selfishness and "greed is good" is a huge part of the current political landscape.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:29 | 2738516 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

selfishness and "greed is good"


Nothing wrong with either. Capitalism would not work without these powers. Lack of freedom is the problem, not human nature.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:32 | 2738521 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Jamie Dimon agrees with you.  How's that working out for us all?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:39 | 2738531 Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

The question is, would Rand agree with Dimon? If you think she would, then you are a deluded, uninformed fool.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:50 | 2738546 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Like all of her followers, you miss the point.  

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:02 | 2738573's picture

If Rand was wrong to say that one should live one's life by one's own values rather than by the values of others than please provide concrete examples of how you have abandoned your own values and live your life at the behest of others.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:11 | 2738584 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

There you go again.  Are you saying that Rand's only point was that one should live one's life by one's own values?  Seems to me she had a lot more to say than that, and that there is a reason that war-mongering New World Order neo-cons worship her endlessly.  But I suppose like most of her followers you focus on one thing you like and run with it.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:26 | 2738607 redpill
redpill's picture

Strawman argument.  Whether or not various people understand or do not understand her philosophy, whether or not they attempt to use it for purposes Rand herself would never agree with, has no bearing on whether that philosophy is logically coherent and valid. 

Rand's central point of course, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine," is entirely incongruent with much of what modern governments do.  Whether or not various ignorant people fail to understand that, or perhaps more famously, claim to understand the philosophy but have never read a word of Rand's works, is neither an indictment or an appraisal of objectivism.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:37 | 2738630 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Rand's central point was that whatever is good for Rand is good.  Most who read it get the exact same point, and they thrash around the world and do whatever they think will benefit them.  Greenspan co-wrote with Rand, and they were friends.  You can claim all day long that he "didn't get it," but he got it and he behaved exactly as any rational person would predict a follower or Rands would act in the real world.  If you don't see that, you are wilfully blind. 

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:50 | 2738658's picture


Rand's central point was that whatever is good for Rand is good.


Saying it doesn't make it so. Where's your documentation?


Most who read it get the exact same point, and they thrash around the world and do whatever they think will benefit them.


Unlike you, most people who have read Rand can understand these words: "I pledge by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." 


Greenspan co-wrote with Rand, and they were friends.  You can claim all day long that he "didn't get it," but he got it and he behaved exactly as any rational person would predict a follower or Rands would act in the real world.  If you don't see that, you are wilfully blind.


You've already been forced in another thread to admit that Greenspan did not follow Rand's teachings on sound money. But now you've conveniently forgotten. Doesn't say a whole lot about your intellectual integrity, does it?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 13:00 | 2738679 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I just love how you guys can gloss over Greenspan like that.  By your reasoning he followed Rand perfectly.  He followed his own values and lived according to them.  Isn't that her central philosophy, or are we acknowledging now that there was more to it than that?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 13:32 | 2738735's picture

Greenspan operated a central bank which spewed fiat currency backed by legal tender laws. So he rejected Galt's pledge of not forcing others to live by his standards. Try again.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:21 | 2738843 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture






Go ahead.  Hang yourself.  You convince no one, and have no one following you.  You're like a child, wandering into the middle of a conversation...

Shut the fuck up, Donny...

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 16:17 | 2738999 OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture










Sun, 08/26/2012 - 18:17 | 2739237 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture









Sun, 08/26/2012 - 13:10 | 2738669 akak
akak's picture


Rand's central point was that whatever is good for Rand is good.

This is perhaps one way of summarizing her philosophy, but you disingenuously, or ignorantly (or both) leave out the one crucial caveat to that statement: As long as the equal rights of others are respected in the pursuit of that good.

You continue to accept a childishly simplistic, and erroneous, definition of "selfishness" (one which would more accurately be called "sociopathy") to unjustifiably damn Any Rand, and to grossly misrepresent her philosophy.  I strongly suspect that you have never read one paragraph that she has ever written --- and if you did, you clearly did not understand it.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:31 | 2738850 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

akak, you know what they say about wrestling with pigs.

I, for one, am finished with this line of argument.  I threw down the gauntlet a few months ago, inviting ANYONE to engage in a healthy, non-name-calling, intellectually honest argument with regards to: NOT Ayn Rand, but Atlas Shrugged in particular.

Clearly, I never expected, nor hoped, that LTER would accept.  I am, however, a bit disappointed that no others have either.

*shrug* is what it is.

I'm officially boycotting LTER for the duration.  He brings this exalted forum down.  And I'll no longer participate.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 18:00 | 2739179 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture


Sun, 08/26/2012 - 18:32 | 2739270's picture

You're the one who is afraid to pillory Rand by giving concrete examples from your own life in which you have abandoned your values for the values of others. You do live by what you preach, don't you?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:13 | 2739394 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I answed your challenge and you "shrugged" away and simply repeated yourself.  Rand does not own the concept of living by one's values.  In fact, she was a hypocrite who often failed to live by her own values (she supported the military industrial complex, she was anti-freedom where drugs are concerned, she accepted public aid later in life when it suited her, and so on).    Further, I can find countless quotes that you agree with, even if you despite the author.  Proving that you agree with an isolated out of context statement would not invalidate your other criticisms of the author.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:29 | 2739450's picture

Atlas Shrugged is Rand's tour de force. John Galt is its archetypical protagonist. Galt motivates the other characters with his philosophy expressed in the pledge: "I pledge by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." To suggest that the pledge is a superfluous footnote to Rand's work is disingenuous at best.

And I note that you still refuse to either agree with the sentiment expressed in Galt's pledge or to refute it by giving examples from your own life in which you have abandioned your values for the values of others.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:45 | 2739531 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I utterly disagree with the sentiment as interpreted by Rand.  To understand the meaning of the words, one needs to understand the context.  It is interesting that you are attempting to defend your religion by focusing on a single sentence removed of context. Perhaps you are not so sure yourself that you can justify what Rand thought it meant to live by one's own values.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 20:02 | 2739580's picture


you are attempting to defend your religion


Which brings us to another question which you have refused to answer multiple times: Why is it religious to believe that a man who has first hand knowledge of his own situation is in the best position to make decisions regarding his own life but it is not religious to believe that man is a fundamentally flawed creation who must appeal to the esoteric knowledge of an elite class for a lifetime of guidance?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 22:29 | 2739965 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

Yes. Shun the troll. He is a waste of time because he continually refuses to answer direct questions put to him.

Totally evasive and intellectually dishonest.


Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:33 | 2738622's picture


Are you saying that Rand's only point was that one should live one's life by one's own values?



"I pledge by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- Ayn Rand


No, I am saying that it was her central point. And it's obvious that you agree with her because you can not give any examples of how you have abandoned your values for the values of others. Will you admit that you agree that individuals should live according to there own values as Rand espoused or will you finally answer the question and provide examples from your own life in which you have abandoned your values for the values of others?



Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:44 | 2738656 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You can only defend Ayn Rand's entire philosophy of greed and selifishness by saying that you agree with her that one should live by one's own values?    

I'll tell you what, if you believe that your style of argument is valid and that I should jettison all of my disdain for Rand because we can find one part of her philosophy that no one can disagree with, ask me if we should also be a fan of Hitler, who said:

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

We all want to fight for truth and justice, right?  Tell me a concrete example from your own life of you deciding not to fight for truth and justice.


Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:56 | 2738672's picture

All you have to do is admit that you agree with Galt's pledge or refute the pledge with examples from your own life. Which will it be?


"I pledge by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."



Sun, 08/26/2012 - 13:02 | 2738684 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Alan Greenspan agreed with the Galt pledge, no?  

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 13:12 | 2738691 akak
akak's picture

Clearly he did NOT, as he routinely and inherently violated it in his role as economic central planner for the state (US federal government).

Really, you seem to understand NOTHING of logic or reason ---- blind and irrational hate is all that comes through in your every post on the topic of Ayn Rand, and liberty more generally.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:45 | 2738869 THX 1178
THX 1178's picture

Central planner for the government? You mean banking cartel? We are talking about the Federal Reserve right? It has shareholders. It operates for profit. You know what the problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy is? Free market capitalism tends to generate a lot of banking cartels. And cartels of other types as well. Bankers run the show, not politicians, and not gun weilding Americans. But, yeah, lets put a libertarian in power and deregulate the activities of the private sector. I mean, its not like it ever generated a central banking cartel before right?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:53 | 2738876 akak
akak's picture

Regardless of the extent to which the Federal Reserve is "private", it is disingenuous to claim that it is not effectively an arm of the US federal government.

And regarding your government-taught grade-school programming regarding monopolies and cartels, pray tell me where all the monopolies and cartels were during the first 90 or so years of American history, when we came the closest to a laissez-faire economy?  Funny how they ONLY meaningfully appeared post-Civil War, with the rise of government-created and sponsored corporations.

You statists never seem to be able to grasp the fundamental fact that it is ONLY the coercive power of government that leads to, or that CAN lead to, corporate abuse and monopolies in the first place.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:01 | 2738889 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"it is ONLY the coercive power of government that leads to, or that CAN lead to, corporate abuse and monopolies in the first place."

And we'll all just tell the warlords who pop up in the vacuum of your "free" society that they should behave themselves and go away, because we are against coercive force.  No doubt they will politely leave.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:09 | 2738896 akak
akak's picture

LTER: "How many red herrings can I balance on top of this strawman?"

You are unworthy of further response --- your mind is closed to reason and logic.


Sun, 08/26/2012 - 17:13 | 2739087 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

LTER is a closet Ayn Rand split licker.

Last night he was bragging about shaggin' her skanky ass and was daring everyone to drop by and sniff his stanky fingers and pussy breath.

Its amazing how someone that dislikes someone else so intently is totally obsessed with that same someone.

LTER, why don't you go dig up the old bitch and rape her dried up corpse finally fulfilling your necrophiliac fantasies thereby giving yourself self-delusional powers of control and dominion over that old bitch.

You might as well do it since you're constantly digging up that old hag on this blog on a daily basis.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 17:42 | 2739150's picture


And we'll all just tell the warlords who pop up in the vacuum of your "free" society


Why do you believe that free men can not voluntarily endeavor to protect themselves against fraud, theft and murder? Why do you believe that we can only be safe  if we give an elite class the right to brutalize us?

Tue, 08/28/2012 - 10:51 | 2743544 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

Regardless of the extent to which the Federal Reserve is "private", it is disingenuous to claim that it is not effectively an arm of the US federal government.


IN WHAT WAY IS IT PART OF THE GOVERNMENT? It clearly functions in violation of the constitution.  Now if you mean that it enables current government policy by ENABLING fiat money, and out of control deficit spending.  But for the benefit of who? Fed shareholders?  Those in congress whose reellection epends upon government give aways?  What do you mean?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 13:34 | 2738738's picture

Why do you find it impossible to either confirm or reject the pledge with examples from your own life? Could it be that you say things for public consumption which are not in sync with your actual behavior?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 21:14 | 2739794 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

War mongering is inconsistent with someone, like Rand, who actively worked against the draft and the selective service her whole life.  She was also a supporter of the gold standard, opposed central banks and fractional reserve lending and  was an agnostic/atheist-a true Jeffersonian.  These are hardly tenets of neocons.  Her central philosphy is the primary of the individual versus the collective and escaping from the Soviety Union she could understand the evil nature of the state in ways you could never hope to understand.  You are clearly an apologist for the state.  You're on the wrong forum.  Go to the Huffington Post.  The root of libertarian is LIBERTY.  Those lacking competance and ability always use words like "fairness" to conceal their weakness while invoking the power of the state to solve problems best solved by the individual.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 14:09 | 2738815 Hobbleknee
Hobbleknee's picture

You think Rand approved of TARP?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 18:10 | 2739196 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I think Rand would approve of anything that she thought would benefit her.  If she owned a bank, she would come up with some argument about why TARP was actually needed to protect the free market or something similar.  That was, in effect, what Greenspan would tell you.  He would say that he saved free enterprise and cherished capitalism by holding his nose and handing billions to the bankers.  Greenspan is a clear real world example of what Rand's "philosophy" boils down to in practice.   He did not betray Rand, he merely proved by his own actions that her philosophy is vacuous.  The over-riding theme is self-interest, and everything else is just cover for unabashed narcissism as a way of life.   She spent her life justifying selfish behavior as somehow virtuous.   It is pathetic that people follow her anyway.  

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 18:57 | 2739341's picture

Can you back up any of those criticisms with actual documentation? You can guess all day about what Ayn Rand a.k.a. The Devil would do in your opinion but it's nothing but hot air if you can't support your accusations with something concrete. You know, like facts and stuff.

Here's another tip: Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan are completely different people. I know that you sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between the two of them just as some folks confuse Dick Sargent with Dick York.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:06 | 2739382 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Greenspan who?  If it helps you sleep to ignore the facts, carry on.

"More than three decades earlier, when Greenspan had been sworn in as chairman of President Gerald R. Ford's Council of Economic Advisers, Ayn Rand herself witnessed the ceremony in the Oval Office with her husband, Frank O'Connor, and Greenspan's mother.

Rand brushed aside concerns Greenspan was "selling out" her anti-statist principles by taking such a high government position.

"Alan is my disciple," she declared. "He's my man in Washington."

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:15 | 2739413 akak
akak's picture

Ayn Rand's late-life senility and moral comprises take nothing away from her earlier, uncomprising principles or statements.

You keep trying to paint her entire body of work as meaningless, invalid or evil merely because she was not a perfect person, nor managed to perfectly implement or live up to those principles.  Is this the argument of an objective and intelligent person, or a rage-filled sophist?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:38 | 2739494 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ayn Rand's moral comprises do take away from her earlier, uncomprising principles and statements.  She proved by her own actions that her grand philosophy was hollow when put to practice.  Greenspan is an even clearer example.  There is a reason for this -- the philosophy at its heart is just cynical self-interest above all else.  The rest of it is noise.

Everyone I have ever met who became enamored of Rand is the same way.  They compromise her "vision" at the drop of a hat when it is convenient to them.  They don't care about anything other than using the philosophy to justify not wanting to contribute to society or help others.  It is a cover for greed and narcissism, plain and simple.  Of course people like that -- like you -- will never admit it and you will rant and rave about freedom and other platitudes in support of your deep down desire to do what you want and not pay for the roads you use or the sewers that take your shit out of your house or the airports you use for your commerce, everyone else be damned.   Let the other suckers pay for it.  You are enlightened.   If it is apparent that I find it appalling that so many people pretend that Rand is something she is not, then guilty.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:51 | 2739544's picture

And yet we are willing to let you live any way you please while you insist that government force should be used against us to make us conform to your vision. For some reason you believe that that makes us bad people who want to take over the world while you and your elected representatives are good people who use guns and prisons to help folks out.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:59 | 2739570 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Again you are missing my central point.  Rand followers are not willing to let us live any way we please.  Alan Greenspan was a Rand follower.  Paul Ryan is a Rand follower.  Listen to what I am saying.  My whole point is that the philosophy is a lie and that it is used as a tool to do exactly the opposite of what you say.  Those who follow Rand want freedom for themselves and slavery for the rest of us.  Real world examples confirm this.  Deny it all you want, but the facts are money.  Money talks and bullshit walks to the Federal Reserve and blows bubbles that enrich the "productive class" at the expense of the middle class, and bails out banks and takes away abortion rights and supports the military industrial complex and supports the war on drugs etc.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 20:24 | 2739599's picture

But I still disagree with you and I still want the right to live my life by my own values whether that is safe for me or not.

Do you still insist that government violence should be used against me in order to make me conform to your views? I am willing to let you live your life according to what your elected government tells you to do even though I believe that that is the sure route to enslavement.

Are you capable of agreeing to disagree? You can't do that and attempt to compel others by violence at the same time.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:45 | 2739523's picture



"Alan is my disciple," she declared. "He's my man in Washington."


She said that in 1974. I'd be happy to look at any action effected by Ford's Council of Economic Advisers that you consider to be deficient. Rand died in 1982 and Greenspan did not ascend to his Chair at the Fed until 1987.

Would you believe Ron Paul if he said that Greenspan had sold out his former principles? Here's a video with horrible audio in which Paul tells how he asked Greenspan to sign a copy of his 1966 treatise on gold. Paul then asked him if he'd like to add a disclaimer. So Ron Paul gets it. He usually does.


Note that Paul doesn't agree with everything Rand said. But he does say that "she was telling the truth and people wanted to hear it." That hardly sounds like a man describing a "cult."

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:53 | 2739551 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

If there were metals awarded for mental gymnastics undertaken to overcome fundamental flaws in one's belief system, you'd get the gold.  No doubt.

The indisputable objectively proved facts are that even Rand herself didn't follow her own teachings or philosophy when it was inconvenient.  Greenspan -- her closest disciple and co-author -- went so far astray of her teachings that his actions in no way resembled her words (other than the part about thinking the wealthy banker class are superior to the unwashed masses , which he clearly does).   You say that it doesn't matter.  I say that it does.  Neither of us is going to convince the other.  

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 20:13 | 2739606 akak
akak's picture

Thomas Jefferson was one of the most instrumental US founding fathers and architect of liberty (such as it used to be) in the United States.  He also owned slaves.  Therefore, by your logic, EVERYTHING he ever did or said has automatically been invalidated. 

When are you going to tear up the US Declaration of Independence and tear down the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC, before removing his face from Mt. Rushmore?  Because anything less would be hypocrisy by your exalted, impossible-to-meet definition.

The irrational rage and seething hatred within you for Ayn Rand, and your wild misinterpretation of her philosophy, blinds you to the inconsistencies and illogic inherent in your pro-statist rantings against her, and against the liberty movement in general.


PS: I do not believe you for one second that you EVER, in any way, shape or form, supported Ron Paul.  The numerous lies which you have already paraded in this forum are proof enough of your complete lack of honesty and character.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 20:12 | 2739623's picture


Neither of us is going to convince the other.


And that would be OK with akak. But you want the government to compel akak through force to conform to your views whether he is convinced of them or not.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 20:29 | 2739671 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Non Sequitor -- WHO gives a flyin' fsck what Jamie Dimon thinks?

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 15:59 | 2741772 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

As I said: more freedom is the answer. Let the markets work. Let big banks fail. But you don't want to do that. You want more government because you believe they can help the people. They never have and never will.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 11:57 | 2738542 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



LetThemEatRand "I don't suggest for a moment that Ayn Rand somehow started the problem, but her philosophy of selfishness and "greed is good" is a huge part of the current political landscape."

I don't think a lot of people understand Ayn Rand but it is true that it is part of the political landscape, i.e, with Obama wanting to redistribute everyone elses income 




Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:16 | 2738589 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Wow, a true red teamer.  Go team!   Good luck with O'Romney/Ryaden.   It will be so much different under their rule.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:36 | 2738629's picture

But you are the one who claims that elected government is the salvation of mankind. So make your choice -- Obama or Romney?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:56 | 2738671 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I reject both, but Ryan is a self-proclaimed Rand follower I suppose it's easy for you.  Or do you reject the idea of false choices between people who claim to be that which they are not?  It is ironic that the privately owned corporate media gave us these two choices and ensured that most people would think Ron Paul is a nutjob, but I'm sure you dont' see the irony because you are a not a deep thinker.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:58 | 2738675's picture

Please explain why you believe that elected government is a boon to mankind while concurrently admitting that there is no one worth voting for.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 13:06 | 2738689 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I really believe that yours is the most insanely simple-minded question I have ever read on ZH.   Our system has been co-opted by the very monied interests you worship.  If we give up elected government, we cut out their middle man.  I understand that you don't see it and that you believe that Rand's fictional heroes really exist.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 13:21 | 2738717's picture

Since you have not given up elected government then tell us who your choice is, Obama or Romney?

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:19 | 2738596 css1971
css1971's picture

So, how do you square Rand against those libertarians like Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson?


Sun, 08/26/2012 - 12:29 | 2738612 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I voted for Ron Paul because he believes in dismantling the police state and the military industrial complex, and I agree that government needs to be much smaller.  I totally disagree with the view that the oligarchs will behave themselves in a mythical "free market," and I believe that regulation, anti-monopoly laws, and taxation for the common good are valid roles for government.  I think Johnsen is first and foremost a Republican.  He privatized prisons.  Just what we need, for-profit prisons.  

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 15:04 | 2738894 css1971
css1971's picture

If you really think that Rand and her characters represent libertarians, how do you square that with real humans like Paul or Johnsen? I think your lack of an answer admits the simple fact is that Rand represents only her own views. Classical liberals (aka libertarians) are for the most part just individuals who want to be left alone to get on with their lives in their own way.

With a much reduced state, the opportunities for oligarchs to misuse it are equally reduced. There's a reason the term "oligarch" was primarily applied to certain Russian and Ukrainian businessmen. Monopolies are often state maintained; the profits  generated by a monopoly would normally encourage competitors to attempt to enter the market but that can be made very difficult through regulatory capture, no bid contracts and so on. Less state by definition means less power and control for oligarchs.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 18:39 | 2739296 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Everyone wants to just be "left alone to get on with their lives in their own way."  And if you look at the entire history of mankind, the best system for accomplishing that is representative government which has rules and regulations.   Most Rand followers try to paint me in a corner that I love big government, or that I don't want or understand freedom.  The opposite is true.  I happen to believe that Rand's vision -- were it really put into practice -- would quickly and inevitably devolve into a world of warlords and slaves.  The answer is to reject tyranny of all kinds, and govern ourselves and the oligarchs through a popularly elected government.  The problem with our current system is that we have too few controls over the oligarchs, not that we have too many (as most Rand followers would suggest).   Our government is becoming their government, so we must take it back.  The akak's of the world would unwittingly hand the oligarchs the keys due to a simplistic idea that they can be controlled through the "free market."  They cannot and will not, and history proves me right.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:02 | 2739371's picture


 I happen to believe that Rand's vision -- were it really put into practice -- would quickly and inevitably devolve into a world of warlords and slaves


But many of us don't believe that. We believe the opposite: that giving an elite class a monopoly on violence with which to control us makes us slaves. We don't mind if you decide to let Obama or Romney tell you what to do. That's fine with us. What we don't understand is your insistence that government violence should be brought to bear upon us in order to make us conform to your vision of the world.

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 19:22 | 2739434 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

By my "vision of the world, " you mean all of recorded history?   

Sun, 08/26/2012 - 20:15 | 2739627's picture


all of recorded history


Do you have a citation for that?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!