Ayn Rand clubs fall on hard times

[ZiprHead]

I think it's the hard times that have fallen on so many people while those at the top continuously rake in the profits are what is destroying the AR clubs.

 

[blastula]

AR is not for Ayn Rand????

 

[Kharakov]

AR is not for Ayn Rand????

Ayn Rand is a nickname for an AR-15. They hide stuff in them in the USA, because they are legal, but many things aren't.

https://babylonbee.com/news/more-e-cigs-being-disguised-as-ar-15s-to-avoid-ban

 

[J842P]

The gatherings sound more like cult gatherings than clubs. I didn't see much objectivism.

Oh totally. Objectivism is a personality cult.

 

[WAB]

A is A. Unfortunately the A stands for asshole.

It stands for "assault", like the "A" in AR-15

"Morality ends where a gun begins."

- Ayn Rand

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others - Rand.

- emphasis mine.

 

[Bomb#20]

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others - Rand.

- emphasis mine.

The Bill of Rights guarantees thirty-five rights that do not involve starting the use of physical force against others, and only one that does — the right to subpoena a defense witness. Is that an unforgivable act of evil?

Must an innocent man, finding himself the victim of mistaken identity, in order to be non-evil, voluntarily let himself be imprisoned for life or even executed, rather than impose on the man who saw him far away at the time of the crime to come to court and tell what he knows?

 

[WAB]

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others - Rand.

- emphasis mine.

The Bill of Rights guarantees thirty-five rights that do not involve starting the use of physical force against others, and only one that does — the right to subpoena a defense witness. Is that an unforgivable act of evil?

Must an innocent man, finding himself the victim of mistaken identity, in order to be non-evil, voluntarily let himself be imprisoned for life or even executed, rather than impose on the man who saw him far away at the time of the crime to come to court and tell what he knows?

Of course not. I should say I am not an Objectivist. I responded to PH because he has linked Rand to this assault rifle a few times now - and Rand was most certainly not enamored of guns, or force. To her, 'faith and force' were the "destroyers of the modern world".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Bill of Rights guarantees thirty-five rights that do not involve starting the use of physical force against others, and only one that does — the right to subpoena a defense witness. Is that an unforgivable act of evil?

Must an innocent man, finding himself the victim of mistaken identity, in order to be non-evil, voluntarily let himself be imprisoned for life or even executed, rather than impose on the man who saw him far away at the time of the crime to come to court and tell what he knows?

Of course not. I should say I am not an Objectivist. I responded to PH because he has linked Rand to this assault rifle a few times now - and Rand was most certainly not enamored of guns, or force. To her, 'faith and force' were the "destroyers of the modern world".

His understanding of firearms is rivaled only by his understanding of Objectivism. Even though I've told him "AR" stands for "Armalite Rifle" he actually thinks believes it means the other stuff he has spouted.

 

[bilby]

The Bill of Rights guarantees thirty-five rights that do not involve starting the use of physical force against others, and only one that does — the right to subpoena a defense witness. Is that an unforgivable act of evil?

Must an innocent man, finding himself the victim of mistaken identity, in order to be non-evil, voluntarily let himself be imprisoned for life or even executed, rather than impose on the man who saw him far away at the time of the crime to come to court and tell what he knows?

Of course not. I should say I am not an Objectivist. I responded to PH because he has linked Rand to this assault rifle a few times now - and Rand was most certainly not enamored of guns, or force. To her, 'faith and force' were the "destroyers of the modern world".

Judging by the rather ugly rape fantasies that appear in her works, I would suggest that Rand was at least in some regards perhaps more enamoured by force than is entirely healthy.

 

[lpetrich]

Judging by the rather ugly rape fantasies that appear in her works, I would suggest that Rand was at least in some regards perhaps more enamoured by force than is entirely healthy.

Yes, I find this very odd. Why not some friendly seduction fantasy?

 

[PyramidHead]

The Bill of Rights guarantees thirty-five rights that do not involve starting the use of physical force against others, and only one that does — the right to subpoena a defense witness. Is that an unforgivable act of evil?

Must an innocent man, finding himself the victim of mistaken identity, in order to be non-evil, voluntarily let himself be imprisoned for life or even executed, rather than impose on the man who saw him far away at the time of the crime to come to court and tell what he knows?

Of course not. I should say I am not an Objectivist. I responded to PH because he has linked Rand to this assault rifle a few times now - and Rand was most certainly not enamored of guns, or force. To her, 'faith and force' were the "destroyers of the modern world".

His understanding of firearms is rivaled only by his understanding of Objectivism. Even though I've told him "AR" stands for "Armalite Rifle" he actually thinks believes it means the other stuff he has spouted.

For the record, trolling people by getting them to materialize anytime someone misidentifies the correct meaning of AR-15 is a well-known meme. All of which is beside the fact that it actually stands for "Angry Republican"

 

[Torin]

The Bill of Rights guarantees thirty-five rights that do not involve starting the use of physical force against others, and only one that does — the right to subpoena a defense witness. Is that an unforgivable act of evil?

Must an innocent man, finding himself the victim of mistaken identity, in order to be non-evil, voluntarily let himself be imprisoned for life or even executed, rather than impose on the man who saw him far away at the time of the crime to come to court and tell what he knows?

An Objectivist would say that the reluctant defense witness is abetting the violation of rights by not testifying, which morally warrants the use of force.

 

[bilby]

The Bill of Rights guarantees thirty-five rights that do not involve starting the use of physical force against others, and only one that does — the right to subpoena a defense witness. Is that an unforgivable act of evil?

Must an innocent man, finding himself the victim of mistaken identity, in order to be non-evil, voluntarily let himself be imprisoned for life or even executed, rather than impose on the man who saw him far away at the time of the crime to come to court and tell what he knows?

An Objectivist would say that the reluctant defense witness is abetting the violation of rights by not testifying, which morally warrants the use of force.

A reluctant wealthy person is abetting the violation of my right to financial security by not handing over his wallet. Therefore muggings are morally warranted.

The great thing about junk philosophy is that it can be used to justify ANYTHING. That's why it's so popular with theists and Objectivists.

 

[BH]

I think people confuse instincts with rights. You have an instinct to want to live and prosper. However, no one has proven you actually have a right to live and prosper. If you did no one could kill you and take your stuff.

 

[BH]

I think initiating and using force is a skill set, when mastered, that is very much rational to rely on if you can succeed and get away with it and it makes your life better off.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think people confuse instincts with rights. You have an instinct to want to live and prosper. However, no one has proven you actually have a right to live and prosper. If you did no one could kill you and take your stuff.

That's not what "have a right" means. If you actually have a right to live and prosper, that means anybody who kills you and takes your stuff is a bad person. It doesn't mean nobody will kill you and take your stuff. That's why we talk about people "violating" other people's rights.

 

[ruby sparks]

The Bill of Rights guarantees thirty-five rights that do not involve starting the use of physical force against others, and only one that does — the right to subpoena a defense witness. Is that an unforgivable act of evil?

Must an innocent man, finding himself the victim of mistaken identity, in order to be non-evil, voluntarily let himself be imprisoned for life or even executed, rather than impose on the man who saw him far away at the time of the crime to come to court and tell what he knows?

Of course not. I should say I am not an Objectivist. I responded to PH because he has linked Rand to this assault rifle a few times now - and Rand was most certainly not enamored of guns, or force. To her, 'faith and force' were the "destroyers of the modern world".

Judging by the rather ugly rape fantasies that appear in her works, I would suggest that Rand was at least in some regards perhaps more enamoured by force than is entirely healthy.

I've just started reading, 'The Fountainhead' (off the back of this thread), but I haven't got to this bit yet:


"She tried to tear herself away from him. The effort broke against his arms that had not felt it. Her fists beat against his shoulders, against his face. He moved one hand, took her two wrists and pinned them behind her, under his arm, wrenching her shoulder blades.…She fell back against the dressing table, she stood crouching, her hands clasping the edge behind her, her eyes wide, colorless, shapeless in terror. He was laughing. There was the movement of laughter on his face, but no sound.…Then he approached. He lifted her without effort. She let her teeth sink into his hand and felt blood on the tip of her tongue. He pulled her head back and he forced her mouth open against his."

And the response of one female fan:

“I know that many view it as a rape scene, but I definitely did not see it that way,” says Huynh of the Fountainhead scene. “Yes, there are elements of nonconsensual sex in that scene, but I was aware of Dominique’s feelings towards Roark and to me, she internally agreed to it,” she says. “I guess in the way that a lot of females may enjoy ‘rough’ sex and want domination behind closed doors.” And Huynh’s view of the scene hasn’t evolved in the five years since her first reading. “I will always feel this way about sex in the novel,” she says. “It changed the way I viewed men. The way they are supposed to be. Their motivations. It also made me look for raw dynamics when it comes to relationships.”

Which could make for a lively discussion. Not least on comparing and contrasting Howard Roark and Christian Grey.

An easy line could be drawn. Some women might enjoy 'that sort of sex' in a fictional novel, but this says nothing about their preferences in the real world. And it was 1943 after all.

 

[ruby sparks]

I have also started reading, 'The Virtue of Selfishness', a later book that outlines her philosophy of Objectivism (with which I was not familiar).

First impressions are that the ideas are intelligent and well thought through. I am not yet sure where or indeed if she draws the line, in other words where she agrees (if she does) that causing harm to others restricts the individual's freedom.

I would not be at all surprised if Neoliberals in the USA had taken 'what they needed' from her philosophy, to serve their own ideologies. It's what they tend to do, imo. They arguably took Martin Luther King's saying that people should not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character, to justify what some have called a new, subtle form of colourblind racism.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Ayn Rand clubs fall on hard times ......

Let them go onto public assistance like she did?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

I have also started reading, 'The Virtue of Selfishness', a later book that outlines her philosophy of Objectivism (with which I was not familiar).

First impressions are that the ideas are intelligent and well thought through. I am not yet sure where or indeed if she draws the line, in other words where she agrees (if she does) that causing harm to others restricts the individual's freedom.

I would not be at all surprised if Neoliberals in the USA had taken 'what they needed' from her philosophy, to serve their own ideologies. It's what they tend to do, imo. They arguably took Martin Luther King's saying that people should not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character, to justify what some have called a new, subtle form of colourblind racism.

First impressions are that the ideas are intelligent and well thought through. I am not yet sure where or indeed if she draws the line, in other words where she agrees (if she does) that causing harm to others restricts the individual's freedom.

There is no consideration of others, that's her point, anything even hinting at altruism or any altruistic bent is evil and destructive. And please, some of us actually live in this racist society. A salient point to mention here wold be that this crackpot Rand ended up on public assistance. Your "first" impressions don't appear to be "first" at all, but rather come off as dogma. How nice that you found her. As for your "Neoliberals" nonsense, neoliberal economic policy and endless war for profit are utterly bipartisan in the US; there is no daylight between the "two" parties.