• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How is Ayn Rand Still a Thing?

ksen said:
untermensche said:
The question is to any supporter of Rand.

What is it so great we are supposed to take from Atlas Shrugged?

That we had better beware because those with the most money, power and privilege already, might rebel because they want more?
Click to expand...

tbf to Jason he hasn't actually committed to saying there's anything great in Atlas Shrugged yet.
Click to expand...

Judas!
 
untermensche said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Your question "what about the wisdom in the book" needs context. Are you asking if he finds wisdom in the book?

If he had read it and said "Gee, I want to grow up to be just like Wesley Mouch" one could theoretically say he found wisdom in the book.
Click to expand...

The question is to any supporter of Rand.

What is it so great we are supposed to take from Atlas Shrugged?

That we had better beware because those with the most money, power and privilege already, might rebel because they want more?
Click to expand...

A point you might take away from it is that political power and economic power are two entirely different things.

The "traders" as she called them only wanted what they had earned. They didn't want their neighbor's profits, they wanted their own profits. The "looters" as she called them more accurately fit your perception of her "traders" as they are the ones who always wanted more of what everyone else had.

Orren Boyle and Hank Rearden were both manufacturers of steel. That is where the similarity ends. The difference between the two is perhaps something you might take away from that book.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
untermensche said:
The question is to any supporter of Rand.

What is it so great we are supposed to take from Atlas Shrugged?

That we had better beware because those with the most money, power and privilege already, might rebel because they want more?
Click to expand...

A point you might take away from it is that political power and economic power are two entirely different things.

The "traders" as she called them only wanted what they had earned. They didn't want their neighbor's profits, they wanted their own profits. The "looters" as she called them more accurately fit your perception of her "traders" as they are the ones who always wanted more of what everyone else had.

Orren Boyle and Hank Rearded were both manufacturers of steel. That is where the similarity ends. The difference between the two is perhaps something you might take away from that book.
Click to expand...

So the "traders" devised and supported a system where all labor got what it earned as opposed to what it could get in a labor market?
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The traders didn't devise the system, the looters and the moochers did. Under the system of the looters and the moochers, neither the employees nor the employers got what they earned.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the "traders" devised the current system.

I asked if they supported a system where all labor was paid what it earned as opposed to being paid according to a market?
 
The idea that political and economic power are two different things is laughable.

If that's all she has to offer, people are right not to bother.
 
Slogged through The Fountainhead more than thirty years ago. What a load of dreck.
 
untermensche said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The traders didn't devise the system, the looters and the moochers did. Under the system of the looters and the moochers, neither the employees nor the employers got what they earned.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the "traders" devised the current system.

I asked if they supported a system where all labor was paid what it earned as opposed to being paid according to a market?
Click to expand...

You included the word devised.

In the book "Atlas Shrugged" the "traders" neither devised nor supported the system that existed. The central point is that they were going on strike against said system.

Your insistence that workers are paid "according to the market" as opposed to "what they earned" makes me wonder if you are a supporter of the Labor Theory of Value. As a supporter of the Subjective Theory of Value, your questions make little sense to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Sarpedon said:
The idea that political and economic power are two different things is laughable.

If that's all she has to offer, people are right not to bother.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that was all she had to offer, but that it was something she had to offer to untermensche.

And yes, political power and economic power are actually distinct. There are many people with both, but the two types of power are still distinct.
 
This is an interesting discussion after reading the Rolling Stone article about the Koch Bros and their shenanigans.
 
And yes, political power and economic power are actually distinct. There are many people with both, but the two types of power are still distinct.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Political, economic and military power are inextricable from each other. We make artificial distinctions for the sake of our institutions and peace of mind. What Marx did was correctly to identify the relationship between economics and political and military events throughout history. The mistake the Marxists committed was to take this undoubtably true principle and base a silly political/economic system on it. And now objectivists, in their foolish rejection of all things attached to the name 'Marx,' throws the baby out with the bathwater, and tries to pretend that there IS no relationship between politics and economics.

As long as weapons and training have been decisive in war, wealth and military power have gone hand in hand. Political power inevitably follows both. The growth of democratic governments has coincided with the masses becoming organized and armed. Their smaller individual, but greater collective economic and military power has earned them a place at the political table (though it is clear to everyone that the rich are still carving the roast). The objectivists want to ignore the economic importance of the poor, simply because they are poor individually. They also want to blame the poor for the political system, which was created by the rich.

This is all just farcical play acting. Everyone can see it.
 
ksen said:
Atlas Shrugged is just one long aspie splurge.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't insult those on the spectrum!

Personally, I never understood why her books were ever a 'thing' at all. As far as attempting to use literature to further a political agenda (cannot dignify her work as philosophy) is called propaganda and should be decried by all thinking people.

Also her writing sucks. Majorly.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
untermensche said:
The question is to any supporter of Rand.

What is it so great we are supposed to take from Atlas Shrugged?

That we had better beware because those with the most money, power and privilege already, might rebel because they want more?
Click to expand...

A point you might take away from it is that political power and economic power are two entirely different things.

The "traders" as she called them only wanted what they had earned. They didn't want their neighbor's profits, they wanted their own profits. The "looters" as she called them more accurately fit your perception of her "traders" as they are the ones who always wanted more of what everyone else had.

Orren Boyle and Hank Rearden were both manufacturers of steel. That is where the similarity ends. The difference between the two is perhaps something you might take away from that book.
Click to expand...

Really? I've always found politic and economic power to be quite entertwined.
 
Toni said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
A point you might take away from it is that political power and economic power are two entirely different things.

The "traders" as she called them only wanted what they had earned. They didn't want their neighbor's profits, they wanted their own profits. The "looters" as she called them more accurately fit your perception of her "traders" as they are the ones who always wanted more of what everyone else had.

Orren Boyle and Hank Rearden were both manufacturers of steel. That is where the similarity ends. The difference between the two is perhaps something you might take away from that book.
Click to expand...

Really? I've always found politic and economic power to be quite entertwined.
Click to expand...

Here in Alaska they aren't just intertwined, they have non-stop incestuous intercourse and produce so many corrupt bastards they have their own club.
 
Intertwined does not mean they are the same thing. Many people have both, that is a common occurrence, especially since our system is corporatism. But that still doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Historically they have been intertwined even more, as only the rulers (those with political power) were able to accumulate any sort of wealth to exercise economic power with. This has been distorted by those who confuse the hell out of cause and effect into thinking that as a result not only are they the same, but also to think that political power comes from economic power and that anyone with economic power therefore has political power.
 
So you assert that they are different, despite never being independent from one another.

Ok, you are playing with semantics. I don't waste my time arguing semantics.
 
I think this quote from P.T. Barnum answers the OP question - "
“Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public.”
 
ksen said:
untermensche said:
But what great wisdom is Ryan talking about?

The virtue of selfishness?
Click to expand...

yes, econ 101 "As everyone selfishly pursues their own self interests the best interests of society are served."
Click to expand...

Well it's an interesting idea, but it breaks down when people start acting collectively.

The most harmful examples of such action on behalf of a collective we call 'corporations'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom