You expect people who worship hypocritical, cheating, and selfish asshole to understand joke? You are asking too much for their brain (if they have any, i am not sure)
Shozbot (hey,Mork): Ayn Rand had a series of lovers and life upsetting issues with different men. She took partners for her work and then cast them off. I don't know if hypocritical is quite the word, but it's close. I still accept some of her philosophy--for one thing, it was the first time anyone ever pointed out we don't have to be sheep...but she asks us to be predators, and that's asking a lot. One example: don't give someone a gift because THEY will like it. Give them a gift that YOU want them to have. Period. Anything else is just morally WRONG. That's a typical Rand idea. I introduced my dad to Ayn Rand...THAT was a mistake!
@Jillian Smith Ayn Rand doesn't suggest we be predators, she suggests we be traders. And I don't know of the specific example you gave regarding gift giving. But I would say that according to most Objectivists, it would be meaningless to give gifts to people out of duty or habit. Gifts should be deserved and they should reflect your own values. And yes, you should avoid giving a gift which has zero or negative value for the recipient. That's where thinking comes into the picture. ABT, always be thinking.
My favorite dig against Ayn Rand is for Christopher Hitchens, "Don't you think it's a bit too much that Americans think the problem is the they just aren't greedy enough."
@fitzy098 To be precise, Rand thought that the existed of a social safety net founded by force was tyrannical. She was not against people voluntarily cooperating to build such safety net, nor against a safety net, but only against forcing people to build it.
@fitzy098 I see. First, Objectivism is reduced to "Greed is Good." Called on this obvious falsehood, now Objectivism is characterized as offering nothing new. The argument usually made by Left fascists is that free market capitalism is necessarily exploitative, regardless of how willing the various participants are (see labor theory of value), and that only by putting all substantial capital and power into the hands of a socialist elite (often a hereditary socialist elite) can wealth be divided fairly among the working classes. Ayn Rand disagreed, and was labelled as "greedy" because of it. On which side of this argument do you stand, may I ask?
“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.” ― Christopher Hitchens
@@Tambaha A lot of it is because right now, we have too much capitalism, which means socialism is necessary to fix it. It's like walking on a tightrope: If you lean too far to one side, you need to lean to the other side in order to keep your balance. And if you lose that balance, it won't matter which side you're leaning toward; you'll fall off just the same.
@@spongeintheshoe I respect your answer. But I disagree. We've been moving away from Capitalism for 100 years, and that is the cause of our decline. Not the opposite. At the same time, Asian countries have opened their markets to different degrees. And, depending on how much capitalism they employ, has determined their economic success It is only the case that regulation of people, and business will always increase. It is not often that regulation is removed
DAR HAR HAR HAR! DONALD DRUMPF! I AM SO ORIGINAL AND EDGY! ....Watch as Generation Z turns National Socialist, and perhaps you will realize you are part of the reason why.
quincy quincy I actually think it's 100 times funnier now. It was one thing for Leftists to joke that right-wingers should embrace Trump and his selfishness, but the fact that they have, and the fact that an orangutan with an alien living on its head is sitting in the White House, makes things like this impossible not to laugh at. If you take life as one big, ironic joke, and think of the Earth as God's plumbing, you'll find yourself a lot happier.
She believed in unfettered capitalism and totally denounced any type of social program. However, at the end of her life she was relying on Social Security and Medicare.
But I dont get why were surprised? All humans are hypocrites. You have to debate her ideas not her human flaws. She was a philosopher and I'm sure other philosophers like socrates, plato and tons of others were hypocritical but there is just no recorded documents. People who discount the human take the shortcut to discredit someone rather than the critical thinking needed to dismantle the ideas behind her philosophy
@@JD-my5ek - Call it what you like but her ideology was essentially fascism, which is definitely not a philosophy. It is well recognized that as individuals mature, they often reject her extremist, unbalanced and il measured ideology.
@@PH--ov7tf I have a feeling the countless people who debate her ideas today imply her thoughts are a little more complicated than "facism." Also looking up the definition and seeing at least some of her theories, i would say you sound more intellectually lazy
@@PH--ov7tf fascists are not free market libertarians. They advocate for strong central government, military rule, dictatorship, and often some form of nationalist collectivism.
Sublime was a great band, but they weren't Ska. I don't know of any great Ska bands. Those guys who sang the song from Tony Hawk Pro Skater? Here I am, holdin on to what I am... Is that Ska?
Many people knew Trump was going to run after interviews in late 2014. The mainstream media began their propaganda campaign as early as possible to dissuade voters, it didn't work
daer devvyl Obama wasn't a US born citizen. It may be him relating when he seems to say that, but normally he says he was born in Africa (north Africa; he's my race of African, as a matter of fact).
@@HopeRock425 Well, he owned the libs by stacking the courts(abortion about to be illegal and ensuring coporate rule pretty much forever), not bad for someone who is stupid.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -John Rogers
+dandic2342 Hehe, that reminds me of this (though I don't remember who said it): "What's the difference between The Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh? One is a flaming, nazi gas bag. The other is a blimp."
MrApplewine come on. Rand is literally every teenagers favorite philosopher. I loved the Fountainhead as a kid, but her ideology is just shit, and you realize that when you get older.
You can't really have somebody who understands Rand's ideas and truly agrees with them and then later rejecting them. But, if a person admires rand's ideas or even similar values without rand and then choses to as they get older to reject self-reliance and reality I would say that is a much more childish state. That can happen because it is hard to face the world of reality and surrendering your mind can be a tempting fate for those who don't have the will to think.
its funny, cuz lord of the rings isnt much different than atlas shrugged, both are anti-govt, pro-anarchy, about morality, human desires and their actions
@@keelysmash ok but you both KNOW that andrew ryan was based on ayn rand, right? (hence the similar names) i feel like you do but i just need to make sure...
@@keelysmash Not just Andrew Ryan, either! The entirety of Bioshock is a direct response to Objectivism. The "Perfect Utopia" that is laid out in Atlas Shrugged is what Rapture is basically a replica of (with some liberties taken). The short-sighted nature of the endless, unadulterated churn of unregulated technologies and infinite potential of the individual. The American conceptualization of God as self really was ingrained into our roots; Manifest Destiny, folks like Andrew Carnegie pushing this concept of the self as the infinite being, responsible for the ouroboros of technological and industrial progression. Ayn Rand was merely a torch bearer. She may have given name to the torch, but she would have called it her own creation. A poor understanding of history will make a person rolling a rock down a hill believe that they were the first to invent the wheel, though. Such intensely religiously held beliefs, and yet, she proclaimed herself an atheist!
Look, she seems like a miserable woman. But can we please just acknowledge that, "But I don't think of him. And the more I see, the less I think." is a GREAT line? Like, damn.
@@bruno.6610 - Fine. Plot is meh, characters are flat representations of what she thinks the world is like, philosophy is half-assed, and the book is a lot longer than it realistically needs to be to get her "point" across. If you love wasting your time with crap then I'd highly recommend it.
@@kartikadewi3270 Trump: *Incites an insurrection, botches a pandemic response so badly that hundreds of thousands of Americans die and millions lose their jobs, separates migrant children from their parents and locks them in cages, wastes taxpayer dollars on a ridiculous wall, defunds crucial social programs, contacts a foreign leader to get dirt on a political opponent, sends his goons to kidnap protesters, lies constantly, throws a fit whenever he doesn't get his way, and literally attempts to end democracy as we know it* Kartika Dewi: wHy iS tRuMp sO uNpOpUlAr?
Surely you don't expect a good Republican to ever stoop so low as to use the disgusting and inessential socialist commy public libraries? Capitalism is key, the poor shouldn't be allowed access to knowledge anyhow.
You can get them free from some republican propaganda organization. I forget what it was called. But me and my friend got them payed for and shipped to our houses for free in high school.
Brock Lobster Honestly though, i’m from Vietnam, and the only type who picks up her books are well to do pricks, businessmen who can’t parallel park and complain about services every five minutes, or edgy financial majors. Other than that, any other students, professors, analyst or people who are decent at literature analysis never gets through half of Fountainhead, let alone Atlas Shrugged.
Yeah. Bio-shock managed to do an excellent job of serving as an allegory for the inherent destructiveness of an unregulated market. It's like a George Orwell novel but you get to kill things.
@@CollinMcLean Another thing I appreciated about Bioshock's story was that they presented a very believable form of individualism. They didn't just strawman the whole idea of free choice and make it look ridiculous. They actually took serious consideration to design a capitalist utopia that would most likely be very successful for some time before things went downhill.
Ahhh yes, the Trumpanzees come out with their cursing and carrying on. Little do they know that they have voted against their own self interests and will be the ones to suffer the most. Oh wells, some of us do have money and will watch as those who do not, those who voted for someone like Trump suffer as all your social programs are destroyed and more jobs disappear and the economy collapses from a man who has no clue what he is doing. We are already witnessing this debacle.
@@cynicaesthetics4341 Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially mixed. The Libertarian Party members and supporters (such as Gary Johnson, Nicholas Sarwark, John Stossel, ReasonTV) praised her and have argued against the GOP making big difference. @Can'tThinkOfAName, I was generalising and never said Rand represented Libertarians/Conservatives and @Tarfiel, who cares if they're irrelevant, they exist and are active in the world of politics.
3'13'' "Especially when there's so many advocates for selfishness they can choose, Like Donald Trump" This was said in 2014, congratulations, republicans heed your wise advice (facepalm)
I like how now whenever I see Ted Cruz I just think "I do not like that man ted cruz, I do not like his far right views. I do not like him with a beard, I do not like him freshly sheared."
So many people completely forget the part where Rand makes it very clear that your selfishness must not directly impede in the ability of others to live their lives as freely as they can. All she has said is that you should not feel obligated to sacrifice your own ability to live your life as freely as you can to prop up others. If you WANT to out of your own love or respect for the people you wish you help, that's fine, because fundamentally it's your choice. However, when your government tells you that you "should" fight in their wars because it's the "right" thing to do, how can you not see that this is a fundamentally exploitative relationship? This and other circumstances like it are what Rand had an issue with.
Her work made room for the possibility to help others because you want to but she herself repeatedly made clear in many public statements that any act that isn't as selfish as possible is morally wrong.
No one missed that part. It's just that it doesn't really matter. Ayn Rand doesn't advocate killing people or directly restricting their behavior. That's not the part we're concerned about. The part that is harmful is the indirect harm which she advocates. The indirect harm and selfish attitude can be just as destructive as direct and intended harm. You make the mistake of assuming that government is separate from the people. Perhaps in a dictatorship your argument would make some semblance of sense. However, you live in a democracy. The people you voted into office are the ones leading the country into war. It is the job of the elected representatives to act according to the will of the people. No on fucking tells you what wars you "should" fight. Do you even understand how democracy works?
There are many things that I disagree with Rand on, but this is not one of them. Unfortunately, like the Third Reich tried to do with Nietzsche, the politicians in America have similarly tried to latch onto the works of a greater mind than their own. It's sad that they are able to claim superiority through supporting her writing without fully believing or even understanding what the full implications are of what they say they believe to be true.
RaitoYagami88 "The indirect harm and selfish attitude can be just as destructive" Its not about how direct your actions are but about the degree of causation. "You make the mistake of assuming that government is separate from the people." Actually, governments are not legally bound to do what the people want, so yes, they are independent. "you live in a democracy" No friend, the USA is a representative democracy, which means that only 535 men can vote on federal laws and regulations. "No on fucking tells you what wars you "should" fight." Oh, then why are we in the Middle East again? Show me a national plebiscite, or even a credible poll that shows that people are pro-going to war in 2014. You won't find any, yet we are forced to pay for everything. "Do you even understand how democracy works?" Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for diner. Hardly something to be proud of.
@@daborshy4089 I disagree, it's impossible for John to have encouraged Trump's presidency. He would have to watch these videos, and we all know Trump doesn't have enough brain power or patience to sit through someone, who is not himself, talking for more than 10 seconds
That's the "free" market at work. Too bad the only people that can compete with pharmaceutical companies is literally an already establish billionaire... almost like it's not really a "free" market, but one that has been allowed to have a few monopolies/oligopolies control entire sectors of our economy, all while highly exploiting the workers that make their profits in sectors where our basic needs are commodified when they shouldn't be for profit. "Freedom"
+blue20000 This is one of the funniest things I have ever read on TH-cam. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that today! It is -25 degrees Celsius outside!
First, this is not what actually happend, but whatevr. But second, for the case you responded - she paid her taxes for her whole life, which was something she disagreed, and now you - obviously advocating this scheme because you wrote this - are laughing at it? Ayn Rand pointed out how terrible the idea of medicare is. She proved it as you can see.
@@Judas_1989 "but whatever" oh i see :-) "you are opposed to a system yet you particpate in it, how do you justify wanting to change things you hypocrite?" i hear this from her followers regularly how about you eat shit :-)
Sometimes I think that all satire manages to do is give people dumb ideas. - Hey, NSA, you really should read 1984! NSA: _We have read it, we're working on it._ - Kafka: The Trial German Bureaucracy: _Yes._ - Haha, republicans, why have Ayn Rand as your selfish hero when you could choose that reality show star, whatshisname, Trump? Republicans: _Brilliant idea, what could go wrong?_
All Rand zealots despise William Buckley , the founder of the Conservative movement, so why is this lunatic narrator claiming she is some sort of champion for conservatives?
@@50jakecs I don't really like her but if she really is selfish and believes in being selfish, why would it be hypocritical of her to live like that? She just lived her last year's selfishly. That is what she proposed. Selfishness entails that principles which apply to others need not apply to me.
@@anonymous_4276 to flip the script on Rand in her own words: "why is it good to want others to pay into making her and others happy?" A selfish person only cares about themselves. How can you claim that selfishness is such a virtue while simultaneously using the selflessness of others to cling onto life for a few more years? If it wasn't for selflessness she would've been on the street looking through trash cans for a scrap of food to hold her over one more day. Hence the hypocrisy.
@@anonymous_4276 Selfishness is rather the afterthought of her belief system. She believed in fulfilling true individual potential no matter what. Women, especially in her time, were expected to give up any personal ambitions in favour of man and children. She believed in always putting the own self and selfish desires first. Whether she failed at it or not? Well, she is a Russian Jewish woman who became an acknowledged writer on her own merit, created her own branch of philosophy to live by and was married to the same man for 50 years till his death. She is still remembered today, where most of you won't be in 50 years after your death. I would say, she wouldn't give a flying rats ass what you are thinking about her if she where still alive. On the other note: she was one very unpleasant person.
How do these religious conservatives reconcile all of Rand's anti-religious teachings? Seriously. I'm not bashing--I really don't know how they can advocate Rand and "God" at the same time. Thoughts?
It depends what you mean by God. I consider myself an objectivist, and yet, I believe in God. I don't believe in God as commonly described (an omniscient omnipotent supernatural living white man). By God I mean "The All", The Source, Existence; that which cannot be named, perceived nor understood. Under those terms, I certainly believe in God.
Because liking a book, or agreeing with somebody's statement, doesn't mean we agree with all of their statements or positions. Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" is warmed-over Nieztscheism--the statement that each of us should be a hedonistic, insanely selfish asshole, followed by long, convoluted explanations of why we wouldn't necessarily act like hedonistic, insanely selfish assholes. But her defense of capitalism, and her relations of how government actions--often made with good intentions--interfere with it, was brilliant. Likewise, George Orwell supported socialism Even after he saw it in action in Catalonia, he looked at the murders and thefts and general tyranny and thought it was great--but we still read "1984" and "Animal Farm," and still advise that others read it.
@J R Pretty much, yeah. Nobody thinks it's cool that Trump banged a hooker, but we'd rather have him and an economic boom than Felonia Von Pantsuit or Creepy Uncle Joe. If your choice is the crappy Christian or the person who literally wants to ban Christianity, you have an easy choice. If y'all could run a candidate that doesn't suck, you'd have this election sewn up. (also--mob associations? LOL)
@J R "and it wasn’t just one hooker, it was many, and he also paid for them to have abortions and pee for his gross fetish" Yeeeeeeeah no, that's a steaming pile of bullshit, and if you had a shred of integrity you'd be weeping in shame right now. "uhh, yeah, you have to to build in the places he has built in, lol, you can look it up for yourself." so you don't have any evidence, but we're supposed to believe it anyway. Well, that sets the tone for the rest of your posts. " And Clinton never wanted to “ban Christianity”" Because it's not like she said that Christianity needs to change to support her beliefs, or was planning to infiltrate and bring down churches in her emails, or... Wait, wait, it is like that. It's EXACTLY like that. "just bc ppl want an actual separation of church and state instead of a politician who will blindly make choices to benefit his particular religious voting base. " Because sentencing people to re-education for refusing to mock God is an "actual separation of church and state." "Just don’t re elect him is my thing" And now watching him win the election in 2020 is going to be even better. Slow it down, man. You have five more years of unhinged, dishonest hatred to go.
The biggest mistake is to to read an Author and just copy their worldview. You can take Rands positions ,self reflect ,analayze and critic them. You can still appreciate her work for what it is without becoming a regurgitating robot that throws out soundbytes. One has to recognize the time and atmosphere of the Author's work and factor this into their understanding. You can not defend your own position if you have no clue of a different position.
The modern day person is the thing she hated the most. Those who point fingers at success and try say it is wrong. She predicted the downfall of American in it's obsession with righting the wrongs of the past by sacrificing itself to the lazy. Here we are being flooded by those of no merit and thought by those of no brains. Welcome to Socialism I suppose.
Monopolism is anti-free market for a number of reasons. A market is only free when there is competition. Anarchy is only free when there are not a group large enough to enforce law. Its a contradiction which is obvious if you are capable of seeing the chess board further than a single move ahead.
conservatives and objectivism don't line up at all. Take Trump for example, he wants to regulate twitter for banning people for their political takes. An objectivist, such as Ayn Rand would say that twitter is twitter's (the company) private property and as such can ban people as they please. Also objectivism isn't an ideology, it's a philosophy built on reason and existence being an absolute.
When people read fiction, they still treat it as though they'd read an actual event. They don't literally believe it, of course, but they often talk as though it were evidence that the events could one day happen in a similar pattern. It's important to remember that books and movies don't show a realistic unfolding of events. Things happen the way they do in books _because the author decided to write it that way_, usually to be entertaining. You can't treat a book's plot as though it were a real social experiment. In particular I've seen people point to Atlas Shrugged almost as though it were proof of Rand's ideas, as though she'd been simply recording her observations, rather than actively constructing a fictional world where all her ideas would be _commanded_ to work.
@Obi-Wan Kenobi If John Oliver wants you to believe that somebody is like a Sith Lord, he will make that person look like a Sith Lord. You will notice that there was no voice in the video to defend Ayn Rand. You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. If all you know about Ayn Rand comes from this video, then your point of view is incomplete.
@Rosegold I see what you did there. But since Objectivism only exists in this galaxy beginning in the 20th Century, your claim is inaccurate. In terms of the actual line regarding absolutes, however, I think Obi-Wan was partially mistaken. Absolutes are in abundance in the realm of metaphysical reality. If something exists, it is an absolute. If something happens, it is an absolute. The things which aren't absolute are a person's irrational whims, wishes, speculations, and beliefs.
Ska is what happens when you take a bunch of Jamaicans & shove them in the UK for a few decades while rock & roll happens, at least musically. And it's brillent!!! My childhood was pretty much ska music, by both Windrushers & UK peeps influenced by Windrushers. I still remember a gabba night (harcore techno EDM) when some of the DJs played One Step Beyond. The whole place went nuts in the best way, me included!!!
I wish Ted Cruz would stop being on TV. He's an embarrassment to me personally and the state of Texas.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
4BetaMale2 yep. And if miserable shits the likes of Ted crud, rind pale, punk Ryan, and that radio talk weasel are recommending something it’s all the more reason to know it’s wrong.
@@4BetaMale2 I wished you changed America over leaving it, there's so much good stuff you guys have that's shadowed by the fucked up shit your government does
I love how you pretend you read Atlas Shrugged or anything Ayn Rand wrote. Pseudo-intellectualism is just so enthralling. I love to watch people pretend that they know what they are talking then squirm petulantly when they are met with political discourse. Ignorance such as yours is a rare species. You are the one natural selection missed.
Not to be insulting, but there is no intellectual comparison between Mariah Carey and Ayn Rand. That's like saying there's a comparison between a pebble and a mountain.
I read three hundred pages of Atlas Shrugged, but the damned thing is eleven hundred pages long. I would rather spend my free time reading books by people who actually know how to write.
Kind of took stuff out of context here. I've read her books and I am by no means am objectivist, but Rand envisioned a world where capitalists are sensible assholes, not just regular assholes. I took what served me from her work and moved on.
After a life of heavy smoking, she happily and hypocritically looked to publicly funded Medicare assistance instead of taking responsibility for her self-inflicted illnesses. There would have been no Medicare in the world of her ideals, but when she found she needed it, she decided to come over to the "irrational" world where people care for each other.
I don't know Ayn Rand, so completely objectively and without an opinion about her, I can say this video was absolutely pointless. They didn't explain her views in an objective way and their basic argumentation of why she shouldn't "be a thing" anymore was "because she is selfish and should make you think of spoiled girls on MTV". That's not an argument, that's a, completely subjective, opinion that can not, in any way whatsoever, convince me of her selfishness. I respond to objective explanation and evidence, not a completely personal attack with zero base to it. Very disappointing..
unfortunately, Progressives never have a good rationale. Instead, they only attack the opposition. Ayn Rand is far from perfect. But, John Oliver is merely using this in order to pretend that Conservatives support her worst beliefs. Instead, the Conservatives support a portion of her beliefs. The part where people who earn big and help themselves are also helping their neighbor by fueling the economy. That's the part of Ayn Rand which Ted Cruz & Rand Paul admire. In other words: John Oliver is doing his typical deceptive journalism. And, he could have gone after democrats by using names such as Saul Alinsky, or other communists. Many of today's Hollywood actors are admirers of hardcore commies. But, you'd never hear that on John Oliver's show.
You know this is a comedy/ news spoof. Yes they did not give a strong argument, but that was not the point. Watch more of this show and you will see they take a subject that they object to and they ridicule it. If you felt that they were informative in the past, thats probably because they have to tell you what/who the subject is before you can get the joke. They are not here to debate at least they have yet to debate anyone/anything.
Well it would be odd for you to get it if you don't know who she is, but since you evidently don't know you probably aren't very qualified to be critical about the piece. Rand basically was saying that the people that "produce" are the people that should reap the rewards in society, which sounds really nice and is just fine. The problem is that you have all of these people running around saying that they are the real producers when they aren't. If the billionaires of the world were people like Eli Whitney, Thomas Edison or Hiram Moore then the idea that people that actually contribute to society reap the rewards would be in harmony. Instead you have all these hedge fund managers raping the system and strutting around like peacocks talking about how valuable they are or winners like Hank Greenberg who has the balls to be suing the Fed for bailing out his own company.
She inns of the most Brilliant Americans of all-time, and to people see her as evil. Utter Stupidity. She predicted the downfall of Theis country BOTH Socially AND economically, 25 years before the Economic Legend Milton Friedman said similar things.
@@Paonporteur Hahaha! My lord, where so I start? Nixon didn’t given at ALL like Rand, and RR? Why do you think the Economy was flipping Awesome for everyone in the 90’s? I loved Clinton, but it wasn’t Him, it was the Milton Friedman backed deregulation RR put in during the 80’s. Things that are great, take time. But you probably enjoy politicians who just Give you money Right Now, which causes Mass inflation….. like we have right now.
A marked improvement. Next up, handjobs? Which, like ska, can be enjoyed well into adulthood. Though you might want to mix it up, maybe with some jazz.
I'd like to know how many actually read Atlas Shrugged vs the % claims to have read it. It's actually motivational for a young MD who started from basically nothing.
I can see why - I've read some Rand work but never completed Atlas, so you can add me to that list of people. Generally, I think to know if you'll enjoy/connect with her books, you should ask yourself: "Are great people held back by society/the government/conventional morality?" "Do you consider yourself among those people?" If you answer yes to one or both of these questions, you'll probably connect with her work.
I've read it in its entirety. Being a teenager and not knowing anything about her or her philosophy, and on recommendations from several people, I plowed through it. I kept waiting for a plot twist to make everything okay but in the end I was just pissed that I spent like a month of my life reading it that I could never get back. I thought it was garbage, and that the woman clearly has serious issues and no concept of what consent means. But yeah, a lot of people complain about things they haven't actually read so I can see where you're coming from on that one.
I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I loved them both... 'cept for perhaps the rapey fireplace breaking of Fountainhead. (However, you can look at her and tell she probably had many a night alone to ponder those fantasies. She wasn't Sofia Loren.)
I don't know why it's bad to have rape in your book. Having rape in a book, or having your main character rape someone, isn't a statement of approval of rape. I saw the point not as "great people should be allowed to rape" but rather that people can still do terrible things despite being so god damn great at other things.
+TimeWarp66 I'm an ex Rand fanboi (and still agree with some of her stuff) and it is actually entirely true. It might not have been intended as such (true libertarians do have an ethical conscience - it's the politicians who pretend they're libertarian who don't). However, the world in which Rand's philosophy works without turning you into a massive pile of shitheaded douchebaggery is even less realistic than the communist utopia Randians (and other capitalists and conservatives) take as the ultimate model of naivete.
+TimeWarp66 Rand constructed a world in which being entirely selfish works out well for everyone because there are no structural power imbalances. So one moment Hank Rearden is gouging prices for Rearden metal at the expense of Dagny, the next Dagny is gouging prices for transport at the expense of Hank. It all works out in the end, and then they move to Galt's Gulch where everyone is equal and they all have a wonderful time playing the 'fuck each other over but it all works out in the end' game. The idea that the world will actually work like that - i.e. no structural power imbalances - is as unrealistic as the (cliched straw man) perception of communist ideology being that everyone will work equally hard for an equal amount of money and no-one will slack off. The world doesn't work like that - it's full of structural power imbalances which laissez faire economics only serves to exacerbate, as the people with power use that power to generate wealth which helps them accumulate more power. Even if we were able to start from a completely equal point, without historical inequalities lingering from a feudalist/colonialist past, one person would only need to have an advantage for a little while to begin to benefit from accumulated power alone without having to maintain any true merit - in Atlas Shrugged it is only the vagaries of chance that continue to ensure Dagny and Hank retain relatively equal bargaining positions and thus a model Randian relationship. It's a similar misunderstanding to the bullshit hard-on politicians and businessmen have for free market economics. No-one realises that free market economics is only a -model- which is based on a number of assumptions (perfect competition, etc). It's not how things work in the real world. The only way it works in the real world is for something to ensure that the assumptions of the model hold (sort of) in reality, and the only way to do that is through heavy regulation to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. Every time a politician proposes reducing regulation to create a 'free-er' market, they're actually moving the reality further away from the model and the real outcomes further away from the benefits free markets are supposed to provide.
+Nicholas Fisher I found your thoughts on Ayn Rand fascinating. Could you please care to explain some more? Pardon me, but English is not my native language, so I didn’t quite understand everything you said. Google Translate is of course in no use, since it is the grammar I have problems with understanding, and not really the words. If I may also come with a argument against it, or more so, a question. How did you think those with money got the money? Their power is given.
+ChristofferHN Gaaaaaaaah I just wrote a long reply and then couldn't post it. I'm not sure how I can explain the general post better, without knowing what parts you need me to explain - perhaps just let me know what you had trouble with? Some of it is pretty dense critical theory which even English speakers have trouble understanding, but I'll do my best! To answer your question though - most of the people with -lots- of money either inherited the money, or inherited the things/opportunities which enabled them to make it, for example better education, other financial support (not -giving- them money, but providing collateral on a loan or something) and, especially, well connected parents. Even if you, technically, 'don't have any money', it's amazing what doors remain open to you if people know you're the child of Mr & Mrs Moneybags. Nearly every 'I started with nothing and became rich' story I've dug into has turned out like that - they started with $0 on the balance sheet, but daddy's friends and business partners were only too happy to give them loans. Now try and imagine the same opportunities for someone with no money and no friends... Some such people do make it though - just enough to keep the myth alive. They do, also, have to work hard - because the myth wouldn't be powerful without some truth to it. But they also get very, very lucky. There are people working just as hard, working 2-3 jobs, just to make ends meet. In fact, those people do -so much- just to make ends meet, they have no time or resources left to seek opportunity, so even 'luck' - if you could call it that - doesn't come as easily if you're not already starting with something. If that luck does come along though, in the form of anything other than an immediate windfall like a win in the lottery, then poor people can't afford to take the kind of risks they might need to capitalise on the opportunity. If a rich person sinks $50,000 into a business opportunity and it fails, they're probably going to be OK. If a poor person has the same thing happen, they're going to be screwed - unless there is a safety net such as unemployment benefits, which is a distinctly socialist policy. So again, pure capitalism would actually make it harder for poor people to 'just work harder/seek opportunity' because they can't afford the time or the risk. A couple of illustrative examples - I'm not rich but occasionally I get to move in those circles. I went to a party just recently, and some guy (early 20s, younger than me) walked in who'd just inherited his grandfather's fairly significant fortune. Not only was he -starting adult life- with all that money, but within 5 minutes every single person there had handed over their business card and offered to work with him. Meanwhile, my girlfriend has worked her ass off to raise herself up from absolutely nothing (including living with addicts as a kid) to get herself a PhD and a good job, and we're doing OK living in a nice area. But that one dude had more opportunities presented to him in 5 minutes than my girlfriend has had in a lifetime of hard work. He already has more money than we're likely to make, combined, in our lifetimes - and I have reasonably well off parents, so it's not like I haven't inherited -some- privilege myself. Second example - Gina Rineheart is a local mining billionaire who had (last time I checked) about $20 billion of personal wealth. She inherited her fortune from her father (who'd basically stumbled upon an iron ore deposit, so he's in the class of people who lucked out). Her returns on her inheritance are large, and no doubt she's done a lot of work to get them there. But that work includes - lobbying government for approvals for mining, lobbying the government for financial support and tax breaks for her mines, and securing heaps of financing for project for banks. These are all things that wouldn't have been possible without -already- having money, and having her fathers' connections. She also has easy access to the media, through her friendships with media owners, and can influence public debate around her actions in a way that Mr & Mrs Average can't. What's more - she goes around saying that poor people 'just need to work harder', while lobbying the government to allow her to pay her workers less - and she lobbies them directly, because she knows many politicians personally, because she's -really fucking rich-. So that's how capitalism works in a nutshell, that's why the meritocracy is a myth, and why libertarians are misguided at best, at worst they're totally full of shit.
+Nicholas Fisher PS, all those things with a -strikeout- were meant to have dashes either side for emphasis, but I obviously don't know how youtube comment formatting works.
I don't know how the hell Ayn Rand has anything to do with conservatism. All I recall was that she's pro-capitalism, but she's against almost everything the socially conservative movement stands for. How the hell is her objectivism compatible with traditional family values? I'm guessing politicians reasonably assume their voters don't read it.
The majority of American conservatives aren't fans of Ayn Rand. Notice that it was Tea Party candidates talking about Rand, here, not John Boehner or John McCain.
Only crazy people endorse her. The Tea Party is not all Republicans, it's the Republicans who are so stupid or insane that not even traditional conservatives want to be associated with them.
Her philosophy isn't compatible with the New Testament. But when was the last time you heard Jesus Christ brought up by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? No no no that hippy love thy neighbor the "it's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven" crap doesn't jive with the conservative economic model. When the bible is brought up by mainstream conservative media it's always the fire and brimstone judge everyone and get your stones ready for throwing! That shit IS perfectly compatible with Objectivism, So you've got a party that's, at its worst, a mixture of the bat shit crazy hatred of the old testament combined with the "selfishness is good!" of objectivism. Resulting in a party that hates poor people ALMOST as much as they hate gays and holds the rich up as golden idols whose paths to greatness need to be cleared of all obstacles like worker safety and environmental regulations, minimum wage laws, and taxes.
Yes, this is the sort of stuff you read when you are 19 and think the whole world is yours to conquer. *IF* you grow up you realise the world is actually a little more complex and there are no sui generis geniuses and, if you are honest, we are all "fellow-passengers to the grave" (Charles Dickens) so why not try to behave decently to each other while we're here?
Objectivism doesn't say you shouldn't act nicely, it actually holds a premise of "benevolent universe" you should look it up in ayn rand lexicon it's pretty good stuff you might be surprised
Clearly you have not read the books. I suggest you read them. People should be able to get rewarded for their own productivity without being responsible for unproductive people. Of course artists, social workers, journalists and politicians usually hate that idea.
@@AlessandroVolta1 Human value is not derived from simple notions like "obviously concretely productive worker bee = good". Artists bring us joy and/or questions to ponder; journalists news; politicians THEORETICALLY help organise social function constructively... and social workers are the front line of defence for people who've been damaged by ideas like yours. It's not a perfect system, but who are you to define "productivity"? What would you do with the profoundly disabled? I shudder to think :-( edit: and she was a f**king TERRIBLE writer. Turgid, ponderous and self-indulgent. For god's sake, grow up.
Yeah the entire thing about Bioshock 1 was lampooning objectivism. Bioshock 2 was all about lampooning the conservative economic model, blind fevered patriotism, and racism. The blacks in Bioshock 2 were "paid" so they weren't really "slaves" but they were only paid enough to be utterly dependent on their employer with supposed opportunities to advance or leave being smoke and mirrors to mollify them and any critics. "Oh, we pay them. They're not slaves. We pay them just enough to buy food and housing... from us! And they can advance if they want to. We don't really have any examples of it. But it exists in theory. They can leave when ever they want. They'll starve and die. But they can leave any time they want!" Pure capitalism exists in this world and it's called China. Where there is no minimum wage, no environmental laws, no safety regulations, no entitlement programs. And so the bulk of their work force makes 50 cents an hour. Lives in employer provided housing. And, if they leave, run the risk of starving to death before getting another job. The skies of their cities are so polluted you can't see the sun and their fish in their rivers have so much mercury in them you might as well be putting a gun in your mouth. Many workers are missing fingers or entire limbs and a lot of them are children since there's no child labor laws. Welcome to the end result of pure objectivism and capitalism untainted by human rights or empathy.
MynameisBrianZX And very much intentionally, seeing as that's who he represents. And, oddly, it's actually the most favorable interpretation I've seen of Rand by her critics. Ryan just gets in over his head and compromises his philosophy because he actually realizes it doesn't quite work. He just does it too late.
Anyone who still thinks that Ayn Rand is a philosopher, instead of a bad novelist and even worse person is too stupid for metal cutlery with all respect.
+Rob Moss I'm a member of Mensa and Ayn Rand was a genius. Simplistic and idiotic interpretations of what she said change nothing because they only speak to the choir.
EGarrett01 So do so and provide it. The ball is in your court.Otherwise you're just full of shit. Besides which so called "smart" people can often be quite clueless when it comes to reality and interacting with the real world. Actual intelligence requires one to use their "smarts" for good causes in the world. I've yet to see an intelligent Rand supporter. I doubt you're one.
Radio Ardilla The OP said that if you don't respect Ayn Rand you're stupid. I'm here to ruin his fantasy. If you want me to provide proof, I can show you a Mensa journal I have handy that I put in front of the screen when people talk shit. You have to agree to say that you're an idiot and Ayn Rand is for smart people and not half-assed left wing economic know-nothings though.
Anyone who doesn't understand why is good to care about others is just a bratty child. It's part of our DNA to care and feel proud of others accomplishments. The reason we humans survive and rule the food chain is because we can form complex societies.
No it’s because we literally murdered anything that got in our way including each other. Human achievement has zero to do with altruism and everything to do with get what you want by any means needed
The entire video was an ad hominem attack that briefly gave a highly distorted picture of what she actually talked about. Basically, every reason they gave is bullshit for disproving her ideas if you give it more than ten seconds of thought.
No it isn't an Ad hominem. It's a full picture of a person many people point to an a moral teacher. She was a mean selfish person who wrote some books about some people that thought they were the most special unique and important little snowflakes in the world. They thought they alone could vindicate all of humanity by being better than all of them.
You don't know what an ad hominem is. And if the reasons are "bullshit," why don't you try disproving some of them? You could have done that. But of course, it's more useful to make a stupid vague statement about how the video is wrong and then run away.
Psh, your entire comment is an ad hominem attack that gives a highly distorded picture on criticism of Ayn Rand. Basically, if you think more than ten seconds about your comment you would realise it's bullshit. Objectivism is ofcourse bigger than what was discussed in this short satire (do you seriously expect satirical videos to have a full explanation of what they're making fun about?), but the jokes about how she idolized selfishness are completely valid.
@@morningperson4280 Capitalism is the only moral economic system. Because it treats people fairly. Nobody is forced to do anything they don't want to do. And nobody is prevented from doing what they want to do, as long as they respect the rights of all other individuals to do the same.
@@Shozb0t capitalism literally depends on forcing people to do things they dont want. its only defining characteristic is private profit. someone must lose for another to profit.
@@payasoinfeliz In regards to forcing people to do what they don’t want to do, you are probably thinking of the IRS. That wouldn’t exist in a fully capitalist society. All government revenue would be obtained voluntarily. In regards to profit resulting from one person losing so that another may gain, you are probably thinking of fraud. Fraud would be illegal in a fully capitalist society. It’s pretty much illegal even in our mixed economy that we have now. Don’t know why that concerns you.
In her final years, Ayn Rand received benefits from Social Security. That...kinda flies in the face of her personal philosophy of self service as a moral imperative.
It's not hypocrisy because her only real philosophy was being a selfish asshole, and a selfish asshole will take anything they can get. It only becomes hypocritical if you assume that her selfish beliefs stemmed from a consistent underlying philosophy, but right-wingers usually do the opposite; construct philosophies and reasons on the fly to justify their self-serving actions and statements. It's why people like Mitch McConnell can block Supreme Court nominations from Obama because it's "too late in the presidency" then allow nominations from Trump even later into his term, because the belief was manufactured to fit the desire to have a right-wing Supreme Court.
Yep, I was a self actualized man until 7 years ago. I was a fucking jerk back then. It took alot to shake me out of that crap. People just didn't like me. So yeah, sometimes you have to get slapped in the face to realize your shit stinks.
Been reading King Leopold’s ghost, and it strikes me that Leopold of Belgium was very much an Ayn Rand/libertarian hero. He obtained the Congo Basin region of Africa through contracts-the holy of holy. Sure those contracts were negotiated through trickery-but hey, they were still contracts and legally binding! He never once asked the Belgian government to devote its resources to his venture in Africa-instead he raised an entirely private organization to do so, the Force Publique. Sure they committed unspeakable human rights abuses-but Leopold always made sure to raise that Randian/libertarian argument “Its MY property and YOU can’t tell me what to do with it!” Same for when he humiliated Belgium by jaunting across the globe with his underage prostitute mistress, “Its MY money and I can do as I please with it!” And he truly embodied that ideal that no one else was entitled to the fruits of his labor-because he left absolutely zilch to his family or his nation. Truly a Randian superman!
She got SSI because she didnt want to spend her book money to fight the lung cancer she got from thinking that the medical experts were just dumb about smoking being a cause of cancer. Lets see what right wing idiot do I know who thinks the doctors dont know what they are talking about? Oh yeah all of them.
@@tutudanny It is an logical conclusion, Humans are tribal, help your tribe and you help yourself by making your tribe stronger, so i doubt it is an original idea of anyone.
@@pouncepounce7417 Tribalism is anti-freedom, anti-reason and anti-progress. Only if we freely strive our own dreams and goals and make agreements with other individuals to reach for our own sake, we will become a greater society.
@@leeuwbama9433 The problem is humans are tribal, it is an survival trait, but our "tribes" have become to big to work as such. An functioning tribe is considerd something in between the 90 to 120 individuals bracket, 200 is stretching it. Or brains are able at max to keep track of how we relate socially to that amount of people. An tribe is an karma economy, balance between individuum and tribe is necessary for the tribe to succeed, pretty much as with any societie. Right now we have the problem that we have what i would label an pointy elbows societie, and it is working not that well.
No, that meme is bullshit. The episode that supposedly predicted Trump's campaign in 2000, didn't air in 2000, but actually aired in 2015 when he was already campaigning for president. www.snopes.com/fact-check/simpsons-trump-prediction/
@@samrosendahl392 She was great as completely hypocritical clown. If people would have treated her like she did and what she proclaimed, she wouldn't had left Russia alive but died of hunger before the age of 14. Which wouldn't have been a huge loss to mankind.
@@Schokelmei yes because her parents had no valid reason to leave russia-with their daughter from the perspective of ethical egoism. Her whole point is helping someone should benefit you in some way, the only moral relations are transactional relations, or should be anyway, this is her point, this is her philosophy, nowhere does she state imply to abandon offspring, actually few things are more in line with your self interest than helping a kid who will pay you back in all sorts of ways. Actually read someone before spouting played out caricatures.
+Torbjørn Oskarsson Actually many libertarians and ancaps disagree with with Rand's pro-war stance. Economists of the Austrian School and Ayn used to nearly despise one another for that reason. Personally, I don't identify as either politically (unless we are to admit that the the word libertarian is able to keep it's original meaning as anarchist/ Anti-authoritarian socialist), but facts are facts. Libertarianism and Objectivism are not perfectly synonymous.
Atlas Shrugged has some great points. I think the purpose of this video was to make ad hominem attacks to prevent all of you good people from reading the book. If you dislike her because of what you've been told but haven't actually read her, try it out. Make your own opinion.
I showed this Christian guy who loved her books her interview from I think it was 1953 where she first explains her belief in the virtue of utter selfishness and then condemns the church as evil in its practices to help others. I could tell it hit him, because even though her philosophy of selfishness stains her entire body of work, it hits differently when you hear her lay it all out explicitly. Anyone of any major religion that keeps kindness to humanity as a core belief should be appalled by this creature. I’m agnostic, but I believe in the virtue of kindness and I find her repulsive.
The alternative to selfishness isn't kindness. It is selflessness--which means to regard your own life as having no value. Ayn Rand is opposed to sacrifice, not kindness. Sacrifice means the surrender of a value with the expectation of receiving a lesser value (or no value) in return. In other words, to harm yourself. That is not a rational goal for anyone to have. It is much better to be selfish. You only have one life. And what does a selfish person do? He lives his life to the best of his ability in order to be happy. He acquires gainful employment. He forms friendships. He raises his children. He determines and seeks out his highest values. If everyone was consistently selfish, the world would be a much better place.
That last sentence is a great example of why many consider libertarians to be out of touch with reality. While I can't speak on behalf of all major religions, your post confirms that libertarian ideology and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible.
@@tonybates1537 Technically, the philosophy influencing my views is called Objectivism. Libertarianism is a political ideology which borrowed from Objectivism the idea that the initiation of force is wrong. But it lacks the philosophical foundation which gives credence to that principle. Libertarians are uninterested in philosophy. Interestingly enough, there are libertarians who are also Christian. But there is no overlap between Objectivism and Christianity. That is why only Christians who have become disillusioned with their faith will take any interest in Objectivism. To the standard Christian, Objectivism is profoundly immoral. And to the Objectivist, Christianity is immoral. Which one is correct? Well, Christianity holds mysticism, collectivism and altruism as the core of its values. Objectivism holds reason, individualism and egoism as the core of its values. Are you an individual? If yes, then Objectivism is for you. Objectivism is a philosophy for living on Earth--not a guide for escaping to a paradise in another dimension.
@@Shozb0t Yes, after I posted I realized I had conflated Objectivism with Libertarianism. As you say, Christianity and Objectivism are at odds with each other. As to which one is correct, your answer will depend on your worldview. If you believe that life on Earth is all there is, then it sounds logical at least to focus on your own happiness. I find it hard, however, to imagine every person making entirely self-serving decisions will lead to the best possible society. A Christian, of course, believes in an afterlife, but more importantly in an omnipotent god, who has laid out his will in written word. Reason is not to be disregarded, but is secondary to faith.
Fountainhead is a beautiful book for those who understand the desire to get the essence of things and build things that actually work. And not doing things that do not make sense just because other people or the mainstream say it's right. Those who I met in life and hate Fountainhead were like Peter Keating themselves. No wonder they hate the book.
I’m a philosophy major and conservatives don’t understand her philosophy. At all. They perverse it in such a disgusting way. I think her work has been abused greatly.
I'mma have to kinda agree with you on that one. Some understand, but a lot of them don't, but this isn't shocking. Many Liberals and conservatives just spew out shit they hear from someplace else without giving much thought
I'm a master's student in philosophy, and no one in academia considers her to be a philosopher. Her ”philosophy” is based on zero philosophical principles, and her take on Kant, Aristotle, and other philosophers is naive and utterly wrong.
Here's the thing: Rand defined faith as "the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and reason... Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.' " Which is exactly the faith and mysticism shown by her followers, who continue to promote her Objectivism despite all proof that her concepts, when applied to real life, simply do not accomplish what they claim it does.
"Like Donald Trump."
Now that's prophetic.
The headline already says "Trump 'serious' about White House run."
The video was posted like 8 months before he started running, weirdly enough.
Yeah but even then, I don't think anyone thought he'd _actually be the Republican nominee._
Amem, brother, amen... Oh sorry, sister !
Watching this in 2016 and wishing they could go back to loving Ayn Rand because at least she can't run for president.
Dear Conservatives, the Trump bit was a joke not an advice to follow
Who cares who I am that is really funny
You expect people who worship hypocritical, cheating, and selfish asshole to understand joke?
You are asking too much for their brain (if they have any, i am not sure)
@Hans Bass
>>>people who worship hypocritical, cheating, and selfish asshole
Shozbot (hey,Mork): Ayn Rand had a series of lovers and life upsetting issues with different men. She took partners for her work and then cast them off. I don't know if hypocritical is quite the word, but it's close. I still accept some of her philosophy--for one thing, it was the first time anyone ever pointed out we don't have to be sheep...but she asks us to be predators, and that's asking a lot.
One example: don't give someone a gift because THEY will like it. Give them a gift that YOU want them to have. Period. Anything else is just morally WRONG. That's a typical Rand idea.
I introduced my dad to Ayn Rand...THAT was a mistake!
@Jillian Smith
Ayn Rand doesn't suggest we be predators, she suggests we be traders.
And I don't know of the specific example you gave regarding gift giving. But I would say that according to most Objectivists, it would be meaningless to give gifts to people out of duty or habit. Gifts should be deserved and they should reflect your own values. And yes, you should avoid giving a gift which has zero or negative value for the recipient. That's where thinking comes into the picture. ABT, always be thinking.
I saw Donald Trump and went directly to the date this was posted
Same. Better days those were
I just scrolled down to comment something like that. 2014 feels so far away.
Same!
@kommisar lol the US is in such a wonderful state right now lolllllllll
Hatred is a far more powerful evil than reason is a force for good.
The part about Trump was stone cold chilling... especially when you notice this video was made in 2014.
In NYC he had a reputation for being a rich, phony asshole long before he was president
They found their god resurrected.
I had to check the date. They predicted this shit, but so did the Simpsons.
Yeah!!, I totally agree.
No it's not
Well that Trump suggestion was taking a bit literally wasn’t it.
Words from the entire American and Canadian population under the age of 50: “FFFFFUUUUUCKKK”
*taken
omg I love your pfp
41%
My favorite dig against Ayn Rand is for Christopher Hitchens, "Don't you think it's a bit too much that Americans think the problem is the they just aren't greedy enough."
He was a statheist.
@fitzy098 To be precise, Rand thought that the existed of a social safety net founded by force was tyrannical. She was not against people voluntarily cooperating to build such safety net, nor against a safety net, but only against forcing people to build it.
@@mikeadams3931 except no he wasnt. Hitch was critical of the state for his entire career.
It's a tribute to Ayn Rand that those on the Left can effectively attack her ideas only by lying about them.
@fitzy098 I see. First, Objectivism is reduced to "Greed is Good." Called on this obvious falsehood, now Objectivism is characterized as offering nothing new.
The argument usually made by Left fascists is that free market capitalism is necessarily exploitative, regardless of how willing the various participants are (see labor theory of value), and that only by putting all substantial capital and power into the hands of a socialist elite (often a hereditary socialist elite) can wealth be divided fairly among the working classes. Ayn Rand disagreed, and was labelled as "greedy" because of it. On which side of this argument do you stand, may I ask?
It's pronounced "ein", as in "one", as in "the number of people she cared about".
@Mark Donald Not a single negative to being selfish? I am glad I am not you friend, member of your family, or your coworker.
It's pronounced "ah-een", as in "I".
@@jabibgalt5551 Not according to Wikipedia it ain't.
@@TheMattastic Nope. Wikipedia says "ain". Which is pronounced "ah-een". Rand herself said Ayn started with an "I".
@@jabibgalt5551 Wikipedia lists it as a one syllable word. If you think it's wrong, edit the page.
“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”
― Christopher Hitchens
But now that movement seems to have taken hold.
oh god he WOULD say something like that eugh
All these socialists... still givin 'er 100 years, and 100 million deaths later... when will the children let go of their fantasy?
@@Tambaha A lot of it is because right now, we have too much capitalism, which means socialism is necessary to fix it. It's like walking on a tightrope: If you lean too far to one side, you need to lean to the other side in order to keep your balance. And if you lose that balance, it won't matter which side you're leaning toward; you'll fall off just the same.
@@spongeintheshoe I respect your answer. But I disagree. We've been moving away from Capitalism for 100 years, and that is the cause of our decline. Not the opposite. At the same time, Asian countries have opened their markets to different degrees. And, depending on how much capitalism they employ, has determined their economic success
It is only the case that regulation of people, and business will always increase. It is not often that regulation is removed
"like donald trump"
*sobbing* i want to go back to when that was a joke
Me too
Salty boi 6969
Don't we all.
that donald trump joke aged like milk
Which would match Drumpf's cheesy complexion
DAR HAR HAR HAR! DONALD DRUMPF! I AM SO ORIGINAL AND EDGY!
....Watch as Generation Z turns National Socialist, and perhaps you will realize you are part of the reason why.
Because socialism has utterly destroyed all those Nordic countries. /s
So we see that elliot d is a big ayn rand fan.
quincy quincy I actually think it's 100 times funnier now. It was one thing for Leftists to joke that right-wingers should embrace Trump and his selfishness, but the fact that they have, and the fact that an orangutan with an alien living on its head is sitting in the White House, makes things like this impossible not to laugh at. If you take life as one big, ironic joke, and think of the Earth as God's plumbing, you'll find yourself a lot happier.
She believed in unfettered capitalism and totally denounced any type of social program. However, at the end of her life she was relying on Social Security and Medicare.
But I dont get why were surprised? All humans are hypocrites. You have to debate her ideas not her human flaws. She was a philosopher and I'm sure other philosophers like socrates, plato and tons of others were hypocritical but there is just no recorded documents. People who discount the human take the shortcut to discredit someone rather than the critical thinking needed to dismantle the ideas behind her philosophy
@@JD-my5ek - Call it what you like but her ideology was essentially fascism, which is definitely not a philosophy. It is well recognized that as individuals mature, they often reject her extremist, unbalanced and il measured ideology.
@@PH--ov7tf I have a feeling the countless people who debate her ideas today imply her thoughts are a little more complicated than "facism." Also looking up the definition and seeing at least some of her theories, i would say you sound more intellectually lazy
wich she probably paid for through her taxes; so unless she evaded taxes, you can't call that hypocrisy.
@@PH--ov7tf fascists are not free market libertarians. They advocate for strong central government, military rule, dictatorship, and often some form of nationalist collectivism.
You leave Ska out of this
Exactly, I'm 39 and I have no intention whatsoever to grow out of ska!
Leave Ska out of it? Leave hand jobs out of it!
@@byron2521 Both are great!
Sublime was a great band, but they weren't Ska. I don't know of any great Ska bands. Those guys who sang the song from Tony Hawk Pro Skater? Here I am, holdin on to what I am... Is that Ska?
Charlie Ricker The Specials? Madness? Prince Buster?
Come on now
It's hilarious and spooky how prophetic this bit ended up being. Remember, this was made many months before Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015
Ayn Rand died in 1980 dumazz.
Yeah, it blew my mind.
All a Rockefeller agenda
Yah so was Ayn Rand... Most of the conservatives I run around with think she's a wind bag... And never quote her
Many people knew Trump was going to run after interviews in late 2014. The mainstream media began their propaganda campaign as early as possible to dissuade voters, it didn't work
"like Donald Trump"
You called it.
+Lone Wolf Zakuro Joke was on us all along
And it was . a joke. I dont know more about Drake than that he sounds tired but. Drake for President.
Drake isn't a natural born citizen of the USA
Trump's personal philosophy might be Randian, but his politics are nothing of the sort, he is a massive economic interventionist.
daer devvyl Obama wasn't a US born citizen. It may be him relating when he seems to say that, but normally he says he was born in Africa (north Africa; he's my race of African, as a matter of fact).
“Trump serious about White House run”
It doesn’t get any more brutal than watching that
Honestly I kind of wish that they stuck with Ayn Rand. Trump is so much worse.
Trump is all the annoying stuff that came with Ayn Rand combined with a whole new sweet of other annoying things.
@@christianmoore7109 Trump is Ayn Rand but stupid
@@HopeRock425 Well, he owned the libs by stacking the courts(abortion about to be illegal and ensuring coporate rule pretty much forever), not bad for someone who is stupid.
@@et34t34fdf so you are pleased about "corporate rule"?
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
-John Rogers
+dandic2342 Hehe, that reminds me of this (though I don't remember who said it):
"What's the difference between The Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh? One is a flaming, nazi gas bag. The other is a blimp."
Reason, Freedom, reality, productivity, self-reliance and human flourishing. So childish. Orcs are for adults. Cool! Ben love Orcs!
MrApplewine come on. Rand is literally every teenagers favorite philosopher. I loved the Fountainhead as a kid, but her ideology is just shit, and you realize that when you get older.
You can't really have somebody who understands Rand's ideas and truly agrees with them and then later rejecting them. But, if a person admires rand's ideas or even similar values without rand and then choses to as they get older to reject self-reliance and reality I would say that is a much more childish state. That can happen because it is hard to face the world of reality and surrendering your mind can be a tempting fate for those who don't have the will to think.
its funny, cuz lord of the rings isnt much different than atlas shrugged, both are anti-govt, pro-anarchy, about morality, human desires and their actions
any christian who believes in Rand's "virtues of selfishness" is a walking contradiction.
Duh, she was Atheist
Yeah that's where I'm confused.
I taught my Don Ivanka Eric the virtue of selfishness --- and the art of SELF-IDOLIZATION! We are doing very well!
TBH I never read her books. I just like her clickbait title!
He's saying some people today who claim to be Christian (Paul Ryan) are fans of Ayn Rand and you can't be both.
"The morality of capitalism" is really something I never thought I'd heard. And here I thought Bioshock already made its case.
All I remember about Andrew Ryan is that he got really uptight about Sweat ownership
@@keelysmash ok but you both KNOW that andrew ryan was based on ayn rand, right? (hence the similar names) i feel like you do but i just need to make sure...
@@simonjenkin I actually didn’t make that connection till now
@@keelysmash Not just Andrew Ryan, either! The entirety of Bioshock is a direct response to Objectivism. The "Perfect Utopia" that is laid out in Atlas Shrugged is what Rapture is basically a replica of (with some liberties taken).
The short-sighted nature of the endless, unadulterated churn of unregulated technologies and infinite potential of the individual.
The American conceptualization of God as self really was ingrained into our roots; Manifest Destiny, folks like Andrew Carnegie pushing this concept of the self as the infinite being, responsible for the ouroboros of technological and industrial progression.
Ayn Rand was merely a torch bearer. She may have given name to the torch, but she would have called it her own creation. A poor understanding of history will make a person rolling a rock down a hill believe that they were the first to invent the wheel, though.
Such intensely religiously held beliefs, and yet, she proclaimed herself an atheist!
Conservatives don't play video games. They think it's witchcraft.
Look, she seems like a miserable woman.
But can we please just acknowledge that, "But I don't think of him. And the more I see, the less I think." is a GREAT line? Like, damn.
That's from her book, The Fountainhead. You should read it, if you aren't touched by it then you are the miserable one.
If you want poorly written fan-fiction then yes I'd highly recommend The Fountainhead and even Atlas Shrugged.
@@lonelychameleon3595 How about you actually critique it instead?
@@bruno.6610 - Fine. Plot is meh, characters are flat representations of what she thinks the world is like, philosophy is half-assed, and the book is a lot longer than it realistically needs to be to get her "point" across. If you love wasting your time with crap then I'd highly recommend it.
Even a blind squirrel will find a but sometimes
3:18 The irony of the fact that this joke became reality
I honestly still don't understand why Donald Trump is still the most hated president ever honestly
@@kartikadewi3270
Trump: *Incites an insurrection, botches a pandemic response so badly that hundreds of thousands of Americans die and millions lose their jobs, separates migrant children from their parents and locks them in cages, wastes taxpayer dollars on a ridiculous wall, defunds crucial social programs, contacts a foreign leader to get dirt on a political opponent, sends his goons to kidnap protesters, lies constantly, throws a fit whenever he doesn't get his way, and literally attempts to end democracy as we know it*
Kartika Dewi: wHy iS tRuMp sO uNpOpUlAr?
Buy it? Surely there's a free copy in most public libraries?
Surely you don't expect a good Republican to ever stoop so low as to use the disgusting and inessential socialist commy public libraries? Capitalism is key, the poor shouldn't be allowed access to knowledge anyhow.
But that would be socialism
You can get them free from some republican propaganda organization. I forget what it was called. But me and my friend got them payed for and shipped to our houses for free in high school.
Or you can find them at like literally ever second-hand store because her work is poorly written and most people end up throwing them away.
Brock Lobster Honestly though, i’m from Vietnam, and the only type who picks up her books are well to do pricks, businessmen who can’t parallel park and complain about services every five minutes, or edgy financial majors. Other than that, any other students, professors, analyst or people who are decent at literature analysis never gets through half of Fountainhead, let alone Atlas Shrugged.
Ayn-Ryan. Now I see what Bioshock was doing very clever
Yeah. Bio-shock managed to do an excellent job of serving as an allegory for the inherent destructiveness of an unregulated market. It's like a George Orwell novel but you get to kill things.
@@CollinMcLean Another thing I appreciated about Bioshock's story was that they presented a very believable form of individualism. They didn't just strawman the whole idea of free choice and make it look ridiculous. They actually took serious consideration to design a capitalist utopia that would most likely be very successful for some time before things went downhill.
@@CollinMcLean yeah it wasn't really that subtle though
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
@@chahineboudemagh9596 neither was orwell, who said things have to be subtle
3:18 And boy, did they choose Donald Trump!!
And we won, you dumb fucks!
Donald Smith By saying, "we won," I presume that you are an oligarch.
yes you won the Electoral college and if he loses in 2020 i hope he gracefully concedes in due time he won by tiny margins in three swing states.
Ahhh yes, the Trumpanzees come out with their cursing and carrying on. Little do they know that they have voted against their own self interests and will be the ones to suffer the most. Oh wells, some of us do have money and will watch as those who do not, those who voted for someone like Trump suffer as all your social programs are destroyed and more jobs disappear and the economy collapses from a man who has no clue what he is doing. We are already witnessing this debacle.
Aaron Prince tiny, Trump-finger-sized margins.
She's not a hero as much for conservatives as she is for libertarians
the libs don't give a shit about nuance nor facts, especially the pompous twat known as John Oliver
Libertarians are irrelevant
Rand despised libertarians.
@@cynicaesthetics4341 Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially mixed. The Libertarian Party members and supporters (such as Gary Johnson, Nicholas Sarwark, John Stossel, ReasonTV) praised her and have argued against the GOP making big difference. @Can'tThinkOfAName, I was generalising and never said Rand represented Libertarians/Conservatives and @Tarfiel, who cares if they're irrelevant, they exist and are active in the world of politics.
@@tarfielarchelone2674 You'd think so but a huge portion of the GOP's heavyweights have very libertarian views at the end of the day.
3'13''
"Especially when there's so many advocates for selfishness they can choose, Like Donald Trump"
This was said in 2014, congratulations, republicans heed your wise advice (facepalm)
I like how now whenever I see Ted Cruz I just think "I do not like that man ted cruz, I do not like his far right views. I do not like him with a beard, I do not like him freshly sheared."
I do not like him in a race
I do not like him or his base
I like how whenever I see Ted Cruz I immediately think FUCK TED CRUZ!
@@monicadaniels784 I do not like Ted Cruz at all
That man, Ted Crus, can eat cut balls
So many people completely forget the part where Rand makes it very clear that your selfishness must not directly impede in the ability of others to live their lives as freely as they can.
All she has said is that you should not feel obligated to sacrifice your own ability to live your life as freely as you can to prop up others. If you WANT to out of your own love or respect for the people you wish you help, that's fine, because fundamentally it's your choice.
However, when your government tells you that you "should" fight in their wars because it's the "right" thing to do, how can you not see that this is a fundamentally exploitative relationship? This and other circumstances like it are what Rand had an issue with.
Her work made room for the possibility to help others because you want to but she herself repeatedly made clear in many public statements that any act that isn't as selfish as possible is morally wrong.
No one missed that part.
It's just that it doesn't really matter.
Ayn Rand doesn't advocate killing people or directly restricting their behavior.
That's not the part we're concerned about.
The part that is harmful is the indirect harm which she advocates.
The indirect harm and selfish attitude can be just as destructive as direct and intended harm.
You make the mistake of assuming that government is separate from the people.
Perhaps in a dictatorship your argument would make some semblance of sense.
However, you live in a democracy.
The people you voted into office are the ones leading the country into war.
It is the job of the elected representatives to act according to the will of the people.
No on fucking tells you what wars you "should" fight.
Do you even understand how democracy works?
it is not a choice, but a duty to help each other on this planet. this is where we went wrong. greed rules.
There are many things that I disagree with Rand on, but this is not one of them. Unfortunately, like the Third Reich tried to do with Nietzsche, the politicians in America have similarly tried to latch onto the works of a greater mind than their own. It's sad that they are able to claim superiority through supporting her writing without fully believing or even understanding what the full implications are of what they say they believe to be true.
RaitoYagami88
"The indirect harm and selfish attitude can be just as destructive" Its not about how direct your actions are but about the degree of causation.
"You make the mistake of assuming that government is separate from the people." Actually, governments are not legally bound to do what the people want, so yes, they are independent.
"you live in a democracy" No friend, the USA is a representative democracy, which means that only 535 men can vote on federal laws and regulations.
"No on fucking tells you what wars you "should" fight." Oh, then why are we in the Middle East again? Show me a national plebiscite, or even a credible poll that shows that people are pro-going to war in 2014. You won't find any, yet we are forced to pay for everything.
"Do you even understand how democracy works?" Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for diner. Hardly something to be proud of.
"Like Donald Trump..."
OH NO BABY, WHAT IS YOU DOING?!
So John Oliver encouraged the Trump presidency not once, but twice
@@daborshy4089 I disagree, it's impossible for John to have encouraged Trump's presidency.
He would have to watch these videos, and we all know Trump doesn't have enough brain power or patience to sit through someone, who is not himself, talking for more than 10 seconds
If only you knew, Cooper Taylor from the past. If only.
Doing more than you ever have done
Whenever someone mentions Ayn Rand, I immediately think of Bioshock.
I think Steve Ditko
Bringing up Bioshock is always a good counter
7 years later, it’s Mark Cuban who opens an online pharmacy to reduce prescription drug prices… the world is weird 🤷♂️
That's the "free" market at work. Too bad the only people that can compete with pharmaceutical companies is literally an already establish billionaire... almost like it's not really a "free" market, but one that has been allowed to have a few monopolies/oligopolies control entire sectors of our economy, all while highly exploiting the workers that make their profits in sectors where our basic needs are commodified when they shouldn't be for profit. "Freedom"
Where's the contradiction?
He’s doing it to make money. Whats so bad about that?
A drug seller 🤔
what policy environment lead to soaring drug prices in the first place?
i read that book in high school and was forced to watch a documentary about ayn rand. until now i really had no idea that she was a woman.
Uhm... Which high school system was this?
cary-grove
+blue20000 This is one of the funniest things I have ever read on TH-cam. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that today! It is -25 degrees Celsius outside!
+blue20000 yep made to read a book by her in high school.
+blue20000 Truly a triumph of the US educational system, then.
Rand Paul loves Ayn Rand so much he was named after her.
Same
He was not. He started that a few times.
@@chokin78 well, he lied
Bioshock taught me everything I need to know about Ayn Rand.
would you kindly?
being proud about playing video games? I$ western civilization already over?
That's sorta like saying that anime taught you everything you need to know about Japan.
...That her philosophy is garbage and would lead to disaster if it was ever embraced by society at large?
Yeah pretty much.
Republicans: Ayn Rand or Jesus. Choose one. You can't have both.
+irllcd13 I choose none.
+irllcd13
That's right, I choose Rand.
German Capitalist
Congratulations on being a disgusting human being.
irllcd13 Why, because he does not have the same opinion as you?
Krijn van Alten
Apparently.
died in social housing while receiving medicare
lmao
beautiful poetry
they never share that info though. Must be hard to live on crow when the end is nigh.
First, this is not what actually happend, but whatevr. But second, for the case you responded - she paid her taxes for her whole life, which was something she disagreed, and now you - obviously advocating this scheme because you wrote this - are laughing at it? Ayn Rand pointed out how terrible the idea of medicare is. She proved it as you can see.
@@Judas_1989 "but whatever"
oh i see :-)
"you are opposed to a system yet you particpate in it, how do you justify wanting to change things you hypocrite?"
i hear this from her followers regularly
how about you eat shit :-)
@kommisar you didn't reply to my other comment already addressing this. guess you really do got nothing :-)
rights for me but not for thee
Sometimes I think that all satire manages to do is give people dumb ideas.
- Hey, NSA, you really should read 1984!
NSA: _We have read it, we're working on it._
- Kafka: The Trial
German Bureaucracy: _Yes._
- Haha, republicans, why have Ayn Rand as your selfish hero when you could choose that reality show star, whatshisname, Trump?
Republicans: _Brilliant idea, what could go wrong?_
Mark Fuckerberg: hold my juicebox
That's a dumb thought. Try to have another less stupid.
All Rand zealots despise William Buckley , the founder of the Conservative movement, so why is this lunatic narrator claiming she is some sort of champion for conservatives?
Poe's Law: "setting an extremely dangerous precedent to those that don't understand sarcasm since 2005"
She spent the last years of her life on public assistance.
hence her hypocprisy
@@50jakecs I don't really like her but if she really is selfish and believes in being selfish, why would it be hypocritical of her to live like that? She just lived her last year's selfishly. That is what she proposed. Selfishness entails that principles which apply to others need not apply to me.
@@anonymous_4276 to flip the script on Rand in her own words: "why is it good to want others to pay into making her and others happy?" A selfish person only cares about themselves. How can you claim that selfishness is such a virtue while simultaneously using the selflessness of others to cling onto life for a few more years? If it wasn't for selflessness she would've been on the street looking through trash cans for a scrap of food to hold her over one more day. Hence the hypocrisy.
Dominic Carrellas 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 I truly abhor her😡.
@@anonymous_4276 Selfishness is rather the afterthought of her belief system. She believed in fulfilling true individual potential no matter what. Women, especially in her time, were expected to give up any personal ambitions in favour of man and children. She believed in always putting the own self and selfish desires first. Whether she failed at it or not? Well, she is a Russian Jewish woman who became an acknowledged writer on her own merit, created her own branch of philosophy to live by and was married to the same man for 50 years till his death. She is still remembered today, where most of you won't be in 50 years after your death. I would say, she wouldn't give a flying rats ass what you are thinking about her if she where still alive. On the other note: she was one very unpleasant person.
I love the "How Is This Still a Thing" narrator.
Vicki Cupper lklm knell jkk upkeep
How do these religious conservatives reconcile all of Rand's anti-religious teachings? Seriously. I'm not bashing--I really don't know how they can advocate Rand and "God" at the same time. Thoughts?
It depends what you mean by God. I consider myself an objectivist, and yet, I believe in God.
I don't believe in God as commonly described (an omniscient omnipotent supernatural living white man).
By God I mean "The All", The Source, Existence; that which cannot be named, perceived nor understood. Under those terms, I certainly believe in God.
Rand always looked up to someone better.The greatness she found in mankind's ability to achieve.
Because liking a book, or agreeing with somebody's statement, doesn't mean we agree with all of their statements or positions.
Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" is warmed-over Nieztscheism--the statement that each of us should be a hedonistic, insanely selfish asshole, followed by long, convoluted explanations of why we wouldn't necessarily act like hedonistic, insanely selfish assholes. But her defense of capitalism, and her relations of how government actions--often made with good intentions--interfere with it, was brilliant.
Likewise, George Orwell supported socialism Even after he saw it in action in Catalonia, he looked at the murders and thefts and general tyranny and thought it was great--but we still read "1984" and "Animal Farm," and still advise that others read it.
@J R
Pretty much, yeah. Nobody thinks it's cool that Trump banged a hooker, but we'd rather have him and an economic boom than Felonia Von Pantsuit or Creepy Uncle Joe. If your choice is the crappy Christian or the person who literally wants to ban Christianity, you have an easy choice.
If y'all could run a candidate that doesn't suck, you'd have this election sewn up.
(also--mob associations? LOL)
@J R
"and it wasn’t just one hooker, it was many, and he also paid for them to have abortions and pee for his gross fetish"
Yeeeeeeeah no, that's a steaming pile of bullshit, and if you had a shred of integrity you'd be weeping in shame right now.
"uhh, yeah, you have to to build in the places he has built in, lol, you can look it up for yourself."
so you don't have any evidence, but we're supposed to believe it anyway. Well, that sets the tone for the rest of your posts.
" And Clinton never wanted to “ban Christianity”"
Because it's not like she said that Christianity needs to change to support her beliefs, or was planning to infiltrate and bring down churches in her emails, or...
Wait, wait, it is like that. It's EXACTLY like that.
"just bc ppl want an actual separation of church and state instead of a politician who will blindly make choices to benefit his particular religious voting base. "
Because sentencing people to re-education for refusing to mock God is an "actual separation of church and state."
"Just don’t re elect him is my thing"
And now watching him win the election in 2020 is going to be even better.
Slow it down, man. You have five more years of unhinged, dishonest hatred to go.
The frightening moment when you watch this in 2018 and they say "why not Donald Trump".
I'd take Ayn Rand over Donald Trump.
True. Ayn Rand, in her present condition, couldn't possibly be a worse president than Trump.
@@Nullifidian Now now, let's not get carried away. This is the woman who advocated individual freedom above absolutely everything else, after all.
@@elix485 Individual freedom is the basis of liberalism.
@@voodooros It is.
I'd rather have neither
The biggest mistake is to to read an Author and just copy their worldview. You can take Rands positions ,self reflect ,analayze and critic them. You can still appreciate her work for what it is without becoming a regurgitating robot that throws out soundbytes.
One has to recognize the time and atmosphere of the Author's work and factor this into their understanding. You can not defend your own position if you have no clue of a different position.
Very true and important.
100%
The modern day person is the thing she hated the most. Those who point fingers at success and try say it is wrong. She predicted the downfall of American in it's obsession with righting the wrongs of the past by sacrificing itself to the lazy. Here we are being flooded by those of no merit and thought by those of no brains. Welcome to Socialism I suppose.
Thank you.
About a year later...Donald Trump becomes the new Republican top runner.
+Wade Peng Goes to show how stupid so many people are in the US.
+Wade Peng Which makes the writers of this show visionaries.
+darwincity as in: they brought to life their vision of having Trump run?
+Wade Peng And future POTUS! He can't be a any worse than the last bunch of degenerates who have been POTUS.
Non-sequitur? Ayn Rand would hate Trump.
LOL! no republican ever mentioned that she was an atheist and anti religious. Cherry picking at its finest
Let me let you in on a little clue: it's okay to hold someone in high esteem without agreeing with everything they say. This isn't hard.
republicans are not pro free market.
Paul Ryan is the biggest brown noser. Always trying to make rich people happy.
Monopolism is anti-free market for a number of reasons. A market is only free when there is competition. Anarchy is only free when there are not a group large enough to enforce law. Its a contradiction which is obvious if you are capable of seeing the chess board further than a single move ahead.
Richard Smith History has proven that monopolies and giant corporations are almost always created with government oversight.
There's a useful mnemonic for remembering how to pronounce her name:
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ayn Rand."
How about Ein Stein?
A wolf a Reich a rand ?
dave svens I think it’s one person one empire ayn Rand
@@osahju914 If you are looking for a translation it's "One People, One Empire, Ayn Rand"
@@michaelroberts1120 At least one won't fit anyway, smart ass
The anti-god, anti-Reagan, pro-choice conservative hero
shes more of a hero to free marketeers
There’s nothing conservative about her. Conservatives love huge government.
@ did't she say that she hated libeterians because they were just anarchist.
conservatives and objectivism don't line up at all. Take Trump for example, he wants to regulate twitter for banning people for their political takes. An objectivist, such as Ayn Rand would say that twitter is twitter's (the company) private property and as such can ban people as they please. Also objectivism isn't an ideology, it's a philosophy built on reason and existence being an absolute.
I think she's more of a Libertarian hero
When people read fiction, they still treat it as though they'd read an actual event. They don't literally believe it, of course, but they often talk as though it were evidence that the events could one day happen in a similar pattern. It's important to remember that books and movies don't show a realistic unfolding of events. Things happen the way they do in books _because the author decided to write it that way_, usually to be entertaining. You can't treat a book's plot as though it were a real social experiment. In particular I've seen people point to Atlas Shrugged almost as though it were proof of Rand's ideas, as though she'd been simply recording her observations, rather than actively constructing a fictional world where all her ideas would be _commanded_ to work.
well, this book, as I gather it, written to convince people that her f**ed up ideas are 100% legit. True antiscience that could ruin society.
We live in a world where fiction and fantasy are too often elevated over reality and history
Without Ayn Rand, there'd be no BioShock, so there's at least one point in her corner.
Americans talk a great game about following Jesus, but pray at the altar of Ayn Rand.
Sean Ledig For the most part no they don't. But we do have an insane very vocal minority that worships an ideal that revolves around selfishness.
.
.....and read the works of neither 🤷♂️
I feel like you can't group ALL Americans into that... 🙄
Don't generalize and bash...at least half of us aren't idiots..
1:17 Never thought I'd see The Inbetweeners on Last Week Tonight ;)
3:18 Congrats Jon looks like you gave the Idea for him to be the leader of the republicans....
+Ramnath Pai John*
Look at the screen again. It says that he was already serious about a run
Right, but it didn't mean the Republicans actually had to vote for the guy.
dude trump has been talking about running for president since the '90s -.-
The one time we really didn't want the John Oliver Effect to kick in.
She sounds like a Sith Lord.
But aren't Sith lords your specialty?
*_"A Sith Lord!?"_*
@Obi-Wan Kenobi
If John Oliver wants you to believe that somebody is like a Sith Lord, he will make that person look like a Sith Lord. You will notice that there was no voice in the video to defend Ayn Rand. You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. If all you know about Ayn Rand comes from this video, then your point of view is incomplete.
@Rosegold
I see what you did there. But since Objectivism only exists in this galaxy beginning in the 20th Century, your claim is inaccurate.
In terms of the actual line regarding absolutes, however, I think Obi-Wan was partially mistaken. Absolutes are in abundance in the realm of metaphysical reality. If something exists, it is an absolute. If something happens, it is an absolute. The things which aren't absolute are a person's irrational whims, wishes, speculations, and beliefs.
a sith Lord? nah she just really loves absolutes and the dark side
How dare John Oliver! You're never too old for good ska and a handy!!
Hey it’s a furry person. Also what’s ska?
@@dimthecat9418 it's a type of music
Ska is what happens when you take a bunch of Jamaicans & shove them in the UK for a few decades while rock & roll happens, at least musically. And it's brillent!!! My childhood was pretty much ska music, by both Windrushers & UK peeps influenced by Windrushers. I still remember a gabba night (harcore techno EDM) when some of the DJs played One Step Beyond. The whole place went nuts in the best way, me included!!!
I wish Ted Cruz would stop being on TV. He's an embarrassment to me personally and the state of Texas.
4BetaMale2 yep. And if miserable shits the likes of Ted crud, rind pale, punk Ryan, and that radio talk weasel are recommending something it’s all the more reason to know it’s wrong.
Texas embarrassed itself after the 255th time it threatened to secede...
Like a toothless dog with a loud bark.
@@freakfilicon Whatever. I would leave America if I could.
@@4BetaMale2 I wished you changed America over leaving it, there's so much good stuff you guys have that's shadowed by the fucked up shit your government does
He's an embarrassment to humanity.
2 years later, three presidential candidates appear in this video. I think I should be scared.
I love how Ayn Rand basically did a Mariah Carey on Reagan
I love how you pretend you read Atlas Shrugged or anything Ayn Rand wrote. Pseudo-intellectualism is just so enthralling. I love to watch people pretend that they know what they are talking then squirm petulantly when they are met with political discourse. Ignorance such as yours is a rare species. You are the one natural selection missed.
Cute! Especially considering this entire comment was a pseudo-intellectual hissy fit.
Adorable.
Not to be insulting, but there is no intellectual comparison between Mariah Carey and Ayn Rand. That's like saying there's a comparison between a pebble and a mountain.
I read three hundred pages of Atlas Shrugged, but the damned thing is eleven hundred pages long. I would rather spend my free time reading books by people who actually know how to write.
Agreed. Mariah Carry is much more intelligent.
Kind of took stuff out of context here. I've read her books and I am by no means am objectivist, but Rand envisioned a world where capitalists are sensible assholes, not just regular assholes. I took what served me from her work and moved on.
How do they become sensible. The reason we have regulations on industry is because they have been proven time and again to not be sensible
They took your advice on Trump.
Sadly.
After a life of heavy smoking, she happily and hypocritically looked to publicly funded Medicare assistance instead of taking responsibility for her self-inflicted illnesses. There would have been no Medicare in the world of her ideals, but when she found she needed it, she decided to come over to the "irrational" world where people care for each other.
Perfect, she was a massive hyprotic and hope that in ten years no one will believe her bullshit anymore
Actually, in following her philosophy it would be illogical to not use the social healthcare.
@@thomasweyand7954 well thats kinda lame
In fairness, she said since she was forced to contribute to Medicare, she had the right to use it.
Claiming back stolen oney? We can't have that now can we.
I don't know Ayn Rand, so completely objectively and without an opinion about her, I can say this video was absolutely pointless.
They didn't explain her views in an objective way and their basic argumentation of why she shouldn't "be a thing" anymore was "because she is selfish and should make you think of spoiled girls on MTV". That's not an argument, that's a, completely subjective, opinion that can not, in any way whatsoever, convince me of her selfishness.
I respond to objective explanation and evidence, not a completely personal attack with zero base to it.
Very disappointing..
It's a satirical comedy piece not a news segment. It's supposed to be like that...
Satire. Its a thing.
unfortunately, Progressives never have a good rationale. Instead, they only attack the opposition. Ayn Rand is far from perfect. But, John Oliver is merely using this in order to pretend that Conservatives support her worst beliefs. Instead, the Conservatives support a portion of her beliefs. The part where people who earn big and help themselves are also helping their neighbor by fueling the economy. That's the part of Ayn Rand which Ted Cruz & Rand Paul admire. In other words: John Oliver is doing his typical deceptive journalism. And, he could have gone after democrats by using names such as Saul Alinsky, or other communists. Many of today's Hollywood actors are admirers of hardcore commies. But, you'd never hear that on John Oliver's show.
You know this is a comedy/ news spoof. Yes they did not give a strong argument, but that was not the point. Watch more of this show and you will see they take a subject that they object to and they ridicule it. If you felt that they were informative in the past, thats probably because they have to tell you what/who the subject is before you can get the joke. They are not here to debate at least they have yet to debate anyone/anything.
Well it would be odd for you to get it if you don't know who she is, but since you evidently don't know you probably aren't very qualified to be critical about the piece. Rand basically was saying that the people that "produce" are the people that should reap the rewards in society, which sounds really nice and is just fine.
The problem is that you have all of these people running around saying that they are the real producers when they aren't. If the billionaires of the world were people like Eli Whitney, Thomas Edison or Hiram Moore then the idea that people that actually contribute to society reap the rewards would be in harmony. Instead you have all these hedge fund managers raping the system and strutting around like peacocks talking about how valuable they are or winners like Hank Greenberg who has the balls to be suing the Fed for bailing out his own company.
All these years later, HOW IS SHE STILL A THING?!
She inns of the most Brilliant Americans of all-time, and to people see her as evil. Utter Stupidity. She predicted the downfall of Theis country BOTH Socially AND economically, 25 years before the Economic Legend Milton Friedman said similar things.
@@CPez lmfao people predict the downfall of markets every year and the year the market finally does implode they say "see i predicted it"
Because people are tired of paying into social "services" that don't work
Because the US is a utter shithole and regressed socially to people simping for their kinds when they throw crumbs at them
@@Paonporteur Hahaha! My lord, where so I start? Nixon didn’t given at ALL like Rand, and RR? Why do you think the Economy was flipping Awesome for everyone in the 90’s? I loved Clinton, but it wasn’t Him, it was the Milton Friedman backed deregulation RR put in during the 80’s. Things that are great, take time. But you probably enjoy politicians who just Give you money Right Now, which causes Mass inflation….. like we have right now.
Oddly enough I went from Objectivism to listening to ska.
A marked improvement. Next up, handjobs? Which, like ska, can be enjoyed well into adulthood. Though you might want to mix it up, maybe with some jazz.
You didnt take Ayn Rands theory of aesthetics seriously I see.
i went from reading marx to reading ayn rand.
RetroBlue you got em out of order my man
Sal Wolffs what about ska and jazz?
"Like Donald Trump."
Two years too soon.
Right?? I looked at the date on this and realized it was posted less than a year before he entered the Republican primary. 🤮
Nailed it, though.
My uncle gave me my dad's copy of Atlas Shrugged. My uncle ended up as a conservative and my dad ended up as a liberal. I still haven't read it.
Wow how wonderful.
Just check it out and have an open mind about it
Lmao don't waste your time
Read Dostoyevsky or Nabakov instead. She was not a great Russian writer
a liberal is closer to Ayn Rand than a conservative
How is How Is This Still a Thing not still a thing?
I'd like to know how many actually read Atlas Shrugged vs the % claims to have read it.
It's actually motivational for a young MD who started from basically nothing.
I can see why - I've read some Rand work but never completed Atlas, so you can add me to that list of people.
Generally, I think to know if you'll enjoy/connect with her books, you should ask yourself:
"Are great people held back by society/the government/conventional morality?"
"Do you consider yourself among those people?"
If you answer yes to one or both of these questions, you'll probably connect with her work.
I've read it in its entirety. Being a teenager and not knowing anything about her or her philosophy, and on recommendations from several people, I plowed through it. I kept waiting for a plot twist to make everything okay but in the end I was just pissed that I spent like a month of my life reading it that I could never get back. I thought it was garbage, and that the woman clearly has serious issues and no concept of what consent means.
But yeah, a lot of people complain about things they haven't actually read so I can see where you're coming from on that one.
Heh, heh. I'll openly admit I never read Atlas Shrugged. But then again, you won't see any harsh criticism of her coming from me either.
I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I loved them both... 'cept for perhaps the rapey fireplace breaking of Fountainhead. (However, you can look at her and tell she probably had many a night alone to ponder those fantasies. She wasn't Sofia Loren.)
I don't know why it's bad to have rape in your book. Having rape in a book, or having your main character rape someone, isn't a statement of approval of rape.
I saw the point not as "great people should be allowed to rape" but rather that people can still do terrible things despite being so god damn great at other things.
"Objectivism: Which is just the nice way of saying, 'Being a selfish asshole'"
The accuracy of that sentence is almost unreal.
+TimeWarp66 I'm an ex Rand fanboi (and still agree with some of her stuff) and it is actually entirely true.
It might not have been intended as such (true libertarians do have an ethical conscience - it's the politicians who pretend they're libertarian who don't). However, the world in which Rand's philosophy works without turning you into a massive pile of shitheaded douchebaggery is even less realistic than the communist utopia Randians (and other capitalists and conservatives) take as the ultimate model of naivete.
+TimeWarp66 Rand constructed a world in which being entirely selfish works out well for everyone because there are no structural power imbalances. So one moment Hank Rearden is gouging prices for Rearden metal at the expense of Dagny, the next Dagny is gouging prices for transport at the expense of Hank. It all works out in the end, and then they move to Galt's Gulch where everyone is equal and they all have a wonderful time playing the 'fuck each other over but it all works out in the end' game.
The idea that the world will actually work like that - i.e. no structural power imbalances - is as unrealistic as the (cliched straw man) perception of communist ideology being that everyone will work equally hard for an equal amount of money and no-one will slack off. The world doesn't work like that - it's full of structural power imbalances which laissez faire economics only serves to exacerbate, as the people with power use that power to generate wealth which helps them accumulate more power. Even if we were able to start from a completely equal point, without historical inequalities lingering from a feudalist/colonialist past, one person would only need to have an advantage for a little while to begin to benefit from accumulated power alone without having to maintain any true merit - in Atlas Shrugged it is only the vagaries of chance that continue to ensure Dagny and Hank retain relatively equal bargaining positions and thus a model Randian relationship.
It's a similar misunderstanding to the bullshit hard-on politicians and businessmen have for free market economics. No-one realises that free market economics is only a -model- which is based on a number of assumptions (perfect competition, etc). It's not how things work in the real world. The only way it works in the real world is for something to ensure that the assumptions of the model hold (sort of) in reality, and the only way to do that is through heavy regulation to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. Every time a politician proposes reducing regulation to create a 'free-er' market, they're actually moving the reality further away from the model and the real outcomes further away from the benefits free markets are supposed to provide.
+Nicholas Fisher I found your thoughts on Ayn Rand fascinating. Could you please care to explain some more? Pardon me, but English is not my native language, so I didn’t quite understand everything you said. Google Translate is of course in no use, since it is the grammar I have problems with understanding, and not really the words.
If I may also come with a argument against it, or more so, a question. How did you think those with money got the money? Their power is given.
+ChristofferHN Gaaaaaaaah I just wrote a long reply and then couldn't post it.
I'm not sure how I can explain the general post better, without knowing what parts you need me to explain - perhaps just let me know what you had trouble with? Some of it is pretty dense critical theory which even English speakers have trouble understanding, but I'll do my best!
To answer your question though - most of the people with -lots- of money either inherited the money, or inherited the things/opportunities which enabled them to make it, for example better education, other financial support (not -giving- them money, but providing collateral on a loan or something) and, especially, well connected parents. Even if you, technically, 'don't have any money', it's amazing what doors remain open to you if people know you're the child of Mr & Mrs Moneybags. Nearly every 'I started with nothing and became rich' story I've dug into has turned out like that - they started with $0 on the balance sheet, but daddy's friends and business partners were only too happy to give them loans. Now try and imagine the same opportunities for someone with no money and no friends...
Some such people do make it though - just enough to keep the myth alive. They do, also, have to work hard - because the myth wouldn't be powerful without some truth to it. But they also get very, very lucky. There are people working just as hard, working 2-3 jobs, just to make ends meet. In fact, those people do -so much- just to make ends meet, they have no time or resources left to seek opportunity, so even 'luck' - if you could call it that - doesn't come as easily if you're not already starting with something. If that luck does come along though, in the form of anything other than an immediate windfall like a win in the lottery, then poor people can't afford to take the kind of risks they might need to capitalise on the opportunity. If a rich person sinks $50,000 into a business opportunity and it fails, they're probably going to be OK. If a poor person has the same thing happen, they're going to be screwed - unless there is a safety net such as unemployment benefits, which is a distinctly socialist policy. So again, pure capitalism would actually make it harder for poor people to 'just work harder/seek opportunity' because they can't afford the time or the risk.
A couple of illustrative examples - I'm not rich but occasionally I get to move in those circles. I went to a party just recently, and some guy (early 20s, younger than me) walked in who'd just inherited his grandfather's fairly significant fortune. Not only was he -starting adult life- with all that money, but within 5 minutes every single person there had handed over their business card and offered to work with him. Meanwhile, my girlfriend has worked her ass off to raise herself up from absolutely nothing (including living with addicts as a kid) to get herself a PhD and a good job, and we're doing OK living in a nice area. But that one dude had more opportunities presented to him in 5 minutes than my girlfriend has had in a lifetime of hard work. He already has more money than we're likely to make, combined, in our lifetimes - and I have reasonably well off parents, so it's not like I haven't inherited -some- privilege myself.
Second example - Gina Rineheart is a local mining billionaire who had (last time I checked) about $20 billion of personal wealth. She inherited her fortune from her father (who'd basically stumbled upon an iron ore deposit, so he's in the class of people who lucked out). Her returns on her inheritance are large, and no doubt she's done a lot of work to get them there. But that work includes - lobbying government for approvals for mining, lobbying the government for financial support and tax breaks for her mines, and securing heaps of financing for project for banks. These are all things that wouldn't have been possible without -already- having money, and having her fathers' connections. She also has easy access to the media, through her friendships with media owners, and can influence public debate around her actions in a way that Mr & Mrs Average can't. What's more - she goes around saying that poor people 'just need to work harder', while lobbying the government to allow her to pay her workers less - and she lobbies them directly, because she knows many politicians personally, because she's -really fucking rich-.
So that's how capitalism works in a nutshell, that's why the meritocracy is a myth, and why libertarians are misguided at best, at worst they're totally full of shit.
+Nicholas Fisher PS, all those things with a -strikeout- were meant to have dashes either side for emphasis, but I obviously don't know how youtube comment formatting works.
I don't know how the hell Ayn Rand has anything to do with conservatism. All I recall was that she's pro-capitalism, but she's against almost everything the socially conservative movement stands for. How the hell is her objectivism compatible with traditional family values? I'm guessing politicians reasonably assume their voters don't read it.
The majority of American conservatives aren't fans of Ayn Rand. Notice that it was Tea Party candidates talking about Rand, here, not John Boehner or John McCain.
SV67943
Paul Ryan and Rand Paul aren't TEA Party because they both support illegal aliens getting amnesty.
Only crazy people endorse her. The Tea Party is not all Republicans, it's the Republicans who are so stupid or insane that not even traditional conservatives want to be associated with them.
Erick Johnson I love it when the whackos aren't hardcore enough for their fellow nutjobs.
Ryan and Paul not conservative enough. For fuck's sake...
Her philosophy isn't compatible with the New Testament. But when was the last time you heard Jesus Christ brought up by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? No no no that hippy love thy neighbor the "it's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven" crap doesn't jive with the conservative economic model. When the bible is brought up by mainstream conservative media it's always the fire and brimstone judge everyone and get your stones ready for throwing! That shit IS perfectly compatible with Objectivism, So you've got a party that's, at its worst, a mixture of the bat shit crazy hatred of the old testament combined with the "selfishness is good!" of objectivism. Resulting in a party that hates poor people ALMOST as much as they hate gays and holds the rich up as golden idols whose paths to greatness need to be cleared of all obstacles like worker safety and environmental regulations, minimum wage laws, and taxes.
Yes, this is the sort of stuff you read when you are 19 and think the whole world is yours to conquer. *IF* you grow up you realise the world is actually a little more complex and there are no sui generis geniuses and, if you are honest, we are all "fellow-passengers to the grave" (Charles Dickens) so why not try to behave decently to each other while we're here?
Objectivism doesn't say you shouldn't act nicely, it actually holds a premise of "benevolent universe" you should look it up in ayn rand lexicon it's pretty good stuff you might be surprised
Cuz I don't owe you a damn thing and you don't owe me a damn thing.
Clearly you have not read the books. I suggest you read them. People should be able to get rewarded for their own productivity without being responsible for unproductive people. Of course artists, social workers, journalists and politicians usually hate that idea.
Rand _and_ Nietzsche.
@@AlessandroVolta1 Human value is not derived from simple notions like "obviously concretely productive worker bee = good". Artists bring us joy and/or questions to ponder; journalists news; politicians THEORETICALLY help organise social function constructively... and social workers are the front line of defence for people who've been damaged by ideas like yours. It's not a perfect system, but who are you to define "productivity"? What would you do with the profoundly disabled?
I shudder to think :-(
edit: and she was a f**king TERRIBLE writer. Turgid, ponderous and self-indulgent. For god's sake, grow up.
all I'm thinkin is Andrew Ryan from Bioshock
You can't spell Andrew Ryan without Ayn Rand.
nik Bahtin
Goddammit, now I'm seeing another layer to the game...
Yeah the entire thing about Bioshock 1 was lampooning objectivism. Bioshock 2 was all about lampooning the conservative economic model, blind fevered patriotism, and racism. The blacks in Bioshock 2 were "paid" so they weren't really "slaves" but they were only paid enough to be utterly dependent on their employer with supposed opportunities to advance or leave being smoke and mirrors to mollify them and any critics. "Oh, we pay them. They're not slaves. We pay them just enough to buy food and housing... from us! And they can advance if they want to. We don't really have any examples of it. But it exists in theory. They can leave when ever they want. They'll starve and die. But they can leave any time they want!" Pure capitalism exists in this world and it's called China. Where there is no minimum wage, no environmental laws, no safety regulations, no entitlement programs. And so the bulk of their work force makes 50 cents an hour. Lives in employer provided housing. And, if they leave, run the risk of starving to death before getting another job. The skies of their cities are so polluted you can't see the sun and their fish in their rivers have so much mercury in them you might as well be putting a gun in your mouth. Many workers are missing fingers or entire limbs and a lot of them are children since there's no child labor laws. Welcome to the end result of pure objectivism and capitalism untainted by human rights or empathy.
MynameisBrianZX And very much intentionally, seeing as that's who he represents. And, oddly, it's actually the most favorable interpretation I've seen of Rand by her critics. Ryan just gets in over his head and compromises his philosophy because he actually realizes it doesn't quite work. He just does it too late.
andrew ryan is the true hero of bioshock
Anyone who still thinks that Ayn Rand is a philosopher, instead of a bad novelist and even worse person is too stupid for metal cutlery with all respect.
+Rob Moss
I'm a member of Mensa and Ayn Rand was a genius. Simplistic and idiotic interpretations of what she said change nothing because they only speak to the choir.
+EGarrett01 And I'm also a member of Mensa and have an iq of 300. I also earn 2 billion dollars a week! Suck it chump!
Radio Ardilla
The difference is that I can actually prove that.
EGarrett01 So do so and provide it. The ball is in your court.Otherwise you're just full of shit. Besides which so called "smart" people can often be quite clueless when it comes to reality and interacting with the real world. Actual intelligence requires one to use their "smarts" for good causes in the world. I've yet to see an intelligent Rand supporter. I doubt you're one.
Radio Ardilla
The OP said that if you don't respect Ayn Rand you're stupid. I'm here to ruin his fantasy. If you want me to provide proof, I can show you a Mensa journal I have handy that I put in front of the screen when people talk shit. You have to agree to say that you're an idiot and Ayn Rand is for smart people and not half-assed left wing economic know-nothings though.
Like a great mind once said " I dont think selfishness needs encouragment".
Who?
I got the PU commercial pushing Ayn Rand today...had to come and watch THIS video to GET SOME MOTIVATION.
Anyone who doesn't understand why is good to care about others is just a bratty child. It's part of our DNA to care and feel proud of others accomplishments. The reason we humans survive and rule the food chain is because we can form complex societies.
Who are you arguing against? It isn't Ayn Rand. Egoism doesn't mean you don't care about other people or that complex societies are impossible.
But is it right
No it’s because we literally murdered anything that got in our way including each other. Human achievement has zero to do with altruism and everything to do with get what you want by any means needed
The entire video was an ad hominem attack that briefly gave a highly distorted picture of what she actually talked about. Basically, every reason they gave is bullshit for disproving her ideas if you give it more than ten seconds of thought.
Interesting because her great ideas evaporate into self serving bullshit after 5 seconds thought.
It's satire.
No it isn't an Ad hominem. It's a full picture of a person many people point to an a moral teacher. She was a mean selfish person who wrote some books about some people that thought they were the most special unique and important little snowflakes in the world. They thought they alone could vindicate all of humanity by being better than all of them.
You don't know what an ad hominem is.
And if the reasons are "bullshit," why don't you try disproving some of them?
You could have done that.
But of course, it's more useful to make a stupid vague statement about how the video is wrong and then run away.
Psh, your entire comment is an ad hominem attack that gives a highly distorded picture on criticism of Ayn Rand. Basically, if you think more than ten seconds about your comment you would realise it's bullshit.
Objectivism is ofcourse bigger than what was discussed in this short satire (do you seriously expect satirical videos to have a full explanation of what they're making fun about?), but the jokes about how she idolized selfishness are completely valid.
Paul Ryan is spot on though... Ayn Rand indeed has done a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism.
@Nick Smith Hitler got unemployment down to zero.
@@onkelpappkov2666 Yes, everyone was employed with a pathetic standard of living.
@@morningperson4280
Capitalism is the only moral economic system. Because it treats people fairly. Nobody is forced to do anything they don't want to do. And nobody is prevented from doing what they want to do, as long as they respect the rights of all other individuals to do the same.
@@Shozb0t capitalism literally depends on forcing people to do things they dont want. its only defining characteristic is private profit. someone must lose for another to profit.
@@payasoinfeliz
In regards to forcing people to do what they don’t want to do, you are probably thinking of the IRS. That wouldn’t exist in a fully capitalist society. All government revenue would be obtained voluntarily.
In regards to profit resulting from one person losing so that another may gain, you are probably thinking of fraud. Fraud would be illegal in a fully capitalist society. It’s pretty much illegal even in our mixed economy that we have now. Don’t know why that concerns you.
In her final years, Ayn Rand received benefits from Social Security. That...kinda flies in the face of her personal philosophy of self service as a moral imperative.
@That Dude I don't see how it's not hypocrisy. She put a name to a moral philosophy that demonized the structure of social welfare.
@@Wheels_tcw taxi for Tim
........
@@Wheels_tcw the government took her money. Man, you are thick.
It's not hypocrisy because her only real philosophy was being a selfish asshole, and a selfish asshole will take anything they can get. It only becomes hypocritical if you assume that her selfish beliefs stemmed from a consistent underlying philosophy, but right-wingers usually do the opposite; construct philosophies and reasons on the fly to justify their self-serving actions and statements. It's why people like Mitch McConnell can block Supreme Court nominations from Obama because it's "too late in the presidency" then allow nominations from Trump even later into his term, because the belief was manufactured to fit the desire to have a right-wing Supreme Court.
Incorrect. She was still selling something like 8000 copies a month
Yep, I was a self actualized man until 7 years ago. I was a fucking jerk back then. It took alot to shake me out of that crap. People just didn't like me. So yeah, sometimes you have to get slapped in the face to realize your shit stinks.
*applaudes* respect sir!
keep it up!
I'm proud of you, man.
Been reading King Leopold’s ghost, and it strikes me that Leopold of Belgium was very much an Ayn Rand/libertarian hero. He obtained the Congo Basin region of Africa through contracts-the holy of holy. Sure those contracts were negotiated through trickery-but hey, they were still contracts and legally binding! He never once asked the Belgian government to devote its resources to his venture in Africa-instead he raised an entirely private organization to do so, the Force Publique. Sure they committed unspeakable human rights abuses-but Leopold always made sure to raise that Randian/libertarian argument “Its MY property and YOU can’t tell me what to do with it!” Same for when he humiliated Belgium by jaunting across the globe with his underage prostitute mistress, “Its MY money and I can do as I please with it!” And he truly embodied that ideal that no one else was entitled to the fruits of his labor-because he left absolutely zilch to his family or his nation. Truly a Randian superman!
I've been meaning to read that, and you've given me another reason.
Sounds a lot like the East India Companies, two of EU's most evil colonizing tools.
@ls7orBust2 Be careful not to cut yourself on that edge, kiddo.
Today om Reuters: "In sign of the times, Ayn Rand Institute approved for PPP loan"
lmao I came here because of that
She got SSI because she didnt want to spend her book money to fight the lung cancer she got from thinking that the medical experts were just dumb about smoking being a cause of cancer. Lets see what right wing idiot do I know who thinks the doctors dont know what they are talking about? Oh yeah all of them.
Helping others is selfish, and at the same time beneficial.
Ayn rand said that btw
@@tutudanny It is an logical conclusion, Humans are tribal, help your tribe and you help yourself by making your tribe stronger, so i doubt it is an original idea of anyone.
This makes my head hurt.
@@pouncepounce7417 Tribalism is anti-freedom, anti-reason and anti-progress.
Only if we freely strive our own dreams and goals and make agreements with other individuals to reach for our own sake, we will become a greater society.
@@leeuwbama9433 The problem is humans are tribal, it is an survival trait, but our "tribes" have become to big to work as such.
An functioning tribe is considerd something in between the 90 to 120 individuals bracket, 200 is stretching it.
Or brains are able at max to keep track of how we relate socially to that amount of people.
An tribe is an karma economy, balance between individuum and tribe is necessary for the tribe to succeed, pretty much as with any societie.
Right now we have the problem that we have what i would label an pointy elbows societie, and it is working not that well.
Well, without her, BioShock wouldn't exist. BioShock is pretty fantastic, so overall, I don't mind she's still a thing.
So, another one sells his soul 5 years ago, and bullshit.
Holy shit they predicted Trump.
Yeah, and Trump is the President... think about it.
So did the Simpsons. Scary, right?
Trump was already talking about running for president in 2014. It wasn't that big of a shock.
Dystopia at its best.
No, that meme is bullshit. The episode that supposedly predicted Trump's campaign in 2000, didn't air in 2000, but actually aired in 2015 when he was already campaigning for president. www.snopes.com/fact-check/simpsons-trump-prediction/
Conservatives idolising Trump would be better than them idolising Ayn Rand...oh, the irony
3:19 10 years later and conservatives still don't realize the teump thing was a joke
The shirt Rand Paul is wearing makes him look like a prison inmate 😂
Um thats a doctors coat
My mom actually did her thesis on her. Apparently over the course of writing it, it went from about Rands ideas to how hypocritical she was.
Yes I’m sure your mom was a lot smarter than one of the great thinkers of the 20th century
Yeah bruh, cause your mom is known for best-sellers, right?
@@samrosendahl392”Great thinker” lol nice bait
@@samrosendahl392 She was great as completely hypocritical clown. If people would have treated her like she did and what she proclaimed, she wouldn't had left Russia alive but died of hunger before the age of 14. Which wouldn't have been a huge loss to mankind.
@@Schokelmei yes because her parents had no valid reason to leave russia-with their daughter from the perspective of ethical egoism. Her whole point is helping someone should benefit you in some way, the only moral relations are transactional relations, or should be anyway, this is her point, this is her philosophy, nowhere does she state imply to abandon offspring, actually few things are more in line with your self interest than helping a kid who will pay you back in all sorts of ways. Actually read someone before spouting played out caricatures.
So many Libertarians and "anarcho"-capitalists are butthurt over this
+Torbjørn Oskarsson I am an AnCap, and I found this video hilarious.
+Torbjørn Oskarsson no real ancap over the age of 14 is an objectivist, at least not ironically
+Torbjørn Oskarsson Really? I'm also an an-cap, and have shared this video with many people, because it is classic. :)
+Torbjørn Oskarsson
Actually many libertarians and ancaps disagree with with Rand's pro-war stance. Economists of the Austrian School and Ayn used to nearly despise one another for that reason.
Personally, I don't identify as either politically (unless we are to admit that the the word libertarian is able to keep it's original meaning as anarchist/ Anti-authoritarian socialist), but facts are facts. Libertarianism and Objectivism are not perfectly synonymous.
+Torbjørn Oskarsson I like the video because it is an hilarious example of how emotional manipulation is used to counter reason.
Atlas Shrugged has some great points. I think the purpose of this video was to make ad hominem attacks to prevent all of you good people from reading the book. If you dislike her because of what you've been told but haven't actually read her, try it out. Make your own opinion.
This video turned out to be prophetic.
I will never give up SKA music! WTF!
240ups you stay the course, man! And handjobs, too!
@@ianbailey3978 I met a guy who had hooks for hands. He said anyone who gave him a handjob was going to heaven.
They've definitely done too much, much too young.
@@mileskeesey983 I see what you did there.
Ayn was the most successful Karen in American history.
Why?
I’m betting you’ve never read her books
I showed this Christian guy who loved her books her interview from I think it was 1953 where she first explains her belief in the virtue of utter selfishness and then condemns the church as evil in its practices to help others. I could tell it hit him, because even though her philosophy of selfishness stains her entire body of work, it hits differently when you hear her lay it all out explicitly.
Anyone of any major religion that keeps kindness to humanity as a core belief should be appalled by this creature. I’m agnostic, but I believe in the virtue of kindness and I find her repulsive.
I was wrong, it was 1959
th-cam.com/video/lHl2PqwRcY0/w-d-xo.html
The alternative to selfishness isn't kindness. It is selflessness--which means to regard your own life as having no value. Ayn Rand is opposed to sacrifice, not kindness. Sacrifice means the surrender of a value with the expectation of receiving a lesser value (or no value) in return. In other words, to harm yourself. That is not a rational goal for anyone to have. It is much better to be selfish. You only have one life.
And what does a selfish person do? He lives his life to the best of his ability in order to be happy. He acquires gainful employment. He forms friendships. He raises his children. He determines and seeks out his highest values. If everyone was consistently selfish, the world would be a much better place.
That last sentence is a great example of why many consider libertarians to be out of touch with reality. While I can't speak on behalf of all major religions, your post confirms that libertarian ideology and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible.
@@tonybates1537
Technically, the philosophy influencing my views is called Objectivism. Libertarianism is a political ideology which borrowed from Objectivism the idea that the initiation of force is wrong. But it lacks the philosophical foundation which gives credence to that principle. Libertarians are uninterested in philosophy.
Interestingly enough, there are libertarians who are also Christian. But there is no overlap between Objectivism and Christianity. That is why only Christians who have become disillusioned with their faith will take any interest in Objectivism. To the standard Christian, Objectivism is profoundly immoral. And to the Objectivist, Christianity is immoral. Which one is correct? Well, Christianity holds mysticism, collectivism and altruism as the core of its values. Objectivism holds reason, individualism and egoism as the core of its values. Are you an individual? If yes, then Objectivism is for you. Objectivism is a philosophy for living on Earth--not a guide for escaping to a paradise in another dimension.
@@Shozb0t Yes, after I posted I realized I had conflated Objectivism with Libertarianism. As you say, Christianity and Objectivism are at odds with each other. As to which one is correct, your answer will depend on your worldview. If you believe that life on Earth is all there is, then it sounds logical at least to focus on your own happiness. I find it hard, however, to imagine every person making entirely self-serving decisions will lead to the best possible society. A Christian, of course, believes in an afterlife, but more importantly in an omnipotent god, who has laid out his will in written word. Reason is not to be disregarded, but is secondary to faith.
Her views on economics and ethics are disagreeable. But her views on God are spot on.
"... like Donald Trump."
Prophetic.
Ayn loved her Benzedrine tablets also.
That explains some of her crazy.
Fountainhead is a beautiful book for those who understand the desire to get the essence of things and build things that actually work. And not doing things that do not make sense just because other people or the mainstream say it's right. Those who I met in life and hate Fountainhead were like Peter Keating themselves. No wonder they hate the book.
I’m a philosophy major and conservatives don’t understand her philosophy. At all. They perverse it in such a disgusting way. I think her work has been abused greatly.
I'mma have to kinda agree with you on that one. Some understand, but a lot of them don't, but this isn't shocking. Many Liberals and conservatives just spew out shit they hear from someplace else without giving much thought
Why do you think its dumb?
A modern conservative shares much more with the modern liberal then with libertarian ideals.
So of course it will distort through their lens.
I'm a master's student in philosophy, and no one in academia considers her to be a philosopher. Her ”philosophy” is based on zero philosophical principles, and her take on Kant, Aristotle, and other philosophers is naive and utterly wrong.
She was a special kind of hypocrite. She decried racism but then propounded vile racist views against Native Americans.
Because she was the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century.
+Marc Allen LMFAO
+Marc Allen Biiig troll
Gr8 b8 m8
+Marc Allen i hope this isn't a troll because you are 100% right. probably one of if not the most misunderstood people in all of recent history.
bevrosity how is she misunderstood?
Here's the thing:
Rand defined faith as "the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and reason... Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.' "
Which is exactly the faith and mysticism shown by her followers, who continue to promote her Objectivism despite all proof that her concepts, when applied to real life, simply do not accomplish what they claim it does.
Evidence?