"Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
From Wealth of Nations: "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
John Stossel is highly underrated. His amazes me again and again because his concepts turn out to be far stronger, deeper and broader than many so-called gurus.
I have studied Rands works for years and I love her ideas. What makes me uncomfortable is the way religious racist right wingers try to usurp her ideas without knowing the first thing about her stance. So be careful. Make sure you know who you're talking with.
“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.”
From Moral Sentiments or Wealth of Nations? I prefer the former, as did Dr. Friedman: "They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species."
Could be the popularisation of socialistic behavior within an anarchic system. It could just be normal for ppl to be in worker co-ops and non patriarchal non nuclear family groupings.
As with John Stossel, I did work for the collectivist statists at Frontline. Until "AIDS, Blood and Politics" in 1993. Then I'd had enough. Still waiting for you to call.
You don't understand Rand at all. Howard Roark: "I'm pleased if people find a better manner of living in a building I designed; but that's not my reason nor my reward."
So how is it absurd? In the 19th century, when explosives were first being used for mining and quarrying stone, in order to drill a hole in the rock one person would hold a chisel in place while another worker would hit it with a big sledge hammer. The guy would then turn the chisel, and it would get anothe rhit withthe sledge hammer, till they managed to drill a deep hole in the rock to place the dynamite. People often lost their hands this way. Now, they use jackhammers and power drills, which are much safer. But we use such new tools, not because the employers are nicer people now, or because the government mandates them We use them because we have them, and they are much quicker to do the job. And any employer who asked his workers to do it the old way wouldn't get any employees, losing them to the ones with the modern equipment, unless he could pay them a HUGE premium for the high risk. Which would not be worth it.
JamesScottGuitar So? The purpose of technology IS to increase wealth. And items we see as technology ARE wealth. What if the technology of things like jackhammers existed, if we knew how to produce them, but they were so expensive that we could only make five of them for the whole economy? There would still be the need to drill holes in rock, but the means would not exist, except for the hammer and chisel method, for most workers. Safety equipment costs money. It is always a tradeoff between more safety equipment and higher wages. When the economy is poor, when food and clothing and shelter are expensive, workers are much more willing to trade safety for higher wages to feed, clothe and shelter their families. But once those needs are met, they are more willing to demand safer working conditions which then employers have to compete to provide, even if it means lower wages. There is nothing absurd about it.
SaulOhio, Technology comes from necessity, not wealth. Wealth can aid in its coming to fruition, but not the sole source of creation. There is, in many cases, a choice that is presented: Safety as a fundamental prerequisite, or not. Case in point, precious metals.
SaulOhio In 2014 it is not an issue of Wealth. +Alexander Fleming When I say "precious metals" it refers to the exploitation of the People used to access those Metals, and the conditions in which they do so. I don't need to give a dissertation on the subject to get you to understand, do I? And, if you are unaware of the conditions these people are dealing with, along with with the obvious exploitation of these people, then you should go to your magic box of light, aka Your Computer, and enlighten yourself. It is a clear example of what I am referring to.
My problem with Ayn Rand's whole notion of objectivism is that it honestly does not apply in the real world. She relied on the idea that human beings act by rationality and reason, when in truth we are very often instinctual and irrational. I'm pretty sure if she were confronted by some people who blame her whole philosophy of "the virtue of selfishness" for the actions of men like Jeffrey Skilling at Enron or Bernard Madoff, she would have replied that such men acted irrationally and took their self interest to unreasonable degrees. That is the problem: these men acted this way because they were not,in fact, rational people and for them there was no such thing as too much self interest.
No. Her philosophy very much relied on the fact that people can often be irrational, or simply mistaken. This is one of the reasons why we need freedom, because the wise overlords some would put in charge of us are just as fallible and potentially irrational as any one of us. We need the right to judge other people's actions and ideas, and decide whether to deal with them or not. Her philosophy does not depend on everyone always acting rationally. "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. It is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one’s consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality-or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make. When man unfocuses his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions. But in the sense of the word applicable to man-in the sense of a consciousness which is aware of reality and able to deal with it, a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human being-an unfocused mind is not conscious." “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 21 Jeff Skilling did act irrationally. Read "The Collapse of a Postmodern Corporation" And Madoff acted criminally. His investment" schemes were fraudulent. Rand clearly and explicitly argued that it is government's proper role to act against those who initiate force or fraud.
So you grew up in a garage? I grew up in a top floor brownstone floor through on 81st Street between 5th and Madison Avenue. Alas, no basement as well. My father died in 2004. As to basements today- I bought my mother a house in 1994, then bought mine in 2000. Try again.
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.
People like him do indeed threaten our liberty, and I completely understand your frustration. Imagine his frustration when you prove him wrong and end there. We need to confuse their programming, they are programmed. How else can you explain such nonsense, such contradiction as altruism, if not programming. People like him, I dont let it get that far, one baseless insult tells me he is done, his programming ran out. I point that out to them and end the conversation.
I apologize for assuming that you made a mistake, please forgive me- but yo mentioned "Mr. high IQ". I have no utopian vision- that is collectivism. But people like MrAbacadabra or whatever his name is have to be stopped. Now. The same way that Hitler and Stalin had to be stopped.
Hey Luke, who does this describe: "...the key to Rand's influence: the people who organize their lives around Rand's overwrought philosophy are emotional adolescents and the pretense of "rationality" in her books is little more than a justification for youthful narcissism."
My statements about Objectivists are not pure hatred. They're pure satire. I don't hate 9/11 truthers; I make sport of them and laugh my guts out. Why would I hate harmless fools? I just laugh at them. If I really want a good laugh I watch Leonard Peikoff being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. My God, O'Reilly came off as the voice of reason. Now that's funny. Praise to the League of the Furry Quokka!
So what happened to the workers when he moved the company out of Connecticut? Did he take them with him and pay their relocation costs? Did he help them find new jobs? If he did, that's great. If not, well hey, not my problem right?
I'm a socialist, but methinks the invisible hand refers to ("In economics and the social sciences, spontaneous order is defined as "the result of human actions, not of human design". Spontaneous order is an equilibrium behavior between self-interested individuals") whilst government intervention would supposedly warp price signals, and increase inequality between the rich and poor.
Justify? Not at all the issue. The issue is that you have not given fair exchange. I read the Communist Manifesto 30 years ago at Reed Colllege. It was crap then, and it's crap now. Where did YOU go to school?
A Note on Rand's anti-Soviet stance - It led to many philosophical positions for Rand on many topics, but she made several errors (such as attacking altruism itself (which is akin to attacking the tool rather than its use/abuse) rather than the exploitation of it (but she did understand why it could occur - I'll explain below), and she did not progress far enough in philosophy (which can be forgiven considering her position in history - though she was a century before her time, she still lived in mentally-primitive times, where all a philosophical thinker can do is make the noble effort of trying to elevate the mentally deficient paradigms of one's own time), as evidenced by the clueless vanity present at this meeting (you can begin at 0:13, it should turn your stomach) and the continuing failure to have identified any objective philosophical values (before me) which underscores the festering human philosophical, hence mental, hence social ills that still plague man (vanity, envy, hate, war, xenophobia, pathological extremes, a lack of self-worth, pointlessness, depression, and suicide, just to name a few). She did realize one very important point - that human-condition problem is not economic, political, or social, but philosophical - meaning the problem may be economic, political, or social, but the root cause is (still) a lack of an adequate life-guiding philosophy, which she made an attempt at creating, which contributed much on the political front, but it did not go far enough, still being clueless - for she did not go as far as trying to answer the greatest of the great questions of life, that of "Why bother?" (to do anything). Her level of answer would be, "So you will not suffer in this world under twisted humans." Comparing that answer with the real answer, "Because consciousness is a good thing" (consider the alternative), which leads to the first objective (universal) (ultimate) (core) philosophical value, which leads to the first associated ultimate goal - to secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe (and I am only scratching my new philosophy of broader survival's surface), you can now see how it falls short as a perpetual motivator and guiding principle of life (and people have argued for religions here, but they also have failed - as evidenced by the festering human ills I touched on above). This video also illustrates one of the failures of academic philosophers - where, rather than addressing the lack of an adequate life-guiding philosophy and attempting to create one (as Rand realized and attempted), they either playing what I call 'lexiconic parlor games', or they hide in history, or they immerse themselves in applied philosophy (as in this video's case, this instance being business philosophy), spinning their wheels in a subjective haze. On the good side, there were a lot of good old and new insights presented here (for example I liked the word 'narrow-casting' (begin at 0:41), a foresight made in 1995 about the Internet (though that particular originator's other claims have since proven to have been in extreme err (the 'one central voice' concept, which Rand, given her Soviet experiences, would have stood up and beaten back violently) (and one has to admire the speaker's life response to the professor's woeful mindset). I also contrasted this video with the purely juvenile videos I ran across which attempted to attack Rand (from pro-Socialist standpoints, it turns out (one observation was, "She did not present a properly-run Socialist state", where my immediate thought was that this claimant did not see the peril in that claim, which is "Properly run - by whom?), which to me made this video refreshing (the general ongoing human shortcomings noted above aside). Just a curious note, I've just begun listing to Atlas Shrugged (having first gone through Rand's straight-up philosophical writings, far ahead of their times, though the liberals that she detested were from the 1930's), and then the pulp fiction book 90 years ahead of its time, "Fountainhead" (with the theme that hit home for me - the eternal dilemmas that the innovator faces). In Atlas Shrugged, she equally exposes Leftist failings and Sleazy Businessmen (many of those directives were originated by sleazy businessmen who did not have the public interest in mind, in other words, businessmen who would have profited by implementing Socialist measures (who were no better than political profiteers), even one as extreme as a new Soviet State, against which is what was at the core of Rand's whole outlook - meaning business people beware - if you become philosophical sleazy (still easy given the ongoing lack of a higher life-guiding philosophy), then you will be on Rand's bad side (born-again free-marketeer 5:37 or not). On 'free', someone once challenged me with the cliche, "You know, America used to be a lot freer than it is now." to which I immediately responded, "Yes, and you can blame that loss on abusers. It goes like this, "OK, we had that freedom, and it was abused, so now we need regulations and laws (still lacking an adequate life-guiding philosophical system, remember). So you can blame it on two things - abusers and the underlying problem of a lack of an adequate life-guiding/motivating philosophy. Needless to say, I lost the person's attention after 140 characters (the limit of a Tweet). Kudos to Stossel for not wanting to preach to the converted (begin at 6:35 ) and preferring a challenge.
(Continued) Now, do you have anything you want to discuss as far as Objectivism goes, or are you simply incapable of doing so, and are just going to continue tossing insults at me?
True enough, but someone has to plod along keeping the world running so when a real innovator comes along they have the environment which fosters life changing production. Govt hates this because folks like that are hard to rule.
hey jmartecep Huh.Please give me something in the form of a sentence to argue with. If you cant coexist with others maybe you shouldnt be outside of a cage.Mrs Rands writing is moral and she states why it is.You have not stated why it is not.
1) You have just mentioned Conservatives, which I am not, you know what they say when you assume? 2) Are you capable of debating my counter points I made to your statements? 3) To me it looks like I completely countered your whole belief with few counter points, which should make you think, not lash out. If your logic is inconsistent, and makes you unable to counter any arguments I made, perhaps you should relax and think. As an after though, I dont watch TV, dont recommend it to you either
I'll grant that these guys have some good points. There is innovation in the private sector. But let's not kid ourselves. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson are the exceptions. At least half the business owners I meet are interested in profit maximization. That's it. They don't care about creating anything really compelling or interesting. I've partnered in some interesting businesses and got funny looks whenever I spoke of beautiful products and vision instead of money money money.
Don't you think you're going just a little over the top? In any event Objectivists and Libertarians are not equivalent. Google Peikoff's opinion. As for my, "unprovoked libel against Ayn Rand" you can't libel the dead under common law. In any event what I said about her has been discussed in at least three books I know of and numerous magazine articles and blogs. You have your work cut out for you.
Actually, all you are doing is trolling, if you are incapable of countering a single point I have just made, where I have re posted yet again. Well then you are just trolling. If you are not going to even try, then have a good day, as I have mentioned before, I do not feed trolls, and you are just a troll.
I think he was boasting about his high intelligence, so I pocked him a little. I agree that people like him have to be stopped. The question is how and where. How: is answered by Objectivist philosophy of morality in Capitalism. As to where, I really doubt that guy can ever be brought to the point of Objectivism, its a very long road, I myself started out as a socialist, being from USSR, it took me about 10 years to switch.
As a "student of Objectivism" why should you care at all about what I think. What happened to that great aloof independence you "heroes" are supposed to have. After all what was Roark's response to Toohey when they finally met all alone? Be the Objectivist, not a watered down version of soapbxprod whose out to save the world from people who threaten his liberty like Stalin and Hitler. LOL you guys crack me up.
Aren't you an Objectivist? Why should I be called to justify my life based on the benefits others receive from my efforts; that's a collectivist notion. I think you are looking at the wrong videos. You should search some Marxist talks. It fits perfectly with said: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." If you claim to be an Objectivist, you should reread Rand's books. You don't understand them.
If you actually understood Objectivism and disagreed with one or more of its principles, you would have specified what they were and why you disagreed. Since you didn't, you obviously don't.
why don't you leave ABC where you are silenced and go to FOX, where you are heard? Why no go independent where you are loved? Maybe no more awards. Maybe no more high society. Maybe no more standing before distinguished crowds. But you could give hundreds-of-millions a voice.
And finally, I really do not care for your insults, by not responding to my counterpoints, you are only showing your ignorance on the subject. You grew up in the garage you say? I grew up in socialist system in total fear, poverty and hunger, so yes, I do know what Im talking about.
I can't say that Ayn Rand is right or wrong. I can, however, say that I disagree with her philosophy, and let's be clear, it's her philosophy. Taking a look our issues, the constant question should be our we discipline enough to coexist? This is the simplest question I can ask and I come up with the same answer, no. Taking account that we all have to take care of ourselves, we also take care of others, altruistic behavior on any level. Ms. Rand's work seems to appeal to a certain type of person. Her Amoral style of writing could be used positively or negatively.
You seem to confuse the concept of OBJECTivism with SUBJECTivism... the whole point is that to be an Objectivist, you must take the facts at face value, and not allow emotions to get in the way of your decision-making. It's called being impartial and unbiased. The concept is that your only real bias is the truth. You dont try to ignore the reality of any situation. Also you must reason for yourself. You make decisions to the best of your own abilities. And you take responsibility and the consequences for your own actions. You dont make decisions based on what someone with more authority says, and then blame them if its wrong. You make decisions go yourself and take full responsibility. All possible viewpoints are included in Objectivism, EXCEPT for others' viewpoints. The central idea is that we must rationalize with each other. A politician can no just say "listen, just do what I say. You can no possibly understand the complexity of the situation. So just do as I say." As an Objectivist, you dont just take their word for it. You expect them to reason with you and change your mind. An economist should be able to sit you down and walk you through their calculations. Those kinds of economists tend to be (if not all) capitalists. I wonder why? You are 199% correct that we as people cannot fully live harmoniously. .. that's why we have a constitutional republic. You dont need a socialist government to provide diapers for everyone. You dont need a bunch of regulations. All you need to say is "if you hurt somebody or their property, there will be consequences". That's what the Constitution says.
I disagree, I wrote my comment a while ago. What I gathered from Ann Rand is that, objectivism, is a two way street. Your self interest, and my self interest have to be on one accord. Logic, She believes that humanity can use logic to make sensible decisions. What Stossel is talking about is a one way street, without considering other individuals objective. I can relate to what Ann Rand is saying, however, when her philosophy is taking out of perspective and manipulated, her teaching will go in vain. More importantly to touch on your comment about our constitution, Ann Rand objectivism philosophy would keep us law biding, respectful and tolerant of others believe, solely on here idea of logic. For example, yourself interest would be in jeopardy if you infringe on an others self interest. That's what I got out Ann Rand's philosophy.
Now I totally agree with what you just said. I would point out however that there is a difference between considering other's objectives and considering other's PERSPECTIVES. If your objectives (goals) are in line with those of another individual, then you both could come to an amicable consensus through logic and reasoning with each other to form a partnership that would be mutually beneficial. Government itself is, in fact, supposed to be an organization that uses force to protect and defend the universally held contentions of its natural rulers (the people). Such as enforcing laws that protect natural rights that are universally recognized. Stossel was interpreting the OTHER side of objectivism, which is basically intellectual integrity. You cannot just blindly follow what others purport as truth. Dont endorse anything you dont fully understand. For example, there is a reason why political liberalism and socialism are inherently opposed to objectivism. They believe in subjectivism. Those at the bottom feel they aren't intelligent enough to determine things for themselves, and thus abdicate their reason to those with "educations", or degrees, or public office. They perceive public office as this badge that says "I represent the public interest". So they abdicate to the "public", when in reality, they are advocating to another person who happens to be the most popular or the most photogenic... while those liberals and socialists at the top are just as intellectually lazy, while enjoying the arrogance of feeling that there is no higher intellectual ability than their own. So basically there are two types of socialist. One is the passive and submissive supporter/follower who wishes to be ruled. The second is the controlling, ambitious, and arrogant generalist leader who wishes to rule. Its a wolves & sheep relationship. Objectivism is inherently a philosophy of individual liberty. Not only in property, by in an intellectual sense as well. Its about maintaining your intellectual objectivity, independence, and sense of self-worth. To believe that no one else knows what's best for you, better than YOU. Then you are an Objectivist. To sum up my comment, Objectivist believe that no one is born to rule or be ruled (just as the Founding Fathers stated). Socialists believe that there are those who cannot take care of themselves, and those who just "know what's best" better than you do...
The concept of Objectivism cannot be wrong. That's the point. It holds itself up. Its the statement that there are absolute truths out there. Maybe we know them and maybe we dont. Some know them better than others. But you cannot force a person to believe and follow them. You must reason with them. Its free-market. Its capitalistic. Its self-evident based on the fact that we cannot read each other's minds, or know better than them what is best for them. From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability. Period. Let men succeed and fail on their own merit. Otherwise, you allow space for the unfit will rise to power (like a president who isnt fit to perform the duties of the office...), and those who otherwise would have been great benefactors to the public good through their own self-interest, will be beaten down into submission to those unfit rulers.
The reason Objectivism is so relevant today is because government in general is overstepping its boundaries. Its supposed to prevent others from preventing us from doing what's best for ourselves and following our rational self-interest. Instead, government is determining what is in our best interest FOR us, using force to enforce it, and harming many in the process...
I will tell you why. Because I know Maria Cooper. Because I am Abner Biberman's Grandson. Because I know Lizabeth Scott. Because Janet Leigh was like an aunt to me. Because YOU know NOTHING about Ayn Rand.
I do get it when most Americans freeze at the mention of socialism/communism because of their historical context. However, the world has changed a lot in the last 50 years. The communist China has adopted capitalist approach to lift its people out of poverty. They have lifted over 750 million people out of poverty in just three decades. They put their people above their principles. They have not become miserable, rather they have become far happier and richer. That’s what I call ‘true objectivism ‘. The chief complaint of Americans about Chinese is they patronage their businesses which makes it difficult to compete with them.That’s paradoxical!! On one hand you say communism is bad for businesses, on the other you accuse them of the opposite. So, the important lesson is this: One can adopt a capitalist and a socialist approach depending on the situation and still be successful, richer and happier. It also fits nicely into your both selfish and (true)objectivism definition. Why choose half the truth that creates a fault line when you can choose the full truth and become wholesome as well as awesome!!!It is also more Christist than Randist!!
You used it as a critique, it doesnt matter that is was someone elses joke. I am not talking about your responses, I am talking about your statements about Objectivists being nothing but pure hatred, he only responded to your nonsense with less then shall I say good comments. I am not here to defend soapboxprod, I came here to reply to you, when you stated generalized nothing, meaning, you didnt confront a single thing in objectivism, you dismissed it off hand. (Continues)
If you want to teach your kids about taxes. Tell them that you will pay for a chore, then after they do it, and come to you for their pay, make sure you take "taxes" from their pay. This will leave a lasting impression
And you finishing them served no purpose, as all you did is stooped to his level of ignorance, nothing more. You could have easily shrugged off his insults, when leftist start to fling insults that should tell you that they are in a bind, and dont know how to argue your points anymore, which means its time to point it out, and not get drawn into insulting each other.
None of that stops you from acting like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum. Really, what is your problem? This exchange has moved from the amusing to the surreal. My God, calm down and get a life. What difference does it make to you what I think of Ayn Rand and what I have or have not done in my life? You're really ridiculous. You are not acting like someone who has an Objectivist psychology. This is too weird. You are not alone. Rand attracts lots of shrill, bombastic immature people.
Drowning, no but my gut is sore from laughing at you. If I'm all those things you claim I am; why would my opinion concern you? Your comments and threats are really over the top. How can it bother you if someone doesn't have a very good opinion of Ayn Rand? Especially mine since you think I'm such a zero. (Not that you have any information to claim anything you've accused me of doing/being.) Get a life. Stop living through others and live for yourself. Roark wouldn't think of me, why do you?
What is it that you think you called "us out" on? Whatever you think of Rand, I couldnt care less about, unless you actually think that by pointing out her mistakes in her personal life, you are somehow disproving philosophy of Objectivism? Most of them are? I take it you dont really know Objectivism. As far as using Soapbxprod as an example of all of us, well this has got to be the most laughable argument you made so far.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
When government shrinks, freedoms thrive!
Amazing, just amazing. Ayn Rand was right! I don't like her staunch atheism but she was right on almost everything she said. Just my opinion.
"Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
From Wealth of Nations: "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
John Stossel is highly underrated. His amazes me again and again because his concepts turn out to be far stronger, deeper and broader than many so-called gurus.
I have studied Rands works for years and I love her ideas. What makes me uncomfortable is the way religious racist right wingers try to usurp her ideas without knowing the first thing about her stance.
So be careful. Make sure you know who you're talking with.
SCF, her ideas are completely in line with right wing politics, not religious right wingers, but fiscally conservative ones
“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.”
From Moral Sentiments or Wealth of Nations? I prefer the former, as did Dr. Friedman: "They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species."
I'm waiting.
"AnarchoSocialist" is an oxymoron. Anarchy is individualist- socialism is collectivist.
Could be the popularisation of socialistic behavior within an anarchic system. It could just be normal for ppl to be in worker co-ops and non patriarchal non nuclear family groupings.
It's focusing, not focussing. "They have sown the wind, and now they shall reap the whirlwind." -Sir Arthur Harris
John Stossel 2016!
What do you do for a living?
As with Ayn Rand herself- but she'd switched before escaping! :)
As with John Stossel, I did work for the collectivist statists at Frontline.
Until "AIDS, Blood and Politics" in 1993.
Then I'd had enough.
Still waiting for you to call.
You don't understand Rand at all. Howard Roark: "I'm pleased if people find a better manner of living in a building I designed; but that's not my reason nor my reward."
You're up in the middle of the night writing this- at 4am EDT. That's pretty funny.
Send anything you like to whomever you please.
You and I are going to settle this like MEN.
I approve of this mustache - Freddie Mercury
"As we get richer we care more about the safety. " That is so absurd...one of the most absurd statements I've heard in a long time.
So how is it absurd? In the 19th century, when explosives were first being used for mining and quarrying stone, in order to drill a hole in the rock one person would hold a chisel in place while another worker would hit it with a big sledge hammer. The guy would then turn the chisel, and it would get anothe rhit withthe sledge hammer, till they managed to drill a deep hole in the rock to place the dynamite. People often lost their hands this way. Now, they use jackhammers and power drills, which are much safer. But we use such new tools, not because the employers are nicer people now, or because the government mandates them We use them because we have them, and they are much quicker to do the job. And any employer who asked his workers to do it the old way wouldn't get any employees, losing them to the ones with the modern equipment, unless he could pay them a HUGE premium for the high risk. Which would not be worth it.
SaulOhio, that is an issue of technology, not of wealth.
JamesScottGuitar So? The purpose of technology IS to increase wealth. And items we see as technology ARE wealth.
What if the technology of things like jackhammers existed, if we knew how to produce them, but they were so expensive that we could only make five of them for the whole economy? There would still be the need to drill holes in rock, but the means would not exist, except for the hammer and chisel method, for most workers.
Safety equipment costs money. It is always a tradeoff between more safety equipment and higher wages. When the economy is poor, when food and clothing and shelter are expensive, workers are much more willing to trade safety for higher wages to feed, clothe and shelter their families. But once those needs are met, they are more willing to demand safer working conditions which then employers have to compete to provide, even if it means lower wages.
There is nothing absurd about it.
SaulOhio, Technology comes from necessity, not wealth. Wealth can aid in its coming to fruition, but not the sole source of creation. There is, in many cases, a choice that is presented: Safety as a fundamental prerequisite, or not. Case in point, precious metals.
SaulOhio In 2014 it is not an issue of Wealth.
+Alexander Fleming
When I say "precious metals" it refers to the exploitation of the People used to access those Metals, and the conditions in which they do so. I don't need to give a dissertation on the subject to get you to understand, do I? And, if you are unaware of the conditions these people are dealing with, along with with the obvious exploitation of these people, then you should go to your magic box of light, aka Your Computer, and enlighten yourself. It is a clear example of what I am referring to.
Editing issue around 21 minutes in. Trader Vic's Rand story is repeated.
My problem with Ayn Rand's whole notion of objectivism is that it honestly does not apply in the real world. She relied on the idea that human beings act by rationality and reason, when in truth we are very often instinctual and irrational. I'm pretty sure if she were confronted by some people who blame her whole philosophy of "the virtue of selfishness" for the actions of men like Jeffrey Skilling at Enron or Bernard Madoff, she would have replied that such men acted irrationally and took their self interest to unreasonable degrees. That is the problem: these men acted this way because they were not,in fact, rational people and for them there was no such thing as too much self interest.
She would have praised Madoff and Enron.
No. Her philosophy very much relied on the fact that people can often be irrational, or simply mistaken. This is one of the reasons why we need freedom, because the wise overlords some would put in charge of us are just as fallible and potentially irrational as any one of us. We need the right to judge other people's actions and ideas, and decide whether to deal with them or not.
Her philosophy does not depend on everyone always acting rationally.
"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. It is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one’s consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality-or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make.
When man unfocuses his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions. But in the sense of the word applicable to man-in the sense of a consciousness which is aware of reality and able to deal with it, a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human being-an unfocused mind is not conscious." “The Objectivist Ethics,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 21
Jeff Skilling did act irrationally. Read "The Collapse of a Postmodern Corporation"
And Madoff acted criminally. His investment" schemes were fraudulent. Rand clearly and explicitly argued that it is government's proper role to act against those who initiate force or fraud.
+1969lincolnosiris nope.
So you grew up in a garage?
I grew up in a top floor brownstone floor through on 81st Street between 5th and Madison Avenue.
Alas, no basement as well.
My father died in 2004.
As to basements today- I bought my mother a house in 1994, then bought mine in 2000.
Try again.
The "idoiot"... that's the best laugh I've had all day.
I regret nothing. I am WAITING for you.
Which University? When?
You are absolutely correct. It's irrational of me. Sorry...
Your not a problem. Just a source of hilarity.
You aren't getting away that easily.
I didn't pick a fight. You attacked me first. I'll send screen shots to anyone who decides these questions.
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.
Is that Christopher Hitches?
Middle of the day on a Tuesday and you're here? LOL
People like him do indeed threaten our liberty, and I completely understand your frustration. Imagine his frustration when you prove him wrong and end there. We need to confuse their programming, they are programmed. How else can you explain such nonsense, such contradiction as altruism, if not programming. People like him, I dont let it get that far, one baseless insult tells me he is done, his programming ran out. I point that out to them and end the conversation.
I apologize for assuming that you made a mistake, please forgive me- but yo mentioned "Mr. high IQ". I have no utopian vision- that is collectivism. But people like MrAbacadabra or whatever his name is have to be stopped. Now. The same way that Hitler and Stalin had to be stopped.
With a dangerous animal, that is impossible. He threatens my personal liberty. As he does yours.
I stand behind them right here, right now.
I do not start fights. I finish them.
I am waiting. Yellow coward.
In fact, I am an NRA Bar 4 Sharpshooter.
Shrill and bombastic? Look at the two comments of YOURS that started this.
Hey Luke, who does this describe: "...the key to Rand's influence: the people who organize their lives around Rand's overwrought philosophy are emotional adolescents and the pretense of "rationality" in her books is little more than a justification for youthful narcissism."
My statements about Objectivists are not pure hatred. They're pure satire. I don't hate 9/11 truthers; I make sport of them and laugh my guts out. Why would I hate harmless fools? I just laugh at them. If I really want a good laugh I watch Leonard Peikoff being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. My God, O'Reilly came off as the voice of reason. Now that's funny. Praise to the League of the Furry Quokka!
What a crazy society U.S.A is!! Business, business, business…..!
Hmm, what does Adam Smith's invisible hand refer to?
Spontaneous order
You never went to college, did you? Never read Atlas Shrugged, did you? or The Wealth of Nations, did you?
So what happened to the workers when he moved the company out of Connecticut? Did he take them with him and pay their relocation costs? Did he help them find new jobs? If he did, that's great. If not, well hey, not my problem right?
Fine, what does the "Invisible" hand refer to?
I'm a socialist, but methinks the invisible hand refers to ("In economics and the social sciences, spontaneous order is defined as "the result of human actions, not of human design". Spontaneous order is an equilibrium behavior between self-interested individuals") whilst government intervention would supposedly warp price signals, and increase inequality between the rich and poor.
Then say what you do. HERE and NOW.
Justify? Not at all the issue. The issue is that you have not given fair exchange. I read the Communist Manifesto 30 years ago at Reed Colllege. It was crap then, and it's crap now. Where did YOU go to school?
A Note on Rand's anti-Soviet stance - It led to many philosophical positions for Rand on many topics, but she made several errors (such as attacking altruism itself (which is akin to attacking the tool rather than its use/abuse) rather than the exploitation of it (but she did understand why it could occur - I'll explain below), and she did not progress far enough in philosophy (which can be forgiven considering her position in history - though she was a century before her time, she still lived in mentally-primitive times, where all a philosophical thinker can do is make the noble effort of trying to elevate the mentally deficient paradigms of one's own time), as evidenced by the clueless vanity present at this meeting (you can begin at 0:13, it should turn your stomach) and the continuing failure to have identified any objective philosophical values (before me) which underscores the festering human philosophical, hence mental, hence social ills that still plague man (vanity, envy, hate, war, xenophobia, pathological extremes, a lack of self-worth, pointlessness, depression, and suicide, just to name a few).
She did realize one very important point - that human-condition problem is not economic, political, or social, but philosophical - meaning the problem may be economic, political, or social, but the root cause is (still) a lack of an adequate life-guiding philosophy, which she made an attempt at creating, which contributed much on the political front, but it did not go far enough, still being clueless - for she did not go as far as trying to answer the greatest of the great questions of life, that of "Why bother?" (to do anything). Her level of answer would be, "So you will not suffer in this world under twisted humans." Comparing that answer with the real answer, "Because consciousness is a good thing" (consider the alternative), which leads to the first objective (universal) (ultimate) (core) philosophical value, which leads to the first associated ultimate goal - to secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe (and I am only scratching my new philosophy of broader survival's surface), you can now see how it falls short as a perpetual motivator and guiding principle of life (and people have argued for religions here, but they also have failed - as evidenced by the festering human ills I touched on above).
This video also illustrates one of the failures of academic philosophers - where, rather than addressing the lack of an adequate life-guiding philosophy and attempting to create one (as Rand realized and attempted), they either playing what I call 'lexiconic parlor games', or they hide in history, or they immerse themselves in applied philosophy (as in this video's case, this instance being business philosophy), spinning their wheels in a subjective haze.
On the good side, there were a lot of good old and new insights presented here (for example I liked the word 'narrow-casting' (begin at 0:41), a foresight made in 1995 about the Internet (though that particular originator's other claims have since proven to have been in extreme err (the 'one central voice' concept, which Rand, given her Soviet experiences, would have stood up and beaten back violently) (and one has to admire the speaker's life response to the professor's woeful mindset).
I also contrasted this video with the purely juvenile videos I ran across which attempted to attack Rand (from pro-Socialist standpoints, it turns out (one observation was, "She did not present a properly-run Socialist state", where my immediate thought was that this claimant did not see the peril in that claim, which is "Properly run - by whom?), which to me made this video refreshing (the general ongoing human shortcomings noted above aside).
Just a curious note, I've just begun listing to Atlas Shrugged (having first gone through Rand's straight-up philosophical writings, far ahead of their times, though the liberals that she detested were from the 1930's), and then the pulp fiction book 90 years ahead of its time, "Fountainhead" (with the theme that hit home for me - the eternal dilemmas that the innovator faces). In Atlas Shrugged, she equally exposes Leftist failings and Sleazy Businessmen (many of those directives were originated by sleazy businessmen who did not have the public interest in mind, in other words, businessmen who would have profited by implementing Socialist measures (who were no better than political profiteers), even one as extreme as a new Soviet State, against which is what was at the core of Rand's whole outlook - meaning business people beware - if you become philosophical sleazy (still easy given the ongoing lack of a higher life-guiding philosophy), then you will be on Rand's bad side (born-again free-marketeer 5:37 or not). On 'free', someone once challenged me with the cliche, "You know, America used to be a lot freer than it is now." to which I immediately responded, "Yes, and you can blame that loss on abusers. It goes like this, "OK, we had that freedom, and it was abused, so now we need regulations and laws (still lacking an adequate life-guiding philosophical system, remember). So you can blame it on two things - abusers and the underlying problem of a lack of an adequate life-guiding/motivating philosophy. Needless to say, I lost the person's attention after 140 characters (the limit of a Tweet).
Kudos to Stossel for not wanting to preach to the converted (begin at 6:35 ) and preferring a challenge.
(Continued) Now, do you have anything you want to discuss as far as Objectivism goes, or are you simply incapable of doing so, and are just going to continue tossing insults at me?
True enough, but someone has to plod along keeping the world running so when a real innovator comes along they have the environment which fosters life changing production. Govt hates this because folks like that are hard to rule.
been saying this for a while now..
I know him. And his daughter.
hey jmartecep Huh.Please give me something in the form of a sentence to argue with. If you cant coexist with others maybe you shouldnt be outside of a cage.Mrs Rands writing is moral and she states why it is.You have not stated why it is not.
See what Hitchens said about Mother Teresa.
1) You have just mentioned Conservatives, which I am not, you know what they say when you assume?
2) Are you capable of debating my counter points I made to your statements?
3) To me it looks like I completely countered your whole belief with few counter points, which should make you think, not lash out. If your logic is inconsistent, and makes you unable to counter any arguments I made, perhaps you should relax and think.
As an after though, I dont watch TV, dont recommend it to you either
Then tell me. You're an American. One way or another, it's still the middle of the night when normal people are asleep.
You really can't see how insane these comments of yours are?
I'll grant that these guys have some good points. There is innovation in the private sector. But let's not kid ourselves. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson are the exceptions. At least half the business owners I meet are interested in profit maximization. That's it. They don't care about creating anything really compelling or interesting. I've partnered in some interesting businesses and got funny looks whenever I spoke of beautiful products and vision instead of money money money.
You are going to be so so sorry, friend.
I'm still here, you degenerate. And the wheels are in motion.
Don't you think you're going just a little over the top? In any event Objectivists and Libertarians are not equivalent. Google Peikoff's opinion. As for my, "unprovoked libel against Ayn Rand" you can't libel the dead under common law. In any event what I said about her has been discussed in at least three books I know of and numerous magazine articles and blogs. You have your work cut out for you.
Whom. Not who.
So now I wet my pants? Bwaha! Do go on...
I am going to call my attorney in LA tomorrow. I am going to sue you to the point of collapse.
Liticaphobia - the fear of lawsuits AHhhhhh
Actually, all you are doing is trolling, if you are incapable of countering a single point I have just made, where I have re posted yet again. Well then you are just trolling. If you are not going to even try, then have a good day, as I have mentioned before, I do not feed trolls, and you are just a troll.
Tough guy Rambo talk! You're just too cool.
Libelous. Oh it is going to be so satisfying to see you destitute after my legal counsel takes everything that you have in damages. Tick tick tick...
So I finally shut you up? And you're ready to face me like a man?
I think he was boasting about his high intelligence, so I pocked him a little. I agree that people like him have to be stopped. The question is how and where. How: is answered by Objectivist philosophy of morality in Capitalism. As to where, I really doubt that guy can ever be brought to the point of Objectivism, its a very long road, I myself started out as a socialist, being from USSR, it took me about 10 years to switch.
Tick tick tick...
As a "student of Objectivism" why should you care at all about what I think. What happened to that great aloof independence you "heroes" are supposed to have. After all what was Roark's response to Toohey when they finally met all alone? Be the Objectivist, not a watered down version of soapbxprod whose out to save the world from people who threaten his liberty like Stalin and Hitler. LOL you guys crack me up.
Emotions are allowed within Objectivism. P.S. I'm not an objectivist - I'm a socialist.
One last fact for your consideration... this upload is on The Atlas Society's channel page.
Stick a fork in yourself- you are cooked.
Aren't you an Objectivist? Why should I be called to justify my life based on the benefits others receive from my efforts; that's a collectivist notion. I think you are looking at the wrong videos. You should search some Marxist talks. It fits perfectly with said: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." If you claim to be an Objectivist, you should reread Rand's books. You don't understand them.
Richard Wolff is good.
Libelous. Tick tick tick...
I AM JOHN GALT
No you’re not you’re Matt Mullin
I'm John Galt! Oh wait I'm Dean. Wait am I Adreen? Wait who am I?
The delusions of believers of Ayn Rand are pathetic. Her philosophies are flawed. Period.
Explain these flaws….
If you actually understood Objectivism and disagreed with one or more of its principles, you would have specified what they were and why you disagreed. Since you didn't, you obviously don't.
"He want's me to call him?" Are you Uncle Remus?
why don't you leave ABC where you are silenced and go to FOX, where you are heard? Why no go independent where you are loved? Maybe no more awards. Maybe no more high society. Maybe no more standing before distinguished crowds. But you could give hundreds-of-millions a voice.
I am on you like white on rice.
I hide from nothing. Go ahead, coward. Do your worst.
And finally, I really do not care for your insults, by not responding to my counterpoints, you are only showing your ignorance on the subject. You grew up in the garage you say? I grew up in socialist system in total fear, poverty and hunger, so yes, I do know what Im talking about.
Are you a moral rationalist perchance? Or an objectivist?
I can't say that Ayn Rand is right or wrong. I can, however, say that I disagree with her philosophy, and let's be clear, it's her philosophy. Taking a look our issues, the constant question should be our we discipline enough to coexist? This is the simplest question I can ask and I come up with the same answer, no. Taking account that we all have to take care of ourselves, we also take care of others, altruistic behavior on any level. Ms. Rand's work seems to appeal to a certain type of person. Her Amoral style of writing could be used positively or negatively.
You seem to confuse the concept of OBJECTivism with SUBJECTivism... the whole point is that to be an Objectivist, you must take the facts at face value, and not allow emotions to get in the way of your decision-making. It's called being impartial and unbiased. The concept is that your only real bias is the truth. You dont try to ignore the reality of any situation. Also you must reason for yourself. You make decisions to the best of your own abilities. And you take responsibility and the consequences for your own actions. You dont make decisions based on what someone with more authority says, and then blame them if its wrong. You make decisions go yourself and take full responsibility. All possible viewpoints are included in Objectivism, EXCEPT for others' viewpoints. The central idea is that we must rationalize with each other. A politician can no just say "listen, just do what I say. You can no possibly understand the complexity of the situation. So just do as I say." As an Objectivist, you dont just take their word for it. You expect them to reason with you and change your mind. An economist should be able to sit you down and walk you through their calculations. Those kinds of economists tend to be (if not all) capitalists. I wonder why? You are 199% correct that we as people cannot fully live harmoniously. .. that's why we have a constitutional republic. You dont need a socialist government to provide diapers for everyone. You dont need a bunch of regulations. All you need to say is "if you hurt somebody or their property, there will be consequences". That's what the Constitution says.
I disagree, I wrote my comment a while ago. What I gathered from Ann Rand is that, objectivism, is a two way street. Your self interest, and my self interest have to be on one accord. Logic, She believes that humanity can use logic to make sensible decisions.
What Stossel is talking about is a one way street, without considering other individuals objective.
I can relate to what Ann Rand is saying, however, when her philosophy is taking out of perspective and manipulated, her teaching will go in vain.
More importantly to touch on your comment about our constitution, Ann Rand objectivism philosophy would keep us law biding, respectful and tolerant of others believe, solely on here idea of logic. For example, yourself interest would be in jeopardy if you infringe on an others self interest.
That's what I got out Ann Rand's philosophy.
Now I totally agree with what you just said. I would point out however that there is a difference between considering other's objectives and considering other's PERSPECTIVES. If your objectives (goals) are in line with those of another individual, then you both could come to an amicable consensus through logic and reasoning with each other to form a partnership that would be mutually beneficial. Government itself is, in fact, supposed to be an organization that uses force to protect and defend the universally held contentions of its natural rulers (the people). Such as enforcing laws that protect natural rights that are universally recognized. Stossel was interpreting the OTHER side of objectivism, which is basically intellectual integrity. You cannot just blindly follow what others purport as truth. Dont endorse anything you dont fully understand. For example, there is a reason why political liberalism and socialism are inherently opposed to objectivism. They believe in subjectivism. Those at the bottom feel they aren't intelligent enough to determine things for themselves, and thus abdicate their reason to those with "educations", or degrees, or public office. They perceive public office as this badge that says "I represent the public interest". So they abdicate to the "public", when in reality, they are advocating to another person who happens to be the most popular or the most photogenic... while those liberals and socialists at the top are just as intellectually lazy, while enjoying the arrogance of feeling that there is no higher intellectual ability than their own. So basically there are two types of socialist. One is the passive and submissive supporter/follower who wishes to be ruled. The second is the controlling, ambitious, and arrogant generalist leader who wishes to rule. Its a wolves & sheep relationship. Objectivism is inherently a philosophy of individual liberty. Not only in property, by in an intellectual sense as well. Its about maintaining your intellectual objectivity, independence, and sense of self-worth. To believe that no one else knows what's best for you, better than YOU. Then you are an Objectivist. To sum up my comment, Objectivist believe that no one is born to rule or be ruled (just as the Founding Fathers stated). Socialists believe that there are those who cannot take care of themselves, and those who just "know what's best" better than you do...
The concept of Objectivism cannot be wrong. That's the point. It holds itself up. Its the statement that there are absolute truths out there. Maybe we know them and maybe we dont. Some know them better than others. But you cannot force a person to believe and follow them. You must reason with them. Its free-market. Its capitalistic. Its self-evident based on the fact that we cannot read each other's minds, or know better than them what is best for them. From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability. Period. Let men succeed and fail on their own merit. Otherwise, you allow space for the unfit will rise to power (like a president who isnt fit to perform the duties of the office...), and those who otherwise would have been great benefactors to the public good through their own self-interest, will be beaten down into submission to those unfit rulers.
The reason Objectivism is so relevant today is because government in general is overstepping its boundaries. Its supposed to prevent others from preventing us from doing what's best for ourselves and following our rational self-interest. Instead, government is determining what is in our best interest FOR us, using force to enforce it, and harming many in the process...
I will tell you why. Because I know Maria Cooper. Because I am Abner Biberman's Grandson. Because I know Lizabeth Scott. Because Janet Leigh was like an aunt to me. Because YOU know NOTHING about Ayn Rand.
what the hell going on in the comments
Sue me.
Liticaphobia - the fear of lawsuits
I do get it when most Americans freeze at the mention of socialism/communism because of their historical context. However, the world has changed a lot in the last 50 years. The communist China has adopted capitalist approach to lift its people out of poverty. They have lifted over 750 million people out of poverty in just three decades. They put their people above their principles. They have not become miserable, rather they have become far happier and richer. That’s what I call ‘true objectivism ‘. The chief complaint of Americans about Chinese is they patronage their businesses which makes it difficult to compete with them.That’s paradoxical!! On one hand you say communism is bad for businesses, on the other you accuse them of the opposite. So, the important lesson is this:
One can adopt a capitalist and a socialist approach depending on the situation and still be successful, richer and happier. It also fits nicely into your both selfish and (true)objectivism definition. Why choose half the truth that creates a fault line when you can choose the full truth and become wholesome as well as awesome!!!It is also more Christist than Randist!!
Guy at the beginning is so nervous. Look at him sweating like a wildebeest.
And?….
You used it as a critique, it doesnt matter that is was someone elses joke. I am not talking about your responses, I am talking about your statements about Objectivists being nothing but pure hatred, he only responded to your nonsense with less then shall I say good comments. I am not here to defend soapboxprod, I came here to reply to you, when you stated generalized nothing, meaning, you didnt confront a single thing in objectivism, you dismissed it off hand. (Continues)
If you want to teach your kids about taxes. Tell them that you will pay for a chore, then after they do it, and come to you for their pay, make sure you take "taxes" from their pay. This will leave a lasting impression
Wrong.
You have 0 videos, 0 views, 0 subscribers.
You should heed your own advice.
Eat your heart out.
And you finishing them served no purpose, as all you did is stooped to his level of ignorance, nothing more. You could have easily shrugged off his insults, when leftist start to fling insults that should tell you that they are in a bind, and dont know how to argue your points anymore, which means its time to point it out, and not get drawn into insulting each other.
None of that stops you from acting like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum. Really, what is your problem? This exchange has moved from the amusing to the surreal. My God, calm down and get a life. What difference does it make to you what I think of Ayn Rand and what I have or have not done in my life? You're really ridiculous. You are not acting like someone who has an Objectivist psychology. This is too weird. You are not alone. Rand attracts lots of shrill, bombastic immature people.
Everybody is immature from all the ideologies.
Drowning, no but my gut is sore from laughing at you. If I'm all those things you claim I am; why would my opinion concern you? Your comments and threats are really over the top. How can it bother you if someone doesn't have a very good opinion of Ayn Rand? Especially mine since you think I'm such a zero. (Not that you have any information to claim anything you've accused me of doing/being.) Get a life. Stop living through others and live for yourself. Roark wouldn't think of me, why do you?
[Aside, Unrelated: Demersion - The state of being overwhelmed in water, or as if in water. ]
I have 3000 subs and almost 3 million hits. I am a monetized partner with TH-cam. You are so doomed.
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian.
You are so lost. Come on, out with it. Where did you go to school?
You keep copying and pasting the same thing over and over... it's a sickness, yes?
What is it that you think you called "us out" on? Whatever you think of Rand, I couldnt care less about, unless you actually think that by pointing out her mistakes in her personal life, you are somehow disproving philosophy of Objectivism? Most of them are? I take it you dont really know Objectivism. As far as using Soapbxprod as an example of all of us, well this has got to be the most laughable argument you made so far.