Left Blog

Today’s left ideology made here.

Ayn Rand, sociopathic politics


 At one point Ayn Rand referred to her own work as propaganda. It is militantly capitalistic; she vigorously campaigned for the demolition of the common good. She energetically promoted selfishness, and wrote to root out altruism.

Not only is her whole program diametrically opposed to liberal values, Ayn Rand’s ideals are profoundly undemocratic. She doesn’t just describe a world that was unfortunately Darwinian, but urges that it should be that way.

She always put strength above morality; and she despised the average man. In a letter unearthed by Jeff Walker, she wrote, “I am becoming more antisocial.”


Walker, her biographer, researched her personal journals and found an entry written when she was 30: “One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one’s way to get the best for oneself. Fine!” (All this in the pursuit of happiness.)


This is belligerent contempt for your fellow man. Aggressively pushing your impulses at the expense your group is not normal behavior.  It destroys human bonds. It corrupts community.


It destroys trust. It is sociopathic.


Sound familiar? Yes, because Ayn Rand’s ideology still saturates today’s conservative thinking. Many in Reagan’s cabinet were Randians. Alan Greenspan, ex-chairman of the Fed, was a student and contributed essays to her nonfiction book ‘Capitalism.’ Today’s business tycoons breathe Rand’s incendiary ideals (for philosophers: Rand’s values are neo-Nietzsche who was originator of the war-like superman).


Selfishly putting yourself ahead of the needs of other people, of your group, or the community or society you live in, is anti-society? Well, at one point Rand flatly states, there is no society.


Rand‘s books have influenced the minds and faith of untold millions; today her books are studied by children in schools.


So, now, you think you’re a liberal?  And you fondly keep that dog-eared copy of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and ‘The Fountainhead’ on your bookshelf, promising yourself to enjoy them again some day?


Regrets, but that does not compute.


For further insight into Rand’s world in which altruism is the enemy of advancing civilization, see Jeff Walker’s book The Ayn Rand Cult.


(Jeff Walker also explains why Ayn Rand loathed libertarians, who claim her as their leading light. Part of the problem is that libertarians are not forceful enough. The other part seems to be Ayn Rand’s mountainous ego towards a competing ideology.)




(Sequel Ayn Rand critique here.)








  1. Ayn Rand was human, her books were radical, and I do not doubt that just as many great authors, she had psychological issues. This being said the above would not be written if it wasn’t true that she makes very powerful argument for capitalism and against socialism. While I quite strongly disagree with Rands promotion of atheism and Darwinian thinking, I also strongly agree with her views on capitalism. Everyone, no mater liberal or conservative should read
    Atlas Shrugged, even if you come away disagreeing with it, you will at the least truly understand why so many of us choose capitalism over socialism.

    I personally just look at the world, both capitalist and capitalistic countries for one give much more to charity than socialist. Although they are liberals, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Google founders and the list goes on, are all capitalist, but also use their wealth to help others. The USA is considered by many to be a capitalistic country, yet we give of our wealth from individuals and through the government both to the poor in Africa and other poor parts of the world.

    Look at one of the largest socialist countries of modern times, the United Soviet Socialist Republic, they starved their own people while trying to spread the starvation to other parts of the world via force, before failing. Sure many will argue with me that Communism and Socialism are opposites, and that the USSR was Communist and not Socialist. I will agree with you to a point, but will argue that voluntary socialism can and does work. When it is forced on the people by the government it becomes closer to communism and begins to fail. This is why I am against most government enforced social programs and for free enterprise when it is practiced within the constraints of law and morality. Ayn Rand had some thing right and other wrong, this still does not make here argument for Capitalism null and void.

    Comment by David | January 31, 2009 | Reply

    • Unregulated Capitalism, or Socialism without incentive other than helping your fellow man are not workable in a real society. On one hand unbridled greed and power will eventually enslave the masses, on the other, there is no real reward for individual effort. I would subscribe to a kind of social-capitalistic society, where the common good is protected but individual merit is rewarded, both regulated by a true government of the people, by the people, and for the people; no resemblance to what we have now.

      Comment by Anonymous | May 6, 2009 | Reply

      • Here Here.

        Comment by Chris | May 20, 2009

      • Really! I agree whole heartedly. Anyone who agrees with David might find it interesting to check out the Venus Project. Co-founder Jacque Fresco provides a unique pamphlet entitled “The Zeitgeist Movement, Observations and Responses, An Activist Orientation Guide.” I also found the following of useful: “Shattering the Sacred Myths: The Metaphysics of Evolution” by Robert Charles Stewart. Thanks again David for your succinct comment. Now how the heck to we get there?

        Comment by Leo | June 10, 2009

      • Populism is impractible, as it presumes that the common man has a clue. They generally don’t, and by no means does “the majority.”

        Your “soical-capitalism” doesn’t sound exactly workable. It is a philosophical misinterpretation that leads to the idea that capitalism=enslavement; capitalism is only practicible is *everyone* is free.

        Besides, every politician just loves to sling around nonsense about the common good, but do they define it? Of course not. They want you in the dark.

        The common good is a buzzphrase without actual definition–no one really knows what the common good is.

        The actual common good is freedom, so that individuals can persue whatever is actually good for them, rather than what the government feels you need.

        Comment by Owen Kellogg | January 2, 2011

      • You got it. Right that is.

        Comment by Anonymous | April 9, 2012

      • What people negate is that our primary philosophy that we hold in America is a pure corruption of reality that sees individual sacrifice as the solution. We do not hold a solutions focused philosophy that is humanities core issues, so we buy into scarcity thinking. ( Negating the Trillions of stars and energy in our night sky and enough sun hitting the earth in a single day to power our civilization for a year. As long as we hold up sacrifice as the solution, negate science, reason and intelligence, expect a world much like the one we have. You want a better world? Adopt a better philosophy, one not based in corruption, contradiction and magical thinking.

        Comment by Jim | August 15, 2012

      • Are you mad? The entire point of Rand’s philosophy was that the use of PHYSICAL FORCE was eliminated, therefore it is impossible for the masses to be enslaved to greed, or anyone. In your socio-capitalistic world, however, it is EVERYONE that is enslaved to the state, which holds a monopoly on the use of force.

        Comment by Anonymous | June 12, 2014

    • you fawn over your your rulers like a slave loves his masters. statist capitalism is corporatism is fascism is tyranny. stop watching msnbc and cnn, zombie dave. you make the rest of us look bad.

      capitalism is fine, and ayn rand did have great things to say, but in her world the government isnt in bed with the corporations and the media doesnt control the minds of the ignorant masses in America unless we are socialist. In reality America has been controlled by a few powerful combines (ziabatsu) since its inception and will continue to be controlled by them as we make the switch into National Socialism.

      if Atlas Shrugged came with a summary it would look like this:


      DAVE REVOLUTION! (but not this guy)

      Comment by dave here | May 6, 2009 | Reply

      • Where do I begin to answer the above post that not a fking clue as to what is going on in socialist countries… Denmark and Norway are small countries, with Northern Europeans in them…whose culture are very old, and for the most part they DO NOT HAVE ANY illegal alien problems, they are not overwhelmed by transients and people who do not have a genetic anti-work ethic, and their experiment with socialism is ending. Why? Because under socialism these countries are now experiencing the same kinds of crime and problems that the socialist United States has experienced over the past 60 years…when the US began “paying” stupid women, who were not married to have children.

        Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan wrote many books on the subject of the consequences of “welfare” ..in which he not only predicted that crime and many social problems would rise and become out of control, but history has shown that he was right. The Swedes, Norwegians, and the Danish have learned first hand, that when the control of one’s rights, money, property, HEALTH CARE, free will, etc…are taken away and regulated by the STATE…then people no longer exercise any self control or self respect for anyone. We all just become “disposable tools of the state.”

        Ergo..European socialism has not only destroyed Europe, but as a result of 50 years of degradation, these socialist countries are dismantling socialism …because it has FAILED on every level and created a fking mess.

        My next door neighbors are from Denmark…and because abortion is free and legal…and (pay attention Lefties)…men are required BY LAW to take care of their children or they go to jail, the Danes do not have father-less children. It is not allowed…IF a father does not pay for his children, his income is taxed, or he is put in jail. If a mother claims she doesn’t know who the daddy is…she gets no welfare. Duh..

        Whereas, the US creates “welfare” children as a national past time, all paid for and promoted by the Left Wing Fascist Democrat Party to create more Democrat/socialist voters who are all dependent on the socialist US government. The result of this Left Wing Democrat socialist welfare breeding program…has been a rise in crime by 3000% over the past 60 years in the US. How nice.

        Both countries are racially similiar, there are NO black people or Hispanics, and Moslems represent only .07 of the population. And pay attention: In the last 10 years…98% of all crime in both Denmark and Norway, including rape, robbery and murder…are caused by MOSLEMS. IE the very Moslems the Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians “took in” in order to achieve some kind of racial “diversity.” What a joke…boy are they unhappy that they took in these fools. Just because someone steps across a border, it does not mean that they immediately drop their failed personalities..and become good little Danes or Norwegians. As a result, the borders are for the most part closed…and the rest of this Moslem scum is being booted out the first time they sneeze. And the worst kind of racism, based on state socialism (Aloors! Shades of Hitler’s socialism…) is on the rise (see below article).

        Oh yes…both countries attempted to give them free language lessons, free housing, free welfare checks, employment, sent their kids to school, blah, blah, blah…and in return, the Moslems claimed that they emigrated to Europe…to create an Islamic one-world government and they didn’t give a flying fk about being a good little Swede, a nice Dane, or a Happy Norwegian. How nice.

        If the US…was to emulate these two countries, they would have to get rid of all but .07 Black people, Hispanics, illegal aliens, and the Moslems…and raise the educational level of those who are left.

        It is always the LEFT WING ZOMBIES…who make such ridiculous and stupid neoreligious statements about such things they “dream” about, but have not a fking clue as to what they are talking about. It just must be horrible for those on the Left to walk around with their heads up their anus…they can’t see or hear a damn thing. All they can do is smell the caca and dream of a utopian socialist world.

        By the way…because so many people in Denmark and Norway have become unhappy with this socialists system, that became increasingly dominated by bureaucrats…over regulation, too many laws, and over taxation, so that no one could accumulate any wealth…to create their own companies, or pursue other tracts of interest…the VERY BEST AND BRIGHTEST OF THESE COUNTRIES CITIZENS ARE EMIGRATING TO THE US. DUH…can you guess what the reaction then is to this “brain drain?”

        If the Left could get your head out of your anal orifice so you can spend some time researching both countries, you will find they are dismantling some of the most egregious aspects of their socialist economies. Here, I’ll help you do something besides “parrot” such blathering horse crap as you are told to repeat…without a clue as to the veracitity of what you are stating:

        “By Jorn K. Baltzersen
        web posted February 11, 2002

        It was the morning of September 11, 2001 (Central European Daylight Time). In Norway Election Night was just over. On the day before the Norwegian electorate had kicked out the socialist majority in Parliament. The Labor Party had just had its worst election since 1927…..

        Denmark is also an example of failed socialism (Don’t you people on the Left read anything but the Huffer’s Post or the Daily Kossack? to wit: Denmark: A Case Study in Social Democracy

        By Per Henrik Hansen

        [Posted July 22, 2003]

        In a previous article—”Denmark: Potemkin Village”—I documented the downside to Denmark. Despite its reputation as a showcase of political utopia, 40 percent of its adult population live on government transfer income, full-time, all-year. A little more than a third of these people are pensioners and the rest are working age. About one third of the people who actually hold a job work for the government or government-owned companies. The effective tax level is around 70 percent, not the 50 percent that is usually reported (the lower figure comes about by disregarding the effects of the sales tax and excise taxes). …Practically all people are eligible for one program or another. But the system is unsustainable in the longer run. In the early 1970s only about 300,000 people of working age lived full-time all year on government welfare. Today it is about 900,000. The population size has remained unchanged at around 5 million. In the not too distant future, more people are going to be pensioners and fewer people will be working age. At some point, the trough will be empty.

        The welfare state has also nationalized many of the formerly family support functions. In 1960, 91 percent of all women 30 years of age were married. Today, fewer than 50 percent are. Partly this is because people are marrying later in life, and yet a considerable part of the explanation is that many people do not marry at all.

        Of the people who do get married, more people get a divorce today. In 1975, 18 per cent of all the marriages from 1950 had ended in a divorce during the preceding 25 years. In 1995, 36 per cent of the marriages from 1970 had ended in a divorce. Of marriages in 1985, 20 per cent ended in a divorce after only 7 years. As a result of the above, many more people live in single households today than did in 1960. In 2000, one third of all adults in Denmark were living alone.

        If we next look at the crime level, the Danish Statistical Yearbook 2002 shows reported crimes from 1935 to 1960 to be stable: about 100,000 crimes per year. But from 1960 until today, the number of crime reports has increased by 500 percent, to more than 500,000 per year. And if we look at violent crime, the picture is even grimmer. The number of violent crimes in 1960 was approximately 2,000; it is approximately 15,000 today. This is an increase of more than 700 percent, and it is still rising steeply.

        This is a very surprising development. Welfare state advocates often say that crime is caused by poverty. Well, Denmark has become about twice as rich per citizen during this period of rising crime.

        Another argument is that poverty is caused by economic inequality. Well, Denmark has engaged in the most comprehensive income redistribution program of any nation. Denmark is the most egalitarian country in the world today.

        So, a rising crime level is the last thing the welfare statists might have predicted using their own theory. Maybe there is some other independent factor causing the development? Denmark has taken in a great number of immigrants and refugees from third-world countries. These immigrants unfortunately are greatly overrepresented in the crime statistics—something like 5 to 1—but they only account for less than 10 percent of the population, and hence cannot account for the entire increase in crime….

        Now let us talk about David’s comments about Sweden which he also has not a clue as to what he’s parroting, or why…to wit:

        Sweden is not only dismantling its pure socialist state, but under Swedish socialism, they are now being accused of becoming “NEO-NAZIs.” Why? Because “socialism” is nothing more than FASCISM…and creates an arrogant “belief” that socialist can COERCE all people into living in not just a regulated “economic” state…but a nationalist state based on racism or ideology.

        Bet you stupid Left Wing Goons…didn’t see that one coming…even though Hitler’s SOCIALISM…wrote the book on racial, ethnic, and elitist domination of all human beings, in which there are NO individual rights…all such “rights” are then seceded to the socialist police state.

        Even in the monthly journal of the Socialist Party “Socialism Today,” Issue 45, Feb 2000…the socialists are shocked that the Swedes are evolving into NeoNazis….

        And you neoreligion Socialist twits…just don’t get it…once you create a “police” state to impose your Obama World on the USA…then in this “police state” you have no idea who will become the NAZIs…now do you? Or is your Brown Shirt and your Hob Nail Boots hidden in the closet…for now. All anyone has to do is go to YouTube.com and see the video Obama’s paramilitary police in action, young black kids, all goose stepping and rapping to Obama…Their Uber Leader. You Left Wing Loons disgust me.

        So…why don’t you learn something from your Swedish socialist brothers…and head off socialism, so we don’t have to go through the same crap as the Europeans..read below:

        —Issue 45, September 1999

        Sweden’s Neo-Nazis

        REPRESENTATIVES OF 45 countries, including Britain’s New Labour government, the German Social Democrats, and Lionel Jospin’s French Socialist Party, met in Stockholm at the end of January for a conference on the Nazi Holocaust. Almost 55 years since the end of the second world war, these politicians have created this opportunity for themselves to play the ‘good guys’, condemning racism and fascism. Unfortunately for them, they met in a country hosting Europe’s most violent fascists.

        In 1999, Sweden witnessed several brutal killings, including the deaths of two policemen executed with their own guns by three Nazi robbers and the premeditated murder of trade union activist, Björn Söderberg. On New Year’s Eve, 19-year old Salih Uzel was killed by Nazis in a working-class suburb of Stockholm. A gang of Nazi youth attacked his brother’s family and Salih and other Turks came to help. Salih was stabbed and then kicked while he was lying on the ground dying. Later, in the police cell, the murderer daubed a swastika on the wall with his own blood.

        A Berlin newspaper reported in the autumn that German Nazis look to Sweden for guidance. Swedish Nazis have established a leading role in White Power music, releasing 342 CDs last year. They also have a computerised intelligence network covering all their ‘enemies’, including address lists, details of relatives, car registration numbers, etc. In June, journalist Peter Karlsson and his eleven-year-old son escaped near death from a car bomb. They were saved by the fact that they had not closed the car doors. The journalist was living undercover with a new identity after exposing Nazis in the army. He had also written articles on the White Power music industry which resulted in CD producers in Italy, Taiwan and the US ending their contracts with the Swedish Nazis.

        The Nazi parties and networks are dangerous but relatively small – at most a couple of hundred organiZed members. They have attracted a couple of thousand people around them, consisting mainly of young White Power music followers. The fascist groups are constantly experiencing splits and crises. They are unable to establish a firm base because of the lack of support for their ideas and, just as importantly, the active resistance of anti-fascists, in which Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (RS – Socialist Justice Party, the Swedish section of the Committee for a Workers’ International) has played a key role.

        In 1999, the establishment parties suddenly started condemning Nazi terrorism. They had spent the previous decade proclaiming that maybe the fascists were not really fascists at all and should, as a rule, be ignored. But the Left Party and Conservative Party leaders stood alongside each other at the big demonstration in Stockholm after the murder of Söderberg in October. For the first time, the LO (Swedish trade union federation) leader was forced to speak on an anti-fascist platform alongside other union leaders. In November, four daily newspapers published the photos and names of 60 leading Nazis.

        All of the politicians, union leaders and media, however, avoid the key question: Why is fascism coming back? Leaders of the establishment want to hide the fact that the return of Nazism has taken place alongside the return of mass unemployment and the implementation of ‘austerity packages’ in the 1990s – policies dictated by the capitalist market. From 1991 to 1994, unemployment in Sweden exploded from 2% to 15%. Between 1994 and 1998 the state budget deficit was cut from 15% of GDP to less than 3%. This has created a new sense of uncertainty: ‘Is this really Sweden?’ The fascists try to exploit this feeling of insecurity.

        While speaking against fascism, the politicians are deepening and developing pro-market and pro-EU policies, thereby continuing to feed the fascists and racists. The state itself is a leading racist force, treating refugees as criminals. On average, 10,000 refugees have been thrown out of Sweden every year in the last decade! This in a country renowned for its warm welcome, especially for the tens of thousands of Latin American refugees who came over in the 1970s. Combined with earlier migrations of workers, mainly from Finland, Turkey and Yugoslavia, the arrival of refugees in the 1970s and 1980s has meant that 20% of people living in Sweden now have a foreign background.

        Last year, the Social Democratic prime minister, Göran Persson, launched a campaign to ‘educate and inform’ people about the Nazi Holocaust. But in the month leading up to his beloved international conference new scandals emerged. A new book and TV series showed that between 300 and 500 Swedes who volunteered for Hitler’s Waffen SS have never been prosecuted. The Social Democratic-led coalition government during the second world war was officially neutral but was, in reality, extremely cooperative with Nazi Germany. Hundreds of Communists were put in camps, while pro-German newspapers were left untouched. Business with Germany flourished. Under pressure from the Simon Wiesentahl Centre in Israel, Persson has now promised an investigation. In German courts, Ukrainian workers who were used as slave labour during the war by the Swedish multinational, SKF, are suing for damages.

        Workers and youth can’t trust anything in the politicians’ speeches against racism or fascism. Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna, and the Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna youth in the leadership of Elevkampanjen – the school students’ campaign – are part of the movement which demonstrated outside the politicians’ conference. We are campaigning for action against Nazi terror. This means school student strikes and pressure on the trade unions to organise a one-hour political strike and anti-fascist rallies, with the aim of establishing Nazi-free zones in schools and workplaces. We are demanding the restoration of the right of asylum and are fighting against deportations and the EU’s barriers against refugees. And, alongside organising with anyone who wants to take action, we are stressing the need for an internationalist, socialist society, to really undermine fascism and racism.

        Per-Åke Westerlund,
        Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna

        Now..in consideration of all of the above…how can you Left Wing Socialists…then hate Ayn Rand, and Conservatives…who state that there is only one human right…and that is to be respected as an individual, whereby the “state” cannot take away those rights…for any reason.

        I will state emphatically, that if you take the time to read Ayn Rand…you will see that Objectivism, and the laws of Objectivism, i.e. individual rights…is the only progressive, intelligent, right, and humane form of government in the future. All the socialism that the Left and Dems seek…is nothing more than tribalism, and will result in a bunch of neoNazis…goose stepping and stamping out the rights of others.

        Wake up America…all the socialist, Democrat, Left Wing Obama “demands” for state control…will lead to nothing but a degrading, arrogant, FASCIST utopian world…

        The 20th Century was and REMAINS the American Century…and the US is NOT passe, but the People of the United States…are showing that in 50 years…this seduction by the failed, Fascist Left and the Democrats will be just a background note in the history books. And…

        I expect, that the leading countries will be those who have emulated the United States Capitalist system, which creates wealth for the most number of people…if the Europeans can rid themselves of socialism…using the forward and the now evolving thinking of the Chinese, India and possibly BrazilIAN CAPITALISM as a bench march of success and respect for the power of Individual RIGHTS.



        Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 25, 2009

      • Brilliant. You’ve captured the socio-economic mess that we now face as a nation, thanks to 50 years of socialist and statist policies foisted on us by the Left. Where are Ronald and Ayn when we need them, where is our Superman?

        Comment by Rich | August 1, 2009

      • Good job catching the relation between state capitalism and fascisim, but you err when you say that our current economic system is fine.

        Currently, there are exactly 0 free, capitalist economies in the world. The historical total is identical. Every economy in history from Sumer to today has been unfree. The state has always had the final word, and byzantine laws have hindered progress.

        Our economy is no exception to the rule. We have a government which can nationalize 100% of the economy anytime the darn well please (though over my broken and bleeding body) and institutionalized bad habits. It takes weeks to get a business license, lawyers sucking the only halfway decent companies left dry, and a ridiculously high income(!) tax.

        It’s a wonder we’re here at all.

        Comment by Owen Kellogg | January 2, 2011

    • I’m with you, David. All the investigations into countries with the happiest people find places like Denmark, Norway, etc., win out. Those are heavily taxed places with socialist-capitalist mixed economies. Norway has a lot of oil, but Denmark has a minimum of natural resources. So, how did that country get to be happy, healthy, and economically viable?

      Look at the Swedish method of dealing with failing banks: nationalize them, cure their problems, and then finally put them back into private hands but with heavy regulation. That worked; the US “save capitalism” method may work but at a lot heavier cost.

      The US still cannot accept the notion that a “single-pay” health care system is fair and works well. It’s the only major industrialized country which doesn’t have such a system.

      The 20th Century was the American century, but the US is becoming rapidly passe. In 50 years, I expect that the leading countries will be the European Union, China, India, and possibly Brazil.

      Wake up America!

      Comment by Mike | May 18, 2009 | Reply

      • All the investigations into countries with the happiest people find places like Denmark, Norway, etc., win out.

        Yep, sure thing, Mike.

        What utter, low brow, nonsense. Do you believe everything you read if it happens to agree with your a priori perspectives??

        Such surveys are always conducted by Leftists, usually ‘academics’ and ‘think’ tanks. Their polls are biased from the start. They ask questions that limit the respondent to forms of answer that support the pollsters viewpoint in one form another.

        Did you ever wonder how they define “happiness”? Is it enough cash to get drugs? …enough inactivity and socializing to think so shallow a life is good? Is it the happiness of a peasant farmer? Is it the happiness of going to the factory, returning home, and having a beer?

        Or, is it the happiness of seeing a novel you have worked on, for 60 hrs a week for ten years, become one of few massive successes of centuries! Not only does it bring you enormous respect, but it brings you the wealth you need
        to see the World,
        to live in several homes of special architecture, which you love,
        to help friends and family succeed if they deserve it,
        and more, without having others take & spend 50% of what you earned on people and causes you oppose.

        The people polled cannot really indicate what they hate, because the questions are not posed so as to allow it.

        I know this, because I have answered MANY telephone polls about our Canadian Federal and Provincial Liberal (socialist) and Conservative (quasi religious) governments’ policies. Time and again, I have been asked questions of the above type. I have ended up questioning the pollsters sanity, and the poor sap on the phone ends up agreeing. They see how biased their questions can be.

        No doubt the Vodkha swilling Russians believed their society was superior to those of the West. You would have believed it, Ayn Rand did not. She saw the little details that said otherwise: tourists with nice jeans is perhaps the best known detail. The Russian youth were willing to pay much of a month’s gov’t check to get them!

        The same bias of these polls is characteristic of the Swedish Nobel Prizes. Al Gore??? Yasser Arafat??? Come on. When the intellectual ‘elite’ are THAT depraved, surely you should pause to consider that something larger is wrong. Rand identified it, though her corrections are not popular, they are unpopular because Western culture has so thoroughly accepted idiotic premises that they cannot grasp the good when their face is rubbed in it.

        Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009


        You have to be kidding me…have any of you ever been there? It is cold as hell and dark 9 months out of the year…They do nothing but drink and smoke pot…and live on welfare…the are bored out of their skulls.

        And when they get a chance, they immigrate to the US…where they can work at what they want to do, travel, and make money $$$$$$$$$$$$$….save for the future, or buy that Cadillac if they want.

        Have any of you “NUMB NUTS” Left Wingers been in jail…or had a social worker or the “thought police” trail around after you…making sure you comply with the Left Wing dogma de jure?…well, that’s what its going to be like if O. Hussein Obama gets his way…Obama’s world would be like having a Nagging Mammy on your ass 24-hours a day…only Obama’s Nagging Mammy…might just put you in jail for not being PC….Hmmmm?


        I cannot imagine anyone claiming that they are the happiest people in the world in a socialist state where they have no choices, no say, no vote, no individualism, no rights, and are over taxed, over regulated…and disrespected as a person.

        You know…you can sell that shit to HUSSEIN Obama’s little pack of Marxist goons…but in the real world, all that crap about socialism making us all happy…is just another idiotic Left Wing propaganda trick attempting to make us happy while we sit in our jail cell of a country. Sorry…but you poor little Left Wing numb nuts twits don’t realize it…but, we have had 300 years of Freedom…and the gene pool of this country are some of the most individualist people in the world. And you Left Wing Goons think you can tame us? Hahahahaha….dream on fools.

        It is not working…watch all the FORMER Obama voters, who feel betrayed…ambushing all the Democrats and just flaying them alive every time some of these Dems and Hussein’s Czars show up in public. I love it and its Revolution Time…

        See you in the streets…homies.

        Judy Weismonger PhD

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 3, 2009

      • Mike, those countries like Denmark and Norway also have some of the highest rates of suicide and nihilism. When people are tied to the government, when their fates are regulated by the government, when you can’t succeed or fail in life, people lose meaning. Sure, some people may have all the basics and don’t complain, giving high “happiness” ratings. But those people feel no meaning in life. They become existentialists. Every time you give someone a government handout they lose part of the sole and become more and more like an appendage of the state rather than a sovereign human being.

        Comment by Ayn Rand | June 12, 2014

    • I read Jeff Walker’s book and he describes Rand and her followers as “atheistic jews.” Doesn’t that sound just a little intolerant, especially on this blog? In fact, it sounds like he is classifying them by their race/religion. OMG!

      Comment by robert | May 30, 2009 | Reply

      • It is what they call themselves numb nuts….

        I know a bunch of “atheist” Jews….when they state they are Jews…it means they consider themselves cultural Jews…not religious Jews.

        A poll of Jews has found that fully 50% of the Jews are either atheist, agnostic, nontheist, or not religious.

        You need also to read the book “How Jews Saved the World,”…why, did they save the world? Because Jews as a culture, a genetic group, a tradition…etc. think and they analyze…and are by far the most individualistic people in the world. Have you ever seen three Jews in a room? They argue and argue and argue and pick the topic to death.

        Marx…was a Jew, but an idiot. He never worked a day in his life, he married into rich Prussian aristocracy, who because of his babbling bull shit thought he was a genius, simple because he had something new to say.

        Most Jews I know today…many of whom are recent immigrants from the USSR…hate anything that has to do with Marx or communism, or socialism…or fascism.

        Now why would it NOT make sense…for many of Rand’s devotees to not be Jewish and Atheists?

        You poor left Wing twits don’t get it…Socialism stands for human slavery, its just communism-lite…and yet, you “believe” in socialism/fascism just like some bible-thumping numb nuts twit, and promote it like some xian greasy-haired preachers jumping around on the stage…promoting some mythical jebus.

        If you left wingers knew how stupid you sound and look…you would be embarrassed being such Left Wing cowards and babies. And all of Hussein’s butt boys getting all the tax payers’ money…laugh at you. You are the kind of idiots who hold the door open for bank robbers…then you say….”Oh Thank you for robbing us…we didn’t need all that nasty money anyway.”

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 3, 2009

    • If you can’t look at society today and see alarming paralells with Atlas Shrugged then you are truly viewing the world through shit colored glasses, as Jon Stewart is wont to say. If Obama is our Saviour in Chief, why hasn’t the economy turned around? Why has he promoted and authorized more spending in 6 short months than in the 200+ years prior? If you understand the concept of fiat money, then you understand that it is only viable when kept in a reasonably short supply. If we just keep throwing wood in the stove, eventually it will melt and the house will burn down. While he is overseas apologizing for our nation, hopefully a stray thought will enter his mind; something along the lines of “Why do I hate America so much? It’s given me so many things that I should be thankful for. Maybe a ‘white man’s greed’ doesn’t keep the world in need. Maybe good old fashioned white men work their asses off and are tired of being excoriated by every non white male politician and society member. Maybe they provide the lion’s share of benefits to this nation. Maybe I should stop fucking the country royally.” We can only hope.

      And for all who will come after this and attempt to unravel what I have said, fuck you. Conservatism causes this nation to prosper. Liberalism is the political equivalent of Zyklon-B. Hope your pill tastes better than mine did…

      Comment by George | June 11, 2009 | Reply

      • Why hasn’t the economy turned around?

        Because the use of spending bills is based on the fact that money introduced to the economy gains force and increases a nations aggregate demand by being spent over and over and over again. Sorry but that just can’t happen in the space of 6 months.

        Thats what pisses me off about people blaming Obama or any President in power for the current economic situation. However, it is not your fault, I blame our education system for not providing adequate information to EVERYONE. So understand this: economic policies take at least a year and often longer to take effect.

        Great Depression is always a good example. The economy both Hoover and FDR inherited was shit, (FDR more so). Hoover’s policies of letting the economy do its own thing did little to help (and thats what he was advised to do by the prevailing school of classical economists of the time) although again, the President is often blamed for a current economic situation that he had nothing to shape, save if he has been president for more than one term. Moving on, the Great Depression didn’t end after FDRs first year in office, let alone his 2nd, and much of his 3rd. 12 years people! And this crises is becoming astronomically worse than that of the Great Depression. I wouldnt pass judgement so soon in terms of economics. Were going to be in this for the long haul if you expect a full recovery.

        The current economic state is the result of Bush’s policies, period. Obama hasnt had time to acutally have his policies take effect.

        That being said, the current economic crises will take several years to be righted. Thats how deep a hole Bush dug us in with immense spending on wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, “Drugs”, “Terror”, and a whole new executive department (Homeland Security). Which on of those is not like the other? I find the need for a Department of Homeland Security very justified. Whether the wars are justified or not, they are still very very very expensive.

        As a side note, comparisons to Rand may be valid but in her own words she despised Nietzsche.

        Note: This is what i just learned this year in AP Economics. If i completely missed the point while getting an A and scoring a 5/5 on the AP, go ahead, blast me.

        Comment by Will | June 16, 2009

      • I find it amusing that you ridicule someone for lack of education, and then attempt to claim that Hoover took a hands off approach to the economy.

        If Hoover was hands off, why did FDR attack him as Socialist when campaigning?

        Ever heard of Smoot Hawley Tariff acts? The Revenue Act of 1932? These items exaccerbated the Depression.

        But the Great Depression was created by unsound monetary policy. The Fed usurped the role of bank clearing houses, and then did nothing to prevent a banking collapse, essentially reducing the money supply by 1/3.

        Didn’t you learn any of that while gaining your condescending expertise in economics in AP HIGH SCHOOL economics?

        Comment by John | July 17, 2009


        Good point Robert….the Left hates themselves, and hates others…why? Because the Left has a difficult time dealing with reality and childhood disappointments and failures, and sound almost the same as the religious freaks. Worse…the Left are cowards and have no self esteem or self confidence to solve any of their problems…ergo, the Left has to ultimately turn into a “gang” of neoNazis…it is inevitable. This will be part of Obama’s “change”…when he inaugerates (sic) a National Civilian Security Force.

        The mark of a grown up..is a human being who recognizes, that “Yes, he or she did have a difficult childhood, etc,, but as an adult they are responsible for their own behavior and economics.” And, as an adult…they don’t have to engage in self serving group identity with a pack, a herd, an insect hive, or a “gang” to function. Nor as an adult… do they have to “rob” other people of their money and rights.

        The Professional Blamers and Perpetual Victims on the Left, however……exists as 12 year old children, who are pissed off at their daddy and mommy who can’t give them everything they want, ergo, they want a new SUPER DADDY-GOD, WHO PROMISES THEM EVERYTHING THEY HAVE EVER DESIRED…and the best part is, that the Left believes that mommy and daddy can be replaced by the Messiah Daddy Obama and his Chicago band of Thugs…Hey, let’s hear some of that Chicago Gangsta Rap!

        The Left think and function emotionally like little children…to wit: Why there is really a Santa Claus…(the American tax payer who they intend on robbing)…and Magic really exists (Yeppers…Obama can snap his fingers, and all the problems of the entire world will just disappear if the “mean old” Conservatives, the GOP, and those white people, and those nasty, arrogant Ayn Randites will just get out of the way).

        And…the Left Wing Fascist Loonies…like little kids, hate to do their homework. They hate having to look something up, its all so much more FUN and easier, to just parrot what someone body else says, who hates their daddy too….

        I will never, ever forget the day after the election when individuals on the street were being interviewed as to their reaction regarding Obama being elected. In my city, the reporters went to the “negro” part of town…and one Obama voter after another said…:

        Horray! We won…we will never have to pay our mortgages again, I’ll get a check for the rent, I’ll get free groceries, my utilities, car note and insurance will be paid for…I’ll get a great job if I want one…Obama’s going to give me everything, and he’s going to put all those white folks and those Republicans in jail.”

        Right on Brother…show us your Left Wing Fascist neo religious bull shit beliefs…shine up those hob nailed boots, get that Sam Brown belt out, and that those Brown Shirts pressed and ready to wear. While you are at it…learn how to goose step, it looks sooooo koool! Seig Heil Obama…Seig Heil Obama…Seig Heil Obama!!!!!!!!!!!

        In July 2008, Obama spoke in Colorado and stated that when he became president, he was going to “create a citizens’ national police force…to keep tabs on the police, the military, the polluters, and those who are against “progress.” Obama’s citizen army will have powers of arrest and prosecution.” See YouTube.com…”Obama’s Civilian Security” Video…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

        Now is there any doubt in your mind as to Why? Professor Gates thought he could get away with insulting a police offer’s mother?

        What the most educated, erudite, and superior, most moral, reverand, and elegant professor Gates said to the police officer was:


        You can take a man out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the man.

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 25, 2009

      • Will, buy a clue, if you haven’t given all your money to unnecessarily homeless people. The problem is that the government is trying to get us out of a crisis by spending money we don’t have. Government spending is only rarely the answer. It is never the answer to an economics problem.

        Comment by Owen Kellogg | January 2, 2011

    • Who decides what is the common good? What gives anyone the right to decide what is good for another person? How do unbridled greed and power enslave the masses? You can’t have socialism and capitalism, they are mutually exclusive philosophies.

      Comment by Tim | June 18, 2009 | Reply

      • why obama and his goose stepping youth…get to determine what is the common good TIM…and they think they are going to get to enforce it too…see for yourself. Youtube: com

        Watch as all these kids stamp their feet in unison, march up and down….sing praises to Obama…and declare themselves as the Vanguard for Obama’s CHANGE.



        Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 25, 2009

      • Thank you, Tim–for asking the right questions.

        Comment by Owen Kellogg | January 2, 2011

    • In the original article above…it was stated that Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is bad because …”It destroys trust. It is sociopathic.”

      Trust of whom, by whom? What can we exactly “trust” the poor to do? What is the history of the poor? What exactly has the “poor” contributed to progress or individual rights? Please, oh please let me know.

      Does the originator of the first article…truly believe like the religious…that to be poor is so wonderful, and that the poor are simply saints to the point that all problems can be solved if every is POOR.

      The author of the above article states that “voluntary socialism can and does work…”…because if we are all POOR then we too can become saints. If this is true…why is it that the “poor” have the highest crime rates per capita…and the “richer” a country and its population is…the less crime there is…

      What incredible garbage is socialism…invented by those with the minds of Insects…driven by jealousy, hate, and revenge in the name of class warfare and socialist theft…to punish the rest of us who refuse to function like an insect.


      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 27, 2009 | Reply

    • TRUST: I don’t get it. Why am I obligated to trust you…especially when you FAscist/Socialist Assholes want to take my money and give to the “poor” of your choice…meaning anyone you want to…meaning what ever Rich CEO’s are Friends of Obama. You have to be kidding!

      If there ever was a reason to NOT trust you Left Wing Chicago Thugs and Liars…all I have to do is read the daily newspaper and see what NEW scheme the Obama Chicago Thugs are dreaming up to destroy not just my country anymore…but my fucking HEALTH!

      Fuck you…and the socialist horse you road to town on.

      Trust my ass?!

      You don’t deserve to be trusted…you should be put in jail for attempted robbery.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 3, 2009 | Reply

    • David…in reading your apologetics, you have been duped and shepherded into being a tool of the Left…Below is the tactics of the Left and how the “Right” and individuals fall into their trap by being “nice” or tolerant, or making excuses, etc.

      RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

      ***Until recently, the Left was a minority, and to some extent remain a minority position. The reason Obama won, is because he camouflaged himself as a “moderate”…and appealed to the large middle class moderates. Another tactic was to be “loud”…scream and yell, show up with bullies, throw pies in the face of speakers they didn’t like…intimidate everyone by making all kinds of threats. Jesse “The Extortionist” Jackson…blackmailed hundreds of companies, from Denny’s to Ford Motor Company, that if they did not “hire” blacks, and hand over $1 million in donations…Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition would go to the press and scream racism…and demand a boycott. James Dobson of the Christian right is now using the same tactics…demanding that large retail advertisers put the word “Christmas” in tneir advertising. The Secular Right can do the same thing, i.e. boycott TV and Radio advertisers who support the Liars on the Left. Already NBC and CBS are suffering from a decline in the advertising dollar because of such tactics.

      RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

      ***The Secular Right makes many mistakes, i.e. trying to be “nice” …have a “teachable moment,” take the emotion out of the argument…and become highly intellectualized to the point that it destroys the movement driven by anger. The Town Hall ACtivists…should be ENCOURAGED to get mad and scream and yell at the Left Wing Liars…for NOT reading the bill, and for passing a trillion dollar budget in the middle of the night…Shear gut feelings are important in defeating the Left. This is NOT about PR or business, or asking someone to join your church…this is war.

      RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

      ***Heretofore…Left Wing Journalists have been sacrosanct…and untouchable. Not so…they should be followed home, find out where THEY LIVE…use the same tactics as the Dirty Left Wing Unions…and camp out in front of THEIR homes…with signs and fog horns…calling them “COMMUNISTS–TRAITORS—THIEVES—LIARS—NAZIS—SOCIALISTS”…TURN THE TABLES ON THE LEFT WING JOURNALISTS…and use their tactics against them. Make the Left prove they are none of these things…that they do not beat their wives The Left Wing bloggers are continually using these tactics…such as planting lies that Sarah Palin and her husband are getting a divorce because of infidelity. OK then…it should be planted that Obama is a closet GAY>>>Obama BEATS HIS WIFE>>>>MIchelle is divorcing Obama for screwing around…(Do unto others…as they screw you.)

      RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

      ****Write letters, commit to 5 letters a day, to all the Left Wing Congresspeople…send them faxes, have their phones and fax numbers of Quick Dial…Scream and yell at them through your letters, call them every name in the book…tell them that they claim to stand for truth and the poor…then why are they robbing you, you are poor you don’t deserve to be taxed anymore…you are starving to death your kids can’t eat…etc.

      If and when your Left Wing Congress people come home for the holidays…organize “office sit ins,”…bring signs, look hostile and mean…call them NAZIS…that is certainly scaring the hell out of Princess Pelosi and Dingy Hairy Reid.

      RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

      ***In the mind of the Left…as in the religious, they “believe” they are the elite, more intelligent, cool, and right…they must be disabused of this arrogant pack of bull shit lies and the only way to do so…since they are not people of reason, but uncontrolled, base and idiotic emotions…is to go at them with crude, rude, mean, and hateful ridicule. That will get their attention and for some…they will become fearful, which is exactly where we want them to be…fearful, so that they stay not only stay home, but the Left Wing Congress…knows that if they vote to destroy our country, there will be consequences. To date, the Left has not suffered ANY consequences for anything they’ve done, or for any lie and smear they’ve told. That has to change NOw.

      RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

      ***Oh yeah, have fun with this…before a meeting…get a little loose and liquored up. Or wait till the “confrontation” is over…meet for pizza, laugh at the Left and the look on their face when you all began calling them NAZIs….What fun! Give out prizes for the person with the very best Chant….I love “Read the Bill…Read the Bill…” I want to see this chant…..NO MORE TAX WHORES, NO MORE TAX WHORES…LEAVE OUR MONEY AND HEALTH ALONE!

      RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

      ***Fortunately, the Left has been radical far too long, they have shot their wad, while we are just getting started. Most of the Left Wing Rads of the 1960s who were the most vocal are now either dead from cocaine overdoses, or HIV/AIDs…or just too worn out to do much but sit in front of the TV and smoke pot. Every Left Wing radical I ever met…was a dumb pot head…and long term pot use makes them paranoid and they lose about 30 IQ points…so now is the time to strike. Regardless of Obama’s win…the truth is that he won not because the Left was so huge in number, but because the Left fooled the Independents and some in the middle class, that he was just like them. NOT…

      The very best part of this exercise, is that many who supported Obama who now see they have been duped and lied to…hate his guts and are mad as hell. There is a small war in the Democrat Party, because the Dems know that their continued support of Obama…may result in their dis-election.

      RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

      ***Oh yeah…do not heed even those on the Secular Right…who are now telling us to be “nice.” Being “nice” is exactly what the Left wants us to do…and proves once again that the Secular Right does not have the balls, the spine, or the brains to defeat them. GET MAD AND STAY MAD! THEN ACT. Being “nice” has gotten us exactly into the mess we are now in.

      RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

      ***Yes…The Left has made themselves vulnerable through believing they were the dominant force, and that they had won…and it was going to be a clear path toward socialism. It must be a shock to the Left to see all those fat, old gray haired ladies and gentlemen, some carrying canes and in wheel chairs…mad as hell. Old people can be formidable, because they have nothing left to lose, but a little peace and quiet and respect for the last of their days. The old and retired…have also watched the Left rob them of their savings, threaten to tax their health care insurance, raise taxes on their fuel through Cap and Trade…and so many other areas that those on a fixed retirement income just cannot afford, unless they live in a hovel or a shit hole for the rest of their lives. Worse…the Left has indicated that it does not give a flying good god damn about old people…because Obama represents the “young” and radical.

      Along comes the “youngsters” on the Left…who are telling grandma and grandpa that everything they stood for, such as independence, saving, being good, and worse…being old…is just shit, and that somehow illegal aliens and the parasitic poor will have more rights…and be paid out of the retirement incomes of the old.

      And by the Left calling these old people ASTRO TURF…AND NAZIS…OR PART OF A CONSPIRACY…is just fuel on the fire. At the next protest I’m going to…you will know me because I’m going to be wearing a hat made out of Green Astro Turf.

      RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

      ***Oh yeah…I want Pelosi and her Union Thugs…to start hitting and beating up old people…yeah, do it…and just see how outraged those who are not committed as yet…will jump into help the Secular Right. That cunt Pelosi sent in big, fat men from the Pipefitters Union..to shut the door on those attending a town hall meeting. Union thugs also beat up a “black man” who was protesting changes in his health care….OH yeah…go ahead, those on the Left…I want you to especially beat up on black people and hispanics, call them names and see what happens. The Left is predictable, they do not think, they are emotional…and will make mistakes.

      RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

      ***So far…the Left has no answers, and no solutions, and worse have NOT READ what they are demanding they vote Yes on. It has been wonderful…to see the Left go “humma humma humma, I don’t know”…and become part of the problem. That won’t last long because that idiot Bill O’Reilly will have them on his programs and allow them to “make their case,” without vetting their answers. O’Reilly makes the same mistakes…that got us into this mess, by being “nice” to the enemy. Unfortunately, Hannity and O’REilly are part of the problem also, because they will cave…because they believe that being “nice” or compromising is going to change things. No it won’t.

      RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

      ***So far, the only “targets” in the cross-hairs of the Secular Right are Pelosi and very few others. This won’t win the war…the Left wing Media such as Rachel Madoff, Oberman, CBS, MSNBC, and every Left Wing Congress Liar in every state and district has to be targeted every day and in every way. Journalists especially have to be “personalized” –targeted—and frozen—in this fight…Were you all aware, that that Old Queen Dan Rather is now asking Obama to “investigate” the media (meaning go after Rush Limbaugh etc.)? s it not enough…that Obama’s Chicago Thugs now want you to “inform” on your neighbors? Go ahead…tell Obama and his thugs what you think of the right or the left, flag@whitehouse.gov. I email them once a day…hahahah.

      Rather was the leader and the god-father of the Left Wing Liar Media…who called themselves journalists who were in fact…the lackeys, butt lickers, and lobbiests for the Democrat Left.

      While Dan Rather “claimed” to be a nightly news anchor and a journalist…he openly campaigned and raised money for the Democrats for 30 years. What did the Right do? Nothing….Its time to go after them all…and win.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 11, 2009 | Reply

    • Wow! Ignorance must be bliss. It is because of our free market system that the world is a better place. Why else do you think that de Tocqueville was sent to the republic to study America’s formula for prosperity and greatness? He discovered that, among other factors, we were practitioners of a fee market system, which provided an incentive and resulted in growth, invention and overall prosperity. Read a book once in a while and put down the cool-aid.

      If you want socialism leave…no one is holding you here.

      Comment by Freedom101 | August 13, 2009 | Reply

    • Oy, you gravitate towards Rand because I presume you find it rational. The same exact rationality that lead Rand to atheism and Darwinian theory. What I’m trying to say is that your stance requires the most cognitive dissonance.

      Comment by flo | September 13, 2011 | Reply

    • Capitalism is not an ideology, it is freedom.

      Comment by frank | March 5, 2014 | Reply

  2. One has to remember that Rand’s work was influenced by her experiences as a very small child in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution when a bunch of communist thugs nationalized her father’s pharmacy. This traumatic experience undoubtedly was an influence in much of her work.

    Comment by jonathan | February 1, 2009 | Reply

  3. Rand was very strongly in support of offering justice and fairness to those who deserved it. In “Atlas Shrugged”, Cheryl (the waitress James Taggart married) eventually grasped the depravity and evil of her husband. In abject grief that such evil could so ruin her life, she sought suicide. Dagny learned that Cheryl had seen through James, and immediately grasped that Cheryl would choose suicide. Dagny rushed to save Cheryl, but was too late. From the POV of Plot, Cheryl had to die, to convey the psychological effect such evil (as James) can have on the innocent.

    If it were not for Objectivism, given the evil I have been subjected to in the last five years, I would be dead too.

    Comment by RnBram | February 1, 2009 | Reply

    • I had a brief Rand enthusiasm (along with one for James Bond) when I was 12. That older people take this pap seriously says a lot about our idiocracy.

      Comment by GerhardWMagnus | May 6, 2009 | Reply

      • Brilliant!!!

        Comment by Anonymous | May 6, 2009

      • Or perhaps a thing or two about your rationality…

        What specifically made you change your mind about Ayn Rand? I’m curios to hear.

        Who is John Galt?

        Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 24, 2010

      • Wow…did I really just misspell curious?

        Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 24, 2010

  4. Johnathan, your comment is a common argument, but it is nothing short of psychologizing (just as rationalizing is an abuse of reason, psychologizing is an abuse of psychology to evade reason). It is a complete disregard of the possibility that Rand actually thought through her ideas. Read enough of her non-fiction, and you may come to a different conclusion… provided you think!

    Comment by RnBram | February 1, 2009 | Reply

    • You are going on the assumption that Ayn Rand actually thought through her ideas.

      And even if she did, where does that leave us? Idealism?

      You claim to be a reasoned man yet you blindingly follow another’s ideas based out of blind assumptions.

      Empirical evidence supports the scientific theory that we, human beings, are both Altruistic and Selfish. We are, in essence, Altruistically Individualists. We are a species which has survived by forming societal bonds (tribal societies) for selfish interests (survival). As such, Ayn Rands entire “ideas” are not in line with human behavior and must then be considered unattainable. Her ideas cause widespread corruption, and with corruptions comes greed, envy, hatred, war and almost certain death.

      Comment by PierreElliottTrudeau | July 14, 2009 | Reply

      • PET, altruism is, fundamentally, self sacrifice. Whenever someone is prepared to sacrifice something, there are others prepared to receive. Those recipients are either the unproductive, or the power seekers. History has shown that to be so, for 10,000 years. That is the empirical evidence. Even tribal societies demonstrate The Selfish Gene notion. A father who dies in defending his children or his tribe as a whole is acting selfishly, not altruistically. He is protecting his values.

        Rational selfishness respecting Individual Rights is the only civilized way for Men to interact.

        Rand did think her ideas through, whereas you and many others here, did not.

        Comment by RnBram | July 22, 2009

      • Those who “believe”…i.e. “believe” in socialism, or believe in jesus crispy, or believe in god, or “believe” in humanism…all have the magical idea that something “else”…i.e. the state, Obama, the church, or some “ideology” of altruism will come to their aid to save them.

        Those who are objective thinkers…don’t wait for something or someone else to “save” them…or tell them what to do. Objectivists think..take in information, pre-empt, do the research, think, and then react…to save themselves.

        Everytime…a mass of nonthinkers…believe that something or someone (especially like Hitler and socialism/fascism) is going to save them en mass…millions seem to die.

        It is the intelligent, and life-sustaining function of the individual, human mind…to NOT rely on the commune, the collective or the state, but think for themselves…and save their own lives.

        One of the reasons the “poor” are poor…is because they do not think for themselves, the poor rely on others to think and provide for them. The brain and one’s abilities DO NOT evolve or succeed if it is not used.

        To wit: Look at hives and ant hills (the collective). both are billions of years old…but have never really evolved beyond being insects. And…as a human counter part…welfare agencies and the current Obama the Messiah and Savior government, want you to become a part of his ant hill…to be an unthinking, dependent slave of the socialist state.

        Hmmm, didn’t humanity already do that…for close to 1000 years when the collective of the “church” dominated and all science, medicine, human rights, etc..came to a stand still?

        The founders of the US…removed the dominance of the collective of both the church and the Royals…from making decisions and enforcing its ideology on the individual. And now…Obama and his socialist collective ant hill wants us to return to this primitive mind state? What the hell?

        From the latest polls…it appears that there is an increasing majority who don’t want to become part of Obama’s collective socialist ant hill…and want to think and do for themselves.

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 27, 2009

    • Those who “hate” Ayn Rand…don’t Think…they “believe” and they feel…

      Reason, logic, and doing their homework, or doing anything other than playing video games and being amateur psychologists…is beyond their capabilities.

      Randites THINK….

      The Left Wing Fascists BELIEVE…just like the holy rollers “believe” in jesus crispy. (To believe…is to make statements that something is “true” without any proof. The religious “believe,”…ergo, the Left are believers, just like the silly religious twits.)

      And if the Left would stop poking so much shit up their nose, stop smoking so much pot, get their hands off their genitals and stop playing video games and THINK…they might grow up and understand why Objectivism is the fastest growing political movement in the world.

      If you Left Wing Loons think that “Sex, Drugs, and Rap” are the only things worth living for besides robbing other people of their rights and property…then go ahead, but do not vote…and please, please do not have any more genetically and logic-deficient kids.

      Planned Parenthood hands out free condoms and birth control pills and will even teach you how to use them.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 25, 2009 | Reply

  5. Rand was a philosopher and not the head of a political party or PAC. Oddly you make this point by comparing her to Nietzsche. Both are appropriately taught in schools today as thought and debate provoking perspectives. If you don’t understand the self deception that exists in altruism, you have not looked deeply enough into yourself.

    Sadly you are only scratching the surface on Rand’s ideas allowing them to be distorted in the half telling. I understand, it’s all for the “common good”, right?.

    BTW, who gets to decide what the ‘common good’ is? Oh yea, liberal ideologues do, and once defined they can get on with the business of force feeding everyone their own vision of ‘good’. Thanks but no thanks.

    Comment by Hoch | February 3, 2009 | Reply

  6. You object to the philpsophy of Ayn Rand. That is of course your right. People on the right object to the pop culture effects of the Hollywood left people such as Madonna in the eighties and nineties, Brittany Spears a few years ago. For that belief we get called Nazi’s. Who is more to fear. Conservatives seek to pursuade, lefties seek to regulate. Who should we fear? What power does Bill O’Reilly have to affect others lives? You can turn off the TV. Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama with one bill have to right to wipe out businesses. Who should we fear more?

    Comment by brian | February 10, 2009 | Reply

    • You are called Nazis because of your actions and proposed actions, not your beliefs. We can turn off the TV, but we can’t stop Loofah O’Reilly from lying about us or his producer from stalking anyone who complains. You’re just lying about Nancy Pelosi and Barack (note the correct spelling) Obama; they don’t have anywhere near that power. By the way, have you genuflected to Rush Lardball today?

      Comment by Tom | April 30, 2009 | Reply

      • Tom, whilst brian has no good reason to defend the Right, you seem to have missed the fact that the Nazis were SOCIALISTS! (caps are just for easy emphasis) And yes, they though in the same manner as those who oppose Rand’s ideas today.

        Please also note that Rand was every much as opposed to the religious Right as she was to the Left, since BOTH are statist.

        Comment by RnBram | July 22, 2009

      • Tom, Objectivists are in a different corner of the Nolan Chart from Nazis entirely. Just because I object to socialized medicine does not make me Hitler. It makes me a human being who recognizes that if one doesn’t work hard, then they don’t deserve the same benefits as those who do. Don’t group me in with Himmler and Dr. Mengele just for acting justly.

        Who is John Galt?

        Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 24, 2010


      Brian…when those claim that they don’t like Ayn Rand, or Conservatives because of their “beliefs” and what they do or are going to do….I always ask:

      What are you talking about….state sentence by sentence, line by line and give the quotes and authors…of what you on the left object to.

      Not once has anyone on the LEFT ever…cited accurately, or given a direct quote of anything said by Ayn Rand or Conservatives…to illustrate why they “don’t like” us.

      Why? Because…the Left do not think…they dream stuff up, they listen to the Huffer’s Post, they read the Daily Kossack Communists..who also never, ever quote anyone correctly or directly. (pssssst…A “HUFFER” is a glue sniffer.)

      Being a Leftist or a Democrat is like having a bag over their heads…in which they simply bump into walls and then ask each other where they are. Anyone can tell these Left Wing Bag Heads anything and they will believe it.

      And to Tom…state exactly what are the ACTIONS and Proposed Actions…you are speaking about that make you think we are NAZIs?

      …let’s hear it. Show some proof that Randites or Conservatives have anything to do with Nazi Fascism or socialism…

      Tom…do you have a clue what Fascism is or what NAZI’s are?

      Did you know TOM…that NAZI, stands for the National Socialist Workers’ Party in German…now I do not know of a single Randite, or any statement by Ayn Rand, or any Conservative…who likes, prefers, acts like, or recommends Fascist socialism. where did you get such an idea Tom?

      Now, Tom…if you have any proof of any thing Rand said, or what Conservatives have done…etc…that prove they are NAZIS…then prove it. If you can prove what you state..other than just name calling by you…you will become rich and famous and make history.

      Ayn Rand was disgusted by anyone stooping so low, or being so mindless, to simply parrot or genuflect, or bow, or “worship” or stalk anyone…in her name, or anyone else’s name.

      And by the way…you, as well as O’Reilly and Limbaugh…HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK ANY PUBLIC PERSON ANY QUESTION…or TOM…is it REALLY YOU WHO IS THE NAZI AND WANTS PRESS CENSORSHIP?! Let us know Tom…how you “FEEL” about censorship of the GOP or those who like Ayn Rand’s philosophy.


      Tom..calling people Nazis..does not make them Nazis..it makes you sound like a goose stepping, maligning, idiotic fool…who merely heard these words and then repeats them, but does not have the intelligence or the ethics and morals…to see if they are true or not.

      And Tom…this is what Ayn Rand said about hero worship, which is exactly what you are doing when you demand that O’Reilly, Limbaugh, or anyone else “leave Peolosi or Reid alone, and allow them to do what they want, make any statements without verification or demanding the truth.

      You TOM…are a state-Worshipper…which is exactly what you are accusing those who like Ayn Rand’s philosophy of doing. Ayn Rand found state-Worship disgusting, and would become most upset when someone stated that they “worshipped” or adored her personally, simply because of her personality…to wit:


      Just as religion has pre-empted the field of ethics, turning morality (mob rule) against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. (Tom…you have indicated that somehow Pelosi, Reid, and Obama..have supernatural powers and rights especially because they stand for the power of the “state”…and should be worshiped, because they are “beyond man’s reach.”)

      “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man.

      “Reverence” means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one’s knees. “Sacred” means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc. (You Tom…appear to have given Obama and his lackeys both reverence, and exaltation…in which you state to paraphrase…they are now untouchable…saints, and your new gods.)

      But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.

      What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man’s dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition.

      (Tom..do you realize that you are worshipping Obama, Reid and ‘s socialist/fascist state ideologies…and being religious in every sense of the word?)

      It is this highest level of man’s emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.

      It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man worship.

      It is an emotion that a few—a very few—men experience consistently; some men experience it in rare, single sparks that flash and die without consequences; some do not know what I am talking about; some do and spend their lives as frantically virulent spark-extinguishers.

      (Tom…you have to make up your mind before the next election…are you going to worship the rights of individuals…or are you gong to worship the State who demands that you have no rights…as created by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama?)

      Do not confuse “man worship” with the many attempts, not to emancipate morality from religion and bring it into the realm of reason, but to substitute a secular meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion.

      For instance, there are all the variants of modern collectivism (communist, fascist, Nazi, etc.), which preserve the religious-altruist ethics in full and merely substitute “society” for God as the beneficiary of man’s self-immolation.

      There are the various schools of modern philosophy which, rejecting the law of identity, proclaim that reality is an indeterminate flux ruled by miracles and shaped by whims—not God’s whims, but man’s or “society’s.” These neomystics are not man-worshipers; they are merely the secularizers of as profound a hatred for man as that of their avowedly mystic predecessors.

      A cruder variant of the same hatred is represented by those concrete-bound, “statistical” mentalities who—unable to grasp the meaning of man’s volition—declare that man cannot be an object of worship, since they have never encountered any specimens of humanity who deserved it.

      The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. . . . [Man-worshipers are] those dedicated to the exaltation of man’s self-esteem and the sacredness of his happiness on earth.

      The Objectivist “Introduction to The Fountainhead,”
      The Objectivist, March 1968, 4.

      This view of man has rarely been expressed in human history. Today, it is virtually non-existent. Yet this is the view with which—in various degrees of longing, wistfulness, passion and agonized confusion—the best of mankind’s youth start out in life. It is not even a view, for most of them, but a foggy, groping, undefined sense made of raw pain and incommunicable happiness. It is a sense of enormous expectation, the sense that one’s life is important, that great achievements are within one’s capacity, and that great things lie ahead.

      It is not in the nature of man—nor of any living entity—to start out by giving up, by spitting in one’s own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption, whose rapidity differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one’s mind; security, of abandoning one’s values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man’s nature and of life’s potential.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 25, 2009 | Reply

      • Tom, Obama does not like the US Constitution and has said so, many times.

        Judy wrote,
        “Tom…is it REALLY YOU WHO IS THE NAZI AND WANTS PRESS CENSORSHIP?!” [caps are her’s]

        Obama, and the Left, dislike conservative radio. They want to bring back The Fairness Doctrine, that requires that they have the power to intervene and obtain radio time on conservative radio, tv, newspapers etc.

        Of course, that slants the entire media in favor of the Left. It is a complete violation of Freedom of Speech, and is the adoption of practices found in China Russia Cuba Venezuela etc.

        If the Left’s ideas were rational, then they should be able to obtain such media exposure solely by the strength of their arguments. Lacking intellectual strength, they must resort to the ‘strength’ of physical force.

        Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009

    • Unfortunately, True Conservatism was co-opted by the Religious Right (Fascists), who are no different than the Left Wing socialists’ religion…have both the same ideology which is the domination and control of human life.

      A True Conservative…does not promote religion , or any kind of ideology, but seeks to “conserve” (Save)…individual rights.

      The Leftist Propagandists, i.e. the Media…have successfully buried what True Conservatism is…and the Religious Right helped them.

      When the idiots, such as Terry Randall and the ProLife/Catholic Church/religious fascists attempt to take over the US court system, and “demand” that US tax payers take care of Terry Schiavo whose brain was filled with water…it was a Conservative judge, who told Randall and his religious freaks, No…the US will not submit to your religion. It was also a Conservative Judge who stopped the IDers and Creationists from forcing American school children to be taught that god created the world. And, it was a Conservative Judge who led the charge against the ProLifer Perverts who sought to dismantle the right to an abortion. For their efforts, these Conservative Judges were often kicked out of their churches.

      Did the Left pay attention to how much Conservatives promote individual rights? Of course not. The Left and the Dems have their own religious agenda.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 27, 2009 | Reply

  7. I haven’t read Ayn Rand, but, I have to wonder at your criticism. She writes in a letter she is “anti-social” – is this your basis for her being undemocratic? Of course, I’m not her biographer, so I suppose I can’t suggest that she was, say, commenting on her behavior at cocktail parties. This post hasn’t provided evidence to the contrary, however.

    Again, I haven’t read her or Walker. But such atomistic and acontextual quoting is a far cry from academic or rigorous criticism.

    Comment by John R. Ahern | February 10, 2009 | Reply

    • John…to be called “anti social” by the Left and those who hate Ayn Rand….really means to be “anti socialism”…and anti collective.

      The Left does not like people who think for themselves and want to live their own lives, make money, find happiness at their own discretion….

      The Left simply hates Objectivist thinking…that states that only through the individual mind, that has the power and education to take in information and not live in a magical world of either religion or politics…is the only true, and moral function of the individual.

      Anyone who thinks for themselves…and will NOT live for the altruistic collective, suicidal politics …is called “anti social” and sociopathic by the Left.


      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 27, 2009 | Reply

  8. “If it were not for Objectivism, given the evil I have been subjected to in the last five years, I would be dead too.”

    My experience with Objectivists, and reading a lot of Rand and many Objectivist forums, is they are trying to understand the world through an amateurish, fake “Grand Unified Theory” of “Life, the Universe and Everything”. Yet, they can’t even agree amongst themselves what it is.

    Perhaps the evils you face RnBram are the consequences of just not getting it. My suggestion? Grow up!

    Unfortunately, having steeped yourself for years probably in seeing only what Objectivism defines as real you’ve lost all chance of perceiving the rest of reality.

    Comment by Bob | February 18, 2009 | Reply

    • Okay, Bob, riddle me this: what–aside from what I gather through my five (maybe six, counting balance) senses–is real? I was relieved when I realized that I didn’t have to worry about mystic worlds and unknowable properties, just concrete, real problems.

      I’m not an Objectivist, but I agree with most of what Ayn Rand teaches (is that misspelled?). I don’t think that reality is just a myth.

      Who is John Galt?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 24, 2010 | Reply

    • And another thing: if you’re intimating that Objectivism denies the existence of forces *not* easily percieved by your senses, notice that magnetism, gravity, and the like do have measurable effects. If it can be measured, by perception or by instrument, it’s real.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | July 9, 2010 | Reply

  9. “Not only is her whole program diametrically opposed to liberal values; Ayn Rand’s ideals are profoundly undemocratic.”

    Yeah. Great, isn’t it? “Does history record any case in which the majority was right?” (Robert A. Heinlein)

    And there *IS* “no society.” Not as the sort of concrete entity capable of decision, valuation, or some sort of psychotic, mythic self-determination, as socialists (sorry; are you calling yourselves “Liberals” or “progressives” this week?) would have it.

    Society – said Rand – is an abstract process by which people live in each other’s company. Though I don’t think she ever quoted him on this, Thomas Paine had some *Common Sense* you might like to consider:

    “Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.”

    Y’see, the fatal flaw in the socialist (darn! you *are* calling yourselves “Liberals” this week, right?) line of predatory viciousness is that when you say “society” (which is a warm-‘n-fuzzy term), what you mean is “government” (which is goons with guns).

    “Be nice and communitarian,” says the socialist, “or Officer Friendly is going to kill you.”

    Ain’t that nice?

    Ain’t it absolutely true?

    Comment by SJ Doc | February 24, 2009 | Reply

    • Nope, it’s not nice. Thankfully, neither is it true. It may be pointless to address all the flaws in your argument, but I will at least try to deal with the strawman you set up.
      Liberals and progressives (there are minor shades of distinction between the two, but both are utterly distinct from ‘socialists’ the way you mean it; just as social-democrats, like the governments of Sweden and Norway, for example, are distinct from ‘socialists’) absolutely get the difference between society and government.
      We want to use government to deal with certain classes of social problems as, at it’s best, government is a vehicle to channel the common will and ingenuity of the populace for its own betterment; we want to regulate industry for the protection of the citizenry (and this includes environmental concerns–kinda hard to have a citizenry if there’s no environment to support human life) but not control it, or own it.
      Neither do we want to step on people’s rights as outlined in the Constitution; in fact, we’d prefer to expand individual rights in many areas. Some of this may happen at the expense of ‘corporate’ rights but frankly, unregulated corporations have done gross economic and environmental harm to this country.
      I trust people. I don’t trust entities whose sole aim is gain as much short-term profit for itself as possible, and which view all else as obstacles, including the law. If I had to sum up the progressive ideal, I would say this: Progressives seek to do the greatest good for the greatest number while doing the least harm possible to the least number of people, using any and all tools that do not contradict the first part and do not abridge individual rights. Government is a tool. Wielded properly, it is amazingly effective for tasks that cannot and should not be done for profit.
      Conservatives want to “make government small enough to drown in a bathtub” to paraphrase Norquist–except of course for the military, corporate welfare, and such portions as regulate society and private behavior–sex, reproduction, contraception, to name a few. These days, even this might be too much credit; more and more, Republicans (and yes, I know they’re not utterly synonymous with conservatives…just largely) want power and wealth, and will do and say whatever they deem they can get away with to acquire and retain it.
      Also, just because you claim something is abstract does not make it so; just because something is abstract does not make it unreal or lacking in power.
      Sorry for the length, but I had a lot I wanted to say.

      P.S. Heinlein was an okay, if limited writer, and that’s got to be the lamest use of a quote I’ve ever seen. Because of course the answer is a resounding yes; the majority has been right (however you care to define either of those terms) plenty of times on plenty of issues in plenty of places. Also, it’s so vague as to be barely relevant here.
      I already wrote a ton just up the page, so I’m only going to address your point 1: about common good generally, using universal health care specifically to address this idea.

      First of all, you argue from an excluded middle: there are many more options than the status quo or moving to a mandatory universal single payer. In fact, the option that Pres. Obama is championing (basing this on an interview with Howard Dean,) you wouldn’t have to opt in. You’d be free to make whatever arrangements you care to, but a government system will be available to all, providing competition for our current system of insurance co.s and HMOs. Isn’t competition good? Besides, the countries with the deepest penetration of public health insurance–Britain, I believe–still has around 15% of their care provided through private insurance. And that’s the lowest percentage among nations with universal single payer (which is more radical than what is being proposed here.)

      Second, you and I already pay for the healthcare of people who are uninsured. When, for example, someone without insurance goes to the ER and cannot afford $1,000 to fix their broken ankle, the hospital gets tax money to offset the costs. We partially pay for a number of hospitals through public funds (in most states, anyway, possibly all.) If we didn’t do so, hospitals go bankrupt, and then the next time your or a loved one needs emergency care, it had damn well not require experts, extensive facilities or access outside business hours. After all, they are required by law to admit patients regardless of ability to pay.

      Having a rational, efficient government-run (no oxymoron jokes, please–4 cents on the dollar admin costs vs 20 sounds pretty efficient, as well as 1/10th the marketing and sales, if that) health system will lower total costs, especially over time. Prevention is always cheaper.

      We also pay in ways that are harder to calculate–lost productivity, inefficiency, etc. The sharper point, however, is that it is absolutely terrible for the common good to have a large pool of unhealthy people who only seek medical care when it’s an emergency, work when they are sick with god-knows-what, etc., get no follow-up care. This creates a standing reservoir of disease–how would you like to see TB come back? It also creates an easy vector for some god-awful strain of the flu, or any other bug, to rip through this country.

      A healthy society will always benefit society at large in all these ways and more, and the minority groups who may not derive benefit from this fact are, if legitimate, vanishingly small–or they have ulterior motives that are manifestly counter to the common weal.

      Last, we haven’t worked out how we’re going to pay for this. So, you may not pay for other people’s health-care the way you claim–indeed, real costs to you may go down (see above.) On the other hand, we already pay for a number of things for the common good. You help pay for schools–got kids? I’m sure you get an illiterate, poorly-socialized mob of kids who can’t get jobs is bad for you specifically, as well as the country at large (not to mention horrible for the kids.) You help pay for police and fire service–ever needed to be rescued by a fire-fighter? Your actual chances of having life or property saved by these services is pretty damn small, yet even more conservatives don’t object to this. Military, too–we spend more on our military than the rest of the planet combined. Yet the last time we were invaded was 1812–World War 2 saw exactly one attack on the soil of the Lower 48 (a shelling of an oil refinery near Santa Barbara, CA–Go Gauchos!) and your chances of ever having your life saved through the direct presence of US Armed Forces is microscopic (unless you happen to be in the Armed Forces, of course.)

      And characterizing the people who can’t afford health care as ‘lazy’ is the worst kind of derogatory nonsense. I’m young, healthy, no kids, don’t smoke or drink; I got laid off from a job that provided benefits. I spend 60+ hours per week now either looking for a job or trying to find freelance/temp work–I can, in no wise, afford health care. At all. Millions of people in this country work jobs that provide no benefits, and unfortunately, these same jobs also rarely pay enough for the people who work them to afford health insurance because the jobs do not pay very well. A family of five, both parents working–they may simply be unable to afford $1,600/month in premiums, let alone costs for visits, referrals, tests, prescriptions and procedures. Laziness has nothing to do with it for the overwhelming majority of un- or under-insured people in this country. You either know this or have contempt for people who do necessary jobs that simply don’t pay enough, or you are truly ignorant of this state of affairs, in which case I urge you to read widely, challenge your assumptions, go outside your comfort zone, meet people outside your socio-economic niche, travel, etc. Thankfully, except for the last item, and possibly the second-to-last, all these things can be done easily and cheaply online.

      And common good is always tricky, it’s always a dynamically-maintained balance that will change over time. There will always be disagreements, abuses, people who are harmed by measures we take to implement this common good. The trick is to (as I said above) do the most good for the most people, while keeping the harm we do to the least possible, done to the least possible number of people–while not trampling on their rights. Personally, I hope we raise taxes, as I think we can all afford, say, another 1% income and .25% sales, to pay for health care for all…and because, jesus, we’re broke and just cannot be borrowing any more money.

      But that’s a different letter.

      Comment by Brand | June 3, 2009 | Reply

      • I didn’t read all of that, but your attack of Heinlein was just dismall. He had far stretching horizons, just not necessarily in the direction you like. Plus, name for me one example when the majority has been right. Do that, I will will honestly consider the conjecture flawed, though my own experience (personal and academically) has convinced me that it is correct.

        Oh, and I hope that taxes will plummet (though I know they won’t). The government doesn’t produce. All you’re asking for is a quicker decay of what is produced.

        “Are you now crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral cannibals, I know that you’ve always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too.”–

        –John Galt’s speech, Atlas Shrugged

        Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 24, 2010

  10. Ayn Rand’s philosophy at worst encourage a view as man as an island. All said, there is nothing violent or war-like in her entire repetoire- she simply advocated non-participation, or giving “moral sanction” to those you oppose.

    Your article sets up an objectivist straw man.

    Comment by Will | February 24, 2009 | Reply

  11. Sadly, I know less about Ayn Rand’s politics than I do about her character. She was an egotistical, controlling bi+ch from all I’ve heard. She probably envisioned a world of people like herself and wondered how it would work. That’s who you want designing your society; not some bleeding heart who would make generosity into a necessary virtue and greediness into a menacing vice.

    Comment by Andy | February 25, 2009 | Reply

    • Is that last sentence supposed to be serious or sarcastic? If it’s serious, it contradicts seriously with the connotation coming from the rest of your post.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 24, 2010 | Reply

  12. Ayn Rand wrote bodice-rippers for greedy men and provided a terrible role model for women. No woman should sit around and wait for a psycho like Howard Ruark for 5 years.

    I will admit that Rand can be motivating. However, her views have led to a crisis in the USA because people have been led to worship mentally ill people. Just think about it for a minute. Do you think that Jack Welch is quite right in the head?

    Comment by Debocracy | February 26, 2009 | Reply

    • Is Dagny Taggart a bad role model? She could have risen quickly as daughter of the previous president of Taggart Transcontiental, but instead she started out as a night-time operator of a backwoods train station and rose to the position of Operating Vice-President.

      I would suggest that Dominique Francon was an example of an imperfect character from her earlier years (this is all from hearsay and the movie, I’m reading The Fountainhead presently).

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 24, 2010 | Reply

  13. The lefties on this thread are reduced to ad-hominem attacks, while Rand’s defenders use logic and facts to persuade. I’m voting with for logic over emotion.

    Comment by Iconoclast | February 27, 2009 | Reply

    • As hominem attacks? Logic?

      That’s a joke, right?

      Or maybe you are just one of those stereotypical Rand cultists?

      Comment by Puzzled Skeptic | May 18, 2009 | Reply

  14. Rand’s arguments are very compelling and well reasoned. In my opinion, her novels, “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” are not nearly as interesting as her nonfiction treatises on capitalism and philosophy. Behind those novels is a well constructed argument for capitalism and individual rights: Man, as an organism who must observe reality and then rely on reason to produce the values which he needs in order to survive, must have the freedom to use his mind. To the extent that physical force is employed against him, he will not be free to use reason to improve his life. For Rand, there’s no ethical distinction between a common criminal and a politician who forces my neighbor and I to obey his laws ‘for the good of society.’ The societal ideal which she proposes is nowhere near as dark as most of her opponents describe it as: it is a society in which physical force and fraud are banned between individuals, and those who initiate it are prosecuted and punished for it by the government. It’s a society based on voluntary association and free trade: mutual trade to mutual benefit. Rand state that it is that ‘initiation of physical force’ which is the ethical boundary which we must not cross. This sets the stage for her theory on government: to the greatest degree possible, government must protect an individual’s right to liberty because without liberty, individuals will suffer. ‘Man’s life’ is her standard of value, and physical coercion only harms the life of individuals.

    The empirical historical evidence is hard to deny: to the extent that individual rights are protected in a country, its citizens will prosper. This blog post is unfortunate; I was hoping to see some thoughtful criticism of her ideas. I’ve grown weary of finding nothing but vitriolic and irrational denunciation of her ideas, while the critic has little or no understanding of them in the first place. I’ll have to look elsewhere for a thoughtful analysis of what she has proposed. I did not find it here, it’s more of the same ad-hominem attacks.

    Tragically, Rand predicted much of the fascist hooliganism which we are now seeing in America currently. Policy in America today is crafted with a mentality which has reified the concept of ‘society’ and granted it rights which supercede the rights of the individual. You don’t have to scratch very deep to see that policy crafted with ‘the good of society’ in mind ends up being extremely absurd. Who is to determine what is ‘good for society?’ The practical political answer is: either a majority–which rides roughshod over the minority to get whatever it wants–or a dictator who claims to know ‘what is good for the people’ (similar roughshodiness for those who dissent against the dictatorial decrees).

    To take the most recent example–“Bailout ‘n Stimulus Bonanza U.S.A”–our money is being taxed and spent away on whatever projects our elected officials deem “good ‘n stimulatin’ fur the economy.”

    Comment by justinketterer | February 28, 2009 | Reply

    • “politicians are criminals”, “fascist hooliganism”, “good ‘n stimulatin’ fur the economy”, intended to make ‘our elected officials’ sound like country bumpkins. And you criticize other people for ad hominem attacks? The choice is not just between rule by a dictatorial majority or by a dictator, as you seem to believe. That’s the whole idea behind the US constitution–trying to find a balance that controls the greed of the few (Randites) while allowing the most freedom possible to everyone.

      Comment by Tom | April 30, 2009 | Reply

      • If the press is not free…and all choices are controlled by the state-run media…then Obama and his thugs are political criminals, engaged in “fascist hooliganism”…whose simplistic “hate” of the individual…and disrespect for the rights and property of others…are being promoted by a bunch of simplistic country bumpkins, who function as “mob”…or better yet a mob of Insects, all demanding that we be apart of the Obama Ant Hill.

        Randits are the ONLY growing political force that respects individual rights…and knows what the fk…the Left is doing and intends on doing….The Left led by Obama and his Chicago Thugs…are creating a socialist/fascist police state…

        Now if any anti-Rand hater in here wants to be just an Insect in the Obama hive…please, oh please state your justifications for why you hate yourself so much.

        Comment by Judy | July 24, 2009

  15. There are a few issues with the article that need to be addressed.

    1) Define “common good”. Seems to me that this is a term that is different for everyone. What is good for some is not necessarily good for others. Sure, universal healthcare sounds good for those who can’t afford health insurance right now… but it isn’t all that good for those of us who can afford our own insurance, want to make our own choices, and will be forced into a system we didn’t choose. Not to mention that I don’t feel like paying for insurance for people who are too lazy to work for it for themselves. Where is the “common good” in that scenario?

    2) The world IS Darwinian. It doesn’t matter what political system you live in, that is a simple fact. In Communist and socialist regimes, the strongest rose to the top of the party over the dead bodies of those who were too weak to defend themselves. Under barbarism, the strong killed the weak and took their posesions. It was called “pillage, rape and plunder” and it was a fact of life through most of our history. Under monarchism and similar systems, the knights and kings retained power by enslaving the peons and conscripting them into the military. In the times of the Samurai in Japan, only the Samurai were permitted the use of swords, and they retained power through force of arms. Today, throughout Africa, Asia, South America, and large parts of Europe, there are vast tracts of lawlessness, where the strong survive on the dead bodies of the weak. In the Arab world of Theocracy, the Mullahs retain power through force, and if you are from the wrong sub-group, your days are numbered.

    The only difference between our Capitalist system and these other systems is that Capitalism defines “strength” through the accumulation of wealth and/or political power. Which is advantagous for the weak, because it means that the weak still get to live… they just aren’t as rich as those who exhibit “strength”. Furthermore, we have a greater number of people who manage to become “strong” in our system after starting out “weak” than in any other system. More millionaires were created during the 80s and 90s than in any system in history. And of course, more people who had millions have become poor than in any system in history. Our system allows greater entery between the classes than any other system ever invented. That is Capitalism.

    3) How do you define “sefishness”? If I am in need of medical care and can afford it on my own, am I being selfish if I get that care? Is that considered “putting myself above the rest of society”?

    It seems to me that a system that promotes people who do not work to get the same as those who do is one that promotes selfishness. Here I am working my butt off 50-60 hours a week to make ends meet, but you are going to give the same “rewards” to the guy who hasn’t worked in five years, because we have universal healthcare, retirement, etc.? That seems very selfish to me.

    4) You complain about the “polution” of young minds by Ayn Rand’s books being taught in our schools? I feel the same way about Carl Marx being taught in our schools. I feel the same way about sex-ed being taught in our schools. I could go on and on listing all the things that are taught in the public school system that I object to.

    The solution to that is school privatization. That way, you get to choose what philosophy your kids learn in school. Of course, that would mean that you’d have to give up the liberal idea of government-run education and allow privatization and the competition of capitalism to work for education.

    Otherwise, you’ll just have to take what the government feeds you and suck it up.

    Comment by ETWolverine | March 2, 2009 | Reply

  16. “Rand’s books have influenced the minds and faith of untold millions; today her books are studied by children in schools.”

    That is really all we need to know. There really is hope Ayn Rand was the first of the return of the advocates of reason.

    Comment by Bob in Dallas | March 4, 2009 | Reply

  17. I will cede the word to you after I make the point that, contrary to Mr. Chomsky’s assessment, the original Liberals were the 9 businessmen dissatisfied that the government granted a monopoly to the 10th, in return for collecting taxes for the enrichment of the king or state militarism, and enforced it at the point of a gun. Now, it seems, New Liberals want the government to create as many monopolies as possible – AMA, Bar, Taxis in NYC, etc. New Toy manufacturing regulations require a $3000 toxicity test per model. I’m sure Hasbro can afford that, but the local shop will be hit hard. Who’s defending corporatism now? Big corporations are in favor of regulation and protection, by government (and its guns) from competition. Liberals ought to be anti-power, anti-tyranny. Instead, they seem watered down to simply anti-business.

    Similarly, Capitalism is now an intellectually lazy term that encompasses all manner of Corporatism, Mercantilism (as above), Ethnocentrism, Militarism, etc. It is none of thses, but people are conditioned to hear all of these things when the word is spoken. Is it too much to ask Leftist intellectuals to be specific? Taking advantage of semantic ambiguity is only useful when preaching to the choir.

    Tenure was designed to protect thinkers from pressures that would bias them. The loophole is that today’s university thinkers get government grants for research, work for government subsidized universities, and teach students who pay their tuition using government grants and loans. It must be admitted that this is at least a potential source of a pro-government-spending intellectual bias. Compound upon this that a government pro-state curriculum is taught by grade-school teachers whose wages are paid with tax dollars and who, in my experience, know next to nothing about personal finance. Further, these educators wages, thus, the value of their labor, is not subject to market consideration. Capitalism is used lazily as I describe above, portrayed to children as essentially a necessary evil. The results (graduates) go through life skimming what they can get away with, and lying when it’s practical. Key word: practical.

    In capitalism, dishonesty is a choice. In politics, it is mandatory.

    I like the concept of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead – I disagree with Rand on copyright, patent, and her militant atheism. I am an atheist, but in the “without” sense – not the shove non-existence down your throat sense. The intellectual property rights issue comes from, first, that property rights are justified due to scarcity – ideas can be copied for free and thus, are not scarce. Second, Dr. Stephen Kinsella and others describe many examples of innovation accelerating after the expiration of a patent. Intellectual “property”, unlike capital such as a machine that when borrowed, wears out, is not diminished through duplication. Imagine a primitive who sees another roll a heavy object on logs – inventing the wheel. One cannot seriously say that he has the right to destroy the observer’s attempts at rolling things on logs.

    Comment by Jess | March 4, 2009 | Reply

  18. I liked your article, and I believe that Ayn Rand needs to be spoken against. However, if your argument has any holes – of which it had many-, the Rand followers will attack those flaws and claim your argument has no validity. I have read Rand myself, and am repulsed in a deep way by what she says (particularly by the flimsiness of her ideas), but I also realize that, like other hugely influential flawed (nasty) ideas (belief systems), there is a primal cord that is struck in people. They will use whatever tools at their disposal to defend a philosophy that conceptually, intellectually , and ultimately socially and politically justifies actions that are otherwise clearly wrong headed and harmful. Any idea can be defended, especially the abhorrent ones.

    Comment by keom | March 7, 2009 | Reply

    • You have not…stated what are the:
      1) Holes in Rand’s logic
      2) What are the flaws
      3) You do not state exactly what you are “repulsed” by
      4) You do not state why or in what specifics Rand’s firmness in her ideas bothers you
      5) You do not state exactly what are Rand’s “flawed and nasty” ideas are
      6) You do not state exactly what are those “tools” Objectivists use at their disposal that you dislike (Like what? Free speech!?)
      7) You did not state or give a single sentence to support what social and political ideals justify….
      8) What are Rand’s “clearly wrong headed and harmful” idea?

      You…are an example of an insect-brained twit, who has not a clue what you think or should think…and have never read Rand in your entire life…but merely parrot “feelings” of others…so that you can remain as part of the collective herd of sheep.

      In your entire paragraph…there is not one single specific statement…of fact re: Rand…you merely “feel.” And what you feel proves nothing….but that you are instinctive and driven by chemical-driven feelings.

      Please do not vote, and do not have any children…we have quite enough two-legged insect and mindless feelers on this planet…what we need are thinkers. And you do not qualify.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 28, 2009 | Reply

  19. You fool,

    Ayn Rand never advocated the use of the state to benefit anyone, the Rich, OR the people… because like all labor movements the leadership can be compromised and turned around to enslave the people.

    You know nothing about AYN RAND… Alan Greenspan is a lying b@ST–RD… He faked liked he supported Ayn Rand so he and his cronies could repeal the Glass-Stegall and bring back derivatives… well now that their ponzi scheme is coming crashing down in the free market, the market is punishing them… so NOW they like the idea of a BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT TO SAVE THEM






    Comment by Josh B | March 15, 2009 | Reply

    • Ron Paul is a horror whom Rand would angrily reject for his hypocritical policies (anti-abortion) etc. Worse, Ron Paul has probably read more of Rand than any of the detractors commenting here (not to mention the author of the original post), yet he does not grasp what she is talking about.

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply


        Every time…anyone makes a good point…the Lefties all scream “ad hominem attack! Racism! Homophobia! Selfish! Greedy! Nazi! blah, blah, and blah….

        What it all comes down to…is that the Left cannot launch any kind of reasoned argument against…Reason!

        Isn’t that bizarre…the Left has no reason or logic…to dispute reason or Logic.

        The Left has nothing but “feelings” and trite little practiced parroted statements…that make absolutely no sense what so ever.

        I’ve worked with back wards mental patients who make more sense than the Left…

        Trying to talk or have a conversation, let alone an “argument” with someone on the Left…is like talking to a brick wall. For example…from the above comments, we note that the Left does not like Ayn Rand, but can’t tell you why.

        OK…why do you not like Ayn Rand’s philosophy of logic, reason, and objectivism?

        Lefty: I don’t like her that’s why?

        Can you give an example as to “why” you don’t like Objectivism?

        Lefty: Sure I can…I don’t like her.

        Let’s try this…what is it that you don’t like about living for one’ self?

        Lefty: Its being selfish and greedy.

        OK..what’s wrong with being selfish, such as living for one’s self…and greedy, i.e. keeping one’s own money?

        Lefty: Its selfish and being greedy.

        At this point…I wonder where the Lefties went to school and who taught them in 12 years how to NOT think! Of course, simply making “hate” statements…about something they know nothing about …is exactly the kind of mindless, astro turf kind of brain…the Left likes.

        Randites “think” and the Lefties “parrot.”

        No contest.

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 9, 2009

  20. It is amusing to see small children, such as Iconoclast and others here, use an ad hominem attack to attack people who critize his cult leader’s ideas and philosophy. While Rand’s philosophy may be internally consistent and unified, it bears no relationship to reality. It is founded on an erroneous concept of human behavior, a ridiculous notion of property rights, and the mistaken application of “Darwinian” biological principles to society. I could go on, but these people are, like Manson’s cult or the Jonestown or Waco victims, being led down a path that promises them riches and power in this world. Nowhere, at any place or time, has Rand’s economic or social model been successful, and it never can be because it starts with fatal flaws. Hence, its adherents resort to personal and ad hominem attacks on their critics. Too bad. So sad.

    Comment by Polistes | March 18, 2009 | Reply

    • Polistes, you know there is a clever, but self-defeating tactic that people use in debates sometimes when the actual reasoning of their position is weak. It’s called “slanting,” or “loading” and consists of using rhetoric to give the reader false assumptions and premises on what is being said. Like you have used shamelessly here.

      “Small children” — argument from ridicule/derision
      “cult leader” — loaded statement/dysphemism
      “ridiculous notion” — another argument from derision, no example/definitions or explanation given
      “Manson’s Cult” — argument from association/scare tactic
      “promises them riches and power” — demonizing statement

      I’d rather listen to a child than a grownup any day. This sort of dishonest speech is just one reason. You must know that if your reasoning were sound, you wouldn’t need to make hyperbolic and slanting statements to convince people. Take the following two statements:

      “Murder is bad because it is wrong for one human being to take the life of another without unimpeachable moral reason & lack of other recourse.”

      “Murder is pathetic because it’s lame for one evil ugly pimpled white corporate black jewish lefthanded scuzzball pedophile guy to slip up behind our sleeping wonderful hero cartoon handsome neat cool charity leader, and stab a dastardly devilish knife so violently into our hero’s pure and virgin heart, robbing the universe of a great man of our age in farting fashion.”

      Why does the second one read so silly and pointless? Because those rhetorical slanters are not needed to prove my point. I did it without any loaded language or obnoxious mud slinging. Can you?

      Comment by Anonymous | June 5, 2009 | Reply

  21. Could these Randians PLEASE go Galt already? It’s annoying that they keep threatening to leave society and NEVER DO. Go buy an island or something with your unmooched, sweat-of-your-brow, achievement dollars. GO, already! Sheesh.

    The worst part about this Rand religion is it isn’t even based on the slightest iota of reality. All religions have some fact in the middle, through the mythical elements and water-walking and commandment-delivering. Like, Jesus and Moses and Mohammed and Buddha were REAL people in the REAL world. This one starts and ends with a fictional TERRORIST in the form of Roark and another fictiional dude name John Galt. None of it applies to the real world at all.

    It even comes pre-equipped with its own conspiracy theory (mediocre moochers taking our product by tears blahblahblah.) It’s easy to believe and simplistic, perfect for the permanently adolescent minds of its followers. They would have us believe people spring forth from the ground, with their achievement goals already in mind, having owed nothing to nobody. What a crock.

    Comment by Jeff | March 19, 2009 | Reply

    • You know, Jeff, the threats you’re hearing are from those who *aren’t* on strike. Who can say how many are? And plus, we’d buy or build an island, if we just had the money, but your taxes keep making the tanks run dry. So simply, the conditions to make it possible to go Galt en masse would mean that there’s no reason to go Galt.

      Next, you call Objectivism a religion. An atheist philosophy is hardly a good example of a religion. And yes, there is a fact in the middle: that A is A. That’s not made up. Any science teacher worth his salary could tell you that. Plus, Howard Roark and John Galt aren’t the messiahs of Objectivism (it makes me giggle to write that). Howard Roark wasn’t a terrorist, either. He was defending his moral integrity: he couldn’t let someone else build his buildings the wrong way.

      Plus, that conspiracy theory is named that for lack of a better term, since it really is without a driver or “hand behind the throne.” It’s logical. I’ve seen it happen in my own life: I’m assigned to work on a team project. What happens? The other people on the team know I’m high I.Q. and rational, and now–after all that condemnation they give me the rest of the time–they expect me to do it for them. Recently, my supervisor told me that I didn’t have to do the work for them. Thanks a ton, I’ll remember that after we’re punished for turning in nothing.

      Who is John Galt?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 25, 2010 | Reply

  22. Someone either doesn’t know a lot about Ayn Rand or is out to totally misrepresent her ideas:

    “Rand’s values are neo-Nietzsche who was originator of the war-like superman” While Rand was influenced by Nietzsche early on, she ultimately rejected his ideas because he condoned the use of force by the “superman” against others. By contrast, Rand herself consistently rejected initiation of physical force. She had nothing to do with “war-like superman.”

    “Alan Greenspan, ex-chairman of the Fed, was a student and contributed essays to her nonfiction book ‘Capitalism.’” His essay was a scathing critique of central banking and he advocated the abolishment of the Fed. Later, as the Fed Chairman, he was viewed by Objectivists as abandoning the principles of free markets and individualism. And the economy paid a dear price as Greenspan’s government-enforced low interest rates contributed to the 2002-2006 hosuing bubble. Greenspan may call himself an Objectivist, but everyone knows you can’t be Chairman of the Federal Reserve and an Objectivist at the same time.

    “Well, at one point Rand flatly states, there is no society” That is true. But she said “There is no such thing as society. Society is merely a collection of individuals” because she championed the individual’s right to be free. The “demands of society” have always been used as justification for sacrificing the rights of the individual (be it the USSR or Nazi Germany or socialized medicine), but she pointed out that that really means sacrificing one individual for the sake of other individuals.

    “For further insight into Rand’s world in which altruism is the enemy of advancing civilization, see Jeff Walker’s book The Ayn Rand Cult.” Rand repeatedly defined altruism “not as kindness or helping others” but as the morality that a man’s life is not his own and he can be sacrificed to the will of others like an animal, usually by force. I can’t say I blame her for being against THAT version of altruism. And I’ve read Walker’s book. He’s not “Rand’s biographer,” he’s clearly a guy with an axe to grind. But anyone who reads “The Ayn Rand Cult” will see it for themselves pretty easily.

    Comment by Chris | March 19, 2009 | Reply

    • Good words, my friend!

      It is nice to see someone with a good sense of philosophy and history to defend the much-maligned Ms. Rand.

      I am, myself, a Libertarian and NOT an Objectivist, but I do think it funny that the Left chooses to criticize any and all who disagree with them by lumping them all together by thin philosophic connections.
      It IS easier to hit a straw-bale than a straw-pile, though.

      Comment by Brady, the Mad Libertarian | July 17, 2009 | Reply

    • Good Job, Chris.

      Your points are excellent, succinct, and compelling. Unfortunately the Rand detractors here (including the post author) so fully enjoy smearing and mischaracterization that they simply will never think through what you have presented.

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

      • Excellent discussion on Rand, who was anti cult, anti superman, and anti collective. However, I want to take a little different tact here…and discuss the so-called “Right” and its history of nonthinking, nonreasoned, and nonactivism in the last 50 years:

        For years, since the 1970s I warned the Republicans and the Conservatives to “protest,”….and do it loudly, be indignant and take action against the lies, smears, and name calling….by the Left.

        I was told to be “ladylike” and “keep MY mouth shut.” Instead, the GOP and the Cons…went back to their country clubs and martinis…and just talked about “how awful” the Left was behaving… but did nothing.

        When the Left Wing Media…acted like Communist Apparatchiks for the Democrat Party…I joined Accuracy in Media and strongly recommended that we boycott ALL advertisers who supported the Left Wing Media….

        Again…I was told by Mr. Arneaud de Borchgrave et al…to “stand back” and don’t make them “mad” or the Left might get upset. At every turn…when the Left turned up the heat…”our side” turned into cowards and fled the battlefield.

        I began reading Left Wing textbooks to understand how and “why” the Left was motivated to commit mindless national “suicide” and engage in nonthinking and reactive destructive “hate” of this country.

        I read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” I followed the ongoing “Cloward-Pivens” strategies, in which the LEFT demanded more and more of your tax dollars using American “white” guilt to manipulate all you nice voters into handing over more of the tax payers’ income and rights. I was outraged as such simpering cowardice.The proof of how and why the Left was successful was not a secret…but yet, the Right refused to learn anything about the growing “enemy” in our midst.

        (The Cloward-Pivens strategy has been around for a long time…in which it is designed to use the “Christian values” of guilt, tolerance, and the forgiveness of sins…through legislative fiat that also includes spending this country into bankruptcy supporting ideological Left Wing goals masquerading as “social justice,” and entitlements. Mr. Cloward and Ms Pivens…stated that once this country was “bankrupt” on every level by all the “entitlement programs for the poor, or those with dark skin”…then by default the US would become a socialist state. They were right…and what did the Right do while this was happening? Nothing…they continued to read the Wall Street Journal, Barons, and their Bible.)

        In order to “combat” the left in their own territory, I went to Journalism school…and was appalled at how many “J” schools across the US were teaching future reporters to “be involved in social justice” meaning–follow the exact menu and agenda of the Socialists and the Democrat Party. In “J” school all of the instructors, professors, and their publications were biased as far back as the 1980s and stated in every way possible…that the GOP and the Conservatives were “against poor people and worse…homophobic racists.” What did “our side” do? Nothing…they mostly gave speeches to each other, but did not go into the lair of the Left Wing Liars… confront editors or journalists, or keep track of who their associates were.

        One small group, funded by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)…gave out summer internships and stipends…but “controlled” Right Wing journalists to the point, that no one was allowed to engage in exploratory journalism of the Left. Instead, the AEI lectured to the choir, and concentrated its focus on “making money.” During this experience…I thought “Fine, as long as we have some money to invest.” The group I hated the most during this period, were the “wannabe” journalists who were in reality arrogant little Right Wing Snots…who were absolutely assured that they would never have to do much but “look good”…and that they would always be “free” to make money and be at the top of the “heap.”

        The Country Club elitist Republicans failed us…and their parents failed us, and other Conservative/GOP organizations failed…to explore who and what the enemy was doing on every level…and confront it. IF we are to not just survive, but win back our rights…these arrogant Country Club types are going to have to fight in the streets along with the rest of us…or get the hell out of the way in this war for our Independence and Freedom Part II.

        The GOP has always had the power to acquire excess campaign funding…but never used such funding or journalists to save this country. Until Dan Rather was “caught forging documents” against George Bush…Rather had been a major fund raiser for the Democrat Party for 30 years. Not once did I hear a “peep” out of the so called “Right” regarding this outrage, nor did the Right use the same successful tactics of the Left. We we all told, that “ladies and gentlemen” did not engage in such “low” tactics. What does the GOP think now?

        The past 50 years have been very painful for me…as I watched as the Left forced the US out of Vietnam. What followed was a bloody massacre of 3 million people by the Viet Cong and the Communists. Not once did I hear or see any finger pointing at the DNC by the Republican Party orConservatives “who” were responsible for this genocide. If I had been in charge of the RNC…every time the DNC had a major meeting, I would have beenthere holding up signs…stating…”The Democrats Murdered 3 million people!”

        I was in the Contra camps…watching children die of starvation, while the Left “organized” the most massive public relations’ campaign in American history…using money smuggled into them by the Soviet Communists and the International Socialists to fund them. Time and time again, the Democrats have been caught…and not once did the Right take advantage of it. Instead, they stayed home watching football, and took their kids to “soccer” practice.

        In the early 1980s, I was a hired “mole” at a Marxists’ Scholar’s Conference at the University of Louisville, when Jesse “The Extortionist” Jackson was caught red-handed taking money from the Communist Party USA’s “bag man.” Did the Right become outraged at this? No…because Jackson was “black” and somehow being “black” excused every one of his hundreds of blackmail and extortion schemes. When Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition was caught cheating on their taxes…what did the Right do? Nothing.

        Year after year…when ACORN and at least 1000 other associated “scams” funded by the US tax payers…were used to “organized” the Left…what did the Right do? Nothing…it barely noticed.

        During the 1980s…the Right didn’t even whimper when the Left “booked” every single library, student union, community center, local public TV and radio stations to “organize.” The Right said nothing when the Left began a massive PR war against the US “saving” the Nicaraguans (i.e. Five groups of Contras) from the Marxist Sandinistas. I was only 1 of 2 journalists in the US…that reported on the Contras and the first journalist to document the Marxist Sandinista genocidal atrocities against the Moskito, Suma, and Rama Indians, which was entered into the US Congressional Record in July 1985.

        What did the GOP do…when the Left Wing pro-Marxist Congress refused to allow the Contras to use public relations to state their side of the conflict. Nothing…But, yet, the American Left Wing journalists…were allowed to print documented “lies” about the Contras day in and day out? I was one of a group of people involved with the International Red Cross who investigated alleged Contra “atroicities.” Not once in 124 cases we investigated, by interviewing witnesses, and doing field world…did we find any organized, or orchestrated atrocities by the Contras. And yet…the Left continues to make up massive lies and smears today….without so much as a peep.

        Recently…a Left Wing bogging booger eater, made up a lie about the Palin’s divorcing. Palin is now considering filing a law suit against him….Well, duh, its about god damn time…there should be about 1000 lawsuits filed against the Lying Left Wing booger eaters going back 30 years.

        In the 1980s, I begged, wrote articles, visited the offices of Congress…I was outraged and indignant…and stated that there should be a public law to require that all such “advocate” journalists to have to “register as lobbiests for the Democrat Party…because when they printed their lies and slants…they were NOT journalists..and had a clear, practiced, and definite political agenda.

        I was again told…that they had the right of “Free Speech,” and that somehow God or Jesus would find a way to “overcome” the evil Left. While, the “Right” prayed…the Left worked over time at a grass-roots level…and took over this country lock, stock, and barrel.

        I again protested when the Religious Right had one single issue…abortion….which was the equivalent of “Nero fiddling while Rome burned” in the distance…If ProLifers do not want an abortion, then they have a right to not have one. But…the Right…became “religious” and demanded that “pregnancy be turned into a 9-month jail sentence…and that while pregnant, the Right…inferred that women no longer had a right to control, own, or determine the fate of their own bodies.”

        And so here we are…nearly 100% of all universities, colleges, and the media is controlled by the Left. The Left now dominates the Congress, the White House, and all government agencies, including the US Military, IRS, FBI, CIA etc is at the beck and call of Hussein Obama and his Chicago Thugs…

        For more than 40 years, the American school system…has de-evolved into a pro-Marxist union that promotes every Left Wing, socialist, anti-American individual rights issue. Reviewing a middle-grades English curriculum, I did not find a single “lesson plan” that involved grammar, writing skills, or vocabulary…but “social justice and diversity” themes.

        Millions of students now have to become trained to become “unthinking” and involuntary slaves of the state”…for whom it is mandated that they “volunteer” for community service before they can graduate from high school…or enter college. What did the Right do? The Right whined a little, but complied like good little boys and girls…trying to make the “daddy-state” happy.

        So now …when the Left Wing wolf is not only at our door, but is eating our future, taking our money, and our property…and making state-slaves out of our children well into the 22nd Century…and is well on its way to turning the US into the Socialist States of America…. now… you protest.

        Again…I am going to warn you to “prepare” because the worst is yet to come.

        The Left has a vicious, jealous, mean streak, and they are not going to go willingly into the “night” like “ladies and Gentlemen.” The Left smells the “blood” of our demise and self-induced helplessness.

        Many of today’s Left Wing leaders…are not only on the payroll of George Soros and can “afford” to “organize” 14 hours a day, 7 days a week…and have fun while ripping away your rights and will to protest….they have been training thousands of “professional protesters” to beat your heads in. The fun has just begun. Don’t even bet that this war for your rights is going to be “won” by waving a few signs around, attending a few “tea parties” and yelling at Town Hall meetings.

        What exactly is the “Right” going to have to do? Begin impeachment movements against every single Left Wing, stand on street corners, take over community centers, set up booths at university campuses, man the phones…and yes “mob” the streets in protest. Make “them” afraid…to deny you your Constitutional Rights and property. Make the Left and the elitist politicians you even voted for…know that its not business as usual.

        When the votes were counted for SotoMayor…the most outrageous “racist” to ever become a Supreme Court judge…100% of the GOP should have voted against her. SotoMayor by the way…was the legal representative for the Latinos’ “La Raza” party. Now how many of the GOP know that “La Raza” means “the race.” La Raza is the most racist group in the US, and the equivalent of the racist Black Panthers. By the way…what La Raza wants besides revenge against “whitey” is open American borders… Already 1/6th of the entire Mexican population now lives in the US. La Raza wants to make it 100%.

        Many of today’s Left Wing Leaders…many of whom are Obama’s good friends, fought bloody street battles in the 1960s and 1970s and are not afraid to go to war, and if necessary…murder. The leaders of the violent Anti-Vietnam war protesters are still here, with many of them holding powerful professorships in American universities, who are…organizing future battles against the Right.

        Knowing this…I wonder what the Right is going to do? Hide out behind gated communities, enclave themselves at the country club again…and over their Glen Livet Scotch, simply muse about how “awful” it all is?

        I have a small hope…that finally the Right is growing a “backbone” and will begin protesting as they should have done 4o years ago, when the onslaught or organized lies and smears began. And I…

        Thank you…its about GD time….and by the way, not only did I tell you what the future was going to be as it was self-evident…but those of you who told me to “keep my mouth shut” and “act like a lady”…while this country was being raped and robbed…now owe me an apology.

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 9, 2009

    • And Rand was making the point…that it was “supermen” who go above and beyond all collective, religious, cultural pressures and demands…and is a heretic, a nonbeliever, and who thinks outside of the box.

      It takes extraordinary will power, brains, and a spine…to live in a world that rewards mediocrity and hates the “rich” and the successful. Those who do so…are supermen and super women.

      Every single thing you dumb collectivite socialists use, you dumb cluck…was invented by a heretic, a superman or woman, who refused to live a static life…and fought against the dull, unimaginative, boring, insecure, uneducated, poor…like you….who are jealous, filled with revenge and hate, for those who achieve and succeed.

      Not only do the “supermen” have to fight their own minds in order to not submit to the status quo…when and if they do achieve something great, such as make a statement that “the earth revolves around the sun,” with such statements these supermen and super thinkers…are punished, destroyed, put in prison..and labeled “anti social.”

      Every time I see such a person who is “anti social” and fights against the collective, mindless bull shit boring, retarded rhetoric that wants us to be all the same and POOR…I go Hoorey for them!

      Go ahead…live your little boring life, filled with video games, and TV promoting bizarre sexual life styles…of which we taxpayers are told we MUST pay for…go ahead…go to the left wing schools and media outlests that promotes the collective ant hill anti individualist mind…go ahead…pay those taxes, and demand that the rest of us pay more, because we MUST be punished for being successful thinkers and especially for being independent.

      But, know that the mindless socialist collective ALWAYS makes bad decisions and FAILS. Already the collective socialists are bankrupting and destroying this country…and who will suffer the most? You, the little mindless following bipedal insect….you will suffer because you do not have the ability to think or survive on your own….The collective insects do not think in the future, do not save, or invest, or create new ideas that allow them achieve a better, more sustaining lifestyle.

      And in return…the strongest will survive…and survive well. Did it ever dawn on you why the successful and the rich live in enclaved homes and gated communities and away from people like you? Because, the masses of you vote, and because you vote, you are dangerous…you do not respect intelligence or achievement, or anyone’s property or right to “live”… but in your mindless, boring, poverty stricken world and follower’s mind…you hate.

      As a student of zoology, you Left wing cretins also remind me of a pack of hyenas. A bunch of giggling hyenas all grabbing and sniffing each other’s crotches…and thinking you are soooo cool…because you voted for Obama’s “change” and yet you have not a clue what that change would lead to.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 28, 2009 | Reply

      • Your previous comment outlining the complacency of the right, while snide, sniviling socialists disguised as Democrats took control of the bus and steered it over the cliff, was magnificant. Sounds like you have earned the right to say “told you so”.

        Comment by Rich | August 9, 2009

  23. “And the economy paid a dear price as Greenspan’s government-enforced low interest rates contributed to the 2002-2006 hosuing bubble.”

    So is it Greenspan’s fault or government in general’s fault? Cuz, see, it SEEMS like you are “sacrificing one individual” (Greenspan) “for the sake of other individuals.” (Objectivists and their consistency) Man this stuff seems like its hard to keep pure.

    And of course this leads into why Objectivism and Libertarianism will never be a major political force because they are too inept to establish a state by means of politics, diplomacy, bribery, or force of arms. Because, 1) Their beliefs are unpalatable to the people at large (even to those who ostensibly believe them)
    2) They act like insufferable assholes
    3) Despite all that preening about achievement and mooching and work product, they actually don’t have that much money.
    4) They can’t run a revolution because of their moral objection to force (although they’ll find a way to justify it, ask Timothy McVeigh. If smashing the state means blowing little children to bits, so be it)

    This is why their best strategy for running any nation is to throw this clockwork temper tantrum every 4 to 8 years against any new administration and merely serve as a security blanket for angry, whiny, Republican pusses. And their only weapon is this Galt-style daydream that they will take their ball and go home and everybody will miss them and crumble without them. But they never do, because they are afraid of the fact that they might leave and nobody would notice or care. (or, even worse, flourish with the added concentration that comes with their silence.)

    So please, Go Galt, have a nice trip.

    Comment by Jeff | March 20, 2009 | Reply

    • Jeff, not a single point you make applies to any sentiment that belongs to Rand’s Objectivism. Not one. If that makes me an insufferable asshole, it makes you an intellectual neanderthal.

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

      • Not once…has any ANTI RANDER poster ever QUOTED RAND CORRECTLY. Why is that?

        What is it and how is it…that the Anti-Logic Left Wing Twits…who “hate” Ayn Rand with an intensity verging on insanity…have never read Rand or even have the simple intelligence to quote “what” they hate about Rand accurately? How do they do that?

        Where and how do the Anti-Logic Rand haters…get their hate information? I’d like to know.

        So…here is the question:


        I am betting that maybe 1 in 1000 will be able to truthfully state…they hate Rand, because someone in their peer group told them to. As mere “ghosts” of a human being, the Anti Randers are incapable of being anything but a parasite, sucking off the idiotic words of someone they think is “cool” without knowing if what they parrot like a squawking bird is accurate or not.

        What value or enjoyment is there in living like a LAMPREY…sucking the blood of a host, or living off of offal and detritus?

        In my more “outrageous” moments, I would like to put an Anti-Rander in a room, just me and him or her…and begin to question them about what they really know about Rand and why they hate her or Objectivism.

        Every time they tell a “lie” or refuse to answer…or get a wrong answer, I’d like to send an electrical shock through their chair…until they begin to answer with honesty.

        Any Anti-Rander who simply states: “I don’t know where I got this information…gets a lollipop.” But, then I’m not the head inquisitor in charge, and the lousy, confused, strange little perverted lies they tell…punishes them far beyond anything I could do.

        To a person…those who hate Rand and Objectivism…have failed personalities, and schizoid personality disorders.

        Hmmm, let me see…there is a little P. Henry in this forum, who “guffaws” at Rand’s writings…and then there are the millions who understood what Rand was offering, i.e. respect and integrity for one’s self….Hmmm…

        1 vs millions of Rand Readers….hmmmm, let me see who I would be more inclined to respect….one little anti-Rander whiner, or the millions who understand and enjoy Rand….and think for themselves.

        Hmmmm, I am so confused. Gee…do you think I should ask P. Henry what to do? He is such an “expert” in logic and rational thinking. NOT

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 10, 2009

    • Greenspan did not promote “low income” low interest loans to those without documentation, no money, no jobs…NIJA Loans (no income, no jobs)….

      Who demanded that the “poor”…read undocumented aliens of which over 75,000 of the 500,000 who defaulted on their loans were illegal aliens.

      Greenspan was told what to do…by Barney Fwank, the head, mindless, idiotic socialist, gay-hater of heterosexuals of them all.

      Christopher Dodd…and at least 100 Democrat reps and congressmen…all demanded through ACORN, that those who are minorities and with the lowest IQs and educatonal levels… with the least ability to pay, all be given mortgages guaranteed by the US Govt.

      Greenspan is not god, he has no control over the Left Wing Dems and their neo-religious socialist ideology that has made saints out of the Poor.

      Ergo…the entire collapse of this economy was the result of the transfer of wealth and property…to those who could not pay for it…all demanded and engineered by the Insect Collective Left. We are now witnessing the largest crime of theft in the history of the world.

      The second largest documented crime of theft in the world…was when the US under Clinton, through his buddies at the UN, Mark Rich, etc…who Clinton pardoned…all sent billions of the tax payers’ money to Saddam Hussein in the fraudulent “Oil for Food” program.

      Just how the American people have been able to live through these two massive thefts…is because the majority of the income to the US govt is through independent business people…who Obama is not threatening to destroy.

      Now just how intelligent is that?

      Just as religion is a cult of death with promises of riches in the afterlife..the Obama cult of socialism is a cult of poverty, whose riches they promise lie in the poverty of the mind and sameness.

      Just as religion declares that poverty is good…you will be rewarded with heaven when you die…the Obama socialists declare also…that the poverty of socialism is good…being poor will make it all “fair.” And in this state of sameness and poverty…we promise you will be “happy.”

      But will it?

      When the religious prove there is a god…then I will believe that the poverty of socialism is good.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 28, 2009 | Reply

    • Thank you, Jeff. I will have a nice trip. See you all on Mars!

      Who is John Galt?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 25, 2010 | Reply

    • And another thing…

      How is your socialist super-state supposed to work? Without thinking minds (and there won’t be any if there’s no reward for thinking, and every reward for non-thinking) it will crumble like a five hundred year old badly built brick mansion targeted by the sky-diving hippo team.

      The reason that we don’t go on strike, here, now, right this instant is that we still have goals to obtain here. I, for example, would very much like to complete my education, and have some valuable skills for after the collapse.

      Who is John Galt?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 25, 2010 | Reply

  24. I was deeply influenced by Ayn Rand when I was younger, but as I grew older I realized that her ideas, like many others, sound good on paper but don’t work out so well in real life. Her heroes all seem to have a sense of basic right and wrong, and if we could always count on everyone behaving to some basic standards, then Objectivism could work. Sadly, while most people are decent, there are clearly enough who aren’t to spoil the whole thing.

    Comment by pipet | March 24, 2009 | Reply

    • So what do you propose instead?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 25, 2010 | Reply

  25. It is abundantly clear you have no clue about Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is predicated on each person’s right to life and everything else proceeds from that. As a result, the advocates capitalism; a free people voluntarily exchanges value for value. She was totally opposed to the initiation of force. While I think her personal life had some serious blemishes, she was also a very generous person. Her so-called biographer obviously has an agenda that would be interesting to psychologize about.

    As for Greenspan, he departed from Objectivism decades ago.

    Comment by Nick | March 24, 2009 | Reply

  26. Ayn Rand’s ideas and Atlas Shrugged are very prescent for today. The bottom line on her politics and books is you must take accountability for yourself and you are responsible for your own well-being. If you give up and just let society take care of you and your family, you become a moocher. Her ideals of shelfishness are to do what is in your best interest and disregard others, but it is to do what is in your best interest that will help others. The person that creates jobs, does so to better themselves and their family, while creating jobs for others. The person that invents to gain profit does so by also creating new materials and new products for all to enjoy. The sum is far greater than the profit produced by the object in the first place. The current administration is a looter that seeks to vilfy those that produce. Beware of John Galt and beware of ignoring the consequences of ignoring reality.

    Comment by Spencer Moseley | March 24, 2009 | Reply

    • Mutual consent, mutual benefit!

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | July 14, 2010 | Reply

  27. go take a nap. all of you. now.

    Comment by Anonymous | April 2, 2009 | Reply

    • I am quite weary.
      I believe I shall.

      Comment by Brady, the Mad Libertarian | July 17, 2009 | Reply

  28. To Spencer Moseley…how does looking out for yourself benefit others? Your comments remind me of the idea of trickle-down economics that Reagan (The Rand fan) promoted. The rich create the jobs so therefore we should thank the rich and be their slaves. Bull*$#!. The rich DO NOT create jobs and any businessman looks to get by with as few jobs as possible at the cheapest expense to increase the bottom line. Humans and human work is a commodity to be outsourced, disposed of, and eliminated at will. Do you honestly think that the corporate executive or even the small businessman cares about you or I? NO! They are out to make sure that THEY take home the money. We are on our own with Capitalist philosophy. There is no love for our fellow man. May the strongest win. May the strongest survive. I happen to be a very capable hard-working man who has desperately been looking for work in this horrid economy. Does that make me a moocher while our big banks are lining up at the trough and collecting their million dollar bonuses? I am ready and willing to work hard, but have been unable to find a job. Perhaps you would call me lazy. I call it a flawed system This is how it works, which should be painfully obvious in the current climate of this country.

    Comment by timste | April 2, 2009 | Reply

    • timste (aka moocher),

      Based on your comments, it would appear that your inability to secure employment may be related to the fact that you have a higher opinion of your capabilities than is justified. It is far more likely that you are just not willing to work in positions for which you are qualified.

      Comment by Anonymous | May 28, 2009 | Reply

      • Here we go again…those who work, who look out for themselves…are now being demanded that we “also” love those who won’t work. Pure insanity…

        So now…TIMSTE…thinks its a sane idea to demand, legislate and coerce me and everyone to “love” them and bless them with unconditional LUV. Socialism in the minds of the delusional..is therefore equivalent to being loved. The more I know about the psychology of the Left…the more I realize how mentally ill and hideous they are. What a bunch of rodents and parasites.

        Has anyone ever in their life time…seen such hideous, idiotic neoreligious beliefs as this? That by engaging in theft of other people’s money, livilihood, independence and property, and, mandating through legislative theft…which follows with massive poverty and state failure, that we will “prove” how much we love others? I think I’m going to puke.

        The only persons in recent history who made such claims were Adolf Hitler, Joseph stalin, Pol Pot, and now Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

        Oh yeah! Create a mindless, socialist police state paradise….rob the “rich” (anyone with a job)…and give to the sainted, lowly POOR and show them how much the state Loves them.

        What vomit. What a bunch of Hyenas the Left are. Pass the puke bag.

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 28, 2009

    • Gosh timste, you could not be more confused.

      If a man has an idea for business, he could keep it small scale, so only he works at it. Or, if he has a good idea, he could expand it so more of his customers benefit. Please note: HIS ideas benefit his CUSTOMERS! In some small way, clearly, they think his idea makes their lives better. Yes, it may be a small way, but it is multiplied by the total number of his customers. Culturally his effort is of enormous value.

      Harm his business (by taxation, by legislation, by cheating him of profit, or by resentment of his success) and you foolishly undercut the benefits his customers enjoyed. You may even be one of those customers! Even if you are not his customer, you live in his society. Therefore, your anti-capitalist sentiment will, without doubt, harm one or more businesses from which you DID benefit.

      So, our businessman discovers that he can hire one or more individuals to achieve his expansion. YES, he his helping even more customers!

      Now, surely you can understand that the people he hires did not have the idea he had for helping his customers. Yet, to you, they are of equal value to him because they take orders, package his goods, type his letters, and so forth.

      Surely not!

      Worse, it says that his quality idea, that helps his customers so widely, is worthless compared to the relatively minor achievement of his employees packaging and typing efforts. No, the idea that made the business a value to its customers, is also the idea that gave the employees the job, that only owes them a market competitive wage for the non-idea by which his employees operate.

      The employees are NOT advancing the lives of the company’s customers, except in so far as they properly present the value that only the businessman envisaged.

      On “trickle-down economics”, the businessman has had an idea that advances the lives of his customers (first ‘trickle’) and then hires other individuals whose *labor* expands his business (second trickle down). Their labor did not create the business idea, nor even the business. Why should they be assigned economic and inventive equality with the businessman? To do so would constitute a horrible injustice.

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

  29. Why don’t you try reading some of Ayn Rand’s books before passing judgment on them. Ayn Rand’s basic social premise is that there are only two ways for humans to deal with each other: reason and force. She chose reason. You leftys choose force. You half-use your brains to come up with “common good” ideas and don’t care that you leave a trail of devastation anywhere you are allowed to try to implement them. Then you blame human nature for your failures not realizing that you are exposing your rebellion against reality in doing so. Human nature is what it is and not subject to your whims, tantrums, or legislations. It is up to us to accept it and build social structures that allow us to thrive and prosper as human beings really are and not as you wish they would be in your fantasy world where food, health care, and mani-pedis grow on trees.

    Keep trying to impose your ideas on the rest of us by force. You will find that many of us will not go quietly into another thousand years of dark ages and that brute force is no match for intelligent use of force.

    Comment by Ragnar Danneskjold | April 2, 2009 | Reply

    • Everybody chooses force. You righties who were brought into this world naked, hungry and screaming just like the rest of us, leverage what was given to you to perpetuate your hegemony over the less fortunate while sanctimoniously declaring that you’ve earned it with your conceited notions of how intelligent you are. But there is a tiny bit of justice after all, because in the long run you too are dead.

      Comment by Disgusted Derelict | May 18, 2009 | Reply

      • And Ragnar….how and in what way do the “righties” who ever they are…perpetuate “hegemony” over the less fortunate?

        When in fact, it thru taxation, gifts, funding, capitalization, ventures, etc…that pay for and help the less fortunate.

        Answer this Ragnar…if there is no money, no money made or created, thru capitalism…then just how will the “state” take care of the less fortunate?

        Answer Ragnar…don’t just whine and make unproven statements, but prove it.

        And yes…there are some who are intelligent, and use their brains to help themselves (oooohhhh what a sin!), and then help others.

        And what kind of “justice” are you talking about Ragnar.

        Do you really think that stealing other people’s money and property is “justice?” Then prove it…

        We all die…so what? Big deal…the idea is to live and live well while you are here.

        Whatsamatter Ragnar, did you drop out of school and now you are a disgusted derelict (bum) whose pissed off because YOU made bad, stupid choices…and now want to punish the rest of us who work and make money?

        Sounds like you are really jealous and a hater of anyone who works…please, oh please…Ragnar…do not vote and do not have any children, or you will pass your disgusting, depressing, negative, and idiotic genetics onto your poor kids.

        If there was ever a case for free birth control and free abortions Ragnar, you are it…and its too bad that abortion cannot be done in retrograde.

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 26, 2009

    • Ragnar:

      So the Bush Jr. administration’s war in Iraq isn’t an example of force, but of pure reason?

      Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009 | Reply

      • The Left/Right view is egregiously incorrect. Both sides believe that some sort of government compulsion is needed to make citizen’s conform.

        The morally superior view is to respect and *defend* each Individual’s Life, Liberty, Property and Pursuit of happiness ——without taxing him or legislating him so as to compel him into decisions that conform to the State’s view of Politically Correct goals.

        As soon as that compulsion is enacted, human progress stalls.

        Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009

      • It was PURE REASON as to why Bush entered into the war in Iraq….because Saddam Hussein, was NOT a person of reason.

        Sometimes I wonder just how dumb the Left is…then all I have to do is read these Left Wing posters and I am reminded. Bush never acted alone…life and the world is not like a video game you like to play, where little you get to make all the decisions. The invasion in Iraq had been brewing since Clinton, and other Democrats “knew” that upon the advice of some 15,000 intelligence and military analysts…that it was necessary.

        The US went into Iraq because of these “reasons”..which were meant to pre-empt a larger war, such as WW II in which 14 million people were murdered. Now take your pick Lefty–choose between 14 million killed, most of whom were noncombatants and civilians…or 5000 “VOLUNTEER” soldiers who died so you could shoot your stupid mouth off? And “yes,” it was a “NeoCon” idea…because NeoCons…think in terms of “pre-emption” and not wait until the shit hits the fan and the situation becomes a massive, fucking world-wide problem. The war in Iraq was cheap…compared to what the US went through in WW II.

        The US went into Iraq for many reasons…to wit:

        1) Saddam Hussein had created the largest army in the Middle East and had already demonstrated his willingness to invade other countries…

        2) Kuwait…which had been previously invaded by Iraq/Saddam…and all the other countries around Iraq…where we get our OIL, and Saddam would have invaded Kuwait again–as per his words…as he was filled with the “religious belief” he was the heir apparent, or the reincarnation of Nebuchadazzar (Read biographies on SAddam you twit to understand why we entered into a war).

        The results in human suffering and cost to us would have been devastating if Saddam had been allowed to take over the ME. Both Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Kerry, and Kennedy, etc…said that “eventually the US would have to go to war with Saddam.” That was correct. And…all of them voted for, and supported Bush’s war funding.

        3) Saddam stated he was going to:
        a) dominate the ME so that the US and our allies would have to pay $100 for a gallon of gas. Did you want that to happen? Can you think for yourself what the consequences would be, and,

        b) Saddam was investing in WMDs….everyone around Iraq…i.e. Pakistan, Syria, Lybia, India, etc. had nukes…so why not Saddam? When that lying piece of filth….Wilson went to Niger and stated that it was not true that Saddam was seeking to buy “yellow cake”…it was a semi-lie created by Wilson who was working for the Kerry campaign to embarrass Bush…Wilson knew for a fucking “fact” that Saddam was seeking yellow cake in Chad…not Niger. Chad is right next door to Niger…

        4) Saddam, et al, was going to change buying oil from USDs to Euros and force all the other countries in the ME to make the US buy oil with Euros also. Do you understand that if Saddam had been successful…the US would have had to exchange dollars at a discount rate to Euros to buy oil, instantly making the USD (United States Dollar) worthless…and upping the cost of oil to 2 times its value or more. The US would have instantly gone into a recession worse than the one we are now involved in. But, I guess you Left Wing Lazy Ass Loonies don’t care about the rest of us being poor…

        Yes, it was a “War for Oil” and many other reasons. I use to post that if the Left did not like the “War for Oil”…then they should simply throw out all plastic products in their homes, stop driving a car, or riding on anything that runs on oil. Turn out all lights, just sit in the dark and eat twigs and grass…and live in a tent and “walk.”

        But, of course, the Left are consummate hypocrites and liars who like to talk a big game and whine, but when it comes down to putting their money where their mouth is…and to being real and living up to their own ideals…they can’t do it. The Left is a bunch of Frauds.

        5) Saddam had “spies” all over the world…who besides having the largest weaponized army in the ME…was also paying Palestinian suicide bombers’ families $25,000 for each bomber to blow up innocent civilians not just in Israel, but Turkey, Bali, Lebanon, France, the UK, Greece, Chile, and Yes..’plot and plan’ to kill us in the US. Saddam had spies in the every major city in the US…now what were they doing here? Taking basket weaving lessons?

        6) Saddam had indeed supported and helped to train the 9-11 bombers. Mohammad Atta’s room mate in Hamburg, Germany was one of Saddam’s lieutenants in his secret police. Did you think it was an accident that these two lived together? Read Stephen Hays’ book….on the 9-11 Saudis, some of whom were trained in an airfield 60 miles North of Baghdad by Saddam. No matter what the Left Wing Media Liars stated or IGNORED AND REFUSED TO PRINT…that Saddam/Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11…that is a lie, by the most anti-American in situ haters this country has ever had to deal with except for the USSR.

        7) Saddam had also welcomed and allowed one of the Al Qaeda terrorists to have his broken leg treated in a Baghdad hospital. There were ties between Saddam and every single Moslem-terrorist group in the world and the ME. “What we now know” ….about Saddam Hussein, the Abu Sayeff, the Palestinians, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban were and remain in communication with each other and hate the “West,…1000 times more than they hate each other.

        It was a FLAT LIE promoted by then VP, Al “The Chinese Whore” Gore in a press conference to “correct” the CIA’s intelligence…”that Saddam et al, were not in cahoots with each other.” Yes…they were, as it was proven, over and over again by thousands being murdered all over the world by “Moslems” with ties to Saddam.

        8) And now for the crux of the main problem. Who supplied Saddam with weapons and materiel? It was NOT the US…I have had a standing reward now for about 8 years…that if any single person can come up with a photograph of any of Saddam’s soldiers or military holding a single US rifle, driving a US tank, flying a US airplane…I will send them a reward check for $10,000. That the US “supplied” Saddam is one of the most monstrous, outrageous lies told by the Left Wing Media of all time.

        Who supplied Saddam with materiel was the USSR, the Chinese, North Korea, East Germany, and our good buddies France and the UK. The USSR sent Saddam tanks and arms, China sent in cheap weapons, AKs, etc. France supplied the engineering for Saddam’s bunkers, as did the East Germans who were the main engineers on these projects.

        Our good buddies (sic) the UK…supplied satellite intelligence, and germ warfare to Saddam. You do remember that 100,000 Kurds were murdered by “gas” after the US left them out in the cold…after telling the Kurds they supported their fight against Saddam? Guess where that gas came from?

        I personally interviewed through a translator, a Cuban defector in Miami…who worked in Castro’s germ warfare weapons labs in Cuba…with East Germans, and British scientists.

        Castro was also involved in supporting the Moslems in the war against the US. In Nicaragua…on the 7th floor of the Intercontinental Hotel in downtown Managua, Moammar Ghadaffi’s Lybian terrorists were being put up, wined and dined…while they trained the Marxist Sandinistas.

        Did if cross your mind…why the US would NOT allow the French to enter into Iraq when the war started? Of course you didn’t…you on the Left never read anything or think for yourselves and are incapable of doing any research about any subject…The French were in bed with Saddam’s Ba’athist Party from Day 1…which was one of the reasons why France had such a good oil deal, paying lower prices for crude than everyone else. It then followed, that France and the Europeans would get an even better deal if they could pay in Euros and not USDs.

        The truth is that the US is at war with Europe for control of the ME and its oil, and for dominance of the Euro over the US Dollar…but then the Left Wing lying assholes never said a word about the real reason for this war or why “Bush” invaded Iraq…the truth hurts doesn’t it.

        9) And now about the traitors in the US: In the United Nations’ Oil for Food Programme…Clinton and his buddies were making billions of dollars off the US, in which the UN made the US the chief payer. The problem was that the money for Saddam’s oil, did not go for food or medicine, but was then used to build Saddam’s massive army. The Clintons in return…were given millions in illegal campaign funding through dozens of Moslem sources, including the BCCI bank, owned by radical Indonesian Moslems.

        Yes…the Clintons were caught, as they have been at least a dozen times…and merely gave back a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But, in all…these illegal campaign funds, funneled from the US, to Saddam, from Saddam to other sources, then trickled back into the US through all kinds of campaign funding sources…was then used by the Clintons for Billy Boy’s second presidential campaign, and Hillary’s run for the Senate.

        The Democrats have a very long history of acquiring Left Wing, communist, international socialist funding…and filtering it back into the US. The true reason for the Water Gate break in of the DNC headquarters during the Nixon era…was to find proof of where the Democrats were getting their funding…because the traitorous, highly compromised, and down right ignorant boob journalists refused to investigate the Dems or the Left.

        One of these “facilitators” and “go-betweens” for the Clintons’ campaign funding and Saddam’s “Oil for Food programme” was Mark Rich…who Clinton eventually pardoned the last day of his presidency. Rich is currently serving time in a federal prison for his role in Saddam’s “oil for fraud” programme. The Clintons and the Left have such nice, caring friends.

        The US had no choice but to invade Iraq for many reasons, but another primary reason was that this was just another “proxy” war…in which the US was under siege and assault by our so-called European socialist friends to gain dominance of the ME and the “world” through Saddam. If the Left does not want the US to be the policeman of the world…then they should tell us who they think should be in charge? Hugo Chavez?

        So take your pick…did you want the Europeans to win…and turn the US into a third world country, or do you want the US to win so that you can continue to shoot your Left Wing Loonie Mouth off about that which you know nothing about?

        The US had one single asset in that dog fight in the 1960s, who was a double agent for the US. Sarkis Soghanalian, one of the largest arms dealers in the world, worked for the US. His counterpart and competitor did in fact sell arms to Saddam…was Adnan Kashoggi, whose brother owns Harrads in London, whose son (Dodi Fayed) was killed in the auto accident with Princess Diana. Sarkis…kept Saddam off balance and fighting our “other” enemy in the ME…Iran, by feeding Saddam false intelligence. (You DO remember that Iran took Americans hostage and kept them until Ronald Reagan took office. Wanna know how Reagan got our hostages released? Reagan threatened to blow up Iran’s Karg island and oil depot…20 minutes after taking office…if Iran did not release US hostages…something that ball-less little Left Wing, highly medicated turd Carter could not bring himself to do.)

        Regarding Sarkis…It was a much better strategy to keep Iraq and Iran killing each other, rather than beginning the war against the US in the 1970s, whereby thousands of US soldiers would die in the sands of the ME…Although this was one of the most brilliant intelligence strategies of all time…that essentially cost the US nothing…once again, the Left interfered and as usual, screwed it all up.

        Who created that cluster fuck which destroyed our one good asset that kept Saddam hunkered down and out of bothering the US…was that Left Wing stupid cunt, Linda Tarbe, a US attorney in Houston, who filed charges against Sarkis and 12 other defendants (all innocent) for having illegal weapons. This was not true…Saddam had one single RPG found on a plane at the Pan American air field in Miami. Tarbe, a Left Wing piece of shit…then got Sarkis convicted, outted him as a US double agent.

        The rest of Sarkis’ co-defendants had been giving honest monthly reports to the FBI (Fumbling Bumbling Idiots) for more than 12 years…thinking they were being good patriots and citizens by being honest and were “sanctioned” by the US…The rest is history:

        Saddam made peace with Iran…rebuilt his army, and began his assault on the US through many sources and assets. Saddam then invaded Kuwait…for which 325 American soldiers died liberating…so you, you Left Wing asshole could have cheap, affordable gas.

        Clinton…then invaded Serbia/Bosnia and supported the Moslem terrorists who were funded by the Albanian Moslems, and on the orders of Hillary Clinton, ex-general Weasel Clark bombed and murdered 250,000 Serbian civilians, before he was fired by sec def Cohen. The Taliban…so emboldened by the US “mistake” of who was the enemy…then took over Afghanistan and murdered and executed women who showed a lock of hair in violation of Islamic Law.

        After 9-11…the US, and especially the FBI which had been completely compromised by the Clintons…had to be replaced. Did it ever occur to some of you…WHY? the FBI was replaced by Homeland Security? The Clintons “owned” the FBI who did nothing about Islamic terrorism…but cover up the Clinton’s lies, theft, and corruption and ties to Moslem terrorists…up to and including the FBI giving Hillary 920 “secret files” and background investigations on GOP congressmen…who were then forced to vote as Hillary saw fit. Now you know…why Billy Boy escaped impeachment…as many in Congress were blackmailed to vote against impeachment.

        And once again…Hussein Obama and his Chicago thugs…have issued a call…to turn in anyone whose anti-Obama thoughts and words are “fishy.” Oh pulleeese, email this entire post to: flag@whitehouse.gov…I dare you.

        And so…you think the invasion of Iraq was not necessary?

        The Left needs a brain enema. And, as far as I’m concerned…we need a good revolution in this country…by any means necessary. But, let’s try the peaceful approach and use the Saul Alinsky tactics of the Left first…Let’s scream and yell at the Left in Town Hall meetings…let us throw pies in the faces of Left Wing Liars…and use all of the tactics the Left has been using to destroy democracy for the past 50 years.

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 11, 2009

    • Judy seems to have mixed up who authored what comment. I think she is responding to Disgusted Derelict — or is that Disgusting Derelict?, arf arf arf.

      Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009 | Reply

    • The Left chooses “force” because the Left cannot Reason.

      The Supermen that Rand speaks of….will NOT go quietly into the supernatural world of socialism…ruled by a police state FORCE….

      And trust me…the Supermen and Superwomen among us…will bravely strap on our “gear,” kiss our families and loved ones good bye…and will take you down where you stand.

      You who love the sainted and poor “parasites” …will not last for long…because you are incapable of thinking or strategically planning for yourselves…

      Mobs do not win wars…they make a lot of noise, engage in much self destruction and murder of innocent people…and in the beginning it will appear that the collective mob of insects and hyenas can win…but the will not.

      And in winning this last war for individualism and the advancement of the human “mind”…I predict that in the end…there will be safeguards put into place, that will preclude the poor from ever having the power to rob and thieve ever again.

      All…this war needs to begin…is mass starvation and the imposition of an Obama police state in the US, and in the Obamarama Circus and Bag of Socialist Tricks…such poverty and starvation may come sooner than anyone expected.

      One of the reasons the Left hated the war in Iraq…was they knew, and we knew, that it was just practice and a prelude to the coming war of the Collective Mob of Socialist Hyenas against the Independence of Human Beings.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 28, 2009 | Reply

  30. Ayn Rand was no philosopher. She was a Hollywood hack with psycho-sexual pretensions whose sycophantic followers encouraged a truly Bolshevist egomania.

    Her “philosophy” is to set up a false dichotomy – “self-reliant heroes” vs “parasites” – and pretend that anyone who questions her dictatorial definition of the winners must ipso facto be on the side of the losers. Reminiscent of George Bush – another great thinker – “you’re either with us or against us”. Not to mention that the clearest case of self-interest is simple theft and that in any case her sexualized fantasies of “great men” are more a reflection of her emotional need to be folded, spindled and mutilated than any recognizable reality.

    Curious that all of the “individualist thinkers” out there must follow the scent-trail of this potato-faced loon and mindlessly attack anyone who questions their Heroin.

    Comment by Lard Blortstoke | April 3, 2009 | Reply

    • “Her “philosophy” is to set up a false dichotomy – “self-reliant heroes” vs “parasites”.

      So which was Eddie Willers?

      As for “her sexualized fantasies” I suggest you are guilty of “psychological projection” rather than any understanding of her grasp of sexual relations.

      This entire post, and its supportive comments, are the epitome of the intellectual depravity to which Rand was opposed. That is, morons do not deserve serious consideration. To that end, I only write in support of those few readers who are open to reason.

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

      • The psycho-sexual projections of the LEFT and Socialists is becoming obvious:


        There are two groups of people who live in a trance state of which there is no intellectualism, no recognition or search for facts…nor any desire to know or understand the consequences of ideas, policies or behaviors.

        These two groups are: The Religious and the Left.

        Each group has a “religious” fantasy-driven agenda, that is based in their Limbic systems (emotions) of the brain, that preclude them from functioning at a basic 2 + 2 =s 4 level.

        Both the Left and the Religious believe in “belief”…meaning anything they “feel…or believe…or desire” is considered “true” without any facts to back it up.

        In all the 600 plus posts in this forum and another one on the LEFT…there are those who “hate” Ayn Rand with “passion.” This passion is not driven by facts…but emotions.

        I really hate to be crude…but this is the very best image I can come up with when describing those on the Left who constantly engage in Mental Masturbation…in that they appear to be standing around with the hands on their dicks…jerking off…and repeating to themselves how good (socialism) feels. While in such a sex- and emotion-driven mind state…they could be standing on a bed of coals with flames going up their legs, but are so stoned on “utopia: that they don’t notice being burned alive.

        Secondly, this “hate” toward Rand…driven by “emotions” does two things…it floods the brain with fight or flight neurotransmitters…which keeps the Leftists’ brain from functioning on an intellectual level…and prevents them from doing any kind of questioning or research to determine what is true or not…and begin the process of considering the long-term consequences of what the Left believe in.

        Just as there is a highly charged sexual, sado-masochistic element in religion (jesus in a state of divine ecstasy and pain, hanging on a cross in a state of bondage, half naked)…there is also the same kind of sexual, sado-masochistic element in being a Leftist. Such symbolic and religious pseudo-divine ecstasy is very much being a part of the Lefts’ vision of themselves as suffering “martyrs” for the poor and the “masses” …which is the same thing a Nun does when she flagellates herself for jesus.

        In reviewing the Leftists diatribes, they are indeed “orgasmic” when it comes to robbing the rich…therefore, there is no room or conditions for any intellectual debates of substance.

        Unfortunately, such orgasm-driven “imprinting” in the Left and the Religious begins early in life, and becomes habituated by these kinds of memories and references.

        For example…if someone who is strongly religious goes to a car lot and buys a used car…just because there is a “Christian bumper sticker” on the back would anyone with any intellect surmise this was a good decision? Of course not. The previous christian owner could have owned a junk heap and driven it in the ground. However, the Xian bought the car based on “christian” beliefs and symbols.

        If someone on the Left…thinks that the socialist system of government and health care in Cuba is a good idea and then promotes it in the US…without ever going to Cuba (a Junk heap of a country), or asks Cubans what they thought of their health care. Would then anyone else surmise that this desire for Cuban health care in the US…is a good idea based on an “emotional” feeling about Cuba?

        Of course not. But, this is how the Leftists’ brains’ functions, not from a position of intellectual discernment, but because of limited, nonintellectual and immature, imprinted and habituated “feelings”based on the Left’s childhood and neurotic desires.

        One of the processes in growing up and acting in an adult manner…is to be able to separate out one’s “feelings”…and judge the world and life based on logic, reason, and common sense.

        This is the difference between Ayn Rand’s philosophy of mature, rational thinking, finding proof, doing research, and gaining evidence of the “facts” of what is being offered as a “good deal.” And…

        What those on the LEFT want…is associated with robbing other people of their property and rights…because of the “feelings” of pleasure when taking something that doesn’t belong to them. Interesting research by the Neiman Marcus foundation found that many shoplifters are “sexually charged” up when shoplifting. The same is true of the Left…who basically function like sexually frustrated shop lifters.

        Just how successful is making decisions based only on feelings? How many of us have made mistakes when we made impulsive decisions based on feelings to then regret it in the future? We all have.

        But…the primary problem with the LEFT is that they exist in a neo-religious trance state…whereby the LEFT while praying the mantra of socialism in their heads…will not listen to anyone with any ideas different than their own,or who interrupts their trance state mantras.

        Why is the LEFT in a trance state? Because what and who they are is based on “feelings”….feelings produce ENDORPHINS, which is the brains form of heroin.

        The LEFT is therefore “stoned” and “high” on the “feelings” when visioning a Utopian world where all their wants and desires will be satisfied by others…or “punishing” those on the RIGHT…who remind them of their “failed” meany parents.

        Ergo…that is the reason for using CAPS, which is an attempt to wake them up.

        …we know from the research that when one is “stoned” or in a trance state…its hard to either LISTEN…or take in information, or judge what is real, not real, or useful and then think about it.

        Again, in some 600 posts I’ve read in this forum, especially by those on the Left who “HATE” Ayn Rand…99% of them, have NEVER READ AYN RAND…and know zip/zero/nada about Rand or Objectivism… nor does it seem they want to.

        The LEFT is the only group in the entire world…who “hates” something without knowing anything about that which they hate.

        Thus…if I could, I would use large 20 pt caps and …Huge RED Fonts all the time…to reach that part of the brain that is conscious in the Left…

        If I was in a class room teaching such brain dead students, I would probably bring some brass cymbals and clang them to wake them up. Of, if I could get away with it…throw cold water on them too.

        To a person…the Left is simply asleep or stoned…or when they do make an effort to respond…they are “sleep walking” and merely repeating memorized propaganda. When asked to explain this “sleep walking” propaganda…they can’t. When asked to contrast and compare Leftist propaganda and Objectivism…they can’t.

        When one of the 1% on the Left go so far as to “picK” and restate a phrase made by Ayn Rand…it is 100% of the time, out of context or flat wrong. Most of the time Rand never said anything the Left claims she did.

        And, I have never, ever seen so many who claim to be so educated not understand the vocabulary they use. (Sociopathy =s social darwinism).

        Neurologically, although there are some on the LEFT who have memorized or cut and pasted huge tracks of Left Wing Communist/Socialist propaganda…they cannot talk about whether or not…what they “believe” in…works. They won’t talk about where such ideas came from…or the consequences of such ideas on human beings, and individual rights.

        Why? Because it is the “emotional” idea of Revenge, Class Warfare, Jealousy, and out right murder and destruction of those whom they perceive as their enemy that is the goal. The Left is not just stoned, but they are insane and dangerous.

        For about 98% of the Left…being a Left Winger is an emotional, neurotic, brain-chemistry driven mind state…that is no where capable of being intellectual. Subsequently, the Left is incapable of any “genuine, intellectual debate.” Facts, or reason…are meaningless to the Left. Its the “feeling” that counts…

        As stated by RnBram….the Left is “hopelessly attached to (their) religious beliefs….the very same as 12th Century Christian Inquisitors who burned people at the stake for not having the same religious “beliefs.”

        Now ask yourself, did the Christian Inquisitors sit down with the heretics…and say…”Hey! Let’s discuss our beliefs together and figure out what is real and not real…or good for people.”

        No Sir…the Xian Inquisitors and the Leftists have one desire and that is to burn YOU at the stake, or destroy anyone who questions or does not believe in their utopian world view..or interrupts their stoned utopian trance state.

        Leftists are extremely fearful of reality…

        Again…RnBram is correct, when he said that many of the smarter people on the Left woke up one day, when they got over the “emotional high” and drugged mind state of Leftism and realized that Margaret Thatcher was right when she said:

        “Socialism Fails when it runs out of other people’s money.”

        In part…The Socialism of the Left…is the equivalent of a child or teenager…always bugging mommy and daddy for money, because they “feel” they are entitled to it, and do not have to either earn it, or pay it back. And when mommy or daddy says “NO” they have a temper tantrum.

        RnBram also stated that …”no leading capitalists have converted to socialism.”

        The proof is…that immigration, whether legal or not is always TOWARD a Capitalist country. I know of not a single instance where someone got on a leaky raft in Florida, braved sharks and drowning to float to Cuba…to live under socialism.

        I do not know of a single instance…where someone sneaked across the border into such a draconian police state as the USSR…to live under communism.To repeat myself…100% of all immigration is INTO the CAPITALIST UNITED STATES.

        Human beings…do not immigrate into failed, socialist states. That alone is PROOF that Leftist, socialist statism does not work and is to be avoided at all costs.

        Just as it is known in criminal psychology studies of sick people who falsely “confess” to crimes they didn’t commit…the Left then also confesses to wanting to live in a Police State which the Left calls “the common good.” The Left is flat out insane and should be perceived as in need of medications and therapy…and gene counseling.

        To be a Leftist…is to live in a dream state, where there is an over arching desire to be “high” and drugged” on an idea… where everyone is “forced” to be nice according to their standards, and everyone is taken care in a Mommy-GAWD state.

        Ergo…a few years ago, I began to notice that both the religious and the socialists “dreamt” the same things….and were “stoned” and high on utopia. Therefore, I promote the idea that much more research should be done into the neuro- psychophysiology of those on the Left…who for all practical purposes are mentally ill.

        Maybe we can vote for some government programs and raise taxes to involuntarily put the Left into hospitals for long-term care and deprogamme them. The world would be much better off.

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 12, 2009

    • And its obvious….you believe in the “right” of the parasites to live off other people’s work and money.

      I am sooo glad you just let us all see how you people function, or rather don’t function….you said, that if you “want to keep your own money in your self interest…then you are a thief! What The Holy Fck!!!!!

      Rand “thought” about what she said and how she said it…often dramatically and in clear terms, so the little people like you, the “feelers, the whiners, and emoters” who can’t think…just might get it.

      And you are a loser…and its hilarious, because Rand never knew either one of the George Bush’s so what is the point of mentioning Bush or Rand in the same sentence?….and its true, you are either a parasite, who thinks you can justify “stealing” other people money…or you are not.

      Apparently, you don’t like the idea of individual rights at all…why is that? Some people like you are just “genetic slaves,” you want to be a slave…when you are a slave of the state, then you don’t have to be burdened with thinking or being responsible for yourself. Say…is there any cows in your ancestry? Cows like living in a herd too. Moooo!

      And…once again…you on the Left, in the best Marxist school of WORD TWISTING…SAYS THAT IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR OWN MONEY…THEN YOU ARE A THIEF.

      How does that work out Lard Blortstoke? How is keeping your own money “theft?”

      Please explain that incredibly bizarre, unrealistic fraud of a philosophy which you on the Left then attempt to justify why YOU ARE THIEVES. Just see if “theft” is justified in a court of law if you hold up a bank…or engage in a home invasion robbery…and you tell the judge and jury…But, I’m a socialist…I was just “liberating” the “people’s money,” when I robbed those people. Liar, Liar pants on fiar…hehehehe

      How is doing something in your “own self interest” a bad thing? Why…should I just stand around with my thumb up my ass hole…and wait for you or someone to do something for me? How does that work? I would no more ask you to “do something for me, or think I am entitled to it…then I would ask Jesus Crispy to commit suicide for me…but, apparently, in your neoReligious Socialist state, you not only want the rest of us to volunteer to rob ourselves and our children, but commit suicide for you.

      And…why are those who like being individuals, or live as self respecting individuals, who have the balls, brains, and the pride to take care of themselves…then become “potato-faced” loons. How does that work? Man are you jealous…I bet you are some fat, old oaf, who can’t get off the couch to do any more than hit the “fat” in the refrigerator and drink another beer…or is it pot? And…you want the rest of us to pay for your lifestyle…hahahaha….Dream on you fat socialist piggy, Oink Oink.

      You can make all the cutsie little bull shit statements you want but you have not proven anything at all…and again sound jealous, filled with hate, resentful, and just filled with the need for revenge against those who work and wish to keep their own money and property.

      I guess you think that welfare and health care FRAUD is “justice.”

      And I’ve never seen someone who likes Ayn Rand’s objectivist philsophy, do so “mindlessly.” Randites think…you however…whine, howl, grovel, snivel, cry, cringe, and out right LIE and Lie and LIE….in that you cannot prove anything other than you are a snot dripping, cretin, who is so morally and ethically bankrupt…that you call keeping your own money, that one rightfully earned, in your own self interest “theft.”

      I take it all back…you are just insane. Or did you just “overdose” on stupidity?

      And as Ron White my favorite Texan said…”You can’t fix stupid.”

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 26, 2009 | Reply

  31. I came across this blog because of a line (sponsored link?) appearing on my gmail. Though I do not agree with everything Ayn Rand says, and I even consider her extreme in many points, she has certain ideas that really appeal to me. In spite of the expose by Barbara Brandon that revealed a number of psychological problems borne by Ayn Rand (like who doesn’t have psychological problems?), her portrayal of Howard Roark was not only inspired, it was an inspiration. If I have any literary hero it is Roark. A romanticized figure to be sure, but she always claimed to be writing modern romanticism. By cultivating a Roarkian attitude, I have been more at peace and more effective in my professional and social life than I ever could have been without Ayn Rand. She is not the only influence on my moral life, but she is a big one. Thumbs up for her fans, thumbs way down for her detractors.

    Comment by Vincente | April 4, 2009 | Reply

    • Vincente says: “By cultivating a Roarkian attitude, I have been more at peace and more effective in my professional and social life than I ever could have been without Ayn Rand.”

      Are you sure about that? You can’t possibly see or imagine any other philosophy that might have given you a feeling of peace, and greater effectiveness? And how sure are you that your feelings of peace and effectiveness, aren’t the result of giving up your free will to her philosophy, rather than doing the hard work of forming your own?

      Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009 | Reply

    • Me too! I read Rand’s “The Anthem” when I was 18 years of age…and saw what all the religious freaks, the Kennedy goons and socialists did not want me to see…that “I” had a “RIGHT” to not only think on a rational, realistic level..but a RIGHT to keep my money, and a RIGHT to live my live as I saw fit.

      To live for others, to live for jesus crispy, to live for another human being, to live for the church, to live for what my community expected of me (marriage, kids, church membership, etc)…was nothing more than mental slavery. I was not born to be a slave of anyone…no matter what the Left says.

      And…before you goofy Left Wing twits go any farther, NO…living my life does NOT mean hurting anyone else, or lying, or taking advantage of anyone. That is often where you numb nuts anti-Reason Left Wing Twits go wrong…is that you have wrongly been told and now believe…that to live for one’s own existence and happiness is a bad, bad thing.

      All that you Lefties enjoy, all the technology, all the science, all that you have…came out of the mind of individualists, heretics, those who functioned outside the box…and who refused to bow down and obey “the collective.”

      When you read the word “collective” substitute it for the words Insect Hive.”

      Now ask yourself..how can I live for you or the “hive?” How can you “live” for me? I can voluntarily assist you, if you want it…but I have no right, nor do you have a right to IMPOSE a life style, especially if takes away my right to choose, earn a living, save and use my money and property as I see fit.

      I’d like someone on the left to explain where they got the idea that they had a right to take my money away, or tell me how to live my life…or what doctor I can go to, or what countries I can visit, or how many people can live in my home, or tell me that they have a right to “censor” my speech…and demand that I obey the “state.” Where do you get such ideas?

      I am in a field…where Marxism, and Living for the “poor” is the standard philosophy. But, what I found all through out my life, is that those who “do things for the poor”…do not help the poor become better, independent, functioning people..capable of taking care of themselves, so that they have pride…The Marxist Left…makes the “poor” into dependent slaves of the state.

      For years…I functioned as a “secret Objectivist” and in doing so, out of my own work ethic and pride, and my own self interest in doing a job well…for “ME”…I became much more able to “help” the poor than by obeying the Marxist state or pandering to the emotional pity fawned off on those in my field…as “helping the poor.”

      Socialism does NOT help the poor…it puts human beings farther into the pit of despair, poverty, and slavery than any African or South American dictator ever did.


      And…to think that the Left believes that by making everyone poor…they are engaged in justice.

      Is the Left insane or what? I watch Obama go into his socialist spiel and wonder…is he nuts or what? Is this really all about punishing white people, retribution for slavery, what the hell is going on in his mind…or lack thereof.

      In my personal life…as an objectivist thinker…my life and goals and human relationships also became more clear, directed, honest, and without any of the social or psychological problems that are created by “living for others”…or being altruistic or unselfish. If I want to help someone, I do so…because I want to, not because I am forced to by social convention or the demands of the socialist state. Slaves and other involuntary, or coerced workers do not make a good community… in fact, resentment builds and in time…the collective community collapses into hate, sniveling, resentment, rebellion, class warfare…and crime…every time. Ask the Europeans…ask the Norwegians, the Danes, and the Swedes..what has happened to their countries under socialism.

      Whenever anyone lives a life of “unselfishness”…in a life scripted by the state, or Obama, or socialists, or the church…then that person becomes unsatisfied, miserable, and worse…wants everyone else to be as miserable as they are.

      No thank you…

      When I finally die…on my cremation vase, I’m going to have it written:

      Thank you Ayn Rand…I did it my way.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 26, 2009 | Reply

      • “The best (and primary) way to help the poor, is to not be one of them”.

        Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009

  32. Ayn Rand’s writings were largely about intellectual property. Architect Howard Roark blew up Cortland Homes because his design was altered without his consent; John Galt blew up the engine he invented because a bunch of people were conspiring to take it from him. Rand’s point was that a person’s property doesn’t belong to anyone but himself. Her support of the rights of the individual are pretty much in line with the views of the USA’s founding fathers. Ayn Rand was not right about everything, but she wasn’t wrong about everything, either.

    Comment by Robert B. | April 5, 2009 | Reply

  33. I read Atlas shrugged 35 years ago and appreciated that it was a cartoon caricature of a philosophy masquerading as an entertainment novel. As a work of art, it was atrocious to the point of being campy. As a philosophy, well it made sense.

    And that’s about all I can say. No doubt both Ayn Rand and the authors of this site will disparage me…

    TOo bad.

    Comment by JT | April 9, 2009 | Reply

    • JT…no we don’t disparage you at all. Why disparage a person who thinks? Why disparage a person who states that one has a right to their own property?

      I have often thought that Rand created such idealistic, characters because she understood that the majority of readers in the US could not understand or “get” her Objectivist philosophy unless it was promoted by some kind of culturally-laden and timely medium.

      When Rand wrote her “fiction”– one only has to look at the kind of media entertainment that was popular at the time. Her fiction matches. It was not meant to be classical or “high brow” art, but blatant examples of the potential of the human mind…at a time when Americans were on the brink of dabbling with, and moving toward socialism.

      In this year of 2009…we are where Rand stated that we would end up…if the masses became seduced by socialism. In that she was prophetic. Ergo, her “fiction” was directed at the highly romantic masses and the importance of mass media…who could either be seduced by that spark of individualism that may reside in all of us…against the backdrop of the media-driven romanticism of communism and collectivism.

      Barack HUSSEIN Obama…unfortunately, was seduced by the communist Left when he was “9 YEARS OLD.” His seducer he states in his book…was Frank Davis, a black activist, who was not only a communist, but a convicted child molester, and a pot head. I also wonder if Davis introduced Obama to cigarettes.

      Therefore, as a “child” Obama…was “molested” mentally and physicall …and now he is promoting the molestation of this country in the name of the socialist collective. To wit:

      August 27, 2008
      Obama’s Communist Mentor Was A Child Molester

      Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in the Media, who has been exposing the radical ties between Obama and people like Frank Marshall Davis, says that the “Frank” in Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father,” had sex with a 13-year-old child, but also says that Obama was introduced to “Frank” when he was just 9 years old:

      Covering a sensitive and explosive subject that has been off-limits for the major U.S. media, the London Daily Telegraph is now claiming that Communist Frank Marshall Davis was a strong influence over a young Barack Obama for nine years of his life, rather than just four, and was a sex pervert and pothead. The Telegraph article alleges that Davis was a bisexual engaged in “sordid” sexual activities and had repeated sexual encounters with a 13-year-old girl.

      In an article headlined, “Frank Marshall Davis, a self-avowed Communist, was an early influence on Barack Obama,” writer Toby Harnden confirms everything Accuracy in Media has been reporting since February about the mysterious “Frank” in Obama’s book being Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis. Harnden is the Daily Telegraph’s U.S. Editor, based in Washington, D.C.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 28, 2009 | Reply

    • Personally, I liked Atlas Shrugged. I thought it was well thought out (if you read the introduction you’ll find that it was 12 years from the first notes to publication) and had an involved, complex but not inpenetrable plot.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 25, 2010 | Reply

  34. A Strong Ayn Rand Ideal
    – Equality: Ayn Rand’s philosophy was that you should leave people alone to do the work they want to do and to charge what they want for that service. If everyone were free, there would be no barriers to innovation, and no forced buying. With our government system, our politicians depend on campaign funding and will offer favors in exchange for contributions. As our government grows, the big businesses and rich people you liberals are against and who can afford to make significant contributions, will be able to cheat their way to getting more rich, and all us little people will be the losers. This has not and will not change with the rise of Obama.

    Comment by James11 | April 9, 2009 | Reply

  35. What a way to make an argument out of something that was taken completely out of context. I was hopeful that your blog would be somewhat sane and logical but I was disappointed once again. It would seem that being a fence sitter is the way to go in this country if a person wants real debate. “Keeping the pilot light on”, as was so eloquently described in your sidebar, is quite obviously not what you are doing here. Between making weak and minimally researched accusations against a popular author and publishing tabloid-style articles on your front page, all you seem to be accomplishing is making total idiots of yourselves. This is why I do not like the leftist side, rarely is there a person who can actually debate with logic and research to back up opinions.

    I was entertained, however, at how wonderfully people above me in the comments section handed your rear end back to you on platters of actual reason. Thus my visit was not entirely useless after all.

    Comment by Bonnie | April 9, 2009 | Reply

  36. This is very hot information. I’ll share it on Digg.

    Comment by Ex Back | April 10, 2009 | Reply

  37. You just add to the liberal stereotype of high school bullying when someone says something you don’t like. There are not facts to back up what you say, just emotion and adolescent angst. Maybe if you read “Atlas Shrugged” you might find a moment of enlightenment!

    Comment by Joan | April 10, 2009 | Reply

    • “…the liberal stereotype of high school bullying”?? Please clarify. Do you mean you think that liberals are the ones that bully in high school? If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.

      Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009 | Reply

  38. The way the world is right now I feel like I’m living in a Ayn Rand novel. Others must also or why all the talk about an old novelist.

    Comment by John | April 10, 2009 | Reply

  39. P.S. I think Atlas Shrugged was overwrought but I was profoundly affected by The Fountainhead.

    Comment by John | April 10, 2009 | Reply

    • Both were works of fiction. Look around you at the real world, and see how real people and real things really work. Portraying a character in a novel as going through all kinds of travails, and getting the reader’s sympathy, is relatively easy to do, even when the situations described in the novel are rare enough, and carefully exclude real-world data, as to not be useful as a basis for an entire philosophy.

      Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009 | Reply

      • As a fiction writer I must agree with you John. Good show. Many other comments credit/criticize Ayn Rand being a philosopher or a social scientist. Astute marketing of her work artificially placed her in this genre. It worked, perhaps beyond her expectations. If her books are viewed as fiction- especially “Atlas Shrugged” and “Fountainhead”, one sees the backdrop of the world wars and their global impact on lifestyle as well as work ethics.Frustration was more a norm than productivity and she articulately wove the events of the time as fiction to express the mainstream emotion of societal collapse. The strategy paid off-her books became a phenomenal market success. Then, riding on that wave she wrote,” The Virtues of Selfishness” selling a new model of “self-help” to depressed individuals, deprived of societal altruism . A better title would have been ” How to survive in bad times”. However, from a marketing standpoint, she made the right choice for her part-fiction part motivational theme. This move reflects her own example of “what one wants” and then,” how to get it?”. A fiction writer made a shift to a motivational writer. That’s a good career move for any writer! It is doubtful if she ever wanted to be a cult pioneer.The readers (fans) planted her there-that is being objective.

        Comment by Bhupat Rawal | July 3, 2009

  40. I have had this discussion with many people at http://www.affluence.org both from the far right and far left. My main problem with socialism/liberalism boils down to this: nobody should be forced into ‘charity’. I can not steal money from you to give to the poor, so why should the government?
    Also, regardless of who Ayn Rand was, people need to look at the message she sent. Obama is the biggest hypocrite in government (look at his claims vs actions), but everybody loves him.

    Comment by sam | April 10, 2009 | Reply

    • So you believe there should be no taxes, at all–personal, corporate, etc. Taxes take money from people to use for other people. Never mind the fact that those taxes pay for the roads you drive on, the police force that protects you, the schools your kids go to, etc. Or maybe you just believe in taxes on “poor working slobs”? That way, the rich get to drive on those roads, etc. without having to pay for them.

      Don’t forget that many taxes are purposely voted into existence by the people in the form of local ballot measures. Guess those people are deluded charity givers.

      And since when are socialism and liberalism so related, as to separate them with a slash to make them a single phrase?

      Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009 | Reply

    • Sam, what’s all this talk about how the government steals from people via taxes!? If the government is truly democratically elected, then, what is it stealing? It’s my understanding that all government powers come from the consent of the governed. By the very definition of democracy, some are forced to go along with the will of the majority. Poor Sam, now you know how many of us felt during the Bush years. Don’t worry, this is just democracy in action. None of us can go out and arrest people or print money either because we have delegated that work to the government and we pay for that service with taxes.

      Comment by jim | July 5, 2009 | Reply

      • Gearge W. was not much of a conservative fiscally; not in the classical sense, anyway. The idea of classical fiscal conservatism is to tax less and spend less.

        Bush did neither.

        Comment by Brady, the Mad Libertarian | July 17, 2009

  41. The whole endless discussion of Ayn Rand has become far too complicated for its own good. Rand advocated amoral devotion to one’s own well-being. In the absence of an agreed-upon metaphysics, such a proposal is neither “right” nor “wrong.” We can, however, examine its consequences, and thereby shed light on the chances for survival of such a social system which tries to operate on Rand’s principles.

    The result is clear: Rand’s method of living is not compatible with the functioning of an ongoing human society. Rather, her way of life is explicitly “anti-social,” in the same way that, for example, the pattern of existence adopted by T. Kozinski, the Unabomber, is incompatible with stable social patterns which imply mutual survival.

    Ayn Rand’s philosophical framework of action could never survive if adopted as a social system, because it is opposed to mutual help and cooperation, two behaviors which are essential to the survival of any human group.

    Rand’s experiment ends in the same way that Kozinski’s ended — in failure and ignominy — simply because it is incompatible with cooperative human existence.

    Comment by Ralph | April 10, 2009 | Reply

  42. Ms. Rands point of view is only another consideration when steering through decisions that may present themselves to anyone. Balancing behavior takes a look at the other end too…say, the philosophical ambitions of Mother Theresa. I have found a way to the balance…I want to crush competitors, and make lots of money changing a service system that currently exploits the workers and their customers. Cab Cards are coming.

    Comment by CaptCab | April 12, 2009 | Reply

  43. Altruism is a total myth. Every action you take, no matter your reasons, is selfish. Why? Because you are a volitional being and you make your own choices. If you choose to volunteer or do charity work, you will receive something. It may only be intangible satisfaction, but you always receive something. You put up this blog for selfish reasons. Being selfish isn’t bad, it’s inevitable.

    Comment by venta | April 13, 2009 | Reply

    • We’re talking about degrees and kinds of acceptable selfishness, not whether altruism is (or should be) totally devoid of any kind of selfishness. Helping those who need it, may give personal selfish satisfaction, but that’s fine–it isn’t supposed to mean all forms of selfishness are OK or equivalent.

      Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009 | Reply

    • “Being selfish isn’t bad,it’s inevitable”- how true! I will go further-it is motivational as well as contextual. If meditation is “self-serving” -to discover the inner self, procreation is to leave progeny behind – to perpetuate selfishness.

      Comment by Bhupat Rawal | July 3, 2009 | Reply

  44. If we put aside the name-calling between pro and anti Randians and look instead at the ideas she espoused, it’s not hard to identify a fatal flaw in her philosophy. She successfully criticized socialism, which she defined as working according to one’s ability, being paid according to one’s need, as encouraging neediness. Under such a system, some people would inflate their need to get more, at the cost of the ones with ability, who were more productive. The system is unfair to the productive, and stifles innovation. Fair enough. Here’s the flaw. She fails to apply the same cynicism to the motives of her heroes. In the real world, unfettered capitalism inevitably results in monopoly, which, wait for it, is unfair to the productive and stifles innovation. People who are smart and capable should get ahead, but when they do, some will use the wealth and power they accumulate to crush competitors. This ultimately leads to a few large entities that have too much control and are to big to fail.

    The role of government is to balance the needs of the individual with the needs of the many. The pendulum shifts from favoring one to the other over time, because both extremes are unworkable. Adherents to each extreme will cry bloody murder when the pendulum shifts away from their side, but really the system is just working the way it was designed to.

    Comment by Rob | April 13, 2009 | Reply

    • Well said Rob

      Comment by Anonymous | May 7, 2009 | Reply

    • Bravo! A new, fresh perspective, indeed!

      Comment by Brady, the Mad Libertarian | July 17, 2009 | Reply

    • Hmmm, the “role of the government is to balance the needs of the individual against the needs of the many….”

      What total crapola….what happens when there are so many MANY…who then vote to destroy the rights of the individual out of existence? The “MANY” then pack the US Supreme Court…control schools, control universities, control the media…to the point that any kind of respect for “individual” rights…becomes nonexistent.

      That was and is the strategy of the Saul Alinsky, and Cloward-Piven’s strategy…to make so “MANY” artifically “poor” and dependent on the STATE…that the “individual”becomes over whelmed by both politically…and economically by the MANY, and thus usher in the socialist state.

      Either the State protects the “individual” or it does not. There is no “balance” when it comes to individual human rights.

      Please refer to the US Bill of Rights…to understand the concept of individual rights.

      The State…does not have the “job” of balancing (read: engage in social justice)…whereby it over taxes, over regulates, and over controls for the benefit of the MANY POOR….

      Who the hell are the “MANY” by the way? The MANY can also be described as the Left Wing Parasites…who are using the State to destroy Individual Rights.

      I’m sorry…but such naive statements sound as if they came out of a 7th grade social studies text book…without anyone clarifying who are the “MANY,” and thus once again, the Left is able to use such simplistic platitudes to destroy our way of life.

      I grew up on a ranch in a Southwestern state about 30 miles from the closest town…we could not think in terms of being “one of the MANY,” and as such were completely independent. If we failed…we failed, learned, and moved on. If one of us was injured…we cared for our own.

      To now be “forced” to take care of the MANY to the point that I cannot take care of myself or my own family…is a death warrant for this country…composed of “individuals.”

      The STATE is incapable of “balancing” or taking care of the individual. How could it? Am I missing something here? Does the Left think that the STATE can “channel” my individual wants, needs, and desires…and then satisfy them? If the Left has its way…are they going to hire “psychics” to see what all those “individuals” desire?

      Those who represent the STATE, have one idea in mind…and that is control of the individual in the name of the MANY. And we all know who the MANY are….

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 11, 2009 | Reply

    • Rob, an oasis of calm in a storm of semi-religious foaming at the mouth, literally the only thing I’ve read to this point that hasn’t made my skin crawl.

      I lean to the left, but libertarian left. I agree that everything we think and do is from a selfish point of view (not rocket science by any means). At times it is just as much in our own selfish interests to socialize as it is in the interest of the group for individuals to excel, neither should be suppressed, both should be nurtured, encouraged and valued

      Comment by Tony | March 7, 2011 | Reply

  45. Education is the answer to many problems. Her followers who had influence were not students of the humanities, but technocrats. Obviously Plato covered this with respect to art in the Republic. Atlas Shrugged is the sophistry his community had to ban, on steroids. Modern physics/traditional wisdom of interdependency negates the autonomy conceit, though common sense would do as well. However, one has to ask, how can anyone who is so dishonest about economic history (railroads are a parody of capitalism!) have been so accurate in portraying the globalist bureaucracy that actually runs “capitalism”? As many are writing now, Marx is just as delinquent as “liberals” in recognizing the obvious centrality of Mathus in any economic analysis. Get your own house in order and stop playing “the other guy is wrong makes me right”.

    Comment by Jack | April 13, 2009 | Reply

  46. At the heart of Ayn Rand’s belief was that the individual is responsible for what the individual believes and how the individual behaves in relation to their beliefs.

    Her criticism, or as you phrased it, “despising” of the “average man” is a response to the notion that the average man often doesn’t strive for an ideal but instead settles for what is expected of him. Often strives for what is expected of him, and that as a society we maintain quite low standards.

    Her perspective can be applied to either conservative or liberal politics. I imagine that she would admire though not necessarily agree with, anybody that is truly committed to achievement, whether liberally or conservatively inclined. In fact I think she would scoff at the notion that liberals and conservatives are really that different. The entire concept of our liberal/conservative political construct has become one of our country’s most prolific barriers to progress and our liberal and conservative “leaders” have become the torch bearers for keeping standards low.

    who is John Galt?

    Comment by brian fidler | April 21, 2009 | Reply

    • Good point Brian…keeping standards low never benefits either ‘side’, and it’s patently obvious both are guilty

      Comment by Tony | March 7, 2011 | Reply

  47. Ayn Rand’s philosophy has been blown out of proportions in this article. It has been said that she actively propagated selfishness. Though this is true ,it has not been pointed out that this selfishness is not the conventional sense of selfishness. Any person who has read her books in depth can verify that selfishness according to Ayn Rand is when a person refuses to alter his views in order to be accepted by society. Selfishness to her is when a person competent in his profession refuses to serve as a slave to an incompetent being. She was a radical supporter of capitalism because she believed that capitalism evoked the competency in man.
    Mans sense of competency forces to compete and beat others. This sense is prevalent in the competition between businesses which allows us to enjoy cheaper and better quality goods improving our lifestyles daily.
    Isnt it ironic that the author has been able to post an aritcle denouncing capitalism and Ayn Rand while using a computer,high speed internet connection and servers which are essentially the fruits of a capitalistic and selfish economy.

    Comment by neil bose | April 25, 2009 | Reply

  48. Rand was a big Russian woman, who wrote big Russian books.
    She berated bolsheviks and badgered big-hearted blathering liberals. She was a whole-lotta-woman, and she shunned those who disagreed with her. OK.

    But were her books any good?

    I liked ’em.

    Did her near-perfect general worldview have flaws and screw-ups in its implementation? …I think so.

    Most Randians are part of a cult that exists today, in Irvine CA. Those who decided to keep the good parts of Rand’s political philosophy formed “the Objectivist Center”, under David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden. They are rational people who view “objectivism” as an open system, the basis for which is belief in a knowable external world (a world that rejects a blief in god and mystical forces). They are usually right about social ideas, and politics. Often, they are even right about psychology. If you have similar tastes, they are right about artwork, but there are rational reasons to tolerate other interpretations in artwork, other than the ones you personally believe.

    (Rand went nutso attacking artists she didn’t like. I agree with a lot of her attacks, personally, but I disagree with some of them. I also place the importance of art criticism very low on the scale of total importance. No art critic –no matter how much I disagreed with him about art– ever threatened to kill me. On the other hand, police and politicians threaten to kill not just me, but thousands of innocent people every day, all while strangling innovation and business-formation in our economy. Moreover, Rand was a woman. She had never been to battle. She therefore didn’t appreciate artwork that was more suited to warriors. She also didn’t appreciate a heirarchy of ideas and the mind-body connection that often drives human actions. She also had a big pussy, and didn’t understand that sometimes a man often desires a little pussy more than a big brain. These oversights caused her a lot of hell, and wrecked havoc on her belief system and the cult that rigidly followed it.)

    A lot of intellectual lightweights attack Rand’s basic premises. In these disputes, I usually agree with Rand. (As I generally do in replying to the above condemnation of her.)

    But sure, the further Rand got from political philosophy, the more nuts she sounded when she refused to give an inch in admitting that there were some problems and ideas that philosophy was not suited to building a consensus on.

    I can be a libertarian, and enjoy the bloodthirsty scenes in “Natural Born Killers”, even though Rand’s followers would be horrified by them. Why? Because I know the difference between fact and fiction. Because I can view the movie with complex alterior objectives, such as preparing myself for actual violence in real life, or thinking about it, and pondering whether I am physcially able enough to deal with the bad results of social programming.

    Moreover, is our society worth saving? Have we betrayed so much of the basis for America that it is simply better to start over?

    A lot of Randites are simpletons who would never see any of the prior value, because their belief system isn’t portable to the actual diversity of the real world. This is why Hayek overtly favored diversity and evolution.

    Rand only favored evolution, and didn’t think a lot about its appliction to social order, and economic production. She was not a futurist. She was not a pure materialist. She was not a cryonicist, so now she’s dead.

    Thinkers like Jacob Sullum and Nick Gillespie at Reason Magazine have taken Rand’s premises and proceeded further down the path of individual freedom.

    But Rand’s criticisms of liberal collectivists was 100% accurate. They claim to be against greed, but what they really are is the greediest thieves in society. Given a choice between a greedy theif or a greedy businessman who has to convince me to buy his product, I’ll take the latter any day.

    The thing that liberals forget, is that congress demands their money, whereas businessmen seek their money.

    I much prefer businessmen, even if they are often tasteless and grasping.

    At least I can withhold my money from those who are smart and provide excellent services. At least there can be emergent order and evolution that way.

    I want to live forever in a free market, and not be weighed down by the stupid majority.

    …But government doesn’t give me a choice. Out of compassion for protecting the marketplace, I waited 6 months for my mortgage broker’s license in Illinois. I am not a racist, and I was located in a black neighborhood in IL. My business would have allowed poor blacks with ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) to refinance before their ARMs proceeded to skyrocket. …But we’ll never know what might have happened, or who lost their homes because I didn’t pay off one of Rod Blagojevich’s friends, to get my license sooner! (or payoff his goddamned wife! –A real estate appraiser who was responsible for legislation that forced people to pay for additional appraisals that they didn’t need!)

    The law requires people to act against their own self-interest. A poor businessman ASKS a person to act against their own self interest.

    Everyone is hurt in the first example. Only the stupid are hurt in the second example.

    I’ll take a system that punishes stupidity over one that punishes everyone, any day.

    And when the system punishes everyone, does that mean that everyone gets hurt equally?

    HELL NO! Poor blacks and others get targeted by prison builders, and thrown into cages by the police state. You see, even the people in government are incentivized to act in their own self-interest.

    The pathetic thing about liberals, is that they are too stupid to understand that “voir dire” destroys jury rights (Voir dire was originally begun in courts in the 1850s to select only people who agreed with slavery for jury duty. That way, the north could honor their promise to return fugitive slaves! ..That the practice was unconstitutional and unjust didn’t matter to the illiterate masses. It continues today, with only the libertarians fighting it.)

    Liberals are also too stupid to see that judicial instruction destroys jury rights. Once again, only the libertarians and Randites are fighting for jury rights. Liberals are silent on this issue, as the prisons fill up with poor blacks who are guilty of nonviolent drug offenses.

    Joe Biden is a liberal, right? Charlie Shumer is a liberal, right? They both support the idea of “group rights” and “collective society”. As a result, they support all of the drug laws, and have always voted in favor of additional drug restrictions. Shumer grilled John Roberts over the Raich decision, asking whether he supported a broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause: He literally opposes property rights to the extent that he wanted Roberts to commit to a position that demands that sick people are denied the medicine that they need to live! …WOW! Now that’s compassion!

    But most liberals are surface thinkers. They can’t go a small fraction of the depth that I can go into the issues.

    As much scorn as I have for Rand being an idiot and being taken in with Ronald Reagan (thinking he represented an alternative), and for not rejecting Greenspan when he became a government central banker, and for opposing the Libertarian Party (since she stupidly claimed that they “stole her ideas”), the liberals of our nation deserve a million times more contempt.

    They oppose the basic rights of the defendant to even speak the truth in his own defense in court! They support the Federal Reserve System (and the literal enslavement of every man woman and chile in the USA, in perpetuity).

    Jury rights are the heart of government. Jury rights elevate “We the People” over the power of government. In fact, only one single individual can “hang” a jury, and waste the prosecution’s time and money.

    But that power has ALWAYS been opposed by the uneducated majority.

    And that’s why America is the land of the fee and the home of the slave.

    That’s why there is no fair trial, and no justice in AmeriKKKa.

    That’s why Ayn Rand’s books were right, even when she was wrong.

    I’ve got it all figured out, but the fact that YOU don’t means that I just might have to shoot you someday.

    In fact, I’ll say this much: If you dumbass liberals don’t start voting libertarian, then nothing can save you. Either your own government will kill you, you will starve when your job leaves for foreign soil, or some other aspect of collectivism will crush your individual life without a thought.

    Your only chance is to be respected as an individual.

    We are either all equal under the law (an inequal in the results of our achievements), or we are equal (as slaves) in the results of our achievements.

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t allow the state to hold back some people without giving them the power to hold back everyone.

    In pointing this fact out, Rand did the USA a great service.

    So what if her books were propaganda? They were propaganda with a noble goal: freedom.

    Comment by The Freedom Jury | April 27, 2009 | Reply

    • One word: Bravo.

      Comment by Mark | May 11, 2009 | Reply

      • I agree with Mark: Bravo!

        Comment by Brady, the Mad Libertarian | July 17, 2009

  49. Not an objectivist, but I did read Atlas Shrugged. Subsidize (reward) poverty/mediocrity you just get more of it. Allow universal suffrage and the people will vote themselves the public till. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    The solution, as outlined in Atlas Shrugged is to get government out of the way of commerce and let the people vote with their dollars. This way power is decentralized and you only pay for what you want to use. Subsidizing education and healthcare only makes them more expensive, creating more uninsured and uneducated people. This is no more evident than in the U.S. where the literacy rate is the lowest in its history and the expense of medical treatment has driven people south of the border.

    Comment by William Cole | April 27, 2009 | Reply

  50. This blog was written by idiots. I just read the commentary “Keeping the pilot light on” to the right of this article. It states:
    “Since the late 1970s and Ronald Reagan’s inauguration we’ve seen supply side economics, deregulation, an explosive growth of free markets, the sapping of union power.”
    Reagan was a statist, every bit as much as Jimmy Carter was. There never was any period of “supply side economics, deregulation, an explosive growth of free markets” –to assert this is to blindly believe what the news of the day often reported.

    But answer me this, you moronic liberals: “Did Reagan get rid of the Federal Reserve?” No. “Therefore, was there anything resembling a free market while he was in power?” No. “Therefore, are you talking out your ass?” Yes.

    Did Reagan deregulate? Very slightly. But jury rights were never reinstated. Once the judicial system claims those, only a jury rights rebellion or a violent revolution can get them back. A friend of mine named ____ ____ was a hardcore anti-environmentalist under Reagan, who actually worked at the EPA (a giant, power-grubbing, unconstitutional government agency that steals western farmers’ land at the behest of eastern liberals who have paved over their entire states). Interestingly, he pointed out something that even few libertarians realize: If most of the companies simply defended themselves against the charges of violating the EPA’s regulations, they would have won. …But they rarely did.

    They intuitively had so little faith in the courts, and so much fear that the system was rigged, that they plea bargained, almost continuously. My friend, (the EPA prosecutor) even noted that when companies did stand up for themselves, he often pointed out that the regulation didn’t really apply, saving the company millions, and that it was simply his job to “follow up” on complaints, legit or otherwise.

    But rather than actually standing up for jury rights, liberals fight to skew the courts in favor of poor defendants, which then bites them in the ass, since we all lose our individual rights when the courts are biased.

    And that is exactly what has happened. In 1895, “Sparf and Hansen v. The USA” was decided by the Supreme Court. It set a precedent that stated that the jury was not entitled to be informed of their right to veto the law, even though they possessed that power as jurors. Now, judges regularly lie to juries and tell them that they are not to be the judges of the law itself, only whether it was broken.

    …This totally eviscerates the jury! It renders the presence of the jury meaningless! It is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans!

    But are liberals arguing this? Are they the ones arguing that jury rights need to be preserved, for the poor blacks and mexicans filling our prisons?

    Are they arguing that 1 in 10 blacks can’t find good work because they are being mercilessly preyed upon by LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE politicians?

    No. Because they are part of the problem, every bit as much as the Republicans are part of the problem. In fact, it is POLITICIANS who are the problem. It is government that is the problem, and it doesn’t matter in the least whether that government calls itself “LIBERAL” or “CONSERVATIVE”, since they are both identical in their philosophy. Neither one of them opposes government power, neither one of them stands for jury rights, the power of the people.

    Neither one of them wants to get rid of ballot access restrictions on the only party that cares about people: the Libertarian Party.

    I have nothing but contempt for liberals who act like they’re not racist because they voted for Barack Obama, a sellout prison-monger who nominated the worst drug warrior in congress (Joe Biden) to be his running mate.

    Biden is the asshole responsible for “the Rave Act” which is so anti-property rights and personal freedom that it states that you can be charged with drug possession for unknowingly letting someone who is carrying drugs into your house, while hosting a loud electronic music party! So much for electronic music parties or “raves”!

    And did the liberals defend minorities against the racist drug war? NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. Even though drug prohibition was created based on this congressional testimony from Harry Anslinger (A treasury agent!):

    “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

    “…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

    Liberals and Conservatives are more properly called “statists” or “collectivists” or “groupthinkers” or “government whores” (Unless they work for the government, in which case it’s more proper to categorize them as “government pimps”).

    The Libertarian Party is the only Party that stands for individual freedom. At least it did when Harry Browne was running as their presidential candidate. Now, who knows?

    Maybe the 30 years that idiot America had to find the LP (and their own lost jury rights) has been wasted.

    If the comments to the right are any indication, Reagan succeeded in completely confusing the idiot left, which now is rebelling against their own freedom, full speed ahead!

    Yes! Please take our guns away from us! It worked so well on the west side of Chicago! (It made the immoral prohibitionist police the supreme power on the west side, and the courts proceeded to devastate black America using the drug war as an excuse. If even a small percentage of the harm done to blacks was done to whites in the name of prohibition, there would have been a violent rebellion, years ago, and the white judges know this. Why do you think they give court supervision to whites, and hand out felonies like candy to blacks? When are you stupid brainwashed corporate-court and cop-sucking liberals going to wake up?!?!?!?!?)

    Lenny Bruce was right, but the average liberal of today doesn’t even know who he was. They never even get the words in their minds to imagine rebellion, much less fight for their right to live it.

    Blind, obedient, sheep.

    Baaaa-aaaa-aaaa Tell your friends that Reagan stood for a free market! Baaaa-aaaa-aaaa!

    Most of you dumb cocksuckers will never know who Frank Turney was. You will grow old and die without ever having had a clue that he stood outside fo the Fairbanks courthouse for you, so you could insult him, strip him of his rights, send him to jail, and sentence him to community service, even though he’s old enough to be your grandfather.

    But Frank knows what he’s doing. In spite of being sentenced to jail for speaking the simple truth outside of a courthouse, to random members of the general public, (one of whom happened to be a juror –Oh no!– We can’t very well allow the jury to know that they are more powerful than the judge! They might not enforce the drug laws, and might not pack Arizona prisons chain gangs full of ruined lives!) –you and your hideous liberal-conservative government can’t shut Frank up.

    So burn in hell, you soul-murdering liberal-conservative-statist slimebags!

    You’ve been wrong about everything for your entire lives, having never thought to crack a book, or think an original thought. Now, you blame industry and the innovators for all your problems, when they are the thread that you’re hanging by. You ask government to sever the thread, to keep you hanging.

    Someday, you’re going to get what you deserve: and it will be exactly what you voted for: enslavement and mass murder.

    That’ll be the time to go ask your libertarian and conservative friends if you can borrow a gun.

    I’m surprized most blacks haven’t figured this out yet. At least Russell Means and the the Native Americans have: http://www.freelakotabank.com

    But they were forced to! …The government never would have stopped murdering them otherwise.

    As a homework assignment, I want all you liberal jackasses to research a court case, OK? “John Bad Elk v. the United State”(1900)

    …Then tell me that the group has a right to control my property!

    Comment by The Freedom Jury | April 27, 2009 | Reply


      Ergo…why do they bother?

      The better question is…who exactly starts the “rag” on Ayn Rand…for what reason, and how do they get away with bashing Rand and O-ism without knowing a thing about it?

      I use to take care of my nephews, age 5 and 7 years of age while my brother and his wife was out of town. I would serve vegetables at dinner. My nephews would turn up their nose and go “I don’t like vegetables!” I would then ask “why?” My nephews would say “Because Billy who lives across the street doesn’t like vegetables.”

      Wow…what a great bunch of reasoning. I’d come back and state. OK…how old is Billy? “He’s 7.” Ok does that make him a little kid or is he a “big person.” “Uh, he’s a kid.” Really, I’d say…and so you are going to let a “little kid” who lives across the street tell you what to do?

      Of course, my nephews would sit there thinking about what I said. However, when I was awarded my PhD I was told that if I could not manipulate or manage kids and dogs, I would have to send my diploma back (Just kidding!).

      So, I’d tell my nephews: “Well, that’s OK…vegetables are just for grown ups anyway. I’m not going to give you anymore….don’t tell your mother I tried to serve you vegetables either, she would get upset that I was feeding you “big people’s food.”

      Well, that set them to thinking….and so for the next two days I wouldn’t put any vegetables on their plate. By the third day…my nephews were “begging” me to feed them some vegetables. “Please, please” they would beg…”we want to eat big people’s food too!”

      My point is…that apparently, Ayn Rand and the concepts of “objectivism” are for adults. Little kids and the immature don’t get it..and it just makes them all too ready to “rebel” against adults telling them how to think.

      So…there should be a disclaimer when reading or discussing Ayn Rand:

      ***Reading or discussing Ayn Rand is meant for adults and has an XXX Rating. Being engaged in Objectivism, may cause feelings of maturity and responsibility for one’s self…and thus, please read or discuss Ayn Rand with caution. Those of immature minds are warned to not discuss Ayn Rand or Objectivism, because it may cause extreme logic, and thus upset irrational, childish thought processes. Please sign below if you are a) over 18 years of age, and b) if over 18 years of age…are of a mature mind and demeanor.


      It would be one thing…if the detractors would be so honest and intelligent to state something Rand said, and then pose or respond with a logical argument.

      Instead, what we get is some diatribe of ranting and screaming about concepts Rand never said or endorsed?

      How do these people walk around and see where they are going with their head up their ass?

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 12, 2009 | Reply

  51. The above written article doesn’t merit comment except for the bold faced lie about Ayn rand “crushing”….

    That is not Ayn Rand’s style nor what objectivism means.

    I’ve stopped being amazed at how much half truths, outright lies or misrepresenting socialism/communism relies upon to deceive the masses they profess to love so much.

    Comment by Mr. "I" | April 27, 2009 | Reply

  52. My argument with Ayn Rand is more that she is simply an idiot, like Karl Marx, without a clue when it comes to human behavior. Uncontrolled government power: murder, gulags. Uncontrolled corporate power: robber barons, corporations that hate America by exporting all jobs and using offshore headquarters to not pay any taxes at all.

    If you don’t make people work, they don’t. If you don’t keep greedy people honest, they aren’t.

    Grow up people.

    Comment by John Hooper | April 30, 2009 | Reply

    • Uncontrolled corporate power also leads to murder. The escapades of the United Fruit Company are just one early example.

      Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009 | Reply

    • freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice… Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality

      Comment by Tony | March 7, 2011 | Reply

  53. I have been an Objectivist for some 3 years and head my own philosophy group. I have read almost all of her fiction and non-fiction books and nowhere does she refer to her books or philosophy as “propaganda”.

    Ayn Rand has always stressed people should make up their own minds and thats what Alan Greenspan did when he became Fed chair and tinkered with the economy by raising and lowering interest rates which pumped credit into the economy leading to the economic downturn we are experiencing.

    Matter of fact, I would dare to argue that the author’s rant VINDICATES everything Ms. Rand and Professor Ludwig von Mises said about government intervention in the affairs of the economy.

    When government pumps credit into the economy using a central bank to do so, it creates artificial prosperities and awful recessions, if not outright depressions.

    As far as Objectivism being a cult, that is a baldfaced lie. Yes, Objectivists are doctrinaire and can be dogmatic, but communists, socialists and everyone else who subscribes to a philosophy can be too.

    The difference is that, ultimately, everyone has free will. We aren’t forcing our views on others and want everyone to be free. However, the first step in a person getting back their freedom would be to start thinking.

    That might be what the author of this and other posts on this blog might want to start as it would be an original achievement. :)

    The author’s post is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.

    Comment by Mike Renzulli | May 1, 2009 | Reply

    • Any ‘ism’ which hopes to define the world we live in, is flawed. We all experience the world in our own way; even though there is a physical and objective reality.

      I’m a citizen of the United States and so my main concern is that at any given moment in our history we are less than a “more perfect union”. What does this mean? It means A.) I think we are a society. B.) I think we are a governemnt. and C.) I think in any country those entities are difficult to separate.

      People who work, completing a task society deems worthy (like say a janitor), should be able to afford those things we as a people deem right. Food, shelter and yes even health care. If that is not attainable by working members of society then something is broken. When Any Rand or Karl Marx try to intellectualize these concepts they they are not looking to fix that problem. They are looking to make people just like them

      Comment by Aaron Burckle | May 2, 2009 | Reply

      • Bravo! Wonderful point!

        Comment by Brady, the Mad Libertarian | July 17, 2009

    • Dear Mike,

      FYI, from http://www.playboy.com/articles/ayn-rand-playboy-interview/index.html :

      PLAYBOY: Then what you are saying is that to achieve these changes one must use essentially educational or propagandistic methods?

      RAND: Yes, of course.

      Comment by Billy Solestis | May 4, 2009 | Reply

  54. The largest message I received from Atlas Shrugged was that everyone should reap only what the sow. No free rides and moochers allowed in any form. I largely agree with that. however, I do believe that society does have a responsibility to fund and take care of those who have no ability to fend for themselves, ie.. victims of drunk drivers or Downs syndrome individuals.
    I think Ayn Rand concepts would be spot on helpful to our society if we incorporated them in revamping our Social Security System. She would absolutely believe in privatizing Social Security. Think about it.. if 6.2% of every payroll dollar were “invested” into stocks, bonds or even passbook savings at a local bank our economy would never suffer like it is now due to a credit crunch. EVER! The banks would be so saturated with money they would be begging people to take loans. Thus endless job creation!!
    Why can’t we as a society have faith in our own productivity and the free enterprise system?
    Why do we allow the government to take away our freedom to manage our own retirement? I WANT MY FREEDOM BACK DAMN IT!!
    Social Security gives a rate of return on your hard earned money of a whopping 0%! And I have no choice or voice about it!!

    Comment by John Goduto | May 2, 2009 | Reply

  55. I teach college English and have for many years. My associates cover the entire spectrum of belief systems. When it comes to Anyn Rand I find that it is very rare you ever find anyone who is hypercritical of her writing who has actually read them. Ignorance and pseudeo-intellectual bullshit comes out of the mouths of those so full of themselves who pretend they understand what she wrote when never even read it. This woman left the Soviet Union in 1918 after her family was destoyed to poverty by Lenin and the Party. Her father was a pharmisist She hates communism in all forms because unlike these idiots who bad mouth her she saw millions of her countrymen killed under its savage practices. She knew what Stalin did to her countrymen-35,000,000 murdered. She idealizes America for the values that made it great. She learned English as a second language as one of the most brilliant fee thinkers in American literature right up there with Thoreau and Emerson and the like. If you read her completely and understand her points, she champions the individual over the collective realizing a person who is the BEST they can be, benefits everyone. Getting rewarded for hard work, creativity, and risk is not a selfish thing. It is the physical form and expression of self-reliance and freedom in everyday life. She understood the nature of money and how it had to be created before it can be robbed, taxed, given away or anything. Creating wealth is what pays for the government. Most of its money comes from working people who work for their own self interest (their families!) and we all benefit from this effort. Money does not come from a printing press but is underwritten by the people who feed off those that do make it. They are the loudest and quickest to condemn Rand who they, out of total ignorance, misunderstand or distort her ideas to support their psuedo-Robinhood way (I say psuedo because they take from those that earn to spread it around to their cronies and special interests and not the poor or disinfrancised.) I have never met a person who criticizes Rand who has ever signed the frontside of a check drawn on an account they earned. All her critics sign the backside of a check-government issued or otherwise. People who inherit money like the Kennedys have no concept of how money is earned. They invest it to make more. Grand Dad was a boot legger. Funny how illegitimate gains get cleaned up in the social laundry of time. I have studied alturism and self-interest and found that most alturist are very concerned about controlling other people’s money as they seem unable or unwilling (or perhaps just too lazy) to earn their own money. A very interesting point: look at the tax returns of those considered mean spirited or selfish and compare them to the top ten of the people alturist think are so so wonderful. 10-20% vs 1-2% of contributions to charities. Look at Biden’s and Obama’s tax returns since 2000 and I make my point. They are really into spending not only other peopl’e money but borrowing money from the Chinese to enslave our children’s children to government debit to give money to special interest on the Obama list. Rand has a lot to say and her ideas make sense if you have the guts and open, intelligent mind to actually read her. Conservatives read Marx and Engels and many other things. Too many Liberals critcal of Rand read only airheads authors from academia who never had a real job and also who can’t defend their ideas very well but believe them anyway inspite of facts and reality. I’ve work around them for years.

    Comment by Jay | May 2, 2009 | Reply

    • They let you teach College English? Anus Rand is dead. Let it go.

      Comment by icarus | May 6, 2009 | Reply

    • Jay says: “I have never met a person who criticizes Rand who has ever signed the frontside of a check drawn on an account they earned. All her critics sign the backside of a check-government issued or otherwise.”

      Oh really? That, right there, shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      One of the primary problems people have with Ayn Rand, is her belief in “unfettered” business. “Unfettered” business too often leads to monopolies, crushing of competition, etc. “Fettered” business, if done right, doesn’t allow these things to happen, and fosters competition.

      I feel for Rand and her experiences regarding the Communists, but her emotional reaction to that, caused her to swing too far in the opposite direction, becoming too starry-eyed for big business. The result of her beliefs, was the collapse of the world’s economy in 2008–unfettered Wall Street speculation. Even Greenspan, one of her followers, and one of the main people responsible for the collapse, finally admitted he hadn’t taken human greed into account–he thought, since few people would act contrary to their own self-interest (he and Rand were wrong about that too), that this meant Wall Street wouldn’t act in ways that would bring down the very system by which they “made” their money. Boy, was he wrong. Even a child knows that many people will steal, etc. just to get what’s in front of them today, with the consequences for the future be damned.

      Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009 | Reply

  56. I was mildly entertained by Atlas Shrugged. I would have been more entertained had it been 1/2 as long.

    Comment by sekanblogger | May 5, 2009 | Reply

  57. You are clearly evil. I only wish you could experience the endgame of your own pathetic “morality” without pulling the rest of us into a cannabilitsic devolution. The problem with your ideology is that eventually, it runs out of victims. “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man or ask him to live for mine.” John Galt

    Peddle your trash elsewhere, you death lover.

    Comment by A free Man | May 6, 2009 | Reply

  58. I take issue with the idea that Ayn Rand was a good writer. She was horrible – her fiction is just dreadful, from any critical standpoint.

    You mention her as anti-democratic, and I agree, since market populism, which is a sort of mob rule, has been pushed as a replacement for politics – by her, Hayek and others. “Mob Rule” is precisely the phenomenon democratic theorists strive to prevent, whether it’s republicanism (small “r”) or anarchism. This market populism simply declares: “what ever is most popular goes.”

    Comment by Tim | May 6, 2009 | Reply

  59. Ayn Rand was by no means a great author, but because she provided the world with a rationale for selfishness, she has been celebrated as one by the selfish.
    A great propagandist certainly, but not a great author in the sense that, say, John Steinbeck was a great author.
    Thinking like Rand’s is what made the Russian Revolution necessary in the first place; all that take and no give makes Jack a dull boy if you catch my drift.
    That, and she drove Steve Ditko mad and ruined his career.
    I say good day !

    Comment by Avenging World | May 6, 2009 | Reply

    • Steinbeck was middling to bad. None of the Joads are capable of thinking. They’re taking everything on faith, and Rose of Sharon is incapable of forming an independent thought.

      Basically, if you’re putting these characters forward as heros, you’ve got issues. Not to say that he has a bad writing style, but he could come up with a better plot. It’s not just about knowing where to sling the commas and memorizing the thesaurus.

      Rand was good in the plot department. He writing style wasn’t exemplary, but what she wrote made sense, for the large part.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | July 15, 2010 | Reply

  60. Ayn Rand wasn’t “neo-Nietzsche”, she was vehemently “anti-Nietzsche”… All that is needed is to read her foreword to her book “The Fountainhead”, in which she directly opposes “Nietzschean mystics” and anything dealing with introversion and self-reflection/criticism. Rand’s “Objectivism” is nothing more than a projection of her own extremely subjective and one-sided worldview.

    The populace needs to understand the subtleties in our interpersonal conflicts, whether it be introversion vs. extroversion, rational types vs. irrational types, or individuals’ confrontations with those of their own inferior type.

    Nietzsche may have been more focused on confronting his own neuroses (maybe even to his own demise), just as Rand is more focused on stimulating herself with worldly pleasures (likewise to her demise); but both are in the same place when confronted with death, wishing that they’d both had a little bit more of the other side of life.

    Comment by Matt | May 6, 2009 | Reply

  61. How can Ayn Rand be in your crosshairs? She is dead.

    However, the widespread acceptance of her ideas and the ideas that she promoted grows larger and larger every year. Why? Because a lot of what she wrote makes sense. The immediate relevance of her legacy was her ardent defense of the principles that America’s Founding Fathers promoted.
    When one observes the history of the United States of America it makes sense how a society’s ethics determines its politics. Patriots of yore were well aware of John Locke’s identification of natural rights and of Payne’s Common Sense. Their set of ethics brought about the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Generations later, a different set of ethics brought about the New Deal and The Great Society. The ongoing battle in the course of human events is to return to the principles that the USA was founded upon and thereby expand individual freedom or to expand the welfare state and thereby diminish individual freedom. Ayn Rand’s ideas and the ideas she promoted lead the charge for expanding individual freedom.

    This blog amounts to one long ad hominem attack. You have resorted to attacking the messenger instead of arguing the message.

    If you were to be concerned with her ideas instead of her person, I can find no better summary of them then an article written by Craig Biddle. It is titled, Introducing the Objective Standard and can be found here:


    Comment by ÄtlasHugged | May 6, 2009 | Reply

    • How is Karl Marx in mine, then?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | July 15, 2010 | Reply

  62. Ayn Rand wrote horrible fiction – which must be why the right-wing loves her so much, most of their ideology being based on bad fictions: the bible; Christopher Columbus; trickle-down economics; american exceptionalism. And, of course, Darwin would not recognize ‘social-darwinism’ as having any relationship to his biological theories.
    Rand’s prose is so heavy handed and redundant, I don’t know how any literate person can wade through it. Her characters are all two-dimensional cardboard cutouts, who hammer her shallow philosophy of selfishness with every line. It’s, just…bad.

    Comment by herbabeast | May 6, 2009 | Reply

    • I’m more literate than many of the people I waded through grade-school with, and I found it fairly easy to read. And the Bible and Atlas Shrugged would probably combust if they touched.

      I found the characters fairly well developed. Just because the heroes had no vices doesn’t prove anything.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | July 15, 2010 | Reply

  63. Everyone has a half-baked idea from time to time, but those of Ayn Rand never saw the inside of an oven. For example, the idea that if a few captains of industry disappeared, the economy would grind to a halt is ludicrous. For every captain there are battalions of lieutenants pushing their way up. Certainly Rand underestimated people in general.

    George Orwell said more in just over 100 pages in “Animal Farm” than Rand did in the almost ten times as many pages of her turgid tome.

    Rand’s characters are one-dimensional, and the speeches that her characters make to one another are absurd. I find it interesting that none of her main characters have good relations with their families.

    I cannot understand how reasonably intelligent people find her “philosophy”, which boils down to, “I’m getting mine, and to hell with everybody else”, acceptable. Rand follows in the path of the extreme revolutionary party in nineteenth century Russia, the nihilists who approved of nothing in the constituted order of things.

    The best refutation of Rand’s “objectivism”, which includes laissez-faire economics, is the consequence of deregulation and the lack of government oversight that has brought the American economy to the point where it is today. Unfettered capitalism tends towards monopoly; competition is stifled. Now there are institutions that are “too big to fail”, a consequence, in part, of the policies of Rand’s acolyte A. Greenspan.

    And just one more thought: The choices are not just between capitalism and socialism. That kind of dichotomous thinking is too limiting.

    Comment by Flitcraft | May 6, 2009 | Reply

    • WEll that was another dumb Leftist delusional statement, i.e. in which you dispute that “if the captains of industry disappear, the economy will grind to a halt.”

      Well, let us look at the facts…Below are the countries for which your Left Wing Communist Socialist Assholes…killed, or deported the captains of industry and stole their companies and yes indeedy, industry did grind to a half and they all became POOR….now I dare you to tell me about how successful their socialist economies are now!

      I learned this from George Bush Sr….”the Poor can’t help the Poor.” Bush was right.

      So here are your socialist countries…who are or were devoid of the Captains of Industry…and ruined life for everyone.

      North Korea
      China (now turning Capitalist)
      People’s Republic of the Congo
      India (now becoming Capitalist)
      Sri Lanka
      Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia)
      Nicaragua under the Marxist SAndinistas

      And yes…the captains of Industry did flee…and now these countries are nothing but poor, dirty…and you want us to be like them? You are insane.

      Hey…go live in Cuba for a while, where your own children are the property of the state, and you are “forced” under armed guard to go out and cut sugar cane.

      And you want us all to live in such …where the inefficient, idiotic “state” attempts to run industry?

      Socialis is nothing but a miserable joke.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 11, 2009 | Reply

    • I’m not going to read all that nonsense, but I think I can address two major points.

      1. Lots of the lieutenants quit, too. Remember how John Galt gutted Taggart Transcontiental. When Rearden left, a lot of his supervisors and the like quit along with him. In the cases where that didn’t work, such as Wyatt Oil, a little more demolition was necessary. And remember, lots of those closed companies reopened, but the new management was a little dumb.

      2. Francisco had a good relationship with his father. We never see his mother. Plus, families are often seen as sources of irrational edicts. Rand was separating her characters from that. (Dagny resiting her mother’s ideas about happiness, for example.) (Note: Dagny’s father seemed to approve of her, just before he died.)

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | July 15, 2010 | Reply

  64. Although she makes some good points, Ms. Rand is an extremist and a hypocrite. As anyone who takes their personal vendettas to an extreme, dear Ayn becomes contradictory in her novels and her philosophy. As the great philosopher said, “I have become that which I hated”.

    Ms. Rand seems to have an incorrect assessment of capitalist history. She assumes that great individuals, acting alone, as heroic individualists, created the society we have today. False. Our capitalism is built on the division of labor- most people in an economy are but a cog in a machine- giving their labor to the corporate collective. The elites at the top DO NOT do all the work that sweet Ayn wants to give them credit for. And if she wants to point out parasites, how about executives who receive lavish salaries and credit for work done by the little people beneath them?

    And if we want to study the Capitalist heroes of our society; Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Astor, Morgan, Edison, Gates, etc.; we see a list of sociopaths who used treachery and exploitation of their competitors/ employees/ customers/ society in general to win. In a competitive society, all else being equal, it is the man with the LEAST ethical restraints who rises to the top.

    I see many objectivists quoting Randy’s novels as if they were god’s holy gospel. They’re not- they are fictional propaganda. And not particularly good fiction at that. Thank you.

    Comment by Buckfutter | May 6, 2009 | Reply

  65. Plastic Lives for Plastic People Free Market at the Mall – we are so scientifically brainwashed at this point that we will buy re-bottled TAP water that might come from SuperFund sites and because the advertising shows a mountain we will think that the plastic encased water tastes like a mountain spring even though we are driving an SUV in traffic going nowhere fast to pay our bills to buy more crap to live in freedom to work at our job that we are afraid we will lose so that the corporation can better position itself to take over again and that regional Manager is sucking down his/her cup of Rand to feel good inside even though there is no inside left because we are so scientifically brainwashed at this point that we will buy re-bottled TAP water that might come from SuperFund sites and because the advertising shows a mountain we will think that the plastic encased water tastes like a mountain spring even though… God forbid the Gov’t regulate the water supplies when Large Corporations have more money to do it. Humans can’t be trusted to vote in trusted public servants, Corporations are so much better, their advertising is so much more convincing in any case so don’t waste your Time making such a case. Time is Money, remember? Money bolsters Ego and allows you to make better decisions of which products to purchase – with the aid of advertising of course. Advertising is a form of Education after all. The invisible Hand will swat you down the toilet and you won’t even know what hit you and it will actually feel good to you. Buy or Die. Consume or Be Consumed.

    Comment by woodgas | May 6, 2009 | Reply

    • In a free world of objective, fair laws and respect for the individual…you may live in a hut, eat twigs and dig in the dirt as much as you wish. It is your “choice.”

      But, your utopian world becomes a slave state…when you demand and enforce others to live like you. Go ahead…live as you wish, but do not enforce your police state on the rest of us…By the way, everything that you have stated…is exactly how the “religious” think and how the “church” justified the murder of 50 million who refused to believe in the same god.

      I don’t believe in your “socialist” god-state…now what are you going to do? Take away my money, my property, my rights to live as I wish? Then come right out and be honest about it…state that you are nothing more than a thief.

      Socialism is THEFT.

      Comment by Judy | July 24, 2009 | Reply

      • Of course it is, Judy. But they say, “Property is Theft” never grasping that when they pick fruit from a tree and put it in their own mouths they have made it THEIRS.

        Yes Lefties, in eating that fruit, you are stealing it from others!

        Capitalists have a better solution. One will raise the fruit in large quantities, caring for it and rightly calling the fruit his own. Another will offer woven clothing, that is his own because he made it, in trade for the fruit. BOTH benefit when they trade. The one with too much fruit gets the clothing, the one with too much clothing gets the fruit.

        Trade is the ONLY MORAL way of life. Will some cheat? Of course, but that is why Capitalism depends on Rights, Courts and contracts.

        Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009


      More doom and gloom clap trap thinking….when we are Free to think and invent, we create a world to our liking.

      I know of dozens of people who think for themselves, and who value independence…to the point, because we as yet, continue to live in a semi free state, are moving out to the deserts, mountains, deserted islands, and farm lands…and building self sufficient places to live.

      Such people do in fact…think and vote …or get out. If you pay attention to the demographics, people are moving out of the cities who are losing large numbers of populations. They are also moving out of the suburbs into living in much smaller areas by population, because the oppressive “feel” that living under such political and media pressure is not right…it is not comfortable and there is growing knowledge that if there is a time to move…it is now. Inner cities have already been destroyed by those who “don’t think.” Why wait until all other areas of greater or lesser population density also become ghettos of those who “don’t think.”

      Obama and his thugs, and all the rest have assumed that human beings are ultimately manipulatable, and can be “trained” and herded like sheep into ghettos of nonthinking humans. Obama and his thugs are wrong. The “thinkers” are thinking about what to do in their defense and protection.

      In time, the “thinkers” will make it possible to generate one’s own power, manufacture and grow one’s own food, take care of one’s own waste, provide comfortable shelter, and have access to greater technology and all the knowledge in the world…not because some socialist state created it….but because individuals thought how to do it…and it pleased them.

      One hundred years from now…it will be simply an unthinkable atrocity to be subjected to “state control.” We are evolving…and it is no longer a question of the “have’s vs the have nots,” it is becoming a war between those who “think and those who don’t.”

      Of course…those who “don’t think” will demand that those who “do think” support them. However, those who “think” will figure out that those who “don’t think” simply do not have the “right” to demand anything from the “thinkers.” Ergo, the “thinkers” will figure out ways to enclave and protect themselves from the ravages of the Zombie Zocialist NonThinkers….Moving away from the “nonthinkers” will be just one strategy among many.

      The most interesting part about the Future…is that those who “think” will create all kinds of free or near-free devices for those who “don’t think” in order to sustain themselves and others. However, as “those who don’t think” become disturbed that those who “think” have “more”…those who “don’t think” will become enraged, no matter how much they are “given” by those who “think.”

      Ridden with rage, jealousy, and revenge…those who “don’t think”…will eventually be separated into areas of land where they can’t hurt those who “do think,” and left to their own devices.

      Those who “don’t think” will just have to show up at feeding stations to be fed, be issued clothing for warmth and go to live in nondestructable housing which they can’t destroy.

      (Note: Every single thing “given” to the nonthinkers, such as public housing…was and is rapidly destroyed by the “nonthinkers.” The nonthinkers write graffiti on the walls break out the windows and piss out the doors, and destroy everything they touch. Even when given everything to the “nonthinkers”, including free educations, welfare, training, medical care, transportation, rehabilitation…social workers, etc…the “nonthinkers” destroy the very environment they live in. So be it…in time, both the body politic and technology will enable those who do “think” to separate themselves from the “nonthinkers.”

      Yes, this sounds like a utopian movie plot…and a warning, that if those who “don’t think” keep waging war against those who do think…the “nonthinkers” will be separated and enclaved out of existence. Take your pick….(Sounds like a movie plot, yes?)

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 11, 2009 | Reply

  66. I agree with objectivity to the extent there is truth in reality’s existence. But why must objectivity be so religiously rigid and compartmentalized when it comes to individual unique potential? How ironic! — Indeed, it wouldn’t hurt for objectivists to be a little bit more — objective by recognizing “truths” exist in every reality that unfortunately is genetically predetermined.

    Integrity, accountability, responsibility, self-reliance, and independence are wonderful character traits to strive for but not necessarily a reality for some people to attain. In fact, achieving the confidence for self-sufficiency by trusting one’s instinct is a concept far beyond their ability to perceive. Mental and emotional retardation or illness, as well as physical malformations make personal independence an impossible goal. Your reality is not the end-all so try to relate to other people by finding a common ground — and don’t be so narcissistic. Always remember; your reality is not the center of the universe.

    Now, go seek and develop your awesome talent to be the best it can be. Soar to your fullest potential then sell out to commercial interests — or not. But just don’t sell yourself short (— which is impossible in Rand’s world of unfettered and unregulated capitalism). As businesses are gobbled up by corporations that inevitably consolidate until there is naught but monopolies or oligopolies left for the pickings. — In other words, it is paradoxical to embrace all of Rand’s philosophical objectives blindly. So take what you like and throw the rest out, as your individualism is at stake.

    Comment by lespool | May 6, 2009 | Reply

    • Objectivity is NOT religiously rigid. But, to remain sane and respect the rights of others…one must “know” when they are operating outside the laws of physics, living in a dream state of their own imagination…and when they are not.

      You said: Integrity, accountability, responsibility, self-reliance, and independence are wonderful character traits to strive for but not necessarily a reality for some people to attain.

      True…and Rand stated that is why we must have “objective” laws…so that we can be protected by those who “believe” they have the right to rob, murder, and rape….laws against government corruption, laws against those in private enterprise who “steal”…and punishments that fit the crime.

      Unfettered and unregulated capitalism…demands that those who engage in it…do not lie, steal, or impose their will on others. Socialism…demands, that you only buy what the state allows you to buy or what the state produces (see today’s headlines, Unions and Obama now control car industry, and Obama’s socialist state is now seeking control and domination of health care, banks, transportation, and a “state-run” media (a bunch of Obama butt lickers, who need to get a room).

      And once again…I suggest you have not read Ayn Rand…because she states that “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights (this does not include the right to steal or hurt others), including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Before you start howling about anti-trust…think: A capitalist cannot prevent another capitalist from engaging in competition, or using unfair methods, such as sabotague, to keep another another capitalist from engaging in business. The only function of the government…is to protect “individual” rights…and “acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who (first) intiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under “objective control” (meaning..fair laws, that protect the individual, and do not promote any dogma or ideology of the “mob”..or the church, or utopian socialists who wish to create a police state of “volunteer” slaves.”)

      The “moral” justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it “represents the best say to achieve the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequences. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only s ystem consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice (What is Capitalism?, CUI, 20).

      The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort (Slaves don’t make good workers or providers, which Obama and his thugs have yet to figure out). Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival…(and to survive well is the object).

      Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual (and cannot be imposed by the socialist/communist state or Obama’s Czars)…and since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival rquires t5hat those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t (those who want to live as slaves of the state).

      Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible (in contrast to Obama and his thugs who claim greater moral and intellectual superiority)…they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment (or if they are not “rational” they must be free to fail… and thus learn from their mistakes).

      Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind (in counter to Obama’s socialist thugs, who think that by enslaving American workers and achievers, they can then impose and thus deliver a “greater society.” Many such thugs and ideologues and “the church” have tried to impose a “greater” world…and have failed, leaving poverty and millions of dead in their wake.)

      Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly (in contrast to Obama’s socialism which promises that it can support, and even reward those who are not rational, those who don’t work, those who don’t invent, or achieve…in fact, the very “least” in society is to preferred as something more “noble” and saintly…than those who strive.

      Capitalism leaves every man freee to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition can carry him (in contrast to Obama’s view of fairness…that the “cap” on success for today, will be $250,000…and tomorrow, as the government falls further in debt with programs that do not work…this cap will be lowered to allow only an income of $25,000 with each human being then dependent on the state for his/her food, and shelter. This was tried in the USSR and did not work. Obama and his dumb thugs, have never read any history.)

      Comment by Judy | July 24, 2009 | Reply

  67. I’ve read two of her books(“Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged”), they are long reads but decent. Way better fiction then Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”

    Comment by Brad | May 6, 2009 | Reply

    • Gore is a liar…and a thief. The earth has only warmed by 1 degree, and human beings are not at fault. Mars is also warming up by a few degrees, and that cannot be blamed on human beings. Other forces are at work.

      Why Gore is a liar and a thief…is that he is not only making millions out of his Church of Global Warming, by fools buying “carbon credits,” what ever the fk that is…but, he has invested in and is pushing “green” technology which will make him a billionair.

      Gore’s own 5,000 square foot house, and his private jets are leaving the largest “carbon footprint” of any one executive in the world. Its all about money…Gore making money, and fools like you believe in Obama as the new Messiah, and Gore as Obama’s prophet. Bull shit!

      Comment by Judy | July 24, 2009 | Reply

  68. I completely agree wit this article’s author. Ayn Rand was a hateful and selfish bi-ch. Her accolytes today, Libertarians and Republicans, try to emulate her “qualities” every chance they get. They form “think-tanks” like the Competitive Enterprise Institute to spew forth bald-faced lies on everything from denying climate change science to discounting the hazards of smoking etc, consequences to the world be damned. All in their voracious pursuit of the almighty dollar. But you can bet they sleep soundly at night since these people have no shame.

    Comment by Sheesh | May 6, 2009 | Reply

  69. The author of this article is a nitwit. I’ve read all of Ayn Rand’s books. And many others on the subject of capitalism. There are a great many myths in this country, created and propped up by the government.

    For example many people still believe FDR’s propaganda about how the great depression was caused by laissez faire capitalism. That analysis is provably false today, and was even provably false at the time, although with less data.

    Read “America’s Great Depression,” Murray N Rothbard and separately do your own study on the stock market crash of 1920 and compare it to the one of 1929. Both were scientifically created and controlled. Read the “Creature of Jekyll Island,” G Edward Griffin

    As for why there are so many think tanks, and as for Alan Greenspan. Both are the same problem. People who intend to do something that’s completely can⋅tan⋅ker⋅ous and self serving will try to garner support from anywhere they can.

    Alan Greenspan put across a deception that he was an Ayn Rand Objectivist. It’s not the truth, because the deception was only useful to get him the job as chairman of the Fed. But all of his actions as chairman of the Fed were contradictory with his stated motive. His actions were those of a Marxist, so that’s probably what he is.

    The reason I felt is prudent to respond to this article was not that I thought it had any content worth responding to, but rather to point out that it didn’t.

    Comment by Hylas | May 7, 2009 | Reply

  70. SJ Doc:

    Yeah. Great, isn’t it? “Does history record any case in which the majority was right?” (Robert A. Heinlein)

    LOL – As a teenager (a LONG time ago), I came up with this one:

    Given the state of the world, if the majority of people agree on something, you can count on it being wrong.

    Heinlein would have liked me and my thinking, I think… Yet I am but an egg.


    Comment by SteveGinIL | May 7, 2009 | Reply

    • You are right~ My mother who said the very same thing…that the majority is “always” wrong…stated this axiom in a 1960s reflection of the New York Times stating that Fidel Castro was going to be the savior of “mankind.” …when New York City gave Castro a “parade.” Hitler’s majority, gave us Fascism in Germany…Stalin’s communist majority murdered 60 million people. The Vietnamese Communist “majority” murdered 3 million people AFTER the slimy, hypocrital, Left Wing Socialist Dems…forced the US out of Vietnam….the list of “sins” against human beings by the Left is nearly limitless.

      In the 1980s and 1990s…the Left Wing Socialist/Fascist Dems…supported every communist, filthy dictatorship in Central and South America. Today…the Dems support Hugo Chavez who is destroying his country, they support militant Moslem extremists who wish to create 10,000 “9-11’s,”…and again, the list is endless of how much the LEFT wishes us to commit suicide.

      Why? Because my mother, who was an attorney, observed that the “majority” function as a “herd,” a “pack,” a tribe, a “hive” of insects…who do not think, they move in unison for dominance and what they perceive as “protection.” In a “herd”…they do not protect the individual, or the weak…they sacrifice them for the herd.

      Watch an ant hill…and you will see what the Left Wing Insects have in mind for the world. All the mindless little insects, all scurrying around, each with his little job…all controlled by the “Queen.” In this case, the Left Wing Insects “queen” is now Barack Obama. What a bunch of disgusting examples of human Dysgenics.

      Such anti-individualism that Ayn Rand observed…was in reaction to how the “majority” functions…i.e. democracy is nothing more than “mob rule,” by the uneducated, led by the clever and avaricious…and Rand was right. In the 1980s, I interviewed the “last white” president of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, who said…that the Left believes in “one vote, one time,” and then reverts back to tribalism. Smith was right…Zimbabwe is the poorest country in the entire world…even poorer than the Sudan or Somalia.

      The Left Wing Loonies don’t get it…it is the “individual” mind, the heretic, the human being who thinks outside of the box…and refuses to be organized and controlled to be a tool of the state…that creates progress, justice, and creativity…all of which benefits individual human beings. In the Left’s personal and neurotic insecurities, in which they seek a “surrogate daddy” to replace their biological “daddy” who disappointed them…they perceive the “state” as their all-loving, all-giving god-father, the daddy they never had, or the daddy would who never fail them.

      Left wingers are neurotic, sick, mentally ill “haters,” …who like little jealous 12 year kids…seek to destroy those who they perceive as their “betters.” OK…then, let the Left move enmasse to Africa, or the country of their choice…and get the hell out of the US. Go ahead…create the utopian Insect Society you so crave. You are not Americans….you are “mind slavers”…you are idiots who wrap your selves in socialist rhetoric and “altruism.”

      Ah…”altruism,” the very “banner” the Left uses and proclaims as the justification for human slavery. Ayn Rand was right…”altruism” is the enemy of individual human rights.

      In Rand’s text, “Return of the Primitive” (1971)…she also predicted that a whole generation of “students” would be trained to “react” like one of Pavlov’s dogs. I ran into one of these Left Wing Pavlovian-trained “students” protesting in front of Starbucks. When my friends and I asked “why are you protesting,”…the hairy, unkempt, filthy little Left Winger said “Because they are “bad” dude…they are bad.” Really? We then asked…”why are they “bad?” Our little dirty finger-nailed, sandeled Left Winger looked confused and said…”Wait a minute, I have to ask the “organizer.” We wait…and finally the Lefty came back and said: “Because they don’t pay the farmers who grow their coffee enough.”

      Taken aback…we said. “What if Starbucks didn’t create any jobs at all, would that make you happy if the coffee growers didn’t have any jobs at all?”

      Our little unwashed Lefty…again looked confused, and then ran off to ask the “organizer” how to respond. The Left are nothing more than mindless Insects…

      The “primitive” functions as a “tribe” never asking if what they believed in was right, or just, or respects the “individual,”…The mindless Left moves like a “sludge” through our communities, towns, and cities…creating filth and corruption in their wake, using double talk..promising utopian, happiness, justice, and wealth…and in reality, what they really want is power, power to make you submit to the HIVE.

      Ayn Rand was right…and no matter how much the “sludge” hates her, and calls her selfish, blah, blah, blah…she was right. We are being over run by the parasites, the sludge, the perpetual “victims”…the Insects, and the genetic liars…all of whom expect the government to “rob” those who work…to feed and take care of them.

      Those who hate Ayn Rand…a) never read much of what she stated, and b) simply “hate” the idea that they are responsible for themselves…

      Obama and his “thugs”…hate you, they hate all individualism. Obama is nothing more than an extension of some African tribalism, with Obama as the HNIC, who will say and do anything, including throwing his white grandmother who took him in when no on else would under the bus. Obama is a born racist…who in his hypocrisy has now turned on his good buddy “Prof. Gates” to appease da’ liberal white folks who are in charge of pandering his Marxist totalitarian doctrine…and pass his state-run health care bills.

      Too bad you dumb liberals, who think you are soooo intelligent, don’t realize that you are merely clever. What is the difference you say? The truly intelligent look at the consequences of their actions on individuals…whereas, the merely clever do not, and seek only to live in the present…and “win” regardless of the lies they must tell, and the horrific totalitarian consequences they bring about.

      Did you know that 20% of the GOP voted for Obama? Wanna know why? Did you think it was because the GOP liked Obama? Dream on you fools. No…20% of the GOP voted for Obama…to teach the American people a “lesson” about socialism. Socialism is nightmare…dressed up in terms of a utopian dream that is held out as the answer for all ills, all social problems, which would create a ‘heaven on earth’ by the all knowing, all loving, all powerful god-state.

      The GOP “knew” that in a very short period of time, the Am. People would lose their romantic view of both socialism and Obama…if he was elected. This is quickly coming to pass…and in the next elections, the GOP would win by default…as the ONLY answer to the Left and the Dems’ complete disrespect of individuals.

      I predicted that in 6 months…Obama would either be impeached or isolated and controlled by his own party. I was right…and we are seeing the “end” of Obama now. I will be surprised if Obama is still in office in the next 12 months. Obama’s corrupt buddies will taken him down as a partner in crime. Nixon’s sins were nothing in comparison to Obama’s massive theft and corrupt control through ACORN and other 300 organizations, who have by hook and crook received Federal funds…to secretly “organize” voters and created a socialist police state.

      In the 1960s, with LBJ’s “Great Society,” the ground work for today’s Left Wing Insect voters…was set, when LBJ threw black fathers out of the home…and then seduced black women into creating a “cottage industry” where they were “paid” in welfare checks to have children they could not support or really take care of.

      Our public schools….were down graded into propaganda farms and “re-education” camps…where millions of children were taught not how to think, or discern reality and consequences, but to “believe” in altruism, to be a ‘volunteer,’ to serve the “state,” and that every “poor person” was decidedly more “worthy” of support. Today…many high schools engage in “forced slavery” to state through mandatory “volunteer” programs…which if the student doesn’t not comply…they are denied their high school diploma. This is not “volunteerism” it is forced slavery, which kids are nos being taught as something “good” and normal. Disgusting….Did the Left really think they could get away with such “forced voluntary slavery” forever?

      Games up…Obama has nothing going for him but Rahm “Dead Fish” Emmanuel and his teleprompter who committed suicide last week. Its over….When the realism hits the American people as to who and what the Dems, Libs, and Obama’s thugs have in mind…they will be outraged.


      Comment by Judy | July 24, 2009 | Reply

      • Judy, your ‘rant’ is pretty awesome. In nearly every other comment, I have to agree with you. Unfortunately, your approach will not change those who disagree, but who have doubts. For them your denigrating language, however justified, will not convince those who are ‘on the fence’ because they cannot share your view. The worst example is your use of HNIC. Yes, in terms of why a great many people voted for Obama, your use of racism is entirely accurate. But you must put it in those terms: those voters who DO think in terms of race, more than in policy, wanted an HNIC. In fact they are so numerous that they may have made the mistake of getting what they wished for.

        That said, the alternative voters faced was to place a RWIC (Religious Wingnut In Charge). Though Leftist BullSh_t & Environmentalism are deeply anti-American, Religion is the bigger long term threat to America. The socialist Deathnocrats are intellectually bankrupt, and must lie (“hope” & “change”)to gain power. Obamabull is already becoming evident, even to the Leftist media. The rightist anti-capitalist Republicides still have their pseudo-intellectual religious morality working for their side —though it is leads to the same moral HELL that is destroying the greatest nation ever created.

        Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009

  71. Ayn Rand = Alistar Crowley’ “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

    Both argue might = right. Do for yourself, and screw everybody else. If you can steal a car and get away with it, then to hell with the suffering of the weak. If the weak want to keep their cars, they need to be strong enough to keep them from being stolen.

    Randian selfishness justifies every crime, every abuse.

    The very concept of “law” is to prevent the strong from harming the weak. Rand is diametrically opposed to any law, because the very existence of law prohibits the strong from doing what’s in their own “best” interest.

    We’ve seen Randian philosophy in action. The three most Randian people in the last 100 years were Stalin, Mussolini, and the mustachioed Austrian corporal. Now THEY lived by the idea of “what’s best for me is all that matters…”

    Comment by Dan | May 7, 2009 | Reply

    • Sigh. Come on, Dan. Show that you’ve read at least the dust-jackets of some of Rand’s books. She explicitly rejects the notion that morality is a choice between altruism, i.e., the sacrifice of self to others, and the kind of “selfishness” that you talk about: the sacrifice of others to oneself. Rand’s morality of (rational) selfishness was a rejection of sacrifice of any kind, either of others to oneself or oneself to others. Her ethic ejects from the realm of morality both the dictators you list and altruists like Mother Teresa, whose morality requires the existence of hapless victims (and which, thus, has incentive to manufacture victims – cf. the welfare state). (It wasn’t an accident that Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini all believed that others should be sacrificed for the state, as they saw it.) . . . I have yet to see a good critique of Rand’s core philosophic ideas of reality, rationality, and individual rights from someone who actually understands them. . . Sigh.

      Rich, your “synopsis” left out the essence of Rand’s aesthetics, which is the principle that art is a selective recreation of reality based on an artist’s metaphysical value judgments (or something along those lines). Please critique that principle before launching into criticisms of out-of-context concretes.

      Comment by Doug | May 23, 2009 | Reply

    • Dan…you are a nasty, little liar who has never once read Ayn Rand…this is what she said about “the law:”

      “It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided those edicts were known., specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men’s spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible (altruism), the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in sudden death (of not just persons, but businesses, corporations, and organizations); a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear (and why Obama will be defeated as long as we have the right to honest vote).(Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason” TON, Feb, 1962, 5).

      The task of a “proper” government..its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government…is to “bar” physical force from social relationships, and a code of ethics under objectively defined laws.

      What is objectivism?
      1) Reality exists as an objective absolute–facts are facts, independent of man’s “feelings,” wishes, hopes or fears (Left wing utopianism…demands that you “believe” in the religion of socialism, of you will be punished, and that socialism can be made “real” through one’s imagination and belief (the same dogma as is held by the religious). It is not).
      2. Reason (the mental faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. (The opposite is religious “magic” and socialism, which states “if you can imagine it, then it exists.” No it doesn’t, this kind of magical beliefs are the same found in children before the age of reason.)
      3. Man–every man–is an end in himself (as opposed to be part of an Insect Hive, a tribe, or a herd)… and is also an “end in himself,” not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

      ***4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another…NOT AS VICTIMS OR EXECUTIONERS, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.

      The government acts only as a policeman that protexts man’s (individual) rights; it (the government) uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reason as the separation of state and church (Introducing Objectivism, TON, Aug. 1962, 35).

      Rand further stated: “I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest folows. This–the supremacy of reason–was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Obejectivism (Brief Summary, TO, Sept. 1971, 1.)

      “All laws must be objective (an objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.” (The Nature of Government, VOS, 149;p pb 110). (Note: This is counter to “thought crimes” which the LEFT wishes to impose on human beings who do not want to be a part of involuntary socialism.)

      The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed, and to prove who committed it as well as objective rules to define punishment and enforcement procedures.

      Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens (Obama’s Czars! And now Sotomayor…), it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law, and an endless series of bloody private feuds and vendettas. (Ibid, 147; pb 109).

      When men are caught in the trap of non-objective law, when their work, future and livelihood are at the mercy of a bureaucrat’s whim (I.E…Sonia Sotomayor, who says as a Latina women she can make better decisions than a white man), when they have no way of knowing what unknown “influence” will crack down on them for which unspecified offense, “fear” becomes their basic motive, if they remain in the industry at all–and compromise, conformity , staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected of them.

      Independent thinking does not submit to bureaucratic edits, originality does not follow “public policies,” integrity does not petition for a license, heroism is not fostered by fear, creative genius is not summoned forth at the point of a gun.

      Non-objective law (promoted by the Left against certain persons, such as the “rich” for which a certain “income” level…then makes them criminals to be punished by having their money and property taken away from them)… is the most effective weapon of human enslavement; its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves (The “poor” are fooled and seduced into believing they are benefitting by a) being slaves, and b) making slaves of others (white people, the rich, corporations, etc). (Vast Quicksands, TON, July 1963, 25.)

      That which cannot be formulated into an objective law, cannot be made the subject of legislation…not in a free country, not if we are to have “a government of laws and not of men.” An undefineable law is not a law, but merely a license for some men to rule others (I*bid, 28).

      Comment by Judy | July 24, 2009 | Reply

      • Awesome job, Judy. Of course, you vastly exceed their intellectual abilities.

        Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009

    • Again…you have never read Ayn Rand…you are just another one of the primitive insects that parrot what you have heard. Rand was against the “utopian” state of Stalin, Hitler, Castro…and now Obama…. This leads me to perceive that you have not read Rand…not one word of what she stated. Who fed you the crap you “believe” like some dumb religious cretin? Tell me…in what state-run, university or high school…did you swallow such idiotic propaganda about Ayn Rand? Tell us…

      If Rand states that individuals have “rights”….then please by all means, state how that is “hateful” and why she is a bitch…if Ayn Rand promoted individual rights and choices?

      If such “think tanks” form and spew forth “bald-faced lies”…then name them. Prove Global warming exists….Rand never stated anything about smoking. If one wants to smoke in their own home…let them, but the rest of us should not have to pay for consequences of their nasty habits.

      Ergo..if gays and drug users want to get HIV/AIDS or become addicted because that is their lifestyle, then…let them, but the rest of us should not have to pay for their care…as it is their choice.

      There is no shame in desiring to have individual rights, own property, have choices, live my life as I wish (without harming others)…and achieve that which makes me happy.

      You may wish to live in a guilt-free world…then go ahead, but don’t force me to live in your utopian police state.

      Objectivity is NOT religiously rigid. But, to remain sane and respect the rights of others…one must “know” when they are operating outside the laws of physics, living in a dream state of their own imagination…and when they are not.

      You said: Integrity, accountability, responsibility, self-reliance, and independence are wonderful character traits to strive for but not necessarily a reality for some people to attain.

      True…and Rand stated that is why we must have “objective” laws…so that we can be protected by those who “believe” they have the right to rob, murder, and rape….laws against government corruption, laws against those in private enterprise who “steal”…and punishments that fit the crime.

      Unfettered and unregulated capitalism…demands that those who engage in it…do not lie, steal, or impose their will on others. Socialism…demands, that you only buy what the state allows you to buy or what the state produces (see today’s headlines, Unions and Obama now control car industry, and Obama’s socialist state is now seeking control and domination of health care, banks, transportation, and a “state-run” media (a bunch of Obama butt lickers, who need to get a room).

      And once again…I suggest you have not read Ayn Rand…because she states that “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights (this does not include the right to steal or hurt others), including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Before you start howling about anti-trust…think: A capitalist cannot prevent another capitalist from engaging in competition, or using unfair methods, such as sabotague, to keep another another capitalist from engaging in business. The only function of the government…is to protect “individual” rights…and “acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who (first) intiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under “objective control” (meaning..fair laws, that protect the individual, and do not promote any dogma or ideology of the “mob”..or the church, or utopian socialists who wish to create a police state of “volunteer” slaves.”)

      The “moral” justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it “represents the best say to achieve the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequences. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only s ystem consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice (What is Capitalism?, CUI, 20).

      The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort (Slaves don’t make good workers or providers, which Obama and his thugs have yet to figure out). Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival…(and to survive well is the object).

      Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual (and cannot be imposed by the socialist/communist state or Obama’s Czars)…and since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival rquires t5hat those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t (those who want to live as slaves of the state).

      Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible (in contrast to Obama and his thugs who claim greater moral and intellectual superiority)…they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment (or if they are not “rational” they must be free to fail… and thus learn from their mistakes).

      Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind (in counter to Obama’s socialist thugs, who think that by enslaving American workers and achievers, they can then impose and thus deliver a “greater society.” Many such thugs and ideologues and “the church” have tried to impose a “greater” world…and have failed, leaving poverty and millions of dead in their wake.)

      Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly (in contrast to Obama’s socialism which promises that it can support, and even reward those who are not rational, those who don’t work, those who don’t invent, or achieve…in fact, the very “least” in society is to preferred as something more “noble” and saintly…than those who strive.

      Capitalism leaves every man freee to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition can carry him (in contrast to Obama’s view of fairness…that the “cap” on success for today, will be $250,000…and tomorrow, as the government falls further in debt with programs that do not work…this cap will be lowered to allow only an income of $25,000 with each human being then dependent on the state for his/her food, and shelter. This was tried in the USSR and did not work. Obama and his dumb thugs, have never read any history.)

      Comment by Judy | July 24, 2009 | Reply

      • OK, I understand your point…but, I’m using the Left’s own strategies codified by Saul Alinsky in his “Rules for Radicals,” which state that to “intimidate” the enemy, it is good to humiliate them into submission and cowardice.

        I am following Alinsky’s Rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

        Being “nice” and ladylike for the past 40 years…has not worked one whit.In fact…being nice has given the Left an Edge of which they have taken full advantage. So, its time for a “change” in tactics. In fact…being “nice” to the Radical Left Wing Nut Cases…has often signified “defeat” and “cowardice” of the “enemy”….in which often times they were right.

        Those who are naturally gifted with intelligence, logic, and respect for reason, will “get it” on their own. Such persons “seek out” information and measure and weigh such information for “natural logic.” Those who are genetically predispositioned….for fantasy, utopian delusions, hate, revenge and psychopathic or schizoid religiosity won’t change no matter what one can do.

        Being “hostile” to such persons, if successful, might “blunt” the impetus of their irrational emotions, because they are not being rewarded for their own irrational hostility toward logic and objectivism. At the very least…confrontation and being “hostile” toward the Left…will NOT be perceived as a “neutral reward” for their irrationality.

        Far too often since the 1970s, when the Left has become irrational and hostile…they were rewarded by the rest of us, by being “nice”…tolerant, understanding, silent, cowardice, and simply giving in.

        The Israelis have tried every known psychology to get the Palis to the bargaining table, to try and “understand” and “meet the needs” of the Moslems to come to a peaceful settlement. Of course, we now know it did not work…only “real pain” makes any difference, if not temporarily” in how the Moslems function.

        In both common pop psychology, and that practiced by Obama and Carter…it was from the “I’m Ok, You’re OK” school of political science. Or, if we all just “sat down and acted like christians” we can solve problems. On Obama’s Apology Tour…our enemies as well as the onlookers, just laughed their asses off at Obama’s childish high schooler’s attempt at being nice…so we can all become a “club.” Obama has to be one of the most naive presidents in history besides Carter…which makes him extremely dangerous. To wit: Right now there are two Russian submarines, who are not our friends, trolling right along the 20-mile barrier to the US.

        Now ask yourself…why are the Russians here? And…what is their message? So you think they are coming close to the US in order to order some Papa John’s Pizza?

        Knowing a little about the subject, the Russians are testing not only our defenses…but our “will” to meet them head on by what defenses…if say a thousand, nuclear-armed Russian naval ships and subs come into our coastlines.

        We cannot afford to be “nice” to the Left anymore…the balance has tipped in their favor and we are now at war. We cannot win…by being nice, standing in place, being temperate, tolerant, or showing them respect.

        The Left must understand for once…exactly what we think of them and what they are…a bunch of vomit eating hyenas, who as bipedal parasites, who wish to rob and lie their way into power and the complete control of this country… for the sake of some neoreligious, utopian crap world view.

        May I suggest that you read Miyamoto’s strategy for dealing with Left Wing radical idiots, who have no respect for YOUR individualism:


        Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
        By Craig Miyamoto, APR, Fellow PRSA

        (This is an expanded version of the 2000 Third Quarter issue of Public Relations Strategies, a quarterly publication of Miyamoto Strategic Counsel)

        To paraphrase some sage advice, “keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.” If your business or organization ever becomes a target of radical activists, it will be extremely helpful to know what strategies of attack will used against you.

        Short of having spies infiltrate their organization – a practice that is sure to be found out and exposed to your discredit – it would help to study their methods.

        Known as the “father of modern American radicalism,” Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory – no matter what.

        Grassroots pressure on large organizations is reality, and there is every indication that it will grow. Because the conflicts manifest in high-profile public debate and often-panicked decision-making, studying Alinsky’s rules will help organizations develop counteractive strategies that can level the playing field.

        Governments and corporations have inherent weaknesses. And, time and again, they repeat mistakes that other large organizations have made, even repeating their OWN mistakes. Alinsky’s out-of-print book – “Rules for Radicals” – illustrates why opposition groups take on large organizations with utter glee, and why these governments and corporations fail to win.

        Large organizations have learned to stonewall and not empower activists. In other words, they try to ignore radical activists and are never as committed to victory as their opposition is committed to defeating them. Result? They are unprepared for the hailstorm of brutal tactics that severely damage their reputation and send them running with their tails between their legs.

        Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:

        RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

        RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

        RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

        RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

        RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

        RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

        RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

        RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

        RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

        RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

        RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

        RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 11, 2009

  72. Years ago I read her book ‘The Romantic Manifesto’ which is about her thoughts about art and I would like to convey my thoughts.

    I found the book to be replete with contradictory ideas and lack of realizations to the point I concluded that she knew nothing about art but was one of those people who pontificated about something whether she knew about it or not.

    For example, she extolled the virtues of capitalism and capitalists whilst disparaging communists or socialists. Also, she hated every type of modern art except architecture. It did not register on her mind that the largest purchasers of modern art were businessmen and corporations. It did not seem to register with her that Picasso, the communist, was patronized by the Rockefellers as Jackson Pollock was by Peggy Guggenheim. I realize that the following information was not available to her in her day but the stock market follows Golden Section proportions meaning 62% positive outcomes (buying long) to 38% negative outcomes (selling short.) Rand hated Classical art/music because it was formulaic and derived from the Golden Section but liked James Bond films (which are obviously formulaic.) Rand loved ‘noble man in noble action’ and was inspired by her hero Victor Hugo. In the 20th century, with its emphasis on abstraction and modernism, her aesthetic most closely resembled those of Nazi Germany and the USSR (because of their use of the human figure whether they be the teutonic everyman or the working class hero.)

    This is the synopsis because the paper was 25 pages long and it is too long for this site. In conclusion I found her to be a dogmatic, solipsistic thinker with totalitarian overtones and wonder why anyone with an independent voice would actually be inspired by her.

    Comment by Rich | May 7, 2009 | Reply

    • Rich….how can you equalize capitalism and capitalists with communists and socalists? How is that possible… neither group has anything in common with the other group.

      Capitalism is a social system that respects individual rights…communism/socialism says the individual has no rights, only the state convenes such “rights.”

      She did not hate modern art…Rand stated that it was the politicization of “modern art,” that represented existentialism and then socialism was the problem, meaning…that it was being promoted by essentially the Left…in that there is the belief that reality does not exist. Ergo, if reality does not exist…then any kind of totalitarian governmental system could be promoted…and subsequently determine what the state believes is reality for you. And…Picasso was a communist….

      Most artists in the Modern Art movement were communists and socialists…who believed that a “utopian” government would “support” them through state funding, so they could engage in “modern art” (scribbling).

      And you are sooo wrong about the idea of the “noble man,”…being “closely resembled of …Nazi Germany.” I think you have not read anything of Rand but are merely parroting what you were told by some ill-educated, Left Wing twit who never read Rand.

      Ayn Rand’s “noble man” pursues what makes him happy, what he believes achieves progress and science through individual, self-directed work….whereas, the “noble man” of Germany and the USSR…”sacrifices” himself for the state. The state determines what is “noble,” not the individual.

      I cannot believe you are either this dumb…or cannot separate one having the right to “live for one’s self” as a noble pursuit…and not give in to the “state”…whereby “the state” demands that you nobly “sacrifice” yourself for the state or society.

      If you were in my class….you would get an F….

      It is true….Northern Europeans, and some Teutons understood the “noble” pursuit of individual justice and rights…and such an individualist…has nothing in common with the Communist idea of the Noble man, who engages in sacrificing everything about his life and individuality, or desires…for the state.

      Can you tell the difference between living for what makes you happy and being brave and “noble” enough to pursue it…in contrast to the “state” demanding or stating that you can only be “noble” if you sacrifice yourself, your desires, you wants and needs for society or the state?

      She was not dogmatic…think…just how “dogmatic” can anyone be…who promotes individuality and individual rights?

      Duh….The “state” demands that you “dogmatically” obey the state, in which you have no individual rights.

      What in the bloody hell are they teaching in schools today. If your garbage is representative of a “state education,” then no wonder such craven messianic twits like Obama are elected.

      You cannot even tell the difference between capitalism and socialism. You cannot tell the difference between “individualism” and being owned and controlled by “the state.”

      Comment by Judy | July 24, 2009 | Reply

      • the scary thing is that Rich has a computer and can type. I would rather see an ape hit the keys randomly, than see Rich believing he has some glimmer of rationality in his grossly conflicted view of cultural and political freedom.

        Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009

  73. None of these are actual arguments addressing what Ayn Rand actually said. Based on your claims of what she supposedly said, I can only conclude you actually haven’t read her work or at least haven’t processed it.

    Sometimes you do make claims of things she actually said, but you take them so out of context as to distort their meaning.

    I encourage people to actually read Ayn Rand and judge for themselves. Even if you do decide that you do not agree, at least you can say with honesty that you have read her, which is more than most of her critics can say.

    Comment by S | May 9, 2009 | Reply

  74. A more careful reading of Ayn Rand’s works will clear up your confusion.

    Comment by Steve Thyng | May 10, 2009 | Reply

  75. The Left can scream about “greed” all they want to, but what Ayn Rand said is the basics of human rights: a) I get to keep my own money and property, as it does not belong to you or the “common good.” If I choose to share that is my business not yours. b) Socialism is a utopian-based “religion” in which it is a belief system…based on dreams and delusions, that does not work. No one in their right mind wants to live in a socialist police state. A police state is the only thing that would make socialism work for a while. And c) Rand stated that all decisions and thoughts should be based on logic, proof, and evidence that such ideologies work and respect the individual. D) Those who want to take money, property, and rights away from other people…are frustrated little neo-religious demi-god dictators. Now is the time for Ayn Rand…and Atheism. There are no gods, the state is not god, and Obama is not the New Messiah. I and all other “individuals” have a right to personal freedom and property ownership and to NOT be used and controlled as a disposable tool of the state…or either political party.

    The facts are….that if someone, or a “collective” believes that they have a “right” to live off the production of others, they are parasites.

    Now why should I have to work 6 months out of the year for “parasites?” Obama now promises to make us all work 10 months out of a year for his personal parasites and “the collective.”

    Socialism is nothing but THEFT…and for the life of me, I cannot fathom “why” the Left believes it has a right to steal my money and property, take away my rights, especially my right to free speech without having a pie thrown in my face…and the right to determine my own life….except:

    That the personalities on the LEFT are delusional, frustrated martyrs and saints, and fit the definition of a neo religion with the same kind of zeal and self righteousness as some jerk-legged, greasy-haired TV preacher who demands we believe in his religion…or else.

    One of the most outstanding and wonderful tenants of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism…is to not “lie” and to tell the truth about where your information comes from, and then prove that it works. The Left lives in a religious, utopian dream world, where they can make up any lie, or claim without any proof…and then become outraged when you don’t believe their emotional, self righteous garbage. I no more “believe” in socialism, than I believe in Jesus.

    The Left doesn’t get it….the Left is just as religious as any religious organization and promises the same kind of utopian delusions and rewards as religion.

    The Left has its martyrs and heroes, and demands for self sacrifice just like religion…the Left overtly states just like the religious, that the “individual” is incompetent, and incapable of self direction…therefore, the Left functions as a GOD…and believes it has the right to determine everyone’s life style.

    And the Left demands just like the religious, that one’s income be given to the “state” as the all-powerful “church” in charge of the world and the universe. There is no difference in the Left and all the bogus religions that have been playing mind games for the past 5000 years.

    I don’t want to be part of either some ridiculous “collective” or any organized “religion.” The leaders and little, mindless followers of the Socialist Left and organized religion are both arrogant, and insecure fools, who need to control others to compensate for their sociopathic and very failed personalities.

    Both the Left and Religion needs to get a life and get out of mine. I owe you twits nothing.

    Comment by Judy | May 11, 2009 | Reply

    • Judy, I’m not a socialist, because I don’t believe in labels, categories, etc. But take a look at some of the most successful, truly socialist countries in the world today (not ones you label as “socialist” simply because they’re awful). Tell us whether they’re police states. They’re anything but.

      Socialism, in its proper form, simply supports people helping people–it doesn’t involve coddling massive numbers of people who otherwise could earn a living. The vast majority of people want to work, innovate, etc.–living in a political system that will come to their aid when they falter, and provides things for them that few individuals can provide for themselves, doesn’t somehow sap that out of them.

      Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009 | Reply

      • Then why don’t you just move to one of those wonderful socialist utopias and stop trying to change this country into something that it was never intended to be. I refuse to sacrifice my freedom for your (and those like you) misguided ideals.

        Comment by Anonymous | July 19, 2009

    • Judy, compare “tenets” with “tenants”. The former entails essential principles, whilst the latter pays rent,

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

  76. Rand’s philopshy explains why she might have used plagerism to get ahead. There is a Russian author named Zamathian (sp?) who wrote a book called “We” before Rand’s Anthem book was published. The Rand book appears to be a plagerism of “We.” Since she was Russian, it makes sense she would have thought “We” would never be translated and see the light of day in the West.

    Comment by LeftCoast | May 13, 2009 | Reply

    • I’ve read “We” and Rand’s “Anthem”. Based on the actual content of the two novels, your claim of plagerism is nonesense. Go read both.

      Comment by John from Seattle | July 16, 2009 | Reply

    • And what is the source of your statement and claims? Lots of books have been named “WE.” So what…show us your source before you being slandering Rand.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 12, 2009 | Reply

  77. Rand and Neitzsche make good points, im not a devout capitalist, but thier arguments on how self improvement leads to the birth of the human spirit are remarkable. Every liberal should read Rand, if only to be able to put thier liberal ideas to the test. I like Rands views on privacy, and on earnings the luxuries of the wourld, and not just being given them. Having said that, I realize she’s excessive, Atlas Shrugged is still an amazing read though.

    Comment by dogagas | May 14, 2009 | Reply

  78. Over several decades, scholars from Walter Kaufmann to R.J. Hollingdale to Robert Solomon to Kathleen Higgins have patiently explained why the conception of Nietzsche as a proto-Nazi bent on physically dominating and enslaving weaker people is absurd. You should look into them so as not to make yourself look foolish repeating slurs that have been long debunked.

    Comment by Balls McCartney | May 14, 2009 | Reply

  79. Ayn Rand is a Fraud. So is Alan Greenspan, just as Prof. Ravi Batra wrote in his book, “Greenspan’s Fraud”.

    She put forth inventors of perpetual motion machines (i.e. John Galt) who drew energy from “thin air”, just like the real life inventor Joseph Papp and his patented “nuclear engines” that ran on “noble gases”. She in fact was promoting a fraud in John Galt who has been modelled after real life “inventor” and fraud artist, Joseph Papp.

    It takes some time to penetrate the fog bank of circular arguments that Rand lays out (i.e. “A is A”). But in truth, Rand is a minor “philospher” like Karl Marx, with about the same amount of blood on her hands. She and Marx never took responsibility for their ideas and the murder and mayhem that their “philosphies” helped justify.

    In truth, both Marx and Rand fostered a “new religion” more than an economic system or a new political world order. Millions of souls lost their lives because of these killers.

    Rand indeed was a sociopath, and her habit of sleeping with students, only accentuated her own morality as not applying to herself.

    Antonio Gramsci would no doubt identify both as doing what linguist revolutionaries do best; they pervert the meaning of words. For Rand, she perverted the word “virtue” by turning it into a “vice” and by turning a “vice” into a “virtue”. Thus “compassion” became a “vice” just as “greed” became a “virtue”.

    Laisse Faire capitalism always leads to fascism, it did in Germany in the 1930s and today it has done the same for Amerika.

    For me, Ayn Rand is that scriptural Whore of Babylon, dressed in purple, cavorting with the Nations, High Priestess of the Reformed Libertarian Church of Objectivism.

    The problem of this “religion” however, is that it has no more staying power than the one invented by her contemporary, Karl Marx. That is because the values of capitalism and the values of communism cannot “endure” which is the sine qua non of any genuine religion.

    Indeed, the Whore of Babylon, has deceived many, just like her admirer Alan Greenspan has deceived many.

    Scriptures admonish Believers “Do Not be Deceived!”

    Comment by Joseph Green | May 16, 2009 | Reply

    • Your claims are egregiously ridiculous, showing no grasp of her work. E.g., Atlas Shrugged is fiction…

      John Galt did not create a perpetual motion machine, but found a means of using the energy discrepancy between earth and sky. You might imagine that it uses a static electrical differential.

      Don’t demand adherence to elementary facts in fiction, as you would in a scientific journal. You would not do that when reading, say, Dune by Frank Herbert. The broader theme of a work of fiction may be more accurate, true and valid, than many of its fictional facts.

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

    • Why do I have to go through this with the IGNORANT over and over again…When you use the word “religion” to describe Objectivism, it is clear you don’t know what the the word “religion” means…

      To wit: Religion demands or ascribes to a supernatural, superstitious mythical belief.

      Everything about Objectivism…is about NOT being engaged in magic, supernaturalism, or superstitious behaviors.

      Religion worships something, usual a divine thingy…Objectivism states that “worship” of anything is stupid and makes the individual blind and ignorant, a dumb follower of something.

      Now back up…use the word RELIGION correctly and attempt to restate something.

      Socialism and Marxism IS a religion…because it worships, Lenin/Marx and an idea of supernatural beliefs, that a utopian world can be created if only one commit intellectual suicide and become a slave of the state.

      The “natural” mind of human beings are and do seek Objective (REAL)…thought processes and for that reason it is not only flourishing, but is the basis of all science.

      Science and Objectivism are one and and the same mental processes.

      Communism/socialism, etc…claim to be scientific, but do no research and certainly do not observe or seek out the consequences of a communist/socialist state.

      The SCRIPTURES are garbage…written by human beings, to fool little people like you. Jesus did not exist, he was a created myth…there is no proof of Jesus anywhere outside of the bible…none. Your imaginary god does not exist. Why?

      A “god” is something that can interrupt the laws of physics…not once in all of the 14 billion years of cosmological history, and to date…there is not one single instance of anything or an event…interrupting the laws of physics (magic).

      Ergo…while you wallow around in your delusions sounding as if you are insane and a fool…Rand and Objectivism states that your life will be much happier, more organized, satisfying and successful…if you live in a state of reality and not religion.

      Religion is simply a belief in magic. And we all know that magic does not exist. Right? …..

      If one “believes” in magic/religion…then they are indeed DECEIVED~

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 12, 2009 | Reply

  80. There is hidden, overlooked or denied the destructive role of boards in corporations in the novel, “Atlas Shrugged”
    In fact the pass given in 1883 to “Corporation is legally the same as a person” has much to do with the problem so eloquently described.

    Also overlooked by the zealots is that Rand is a pacifist, opposed to violence and military solutions. She does stand for reason rather than zealotry, which in her plot led to the
    formation and isolation of a colony of rational people.

    I never had the impression she triumphs over the loser; she simply hates to see a loser which is a great difference from Nietsche’s later thinking when on his medicine.

    Well,as with great ideas, such as Marx’s they get taken over by the nut cases; an unintended consequence.

    Comment by Frank Lornitzo | May 17, 2009 | Reply

  81. The “legal fiction” that corporations with limited liabilities but theoretically infinite lifetimes, is just part of this “grand deception” of modern laisse faire capitalism. Corporations are not “people” and they certainly do not have “rights” as real human beings do. Rather, this is a fiction that allows owners of capital to abuse other members of society that are not their shareholders.

    Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan well understood this, and they exploited it. They understood better than most, that all frauds require a “rationale” or a “rational basis” from which the frauds can be launched against the public. Rand’s view, are those of P.T. Barnum, that there is a “sucker born every minute”. It underlays all of her “work” and has many similar characteristics of the “Big Lie”.

    I most certainly do not agree with Frank Lornitzo that somehow Ayn Rand’s hands are clean. They are not, they are bloodstained from the millions of victims that her “philosphy” created. Objectivism afterall gave “moral authority” to criminals like Howard Hunt, who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Guatamula, and many others in Central American countries including Catholic priests and nuns; until he eventually was convicted inside the US itself for criminal activity in Washington in the now infamous Watergate events that very nearly destroyed democracy in the USA.

    Rand is just as responsible for these killings as Hunt himself. The Whore of Babylon was just as much a part of what President Johnson called “Murder Incorporated” as Hunt himself. And there are many, many others from this cluster of American war criminals. Henry Kissinger for example, who was central in the genocides in East Timor. Kissinger was prominent in the destruction of democracies like those of Chile and Indonesia. All of these bloody ideological mass murders received their “moral sanction” from Ayn Rand.

    Nor was Rand a “pacifist”. Just look at what she was advocating with the pirates in Atlas Shrugged, who would kidnap and then murder democratic leaders who she called “looters”. This is precisely what took place with Pinochet under CIA direction in Chile. It was Rand that gave these killers “moral authority” to murder “looters” like the President of Chile.

    Moral philosophers were slow to respond to the evils being purpetrated by such “philosophers” as Rand and Marx. Many tried to simply deny that Rand or Marx were philosophers at all. Rather they agreed with Rand’s own words when she referred to herself as a propagandist.

    She was a wild eyed revolutionary that perverted words in the classical manner of all linguists that lead revolutions. She perverted the meaning of words by turning their meaning upside down.

    It seems to me much more appropriate to compare her “work” to that of Goebels of the Third Reich, or to that of Marx whose arithmetic could not get past grade school. If ever there were two more fitting parents of the Cold War, it would have to have been Ayn Rand and Karl Marx.

    One has to wonder what it was about nineteenth century European Jewry that produced so many perverse “intellectuals” as Rand, Marx, Freud, even Einstein and others like Teller, that have brought about so much human suffering.

    The twentieth century has seen more people killed by these ideologies that spawn warfare, then all the accumulated disease in history.

    I realize that most “objectivists” will not see things in this light, and will pass off Rand’s responsibility for how others have used or misused her ideas. Never-the-less, one is responsible for the consequences of ones own ideas.

    That for Rand, was her ultimate “evasion”.

    Comment by Joseph Green | May 17, 2009 | Reply

    • Corporations are not like some cartoon, Hollywood vision of Transformers. Corporations are made up of individual human beings, who voluntarily come together to achieve a goal…i.e. make money. One can either be an employee, or they can choose not to. If you don’t like what the corporation does…or how you are treated, you can either leave get another job, stay at home, or create a corporation of your own.

      To treat corporations as if they are some nonhuman entity…is the same propagandistic excuse Hitler used to murder the Jews…whereby Hitler claimed the Jews were also “not human.”

      I have worked for corporations…and have always been treated with respect and kindness. Why? Because it took a shit load of money spent by the corporation to train me and pay me.

      Now why would a corporation treat me or any other employee badly, when we are valued for what we do? To hire someone else…costs money, to train someone new, also costs money and takes time. New employees fuck up a lot…an experienced, good employee who loves their job and is good at it…is a value to others and to themselves.

      Only the socialist hyenas, and Obama’s collective says we are to be in involuntary servitude to the state…As we have sen far too often in state-run agencies, you are treated like a herd of cattle, by surly, sullen state/government employees, who cannot be fired for their shitty attitudes. Oh! You want to file a complaint against a government employee? Really…how can you do that when government employees’ unions state that such shitty employees cannot be fired.

      Want more of Obama’s Socialst State…who is going to promise every idiot a job? Then just go and stand in line at the post office, or the drivers’ license agency, the social security office, or any government agency for an hour…and see why the Soviets got rid of communism…after 70 years of experiencing the worker’s paradise.

      Give me the corporate life over a socialist state any time.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | July 28, 2009 | Reply

  82. Libertarianism: the tails of a coin whose head is communism.

    Heads, the state controls everything. Tails, the state controls nothing.

    Both ideas will fail ABJECTLY in any real implementation, and both ideas are merely abdications of day to day decision making that is and always will be messy in an analog, not digital, world.

    Comment by techo | May 24, 2009 | Reply

  83. Rand’s followers live in a fantasy world…. as does anyone who bases their opinions on a work of fiction, like most religions….


    Comment by David Claiborne | May 26, 2009 | Reply

  84. Ayn Rand and her Objectivist band
    fell through the sand
    not recognizing that it was, after all,
    “Each Man for Himself!”
    each one cried,
    for it was this philosophy that each one plied
    Too late!
    they realized
    their dear ‘leader’ had essentially plagiarized
    and unwittingly lied.

    Comment by isocratic infidel | May 27, 2009 | Reply

    • Not the best rhyme scheme, and plus, when multiple people see a common interest of common action, they cooperate.

      And what is this about plagarism? If you’re referring to the Anthem / We supposition, you clearly haven’t read both.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | July 9, 2010 | Reply

  85. insofar as possible i’d like to be left alone. i want to drive my car without a seatbelt,my motorcycle without a helmet and let darwin sort it out.many of the problems with capitalism have to do with people who spend money to create rules to force out competition-whether it be why you can’t find royal crown cola at the supermarket,or have to be licensed to do most skilled work,or the purple pill gets an unreasonable escape from generic status,or you haqve to pay the lawyer even if you win.ayn rand wrote in hyperbole to drive her message home. like any philosopher,she has a useful point of view,which we are free to accept in whole or in part.

    Comment by jim graber | May 27, 2009 | Reply

  86. Rand was a genius. She absolutely understood human nature better than anyone. It the basis of her philosophy that under the correct conditions which is primarily freedom to prosper in a non socialist state is what brings out the very best in human nature.

    There will always some bad human nature present, but the good when left on it’s own, will always outweigh the bad. The majority of humans all want pretty much the same things … freedom, decent standard of living, security and entertainment. Where they differ is in how one achieves those goals.

    Does it come from self-reliance and a willingness to develop skills and work or run a business?


    Does it come from a collective that claims to care about our well-being and will confiscate wealth from others to provide you with what you wish.

    Know this … the state is not a caring compassionate institution. I cannot care about you and consider what usually runs any state, you can be sure those politicians, and unionized government workers most certainly don’t care about you.

    You are the very person or entity to look out for yourself and your family. You only need to have the opportunity to do it profitably enough to provide the needs you desire.

    I have never seen a socialist state become richer, freer, more interesting, more cultured, nor do the people create anything new or innovative. In reality most Socialist state are in a long slow decline as it destroys it’s productive wealth creating class and then falls apart or remains evermore in poverty and strife.

    What I say is factual. It has been proved more than once in the last century. There are still a few in progress … I am sure you know who they are.

    The USA under Obama will get their soon enough.

    At a glance, Ayn Rands world looks tough and heartless, but that is the nature of the world. It is a thin veneer of civility that makes it possible for us to sit here and debate all this stuff.

    The point is that “nothing good comes easy”. That is what Ayn’s world says. You need to do something to have something. We can’t all just live on grants and loans and welfare.

    Comment by John West | May 28, 2009 | Reply

  87. rand was an extremist. her views were of a world that could not and would not function. what is so bizarre is that people actually believe that that homophobic bitter old hag actually had something of real substance to say.

    Comment by harvey peever | May 29, 2009 | Reply

    • Re Harvey Peever calling Rand a homophobe: The picture is more complex than a leftist mentality paints. Ayn Rand’s closest friend in her California years was the openly homosexual brother of her husband. She submitted her manuscript to him of the Fountainhead for criticism. And concerning his claim that her extreme views could never work in reality, how is the mixed-economy view working out for you, Harvey, where government meddling in the economy, namely, Democrats passing laws to help their poor voting constituencies get mortgages and own homes that traditionally would have been denied them, was the original impetus that caused the speculation in the housing market that when it collapsed, as it inevitably was destined to do, started a domino effect that ended up in a worldwide economic collapse and the loss of trillions of dollars worth of wealth? The Democrats’ attempts to help the poor, just as Marx’s, Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s, Pol Pot’s, Castro’s, and Kim’s, are going to be the ruin of us all.

      Comment by deremes | June 2, 2009 | Reply

      • The number of bad loans as a result of loosening of mortgage requirements, was small-time stuff whose eventual resolution, if it only went that far, would have been merely a blip on the economy. What caused the economic collapse of 2008, was rampant speculation and over-leveraging based on not only those bad mortgage loans, but bad loans of all sorts, in which financial institutions bundled and sold those loans, along with good loans, into packages, inflated their worth, rated the bad loans as AAA quality, etc., as a scheme to allow those financial institutions to get far more loans for themselves, based on the inflated value of their assets, than their assets justified. Over-leveraging was the issue, and the people who got loans they couldn’t afford to pay back weren’t guilty of sitting in Wall Street offices dreaming up these schemes. The dollar figure for bad loans was, at most, no more than a few percent of the total loan payouts, making it a figure that the economy could have absorbed, even if all those bad loans had to be paid off by the government, far more easily than the payouts that Wall Street got, because Wall Street got bailed out based on their inflated, over-leveraged figures–they made up how much they were worth, and told the government that if they didn’t get money from the government to actually make the made-up numbers real, that they’d go out of business. But somehow, the people who couldn’t pay their loans got blamed for all this.

        As to how this relates to Ayn Rand: “unfettered” business led to all this. It wasn’t over-regulation in the form of government-mandated loosening of mortgage requirements–it was under-regulation of Wall Street. Even the regulators whose job it was to prevent this from happening, are gradually admitting that it was their failure to apply the few remaining regulations, as well as the annulment of good regulations devised as a result of the Great Depression, that led to the collapse.

        Comment by John Sawyer | June 26, 2009

  88. This article got nothing right at all. You couldn’t possibly have read Rand to mischaracterize her so completely. She most certainly did not put strength above morality. She didn’t put anything above morality. She judged people very harshly for any breach of morality for any reason.
    Nor was she Darwinian. She advocated the trader principle where all human interaction would be voluntary and to mutual benefit.

    Comment by Corey | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  89. Ayn Rand nailed your inverted morality to the wall.
    In the world of the socialist it is a sin to be productive and a virtue to be needy.

    Why did the Soviet union collapse? the mentality of “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us”… what is going wrong in America — we are adopting the same stinking thing.

    Where the individual who earns their way – either the great inventor or the floor sweeper is to be celebrated; but the moocher the parasite the schemer who thinks that their mere existence is an automatic claim upon the life and produce of another is to be left alone until they decide that they will earn their way like any one else.

    Who is John Galt?

    Comment by Tom Martin | June 1, 2009 | Reply

    • Amen!

      “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
      – Ayn Rand “Atlas Shrugged”

      Comment by Capitalist Pig | June 4, 2009 | Reply

  90. About Nietzsche, Nietzsche believed that man had a certain will to power, a grab at something above the commonality of person and person. This is true, always has been, always will be. Anarcho-capitalism allows this very true feeling flourish and survive in a world that at first demands that you shelter it away. “Fight for the common good *insert patriotic theme song here* march for the men and women of your communities!” sound familiar? (yes that is a flippant copy-cat of this bloggers writing style)Think Soviet Union, march for the best ball-bearing factory in all of Kiev comrades. . . seriously? like our patronage isn’t good enough? We have to kiss master Stalin who will wipe out class struggle and bring us Utopian end of history? get real Marx blew, copied Hegel and Kant and for the attacks on philosophy, try to tie it to philosophy. . . don’t rationalize what you don’t know a shit about by talking about Limbaugh or some shit. . . holy hell read or something you goof face. . . not MARX! for crying out loud you twat read some Rothbard, perhaps Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations is a great Summer read ya know!

    Mike Dean

    Comment by Mike_Dean | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  91. It’s not against your selfish interests to love and care for those around you. Okay? So much talk about “limited” thinking from so many collectivists on this board. Do you really think Rand meant that love, compassion and benevolence were unnecessary and damaging flaws of character? Have you actually read anything this person wrote about relationships, race relations, music, art, sex, whiskey??

    I could say that because you are altruist you must not have any self-hood or capacity to think for yourself. But no, because I can see three inches in front of my face. You accuse me of being “amateur” and you can’t even see a simple false dilemma — Rand said selfishness and love could be the same thing, more powerful and personal than altruistic or religious love, which involves the abdication of personal choice and reasoning. When I say “I love you” I’d like the “I” to be an important part of the sentence. Otherwise I might as well tell my girlfriend “the public loves you.” Speak of propaganda. You try to condense all these noble ideas into some little misleading jingo so you can write bad poems about it. Good for you.

    Comment by Anonymous | June 5, 2009 | Reply

    • Ayn Rand wrote somewhere in John Galt’s speech that you don’t have a moral imperative to help someone. But, if you enjoy it, or wish to help someone struggling, then by all means, do so. Just don’t help someone who’s waiting to be rescued but could easily rescue themselves.

      “It’s agreed that the Patrol wouldn’t give up looking for us. Okay, if that’s the sort of an outfit the Patrol is and we are part of the Patrol, then when they find us, they’ll find us doing our level best to pull out unassisted, not sitting on our fat fannies waiting for a lift.”

      Robert A. Heinlein, “Space Cadet”

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | July 9, 2010 | Reply

  92. Among other things Rand was a completely shitty writer. Tone deaf, obvious, fatuous and sophomoric. I guffawed my way through the first pages of Atlas Shrugged, shaking my head in disbelief that anyone took this drivel seriously.

    Comment by P. Henry | June 5, 2009 | Reply

    • WOW…That was just plain stupid. Being tone deaf is hardly a moral flaw. What is obvious supposed to signify?

      I think the reason you had so much trouble with the beginning of Atlas Shrugged is due to your own pre-rejection of the author’s philosophy. When I read it, I had no idea just what I was getting into, but I read with an open mind.

      The opening to Atlas Shrugged was definitely a bit depressing and slow (I read it fairly quickly because I had nothing to do and nothing else to read). But it was quite intriquing, because it set up plenty of questions to be answered later. Rand slowly builds the plot, adding mysteries to be solved later. Some are (e.g. what’s the San Sebastian Railway and who made it?) answered quickly. Others (e.g. Who is John Galt? and What’s up with Francisco d’Anconia?) took a little more time. That just shows that she was a good author who let the plot build.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | August 6, 2010 | Reply

  93. Some unfortunate braindead “objectivist” asked “Who is John Galt?”

    The real life hero of Ayn Rand’s tome was Joseph Papp, inventor of the thermo-nuclear engine who actually received a series of US Patents for his “invention”. Like John Galt, Joseph Papp was a fraud who violated the conservation laws of physics.

    Rand of course KNEW about the fraud, but persisted in spreading this lie until it consumed most of the industrial world.

    When a person lies to you about some one detail, then they are capable of many more lies. Most of Rand’s writings/rantings are lies meant to subdue the working classes into accepting their meagre status quo.

    Indeed, Rand and Greenspan were “perverts” who twisted the meaning of words, thus “virtue” became a “vice” and a “vice became a “virtue”. Acts of kindness, and caring became “altruism” while traditional “vices” like selfishness and self indulgence became “virtues” in Rand’s world.

    Eventually of course, “reality” breaks through, and the bubble created by laisse faire capitalism collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, precisely in the same way that communism collapsed under the weight of its contradictions.

    Unless you enjoy perverse literature about “heroes” who rape their women who are “asking for it”; and perveyors of perpetual motion machines, most of Rand’s writings are a bore and a waste of time. The only significant thing to be said of Rand and Marx, is that their “ideas” caused much bloodshed and loss of life.

    That is reason enough to condemn her writings.

    Comment by Joseph Green | June 8, 2009 | Reply

  94. Total mischaracterization of Rand’s philosophy. Concepts taken out of context. Pretty typical of the left.

    Comment by D. Dufour | June 8, 2009 | Reply

  95. D. Dufour just cannot stand the truth about his idol, and I use the word “idol” precisely.

    Ayn Rand gave moral perverts around the world a “moral sanction” to commit all manner of crimes. She did that for Howard Hunt for example, the CIA station chief in Guatamula where he organized the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, women and children, all so that his boss at the CIA, Alan Dulles and that family could continue its exploitation of that Central American country and its people.

    You all of course now know that Howard Hunt was an American criminal behind Watergate, an almost sucessful coup de etat against the American people.

    This kind of “moral sanction” was a mirror image of what Karl Marx gave the communists. In reality, one was no better or worse than the other. Both were evil.

    As for the likes of Dufour, let him refute what has been stated, not with right wing fascist ideology that Rand supported and backed by default, but let him refute that Joseph Papp existed, let him refute that this “John Galt” also proposed ideas that violated the laws of conservation of energy, let him refute that reality does not provide a “free lunch” of the kind that Galt and Papp peddled to a scientifically illiterate audience.

    The bottom line, that Dufour cannot refute, is that the ideology of Rand and Marx, caused much bloodshed, murder and mayhem. The death toll ran into the millions on each side.

    That makes Marx and Rand, monsters comparable to Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet and Suharto.

    Like I said, that is reason enough to condemn her writings.

    Comment by Joseph Green | June 8, 2009 | Reply

  96. In other words, “Mein Kampf” and “Atlas Shrugged” are moral equivalents. Books written by moral cripples and sociopaths that caused much boodshed and loss of life.

    Reading them may have some function in clinical studies of mental illness, but its hardly a roadmap forward for society.

    Comment by Joseph Green | June 8, 2009 | Reply

    • I am utterly disgusted by your comparison. “Mein Kampf” was written by the man who would later head the country that would conquer most of Europe, and kill 6 million Jews. “Atlas Shrugged” was written by a woman who advocated the removal of physical force from all human relationships, except in retaliation to physical force.

      Fascism is based on the notion of destroying anything in the way of your goal. Capitalism is based on the notion of working toward your goal.

      Don’t confuse the two, and the little quote that the author of this article clearly didn’t realize that it’s hardly typical of what Ayn Rand meant. Certainly not in the literal sense.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | July 20, 2010 | Reply

  97. Your criticism (if one can call it that) of Ayn Rand, is very weak, and it is clear that you do not understand what her philosophy was. She never advocated the strong profiting at the expense of the poor, she advocated profit without abuse, without burdening others. If a factory worker builds a factory, he does NOT exploit the workers, they choose to work at the factory because they have no better solution. The factory gives them an oportunity to earn a better living, also reduces the cost of living, and raises living standards. By advocating socialism, liberals are promoting the kind of blood transfusion/canibalistic society which helps bring about the corporatist system we have today. Yes, the rich are getting richer by lobbying congress, this is only possible because foolish liberals actually believe that government regulation of business, I.E. forcing the businessman to pay for the shortcomings of others is somehow acceptable. Monopolies cannot exist without government support. This has been thoroughly proven by economists

    Comment by denis gotlib | June 21, 2009 | Reply

  98. Ayn Rand used to influence me strongly; in some ways she still does.

    I think her work offers a good introduction to philosophy, and that some of her stuff makes for good “self-help” reading; a primer on personal pride, accountability, etc.

    And at least she had the good sense to be an atheist, unlike modern US Conservatives.

    But overall, she was an unbalanced mind, and her work needs to be shelved as far away as you can get it from any discussion of macro-economics or politics.

    The tenet “greed is good” is a gross fallacy. A more accurate statement would be, “greed is an amoral force that can potentially be turned to good ends, if properly restricted and regulated.”

    And you could say the same thing for capitalism – and note that any time a particular system is valued over the well-being of the people living within that system, then that system has, in a very real and tangible sense, BECOME A FUNDAMENTALIST RELIGION.

    The tenet “government is bad” is equally fallacious. As a Liberal, Conservatives always try to re-label me as a “statist.” Yet “the state” is a terribly vague term. If “the state” is a democratic system, that represents the people and is driven by their efforts to improve the lives and well-being of everyone within that state – then fine, I’m a “statist”, and proud of it!

    Obviously, a system that allows able-bodied free-loaders to live comfortably at the expense of other people’s labor is an immoral system. I sometimes speculate that maybe, relatively “free market” economics could work. I certainly have more sympathy for the Libertarian platform than I do for the Republicans.

    But the real problem in the US, is that Rand’s “free market” rhetoric has been hijacked by fascists. They think that when John Galt said “Get out of my way!”, he meant, “Don’t impose carbon emissions regulations that will preserve the long-term survival of life on this planet, at the expense of my short-term profit!”

    Comment by Mike | July 3, 2009 | Reply

  99. Jeff Walker is not Ayn Rand’s biographer, and his book is not a biography; it is an attack. I wrote her biography: The Passion of Ayn Rand.

    Comment by Barbara Branden | July 6, 2009 | Reply

    • Very glad you are here Ms Branden…you have contributed a lot and I thank you. I have your book and have read a number of your writings. Judy Weismonger.

      Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 12, 2009 | Reply

  100. I did not have the dedication to read through every post on this page, but I think I got the gist of it…

    Ayn Rand was an idealist. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are Romantic in flavor. Of course it doesn’t sync with reality completely, but neither did Jane Austen’s work.

    But her point about Society being just a collection of individuals seems to me to be right on, and I’m skeptical of the motivations or reasoning ability of anybody who would disagree. Where is it, after all? Individuals compose it, and direct it. I think the cliche is “seeing the Forest for the Trees”

    Another point of hers which has been very compelling to me throughout my life is that of the difference amongst individuals. While some might argue that we are born with a “Clean Slate” and our personalities and habits formed after birth, I disagree with this. To me, at least, it seems that she was advocating the understanding that we all have different ways to succeed and live, and that these differences are also in a sense our social value. She also seemed to be saying that these individuals cannot be forced to work with threats, that creativity and innovation can not be harnessed from the point of a sword. The Middle Ages bare a fairly strong testament to that.

    She also was very adroit in highlighting (albeit in a generalizing manner) the way politicians work (whether they be union organizers or hot-shot CEOs) Those individuals who most would agree are evil (such as Hitler) were not geniuses with a grand plan. They were just zeros, lopping off the heads of those who would shine light on their own inferiority. This is what I think of whenever I hear a “Populist” argument: “I am your rallying point, you can put your trust in me, because I care nothing for myself, only for you” — in my experience, people don’t work like that.

    Where I believe she got it wrong was in the motivation of inventors in particular, and innovators in general. I believe that individuals use their abilities for the benefit of others and to make their lives better, but only after they have reached a certain level of self-sufficiency. It is difficult to imagine a scientist making any great discoveries supported by a starving body.

    Comment by C.J. | July 10, 2009 | Reply

  101. Ayn Rand’s works are essentially comic books for adults. Her “heroes” are the intellectual equivalents of Superman, Batman, and the other caped crusaders who saved society in the dime dreadfuls we loved to read as youngsters. Stripped of their literary qualities they offer the angry, the powerless, and the disaffected an outlet for their rage through a fantasy of power and force totally removed from reality. Rand may have been a master manipulator of words and ideas but her world is more Neanderthal then Nietzsche…strike, crush, and obliterate…a world no sensible person would want to live in.

    Ayn Rand…modern literature’s most attractive sociopath.

    Comment by Figaro | July 10, 2009 | Reply

  102. sociopathic and individualism (selfish individualism as Rand would call it) are two different things you seem to have them confused.
    I will not defend her work, i know it to be correct, but i will tell you that you haven’t even understood any of her books.

    Comment by Anonymous | July 11, 2009 | Reply

    • “sociopathic and individualism (selfish individualism as Rand would call it) are two different things you seem to have them confused.
      I will not defend her work, i know it to be correct, but i will tell you that you haven’t even understood any of her books.”

      …or understood them only too well.

      I have met too many people whose sociopathic behavior was
      was hidden and self-justified behind the facade of “individualism” You know how it goes:

      “Sorry if I damaged your life but I was just being me”

      Comment by Anonymous | July 12, 2009 | Reply

  103. Ayn Rand’s message is a simple one not to be convoluted with ridiculous political debating.

    She would say, your on your own and believing in security in this world means your an idiot. You either produce or steal. Morally it is up to you which one you are.

    Comment by J. W. | July 12, 2009 | Reply

  104. The logical extension of AR’s ideal world is one in which a very, very few have achieved ‘enlightened self-interest’, and the vast majority are out of their way, as Galt would have put it.

    I’ve read a great deal about her, and her vast waste of time and paper. With that…

    I confess that I have read none of her fiction, and only the smallest possible amount of her…other work. It was, in Dorothy Parker’s words “A book that cannot be cast aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”

    It was.

    One of the worst reading experiences of my life. ‘For The New Intellectual’ indeed! What a misnomer. What kind of ‘intellectualism’ is needed to grasp such simplistic, self-centered….concepts? I hesitate to aggrandize them by using the word “concepts”, but I suppose they are.

    Justifications for selfishness and greed. Perfect. Look where that’s got us. Rand probably didn’t rise to meet the definition of sociopathy, but a borderline personality seems likely.

    Comment by Bob The Subgenius | July 13, 2009 | Reply

  105. Quite a smear job.

    In fact, Rand thought propaganda made for bad literature and explicitly stated that she was a novelist first and foremost.

    Also, the idea that she advocated contempt for other human beings is false. It is a strawman that comes from a Ricardian view of the universe, where all we can do is distribute a fixed pie. She never held this view.

    Rand’s Objectivism lays a down three virtues as being the most important: rationality, productiveness and pride.

    Comment by softwarenerd | July 16, 2009 | Reply

  106. Do all of you Rand detractors really believe the drivel and tripe you have written. If you do, then you are clearly either a socialist or a communist. And you really need to stop trying to change this country into your ideals and just move to Europe. Please! And Take Obama with you.

    Comment by JV | July 18, 2009 | Reply

  107. Remember that every person in this country was guaranteed “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Socialism/communism clearly contradicts and infringes upon these rights and the foundations of our country. Given Ayn Rands personal background, her writings are her individual attempts of preventing an erosion of our fantastic country into what she experienced growing up in Russia. That is about as simple as it gets, when you try to understand her works.

    Comment by JV | July 18, 2009 | Reply

  108. I am not a Rand expert, I’ve only read Altas Shrugged once few months ago.

    I think what Rand opposes mostly about altruism is government’s role in it. The individual was free to do whatever he or she wanted to do. If that individual decided to be charitable that was their decision.

    As with everything, when the government gets involved, it becomes mandated. Freedom of choice is lost. Charity once mandated become extortion, it does not matter if you are a mugger on the street or the federal government.

    Thomas Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” This is is right inline with Rand’s philosophy.

    It is you leftists that need to defend your taking away individual liberty in lieu of the collective state. I choose freedom, which includes freedom to fail, you choose to give it away for security. You stand in direct opposition of everything our founding fathers fought for.

    BTW. Greenspan was a free market capitalist at one time but he became corrupted by power and abondoned free market principles along time ago. Much like when George Bush said, “We have to abandon free market principles to save capitalism”. No thanks, George. Capitalism didn’t need your help.

    Comment by Mr Geek | July 18, 2009 | Reply

  109. If you give a million dollars to a homeless alcoholic, he will be homeless again in a year. why should we have to sacrifice ourselves to help someone who cant help me or themselves? It’s the government that is giving bailout money to the banks that should be allowed to fail and make way for better banking practices but instead the federal government is keeping thees greedy crooks alive using our money, and thees are the people you want telling you whats right and wrong?

    Comment by Oscar Arzate | July 18, 2009 | Reply

  110. Nothing tells us more about one’s view of life than one’s attitude towards sex. To Rand sex was an act of conquest devoid of joy or tenderness, a bitter necessity based on the need to overwhelm on one hand and the need to submit to a superior force on the other. But wasn’t that Rand’s essential view of life…all a matter of conquest and submission?
    Behind all the high-toned palaver, Rand saw life as savage and brutal, more a throwback to the dark past than a look at a bright new future in Galt Land. She was, in my opinion, more Conan the Barbarian than High Priestess of

    Comment by Figaro | July 22, 2009 | Reply

    • “Conquest and submission” and “savage and brutal,” eh? Typical baseless criticism.

      “Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.

      Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values.” — Ayn Rand, “Of Living Death,” 1968.

      I’m sure that “Conan the Barbarian” would express similar sentiments!

      Figaro’s comments are just more vintage statist reaction to Rand’s ideas: perfunctory mischaracterizations, mindless and rabid disdain, topped with a firm commitment to never engage her ideas at all. Rand calls it “blanking out” or “evasion.”

      I call it: “When catching flak, you are over the target.”

      There’s a reason for that rabid disdain… It’s because the statist left is intellectually powerless to counter her ideas. And they’re starting to lose the popularity contest, too. Atlas Shrugged is well on its way to topping over half a million copies sold this year–over five decades after its publication. And why not? If you had to choose between a philosophy which upholds a morality defending the pursuit of your own happiness, as opposed to the tired old washed-up bromides of sacrificing your prosperity to an undefinable “society’s good,” which are you going to choose? No wonder the tide is turning.

      My advice for the statists is to get the integrity they’re going to need in order to continue their fraud by force–ban the sale of her books, before it’s too late. When Objectivist principles dominate the culture, there won’t be any room for the despotism which the statists advocate. Better hurry though. There are far too many people who, right now, are discovering the morality of rational self-interest. The fraudulent, immoral, life-destroying creed which immolates the individual to ‘Society’ or ‘God’ won’t be able to last much longer with these ideas floating around.

      For more of Rand’s thoughts on sex, which debunk Figaro’s mischaracterization:


      Comment by justinketterer | July 22, 2009 | Reply

      • “Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values.” — Ayn Rand, “Of Living Death,” 1968.

        Really? Has anyone here ever met a person of “unbreached self-esteem”, whatever that translates to in non-Randian terms? I wonder if Rand’s “spritiual values” ever got in the way of her own adulterous affair. Oh, yes…in Rand World “unbreached self-esteem” can be the perfect recipe for adultery. Never mind what it could do to the betrayed partner or a family; for Randians it would simply be a minor obstacle in their quest for total “fulfillment” (i.e. self satisfaction).
        The cosmic selfishness, essential shallowness, and self-absorption underlying Rand’s philosphy is astounding.

        Comment by Anonymous | July 23, 2009

      • Nice job missing the point “Anonymous”. Note that she says “in the full sense of the term”. Even you know that that statement leaves room for those who only partially achieve such a state. And yes, I have personally seen the difference between the romantic love of someone with genuine self-esteem, and of someone with poor self-esteem. Other variations also exist that muddle day-to-day observation of people in loving relationships. There are many dependent souls who confuse their dependence on another with love. Simple example: the battered woman (or man) who keeps returning to the batterer, because she ‘loves’ him.

        Using arguments about Rand’s alleged adultery, as a reason to reject her ideas is equivalent to using Hitler’s love of Richard Wagner’s music as a reason to adopt Nazism & their Final Solution for Jews.

        Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009

      • I’ve been thinkin’ about Ayn and sex, and so I went back to this comment and clicked on the link and read everything that that’s there. In fact, I read it all two times.

        Why did Ayn leave out procreation as one of the basic – some would say the basic – function of sex?

        Comment by Tensor | August 3, 2009

      • Tensor wondered why Rand did not discuss procreation as an aspect of sex: because it is so obvious. One thing she did point out, that may be of interest, is that their is no intrinsic requirement for a man or woman to procreate. It is their choice, and theirs alone. Some might suggest carrying on the family ‘line’? For whose benefit, the deceased parents of the would be parent? Perhaps by the collectivist tribal (and biblical) notion that you are who your tribe is?

        Comment by RnBram | August 3, 2009

  111. Does Figaro suppose that Hank and Dagny, in their many times together, never quietly enjoyed and teased each other for an hour or more? Does he suppose that the only way Dominique ever had sex was by near rape, even after she & Roark finally got together?

    Rand is not the mundane author that describes which shoes Dagny picked out for her next meeting, or the details of Roark reading over a contract. Nor does she explain all issues for all people. Like so many things in her novels, one has to think a bit further than their ‘face value’ of the words she used, or the events she described. Imagine how many volumes the story would have had if she permitted herself to indulge in any one of those three possibilities!

    She really did expect readers to think, a lot. Even in the first chapter, we are blatantly told what the main abstraction is actually about. That’s why the chapter title is “The Theme”. The first page or two uses light metaphorically, referring to the fading values of The EnLIGHTenment. Why was it facing… because of bum’s who dismissed its ideals of reason, science, discovery, and reality. Later we discover that the real bums of the fading Enlightenment are the academics. When their ridiculous rationalizations become politics, as socialism and communism, civilized society begins to crumble.

    Poverty and violence increase in direct proportion to how Leftist a nation is. Nonetheless, Leftist authors and admirers of sites like this refuse to look at the reality’s “writing on the wall”. As their Leftist Solutions fail and fail and fail, their idea of a solution is more Leftism. Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Comment by Richard | July 22, 2009 | Reply

    • “Does Figaro suppose that Hank and Dagny, in their many times together, never quietly enjoyed and teased each other for an hour or more? Does he suppose that the only way Dominique ever had sex was by near rape, even after she & Roark finally got together?”

      Do you suppose Dagny and Dominique, Rand’s own Valkyries,
      ever laid down their weapons long enough for one moment of tender intimacy with their conquerors? They’re both examples of woman power gone berserk and both probably had sex wearing horned helmets and cast iron brassiers. Their icy exteriors and Dominatrix attitudes afford an unsettling clue to Rand’s own self image…not male, not female, but something right out of Greek mythology, a Gorgon or a Fury…punishing, all powerful, invincible.

      Comment by Figaro | July 22, 2009 | Reply

      • What “weapons”, Figaro? Given that Rand challenges readers to think things through and vehemently rejects the use of force in any human relationships. If you think her view of sex is violent “Dominatrix” stuff, *you* have a clear contradiction in your thinking.

        So, there you are faced with the opportunity to think. Yet, instead of thinking, you (and your ilk here) stoop to smears, sneers and exaggeration. Perhaps you sense that you think like the poorer characters in Rand’s novels and resent that sh has not included your kind among her better characters.

        Now you have two things to think about.

        Comment by RnBram | July 23, 2009

  112. WOW, all that sound and fury signifying what? Ayn Rand was a plutocrat. Plutocrats have no need of anything from the government except protection of their possessions. Therefore, they are pro-military, pro-cops, and pro-mercenary soldiers. Other than protecting their wealth, plutocrats have zero use for government and they try to make government, other than military, out as philosophically evil.

    Ayn Rand is interesting because she gave the rich and powerful a dogma by which they could justify their greed. It was called Positivism, but today, most people know it as Libertarianism. It is basically a mantra to greed, and thus plutocracy.

    Unlike their reich wing Rushpublican friends, they do not usually use FEAR, HATE, and IGNORANCE to promote their agenda, only GREED. Therefore they are somewhat liberal about abortion, gay sex/marriage, and other individual rights, but they often align themselves with the reichwing hate mongers instead of liberals who actually care about people and are therefore in favor of big scary government.

    Comment by Vince | July 22, 2009 | Reply

  113. Ok Vince I’m a Libertarian, and without being confrontational, your comments are offensive to me. You have illogically, stereotyped me a fascist war-monger and arrogantly condescended my beliefs with a sharp tongued attacking sound bite. Pretty impressive for a “liberal who actually cares about people”.
    Just to enlighten you. At the heart of my agenda as a Libertarian is my greed for freedom, both fiscally and personal civil liberties. By and large, that is representative of most Libertarians. Hence, “just stay out of my way.” To the ignorant, it may appear that we are financially greedy, but only because as a group we are very hard working and industrious. Explain to me exactly when that became a bad thing?
    Also most Libertarians believe that there economic philosophies will make us a “better society” by yielding a landscape of a significantly better standard of living that we as a public have ever seen before. Currently our financial foundations are built upon shifting sands instead of solid ground. With 12.4% of every paycheck is controlled by our government via Social Security. The definition of Socialism, is that the government controls the economy. The same government that pays $250 for a hammer. By the way socialism didn’t exactly work out so well for Russia, now did it?
    Ask yourself, is our society better off in our current economic environment (that was caused by our own governments poor decision changing the laws to allow derivative mortgages), or an economy that has 1-2% unemployment and the velocity of money is so great that anyone who is capable of performing some kind of work can always house and feed his family amply with a fantastically better retirement than what Social Security would provide?
    Can anyone argue that logically? And if you can’t, how can you stay a democrat and not become a libertarian? So Vince, join the living, use your brains and think it out. Maybe, just maybe, you might realize that our current over controlling government isn’t always right…. or good.
    The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting a different result. It is unanimously agreed that Social Security is destined to fail. Are we waiting and hoping for a miracle or what? And no O’bama is not the miracle. In my book, he is the going to lead us down the path of doom for this country with socialized medicine and his Robin Hood actions.

    Comment by JV | July 22, 2009 | Reply

    • “It is unanimously agreed that Social Security is destined to fail. Are we waiting and hoping for a miracle or what? And no O’bama is not the miracle. In my book, he is the going to lead us down the path of doom for this country with socialized medicine and his Robin Hood actions.”

      Like dear Hyacinth Bucket (Boo-Kay} your “unanimity” about Social Security is entirely your own. The death of that program has been eagerly awaited in certain quarters for decades but it won’t happen unless the entire economy finally collapses. Nor should Social Security fail. Social Security is one of the greatest pump primers our economy has: it is money spent, not saved. It doesn’t end up in the Cayman Islands, Swiss Banks, or in corrupt Wall St. bonuses, it ends up in the cash registers of local businesses. Despite every effort of the criminal Bush administration to divert (hijack)it, SS money continues to benefit the economy through direct payment to where it does the most good, into the hands of consumers.

      I’m curious…are you a librarian in a municipal or state library supported by taxes wrenched from the public by big, bad government, taxes that pay for your salary and health care benefits? Just asking.

      Comment by Figaro | July 23, 2009 | Reply

      • “Social Security is one of the greatest pump primers our economy has: it is money spent, not saved.”

        So money grows on trees, Fig??

        The ONLY primer any economy has is production of useful material goods, and useful services. Money is nothing more than a paper (it used to be gold) reflection of that production. The man who produces a value can store that value as gold coin, or as a record in a bank account. Money in the bank is not sitting under a mattress, instead it is reinvested in the economy through loans and stock investments & the like.

        In contrast, government acts as a corrupt accountant who skims a percentage from the producer’s production. That ‘skimmer’ did not produce anything, and did not earn the wealth. Worse, the producer no longer has that wealth, he cannot invest it, or save it for future investment, or spend it to pay for his children to get a better education. He, the producer, has been robbed. So much for the American Individual Rights to Liberty and Property.

        You intimate that the beneficiaries of Social Security will go and spend that money, helping some businesses grow. But that is only a half truth. If a productive man spent all of his profits on entertainment, cars etc. he would not be rich for long. He would be like the farmer who ate all of his seed crop. This is exactly how Social Security spends the money.

        The recipient of Social Security lives off the money, and does not spend the money on production. If he could invest the money, he would be given less of this confiscated cash, because he will not be considered “needy” enough.

        Basically, on principle more Social Security money goes to the LEAST productive recipients. All they do is eat the seed money. Yes, there is a little economic activity achieved by the locals where the recipients ship, but in no way does that make up for the financial and moral abuse of the original producer.

        The Keynesian notion that consumer spending drives an economy turns economics upside down. It argues that production occurs to chase money, so if one spends money production will follow.

        But, money is only paper and is worthless unless backed by production in the first place. (n.b. Gold is a value in itself, which is why it is hoarded when inflation -excessive printing of money- destroys the value of paper money.)

        Comment by RnBram | July 23, 2009

  114. It is today’s Left Wing Primitive, anti-individualist, Fascist, Tribalism that maquerades as “Liberalism”…and is the same kind of anti-human, anti-intelligence, anti-progress…as any religious organization promoted in the past…who demanded that we believe their “selfless” garbage, or be punished.

    Today’s NEW Jews…are the “rich” and successful, who are now just as persecuted as the Jews were in Hitler’s Germany…and who in time, if Obama and his Chicago thugs get their way…will be the scapegoat targets of all things “bad.”

    Such persecution by the incompetent, jealous, class-warfare “parasites” has one mission in life, and that is to live off of the work and talents of the successful. Every time I open a text book and see a leech, or a blood-sucking worm, or the Pope…I think of the Left Wing parasites now destroying this country.

    Rand was right…when she described the Left Wing “children” as “Primitive” who are merely trained like one of Pavlov’s dogs to react instead of think. Just say the word “Bush” and the Left goes into paroxysms of hallucinations of hate and froth at the mouth…even though Obama and his thugs have found to their chagrin, that they are forced to follow many of Bush’s policies, because there is no other way.

    Life is about evolution…the poor have never, ever done anything but function as failures, a drain on everyone else who strives to succeed, and who the Left has now taken to defend as a high art form of self immolating sacrifices they demand of others…of which they especially demand obedience, theft of property, and “socialization.” The LEFT does not want to evolve. The Left cowers beneath a blanket of denial and self-pity. Both the Left and the Religious will NOT admit that they ARE the cause of most of the poverty in the world, past, present, and the future.

    The “poor” contribute nothing, but yet the Left demands that the poor be perceived as something “noble” in some kind of neoreligious sainthood and dogma…when in fact, the “poor” are a parasitical virus, that infects the brain and minds of those who may have had a chance of thinking for themselves, and engaging in the beauty of logic…but, were “rewarded” for being stupid by the Left.

    The Left…has turned the world and all “logic” upside down…and now reveres and demands worship of those who have never accomplished anything but lived off the achievements of others. This myth of sainthood of the poor is soon coming to an end. The charade of this neoreligious demand for self sacrifice has been outted and exemplifies how much the Left is actually the most inhumane, archetype of manipulations used by the “church” to control human beings. Nothing is asked of the poor, no demands are made of the poor to be self regulating, to educate their children, control their breeding, and to escape poverty through the trillions of dollars spent on their behalf.

    In fact, the LEFT through the Democrat Party has “paid” the poor to breed more dumb, welfare cretins, and a dependent constituency of voters…who guarantee that the Left perpetuates its hate of the “successful,” by being elected to office. The Left has not a clue that it has promoted “child abuse” by paying the “dumb” and the parasites to breed more dumb children, for whom these children must suffer more indignities of not being educated, not given adequate morals and ethics…and the worst sin…denied training in logic and the value of self worth and achievement of which it is every individual human beings’ right.

    And the Left…will not admit that paying and promoting the “dumb” and the parasites to breed without thought…has and will contribute to the massive filth and pollution that will end this world. Everyday, all the “poor” the Left insists on feeding through excessive taxation…cuts down more trees, destroys more land, burns more forests and jungles, drains more swamps, and is filling the planet with pollution and filth.

    The Left, just like lemmings, are insistent that the entire world de-evolve and eventually jump off the cliff into their “secret” need for oblivion and “nonbeing.”

    The Left is mentally ill, and practices the most hideous example of both homocidal and suicidal desires that has ever proliferated on this planet. Why? Because the Left hates logic, because with logic and objectivism comes success…Ergo, the Left cannot claim to be “logical” and then hate success in the individual.

    Such schizophrenic, schizotypal behavior is probably genetic…and until the Left is contained for their own good…the planet’s population will soon reach 6 billion, and filled with filthy, breeding parasites…who will rapidly destroy this planet.

    One of the reasons NASA and many scientists are working diligently is to get off this planet…and they are not taking any Left wing, low-IQ, self-hating, “altruistic” parasites with them. Futuristic models of how much time this planet has left…has already calculated the end sum, and between the neoreligious Left, and the illogical religious…they have destroyed the future of this planet.

    What is the Left’s answer to everything? Destroy and punish the successful…and promote the parasites. The Left Wing Fascists…love Failure and Victimhood…it gives the Left a reason to live, otherwise, they would do the world a favor and commit suicide and remove their defective genes off the face of this planet.

    Yes…I am selfish, and I am sociopathic in your terms…as I have little to no sympathy, or empathy for the mindless, morally inverted, Fascist Left…who demands that the best and brightest, those who “work” and succeed, those who create and strive…then “live” for the benefit of the parasites.

    And Yes….the definition of insanity is exampled by the Left…whose main function is to create a neoReligious state, with Obama the New Messiah, and Fascism as the state religion, created by their prophets, Marx, Stalin, and Lenin. This kind of sorry, illogical, self-hating, suicidal thought content…was thrown out in the 16th Century with the Age of Enlightenment, but is once again promoted by the Left now in power. Everytime I see Obama’s lying, teleprompter-led mindless mouthings, I am reminded…how much the Left will hasten the end of this great planet…and all the good that is in it, declaring that the “rich” (anyone with a job)…must sacrifice themselves for the “poor” parasites.

    But, here we are again…in which the Fascist Left…demands that all individualism, all human rights, all desires, all creativity, all intelligence, all self-direction, all desires, and all wonderfully selfish aims for one’s self, i.e. everything that achieves progress and good…be sacrificed in order to proliferate more Parasites on this planet.

    Yes…I can fully understand why Ayn Rand became anti-social..in a Left Wing world… filled with parasites who have no respect for anyone or their property, and all “individuals” are to be considered “enemies” of the “poor” and thus should only be manipulated into being the “disposable tools of the god-state.”

    One has a choice…to “believe” one’s self is a victim and live as a parasite off the hard work of others…or reject such simplistic INSECT, ant hill mindlessness…and live for the achievement and success of one’s self. There is no “natural law” that states that any single human being has to “live” for anyone else.

    The Left is simply some kind of unevolving bipedal subspecies, who never lost their insect genetics. If there was ever a case for the promotion of Eugenics…it will be because the Left is a poster child for Dysgenics…and the subsequent destruction of this planet.

    Yes…the Left is a target, it is the focus of all that is evil and destructive toward true humanity and progress on this planet. The Left can no longer promote its illogical, self hate and get away with it. No matter how much the Left uses the epithets of racism, or hates “the rich” or promotes the “poor” into sainthood…and attempts to declare anyone with a “mind” as selfish, the truth is…technology is thwarting the Left’s desire to control the “message,” and a good many individuals no longer believe the lies and manipulations of the Left…Through shear “natural instinct” many “individuals” are coming to the conclusion they have a right to exist and live well for their own their own sake…


    Comment by Judy | July 23, 2009 | Reply

    • “Life is about evolution…the poor have never, ever done anything but function as failures, a drain on everyone else who strives to succeed, and who the Left has now taken to defend as a high art form of self immolating sacrifices they demand of others…of which they especially demand obedience, theft of property, and “socialization.” The LEFT does not want to evolve. The Left cowers beneath a blanket of denial and self-pity. Both the Left and the Religious will NOT admit that they ARE the cause of most of the poverty in the world, past, present, and the future.”

      Good God, if ever I smelled the stench of a “Final Solution”
      in a post this one is it. It’s absolutely shocking to see such arrogant contempt, such corrosive hatred, such demonization of an entire underclass when you consider what history has shown can happen as a result. I’d ask Judy how she’d solve the problem of the non-consuming, non-contributing poor and those others who fail to measure up to her exalted standards but I fear I’d only give her a platform for further spewing.

      Comment by Anonymous | July 23, 2009 | Reply

  115. Flitcraft jumps into the fray. One point, JV. You wrote,

    “Ask yourself, is our society better off in our current economic environment (that was caused by our own governments [sic] poor decision changing the laws to allow derivative mortgages) . . . ”

    JV, you have made an argument in favor of government regulation. What you wrote implies that, with proper government regulation, the “toxic assets” problem would not have come into being.

    It does not amaze me that there are so many people who think that Ayn Rand’s simplistic, unrealistic, inconsistent “philosophy” appealing. Most people seem to want simple solutions to complicated problems, and Rand provided all the answers. But they do not work. What Ayn Rand left out of her “philosophy” is the human tendency to exploit others to benefit themselves. Her notion that people bargain with each other as equals ignores what can be seen around us every day. And that is a fundamental flaw in her thinking, such as it was. It is the keystone of “Objectivism”, and without it, the entire shaky edifice collapses.

    Comment by Flitcraft | July 23, 2009 | Reply

    • Fitcraft, if you can write,
      What Ayn Rand left out of her “philosophy” is the human tendency to exploit others to benefit themselves.
      then you must not have read, let alone understood, ANY of her work. You are not sufficiently informed to comment.

      Comment by RnBram | July 23, 2009 | Reply

  116. RnBram: An ‘ad hominem’ argument is no argument.

    Read, please:

    “Her (Ayn Rand’s) notion that people bargain with one another as equals ignores what can be seen around us every day.”

    Q: Why did labor unions come into being?

    A: Because individual workers were exploited by their employers.

    Unfettered capitalism produces monopolies, outfits that are “too big to fail”. Monopolies have power that the individual does not have.

    (Please excuse me for stating the obvious.)

    Comment by Flitcraft | July 24, 2009 | Reply

    • Fitcraft: You should understand what ad hominem is rather than leap to accusing others of it, as a defense. The statement of yours, which I excerpted, is directly contradictory to the more easily comprehended positions she takes.

      Irrational people abound, especially the less rational the culture in which they live. Then there is a “tendency to exploit”, but that is not a biologically determined trait. Every (biologically normal) man has reason & free will, to the extent that he learns how to use the former and is able to use the latter, the less exploitative a man is likely to be. He will seek to build those things that improve his life.

      The rational man knows that if he trades fairly with another man of good and productive character, then that man will be available for further arrangements. The man who exploits the man of good character, will lose that resource, to the detriment of himself.

      Businesses know to seek, hire and pay (reward) better staff. They even learn ways of keeping a good working environment, ways to improve lateral AND vertical communication, ways to develop ways to keep their better employees and so on.

      Real exploitation is the blinkered vision presumed by people who think the scandals reported by the media are the norm. Such exploitation is the exception, not the norm. “Exploitation” is a convenient excuse for the LESS competent, to blame the business(es) that did not want them.

      Those better businesses made the life of even poor Americans as good or better than most of the upper classes of the non-Western nations, particularly the socialist leftist nations. Ayn Rand saw the truths about socialism & capitalism across history, and saw saw even more truths first hand having personally experienced both!

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

  117. Ayn Rand’s monstrous “philosophy” of all-consuming greed and self absorption lives on, still incredibly attractive as a pain killer for the times when our personal desires
    prod us to do terrible things to get what we want. After all, if someone as brilliant as Ayn Rand says it’s OK, then it must indeed be OK. Conscience silenced; full speed ahead!

    Among those who have a less than admirable view of Rand and her totally immoral Objectivist devil’s brew, Gore Vidal had some sharp words on the subject back in 1961. It’s a long read but worth it. According to Vidal:

    “Ayn Rand is a rhetorician who writes novels I have never been able to read. She has just published a book, For the New Intellectual, subtitled The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; it is a collection of pensées and arias from her novels and it must be read to be believed. Herewith, a few excerpts from the Rand collection.

    • “It was the morality of altruism that undercut American and is now destroying her.”

    • “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society. Today, the conflict has reached its ultimate climax; the choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequence of freedom…or the primordial morality of altruism with its consequences of slavery, etc.”

    • Then from one of her arias for heldentenor: “I am done with the monster of ‘we,’ the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: ‘I.’”

    • “The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself.”

    • “To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men.”

    • “The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral….”

    This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,” but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout.

    She is fighting two battles: the first, against the idea of the State being anything more than a police force and a judiciary to restrain people from stealing each other’s money openly. She is in legitimate company here. There is a reactionary position which has many valid attractions, among them lean, sinewy, regular-guy Barry Goldwater. But it is Miss Rand’s second battle that is the moral one. She has declared war not only on Marx but on Christ. Now, although my own enthusiasm for the various systems evolved in the names of those two figures is limited, I doubt if even the most anti-Christian free-thinker would want to deny the ethical value of Christ in the Gospels. To reject that Christ is to embark on dangerous waters indeed. For to justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil. For one thing, it is gratuitous to advise any human being to look out for himself. You can be sure that he will. It is far more difficult to persuade him to help his neighbor to build a dam or to defend a town or to give food he has accumulated to the victims of a famine. But since we must live together, dependent upon one another for many things and services, altruism is necessary to survival. To get people to do needed things is the perennial hard task of government, not to mention of religion and philosophy. That it is right to help someone less fortunate is an idea which has figured in most systems of conduct since the beginning of the race. We often fail. That predatory demon “I” is difficult to contain but until now we have all agreed that to help others is a right action. Now the dictionary definition of “moral” is: “concerned with the distinction between right and wrong” as in “moral law, the requirements to which right action must conform.” Though Miss Rand’s grasp of logic is uncertain, she does realize that to make even a modicum of sense she must change all the terms. Both Marx and Christ agree that in this life a right action is consideration for the welfare of others. In the one case, through a state which was to wither away, in the other through the private exercise of the moral sense. Miss Rand now tells us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. The lesson should have read: One for one and none for all.

    Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society. Moral values are in flux. The muddy depths are being stirred by new monsters and witches from the deep. Trolls walk the American night. Caesars are stirring in the Forum.”

    Comment by Figaro | July 24, 2009 | Reply

    • Imagine how far cave men would have progressed if they only relied on, and copied, the judgment of others.

      One” says,”Maybe if we put a tightly bound reeds on a sloping wood frame, we will stay dry and live closer to where our food is” —i.e., think and live for ourselves.

      Two” says, “NO, our tribe lives in caves. If we were made to live under reed ceilings, we would be living under reed ceilings. If we are not in our caves the Gods won’t know where to find us and care for us” —i.e. we must think like the others and live like the others.

      One“, “Oh, that’s true! What was I thinking.

      Ayn Rand referred to such (cave)men as “second-handers”. Rather than think for himself, Figaro has discovered the Copy function (Ctrl+c), for the thoughtless purpose of copying the equivalent of cave man “Two” (Gore Vidal, & others).

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

      • “Imagine how far cave men would have progressed if they only relied on, and copied, the judgment of others.”

        Does that apply to your relying on and copying the opinions of Ayn Rand?

        But let’s not go there; like Objectivism it’s a dead end.

        Comment by Anonymous | July 25, 2009

      • Anonymous, raises a fairly normal accusation, leveled at Objectivist criticism of second hand thinking:
        Does that apply to your relying on and copying the opinions of Ayn Rand?

        Think through that question a bit further.

        Through what means did Anonymous discover the meanings of the words he uses?
        Did he invent them from scratch?
        Did he learn them from friends, family, books and other media sources?

        Every word in his comment (but Objectivism & Ayn Rand) has been in dictionaries for longer than he has been alive. Do we conclude he is a hopeless second hand thinker?

        Did Anonymous independently discover that the spherical Earth orbits the Sun or did he learn it from others? Obviously he did not discover it independently. Do we conclude he does not think for himself?

        No on both counts.

        He learned the words and through understanding the things they refer to, and how they function in both thought and speech, he grasped their objective value. In that act of understanding and grasping their value, he made the words his own. Though he learned them elsewhere, they are now his, first hand.

        Anonymous understands the principles and facts that demonstrate that the Earth orbits the Sun. Dozens of pieces of information integrate together to make that an irrefutable fact of Reality. Anonymous understood a sufficient portion of those facts, integrated them together to make that one conclusion his own.

        Objectivism is a considerable body of complicated understandings. Some neophytes do blindly accept Rand’s arguments, but that is not consistent with her philosophy other than the fact that learning must progress according to each individuals ability and experience. (Dagny’s learning was a significant sub-plot of Atlas Shrugged.)

        No, Anonymous, your question was not a dead end, and nor is Objectivism. In 15 years, against a very very hostile academic culture, there are now 50 explicitly Objectivist professors teaching in American Universities. Through teachers willing to teach the novel, ARI reaches a million students a year with Atlas Shrugged. Those students understand Rand better than any of the Lefty nonsense in the post that started this long body of comments. A week does not go by without one or more LtE’s expressing and Objectivist viewpoint to major newspapers. Television interviews of Objectivist occur weekly, somewhere in the U.S. Now, thanks to the Obomination, Atlas Shrugged sales have climbed to over 600,000 this year. Few authors sell that many books when they are newly published, let alone 50+ years later!

        Unless you are over 50 yrs of age, Anonymous, you will likely live to see Objectivism become a significant body of academic thought, reviving America to its Founding philosophy, with improvements!

        Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009

  118. Figaro, excellent post! Thank you.

    Ayn Rand’s “phiosophy” in practice:

    I knew a man who made many millions on Wall Street. He owned five homes for the use of him and his family. He had a twin sister who had made a number of unfortunate choices in her life, eventually leaving her destitute. She was able to survive because of food from a charity and the generosity of friends. Her twin brother did not give her so much as a dime. Her told her that she had made her own decisions and had to suffer the consequences.

    And that’s Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” in practical application.

    Comment by Flitcraft | July 25, 2009 | Reply

    • So Figaro and Filtcraft, I have a direct question to the both of you, to discover if you are hypocrites or truly believe the crap you spew. In this economy, I’m certain that the both of you have friends or neighbors that are out of work and barely hanging onto theirs homes. How much of your own money have you given them? Please be specific with amounts and as a percentage of your income. Or how many homeless vagabounds have you invited to live in your home? Do you have a big screen TV? If yes, why haven’t you sold it in order to help those in need? Because do you really don’t need a big screen TV, when you can still view a small 12″ TV just fine. Can you say hypocrite full of crap? Look in the mirror dudes!!
      Why haven’t you moved to Europe? just asking.

      Comment by JV | July 25, 2009 | Reply

      • JV, I moved to Europe 20 years ago and have never regretted it. I live in a country where the infrastructure is not only well maintained, but also continuously improved. Bridges here do not collapse. The environment is a primary concern.

        Everyone has health insurance; it is mandatory. The insurance providers, more than 30 of them, are private companies. No one can be rejected on the basis of age or pre-existing medical conditions. We can choose our own physicians and change doctors any time we want to. This country has a healthier population than does the U.S., as measured by the basic indices, namely, infant mortality (low) and life expectancy (high).

        The postal service in this country is privately owned. The economy is capitalistic, but the country is a social democracy. That is, those in need receive help.

        Basically, at the extremes there are two approaches to organizing society. One is, “I’m getting mine,” The other is, “We are all in this together.

        I was, by the way, one of those who contributed to the destitute woman I mentioned in the anecdote.

        Why does a rational discussion degenerate to the level of name-calling and personal attacks?

        Comment by Flitcraft | July 26, 2009

      • Seems to me that Flitcraft has just moved from one mixed welfare state to another. Private mail delivery is uncommonly capitalist. His grasp of capitalism is the problem… to him it is an American form of government. That lame understanding is characteristic of Webster’s absurd early definition of Fascism as “an Italian form of government”.

        Flitcraft, you appear to be benefiting from a better implementation of Capitalism than you experienced in the U.S. That is, if your description is accurate. I suspect otherwise, since you have not read Rand and think you are qualified to have detailed opinion by merely echoing others’ opinions. You may well be like the many Canadians who rave that we have the best health care system (socialized) whilst people have to run to the US so as not to have to wait to get health care before their problems kill them.

        What nation are

        Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009

      • That trap won’t spring. Your logic is totally faulty and makes no sense. When Lincoln was asked if the end of slavery would mean whites marrying blacks Lincoln replied:

        “I do not understand that because I do not want a Negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone.”

        In the same way my treatment of the poor and homeless has nothing to do with my opinions of Rand’s philosophy. If I choose not invite homeless vagabonds to share my home, that in no way prevents me from criticizing Rand’s crackpot philosophy and its deplorable effects on society. I am perfectly free to do one or the other, both, or neither as I choose. Just as I do not have to bomb an abortion facility to prove my anti-abortion credentials, neither must I become personally involved with the poor and homeless to justify my opinions of Ayn Rand.

        Comment by Anonymous | July 26, 2009

      • I’m not sure what Anonymous is commenting about here but, in considerable confusion, he wrote,
        I am perfectly free to do one or the other, both, or neither as I choose.

        Anonymous, you are free to choose when in a free society, but not under socialism or fascism. Ayn Rand (and the Founders of America) are the arch representatives for the only political system that makes that choice possible to you. They stand for a Republic that enshrines Individual Rights in its constitution. No form of socialism, fascism or theocracy fully respects the property or freedoms of individuals. One cannot be FOR political freedom and AGAINST Rand.

        Comment by RnBram | July 27, 2009

    • No, that is not Ayn Rand’s philosophy in any way whatsoever. If you read her Journals and Letters, you will find that she was very compassionate and caring. She donated a great deal of her time to those who were honest and hard working.

      In Atlas Shrugged a young waitress named Cheryl marries James Taggart, in awe of so powerful a man, who seemed to care for her. When she discovered that he was wicked, indecisive etc etc., she was so shocked and dismayed that such a man could have such power she sought suicide.

      Dagny Taggart, the heroine of the story, who lived largely by Rand’s ideas, rushed to Cheryl’s support. Dagny knew, immediately, that Cheryl would be distraught to her very soul on discovering such evil, and may even be suicidal. Dagny was too late.

      THAT is Ayn Rand’s philosophy in practice, but it is NOT the oozing & mindless altruism you, & James Taggart, demand for Rand to receive your approval.

      Though common in Leftist thinking, it is not a rational argument, to simply purport a story of one’s own, without proper context, is representative of another person’s ideas.

      Fitcraft, like Figaro, you continue to spew, with no knowledge of what you spew or where it came from, save that it fits with what other dishonest, second-hand minds (Gore Vidal, Whittaker Chambers, Barbara and Nathaniel Branden, and and a number of younger even more thoughtless individuals) have said.

      Read enough of Rand to find the answers to the very things you doubt. They are there, but often the answers are not so readily at your ‘fingertips’ as you seem to need. No one can write a general argument or story that will satisfy everyone on first pass. Those who honestly think may come to understand on a second pass, or on reading additional related material. If you cannot do that, shut up, because those who do understand will see you as a fool, and those whom you convince are only fools —for mindlessly accepting your world.

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

    • Oh, one more log on the fire. Your hero President Obama is a hypocrite also. He has a brother, George, that lives in a shack in Nairobi. George earns one dollar a day and is still living in the same hut and his brother Barack is the leader of the free world and hasn’t helped him out. Excerpts from an interview with George….
      He told the magazine: “I live like a recluse, no-one knows I exist.”
      Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation.
      “If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed,” he said.

      I find it amusing to hear well to do liberals preach that we all need to sacrifice and give to the needy. But when it comes to their own pocketbook they suddenly find rationalizations why they are exempt from practicing what they preach. If they truly believe it then no liberal should ever have more money in their own bank account than their next months bills, because somebody out there has a greater need for that money more than they do. Who decides what is needy and what isn’t in your socialist world. Bet you liberals would sing a different story if the government/KGB forcibly took from you every penny that they determined you didn’t truly need.
      Obama preached that every auto bondholder needed to sacrifice for the best interest of the country, but would never dream of asking a labor union member of sacrificing one penny. But he can’t even sacrifice $100,000 of is $400,000+ income so his brother doesn’t have to live in a shanty hut. Does this not make him the greediest SOB on the planet? Let alone the biggest hypocrite. Where are your great philosophies now?

      Comment by JV | July 25, 2009 | Reply

      • The American political system is corrupt. There is not one member of the House of Representatives or Senate serving a second or later term who has not voted in such a way as to benefit his or her big donors. If they did not, then they would not get re-elected. That is how the system works.

        Obama is just another politician, another front-man for the interests that control the country.

        I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. Sticking a label on someone is simplistic and not helpful. It is too easy to categorize folks as being in one camp or the other, as if there were a clear political dichotomy. There isn’t.

        Comment by Flitcraft | July 26, 2009

      • Flitcraft, I do not disagree with your points about American politicians. What matters is understanding the deeper matters at stake. ONLY Ayn Rand has identified them. She too was neither Left nor Right. Both were wrong, and she could say why, with clear certainty.

        You have a) taken Leftist positions repeatedly, b) excoriated Rand using arguments that show no understanding of Rand’s painstakingly identified proper morals, proper manner of thought, proper economics and even actual nature of the Universe and of Art, and c) wandered about, peicemeal, through arguments that do not gel into any particular position other than that of whim, pragmatism or echoes of others.

        You can straighten all that out to a degree that would astonish you if you read numerous works, both fiction and non-fiction, by Rand. Think about them, rather than simply look for ‘mistakes’, ask why she would take a stand that you think is a mistake. If the answer is not immediate, keep the doubt in mind, and continue. Another work may answer your doubt, or give you pause to return to that actual issue and to question the reasons why you think she is wrong. Every time I did that, over a ten year period, I found that she was absolutely right. The hardest part, for me, was to grasp what more profound principle ended up making the detail I had rejected, utterly correct.

        It was not an easy journey (as a devout Anglican), and I had to question beliefs I had absorbed since I was a toddler. Thirty five years later, not only was an Atheist, but I was also a Capitalist, in the fullest sense.

        Those labels are completely valid. Yes, they do have fuzzy edges depending on whom you are considering. Words are the labels that signify concepts. Some concepts have blurry edges, but that does NOT mean the Labels/Words are wrong, one must simply understand that the concept has a certain continuum that produces that fuzzy edge. At that edge, people will disagree, because of their own lack of clarity as to the nature of one side of the edge or the other.

        Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009

  119. RnBram, what Figaro did in locating and then posting Gore Vidal’s critique of Alissa Rosenbaum (and of course I am waiting to be zinged for that) is in academic circles called scholarship. Why attempt to restate what Vidal so eloquently and accurately wrote?

    Exploitation is the name of the capitalist game (and no, I am not a socialist). The basic principle of capitalism is:

    To get the greatest possible return
    on the smallest possible investment
    in the shortest possible time.

    For example, plantations were profitable only when there was an ample supply of cheap labor, that is, slaves. If that isn’t exploitation, then nothing is. Classic capitalism, I would say.

    Comment by Flitcraft | July 25, 2009 | Reply

    • Flitcraft, that was pretty funny.

      First, any thoughtful reading of Rand would quickly reveal that Vidal has no idea what he is talking about. As you have been accused of by others, you have not read enough of Rand to even understand the cover text, let alone the contents. How can you possibly argue that Vidal’s smear job was accurate?

      If it was really about “scholarship” Fig could just as readily have found an extensive quotation that rebuts Vidal. Why would Fig’s “scholarship” only quote Vidal? I think it plain that Fig did it to obtain whatever he could find that supports his own unfounded views. You are defending Fig for the same reason.

      That shallowness passes for academic excellence in most University literature/Arts departments. The reason is that their philosophical base is not Reality, but the general body of opinion left behind by others. “All opinions are of equal value“, they titter, proud of their intellectual egalitarianism (anything goes) and moral relativism (what’s wrong for you may be right for me).

      No wonder they dislike Rand. Metaphorically, she is the honest little boy who points out that “The Emperor Has No Clothes”. The Emperor had enough self-respect to be embarrassed, but not the academics…they prefer to smear the boy and some would like her jailed or worse. That sounds, to me, a lot like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro, Chavez: all Leftists!

      Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009 | Reply

    • Flitcraft, Do you recall that Ukrainians produced wheat in huge amounts, in a period of famine. Then the communist leadership of the USSR took that wheat, and distributed it to other Russians AND donated some to China. The result was the death, by starvation, of 30 million Ukrainians.

      If you are concerned about exploitation, then clean your own house first. Socialism is not merely a political expression of greed, it is an expression of envy that knows no bounds. It wants whatever someone else has more of, and it wants to be given it by some twisted sense of entitlement. That sense of entitlement is all they need to justify genocide. It has happened over and over in every severe implementation of socialism. Only the scale varies. Chavez is already butchering opponents, using nighttime thugs in his employ.

      Indeed, human labor in socialist countries is the greater ideal. Working long hours for the proletariat, rather than for oneself, IS SLAVERY! Even in a semi-welfare-state, such as America, everyone is enslaved to the extent that they are taxed, or are required to obey government decrees that violate Individual Rights.

      It was the notion of Individual Rights that freed the slaves, and it is those same Individual Rights upon which Capitalism stands.

      If you consider yourself to be a good and moral person, you have some serious self examination to do, because the ideas you advocate are hypocritical, vicious and even murderous.

      Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009 | Reply

  120. You misunderstand Rand’s view of society. She did NOT believe that people should not help other people. Read Atlas shrugged again, and what she had Gault say about helping others and giving.

    Giving is encouraged by Rand. One should give, because of the selfish benefit associated with giving. Anyone who has ever given, recognizes that it is not just the recipient who benefits.

    What Rand railed against, was ENFORCED giving. This is otherwise know as “robbery”.

    I am perfectly willing to help out others, and indeed, I want to. But I want to do it MYSELF, not through the government. Because the government gives to those who are unworthy and unneedy and not who I WANT to give to(see the TARP bailouts for the best example).

    Like Rand, I want to give to and help those I wish to give to and help. I believe that is the role of the individual, not the government.

    Comment by Rick | July 25, 2009 | Reply

  121. I’m late to the ballgame here, but let me just say that actual capitalism has never existed in the world, and your tirades against capitalism are totally misguided.

    The truth is that we live in a fascist society at this point. The government controls everything about the way you do business through direct regulations, through the EPA, through taxation and tax incentives, through regulations on the businesses you engage with, etc. When the government doesn’t own the businesses but they rule them through controls, that is called fascism. So yes, our current economy is very screwed up but you fail to identify it correctly. It is not capitalism and it never has been.

    As to “morality,” I feel most of the people commenting here have no rational basis for their morality or they wouldn’t be so much in favor of using the government to force everyone to do their charitable deeds. In other words, if you actually care about helping people, then help them. Start a charity, donate to charity, organize a fundraiser for charity. Don’t sit back in moral smugness and talk about your great values when all you’re doing is forcing everyone else to pay for your good deeds.

    Comment by Tom | July 25, 2009 | Reply

    • Excellent, Tom.

      Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009 | Reply

  122. An interesting thought: What if Ayn Rand had given birth to children? What kind of a mother would she have been? Would she have willingly sacrificed her own selfishness to take care of her helpless infant? How does being a parent fit in with her “philosophy”?

    Comment by Flitcraft | July 26, 2009 | Reply

    • You don’t understand what selfishness really means.

      Are you saying a good mother only takes care of her children because she *doesn’t* care about them?

      When you love someone, they are extremely valuable to you, aren’t they? So when you help them, you are doing the selfish act of helping someone that is very valuable to you.

      Don’t you see?

      Comment by Tom | July 26, 2009 | Reply

      • Tom, are you responding to me, RnBram, or to Flit?

        I am saying that the parents are NOT sacrificing when they choose an education for Billy, and forgo the fancier car. By acting for Billy’s education, they are pursuing their higher, selfish values.

        Sacrifice is trading or giving away a greater value to obtain a lesser value.

        Consider the trite, leftist-Hollywood movie theme of the businessman father, who pursues his enormous International business with little or no regard for his child. He is presented as a cravenly ‘selfish’ and thoughtless man, caught up in the mindless pursuit of wealth.

        Now consider the father who goes away to war. His job is to kill people, or to support the soldiers who kill people. His absence is based on his profound determination to win certain political values that he believes are characteristic of his nation, and he seeks to destroy enemy opposition to those values.

        The soldier’s venture certainly means he will be absent for extended periods, and may well lead to his death. If he lives, he will still be absent for two to four years, or perhaps longer. His decision clearly entails considerable lack of regard for his child. In contrast to the businessman, the military father is seen as a virtuous hero.

        Let’s look at the businessman, for a moment.

        He spends each day creating wealth and benefits for tens of thousands of employees, beneficial products for millions of customers, and creates wealth for hundreds of thousands of investors. He does it every day, perhaps for decades. In spite of the unbelievable value channeled from him to customers, investors, and employees, he is always! presented as narrowly selfish, materialist, &/or power lusting.

        So, for America, what was the military father fighting for if not so HIS CHILD and those customers, employees, & investors could continue to increase their wealth and standard of living? Was he not fighting FOR the businessman father too??

        If you agree that the military father is heroic, then how foolish is it to reject the businessman father!? The businessman’s children should be, from every quarter, informed of their father’s genius and hard dangerous work. Both he and the military father gave those he touched an enormous benefit!

        Why do we not laud both?

        Well, the Leftist altruists see the businessman as somehow cheating those who happen not to gain through his decisions, because the ‘loser’ (in the Leftist view) did not have instant, unearned, access to his insight. The businessman’s monetary wealth is seen has having been acquired from the backs of the workers.

        What workers? Workers who applied to work within the businessman’s vision. He only need pay them a reasonable salary based upon the particular task they complete. They did not have his insight.

        In contrast, the soldier was, theoretically, fighting for everyone. He was unlikely to obtain significant material gain, even if his success lead to his family’s wild material success. Therefore, he is lauded because, in large part, he commited self sacrifice.

        Simillarly, the Rightist altruists believe that “…it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven’(Matthew 19:23 – 30). To make it to Heaven, a man must sacrifice his wealth.

        Regardless of the tremendous good the businessman achieved, he will not go to heaven whilst the destitute soldier will.

        Once again, sacrifice and failure is the ideal, whilst success and achievement are decried.

        The morality of self sacrifice, of failure, and of death, are the ‘ideals’ of both the Socialist Left and the Religious Right. A pox on both.

        Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009

      • Flit

        Comment by Tom | July 27, 2009

    • Good Grief, Flitcraft,
      You know nothing about Rand, do you. So here you are fomenting responses just by drumming up excruciating nonsense about Rand. Sure, a few sincere people may find your question interesting, but I find your own sincerity to be highly suspect!

      Rand plainly stated that if one wants a child, then raising that child is one’s choice! If one forgoes the latest car or TV, so as to have enough cash to put the child in a superior private school, doing so is NOT a sacrifice. It is a choice, whereby the child is one’s higher value. A rational person does not dispose of a higher value in order to obtain a lower value.

      Hmmmm, a better education for Billy, or a fancier car. “Gosh, if I give up the car I am sacrificing myself to my son. I better get the car.” If they are in that position, no sensible parent will do such a thing. Even if they think their saving for their child’s education is a ‘sacrifice’, they just do not understand what sacrifice is. Sacrifice is, both by definition and in practice, quite plainly, the giving up of a greater value for lesser value.

      Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009 | Reply

      • So, Ayn Rand has all the answers? Wonderful! The only question left, then, is this: If she, and only she, has determined the Truth about society and government, then why hasn’t her “philosophy” been realized in the governing of any state in the world?

        I am not attempting to change anyone’s mind; “true believers” cannot be moved. I remain a skeptic.

        As the late Sam Goldwyn is reported to have said, “Include me out.”

        Comment by Flitcraft | July 26, 2009

      • No Flit, not “all the answers”. She has identified a number of essential fundamentals and in so doing has wiped out a lot of nonsense. Some of those fundamentals made it possible for her to solve some philosophical confusions that have been unsuccessfully pondered for over two thousand years.

        You ask, “…why hasn’t her “philosophy” been realized in the governing of any state in the world?”

        I am sorry, but that question is preposterously naive, or grossly disingenuous. If Jesus was so right, why didn’t the whole world become Christian by 100 AD? If the earth orbited the sun, why did it take several hundred years for it to be commonly accepted?

        Objectivism IS spreading, and very rapidly if one considers the kind of culture in which it is growing. When a socialist like Obama is elected President, by the citizens of what was the freest nation in the world, it is pretty clear that those citizens are already committed to the opposite of Objectivism.

        Then there are those, who abound on this website, who either cannot or will not think for themselves. Rather than learning, they actively scream at with all the intellectual depth of racist bigot, or just shut down, evading the fact that there is another perspective ‘out there’ that could be tremendous value to them.

        Comment by RnBram | July 26, 2009

    • Your comment about Rand and motherhood is more important than you may realize. It answers the question why there are no child characters of any consequence in either of her leading novels even though parenting is a subject of overwhelming importance to society. Why? Because children demand the “altruism” necessary for their survival. They need to be taken care of unselfishly by parents who will set aside their own needs in favor of the child’s, not only in the child’s early years but later on as well. Treat an adult child altruistically? That would knock Rand’s cracked philosophy for a loop which is why Rand handled the subject of parents and children only tangentially. She dared not do otherwise.

      Rand’s novels are nothing but parables that stack the deck in order to illustrate her own beliefs. and using them as infallible guides for rational living is as gross an error as using Hitler’s Mein Kampf for the same purpose.

      Comment by Figaro | July 26, 2009 | Reply

      • I would like to add to Comment #123, which was in response to the core matter in Fig’s reference to raising children.

        Rand was, famously, interviewed by Playboy. Here is an excerpt regarding women and raising children:


        PLAYBOY: Do you believe that women as well as men should
        organize their lives around work–and if so, what kind of work?

        RAND: Of course. I believe that women are human beings. What is proper for a man is proper for a woman. The basic principles are the same. I would not attempt to prescribe what kind of work a man should do, and I would not attempt it in regard to women.

        There is no particular work which is specifically feminine.
        Women can choose their work according to their own purpose and premises in the same manner as men do.

        PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?

        RAND: Not immoral–I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper–if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner.
        It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.”

        Whether parenting is a full-time job or just part of
        a full life for women (and men), all the rest [of Objectivism] applies.

        Yep, that is clearly the mind of a sociopath. It certainly is akin to using Mein Kampf as a guide to rational living, & therefore a “perfect guide to immorality”.

        No, she does not mention “loving” one’s children… it is not pertinent to the discussion. However,
        1) a person who loves childrens innocence & potential, and loves observing their development and growth, and loves their character as they develop, is going to love their child.
        2) When one’s life partner is his Romantic ideal and focus, commonly understanding the proper way of raising a child, then having a child adds a unique value (even if the child is adopted).
        3) If the child is a biological product, though not an essential, the child also is a concrete (physical) representation of the couple’s love of each other, and
        a special joint representation of the couple’s physical traits.

        Note that Rand never said any of the above, but such understanding follows from principles she grasped and expressed. Obviously, my view is NOT faithful parroting of Rand, and is only possible for me because I have recognized her principles (re: children, love, & romantic love) as being valid and have made them my own. She might disagree with me, but as a parent of adopted children (GASP, how selfish of me) I highly doubt it.

        The single greatest intellectual characteristic that Lefties and Righties share, is Irrationality. Arguing ONLY with a committed member of either side, is as productive as pushing string up hill, arguing with a group of them is as productive as herding cats. However, good arguments can sway onlookers who are willing to think, so Lefties and Righties are useful as idiot foils.

        Comment by RnBram | July 28, 2009

  123. Good Grief Figaro, you are prepared to comment on what I wrote about children, yet did not even understand it, if you read it all. Then you go on to create false claims about her, and then use them to dismiss her. That failure of logic is known as the Straw Man Fallacy.

    for the more honest minds here, Rand’s view of children can be observed several ways:

    I believe it was Whittaker Chambers who started the spit-soaked falsehood that no children were in Atlas Shrugged. That ‘criticism’ is a good example of the dishonesty, inept thinking & or second-hand thinking among Rand’s critics.

    Children do appear in Atlas Shrugged, but fool readers never notice. She spends considerable time on the childhood of four major characters (two are heroes, one is a secondary positive character and one becomes wicked). Then near the end of Atlas, the wife of a major male character (not a business hero) explains her devotion to her children, and indicates the essentials of how she is raising them. She is a welcome member of Galt’s Gulch

    WHAT, a mother who is NOT a business hero or the wife of one, is in Galt’s Gulch. Shocking! Sorry Lefties, you really do have to learn how to read. Furthermore, critics of Rand routinely complain that Atlas & Fountainhead are too long – then argue she is at fault for not including instructions on how to raise children, or for not making the main characters more natural. How long would those books be then? “I think we should know what Dagny’s favorite ice cream is! THEN I might find Atlas to be worthwhile literature.” No —learn how to read!

    Rand has explained why she did not have children. She was THAT serious about her career, and new she could not devote the time it would require for either if she was to do both.

    Rand has also written, “The Comprachicos” that deals with the education of children from the Day Care and on. One can also learn her direct views on children through a variety of remarks in her other writings. Those who really do think, can apply her principles to child raising and realize that she has said more than enough for one to understand that she loved children. When young people wrote to her, the benevolence in her brief written replies is spellbinding. Even as a student herself, she would sit and explain schoolwork to others, who were finding it difficult, often in a manner more comprehensible than as it was taught.

    Flitcraft wondered why discussions decline into insults. Yet, knowing to little to actually make sensible comment, Figaro spends much of his time leveling unproven criticism and insults towards Rand. Such remarks are not argument, and only reveal the author’s narrow intellect.

    Comment by RnBram | July 27, 2009 | Reply

  124. There is not much benefit to be derived from a discussion with a True Believer; he BELIEVES! His faith will not be shaken. He has found a value system that provides him with the guidance he needs; good. If it gives him a sense of superiority, well then, we can let him amuse himself. We wish him well.

    Bye; I have better things to do.

    Comment by Flitcraft | July 27, 2009 | Reply

    • Well, there you have it folks. When Flit faces fact he flies. But he cannot leave without some kind of irrelevant sneer. Such is the nature of a stinkbug scuttling to safety under the floorboards.

      These are the scum The Founders sought to protect Americans from, and the scum that progressively undermined, by torturing the English language, the Individual Rights of Americans, the Education of American children, and the decline of academic excellence in every University Arts Department.

      Those same scum worked hard to bring in socialist leaders for dozens of countries. That lead to nearly 200 million citizens murdered by their own socialist governments in the 1900s. Now that action is steaming ahead in S.America. Worse, with the election of Obama those scum are getting what they wished for. The only Rights they care about is their having a guarantee to impose their views on others.

      Comment by RnBram | July 27, 2009 | Reply

      • This person RnBram hates with an unreasoning passion. I think that is what drives him or her.

        Comment by Tensor | July 28, 2009

      • Thats right. Anybody who is to stupid to understand Ayn Rand has the brain of a pissant and doesnt diserve freedom. Rnbrm knows what hes talking about and you dont. You should go live in Russia. A real patriot would be fighting Islamofacists in Afganinstan and Iraq instead of saying stupid stuff.

        Comment by lou | July 28, 2009

      • So, Lou, how much of my comments here have you actually read? I contest that you have read very few, have not thought through that for the most part the comments stand own, as a logical and valid point about the World. Instead of just assaulting those comments with scorn, try actually addressing the points they make. If you cannot, then you are precisely the same kind of scum I refer to above.

        Come to think of it, the very approach you have chosen to take, fits you into that intellectual grouping. You could have asked an intelligent question, or contributed a significant conundrum, but you did not. Instead, you smeared. Almost the lowest level of intellectual debate possible.

        Comment by RnBram | July 28, 2009

      • No Tensor, I hate evil among Mankind with reasoning passion. I am disgusted by anyone who supports enormous political lies, systematic murder by the million, dictatorship, etc., (namely Socialism, theocracy etc.) whilst smearing principles that defend a Man’s Right to his own property, liberty and life to be unabridged by other men.

        If that makes me unreasoning, then you have merely ‘stood reason on its head’. I think the comment you are responding to makes that pretty clear. So why do you so love the political systems that are so obviously destructive?

        Leftists know when their ideals have been demolished, but refuse to change their beliefs. There has been no new development in Leftist thinking in forty years, so their only recourse is to angrily reject obvious political realities by emotion. Thus average leftists resort to smearing, sneering, and insults, (all in blatant psychological projection) whilst the more academic leftists reject reason as irrational, concern for human life and freedoms as hate, defense as war-mongering etc., etc. —all in true Orwellian Doublespeak.

        One of the greatest sins a man can commit is to evade truth. At root every Leftist HAS to be an evader.

        Comment by RnBram | July 29, 2009

      • Rnbram, Cant you read? I was supporting you. What did I do wrong?

        Comment by lou | July 29, 2009

      • Dammit Lou, I am sorry :-( . I was actually responding to the Tensor comment, but mistakenly thought you were the author.
        Most blog sites put the author name at the top, but this site puts them at the end. Whilst reading here I have made the above mistake several times, believing a comment was written by the name above it. This time the error became physically real, in my assigning your name to Tensor’s comment. Again, I am sorry.

        Comment by RnBram | July 30, 2009

  125. As an aside, those who worship at the Altar of Rand might like to know there exists a dating service for Randians exclusively. Called The Atlasphere, this is the place where would-be Rourk’s and Dominique’s can meet and perhaps re-enact those torrential scenes of domination and defilement that constitute Rand’s concept of sex as war and conquest.

    Rock drills and riding crops are OK but not required. Humor and fallibility are strictly prohibited.

    Comment by Figaro | July 27, 2009 | Reply

    • It is interesting that Fig Finds Facts irrelevant, so he just storms ahead (the above comment included) with his irrationality, his sneers, his smears and his falsehoods. Why is it that Lefties are unfazed when caught in outright lies, and simply move on to the next lie?? Interestingly, his kind are so common among the Left, that people from all sorts of philosophies expect it of them. Leftist thought is so intellectually bankrupt, those techniques are all they have left, in writing. In vocal situations, then shouting, swearing, screaming and chanting are very common, and throwing and breaking things soon follows. Rotten, spoiled little children.

      Comment by RnBram | July 27, 2009 | Reply

  126. Is it just me, or are the chain of events in the past 6 months eerily reminiscent of Atlas Shrugged?
    Barney Frank liberal congressman from Mass., spoke just today and truly tipped his hand as to how he and his fellow left wing congressman view this country.
    “I’ve had people come to us and complain, “Well, if you do that, I can’t make any money.” The answer is that’s not my job. We’re not here to help you make money. We are here to help have a system in which you will make money as an incident of your providing funds to those who will use it productively.”
    WTF, apparently we are all just here to provide the government ample money so that they can use our hard earned dollars productively. What ever happen to a government of the people and for the people? This is exactly how liberals disrespect the hard working people of our society. They have no problem enslaving anyone if it aids them to their end game agenda.
    Liberals in real life and in Rands books are so similar it is scary. Nothing more than satisfying their own greed for power, at any cost including its citizens’ freedoms.
    By the way I find that this entire blog chain to be very parallel to Atlas, in the respect that the liberals on here have failed to use any rational thought. So narrow minded. So closed minded that it borders on megalomania. They already have made up their minds and no logic could ever penetrate. Any one that does not agree with them must be wrong, by the logic that we (liberals) are always right.
    There have been a lot of very sound rational statements by AR supporters and in every case the liberals just miss the big picture and glom onto some insignificant detail that diverts the main points.
    Atlas writings demonstrated that liberal management of our economy is a disaster. And yes the same holds true in reality. By the way, it is the Congressional Budget Office CBO states that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2017. Last time I checked liberals have the majority in congress. The CBO also states that Obamas socialized medicine plan is fiscally unsound,and will result in bankruptcy and will not endorse it.
    As a small business owner, I’ve come to recognize that bankruptcy equates to failure. What is it about the word bankruptcy that liberals don’t understand? Congress did a patch job in the early 1980’s to extend the life of Social Security to a projected date of 2042. They were incorrect with their optimism. Back in post #113 I basically threw down a challenge for someone to rationally and logically argue that Ayn Rands vision of free enterprise would not produce a society that actually provides a landscape for a better standard of living than our current half breed socialistic/capitalism. Not one logical statement has been presented here. Fig, your agruement on #113 was totally torn up by RnBram. Clearly you possess some kind of intelligence, just not in the realm of economics. Rnbram gets and understands economics, as do I.
    Lets not lose sight of the forest through the trees. I think we all want our society to be the best that it can be. In all aspects. If everyone has a job and has more money, are not all the other problems easier to rectify? Based on what has been repeated stated above, I have confidence and faith in our society to want to help and take take of the needy, especially if everyone has the money to do so.
    So bring it on, lets talk big picture
    I want my freedom back that our founding fathers promised us. They (liberals) have no right nor my acceptance of taking it away from me.

    Comment by JV | July 27, 2009 | Reply

    • JV, you have made some excellent points, and here mine are in support. Thanks for yours.

      JV: “Liberals in real life and in Rands books are so similar it is scary.
      That is no coincidence of course. She knew what she was talking about, and was right. It is that very fact that has the Left squirming, hissing and spitting. Defame her, ridicule her, misrepresent her in any way possible; honesty is not a requirement, period! Anything, to make her go away, and never admit, even to yourself, that she was right in any way.

      JV: “we are all just here to provide the government ample money so that they can use our hard earned dollars productively.
      JV: No government ever made anything! If it confiscated money for a project, it had to hire an INDIVIDUAL to make the thing for them. The government did not make it. But, you may argue, the new thing WAS made.

      Perhaps so, but it was AT THE EXPENSE of all the things the taxpayers could NOT make, because they had been taxed/robbed for the ‘special project’. Plus, there is the cost of collecting the money, paying the civil servants and bureaucrats along whatever path, in government finances, the money flows. Contrary to Barney Frank NET PRODUCTIVITY of government nearly ZERO. PRODUCTIVITY of INDIVIDUALS is markedly reduced.

      Often, the projects are absurd, a waste of time, or a failure: $500 million U.S. to study Acid Rain, and only one uncommon species of high altitude Pine Tree could be proven to have been affected. Therefore there the overall productivity is reduced to NEGATIVE VALUES by projects resulting from fear mongering, or from hubris (first man on the moon etc.)

      “If everyone has a job and has more money, are not all the other problems easier to rectify?”

      Of course, if everyone is being productive, then the products themselves can be represented by gold or money. Money IS made, in the form of the aforementioned products. Money is the symbol of that good production. The more men produce, the more they have with which to reward further production. The more they have, the more they can cope, perhaps preventatively, with issues such as health or natural crises (hurricanes, fires, earthquakes, tsunamis etc.)

      It is no coincidence that richer people are healthier, that richer nations are happier, that the richer get richer. Nor is it a coincidence that the more socialist a nation is the more impoverished will it and its citizens be. That is exactly why California is bankrupt. It is why millions of professionals have deserted Venezuela, and why no one paddles to Cuba for a better life!

      Production is good, Individual Rights (as per Capitalism) are good, money is good, and rational, honest, greed is good.

      Comment by RnBram | July 27, 2009 | Reply

  127. In Ayn Rand territory–also known as Kookoo Land–the rallying cry is always the same: “Release us from the clammy grasp of Big Government! No restrictions on my personal freedom!” Well, we can now see how where the destructive influence of this narcissitic sociopath has helped lead us…the collapse of a responsive, centralized government and our descent into a plutocratic oligarchy which has left millions of Americans–including, no doubt, many of Rand’s faithfull worshippers–financially ruined. Ayn Rand’s nightmare world of brutal and unrestrained self interest has come to fruition and we are now effectively governed not by our elected representatives but by the same Randian financial criminals who brought about our
    destruction. How ironic that a nation whcih has survived such powerful enemies abroad should have collapsed internally thanks in great part to the dismal influence of this malignant little emigre and her dog-eat-dog recipe for disaster. Ayn Rand handed us a poisoned chalice and in our greed and stupidity we have drained it to the bottom.

    Comment by Figaro | July 28, 2009 | Reply

    • Watch out, Figaro! RnBram gonna getcha!

      You won’t get anywhere with RnBram. Once the teachings of Ayn Rand got into his brain, it closed tight. Disagree with RnBram & Rnbram spews venom. Must have had a very unhappy childhood.

      Comment by Tensor | July 28, 2009 | Reply

      • Tensor, Fig’s comments are so far out in left field they are not even worth anyone’s time to argue. There is no basis of fact in any sentence. None!! My guess is that his so frustrated that since he can’t win a logical debate, he has just resorted to making shit up. Why not, lying about the facts has always worked with the masses for liberals in the past. Exactly when did our country adopt policies that follow all (or for that matter any) of Rands’ philosophies? Please be specific.
        Hey Fig, try taking me up on my challenge, because I’m laughing at your intelligence, or lack there of. But please, only if you use facts that pertain to our world. Not the one where the sugar plum fairies live.

        Comment by JV | July 28, 2009

      • HEHEHEHE….I ALWAYS KNOW WHEN RANDITES SCORE POINTS JUST USING LOGIC AND REASON…because the Koo Koo Numb Nuts on the Left…become pseudo psychiatrists, and begin transferring their own mental illness issues on people they disagree with.

        WHEN one says that “Rand” gets into someone’s brain…yes, that is correct. Once you recognize that there is “reality, existence, logic, reason, epistomology, and objective FACTS…then its really hard to become a WHORE for socialism.

        Duh…you bet its hard to turn around and become a Left Wing KOO KOO Liar…who believes that Robbery and Theft is right.

        Did you stupid lying left wingers know that 40% of the American public DOES NOT PAY ANY TAXES AT ALL…AND ARE IN REALITY JUST PARASITES?

        DID YOU KNOW…that the top 1% of income earners in the US pay 40% of the Taxes…and you want to rob them some more? Even the New York Slime (Times) says its impossible to rob the rich through taxes any more…so guess what new taxes Hussein is gonna want…when Hussein said, he was not going to raise taxes on the middle class…hahahaha liar liar pants on fire…again.

        Well, of course you don’t want Rand’s kind of logic to sink in…and thus destroy your below-the waist desire to RAPE those who do work and who are successful.

        If you want to talk about the mental illness of the Left…who hates the “rich” and the “successful”…because they can never be that type of person…we can do so.

        Look up the word Jealousy…the LEFT operates from an irrational, childish, emotionally immature level of a 10 year old little girl, whose JEALOUS because she doesn’t have the new Barbie Doll that another little girl has…Boo Hoo…and by GAWD…she’s going to punish her.

        It is in truth the LEFT who have had a BAD CHILDHOOD…and because they are so unhappy, and unresolved as adults that …they see the rich as “surrogate parental” figures…with whom they have so much resentment.

        You know…if the LEFT had some proof that socialism, or massive government agencies worked…or was successful, or made people responsible, intelligent, happy workers…lowered crime, lowered illigitamate births, stopped or lowered drug abuse, blah, blah, blah…removed institutional parasitism…you on the Left could have had an argument.

        But…you don’t. 100% of the time, because you on the LOONEY KOO KOO LEFT…have no proof of any kind that socialism “works”…all that you can resort to, is to whine and resort to psychologizing.

        Did you know that nearly every single back wards nose picking mental patient wants to become a psychiatrist? Its called “transference.” Or delusions of grandeur.

        The very saddest thing about the LEFT is they are simply children…who never grew up and now live in some kind of Harry Potter world of Merlin and Magic, where they believe their Savior in Chief can wag his magic wand…and “poof” someone is going to make them happy. The Left calls this social justice.

        And…you should read the MRI research done at Rice University…where it was found that those on the Left…most often have a higher level of blood flow (indicating which part of the brain is being used) in the Limbic system…The Limbic system is the “emotional” part of the brain…and like lower animals, you are Limbic-system organized.

        The GOP and those who you call Randites (the logical and rational)…had blood flow elevated in the forebrain, i.e. the executive, logical functioning part of the brain.

        Based on those studies of brain function alone…the Left is more inclined to function like lower primates, chimpanzees or gorillas, scratching and picking their butts, and fighting over bananas…and only obeying the Head Gorillas In Charge out of fear.

        Yeppers…whenever you Left Wing Mental Health Koo KOO Land Socialists begin your psychologizing…I know for a fact you have no Proof of anything you promote…

        The rest of the US is waking up to you butt picking Left Wing goons too. And we thank you.

        Keep your childish, whining Left Wing socialist thieft prattle up….it wins many converts to Rand’s Objectivism…

        Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 3, 2009

  128. Holy crap!! Figaro has gone off the deep and taken a leave of his senses. What world do you live in? How does one even retort to such idiocy. Fig, it amazes me that your fork can even find your mouth!

    Comment by JV | July 28, 2009 | Reply

    • I’m tellin’ ya, Figaro, these folks don’t know what’s goin’ on. Yeah, the economy is in the tank because of greed and selfishness, but some of the Randies don’t want to even look at that. If only everybody was a follower of Ayn, everything would be hunky-dory. Problem is that only a few people were – I’m thinkin’ Wall St. here – and they got really rich and a lot of other people got poorer. Now you know, based on past experience on this thread – I’m new but I read all of it – that you and I are gonna get a lot of personal insults because of what we write here, so be prepared and bear up.

      Hey, I have an idea. Suppose we both promise to read everything Ayn wrote, no matter how inconsistent, poorly written, unrealistic, and even foolish. Do you think that they’ll be nice to us then? Naw – I don’t think they have a sense of humor.

      Comment by Tensor | July 28, 2009 | Reply

      • Hell I’m a funny guy. Probably the funniest guy you’ll ever know. (“,)

        Comment by JV | July 29, 2009

      • Tensor wrote, “the economy is in the tank because of greed and selfishness.” So according to you, there is no possibility that it was because Clinton signed legislation that repealed the Glass Steagel act that allowed all the derivative mortgages that precipitated this monumental credit crunch? His motivation was because it would make it easier to allow the poor to buy a home and thus provide them the potential of building up equity and wealth. The best laid plans of mice and men. Oh what fools.
        This is like shooting fish in a barrel. hahahaha. See I’m funny.

        Comment by JV | July 29, 2009

      • Golly, JV, there you are, a Rand follower, and you’re tellin’ me that because Clinton got rid of the rules that did not allow derivatives, we have this credit crunch. Well, that’s true. Doesn’t that go along with what I wrote earlier? If the government doesn’t regulate, then some folks will do whatever they can get away with. The bankers jumped in and pushed their new opportunity to the limit and beyond. They took advantage.

        What you wrote says that because the market for derivatives was eased, we have big economic problems. In other words, the government should have maintained the regulations prohibiting the kind of crazy derivatives trading that got the country into this jam.

        More about the government regulating various activities. Now suppose the government had no regulations about aircraft maintenance and the safety of commercial airplanes. I would have serious doubts about flying. And please don’t be tellin’ me that the “free market” would take care of everything. I’m not about to wait until an airline goes out of business because all of its airplanes have crashed.

        Maybe you’re confusing conservative Republicanism with Objectivism. Can a person be both a conservative Republican and an Objectivist? I don’t know.

        Comment by Tensor | July 29, 2009

      • Well,

        Tensor did ‘kinda’ catch JV on that one. The two, Glass-Steagall acts 1932, were a massive invasion of individual rights and of the U.S. economy (by Democrats). Outgoing president Hoover (R) could do little to stop it, & FDR (D) rubber-stamped the Act. FDR also passed The Gold Confiscation Act (1933). (At least they were honest about it being a theft, but they still pretended paper money was as good gold. Better men were furious at being payed with paper.)

        These Acts caused nearly all foreigner investors to pull every ounce of gold they owned from America. The Acts dramatically slowed America’s recovery from The Great Depression, prolonging enormous hardship for millions, … a Depression that was caused by government interventions in the first place.

        The reversal of the Act by Clinton had little to do with the present financial debacle. Derivatives are not inherently evil, but they can become extremely abstruse financial instruments. This means they are instruments only for very serious professionals to use. However, there is an ‘air’ among investors that “if it is legal it must be safe” (“it” being the instrument, not the men who use the instrument). Consequently, investors rarely give derivatives the kind of due diligence they should. Does that, therefore, mean that someone should protect them? Does it mean that derivative traders should cheat neophytes? NO. Both are violations of mens’ right to choose. A law that forces a trader to avoid behavior —that may at times be highly productive— removes his right to take intelligent action. If a trader cheats a neophyte, he should be proven guilty by the courts, and penalized accordingly. However, if the neophytes insist on trading derivatives, without understanding the underlying details, let them take the consequences! Let word of their errors spread.

        However, if one advocates the regulation of derivative trading, then one seeks to a) protect failures from failure at the expense of the successful, b) one makes derivatives seem easier to trade, c) disregarding the complexity of derivative trading. All in all, everyone stands to lose.

        Yet, if things go awry, the politicians of the Left and Right announce, “It’s the financiers! They are to blame. We have to regulate them.“.

        Recall that Tensor claims he never insults people here, yet ends his recent comment with a paragraph of insulting remarks… Tensor is a liar of the kind that is oblivious to the actual meaning of his own language and actions. This intellectual dishonesty enables Lefties to sustain their faith in viewpoints that only harm the very people they say believe they are helping.

        Comment by RnBram | July 30, 2009

    • It doesn’t amaze me in the least that your foot has found yours.

      Comment by Anonymous | July 28, 2009 | Reply

  129. JV, how about deregulation, which go going under Ronald Reagan? It was during the years that George W. Bush was president that government regulators who were supposed to regulate eased up on regulating. Even when the SEC was warned specifically about Bernie Madoff’s impossible profits, nothing was done for years. Wall St. got too smart for its own good, making money out of packaged, repackaged, and rewrapped again “securities”, many of which weren’t worth anything. But it’s OK now because the bailouts that began last fall have gotten the Greedy back on their feet.

    Now just because I named a couple of Republican presidents, don’t be goin’ thinkin’ that I’m a Democrat. I always vote against the incumbent, regardless of which party.

    To go on, there are folks who will take advantage of other folks in order to get rich. Ayn had the mistaken idea that everyone could deal with everyone as if they all were on an equal footing. People don’t behave that way. If they have an advantage, they press it. If it takes steroids to boost a batting average, some players will load up on that stuff. If a businessman can find somebody who’s poor and desperate who’ll work for less, he’ll pay him less. Some people cheat, big time – think again about Bernie Madoff.

    My Daddy told me many times – Son, there are folks who’ll do anything for money. How right he was! You don’t have to look very far to see the truth of that. Take a look at what used to be called Blackwater, that now calls itself Xe. Those guys shoot guns at people for a living.

    Ayn’s idea, if I understand it rightly, was that the main purpose of the government was to protect private property rights. That’s OK with me. But who’s gonna protect people from the guys who want to make money, no matter what they have to do for it? It’s bad enough already, what with tons of meat being recalled because it was tainted with bad bacteria. If there was no government agency checking up on food, what would happen? For instance, there was that kosher meat packing plant that had illegal aliens and underage kids working for low wages. The government shut them down, otherwise that company would still be taking unfair advantage.

    I think that John Calvin was closer to understanding human nature than Ayn was.

    Now I’d like to call your attention to the fact that I didn’t call anybody names, or insult anyone. Another thing my Daddy taught me was to always be civil. You fellas wanna try that?

    Comment by Tensor | July 29, 2009 | Reply

    • Tensor, let’s start with your very last paragraph. You say you didn’t call anybody names, or insult anyone, right.

      In fact you wrote”
      “You won’t get anywhere with RnBram. Once the teachings of Ayn Rand got into his brain, it closed tight. Disagree with RnBram & Rnbram spews venom. Must have had a very unhappy childhood.”

      Explain how you can draw the mind “closed tight” conclusion from what little you have read of my comments here. My mind is a strong filter, not an open garbage can. I have not spewed “venom” but have used true facts to bring readers to certain conclusions. You may not like the conclusions, but that does not make them “venom”.

      Such remarks ARE insults, used because you apparently lack better arguments: see next comment on deregulation!

      Comment by RnBram | July 29, 2009 | Reply

    • Tensor, you are simply echoing nonsense spread around the Internet. The GWBush administration only relaxed some regulations, only a few of which affected the financial sector. However, they introduced over 51,000 new regulations in that sector. The worst of which was Sarbanes-Oxley and the new accounting rules. People quit life long careers and successful businesses because of those regs. The entire mortgage-crisis/financial-crash was directly manufactured by government policies started as far back as the Carter. Most of these were based on the Leftist logic, that lenders should be forced to make irrecoverable loans to those who cannot afford homes.

      ACORN pushed this in every state, and even in Canada. It was by this kind of charade that Obama made more money from the public trough than any other congressman. Something of an Animal Farm approach, do you not think?

      All of the above, coupled with ridiculous policies from Greenspan (interest fixed at 1%!!!) and the Treasury, combined to cause the entire crisis. Under a free(r) financial market none of it would have happened because individual judgments of risk would lead to small & more balanced market corrections.

      You could go and find out the rest for yourself.

      Comment by RnBram | July 29, 2009 | Reply

      • Well, now, that’s a lot I have to answer to. You’re throwin’ in a lot of information that I’d like to know more about. Like, for instance, those 51,000 new regulations in the financial sector. Where’d you get that number from?

        And now about Obama – he’s not my favorite president – he never was a congressman. He was a senator. How much money did he make from “the public trough”, and how do you know that he made more that way than any other congressman – or senator? Got any real numbers? What’s the source?

        Now about a “free(r) financial market” and “individual judgements of risk”, seems to me that the folks who let Bernie Maddoff handle their nest eggs were in a position to make their own “individual judgements of risk”, but they got snookered. And that’s what I’ve been sayin’. There are always folks who’ll take advantage of others. That idea of Ayn’s, that everybody should make honest deals with everybody else, doesn’t hold up in the world that we all experience. If you never in your life made a bad deal, then you’re one of the blessed few. But The I do know one fellow who did all right for a time.

        I have a friend who used to have a guarantee that he wouldn’t lose money in the stock market. His daddy was a stock broker, and he advised his son about which stocks to buy. When a couple of them went real bad, he made up the loss my friend suffered out of his own pocket. I admired that father. He’s gone now, unfortunately. The stock market is pretty good to big investors with inside information, but the little fellow had best watch out. Again, it’s a one of those situations where some folks take advantage.

        About venom, there you are, in many of your posts, callin’ folks names and sayin’ unpleasant things about them when they don’t agree with you. I do agree with you when you say that your “mind is a strong filter”. Seems to me that from reading your remarks that it’s strong enough to exclude anything that doesn’t agree with your set of ideas and beliefs. I haven’t seen anything that indicates that you’ve accepted any new ideas from the other folks who’ve commented, unless they’re pretty tight to what you’ve already got in your head.

        Understand that I’m a peace-lovin’ individual. Somebody wants to believe somethin’, that’s OK by me. I don’t try to change anybody’s mind. I learned that a long time ago, another lesson from my Daddy. He made me a skeptic and I’m thankful for that.

        Comment by Tensor | July 29, 2009

      • “While the Dow collapses, we have a bull market in government regulations. The 50-plus departments, agencies and commissions are now at work on 3,882 rules; 757 will affect small businesses. More than 51,000 final rules were issued from 1995 to 2007.”

        Yes, being Canadian, I mixed up congressman with senator. You’re right.

        Obama’s annual ‘earnings’ were four times more than H.Clinton’s (the next highest recipient) from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac administrations alone. These two organizations operate with all the fiscal clarity of Enron, guaranteeing $billions of ACORN style high-risk mortgages. “The accounting wizardry Fannie engaged in was designed so that Fannie could meet profit targets to maximize bonus payments to company executives like Clinton administration deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick and Carter administration assistant director for domestic policy Franklin Raines.” This criminal, Raines, went on to become a campaign advisor for Obama.

        The smaller a government is, the fewer of these kinds of people will have such power to ruin lives.

        Bernie Madoff was a criminal. Why do you bring him up at all, as being an example of anything to do with Rand or Capitalism? Do you really think Rand is advocating theft? Again, you apparently have not read her works, or are painfully unable to understand them.

        Why do you persist in writing such nonsense? You are not a peace loving individual if you support the right of one man to undercut or destroy the rights of another man. It is fine for you to personally leave others to their opinions and actions, but if you support any form of government intervention in the lives of others. Remember, politicians and bureaucrats are just people, and they make up the government. Government does not have any right to trample the inalienable rights of citizens. Governments MUST be restrained to deal only in its unique mandate to control the use of retaliatory force between citizens. That means the courts (Madoff etc.), the police and the military (to retaliate against foreigners who harm Americans).

        Comment by RnBram | July 30, 2009

    • Tensor wrote another falsehood, either from illiteracy, second-hand gossip mongering, or deliberate deception:
      Ayn had the mistaken idea that everyone could deal with everyone as if they all were on an equal footing.

      Rand, again and again, pointed out that the reason men need a government, is because there will always be some criminals and some nasty errors, in a society. This is why she was vehemently opposed to anarchism and Libertarianism. That is why she admired and supported the Founders of America. That is why Bernie Madoff has been arrested for his ridiculous Ponzi scheme, and why Barney Frank & now Barrack Obama et al should be arrested for their Ponzi schemes!
      If the dollars involved were put on a scale of length, Madoff’s Ponzi scheme would be about a meter, whereas Obama’s is measured in light years. Your great great grandchildren will still be paying for it.

      Tensor wrote, “But who’s gonna protect people from the guys who want to make money, no matter what they have to do for it?

      People who *make* money do so by producing values and trading them, using money as the symbol of value. People who want money (the coin & paper) but are unhappy with working for it find ways to *get* it. What better way than to become a tax and spend politician? If Tensor would only read, and be honest, he would know that Rand makes that distinction very, very, very plain. So who’s mind is closed tight Tensor? If you read Rand at all, you certainly closed yours.

      Comment by RnBram | July 29, 2009 | Reply

      • To take your last paragraph first, those fellows on Wall St. made money by gettin’ commissions on trades and also enormous bonuses. They didn’t produce anything but trouble. “Tax and spend” politicians haven’t made near as much as the Wall Streeters, and neither have the “borrow and spend” politicians. Most politicians who sell out sell out cheap.

        And now, goin’ back to your third from the last paragraph, Bernie Madoff did an awful lot of damage before he got called on it by the government. In fact, he has recently said that he was surprised that he got away with it for so long. Myself, I wonder where all those billions went. Anybody found out yet?

        Now to your first sentence, where you wrote – “Tensor wrote another falsehood . . . ” Now you know that’s not a nice thing to throw in to what I hope would be a reasonable and civil discussion. You’re writin’ things about me that don’t add much to the conversation. I mean you come on with all your guns blazing. As a former Christian, I’d like to think that you still have a little bit of charity in your make-up.

        About reading Ayn’s writing, I have read some. I don’t think she was much of a writer, to tell the truth. Take “Atlas Shrugged”. Now that’s a mighty long-winded stretch of writing. As ex-Pfc. Wintergreen would have said if he had read it, “Her prose is too prolix.” Granted that English was not her native language, but fellows like Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov had the same handicap, and the way they wrote set high standards for native speakers. Even so, the style and content of Ayn’s characters’ pages-long speeches to one another make them fun to read out loud, because that’s when they really are entertaining. You ought to try that sometime. It’s most enjoyable if you can record yourself reading and then play it back. In fact, I wish someone would get William Shatner to read Ayn’s characters’ speeches. He’d do a great job of it. There are some writers who can pack a short sentence with meaning, but Ayn wasn’t one of them.

        Now do take a deep breath and relax a little so that you won’t come on charging like the Light Brigade. Or, to put it another way, lighten up, RnBram.

        Comment by Tensor | July 29, 2009

      • The standard is not how much money is handed to them, it is what they achieved with their services and products. If their dealings were honest (no Madoff deceits/fraud) then their wealth is a symbol of the good they have done in their capacity to do so. Now, I know there are lots of immoral Wall Street twits who can acquire lots of bucks by doing stupid things.

        You risk that when you buy a used car from a twit neighbor. It is your job to be sure the car is worth the money you pay. The same is true in financial markets. If all such matters were socialized, do you really think that would get rid of the twits (Franklin Raines etc)? No, you are guaranteed to have MORE of them wielding a lot more power over your life!

        You complain that Madoff got away with his crime for years, as an argument against the free market. Since murderers sometimes don’t get caught, would you throw out the idea of a police force and a court system? Your entire line of argument here is painfully irrational.

        On your emission of falsehoods, when the shoe fits…it fits! I’ve been pretty careful to back up my remarks, or to be sure I can if I need to. When I say Leftists are necessarily dishonest evaders, I mean it and have shown it. Your remarks are wild unfounded accusations, when you write “…not a nice thing to throw in to what I hope would be a reasonable and civil discussion.” All you do is call attention to your hypocrisy.

        I am not surprised you wrote:
        “There are some writers who can pack a short sentence with meaning, but Ayn wasn’t one of them.”
        because you have missed so much meaning even in things you yourself wrote. If you’ve read Atlas Shrugged then you would know that there is an entire paragraph in the first chapter, that Rand used, verbatim, in the last chapter. In the first chapter it presents one level of understanding, in the last chapter it presents an absolutely different understanding. That’s not your ordinary synonym! People have read Atlas ten or more times, and with each reading are stunned at the new understandings it offers that they had not grasped in previous readings.

        In the earlier comment where I was explaining that money is *made*, I was redcalling one little line spoken by James Taggart:”Any grafter can make money”
        and Francisco’s response: “Some day Jim, you ought to discover that words have exact meanings”.

        Now why do you suppose Francisco said that, and what was wrong with Taggart’s simple remark?

        Don’t know?

        Comment by RnBram | July 30, 2009

  130. For some reason I don’t know, I got an email with another comment from RnBram that hasn’t shown up yet on this thread, but I’ll answer to part of it anyway.

    RnBarm, you wrote to me, “So why do you so love the political systems that are so obviously destructive?”

    Who, me? I haven’t said a word about what kind of government I “love”, or hate, or anything else anywhere in this thread.

    Now I figure that maybe you think that you can read minds over the internet – which is something I’ve never heard of before – or else that you’re busy dividing the population into two camps – “them” and “us”. And if I’m not a card-carrying member of “us”, then I must be a ______________ – fill in the blank. I tell ya, Rnbram, I’m not easy to categorize. I don’t fit into one particular bunch or another. I think that most people are like that.

    Now of course you can say that anyone born in the U.S. is by law an American citizen, and you’d surely be right because that’s what the law says. But when it comes down to particulars, it just ain’t that simple.

    Take, for instance, the church to which you formerly belonged – according to a statement you made in an earlier comment. That denomination has splits within it, just like most religions. You can say that someone is a Roman Catholic – not you, of course – but even in that church there are different factions. You gotta be careful about putting things and people into categories. If the category is too wide, it’s not too useful a way of thinking. And if it’s too narrow, then eventually you get down to the category being just one person.

    Of course, there are some people who like to be able to say things like – All republicans are _________ – whatever. Or – All liberals are ___________ – more whatever. I’ve seen a couple of honest-to-goodness conservative friends of mine get into a fistfight over a discussion about the basic principles of conservativism.

    Now that either/or business, that’s just not careful thinking, RnBram. In fact, tellin’ me about the kind of government I “love” – well, it was a giant leap for Rnbram.
    And you didn’t land on solid ground.

    I do believe that some kinds of government are better for most people than other kinds are. I’ve wondered more than a few times about the kind of government Plato wrote about in the Republic. Would it work? I don’t know. I don’t even know if it’s ever been tried. I see some difficulties with it. For instance, where are you gonna find an honest-to-goodness philosopher king? And after he got the job, who’s to say that he wouldn’t go power-mad? There’s that saying – Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Why even George W. Bush said something about a dictatorship not being bad if he could be the dictator.

    Maybe the question to ask about what kind of government is best, or at least better, is – In which country are most people better off, and what kind of government do they have?

    Comment by Tensor | July 29, 2009 | Reply

    • After I clicked Submit, the comment appeared on this page… I too have no idea what happened to it.

      I am at a disadvantage, because I no longer have before me the actual text. Given Tensor’s past manipulations words and truths I may well be unable to reassert context he drops.

      He wrote,
      “RnBarm, you wrote to me, “So why do you so love the political systems that are so obviously destructive?”
      Who, me? I haven’t said a word about what kind of government I “love”, or hate, or anything else anywhere in this thread.”

      This claim is horrendously naive, or else disingenuous. The main issue of the discussion revolves around Rand’s moral principles and of government intervention, or non-intervention, and the consequences.

      Politics as a philosophical branch concerns itself with social principles by which men may live moral lives. It, therefore, depends on a proper morality. The two moral systems, most in conflict today, are Individualism (Egoism, NOT EgoTism) and Altruism (Self Sacrifice).

      Tensor has recurrently emerged on the side of regulatory intervention. That is, he sides with political principles of anything but proper Capitalism. Capitalism is the ONLY political system in which men can live morally, furthering their own values, without having values FORCED upon them or removed from them. In his uninformed arguments against the forgoing he is taking a political stand, and is advocating any of a number of government types (political systems) that have consistently shown themselves to be harmful to their own citizens.

      As for categories (not in the Kantian sense), categorization is how the human mind works. Every word is a category. The word leaf refers to all leaves there are, all the leaves there ever were, all the leaves that ever will be, even cactus spines are in fact leaves. If Tensor says “leaves photosynthesize” the cactus spine exception does not make his generalization dishonest or half-baked. It has a context, as do all words (and the concepts to which they refer). Similarly, terms like Left and Right have narrower categories that need to be clarified in some cases (like “cactus spines), but that can be disregarded in others. I do not retract my generalizations; I meant them.

      Tensor IS firmly, “feet on the ground”, on the side of life destroying political systems, absolutely and without doubt. He may be confused about it, he may not want to be so, but that is where is arguments lie.

      Plato’s government IS communism, with an enlightened few (Philosopher Kings) leading the way. It cannot work, because men are individuals, not insects in a hive, as Judy repeatedly asserts, and as Rand resoundingly demonstrates.

      If one is going to ask which government is best, one needs to first know which morality is first. To do that one has to KNOW the proper ways to understand morality, which means one needs a sound method of thinking (epistemology), which means using reason and reality to understand human beings and their interactions with nature and with other men.

      Comment by RnBram | July 30, 2009 | Reply

      • Sorry I messed up on the italics for the first Tensor quote. I like previews to check such details.

        Comment by RnBram | July 30, 2009

  131. Talking with a friend about Ayn and Objectivism, we got to the point of asking each other where it was going. I mean is it just talk, or is there a plan, or at least some kind of organized effort, to put Ayn’s ideas into practice? Like, has anybody written a constitution based on Objectivist principles? If so, I’d really be interested in reading it. If there isn’t, then maybe a serious effort ought to be made to write one so that folks could see just how it would be worked out in practice and made into something more than talk. Otherwise, it’s like folks in the Middle Ages seriously debating how many angels would fit on the head of a pin.

    If Ayn’s idea was to go back to the beginnings of the U.S., then there’s a problem. The U.S. Constitution was put together by white men. American women didn’t get the full right to vote until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1920. Now some of those “Founding Fathers” were slave owners. Thomas Jefferson for one. He had good times and children with his slave Sally Hemmings. Right up there at the beginning of the Constitution, in Section 2 of Article One, there’s that famous basis for the calculation of how many representatives a state would have in the House of Representatives. For counting purposes, “three-fifths of all other persons” would be tallied in the total. Now those three-fifths of a person were slaves who had no political voice, and so states where there were lots of slaves had a political advantage because they could have more representatives in the House representing the interests of white men. And don’t you go thinking that the men who put the Constitution together didn’t know that.

    So there are some questionable “first principles” to look back on. The country has come a long way since those early days, which is a good thing.

    And so I’d really like to know whether Objectivism is ever going to get past selling books and promoting talk, or is it going to get down to the real business of being the basis for a society and a polity.

    Got an answer to that, anybody?

    Comment by Tensor | July 29, 2009 | Reply

  132. No established Objectivist expects to write a new Constitution, though some have toyed with it, it is rarely discussed. I can imagine it removes any reference to a god, more firmly limits government from intervention, and prevents activist judges from altering its meaning. It would also limit the government’s foreign ventures. But in present climes, it certainly is an issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    I have read a good deal about the development of the Declaration and U.S. Constitution, out of sheer interest. Both documents are color blind, and so Tensor should be!

    It was because of the Declaration and Constitution that women gained voting rights, and slaves were eventually emancipated (and the 3/5ths rule became regarded as contradictory to the rest). Thomas Jefferson was in France when Sally Hemmings was impregnated. The man was almost certainly a close relative of Jefferson’s who was staying in Monticello at the time.

    The white men of whom Tensor speaks were in another time that he must also understand in order to judge them. In a World where nearly every European accepted slavery as normal, these men produced a document that led to slavery’s undoing. Obviously some were ‘worse’ than others, nonetheless,they sowed the seeds of today’s view. They deserve credit, not castigation.

    All these hateful claims about the Founding of America are, again and again, tiny grains of truth taken out of context, by irrational academics, and manipulated into massive lies … lies that Lefties react to & promote with glee.

    Comment by RnBram | July 30, 2009 | Reply

    • First, about Sally and T. Jefferson. Rnbram writes –

      Thomas Jefferson was in France when Sally Hemmings was impregnated.

      And so was Sally –

      In 1784, Thomas Jefferson took up residence in Paris as the American envoy to France. In 1787, Jefferson sent for his daughter, nine-year-old Maria (Polly) Jefferson, to come live with him. He asked that Isabel, an older woman, be sent as a companion for Polly, but because Isabel had recently given birth, the teen-aged Sally Hemings accompanied her instead. Polly and Hemings were met in London by John and Abigail Adams. Writing in 1787, Abigail described Sally as a “Girl about 15 or 16” and as “quite a child, and Captain Ramsey is of opinion will be of so little Service that he had better carry her back with him.” She added that Sally “seems fond of [Polly] and appears good-natured.”[5] Ten days later she wrote that after five weeks at sea, Polly had become “rough as a little sailor” but after two days had been restored to amiability; Sally, however, she said, “wants more care than the child, and is wholly incapable of looking properly after her, without some superior to direct her.”[6]

      Sally remained in France for twenty-six months. Also present was her brother, James, who had accompanied Jefferson to France in 1784 for training as a chef. Both Sally and James received wages while in France. Toward the end of their stay, James used his money to pay for a French tutor. There is no record of where Sally lived. She could have lived with Jefferson and her brother at the Hôtel de Langeac, or at the convent where Maria and Martha were schooled. Whatever the regular domestic arrangements, Jefferson and his retinue spent weekends together at his villa.[7] The convent’s bills did not appear to have included a boarding charge for Sally. The only clear documentation shows that Jefferson purchased clothing for Sally, probably because she needed to accompany Martha to formal events.[8]

      Under French law, both Sally and James could have petitioned for their freedom. According to her son Madison’s later memoir, Sally was learning French and was aware that she could be free in France. He claimed that she became pregnant by Jefferson and refused to return to the United States unless Jefferson agreed to free her children, and that Jefferson agreed.[3]

      In 1789 Sally Hemings returned to the United States with Jefferson. His wife had died seven years before and he was still only 46 years old. As evidenced by Jefferson’s father-in-law, it was common in Virginia society for widowers to take enslaved women as companions. That Jefferson also would do so was not unusual for the time.[9]

      The numbers in brackets refer to notes to the Wikipedia article on Sally.

      As for the Constitution being color blind, that didn’t come about until segregation was abolished in the 1950’s. Took a time to get there.

      Slavery was legal until the 1860s. It took a while to get that cleared off the books too.

      But let’s get to the point of putting a nation based on Ayn’s Objectivism in place. Will it happen? Can it happen? If so, where?

      If Objectivism is not going to be instituted and put into practice, where does that leave it?

      Will principled Objectivists refuse social security benefits and Medicare when they become eligible? Disability payments? Unemployment compensation?

      What is the future of Objecitvism?

      Comment by Tensor | July 30, 2009 | Reply

      • Wikipedia is a particularly unreliable source on politically correct matters and often has blatant falsehoods. Sally Hemings did not become pregnant in France (“In Pursuit of Reason: The life of Thomas Jefferson”).

        Tensor, the Constitution was written to apply to ALL Men… it was colorblind and gender blind. It was the motive power behind changes in state laws that freed slaves and gave women the vote (Vindicating the Constitution”).

        Objectivism will reach more and more citizens over time, in the same way that Aristotelianism brought the Enlightenment & Renaissance. Objectivism is a thorough philosophical extension of Aristotelianism. The best place for such a Second Renaissance is America, the last place on Earth where there are enough independent minds collectivism (socialism, communism, fascism) and mysticism (any and all religions). Epistemologically, both alternatives are subjectivist, and had little influence on the American Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.

        Objectivists will not refuse social security etc. It is irrational to not take back what you can get if your robber offers it to you! It is irrational to not use a government benefit, to which one is opposed, so as to suffer while others gain.

        Comment by RnBram | August 2, 2009

    • Now in a posting that I received via email, but which I don’t see here, RnBram wrote –

      Recall that Tensor claims he never insults people here, yet ends his recent comment with a paragraph of insulting remarks… Tensor is a liar of the kind that is oblivious to the actual meaning of his own language and actions. This intellectual dishonesty enables Lefties to sustain their faith in viewpoints that only harm the very people they say believe they are helping.

      Maybe Rnbram is referring to this statement of mine –

      Now do take a deep breath and relax a little so that you won’t come on charging like the Light Brigade. Or, to put it another way, lighten up, RnBram.

      I’m not sure how that can be understood as an insult. I was just giving RnBram some friendly advice. If he sees that as an insult, well, I reckon that I’d best start being more delicate in my comments on what he writes.

      RnBram wrote –

      All these hateful claims about the Founding of America are, again and again, tiny grains of truth taken out of context, by irrational academics, and manipulated into massive lies … lies that Lefties react to & promote with glee.

      Now I do take exception to being labeled a “Leftie”. RnBram continues to lump folks into broad categories and implying that all those in the category that he puts them into think and act the same way.

      I don’t think that kind of simplistic thinking is helpful. Now, RnBram, that statement is not intended as an insult.

      I have to wonder why you come on so strong against anyone who doesn’t agree with you. Can’t you continue the discussion without calling people names?

      And, by the way, you haven’t yet responded to my suggestion in an earlier post –

      Maybe the question to ask about what kind of government is best, or at least better, is – In which country are most people better off, and what kind of government do they have?

      You got any ideas about that?

      Comment by Tensor | July 30, 2009 | Reply

  133. Capitalism / Socialism. Just words. The objective is to allow free enterprise. For that is part of the god given gift of and right to free will on this planet. Any ideology or governance that diminishes that should be changed.

    In a society of free will there needs to be constraints against interfering with someone elses free will; and also, (contrary to Ms. Rand but consonant with Jesus) charity to those less fortunate should be encouraged and practiced.

    Comment by James deJuste II | July 30, 2009 | Reply

    • James, words are the tools of the mind. They have exact meanings when properly made and used. Like every tool that is poorly made or misused, it will likely diminish the quality of the work of those who use it. Too many such tools and the workshop itself is diminished. Due to public education & its heavily distorted Left-think curriculum, very few people are concerned about the most important ‘workshop’ they could ever possess: their mind.

      After his semi-colon; James deJuste II is every bit as deluded as the Left. Rand was never opposed to charity, but advocated being charitable such that it did not harm oneself and was not wasteful of one’s wealth or effort.

      Jesus, Sun Yung Moon, Mohammed, Bhudda, they all utter archaic nonsense: some super sky-daddy god is best obeyed by sacrificing oneself to others. “God?”, still drinking the Kool Aid are you, deJuste?

      Comment by RnBram | August 2, 2009 | Reply

  134. In which country are most people better off, and what kind of government do they have?

    Since it has been agreed by RnBram that Ayn’s Objecivist polity and society won’t come into being any time soon – if ever – because, among other reasons, a complete Objectivist constitution for a state has not been formulated, which is a necessary step if such a state is ever to be realized, then what are the future prospects for Objectivism? Will it remain an intellectual exercise without practical application? That isn’t bad – it keeps some minds occupied.

    Again, about the practical application of Objectivism, the impression that I am left with from what RnBram has written – and I know that RnBram will correct me if I’m mistaken – is that there is only one way of understanding Ayn’s writings, and deviation from that way of understanding leaves a person out of the fold. Ayn herself drummed people out of the corps when major disagreements arose. Seems to me that it was her way or the highway.

    Well, I say that individuals are individuals, and every one of them sees things at least a little bit differently, which I think is one of the principles of Objectivism. Even the 12 apostles, the fellows who were closest to Jesus, saw him in different lights.

    So my question is, how are folks going to be imbued with the tenets of Objectivism in such a way as to make it implementable in the real world?

    Now of course, no matter what society they lived in, individuals could choose to live by Objectivist principles, insofar as that is possible in the real world. It would entail refusing to accept any government benefits, but it might be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid taxes, unless one choses to live outside that law – and there are some who do that. But that seems to me to be a risky business. In today’s world, does one have to live outside the law in order to live one’s life by Objectivist principles?

    What is the future for Objectivism and the teachings of Ayn Rand? Where is it going?

    Categories – Leaves are one thing, people are another. Every individual is different. Even identical twins go through life having different experiences. Human beings are amazingly complicated and inconsistent. To lump people one doesn’t even know into a category, and then say that they all think and behave in the same way – well, that doesn’t fit in with the way it is out in the world. It may be convenient, but it’s too simplistic – the kind of thinking that comes from, say, Ann Coulter.

    And so I repeat – In which country are most people better off, and what kind of government do they have? We’re talking real world here, not unapplied theory.

    A side issue – There was, years ago, a fencing master name of Leonardo Terrone, who had a zaal in Philadelphia. Terrone had some unusual ideas about fencing. They were actually quite good, but unfortunately for Terrone, he considered anyone who did not completely agree with him as a sworn enemy. He would not compromise, even to advance his cause. As another fencing master commented about him, Terrone was his own worst enemy.

    In which country are most people better off, and what kind of government do they have?

    Comment by Tensor | August 2, 2009 | Reply

  135. Let’s go over to the practical side of Objectivism. RnBram wrote that as far as he knew, no one has yet written a constitution for a state based on Objectivist principles, but even so, I’d like to know how an Objectivist state would be structured and operated. I’m sure that a knowledgeable Objectivist, one who has made an exhaustive study of Ayn’s work, would most certainly be able to answer my questions.

    Ayn wanted a government to consist of a judiciary, police, and an army, the point of it being to protect private property. I have some questions:

    Who appoints the judges?

    How are the judges, police, and army paid? Where does the money come from?

    How are the funds managed?

    Is the police force a national police force, or are there only local police forces, or are there both?

    How would the country conduct foreign relations? Would it have embassies in other countries? If so, how would diplomats be appointed? Where would the funding to support the embassies and diplomats come from, and how would those funds be managed?

    If there is no legislature, how are laws made?

    If there is no executive, how are laws executed?

    Who would build and maintain the infrastructure – roads, tunnels, bridges, for example?

    Would there be any controls on food and medicines, or could anyone market anything?

    How is a decision to go to war made, and who makes it?

    What about aircraft safety? Would accidents be investigated, so as to eliminate future problems? If so, who would do it?

    These are only the first questions that come to mind, but I hope readers get the idea. The nuts and bolts of a functioning state are not simple, and it doesn’t just start spinning by itself.

    Now if the Objectivist state is an intellectual exercise, like Utopia, the Republic, Erehwon, and the like, well and good. Mental exercise is good for everyone. Some people pay chess, or the Oriental board game Go, and I even have a friend who does calculus problems for fun. That’s fine.

    But the question that I still have is this: Could a state be structured and operated on pure Objectivist principles? I’d really like to know.

    A side note: I have been receiving posts to this thread in my email inbox, posts that have not appeared on this thread. Is there a parallel thread, or is posting a haphazard activity?

    Comment by Tensor | August 3, 2009 | Reply

    • Most of Tensor’s questions are outside the realm of philosophy, and would require Objectivist thinkers who specialize in law, foreign policy etc. Many of his questions he could answer himself, simply by recalling what nation Ayn Rand most admired. Some questions, such as who would manage the money are IMO foolish. If there is to be a police force, judiciary and military obviously there will be some sort of treasurer, paymaster etc.

      A common question, that she did answer, asks how government would be paid for. Keeping in mind that the entire government would be a tiny fraction of the behemoth it is today, the amount of money needed would be very small.

      A government run, optional, contract insurance would readily supply that money. When any contract is drawn up, the parties involved may pay a minute percentage of the value of the contract to the government. In the event the contract goes sour, their court fees (perhaps even legal fees) would be covered from the reserves of that insurance program.

      Consider the millions of contracts made, daily, across the U.S. Having such an insurance would be very inexpensive, but the volume alone will produce all the income both the insurance program and the government will need, so as to function.

      Of course infrastructure would be privately built and maintained, how do you think the early settlers set it up? Safety issues are simply a matter of Individual Rights, were they violated or were they not? If they were, that is what the courts are for.

      Again, Objectivism is a philosophy. It focuses on fundamental issues in Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics (& Economics) and Aesthetics. Incorrect fundamentals ultimately lead to faulty conclusions and to actions producing destructive outcomes. This is why Epistemology is the most important of the five aspects of philosophy. It is why Ayn Rand was a radical for REASON, and why her philosophy is called Objectivism, rather than Individualism, or ‘Businessism’ etc.

      Though most people first grasp her philosophy through its Ethics, the name Objectivism focuses on the epistemological aspects of her philosophy. It is not enough to become selfish, one must also be rational.

      Comment by RnBram | August 3, 2009 | Reply

      • RnBram wrote –

        A common question, that she did answer, asks how government would be paid for. Keeping in mind that the entire government would be a tiny fraction of the behemoth it is today, the amount of money needed would be very small. –

        I don’t think so. If the military establishment is to be kept as large as it is, then you can figure on close to a trillion dollars per year, and that ain’t chicken feed. Where would all that money come from?

        RnBram wrote-

        Of course infrastructure would be privately built and maintained, how do you think the early settlers set it up? Safety issues are simply a matter of Individual Rights, were they violated or were they not? If they were, that is what the courts are for. –

        The early settlers built dirt tracks, not superhighways, tunnels, and any but the simplest bridges. They didn’t build for cars, trucks, and buses. They built their roads, etc., for pedestrians, horses, and horse and ox drawn carts. Things are different today.

        If the infrastructure is to be privately built and maintained, it is going to cost much more than what the early settlers had to shell out. I can see how highways, bridges, and tunnels could be money-making enterprises – tolls. But what about secondary roads? What about city streets? I don’t immediately see a practicable way of collecting tolls for their use. Would there be standards for maintenance, or would it be up to the owners to decide when, for instance, to repave a road? Would foreign investors be permitted to buy into the infrastructure system? How would it be determined where new roads are to be built? How would the property on which to build new roads be acquired?

        Rnbram has not yet responded to my questions about foreign relations. Embassies? Diplomats? Who would represent the country when treaties were to be signed, and prior to that, who would decide which treaties to be party to?

        No legislature? Then who makes the laws? How are judges appointed?

        How is the size of the money supply to be determined, and who’s going to do that?

        Epistemology is great stuff. It’s nice to know how we know. But I want to see what can be done with Objectivism. Can that philosophy be the basis for forming and operating a polity and economy? Or can we only say that it’s an intellectual exercise – which is not a bad thing, but let’s not then think that we can have a state run on its principles.

        Ayn and Grover Norquist both want a government that is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, but I don’t think that it will ever get that far. Governments have extended themselves, mostly at the behest of the people and/or private interests as perceived needs arose.

        What is the future of Objectivism as far as practical application is concerned?

        Comment by Tensor | August 4, 2009

      • Tensor, Tensor, Tensor,

        The military establishment would be enormously smaller, and just as potent. It would not be engaged in what Thomas Jefferson called “foreign adventures”. It’s common use today is to intervene in various nonsense around the world for entirely altruistic reasons. America is cursed when it protects its own interests, and is cursed when it does NOT intervene in places like Darfur, Myanmar (Burma), Croations vs Bosnians, and the like.

        The problems of Iraq, the Taliban, and al Queda would have never arisen if Iran’s government buildings and military had been bombed to oblivion for the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat, was President at the time).

        [Yes, I am using Wikipedia, but I know the info there is true, b/c I was following those events at the time.]

        Altruism is what made GWBush wait for World approval for going into Iraq (regardless of how valid the strategy may have been). Altruism is what made the US drop food for the terrorists’ families. That’s such a great move! Now the terrorists do not have to worry, their families are fed & safe, as their breadwinners fight to kill our families!

        Actually, the settlers built the first University in the New World. The settler’s dirt tracks were pretty good for the time, and entailed enormous manual effort. If ‘Thomas Adam’s’ (an imaginary sample company) road building crew were not undercut by the government, they would have grown into a very important private enterprise. Their contracts would have included bridge building and tunnels. As technology became available —and they would have developed some of it— roads, bridges & tunnels would have become smoother, safer, and more convenient.

        However, under Objective law, if Adam’s designs FAILED severely, they would have been liable for the consequences. That is, the criminal and liability suits would likely have bankrupted them. What a lesson for all business: respect and preserve the lives of all those who use what you create, or face the justice of an Objective government. The next road building company would not dare to make mistakes that ruin the Lives, Liberty, Property and Pursuit of Happiness that were made by Thomas Adam’s company.

        If you think about it, that is a huge failure of modern American jurisprudence!

        Tensor wrote,
        …it is going to cost much more than what the early settlers had to shell out.

        Did you think it was cheap and easy to build a road, without the power of gasoline powered engines? Sorry, Tensor, but you just are NOT thinking. Try clearing a strip of forest just ten feet wide and 100 feet long. You will be STUNNED at the difficulty. Now multiply that by hundreds of miles. I mean you no offense here, but your view is preposterously naive and ignorant.

        I have manually created a drainage ditch of a mere 150 yards through a swamp forest and a marsh. It took me some one hundred hours. I did not have the cash to use a backhoe or Bobcat, so I did it a few hours at a time, for good reason. Throughout the task, I asked myself, how in the heck did pioneers clear even one acre of land for farming! The physical labor is absolutely incredible. No wonder they died early.

        I think it is GOOD that you are asking questions about so many details of infrastructure creation. Nonetheless, all infrastructure systems can be established more efficiently, and with greater justice (taxpayers will not be robbed of their wealth) than when imposed by government and its socio-economic planners.

        Indeed, all of your other questions about infrastructure can be answered by the same understanding. For one example, a network of streets for private homes could easily be created by a land owner who seeks to subdivide his property for private homes. He could include a street plan in his initial design. Woe be unto those who buy a property from someone who is not so forward thinking. In the former case, the homes may amount to a private (even gated) community that organizes its own road maintenance, water supply etc. The land owner may relinquish ownership (for a sensible fee), allowing the home owners to form what is, in effect, a condominium community with its own contractual relationships … perhaps recorded in an ownership Constitution pertinent to that community.

        Do NOT say I have not answered you about the details you want to have explained! I CAN explain them but I am not your teacher. Go and learn for yourself.

        Frankly, I think the Left attracts intellectually lazy minds, who follow the few irrational academic Leftists who think really hard about how to make their failed system actually work.

        For example, Tensor, you asked how Law might work. Pursue this link, and the links and references it provides. If you do not, you are certainly one of those lazy Leftists or Agnostics for whom Rand had no patience. In that case, it’s “the highway” for you. You are not worth the time.

        Objectivism is about Reality, it is NOT an “intellectual exercise” Objectivism is a philosophy for living in the Real World, not a fantasy one hopes to force upon that World.

        Objectivism is ONLY about practical application, but it is NOT about Pragmatics. In Objectivism, long term planning, integration of broad principles, and respect for reason and the individual, are used to establish “the practical”. Under Objectivism “the moral IS the practical”.

        For example, you asked about the implementation of Judges, and other aspects of Law.

        Governments have extended themselves, mostly at the behest of the people and/or private interests as perceived needs arose.

        Comment by RnBram | August 4, 2009

  136. One thing at a time. RnBram wrote –

    The military establishment would be enormously smaller, and just as potent. It would not be engaged in what Thomas Jefferson called “foreign adventures”. It’s common use today is to intervene in various nonsense around the world for entirely altruistic reasons. –

    The U.S. is in Iraq and Afghanistan for the selfish reason of wanting Iraq’s oil and passage through Afghanistan of an oil pipeline.

    RnBram wrote –

    The problems of Iraq, the Taliban, and al Queda would have never arisen if Iran’s government buildings and military had been bombed to oblivion for the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat, was President at the time). –

    There it is – the American approach to foreign policy – If they don’t behave the way we want them to, bomb ’em.

    During the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, the U.S. supported the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

    RnBram wrote –

    Do NOT say I have not answered you about the details you want to have explained! I CAN explain them but I am not your teacher. Go and learn for yourself. –

    If RnBram can explain the details, then he should. It’s put up or shut up time. Slippin’ and slidin’ ain’t gonna do it.

    RnBram has put himself on the line as an Objectivist. If he can explain it, I think he should. I find too much in Objectivism that needs explaining. For example –

    “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
    – Ayn Rand “Atlas Shrugged”

    That shoots to hell the idea of an army. Soldiers live and fight and die for the sake of others.

    Ayn Rand’s fantasy is a nice imaginary structure that cannot exist in the real world. In the first place, it would require that everyone accept the principles of Objectivism, and that’s never going to happen because there are people who care about what happens to other people. It’s in our genes. One man alone in a wilderness can do as he damn pleases, but once there is a community, culture (in the sociologist’s meaning of the term, that is, everything that one learns) is involved, and so is compromise. The childish figure of Roark, who can’t deal with compromise and so blows the buildings up, is Ayn’s model of the Objectivist man. In a real society, such a one wouldn’t have gotten very far.

    Ayn’s notions about human nature are simplistic and unrealistic. Her jejune “philosophy” is a fantasy that seems to have attracted people, for what reason I can only guess, but it leds nowhere.

    If RnBram can answer my questions, he should. If he can’t, honesty requires that he admit that he can’t.

    Comment by Tensor | August 5, 2009 | Reply

    • Tensor, Iraq is one of the places to which as referring when I wrote “…America is cursed when it protects its own interests…“, so your response agrees with my point. Also, the Americans should have ‘gone into’ every Arabic nation that reneged on its agreements by which Americans established the oil drilling and initial refineries in the Middle East. The Arabic governments, in nationalizing American oil, basically stole billions of dollars of American businessmen’s investments. The same thing has now happened in Venezuela, and nothing was done!!

      YES, bomb them… because that is all they will respond to. A half century of Lefty diplomacy has only emboldened the Islamofascists. They carefully avoid all out war and use specious arguments to blame their victims (Western Values, be they socialist or capitalist). Some even engage in peace talks with no intention of being peaceful. They want you to die more than they want to live!

      America faced the same fanaticism from Japan —& dealt with it in four years.

      Tensor wrote, “Soldiers live and fight and die for the sake of others.

      Many do, but many fight and die for values. That is how America defended itself from the British. The Americans valued their freedom and wanted to live, and ensure their descendants would live, with Individual Rights. Those are very values the Left seeks to undermine and wreck, even though America’s poor became wealthier and had better lives than the upper middle class anywhere else, particularly than in communist countries. The Left’s insistence on condemning and destroying those values in the face of SO MUCH evidence demonstrates that they either want political power that Individual Rights denies them or simply hate the success Individual Rights allows those willing to work. That is, they “hate the good for being good”.

      I repeat, Rand’s novels are condensations of principles via the characters she created, they are not naturalistic copies of ordinary people.

      As for me answering your questions, I have said I am not here as a teacher. Given the amount of material available, from which you could actually learn, your responsibility to yourself is to get it right. Indeed, by the age of 15 a person should fully understand that principle. You, Tensor & Leftyblog, out of self-respect, should not self-righteously drop uninformed conclusions on others who also have not done their homework.

      I have given this blog enough information to suggest that your remarks about Rand contradict the ideas of Rand’s novels and misrepresent her philosophy, and I have offered quite a few facts of reality that put the lie to your claims. When faced with a contradiction, honest men seek to resolve it, dishonest men “blank out” & or evade, so as to retain emotionally held rationalizations.

      Cowardice asks the question: is it safe?
      Expediency asks the question: is it politic?
      Vanity asks the question: is it popular?
      But conscience asks the question: is it right?

      Francisco D’Anconia (Ayn Rand) Atlas Shrugged.

      Comment by RnBram | August 5, 2009 | Reply

  137. Tensor, you wrote?
    “Now just because I named a couple of Republican presidents, don’t be goin’ thinkin’ that I’m a Democrat. I always vote against the incumbent, regardless of which party.” My thoughts on that.. so do you have a spine?

    My daddy had a saying..”if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a a duck….. well it probably a duck.” It is a pleasure to meet you Comrade. Or should I just address you as citizen.

    You wrote.. “If the government doesn’t regulate, then some folks will do whatever they can get away with.”
    Ok let’s think about this. Who should be in a position to regulate?
    Seriously, stop and think about that before you read on.

    Should the people/person who makes laws/regulations regarding the economy and the financial well being of this country have some level of formal education in economics or the basics of finance and industry?

    Or are we “better off” allowing career politicians to shape the landscape of the USA’s economic well being, that have NO EXPERIENCE OR EDUCATION in the realm of economics. Seriously! These are politicians that spew whatever it takes to reach their end objective of power or the retention thereof?

    Answer that one please.

    Who is more humane? The person who gives a needy person a fish, or the person who teaches a needy person how to fish?

    See the recent example of Obama and how he is reacting to the difficulty he is having to get the public to endorse his health care plan. When faced with the blow back that it is fiscally irresponsible, he and his entourage retort that we are not factoring in the cost savings that will be experienced with a healthier nation.
    What is the next action in the liberal chain of events?
    Obama and his liberal/socialists friends now want to tax your fat! This in order to strengthen their ability to push the health care bill. This liberal administration has no shame. This is clearly a reactionary political maneuver. Is this is the type of regulation you endorse or support?
    Who is in their right mind?? This is our current government that is in power, I am very saddened to say.
    Who should be making the correct decisions regarding the financial well being of our country? Do you think maybe someone who has many years of real business experience? Or maybe people who have doctorates or masters degrees in Economics or Finance? No say the liberals, WE believe that career politicians with degrees in political science, law, comedy expereince or some other liberal art degree are more qualified with zero or little real world business experience will make better decisions regarding OUR financial fate and destiny.

    I thought my previous statements were self explanatory, however it is clear to me they were misinterpreted. Once you go down the road of government regulation, it will be one tinkering job after another, altering one law after another to placate the public favor without a shred of financial logic behind that action. With little regard for our countries’ well being versus a politician pandering to a financial backer or buying of votes. Read the last two sentences twice please.

    So your statement of “To go on, there are folks who will take advantage of other folks in order to get rich” or POWER (which you forgot to mention), feeds right into my argument.
    Free enterprise is the only and best way to ensure the best interests of the people are served.
    Political manipulation brings sooo many other issues that are corrupt and disingenuous. I mean really, would you trust 80% of the politicians on Capital Hill? Nearly every politician has a goal of being elected to a Washington DC position. Stop, who would really want to be in that role? I for one would never want the responsibility resting on my soul, of voting yeah or nay of sending tens of thousands of young men to die going to war. Do you know any one who would want that on their soul? NOT me! Nor any of my friends. How about you?

    But you want to place the financial well being of this country with someone who has no formal training, with that kind of soul, in charge of regulation that means whether or not you can feed your kids tonight. Seriously!
    Thanks, but no thanks!
    I hope your not overweight because your liberal taxman wants to tax your fat!
    OK Tensor my comrade, lets hear your logic combat this one.

    Comment by JV | August 8, 2009 | Reply

    • Tensor has a BMI of 22.

      Now RnBram tells us what we already know – that the political system of the U.S. is corrupt to the core. But he doesn’t go on to say that so are America’s big businesses.

      RnBram pins a label on someone and then knows exactly how that person thinks. And of course all ‘liberals’ think and act in the same way.


      Everyone who reads news from several sources knows that the U.S. is in very deep. Things are not going well. Is the solution to be found in Ayn’s Objectivism?

      Hands-off free enterprise is an invitation to the unscrupulous to manipulate markets, create monopolies, and exploit – in the worst sense of the word – others. The morality that Ayn expects from everyone just is not there. I wrote before that I think that John Calvin was closer to understanding human nature than Ayn was.

      RnBram has not yet responded to most of my questions. I haven’t answered many of his because they do not deal with the fundamental question being discussed, which is – Can a nation based on Objectivism function as an independent state that functions well for its citizens?

      If the country’s governmental institutions are to consist only of a judiciary, a police force, and an army, then I think that we have fundamental problems.

      Are there to be laws? If so, in the absence of a legislature, who makes the laws?

      How is foreign policy to be determined? Would there be embassys in other countries? If so, how would the persons who staff them be selected, and by whom?

      Who decides that the nation will go to war?

      The truth of it is that Ayn’s fantasy is just that – a fantasy. If it were a practicable political and economic scheme, then why isn’t it existence anywhere on earth?

      By the way, Tensor avoids paying taxes by not having an income high enough to be taxed very much. He lives well. He is not much of a consumer. He stays pretty much out of the system, but never violates laws. Okay, okay – I got a speeding ticket a few months ago, and I’ve paid a few parking tickets over the years, but other than that, I’m clean.

      Comment by Tensor | August 9, 2009 | Reply

      • Tensor, I think you are responding to JV, not to me (RnBram) as you have written.

        There is a BIG difference between a government that is corrupt in its disregard for Individual Rights, and a business that disregards the rights & agreements it makes with its customers. The government has the force of the police and military to make sure you do as they tell you. Businesses do not have that power, and rely upon customer agreement. If they violate your actual Rights then they face charges and possible jail time. If they become wealthy, they do so because of the support of their customers. That support does not come as a simple X on a ballot, it is by something much more valuable: the hard earned cash of the customer.

        Free Markets does not mean a lawless society.

        Tensor I have answered your questions, stop repeating yourself like a 14 yr old?

        The fundamental question being discussed here is not YOUR question, simply because you happened to ask it. People can choose to respond or not. The question has been answered satisfactorily for this venue, if you don’t get it, then go a do your own homework or shut up.

        Objectivism is a philosophy not a political manifesto. However, philosophy includes the examination of its fundamental applications of ethics in a social context. Ayn Rand did that, and showed that the ethics and politics of 1) collectivism (The Left) and 2) mysticism (The Right) are antithetical to individual life and productivity. On ethics, both Left and Right agree that the individual must obey and sacrifice himself to an ‘other’ (people or a god, respectively). That is the ethics of altruism. No other organism lives by altruism (kin selection is not altruism). The proper ethical view does not include any built in obligation to obey or sacrifice oneself to any ‘other’. It is the ethics of egoism (which is not egotism).

        Are there to be laws?” “absence of legislature” These are your assumptions of what Objectivism entails, and in naming those assumptions you display complete and utter ignorance of the philosophy. Your real problem with Objectivism is that you are too stupid to investigate it properly, and perhaps too stupid to understand it.

        Comment by RnBram | August 10, 2009

      • Tensor, Uhmmmm, I don’t want to insult you but you need to open your eyes and read. That was not Rnbram that wrote the entry to responded to, that was me JV.
        And you failed to engage your brain and apply any logic to your argument.
        What sense does it make that we allow career politicians with no education or training in economics or finance dictate the landscape of our economy? Don’t give me that liberal politician doublespeak either. Try answering that question directly.
        Don’t you think that people of doctorates and masters in economics are more qualified? How can anyone argue against that logic? Unless you chose not to use logic, right Tensor. Engage your brain for once.
        Tensor wrote “The truth of it is that Ayn’s fantasy is just that – a fantasy.” Dude, wake up and smell the coffee. The first 150 years of this country more closely resembled Rands vision that that of your beholden dreams of a liberal utopia. 60 years ago the USA was easily the highest standard of living in the world. 60 years of socialism and we are in the back of the pack and sliding. Isn’t the proof in the pudding? The socialism experiment in this country needs to come to an end before it is too late and we have the lowest standard of living in the world.
        By the way, I think it is really “cool” of Tensor to refer to himself in the third person.

        “Hands-off free enterprise is an invitation to the unscrupulous to manipulate markets, create monopolies, and exploit – in the worst sense of the word – others.” You have got to be shitting me! And career politicians haven’t proven to the world that they are far more unscrupulous? And when a career politician demonstrates his greed, the ENTIRE COUNTRY is affected and suffers. When a corrupt CEO strays he only affects a percentage of his customers. Who commits the greater sin? The career politician (refer to entry 138). See Tensor, applying logic is a wonderful thing, try it for once.

        Comment by JV | August 10, 2009

      • You know it seems to me that all the anti-Rand sentiments have a recurring theme here. That being they have illogically equated free- enterprise objectivism with anarchy. An incorrect leap of logic.
        And their best solution is to have unqualified career politicians are somehow going to mystically capture the intelligence without any formal training produce all the correct regulations and solutions.
        But hey, I’m a realist and realize that our country will always have that to some extent. It just needs to be minimal to allow honest, hard working taxpayers the real opportunity to live the American dream. I am being taxed and regulated to death as a small business owner!!
        The over regulated socialistic utopia you dream of will only promote big corporate business and inhibit the small business owner. If you want big brother, your going to get it. Be care of what you wish for, you might just get it.

        Comment by JV | August 10, 2009

      • JV, you are correct, with respect to Tensor’s naive grasp of Objectivism. In my last comment I was going to suggest that Tensor thought Objectivism was anarchism, but did not want to detail it.

        I am not sure how to take Tensor. He is still here arguing against Individual Rights and very restricted government, whilst his ilk have long gone. Is it that Tensor senses something he needs to figure out, or is he just the dog that hopes to get the last shake of the rag?

        I am amused that LeftyBlog’s post, supposedly putting an end to Rand’s ideas , has not a single comment since I buried the idiot who authored it. I do not quite grasp why Tensor is still wrestling away here. He has been shoved underwater enough to know he has been drowned.

        JV wrote, “Don’t you think that people of doctorates and masters in economics are more qualified? How can anyone argue against that logic?

        Sadly, I would NOT want PhD’s or anyone else educated in economics in the Western World in charge of America’s economy! It is their education that is the problem in the first place! It is the education of Bernanke et al. that created this problem, and the problem will not be resolved by men of the same, low, intellectual, caliber.

        JV wrote, “The first 150 years of this country more closely resembled Rands vision that [sic] that of your beholden dreams of a liberal utopia.

        Exacttly! Tensor must go and read and learn. We are not his teachers, and unless he wishes to remain a confident incompetent, he must explore and read a great deal more widely.

        Comment by RnBram | August 10, 2009

      • Tensor, So you won’t answer Rnbrams questions, how about addressing my questions? Or do you shrink away from a challenge?
        I’ll answer your question.. “Everyone who reads news from several sources knows that the U.S. is in very deep. Things are not going well. Is the solution to be found in Ayn’s Objectivism?
        YES!!! emphatically. Sure as hell isn’t socialism.
        The USA was undeniably the greatest country on the planet right up until the new deal. Immigrants flocked here from all over the world for the promise of freedom and the real opportunity to find financial independence. We were the world leader in innovation and commerce because we encouraged and fostered free thinkers and free enterprise.

        Comment by JV | August 11, 2009

  138. Oh and Pelosi now wants the government to spend $195 million on 3 Gulfstream IV jets, so that she can get from coast to coast in better style. Wasn’t it just recently she and her fellow liberal congressmen chastised some CEO’s for using their own “personal” jets to fly to DC. But she thinks its OK for the taxpayers to pay for her jets, when she has enough money herself to buy her own jet. Guess the current Air Force GS III’s just are not comfy enough her!

    Yeah, this is exactly who I want setting economic policy and regulations for our country!!!
    Politicians suck! Get them out of my way!

    Comment by JV | August 8, 2009 | Reply

  139. Very nice site!

    Comment by John620 | August 10, 2009 | Reply

  140. Someone asked “where was Ayn Rand and Reagan when we need them?”

    The answer to this question is..that in this age of the Internet, fast communication, and technology, with just a simple understanding that “INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS”…each person can make the same kind of impact as Rand and Reagan.

    Sounds simple and clear cut doesn’t it? Hold up there Cowboy…from the Left Wing posts in this forum…its obvious that the mental illness of the Left is “cultural”…inculcated from childhood and most likely from a public school education, where Left Wing teachers and curriculum…taught children that it was “evil” to think for themselves, “greedy” to want something for one’s self, and “selfish” to want to do something for one’s self.

    In fact…from grade schools up to and through college, the Left Wing utopian theology is that you must live for others, others, especially the “poor” are the knighted, most deserving, special “saints” for whom the rest of us cannot demand they be accountable for themselves…and for whom the rest of us now must SACRiFICE everything for the POOR.

    OK Then…in order to right this bizarre ship of state that demands unselfish sacrifice and anti-individualism, those of us who respect individual human rights are going to have to begin “teaching” in schools, become principals…become college professors, etc. and other wise change the over arching mass culture of the “denial of the self” for Ayn Rand’s respect for the individual will and mind.

    Ready to do that? I’ve been doing this now for about 20 years…yes, it is hard, and I have my enemies who have tried to get me fired, arrested, kicked out of my job and so on…for merely being truthful. Somehow in the mind of the Left…being truthful, let alone “loving” the elegant concepts of Ayn Rand’s objectivism…is considered “True Evil.”

    But…I slog on, and am happy that I have…without mentioning the word Objectivism, or Ayn Rand…been able to influence thousands of children and young adults in learning how to “think” and use logic, reason, reality, and objective thought…while filtering their emotions through logic, and considering the consequences of their actions…before they engage in stupidity. Learning to be objective is a “skill” just like riding a bike, and once learned…it becomes the most natural state of mind possible in a world filled with utopian Left Wing theological trash…and the elevation of having hormone-driven emotions…that accomplish nothing.

    All organisms seek homeostatis and all kinds love being in control of themselves. Ergo…Ayn Rand’s objectivism as a mind process is “loved” by kids who seek and enjoy the empowerment it gives them over their own minds, emotions…and best of all, problem solving abilities.

    Hugs, Judy

    Comment by Judy Weismonger | August 10, 2009 | Reply

    • Dr Weismonger, while you are heaping ever more balast to your arguments on this thread, Ayn Rand and Objectivism are being shredded, traduced and defamed and need your fierce defenses over here.

      Comment by newleftblog | August 11, 2009 | Reply

      • No, newleftblog, Ayn Rand & Objectivism were so transparently misrepresented in that post that my comment pretty much buried the non-issue you failed to make. No one else is bothering to comment, because there is nothing left to comment on. You just cannot make something out of nothing.

        Comment by RnBram | August 11, 2009

  141. Tensor has moved to his other home in Europe. Goodbye and good luck.

    Comment by Tensor | August 11, 2009 | Reply

    • Clap clap clap clap clap clap. I wish you all the best in your socialist/progressive utopia, thanks. So will you sell your home in the states and give those proceeds to the needy? For what its worth, a friend of mine actually had a progressive/liberal/union member earnestly tell him he should do just that with his second condo. What is this world coming to?

      Comment by JV | August 15, 2009 | Reply

  142. you must be kidding. what does “a lot” mean in “a lot of capital letters or lots of italics” mean. I could put in the italics and caps originally used, but then they would have all the excuse they need to veto what I’ve written, even though I was directly quoting them.

    Brief capitals may just be the easiest emphasis font to use. Italics may just be the quotation of a comment excerpt.

    Given all the issues here, that newleftblog’s concern is the use of caps or italics is astoundingly anti-conceptual. Newleftblog’s comment is akin to a PLO Palestinian at an open Israeli leadership meeting being concerned that some of the Israeli leaders might be smoking, and thereby disturbing the sensibilities of both Jewish and Palestinian observers.

    So, there you are, Newleftblog, in the middle of a torrent of accusations, both rational &/or insulting, concerning your intelligence and character, and such trivia as caps and italics are your concern?? Either you are disingenuous, or you are intellectually paralyzed.

    Whether you are disingenuous, & being dishonest to yourself or, or if you are paralyzed in confusion, either situation is a cue to seek a resolution for the contradictions you face. In both instances, only Ayn Rand can provide a genuine and honest resolution.

    Honesty is why leading Leftists have abandoned socialism in favor of capitalism, and why no leading capitalists have converted to socialism.

    SO, leftyblog, are you capable of genuine, intellectual debate, or are you hopelessly incapable and/or hopelessly attached to your beliefs (like a peasant Christian in 800 AD). Move forward, or quit your position.

    Comment by RnBram | August 12, 2009 | Reply

  143. At one time there were two student atheist groups on our campus. The better funded one (and one still here) was Ayn Rand’s Objectivist group. They came across, as far as I was concerned, as merely a strain of godless Republicans/capitalists and would have an endless stream of speakers proclaiming that the freedom to make lots of money and make war on anybody that might hamper our ability as a nation to make lots of money was the greatest good. I’m used to seeing that mindset from those preaching the prosperity Gospel, but to see it argued that freedom’s greatest expression is through selfishness makes the “revealed knowledge” of religionists seem a little less ridiculous.

    Comment by LanceThruster | August 13, 2009 | Reply

    • So tell me Lance, is your idea of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness all about the altruism? Is it altruistic to point a gun at someone and forcibly tell them that they must give their hard earned money to someone else with the penalty of years of prison if they do not comply?
      Where is the goodness in that action?
      Precisely, where is the goodness in that action of thievery? Good intentions do not validate a crime.
      It is simple… regardless of the motivation is it right or wrong to steal without consent!?! Even if it is the IRS.

      Is that not disrespecting my guaranteed promise of liberty and the my pursuit of happiness? Hell our government wants to give every right imaginable to jailed foreign terrorists however they have no problem or guilt, robbing me of my freedom and hard earned cash (which is my ability to follow my pursuit of happiness in a lot of regards.) My government is NOT treating me in a very humane fashion in this regard. I have rights also and I’ll thank you to remember that.

      As a citizen of the USA I expect, no require, my government to be fair and honor its promises and commitments. Is that too much to ask? According to the progressive/socialists/democrats I am asking far too much, under their altruistic premise that someone else has greater needs than me!! They want to rewrite the constitution to toss out freedom and establish “the good of the collective” as its keystone. Hogwash!!!! Double Hogwash!!!! Myself and a lot of other true Americans will stand up to fight that movement.
      Consider this, all I am asking for (demanding) is my liberty to do what ever I wish with my own money. In other words, freedom. Ultimately my desire is to do much good by giving to the charities of my own choosing. Not to be determined by my government. Hey I’ve got no problem paying for my fair share of the roads, police protection, justice system etc… But don’t rob me to pay some hypochondriacs doctors bills, because he/she made the poor decisions of spending all of their money on a $1,000 big screen television (or alcohol/drugs/gold chains/Xbox) instead of saving/managing his money wisely for that rainy day. God forbid a “needy” person should sell off a valued possession to pay for necessities.
      A good charity will probably get 70-80% of every dollar to the needy. Due to the immense bureaucracy of our government, I would guesstimate that only 15-30% of every dollar gets to the needy when administered by our government. The rest of the money is going down a black hole, draining our economy of productivity.
      Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you feel that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is the motto your country should follow as its keystone… or not. If you don’t say yes, then you honestly should really consider moving a to socialist country, because your not a true American. Don’t tread on me.

      Comment by JV | August 15, 2009 | Reply

      • While there are certainly arguments against redistribution of wealth, I was referring more to the fact that businesses are more likely than not to ignore externalities (that is, costs that should be factored into their product but aren’t). So when a company makes money by dumping their toxic waste somewhere and we pay for it down the line after they’re long gone, that’s similar to your example of being robbed at gunpoint.

        You can go get bent over all your other ditto head histrionics. It’s to your benefit too to have a just and healthy society.

        Comment by LanceThruster | August 17, 2009

  144. Good gravy, do you really think capital letters are truly detracting from any enjoyment of this post? Get a life and a grip upon the idea that these are very passionate issues being discussed here from both sides of the debate. And capital letters simply highlight that authors focus. Gheesh, you don’t have to be such a killjoy Nazi.

    Comment by JV | August 15, 2009 | Reply

  145. Lance wrote “It’s to your benefit too to have a just and healthy society.” On the surface that is a simply point to agree with. My “issue with that statement is simply, who determines what is just and healthy? Career politicians who are on the take form lobbyists?
    Big government and greater government regulation is not the answer. Take the current Obamacare issue.
    There has to be a better solution for healthcare reform than just the government taking it over.
    I recently read that the average doctor spends $174,000 per year on malpractice insurance. Can’t guarantee that is correct. But if the government would get out of the way, allow the consumer to sign a waiver that they can not sue the doctor, it’s logical health insurance premiums would go down roughly 40%. If you had that option to lower your health care insurance premium by that amount would you take it? I would. I think most people would. But our government isn’t pursuing that option. I feel the liberals want government health care for the control factor over the masses, that allows them to more easily apply their Robin Hood type of agenda. Seems to me that the government does more harm than good, even if they have good intentions (if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.)

    Comment by JV | August 18, 2009 | Reply

  146. Question – What will happen to our society when the public loses confidence in the USA’s ability to repay our debt? In the last 7 months we have expanded our deficit by 20%!!!!
    China, who has been the primary purchaser of our debt, has made it clear that they are losing confidence.
    When Obamacare is in place, expanding the deficit at a ridiculous pace, it is logical to assume they may not have an appetite for our debt. Compound that with the social security bankruptcy looming on the horizon. If no one buys our debt, the great depression could like like a picnic in the park.
    Could get real ugly!! Like violence and anarchy ugly. A social class war/revolution could easily erupt within the next 5-10 to 20 years.
    Going Galt, moving to Tahiti, is looking more and more tempting every day.

    Comment by JV | August 18, 2009 | Reply

    • Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, JV.

      First you were telling me I should consider moving to a socialist country, now you’re ready to take your bat and ball (provided you’re not using it for armed insurrection) and turn tail on outta here.

      Though St. Reagan assured us that Medicare would be the decline and fall of the empire, those same nattering nabobs screeching about Obama=Hitler and not wanting government involved in healthcare, also don’t want govt messing with their Medicare. It’s as clueless as actor Craig T. Nelson going on TV and saying he believed in self-sufficiency because he was on food stamps and welfare before “and nobody helped him”.

      Senior Research Fellow with the Economic Growth Program, Phillip Longman has a book out called “Best Care Anywhere: Why VA Health Care is Better Than Yours” that shows why the efficiency of a government healthcare program and its patient tracking/monitoring protocols actually provided superior patient care. They were the ones that made the connection for VIOXX and heart attack deaths because of their patient database software.

      More people die each year from preventable medical errors than from car crashes (Institute of Medicine published “To Err Is Human” in 1999. That report set the annual number of deaths due to medical errors at 98,000) but you’re still stuck on the meme that lawsuits are the problem. I hope no one you care about dies from incompetent treatment.

      Comment by LanceThruster | August 20, 2009 | Reply

    • LanceThruster, what constitutes the decline and fall of an empire? Might it be trillions of dollars of debt, plus one final “Thrust” to the heart of every productive American, such that the nation cannot get back on its feet.

      VA Health Care may be better, whilst it has the temporary influx of money from a wealthy America. Spread that expense to the rest of America and NO-ONE will receive such care. This flush, followed by decline, is precisely how Canadian Health Care progressed over the last 24 years. Initially the governments spent lots of money on hospital extensions, more doctors and better care, but then the government had to start cutting back. Where Canadian Health Care might have been equal to or better than American Health Care at the start, we are now 30th in the World. That is far behind America.

      Americans do not come to Canada for Health Care; it is Canadians who go to America for Health Care. Under Obamacare, Canadians and Americans will have no such alternative.

      Comment by RnBram | August 20, 2009 | Reply

  147. This is the most unscrupulously dishonest article I have ever read in regard to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. The writer has either never passed eyes over the entirety of an Objectivist philosophy book, or does not possess the integrative capacity to articulate and retain the essentials of a higher-level set of ideas. This is absolutely disgusting, and anyone reading this would do well not to take my word for it. Read the essay “The Objectivist Ethics” (search it on Google) alone and the least intelligent among you will find at least thirty problems with this article. Disagreement is the only way to work out the truth, but this is outright libel, and you should be ashamed.

    Comment by Adam | August 18, 2009 | Reply

    • Hey Adam,

      No Sh_t Sherlock!! :-) NewLeftBlog gets even more insane by suggesting:

      Ayn Rand and Objectivism are being shredded, traduced and defamed and need your fierce defenses over here.” (a subComment at 140.

      If you have ever heard the expression, “It’s better to keep your mouth closed and look foolish, than to open your mouth and prove it” there are few writers and bloggers who prove it as brilliantly as does this post and the one he links to.

      He actually struggles to link Rand’s Objectivism with Social Darwinism (SD). He argues it was the ideal of the American ultra-rich, but I have a strong sense that if one wealthy, non-entrepreneurial son claimed it was an ideal, it was the Left that argued it was the view of all the rich. Lefties have a way of thinking that everyone else thinks the same way as they do, but deliberately make opposite choices so as to take advantage —not that the Lefties wouldn’t if they had the chance. That is why there is such a thing as the “Limousine Left”.

      It was Adolf Hitler’s racial theories that were based on Social Darwinism, not Rands. “The stronger has to rule and must not mate with the weaker,” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. NewLeftBlog blanks out the fact that he and Hitler were both socialists!!.

      Rand and Leonard Peikoff, who’s book “Ominous Parallels” traces the philosophical path that lead to Nazism —and how the American Left is on the same path— were vehemently opposed to all forms of Socialism, as well as to all forms of Determinism (Social Darwinism is Genetic Determinism).

      They demonstrate that man is guided by conceptual volition, a form of choice NOT available to any other organism. Therefore, men are not mere subjects of their genes, but ARE dependent on their rational faculty. They must therefore recognize each man’s individuality, work WITH him rather than enslave him at the point of a gun or be a voluntary slave to him, and TRADE with him. Only through the Individual Rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, including mutual trade to mutual benefit, can men live together in a civilized manner.

      Whilst all forms of Socialism (being founded on the false morality of altruism and the arbitrary epistemology that supports it) lead to the destruction of its political victims, only Capitalism with Individual Rights leads to a moral and civilized society. Period.

      Comment by RnBram | August 19, 2009 | Reply

      • Period, hmmm?

        Well I guess that settles it.

        Never mind that under regulated capitalist robber barons have brought the economy to its knees.

        Never mind that their philosophy seems to be “privatize profits, socialize losses.”

        You speak like a true believer (in that you don’t appear willing to let a few inconvenient facts get in the way).

        Comment by LanceThruster | August 20, 2009

      • No Lance, if you read other comments above, you would see that I do not support ANY government interventions of the kind you suggest. Robber barons only existed because they bought politicians & judges. Both should have been charged, but that would have required HONEST politicians & judges. Incredibly, Lefties blame the businessmen and turn a blind eye to the greater perfidy of the Politicians and Judges. Learn enough that you too do not fall into the same absurd trap.

        Comment by RnBram | August 20, 2009

      • RnBram – You speak in absolutes that smacks of a Utopia. Everything would be OK if we only had honest politicians and judges (ensuring that only honest businesspeople would prosper)?

        It’s true that I have not read back for all previous comments so I do not know your positions in detail. Supposedly small government conservatives didn’t blanch at the massive deficit brought on by illegal and unnecessary wars and wasteful and unmatched military expenditures. But to actually pay to tend to those wounded and maimed in such excursions, causes these same a-holes to tighten up the strings on their pocketbooks. Thank you for your service, now f*ck off and die!

        Americans go to Canada for prescription drugs. And an American that gets hurt in Canada wouldn’t be bankrupted by the experience. Lots of things are socialist that work. The highway system, education, the protection of police, fire, and military personnel, the FDA, the EPA, even at one time FEMA, before the POS GWB gutted it and installed incompetent cronies. True, they could all stand some improvement, but to destroy the whole system because of some manageable flaws seems a bit harsh. You can argue how business is not the enemy, but unless their goal to maximize profits at the expense of all else is kept in check, they will continue to operate as amoral entities that seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

        Comment by LanceThruster | August 21, 2009

      • First, LanceThruster, you must learn that there are Absolutes.

        What you see with your eyes, hear with your ears, taste with your tongue, feel with your skin, smell with your nose, provide you with your ONLY awareness of the World. What they provide is Absolute.

        That awareness may, at times be confusing to your thought, but nonetheless it provides you with all you can muster to understanding your world.

        A pencil stood in a glass of water appears to be broken, but from that you can grasp the principle of refraction. It’s not the pencil, but the physics you must learn, to see that the pencil only appears to be disjointed. It is not that your senses are at fault —they merely tell you the truth of natural physics— it is the physics your senses tell you.

        Lance, your comment at this blog site is an Absolute.

        Individual Rights (to Life, Liberty, Property, & the Pursuit of Happiness) requires considerable education and worldliness to be fully understood. Many, many, adults fail to properly grasp such abstractions to their death bed. Of course, that does not mean the Individual Rights (IR) are faulty.

        Much the same as quantum physics (QP) accurately describes the behavior of sub-atomic particles, both the principles of IR and QP elude the thinking of individual Americans.

        LanceThruster, absolutes ARE absolutes. If you had not realized that before, observe it now. Indeed, as you move about the world, seek to observe absolutes. When a cashier gives you the wrong change, do you correct it, or do you simply accept that there are no Natural Absolutes and accept the difference as a matter of Natural Uncertainty? I think you would prefer to receive the correct change, just as…

        A soldier whose body was obliterated by an IED is, Absolutely, a shattered and DEAD human being.

        A tax that confiscates money from a small business is Absolutethe END of that man’s chance to expand is business.

        A health care system that refuses to pay for a 60 year old leaves that person suffering, even as the amount it pays for a sixteen year old is an Absolute.

        Here are some mundane responses:

        You think that Americans seeking cheap drugs in Canada is a sign of the weakness of American medicine. Well, Canada has passed a coercive law that says pharmaceutical companies must charge a *generic* price for their drugs. That means, American companies can buy American drugs BACK from Canadian companies at a price that is cheaper than that by which American companies sell their drugs to Canadians.

        So, Canadian Laws force American companies to sell their drugs well below the prices they need to recoup and pay for the costs of drug development, and that cheating price is offered to Americans via Canada.

        Greedy cheapies wish that they could have that same drug at little or zero expense, whilst playing the “I suffer more than you” card.


        The early American highways were built by businessmen who saw the benefits of roads that provided customers with access to their businesses designs. Wow, imagine, a business that pays so you can come to them. Too bad there are not more of those, instead of the ridiculous and tedious Concession roads that require drivers to move as along the lines demarcating a checker board. Who wants to drive along the square edges of checker board squares?

        Education, (I was a teacher for ten years), is the most abominable of all socialist systems. The young are not taught to think for themselves (despite lip service to that fact), in the end they are taught to accept the ‘party-line’ AS IF it were the result of enlightened thought!

        NO, the destruction of such systems is NOT harsh. Were it disposed of, and were the President to remind Americans to plan for catastrophies, as many do, then events such as Katrina would, overall, be of little consequence.

        It is the Lefty notion that individuals cannot sustain themselves, and that convinces those individuals that they should not have had to, that leads to their death or financial decimation. The Left is Death.

        Comment by RnBram | August 21, 2009

  148. RnBram – for a former teacher, you have remarkable tunnel vision (and quite a condescending attitude to boot – to the point that I consider you pompous).

    Your claim of “absolutes” regarding the senses is wrong from the start as it ignores the very real condition known as hallucinations.

    Secondly, you repeat the memes of mythos. A point in fact is from an essay written by Steve Kangas

    Most Americans have accepted the myth that early Americans were rugged individualists, pioneers who blazed trails into the Western hills and overcame adversity on the strength of their own self-reliance.

    ‘Tain’t necessarily so.


    The West has a rich tradition of dependency on government. As historian Stephanie Coontz says: “It would be hard to find a Western family today or at any time in the past whose land rights, transportation options, economic existence, and even access to water were not dependent on federal funds.”

    Maybe I’ll get the desire to address some of your other points, but you come across as lecturing rather than discussing so it’s not as if you’re open to opposing views; you’re just looking to score points.

    I was once quite strong on the value of libertarianism. A brilliant attorney friend explained how in certain circumstances it was unworkable. He said that for issues such as environmental protection and dealing with air pollution for instance, rather than a centralized agency that those affected would need to bring about a class action lawsuit against the individual polluters.

    There’s a great web site with collected “Critiques of Libertarianism”. One of my favorites in the quote section is one dealing with libertarians aghast at government force by gunpoint, unless it’s to protect their stuff.

    Comment by LanceThruster | August 21, 2009 | Reply

    • Re LanceThruster, (hence “LT”)
      Here I will only address, for other readers, the nature of my certainty and your argument concerning hallucinations. They are related issues.

      First, I do indeed have knowledge of which I AM certain.

      I know that 2 + 2 things in the same context, indicates 4 of those things. I know that the Earth orbits the sun. I know that taxation constitutes coercion.

      Having such certainty is the character of a Man. The alternative is to be uncertain.

      To be uncertain, especially on principle, is full-blown Scepticism. The full-blown Sceptic HAS to distort language and meaning in order to maintain his untenable views. Therefore, if you consider me to be pompous for my certainty, I will take it as a compliment. It is not “pompous” to recognize facts of reality, but it IS pompous to expect others to disregard them. (I suggest that your assertion is a classic example of psychological projection, of your own, mental, approach. Lacking certainty, you find those who have it to be “pompous”.)

      How does this tie into hallucinations?

      You wrote, :
      Your claim of “absolutes” regarding the senses.[sic] is wrong from the start as it ignores the very real condition known as hallucinations.”

      Readers, please note that, that sentence reveals a weak command of words & the concepts to which they refer. It begins by speaking of senses, and then implies hallucinations have something to do with senses. In fact, “hallucination” refers to confusions of the mind, some of which are experienced as if they were sensory. (If you click the link, please note the amphibolous use of “sensory experience” in definition #1 of hallucination. The very next phrase in the definition indicates that it is not speaking of a true sensory experience.)

      Since I was speaking, specifically, of the senses, and since people often confuse hallucination with illusion, I must surmise that LT intends the latter.

      I learned the following, some 30 yrs ago —my entire approach to thinking and ideas changed.

      The Senses are as physically absolute, and as fixed, as any chemical reaction (e.g. 2H2 + O2 + heat => 2H2O). They are incapable of misrepresenting anything. Their only task is to emit a signal, by way of a fixed electro-chemical process along nerves. That signal only indicates that something has impinged upon the sensor within the range of its physical capabilities. If our nerves are functioning normally (uninfluenced by disease or chemicals), it is only our thinking minds that can interpret, or misinterpret, what the signal means.

      Since all nerve signals are transmitted by the exact same electro-chemical means the signal is the same, regardless of what sensor is signalling. (The link is to an excellent animation.)

      What matters to our brainis the nerve pathway along which the signal is transmitted. That signal does not become a perception, let’s say it is a “sound”, until it arrives in that part of the brain where signals from nerves connected to sound detectors (the cochlea) are processed. To be absolutely clear, I must emphasize that it, quite literally, is NOT a “sound” until that brain processing has occurred. It was initially just air pressure vibrations, then vibrations of the ear drum, of middle ear ossicles, of the vestibule, of the cochlear basal membrane and of the organ of Corti. The organ of Corti transmits the actual nerve signal.

      But, that signal is still NOT a sound! It does not become a sound until the perceptual mechanisms that organize those nerve signals (science does not yet know how) into the form by which our conscious mind experiences them.

      Only now can we deal with LT’s issue of illusions.

      A pencil dropped into a glass of water appears to be ‘broken’. However, when we pull the pencil from the glass of water, we see that the pencil s not broken. Why?

      The obvious reason, thanks to modern understandings of biology and of physics, is that when one positions a pencil (or oar) such that it traverses an air-water boundary, the direction of light transmitted from beneath the water changes as it crosses the waterline, whereas the light from the pencil above the water passes no such change. Light rays that reach our retina plainly come from radically different positions on the ‘canvas’ that is our field of view. That ‘break’ is NOT a hallucination although some may consider it an illusion. It is, in my view, an absolute proof that our sense of sight provides us with the facts of Nature. That is “Refraction Happens!” Our sense of sight actually provides our minds with the effect of a change in Refraction Index.

      How GREAT is THAT?


      So LT, if you are that screwed up with respect to the nature of one’s senses, how can we possibly consider your subsequent echoes of some lawyers ideas about Libertarianism? Furthermore, my position is in no way that of Libertarianism. Libertarianism is as abhorrent to me, to the extent that I can call myself an Objectivist, as is religion, communism and socialism.

      Comment by RnBram | August 23, 2009 | Reply

      • Gosh I hate how LeftBlog has implemented the WordPress blogging system.

        What complete A-holes.

        Comment by RnBram | August 23, 2009

      • Good grief, the link to milquetoast is totally screwed. Use this one.

        Comment by RnBram | August 23, 2009

  149. I spent enough time creating a decent and honest explanation for readers at this site, only to have the site design bugger me. How lovely.

    Comment by RnBram | August 23, 2009 | Reply

  150. Yep, I screwed that up too, cause it is a waste of time. Again: hallucination.

    Comment by RnBram | August 23, 2009 | Reply

  151. I see NewLeftBlog has expanded his proscriptions so that any who offer an idea that might not be agreeable to him can be deleted on the grounds that it constitutes the launching of “a comprehensive personal philosophy”.

    Let us not have an open debate of ideas unless that debate stays within the bounds of the intellectual Leftist dictator that is newleftblog.

    Clearly, the freedom to which I subscribe is NOT that of “newleftblog”. To him, the only freedom is to comply with him/her.

    Yep, when it comes right down to it Leftists truly ARE dictators.

    Get lost you leftist pig.

    Comment by RnBram | August 23, 2009 | Reply

  152. Yup, pompous.

    Like I said, for a teacher, you seem to struggle with a lot of concepts (such as grammar, specifically subject/verb agreement).

    Such as: “Your claim [of “absolutes” regarding the senses] IS wrong from the start…”

    Again what you claim as real based only on the senses is flawed. You made the claim, now you waffle.

    Get lost (one-time teacher) and waffle boy

    Comment by LanceThruster | August 23, 2009 | Reply

  153. “A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.” — Howard Scott

    Comment by LanceThruster | August 24, 2009 | Reply

    • “Crime is a product of social excess”
      “One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ”
      “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

      “The goal of socialism is communism.”

      “It is true that liberty is precious – so precious that it must be rationed”

      -Vladimir Lenin quotes (Russian Founder of the Russian Communist Party, leader of the Russian Revolution of 1917, 1870-1924)

      Comment by JV | September 2, 2009 | Reply

    • A criminal is a person with ambition but insufficient brainpower to create what he or she desires.–Me.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 25, 2010 | Reply

  154. Very nice site!

    Comment by Pharma208 | November 27, 2009 | Reply

  155. Forget Ayn Rand, read Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard and go straight to the source behind social darwinist philosophy.

    Social Darwinism is not the end goal. The goal is to evolve beyond Social Darwinism. Ayn Rand understand the nature of reality but she was missing the point, probably because of her atheism she saw no point. But the point is to make life better, happier, to remove the limits imposed on us by nature and to break free from the shackles of the state of nature. To embrace the state of nature is to embrace a never ending war of survival of the fittest, a total war of clan vs clan, left vs right, north vs south.

    Comment by Rationalist | December 15, 2009 | Reply

    • You really didn’t get the section in John Galt’s speech about the initiation of force, did you?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 25, 2010 | Reply

    “A man’s opportunities are never exhausted so long as other men (who are not his friends) possess millions of acres and thousands of tons of gold.”[Might Is Right]
    “The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into a perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance even as it was the heritage of previous generations. This “condition of combat” may be disguised with the holy phrases of St. Francis, or the soft deceitful doctrines of a Kropotkin or Tolstoi, but it cannot be eventually evaded by any human being or any tribe of human beings. It is there and it stays there, and each man (whether he will or not) has to reckon with it. It rules all things; it governs all things; it reigns over all things and it decides all who imagine policemanized populations, internationally regulated tranquility, and State organized industrialism so joyful, blessed and divine.”
    [Might Is Right]

    Comment by Rationalist | December 15, 2009 | Reply

    • Ayn Rand totally rips apart your opportunities section.

      From Atlas Shrugged, Part Three, Chapter 1: Atlantis, John Galt’s Men of the Mind Speech: “They are counting on you to go on, to work to the limit of the inhumane and to feed them while you last–and when you collapse, there will be another victim starting out and feeding them, while struggling to survive–and the span of each succeeding victim will be shorter, and you’ll die to leave them a railroad, while your last descendant-in-spirit will die to leave them a loaf of bread. This does not worry the looters of the moment. Their plan–like all the plans of royal looters before them–is only that the loot shall last their lifetime. It has always lasted before, because in one generation they could not run out of victims. But this time–*it will not last*. The victims are on strike.”

      Part Three Chapter 8: The Egoist “Which one of us would succeed, if I were to compete with you for control over your musclemen? Sure, I could pretend–and I wouldn’t save your economy or your system, nothing will save them now–but I’d perish and what you’d win would be what you’ve always won in the past: a postmonement, one more stay of execution, for another year–or month–bought at the price of whatever hope and effort might still be squeezed out of the best human remnants might still be left around you, including me. That’s all you’re after and *that* is the length of your range. A month? You’d settle for a week–on the unchallenged absolute that there will always be another victim to find. But you’ve found your last victim–the one who refuses to play his historical part. The game is up, brother.”

      Did it ever occur to you that you might run out of other men (including your friends) to loot from?

      Anyone who practices the philosophy (if it deserves such a dignified term) is no better than you average looter like Wesley Mouch.

      Who is John Galt?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 23, 2010 | Reply

  157. Unfortunately there are followers of Carl Marx who are in high government positions. These people have a nightmarish vision of what a society should be. Like their mentor they tend to have sociopathic tendencies, and an unquenchable thirst for power. How a civilized person could adopt such a vicious world view is beyond me.

    A journalist in my local paper accused a large corporation of being evil because they laid people off. Here is my response…
    Mike Littwin called Amazon evil. You failed to connect the dots. Amazon simply made a good business decision in reaction to the new internet sales tax Gov. Ritter signed into law. Amazon actually told the Governor prior to him signing this into law that they would pull out. Ritter still moved forward anyhow. The only reason the new tax was necessary is because Ritter failed in his role as chief executive of Colorado to cut expenses and balance the budget. The failure of Ritter to properly manage the state budget is the “real” cause. Instead he chose to raise taxes. If he had properly cut expenses, the new internet sales tax would have been unnecessary. Our Governors failure as chief executive is the only reason Amazon had to fire people. They unspoken truth is that Ritter wouldn’t cut expenses because of the Labor Unions threats to cutoff campaign contributions if he cut one penny of wages. If creating unemployment is evil, then it is only logical to conclude that the socialistic/progressive tax and spend agenda is evil. Just look at the chronically high 10-20% unemployment rates of Europe.

    Sounds just like the story line out of Atlas Shrugged to me.
    Currently the government payroll is higher than the private sector payroll. 50 years ago it was roughly half. And the govt. does no pay cuts or lay offs. With “real” unemployment of 17.5%, this means the private sector is experiencing an unemployment rate of 35%. This is worse than the great depression. How much weight can you put on a card table before the legs collapse?

    Followers of Marx can only expect nightmarish unemployment rates, economic collapse, families losing their homes and children going hungry. Real nice vision.

    Comment by JV | March 13, 2010 | Reply

    • Completely beautiful. I heard that the Louvre museum in Paris hired an artist to put it on canvas and they’re going to put it up where the Mona Lisa used to be.

      I am so moving to Mars the first minute that it’s technologically possible. I invite all thinking minds to come with me. We’ll leave the looters behind.

      Who is John Galt?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 25, 2010 | Reply

  158. I agree that Rand was a sociopath. Her entire philosophy based on selfishness is despicable. Humans are naturally altruistic, as are most other animals.

    Comment by Julia | March 30, 2010 | Reply

    • Here is the problem with the socialistic approach.

      “You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”
      William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister around 1916.

      Stop, Think and Reflect on these powerful words. Our Country is at stake as we know it. Be strong and believe in your convictions! :)

      Helping the helpless is the right thing to do. Helping the clueless and lazy only takes away from what the truly helpless could receive.

      Comment by Johnny G | March 31, 2010 | Reply

    • Oh, really? Humans are altruistic? Please explain this.

      Why is egoism despicable? It’s just human nature.

      Who is John Galt?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 24, 2010 | Reply

  159. Your website is like a blonde with a brain. I love it. All jokes apart, very informative aricle and equally impressive design.

    Comment by Lauramse | June 14, 2010 | Reply

    • I’ve known plenty of blondes (including my mother) with high intelligent quotients. Your joke is determistic and cruel.

      Have a nice day.

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | June 24, 2010 | Reply

  160. Further comments will be entertained at-


    Comment by newleftblog | July 17, 2010 | Reply

    • Why?

      Comment by Owen Kellogg | August 6, 2010 | Reply

  161. Classism is a necessity in American democracy, and the only method of assuring to past generations that their work has been useful and fruitful within the scheme that capitalism provides while also allowing sufficient social mobility for newcomers (immigrants or not) to acquire the benefits of capitalism and democracy to further the obligation of equal opportunity in such a society.

    The alternative is to give from those who have earned and give to those who have not earned as a result of focusing upon equal opportunity as equal benefit from a pre-existing prosperous pie.

    Taking from those who have to give to those who don’t is the epitome of social darwinism by endowing all regardless of their contribution to society. It is communistic at least, and the most unfair of economic partitioning, the very flaw that communism seeks to cure.

    Comment by Pat | November 19, 2010 | Reply

  162. Useful information. Fortunate me I discovered your site unintentionally, and I’m stunned why this coincidence did not came about earlier! I bookmarked it.

    Comment by steroizi anabolizanti | November 5, 2011 | Reply

  163. An awful lot of hogwash in here.

    Comment by Kasia Yechimowicz | January 2, 2012 | Reply

  164. Its like you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a little bit, but instead of that, this is fantastic blog. A great read. I’ll certainly be back.

    Comment by Emory Erlwein | May 23, 2012 | Reply

  165. ‘Libertaria’ in practice = Somalia

    Comment by John | July 13, 2012 | Reply

  166. A person necessarily help to make seriously posts I would state. That is the very first time I frequented your web page and thus far? I amazed with the analysis you made to make this actual put up incredible. Great activity!

    Comment by Dropbox Enterprise | August 27, 2012 | Reply

  167. Hi there, I discovered your blog by means of Google whilst looking for a comparable topic, your web site got here up, it seems to be good. I have added to my favourites|added to my bookmarks.

    Comment by click here | August 28, 2012 | Reply

  168. heard it said that Ayn Rand was a sociopath because she advocated acting on selfish impulses rather than on morality. Such statements, loaded

    Pingback by “HULK SMASH!” = Ayn Rand’s Ideal? « the desert objectivist | September 9, 2012 | Reply

  169. Hey! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group?

    There’s a lot of folks that I think would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Thank you

    Comment by Earle | September 24, 2012 | Reply

  170. I love reading an article that will make men and women think.
    Also, many thanks for permitting me to comment!

    Comment by family law attorney pennsauken nj | September 29, 2012 | Reply

  171. Hi there just wanted to give you a quick heads
    up. The words in your post seem to be running off
    the screen in Opera. I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I thought I’d
    post to let you know. The style and design look great though!
    Hope you get the problem fixed soon. Many thanks

    Comment by webkatalog | October 4, 2012 | Reply

  172. Good day I am so grateful I found your blog, I really found you by mistake,
    while I was searching on Askjeeve for something else, Anyhow I am here now
    and would just like to say kudos for a marvelous post and a
    all round enjoyable blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to look over it all at the moment but I have bookmarked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read more, Please do keep up the awesome job.

    Comment by is torrent illegal | October 6, 2012 | Reply

  173. Good day! I simply wish to give you a huge thumbs up for your excellent info you’ve got here on this post. I will be returning to your blog for more soon.

    Comment by Immigration Advisers Kent | October 18, 2012 | Reply

  174. I believe everything said was actually very reasonable. But,
    what about this? suppose you were to write a killer post
    title? I ain’t suggesting your content isn’t good,
    but suppose you added a title to maybe get a person’s attention? I mean Ayn Rand, sociopathic politics Left Blog is a little plain. You should look at Yahoo’s front page and
    note how they write article headlines to get people to click.
    You might add a video or a picture or two to get readers
    interested about everything’ve written. In my opinion, it would make your blog a little livelier.

    Comment by caught downloading roms | October 28, 2012 | Reply

  175. You really make it seem really easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be actually something that I feel I would by no means understand. It sort of feels too complex and very wide for me. I am having a look ahead in your subsequent put up, I will try to get the grasp of it!

    Comment by otto bcn | November 19, 2012 | Reply

  176. An impressive share! I have just forwarded this onto a coworker who has been doing
    a little homework on this. And he actually ordered me lunch because I stumbled upon it for him.

    .. lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thank YOU for the
    meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending the time to discuss this
    subject here on your site.

    Comment by Upholstered Chairs | November 21, 2012 | Reply

  177. Definitely believe that that you said. Your favourite justification appeared to be on the web the easiest thing to be mindful of.
    I say to you, I definitely get annoyed whilst folks consider concerns that they plainly don’t recognize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the highest as well as defined out the whole thing with no need side-effects , other people could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thank you

    Comment by daniel prechtel | December 27, 2012 | Reply

  178. It’s appropriate time to make some plans for the long run and it’s
    time to be happy. I have learn this publish and if I may just I wish to suggest you few interesting issues or
    suggestions. Perhaps you could write subsequent articles relating
    to this article. I want to read even more issues approximately it!

    Comment by coldwater creek | January 15, 2013 | Reply

  179. Just wish to say your article is as astounding.
    The clearness on your put up is just nice and that i could suppose you are an expert in this subject.

    Well along with your permission let me to grasp your RSS feed to keep updated with impending post.
    Thanks one million and please carry on the enjoyable work.

    Comment by prescription glasses | January 19, 2013 | Reply

  180. We stumbled over here by a different website and thought I may as
    well check things out. I like what I see so now i am following
    you. Look forward to looking into your web page yet again.

    Comment by business and personal | January 26, 2013 | Reply

  181. I am truly thankful to the holder of this web site who has
    shared this fantastic piece of writing at here.

    Comment by wso free | March 8, 2013 | Reply

  182. With thanks, Helpful stuff!

    Comment by ティファニー 指輪 | March 23, 2013 | Reply

  183. I have read several good stuff here. Certainly price bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how a lot effort you set to make the sort of excellent informative site.

    Comment by Have A Peek At This Website | April 6, 2013 | Reply

  184. Ha Ha Ha to all you racists and sociopaths the US is capitalist/socialist! And Obama won, again!

    Comment by Jay | April 6, 2013 | Reply

  185. First of all I want to say excellent blog! I had a quick question in which I’d like to ask if you don’t mind.
    I was curious to know how you center yourself and clear your head prior to writing.
    I have had a difficult time clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out there.
    I truly do take pleasure in writing but it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes
    are lost just trying to figure out how to begin.
    Any recommendations or hints? Cheers!

    Comment by air maxes | April 9, 2013 | Reply

  186. Nice work, glad to have stumbled on this place on blogs list.
    This is the kind of resources that should be available around
    the web. You should seriously think about writing more stuff like
    this on web 2.0 list. Shame on the search engines for not ranking this blog higher.
    If you’re interested, please come and read my web site. Kudos

    Comment by surd | May 17, 2013 | Reply

  187. Looks like you have your fans. or should I say sycophants. Just the type that Ayn Rand wrote about. I think you misunderstand and misinterpret what she has to say, maybe willfully to suit your own agenda. Not worth discussing or arguing with you about this, but I do occasionally read your blog for entertainment.

    Comment by Vincente | May 17, 2013 | Reply

  188. Nice weblog here!

    Comment by May | May 19, 2013 | Reply

  189. Wow! This can be one of the most helpful blogs on this subject. Basically Excellent. I’m also an expert in this topic so I can understand your hard work.

    Comment by look at these | May 23, 2013 | Reply

  190. It is ignorant to label her philosophy as neo-nietzschian, as she later refuted many of Nietzsche’s views, despite in her early years admiring him. As an admirer of Nietzsche I can almost assert that he would not have admired this laughable excuse for a philosopher and intellectual.

    Comment by joeschmo77 | July 3, 2013 | Reply

  191. Leftard, moralizing nonsense. Learn something about intellectual history, you cretin.

    Comment by Anya Rand | September 6, 2013 | Reply

  192. My spouse and I stumbled over here from a different
    website and thought I should check things out.
    I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to looking
    into your web page again.

    Comment by 2cdlma.i0r127.bbs.mythem.es | October 4, 2013 | Reply

  193. Thank you for any other informative site. The place else
    could I am getting that kind of info written in such an
    ideal manner. I’ve a venture that I’m simply now operating
    on, and I’ve been on the glance out for such information.

    Comment by Kim | October 17, 2013 | Reply

  194. Great post.

    Comment by monster paradise hack | February 5, 2014 | Reply

  195. I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought
    this post was great. I don’t know who you are
    but certainly you are going to a famous blogger
    if you are not already ;) Cheers!

    Comment by forever | February 21, 2014 | Reply

  196. Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the images on this blog loading?
    I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or
    if it’s the blog. Any responses would be greatly appreciated.

    Comment by kansas city | February 21, 2014 | Reply

  197. Emotional instability+shallow thinking+the need+of support+or power= leftism

    Comment by A. Alexander | March 20, 2014 | Reply

  198. adding this RSS to my email and can look out for a lot more of your interesting content.

    Comment by Kimber | March 23, 2014 | Reply

  199. The article completely misrepresents Ayn Rands ideas. Her 3 fundamental values are reason, purpose, and self esteem.

    Comment by Anonymous | May 17, 2014 | Reply

  200. Greate article. Keep writing such kind of info
    on your page. Im really impressed by it.

    Comment by Isabelle | July 6, 2014 | Reply

  201. Hi i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anywhere, when i
    read this article i thought i could also make comment due to this sensible article.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 17, 2014 | Reply

  202. Hello! Would you mind if I share your blog with my
    group? There’s a lot of folks that I think would really
    appreciate your content. Please let me know.

    Comment by www.skiguide.Com.au | October 17, 2014 | Reply

  203. It’s fantastic that you are getting ideas from this post
    as well as from our argument made at this time.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 19, 2014 | Reply

  204. Keep up the writing.

    Comment by Anonymous | October 20, 2014 | Reply

  205. nice articles

    Comment by Anonymous | October 21, 2014 | Reply

  206. thank you for share!

    Comment by michael kors | October 23, 2014 | Reply

  207. Where does Ayn Rand say that she considers her work to be propaganda?

    Comment by David Craig | November 18, 2014 | Reply

    • In Letters of Ayn Rand M.S.Berliner (Ed) Plume/Penguin Books 1995. p. 159

      Comment by newleftblog | November 29, 2014 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s