So I watched all 17 PARTS of his speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0&feature=related

I’ve heard so many bad things about Ayn Rand but.. this isn’t all bull**** tldr imo… it’s very interesting I can dig this. Actually, even if you take away the narration, at least the pictures are still very interesting. The editor is pretty good. Just don’t read the comments.

Posting in Ayn Rands instead of Meme or NO SRSLY because..well it’s Ayn Rand related.

Yeah sorry if you expected a ****ty troll this thread is disappointing. Expecting to get comments/discussion about Ayn Rand’s philosophy from this thread.

I really liked the speech/book, but the Fountainhead was better.

Fortunato Posted:

Rand held academics in contempt. She writes in a shamelessly bumhurt yet somehow incredibly creepy, overwrought style. she believed herself a liberated woman in spite of the fact that every female character except her Mary-Sue in Shrugged is an empty stereotype. Each sex scene (and there are several) in that book is creepier than the last; she believed, for some reason, that good sex must entail violence and near (in fact almost implied) non-consent.

The galt speech sounds nice, but its critical point is deeply problematic from a logic standpoint. Her “philosophy” can essentially be summed up thus:

“waaaaah me and my beautiful, wealthy friends should be allowed to do whatever we want because we’re the only people who do anything and everyone else just leeches so let us do what we want and don’t tax us and let us **** each other and be rich and regular morality doesn’t apply to us.”

Here is an extremely accurate summary of atlas shrugged that will save you a month of your life:

http://www.spudworks.com/article/66/ /

Well she’s a woman I expect as much

Thx the only time I bother to read novels are for English clbumes

Actually even for that sometimes I just read a summary of the book found on the internet.

Inertia Posted:

Well she’s a woman I expect as much.

What is this supposed to mean? I thought you were supposed to be female, but obviously not.

No no, everyone has to work together like a well-oiled machine, helping each other when there’s mutual benefit. But that doesn’t work in real life. There’s always going to be some people that need help even if no tangible benefit can be obtained through helping them. Not that they don’t believe in charity, but they that they think individual charity can be trusted to help everyone that needs it.

Like all pure political philosophies, it sounds good on paper but in application it looks like silly idealism. If everyone could be wealthy that would be lovely. If trickle-down wealth really worked, that would be lovely. If pure communism could be accomplished with everyone continuing to do their fair share of work instead of slacking off because they’ll receive the same benefits regardless, that would be lovely. Human nature requires a “somewhere in the middle” approach, though.

I should add that this and communism are kind of opposite. They both believe in personal freedoms, but they were born of different social clbumes. The spoiled upper clbum thinks everyone could maybe be the spoiled upper clbum, while the poor think everyone should work and receive the same lifestyle for that work. Neither clbum acknowledges that the other isn’t going to comply.

Capitalism. We have Social Security, which is a pension system and we have Medicaid/Medicare for very low income or disabled people to help with medical bills. We’ll undoubtedly move more towards a European socialist system now, and those of us who voted for Obama were hoping for a pretty huge shift in that direction, but he’s already going back on some of those things.

But all of the Western world and most of the Eastern world is capitalist, there’s just varying degrees of Socialism in each country. The key is finding the right mix, and Rand’s worldview doesn’t actually support Socialism at all.

And yeah, like I said in my first post in here the ever-growing greed of the very wealthy basically caused the problems. And the greed of the middle and lower clbumes caused them to borrow too much money – money which would have been denied to them when lending regulations were stricter.

Our system is supposed to be more like lower-income people can buy cheap health insurance, rather than completely nationalized like Canada. They already get NO health care or run into an emergency room, costing themselves more than if they’d gone earlier and costing hospitals a ton when they have to cover the costs. I did that myself once right after college. I had to pay $100s more and the hospital had to eat like $600. It’s a genuine problem.

We’re already falling behind others on R&D in all science sectors, and while our healthcare is great for people who can afford it, it’s terrible/nonexistant for those who can’t. So I just can’t see that side of the argument having much merit. Also, talking to people in Canada or Europe, you don’t hear these kinds of horror stories and complaints, so I guess congrats on posting tabloid journalism to support your (or your character’s pov).

I know waiting times are supposed to be a problem, but we already have waiting times. People die waiting in emergency rooms, if you make a doctor’s appt. it’s probably several days in the future, etc.

I’m a rational actor. *falls in love and marries someone with a low credit score*

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

I’m a rational actor. *falls in love and marries someone with a low credit score*

If the someone has attributes that you value then you are a rational actor.

Now, if other perceive your existence of a value then they are sure to bumists you if you really need it. That would not be a sacrifice. It is a sacrifice on my behalf when ever my tax money goes to a pedophile and not a hard working single mother who’s child happens to have a brain tumor. If I have the means then it is not a sacrifice. My values are honesty, reason and labor not indiscriminate helping of others. That is why I will gladly help good people in need. But not bad people, I will not subsidize wicked people.

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

A child is about to get hit by a truck. I can save the child, but I might die or be injured. Well, I guess I’ll just stand here because it’s not in my enlightened self-interest. Log in to see images!

Use your reason the child is a value, but if it cannot be saved and you still try the action is not in your self interests. If you can save it without being hurt you have acted on your value. However if you don’t have the time; which makes this a good example, to determine whether you can safe it successfully or not then you weigh the value of your life to the value you hold in the child’s life and too against the risk of loosing your life. But also would you want to live and not have have tried to save it’s life? I have balls so I would definitely try too.

If you do know whether you can save it or not your course of action is enlightened. If you do not your just going to have to take the risk. Saving the child’s life is in my OWN self interests because I would feel a lot better knowing it was somewhere learning the letters then in the morgue. If I get injured I am willing to accept it. The time I don’t stay in hospital is a far less value to me then the child’s life.

Now if you know you can’t save it know that you will die trying it is suicide and nothing more and that is immoral. If you value the child’s life higher then your own life and know you’ll get killed in the process it’s morality depends on how much you value your life; I would save it then. But if I was a child too. Then it would not make any sense for me to kill myself to save it. But the older and more accomplished I was I would hesitate less to save it. If I was an old man that was about to die in a year anyways it would not be a sacrifice to me at all. I would value the kids chances at life higher then playing backgammon at the retirement home. If I knew I could save it without any injury and did not, it would be immoral because I grant in this example that I take value in the child’s life (duh). If I knew I could not save it and would die in the process it would also be evil. For the same reasons suicide is immoral.