As if an Albert Einstein is just a kind of middleweight hack but the VP for Marketing at Federal Express is one of ubermenschen.
You should also read the Jonathan Chait article that inspired the quip, a nice history and takedown of the amazingly stupid philosophy of Objectivism, which quite honestly stuns me that people actually believe in it.
Most of the right-wing commentary purporting to prove that the rich bear the overwhelming burden of government relies upon the simple trick of citing only the income tax, which is progressive, while ignoring more regressive levies. A brief overview of the facts lends some perspective to the fears of a new Red Terror. Our government divides its functions between the federal, state, and local levels. State and local governments tend to raise revenue in ways that tax the poor at higher rates than the rich.
…The sum total of these taxes levies a slightly higher rate on the rich. The bottom 99 percent of taxpayers pay 29.4 percent of their income in local, state, and federal taxes. The top 1 percent pay an average total tax rate of 30.9 percent–slightly higher, but hardly the sort of punishment that ought to prompt thoughts of withdrawing from society to create a secret realm of capitalistic übermenschen.
Oliver,
I woulnd’t call Randian philosophy stupid. Cynical is the better term. The belief system is really used to by the “Me first!” crowds on the unsuspecting masses to keep them duped.
In this way when people look at the disparity the rich can just look the poor man dead in the eye and tell them it was meant to be this way!
A philisophical version of Dennis’ constant “Look! Over here!” tricks, if you will.
If you want to show the inequity of taxation you should find differences in discretionary spending percentages between rich and poor. After food, housing, and of course medical care, what percentage of income remains?
What’s really bizarre is how many teabaggers square Rand’s atheism and un-Christian worldview with their fundamentalist piety. Talk about rationalization.
After food, housing, and of course medical care, what percentage of income remains?
“Well maybe if those po’people planned better, or got another job or two, or just fucked off and died like they’re supposed to instead of eating bon-bons all day they wouldn’t have that problem!”
What is it with this place?
I come here for thoughtful, philosophical book discussion and all I get is HOT TEEN EL SALVADORAN action, endorsed by the 2nd-highest ranking Democrat in the United States Senate.
You people are sick!
Uh…wait…what?
I always thought this cartoon summed up Rand better than anything else.
So you’ve not only proven they’re not as simple-minded as you’d like to believe they are, you’ve also proven that you’re much more simple-minded than you thought you were.
Well-played, Matt. In just two sentences, too.
Another word for “Objectivism” is “puberty”.
To quote the great John Rogers, “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
Dennis, right on cue with the distractions.
Here is the fun part. By virtue of you posting your comment on this blog you are refuting Randian theories.
Most of the technologies that drive this website are open-source, meaning they were created not with profit in mind but simply spread a good idea. You could make a profit but the progress made wasn’t simply to line pockets. Add that to whatever browser you are using (even Microsoft’s Internet Explorer came out of an effort by the NSCA Mosaic web browser, which was the direct result of a federal act. This is the very reason why Al Gore, in part, can claim that he did indeed help create the internet as it was known as the Gore Bill.)
Add all of what I just wrote to the efforts by the US military (an excellent private enterprise, I am sure) to develop the network and technologies.
Add all of what I wrote to the highly regulated and partially government owned internet backbone.
In short, Dennis, this Randian theory that profit trumps all is disproved every time you even think about the internet.
I woulnd’t call Randian philosophy stupid. Cynical is the better term.
Actually, the clinical term for Randian philosophy is “shit-all stupid privileged adolescent dogshit” but that’s a lot of technical jargon.
Atlas Whined
-Dennis
Most of the technologies that drive this website are open-source, meaning they were created not with profit in mind but simply spread a good idea. You could make a profit but the progress made wasn’t simply to line pockets.
“PFFF–what kind of socialist crap is that?!? Why bother doing anything if there isn’t the opportunity to make money off of it?!?”
Atlas Whined
-Dennis
*snort*
Thanks, I needed a good chuckle this morning.
Another word for “Objectivism” is “puberty”.
Awesome. Thanks for that.
How is my response to an idiotic post by Matt Osborne a whine, Professor SQ? Especially when he does nothing to explain or back up his merely casual observation?
Do you agree with him?
Do you agree with him?
Yes, actually I do agree with him. And your reply made no sense whatsoever.
The fact of the matter is that the political right has been dominated by the so-called Christian right for decades now. And yet they buy into a political philosophy that is about as un-Christian as you can get. It’s cognitive dissonance at its finest.
LOL,
I wonder how many of the fair minded progressives here have actually read Rand’s books. The follow up, of those who read her books understand them. Few of the former and none of the latter is my prognosis.
Cheerleaders of the welfare state who reject individual freedom and liberty portray those who aren’t willing enough to fund the redistribution of wealth as shallow and greedy. The takers bitching about the givers not giving enough.
With perhaps the exception of Repack the regulars here reject the concept of individualism. Far better to trade individual accomplishment based on merit, work, and a bit of luck for the sugar tit. Marx was 180 degrees out, tis not religion but the ease of a subsidized lifestyle that is the opiate of the progressive masses. Guilt disguised as compassion inspires the better half of the liberal movement, entitlement and greed drive the balance.
Of course I disagree with your essay and all the “childish” comments above. I’m 62, just read “Atlas Shrugged” for gthe 4th time and it never ceases to enlighten, embolden, inspire and edify me. I’ve never seen anything written that comes anywhere close to the ridiculous comments about Ayn’s philosophy of Objectivists. There are millions of American that are admirers and consider themselves, as I do, an Objectivist.
I’ll opt for the truth over simplifications, inability to discern concepts and such childish bumper-sticker retorts as shown here.
Just finished reading another writeup of Rand and ‘Atlas Shrugged’… http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/15/782252/-Sociopathy-on-the-Right:-Ayn-Rand-and-the-Triumph-of-Conservative-Cultism
One good takeaway was this excerpt:
This is what the Rand-bots are reading, the vision of society they endorse: one comprised of better people, and decided inferiors, sub-humans even, who are worthy of death for their laziness, their sloth, their lack of industriousness. No wonder people imbued with such a truly sadistic mindset as this would oppose health care reform. To this way of thought, those without health care deserve their suffering, and that suffering should be of no concern to the rest of us.
Those who have written biographies of Rand–including former acolytes–paint a uniformly disturbing picture. Rand, according to Nathaniel Branden’s My Years with Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Rand, and Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult was narcissistic in the extreme, incapable of empathy, often cruel–going so far as to have an affair in full view of her husband–as well as paranoid, addicted to amphetamines, and obsessed with her belief that average people were “ugly, stupid and irrational.”
Interestingly, despite her general disdain for humanity, there were people she seemed to admire greatly, such as William Edward Hickman, whose credo, “What is good for me is right,” she described in her Journals as, “The best and strongest expression of a real man’s psychology I have heard.” But Hickman was no simple expositor of personal greed and self-interest; no mere modern day libertarian; no pedestrian practitioner of excessive self-love. No indeed. He was a sociopathic murderer. In 1927 he kidnapped a 12-year old girl from a school in Los Angeles by the name of Marian Parker, chopped off her legs, cut our her internal organs, drained all of her blood and then spread parts of her body all over the city.
Of Hickman, this sick murderer, Rand had almost nothing but positive things to say.
She indeed critiqued those who would condemn Hickman’s actions for having committed “worse sins and crimes,” such as those she ascribed to his jury. Among those “greater” crimes–greater than mutilating a child–she included being, “Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, ‘dignified’ housewives.” Their ordinariness, in other words, placed them below Hickman, in Rand’s mind. “How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone’s fate?” she implored in her Journals.
I read Atlas the Summer before starting college, going into it knowing it was a influential book but having no idea what it was about. I slogged through the whole thing thinking I was missing something but, no, she hits you over the head with her simplistic justification for selfish assholery for 1000 pages.
“What’s really bizarre is how many teabaggers square Rand’s atheism and un-Christian worldview with their fundamentalist piety. Talk about rationalization.” Amen, brother. It makes me FURIOUS that conservatives mentally masturbate over Rand out of one corner of their mouths and call themselves Christians out of the other corner. ‘Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers…’
And, Atlas is just poor writing. Short declarative sentences for 1000 pages when 100 would have sufficed. My HS English teacher would have flunked Rand.
“The follow up, of those who read her books understand them.”
Well, it is a step up from the Turner Diaries. I doff my cap.
AO – “Cheerleaders of the welfare state who reject individual freedom and liberty … ”
Why do these types of ignorant fanatics always sound like cheap hookers when they utter the words freedom and liberty?
I’m 62
Proof that puberty lasts longer in some than in most.
Once again, the Lefties demonstrate how little they know about conservatism. Those people on the Mall the other day couldn’t tell a Libertarian from a Lamborghini. I’m willing to bet more than half of them never read a word of Ayn Rand.
But, as Jerome Tuccille pointed out in his book with the same title , It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand. It by no means ends there. But, in typical American fashion, the reviewers (if that’s an appropriate name), refer to Ayn Rand’s best sellers as “important”.
In actual fact, to get a clear picture of what Rand believed, you need to read two slimmer books: The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, and The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophy of Literature.
This is not to say that there is something wrong with either Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead, but neither of those books explain as much about her beliefs as do “Virtue” and “Manifesto”, and they are lighter.
Finally, very few conservatives adhere to anything like Randian (”objectivist”) principles now.
William F, Buckley, Jr. once wrote, “When ever I read Ayn Rand, I hear jackboots marching down the hall.”
@Frank DiSalle
Yep, that’s why Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, and the rest of the crew weren’t talking about Atlas Shrugged, “Going Galt!”, and how “working isn’t worth it under the Obama administration”.
Most conservatives may not profess that they believe in the direct philosophy of Ayn Rand but her principles are riddled in practically every part of the economic theories of modern conservatism. It is all about the individual for you when it comes down to taxation and responsibilities.
I’ve read every book, article and treatise published by Ayn Rand. Yes, I began in my adolescence–as if that were some kind of indictment–but I’ve found her thinking even more persuasive as I’ve aged.
Of the multitudinous criticisms of Objectivism I’ve heard or read over the years, I have yet to find one that properly addresses the philosophy. In fact, the sheer number of straw man-type arguments I’ve encountered suggests that most anti-Objectivists either critique without reading Rand’s work, or are intellectually incapable of understanding her tenets.
Allow me to set them before you plainly:
1. That the primary purpose of all living beings is survival, for without survival, there can be no other purposes.
2. That survival, as a purpose, is morally good, for without survival, there can be no other moral behavior.
3. That Man is naturally born with faculties unique to his species which permit him to survive by his own labor and ingenuity.
4. That to use these faculties is morally good because they facilitate the purpose of survival.
5. That all Men share these faculties and the morally good purpose of survival.
6. That Men must therefore survive by their own faculties, and not at the expense of other Men, for to do so would be to act immorally by denying their ability to work toward the morally good purpose of survival.
It’s that simple. Note also how the Objectivist philosophy fits neatly into the moral framework of Christianity or any other mainstream religion: To live a moral life means to survive by your own work and not at the expense of others. Sounds an awful lot like the ‘golden rule,’ doesn’t it?
It’s true that Rand also had some very specific ideas about the social value of certain types of dress, music, food, etc., but these are matters of her personal taste. The axiology (morality and ethics) of Objectivism is precisely what I have enumerated above: Work to survive; work for yourself, let others do the same. Now that you understand, is that really so hard to accept?
The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
Yeah, read that one. Rand was an even worse philosopher than she was novelist, if that’s possible.
On this one point I will agree with Buckley 110%.
“The ends justify the means.”
Modern American conservatism is all about winning, by any means necessary. Anything that distracts from that goal is expendable, including such niceties as logic. It’s not about facts, it’s not about conversation or debate, it’s certainly not about anything so tawdry as (shudder) empathy. It begins with the premise of an unshakable conviction that one is right, which eliminates the need for any self-reflection or inquiry. From that premise all things flow.
That is why conservatives are so easily able to reconcile Randian philosophy with Christian piety, and “family values” campaigns with kinky lobbyist sex, and media-bashing with media control, and accusations of treason for those who denounce a Republican president with accusations that a Democratic president is somehow both a socialist and a fascist. Hypocrisy is not a problem when the ends justify the means, and in this case the desired end is the acquisition and maintenance of power. Anything that might help to achieve that end is permitted.
Cognitive dissonance isn’t an issue for those who refuse to think.
Another reader of The Virtue of Selfishness collection here, and I can’t say I was much impressed. Maybe that’s because I’ve also read a lot of Nietzsche, who I also don’t much like, but (unlike Rand) raises questions that one can’t just dismiss.
Rand is a dumbed-down, lightweight, third-rate version of Nietzsche–all of her energy comes from Nietzsche, but her departures from him are obtuse and strained.
And apart from half-baked philosophy, her books are really, really bad. There’s also that.
Koreshette
Cheerleaders of the welfare state who reject individual freedom and liberty portray those who aren’t willing enough to fund the redistribution of wealth as shallow and greedy. The takers bitching about the givers not giving enough.
So what’s stopping you from rounding up other ultra-productive and sensible members of society and going Galt for fuck’s sake? Holy fuck, man, time is of the essence. Hurry up.
The irony of this worshipper of the Superman simultaneously being the worst prose stylist ever amuses me every time I think on her.
Hell, even Ludwig von Mises’s had her number.
Rand: “Why do you treat me like some stupid little girl?”
Mises: “Because that is what you are.”
The only person who has gone Galt here is Jaim, and he is supported here for it by the liberal faction.
He’s supported not because he left the country, but because he admits freely he did it to protest George Bush’s economy. An economy that at the time had a 4.7% unemployment number.
Go figure.
“…5. That all Men share these faculties and the morally good purpose of survival.
6. That Men must therefore survive by their own faculties, and not at the expense of other Men, for to do so would be to act immorally by denying their ability to work toward the morally good purpose of survival.”
Note the leap between 5 and 6, from “survival is good” to “every man for himself!”
With these numbered lists, designed to look like syllogisms, you gotta be careful.
Comments such as “the ends justify the means” and “every man for himself” serve to only illustrate my point: You read, but you do not understand.
Objectivist ethics abhors the use of others for one’s own benefit. As John Galt said, “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.”
2. That survival, as a purpose, is morally good, for without survival, there can be no other moral behavior.
Ah, yes, but survival of the individual is the highest moral good – not survival of the community, and certainly not survival of the “other.”
Note also how the Objectivist philosophy fits neatly into the moral framework of Christianity or any other mainstream religion: To live a moral life means to survive by your own work and not at the expense of others.
Which is only one side of morality. The other side, which Rand abhorred, is self-sacrifice for the good of others. Rand (an avowed atheist) no doubt thought Jesus was a simpering idiot for giving us such parables as the Good Samaritan. (Not to mention the whole dying on the cross for the sins of man bit.)
“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.”
Nor sacrifice one whit of my autonomy or comfort for the sake of others.
As I stated earlier, “The ends justify the means” is a tenet of modern American conservatism, not objectivism; I was making the point that conservatives will happily wave the banners of objectivism and Christianity and whatever else is handy to justify their ultimate goal, the acquisition and maintenance of power. It doesn’t matter to them that the various philosophies they espouse, platitudes they repeat and actions they undertake are often totally contradictory.
You read, but you do not understand.
I understand this about objectivism: it is a sophomoric, delusional philosophy that would be sad if it weren’t so laughably hypocritical. If any of those “rugged individualists” ever actually practiced what they preach, they’d all have died off by now.
I wonder how many of the fair minded progressives here have actually read Rand’s books.
My excuse was that I was a teenager. I read a lot of Heinlein about the same time, but at least he dealt with real possibilities, like “Have Spacesuit, Will Travel.”
Southern Quaker:
As many others, you seem to believe that a self-interested morality necessarily forbids charitable acts, as in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Not so. In the inexplicably much-maligned “Virtue of Selfishness,” Rand admits the following:
A. Actions taken toward survival are morally good.
B. Actions taken toward personal satisfaction and well-being ultimately benefit one’s survival and thus are also morally good, provided that they do not exploit others.
C. If one derives personal satifaction or a sense of well-being from charitable work, then this work ultimately benefits the self, and thus has a morally good purpose.
Does this perhaps assuage your Quaker sensibilities?
Felix:
Please demonstrate your understanding of Objectivism by giving an example of its supposed hypocrisy that doesn’t rely on off-topic, anti-conservative vitriol.
We could give an entire state to the people who want to “go Galt” on us, I’m thinking Nevada or North Dakota.
That would keep them out of our way, and they could build a superior society and show us all.
Several of the many known Neandertal skeletons were of individuals who could absolutely not have survived on their own, and must have been cared for by their clan or tribe for years. The only conclusion is that even when mere survival was tough, Neandertals felt that non-productive members of society were still part of the society, and worthy of being taken care of. Ayn Rand would have abandoned them as useless.
Conclusion: Ayn Rand was not as human — or as Christian (yeah, atheist, I know) — as the Neandertals. She would have walked away from her grandmother if Granny couldn’t keep up.
Does this perhaps assuage your Quaker sensibilities?
No, not really. The philosophy lacks a moral foundation other than “what benefits me directly is good.” Rand agrees that you should love your children if it gives you personal satisfaction, but she doesn’t assume that it should give you satisfaction.
Should I run into a burning building to save someone else’s child? Rand would (and has) argue not. Self-sacrifice for a higher good that is not directly tied to one’s own “satisfaction and well being” is looked down upon. Sacrifice for the greater good of the community even more so – hence the apoplexy over taxation, in spite of the fact that it supports the general welfare. Somehow increasing the well-being and survival of everyone is immoral (or at least amoral.)
We could give an entire state to the people who want to “go Galt” on us, I’m thinking Nevada or North Dakota.
Utah
They’ll be right at home with the Osmonds
Compare that with this by Walter Williams:
OR
Russell Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles
You see that Objectivism doesn’t drive conservatism; they do share things in common.
Think of this, though: Weren’t all liberals Randian with regard to the Vietnam War?: “Why should we go? It’s not our war!”
Selfishness can be healthy; caring for one’s self can be healthy; looking out for #1 to the exclusion of all others, can result in a life that is “nasty, brutish, and short.”
Southern Quaker:
Fair enough, and I appreciate the rational, level-headed response, even if it is in disagreement. It’s perfectly true that Objectivism has no moral foundation other than “what benefits me is good”–that is in fact its fundamental and primary tenet. Objectivism is not Christianity, and doesn’t concern itself with “greater good” or community.
My point was simply that the two schools of thought need not be so diametrically opposed. An individual may be a good Objectivism, working for his own well-being, as well as a good Christian, generating well-being for himself by doing good for those around him. And, is it not, according to St. James, by our works that we demonstrate our faith?
I’m not even sure Rand “gets” the concept of enlightened self-interest. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” embraces the concept of charity, while doing so using enlightened self-interest to justify it, while from what I’ve read, objectivism uses the concept to justify not being charitable.
In a free market economy, absent some fairly stringent regulation, the price of labor is going to have a great deal of arbitrariness to it(all hard work is not valued equally–in fact a guy performing at 51% of average productivity in a desk job may make thrice as much as a ditch-digger performing at 150% of productivity). This arbitrariness often leads to the exploitation of “cheap labor” for personal enrichment.
Interesting thread.
As Rodney Dangerfield said in Back to School, There’s nothing wrong in looking out for number one, just make sure you don’t step on number two while you’re doing it.
I agree with Southern Quaker’s take, but fair question re Vietnam, Frank. I guess if it’s wrong to reach into a man’s pocket to help someone, it’s just as wrong to force him to fight (though I appreciate your service) when not directly threatened.
Those people on the Mall the other day couldn’t tell a Libertarian from a Lamborghini.
HA! Good one, Frank.
Weren’t all liberals Randian with regard to the Vietnam War?: “Why should we go? It’s not our war!”
I was in the Army, realizing what a bogus adventure it was. Where were you?
But to answer your question more directly, the proper liberal response should have been, “Since the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a faked casus belli, why should we go to war to support a lie?”
Being old enough to remember the stark lesson of Vietnam made it much easier for me to oppose the Bush war, which was based on lies so transparent I can’t believe that anyone with an IQ over room temperature fell for them. Too bad he chickened out of his military obligation, because he didn’t learn that lesson.
We could give an entire state to the people who want to “go Galt” on us, I’m thinking Nevada or North Dakota.
I know I’ve said it before, but Mogadishu is nice this time of year.*
*Except for, you know, all the dark people with grenade launchers and AK’s. And a healthy self-interest.
Mr. Self-Interest,
I agree that we can disagree civilly, which is certainly a refreshing change. (No offense to Oliver, but it tends to get a bit thick around here.)
FWIW, I don’t necessarily believe that one can’t be an Objectivist and a Christian. And I’m firmly in the St James school of Christianity. I just think it would be very difficult, and at some point the two beliefs would come into conflict.
Also, I don’t believe Ms. Rand would approve.
I don’t think she would approve of anything.
Grumpy old bat, if you ask me.
Repack, piloting a military aircraft, even if just the guard, is still 100 times better than being a community agitator, I was to young for Vietnam but you regardless of political persuasion are a true patriot.
I joined the Army, at the recruiting office on Grant Avenue in Novato. 11B, 31C. myself.
Re: Viet Nam
Certainly there was an element of “It’s not our war!” in the anti-war movement. But it was just as much driven by the belief that we had no business interfering in a civil war. After all, we weren’t really there for their interests, but to fight the Chinese communists by proxy.
As Hick and Repack pointed out, we went to war under false pretenses, and in spite of the fact that the North Vietnamese posed no serious threat to the U.S. And in the process we devastated a country and got tens of thousands of young GIs killed.
And for what? We now have full diplomatic and trade relations with Communist Viet Nam. Wouldn’t it have been easier and cost a lot fewer lives to have started from that point in the first place?
SQ, I am glad France didn’t have that attitude towards us in the Revolutionary war.
France had its own reasons for sticking it to the Brits during the Revolutionary War, which had absolutely nothing to do with our bid for independence.
Rather an apropos parallel to Viet Nam, now that I think about it.
Repack Rider: Where was I during the Vietnam War? Fort Dix, Fort Ord, Fort Hood and Viet Nam (USAD Long Binh 1st Log CMD)… Where were you?
Impaler…
The French did get something out of aiding the US in the Revolutionary War as France and Great Britain were fighting each other in the Seven Years War at the same time. Any excuse to put a thumb in King George’s eye. And make ‘em waste more resources putzing around with us.
No offense to Oliver, but it tends to get a bit thick around here
I should note for the record that 90% the time when that happens it isn’t me throwing bombs. You guys – left and right – do far more of that than I.
I wonder how many of the fair minded progressives here have actually read Rand’s books. The follow up, of those who read her books understand them. Few of the former and none of the latter is my prognosis.
Ok, then, let me ask you a few questions. Is it or is it not true that the following elements exist in Atlas Shrugged:
1. A perpetual motion machine
2. Only 1 bridge across the Mississippi
3. Something called a “sonic blaster”
If the answer to any of these is “yes”, that just proves that the wet dream of “objectivists” is not only unfeasible, it’s impossible.
“I should note for the record that 90% the time when that happens it isn’t me throwing bombs”
LOL,
Who writes the inflammatory headlines that have little aquaintence with the truth?
I missed Nam by just a couple years. Plenty of older brothers and guys down the street were subject to being called up. What I remember is most people protesting just plain didn’t feel like they should have to serve in the military. The right and wrong of it was mostly just window dressing. It was just like high school, the cool kids did’t think it applied to them.
Acting all sincere and shit was a way to pick up chicks. Protests were good fun, a chance to act up and be rowdy, smoke dope and try to get laid. Everyone was trying to scam the draft and going to college was the easist way out. What we got out of that were a lot of pretencious twits who thought the college education they got sitting out the war was meant the same thing as a degree earned by the previous generation.
And what to do with all these highly educated whizz kids. Make a college degree a requirement for all sorts of jobs that didn’t really require one and that the vaunted degree didn’t really address. We’re still stuck with this problem which I charactorize as raising the bar but lowering the standards.
For starters, Rand is a terrible writer. Just plain awful. Just fucking hideous sentence structure. Inane plot. Shallow characters.
I remember a time (before the GOP went completely racist and insane) when even Republicans didn’t think much of Rand, even if they liked her He-man capitalistic ideas. But now the party of Chairman Rush will brook no dissent.
“before the GOP went completely racist and insane”
Are you familiar with the term jumping the shark?
“Jumping the shark” is a phrase, not a term.
But I agree it’s an accurate descriptor of the GOP.
Jaim, You are incorrect in your definition, once again demonstrating the limits of your ability to teach English correctly.
Overkill. Actually, Rand made the somewhat less stupid statement that the VP for Marketing at Federal Express is just like Einstein.
I believe Rand’s point was that the man who can actually “make” (as opposed to print) money by generating wealth/profit performs a service as valuable as even the greatest scientific mind of her age.
Hence the presence of an otherwise incredible perpetual-motion machine. She was making an analogy between the miracles of science and the miracles of enterprise. A decently complex metaphor for a supposedly terrible writer.
She was making an analogy between the miracles of science and the miracles of enterprise. A decently complex metaphor for a supposedly terrible writer.
Complex for adolescents, maybe. Maybe.
leemoder – “The French did get something out of aiding the US”. Yea I know, the point was that, helping the South Vietnamese, was less about them and more about, “sticking it to” the Soviet’s and China.
That was the point of the post.
And I will say again, I am glad the French didn’t have the same attitude.
It’s not hard to see why some of the less worth-while members of the elite embrace Ayn Rand. She tells them that, despite their own obvious lack of physical or intellectual superiority, that they are superior because of all the money their parents made. It is there money that makes society run, and as such they deserve the be the emperors of the world regardless of inept, untalented or pathetic they actually are.
Just look at most Objectivists. Most of them can’t base a sense of self-worth on anything else.
Their
I happen not like Rush Limbaugh for that reason. He presents himself as a “self-made man”, when he grew up in a mid – sized city in Missouri, with a lawyer for a Dad.
Not exactly pulling himdelf by his bootstraps, was he?
Sure, the radio success was all his, but he was in a sellers’ market: AM Radio was looking for something to do, conservatives had some power, but few media outlets — a match made in Heaven.
*to not like*