LOL Rand's view of compassion was that compassion should come from the individual, of themselves. It can't truly be taken by force from people, though you seem to want to keep trying that approach.
The problem isn't that liberals misunderstand Ayn Rand. The problem is that they don't give a shit about her. Me, I never ever think about her. I can't even pronounce Ayn. This is the problem. How can we stir up publicity about this unimportant bitch? By starting threads?
It doesn't matter what Ayn Rand actually said or believed. What matters is what her followers think she said/believed, and how they use that to justify destroying the common good in order to gain a temporary advantage for themselves. barfo
No no. That would be like the difference betwen Jesus and Christianity, or Marx and the Soviet Union, or Adam Smith and capitalism. What matters is what I think she said. Since my studies were pre-Women's Lib, her novels weren't assigned any more often than John Birch society rants. I have never read either. So I have decided that she said the same things as Denny does. Definitely a Bulls fan.
Rand completely rejected Libertarianism, but Libertarians "think" they idolize her. Maybe they can't read. I doubt she'd think much of Paul Ryan either. Mostly she adored herself and looked down on everyone else.
What Rand railed against: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/08/quick-study-luigi-zingales-crony-capitalism (a good read, too)
Ayn Rand had some good ideas, like atheism and abortion as a human right. But GOOD LORD she needed a good editor.
Businessmen like free markets until they get into a market; once they are in it they want to block entry to others. This is why true free markets can never exist. The avarice of businessmen will always necessitate regulation.
Simply not true. Regulation of markets makes them not free and enables businessmen to block entry to others. That, in fact, is the theme of Atlas Shrugged.
Do you even read the stuff you link to? The quote is from your article, which you are now arguing is BS. Your "rebuttal" is nonsense, BTW.
The word "avarice" does not appear in the article even once. So much for it being some quote. Maybe you should read the article. Again, a free market is a free market. It's when the govt. regulates and businesses buy congressmen that the free market becomes regulated, distorted, and govt. acting on behalf of the incumbent businesses. The very types who lobby business for regulations that harm their competition are the villains in Ayn Rand's books.
Near as I can tell, conservatives misinterpreting Rand seems like a bigger problem than how the liberals view her.
Keep in mind, the only time I ever even discussed Rand was in college, so my sampling is basically anecdotal. First off, someone already said it, but liberals generally don't give a rip about Rand one way or another...call it a misinterpretation or apathy, but either way most liberals that I've known don't do anything with Rand. So does it really matter if it is misinterpretation or apathy? As far as conservative types go, Rand very frequently gives them a license to be an asshole (talking mainly about the virtue of selfishness here). They treat Rand in an almost religious way, as if she has somehow has rationalized that their asshole ways are justified. I've seen a few hardcore Rand types that are self starters that are motivated by her in a generally positive way, but more often than not when I hear Rand mentioned, it's associated with one asshole move or another. In short: Liberal: Rand = interesting author perhaps worthy of a read = no impact on their motivations/actions Conservative: Rand = atheistic godlike figure = asshole license that definitely impacts their motivations/actions
I can't argue with what your perception is from your anecdotal experience. Mine is that few conservatives talk about Rand at all. Libertarians do, and they're the most consistent (and correct, IMO) in their political philosophy. Personally, I've read a lot of detail about Objectivism and find it fine. I've read about Utilitarianism, too, which is more in sync with my own views of things. J.S. Mill is a must read, IMO. And what you say about Rand and conservatives I find is true of FDR and progressives. The guy had a LOT of faults, particularly when it came to racial issues, and his policies were literally lifted from the Nazi Party Platform of 1920. Read it here: http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, it's all good with people that understand Rand well on an intellectual level. It's the people that hold her up in a way that borders on religious that make me sick to my stomach. Strong proof on what a geek I am, I had a good, crazy smart buddy in college and we'd semi-frequently hang late night as parties were winding down belligerently talking Rand. That we weren't out trying to get lucky instead is one of life's regrets lol Edit: yeah, we also had some On Liberty thrown in those discussions and it is good stuff.
You realize that John Stuart Mill would be appalled and disgusted by Ayn Rand, right? And that he was an actual genius while she was a shrill hack?
They're both genii. And you might come up with a reason Mill would be appalled by Ayn Rand. Every one of our founders would be appalled by what the nation has become.
