# Think Tank > History >  Who needs cranky Ayn Rand when we have Thomas Jefferson?

## Agorism

Words of Wisdom from Thomas Jefferson

----------


## juleswin

+1000

----------


## FrankRep

Thomas Jefferson wasn't a Libertarian nor Anarchist.

FYI.

----------


## Agorism

Jefferson opposed standing armies for the central government. He is also closely associated with the Anti-Federalist movement, and he characterized the delegates of the Philidelphia convention as an assembly of "demi-gods."

His greatest accomplishment lies in the his authoring the Declaration of Independence saying that Government law did not apply here.

He was always anti-government not pro. Being anti-war and anti-government is essentially the same thing though.

----------


## eduardo89

As much as I loved Atlas Shrugged, I can't agree with Ayn Rand on so many things...

----------


## sailingaway

I liked the Fountainhead ok when I was in high school, but I tried to get into Atlas Shrugged last year, having heard so much rhapsodizing over it here and elsewhere..... I haven't been able to get into it.  

I much prefer Jefferson to Ayn Rand.

----------


## low preference guy

Jefferson didn't have an ethical system consistent with capitalism. Ayn Rand does. That's why when capitalism is established in the future, it will be thanks to Ayn Rand, not Thomas Jefferson.

----------


## sailingaway

I don't need a perfect pattern from anyone.

----------


## eduardo89

> I liked the Fountainhead ok when I was in high school, but I tried to get into Atlas Shrugged last year, having heard so much rhapsodizing over it here and elsewhere..... I haven't been able to get into it.  
> 
> I much prefer Jefferson to Ayn Rand.



The first 100 or so pages of Atlas Shrugged are hard, but after that it's really good

----------


## sailingaway

> The first 100 or so pages of Atlas Shrugged are hard, but after that it's really good


Well, maybe I'll try it again, then.  I have read some books like that that were worth it.

----------


## Agorism

I read it as a teenager a long time ago along with fountain, and I liked them. However, had I not read it, and I read it today, I doubt I would like it.

----------


## TheNcredibleEgg

> Well, maybe I'll try it again, then.  I have read some books like that that were worth it.


Yeah, I started once and quit after about 50 pgs. Then returned to it.

The book transform into a great story after 100-200 pgs and you really get into the characters and the story. So much so that I remember thinking how did I ever let this book sit so long unread on my bookshelf?

(But be prepared to get really glossy eyed from around pg 1000-1075.)

----------


## TroySmith

As great as Jefferson was, Rand is among the elite of the elite. She is to philosophy as to what Newton and Einstein were to physics.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

> As great as Jefferson was, Rand is among the elite of the elite. She is to philosophy as to what Newton and Einstein were to physics.


Why do you say that?

----------


## MaxPower

> Jefferson didn't have an ethical system consistent with capitalism. Ayn Rand does. That's why when capitalism is established in the future, it will be thanks to Ayn Rand, not Thomas Jefferson.


 I disagree. You are probably referring to Rand's ethical egoism as compared with Jefferson's belief in altruism; I believe it is a serious misconception that altruism is incompatible with the free market or inconsistent with free-market thought. In fact, to the contrary,_ individual_ altruism can only_ exist_ in a system founded on voluntary exchanges as opposed to top-down coercion. As such, in terms of ethics, one need only be an individualist and/or a believer in the non-aggression principle- both of which are potentially compatible with either egoist or altruist morality- in order to oppose State economic intervention and thus support a free economy. Note that our own Ron and Rand Paul are altruists, as evidenced by their impressive charitable backgrounds (they have both made a point of offering free or lower-priced medical services to the poor in their respective local communities) and well-expressed Christian faith (Christianity having been founded by the ultimate altruist in Jesus Christ).

----------


## MaxPower

As for the video, a couple of the quotes they used are actually misattributions; the "people fear the government/government fears the people" line actually comes from Ben Franklin, for instance. Additionally, they left out most of Jefferson's best stuff, such as:

“I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with chains of the Constitution."

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

----------


## doodle

> As great as Jefferson was, Rand is among the elite of the elite. She is to philosophy as to what Newton and Einstein were to physics.


And Obama is to Peace.

Someone needs to give her a Nobel Prize for militant collectivism philosophy.

It doesn't really require an massive philosophical talent to preach self-centric objectivism or indvidulism without practicing it.

----------


## TheeJoeGlass

The more I hear about Rand, I like her less an less.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Jefferson opposed standing armies for the central government. He is also closely associated with the Anti-Federalist movement, and he characterized the delegates of the Philidelphia convention as an assembly of "demi-gods."
> 
> His greatest accomplishment lies in the his authoring the Declaration of Independence saying that Government law did not apply here.
> 
> He was always anti-government not pro. Being anti-war and anti-government is essentially the same thing though.


He was also President of the United States.

----------


## TroySmith

> Why do you say that?


Staring, the misconceptions about her have to be cleared up.
1) She wasn't against charity. At all. She was against FORCED "charity".
2) She wasn't militant. She favored non-intervention. The youtube clip always used against her is misleading. She felt the Iranians had violated property rights when they nationalized the oil rigs that we built.Therefore, we had the right to reclaim our property that she felt was stolen from us. 
3) Her emphasis wasn't money or "hating poor people". Her emphasis was on ACHIEVEMENT with money being the proper award for that achievement. She was vehemently against "looters" who used the government, or force in general, to acquire wealth. 

My comparison to Einstein and Newton is like this. Think of your thoughts and beliefs as a large structure, a skyscraper say. Most genius' come along with ways to tweak that structure, or apply parts of it and new and effective ways. Occasionally, some genius' turn the whole structure on it's head. That's what  people like Einstein and Rand did.

----------


## prmd142

> Staring, the misconceptions about her have to be cleared up.
> 1) She wasn't against charity. At all. She was against FORCED "charity".
> 2) She wasn't militant. She favored non-intervention. The youtube clip always used against her is misleading. She felt the Iranians had violated property rights when they nationalized the oil rigs that we built.Therefore, we had the right to reclaim our property that she felt was stolen from us. 
> 3) Her emphasis wasn't money or "hating poor people". Her emphasis was on ACHIEVEMENT with money being the proper award for that achievement. She was vehemently against "looters" who used the government, or force in general, to acquire wealth. 
> 
> My comparison to Einstein and Newton is like this. Think of your thoughts and beliefs as a large structure, a skyscraper say. Most genius' come along with ways to tweak that structure, or apply parts of it and new and effective ways. Occasionally, some genius' turn the whole structure on it's head. That's what  people like Einstein and Rand did.


+1776

----------


## doodle

> 2) She wasn't militant. She favored non-intervention. The youtube clip always used against her is misleading. *She felt the Iranians had violated property rights when they nationalized the oil rigs that we built.Therefore, we had the right to reclaim our property that she felt was stolen from us.*


So when Palestinians property rights were violated, she  supported US giving support to Palestinians so they can defend their property?

Courtesy of another esteemed member:




> Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)
> 
> Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?
> 
> AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.
> 
> http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ..._arab_conflict
> 
> PLAYBOY:  . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct? 
> ...


I could be right but from what I have seen so far, she comes across as a major league hypocrite and a practioner of militant collectivism.

----------


## Agorism

US government violates property rights all the time so Russia has the right to invade?

----------


## MaxPower

Indeed, Rand was clearly far more militarily interventionist than most here (including myself) would like, though I do think it should also be pointed out that Jefferson himself was not a _pure_ libertarian of the Ron Paul stripe, either; there were times (see, say, the early-to-mid-1780s) in which he toyed with some ideas that would now be considered "Progressive" (eg. land redistribution and a comprehensive inheritance tax), and though he did not stick with most of these ideas or push them in office, he did, for example, support the establishment of a (quite modest, compared to what we have now, and without compulsory attendance) public school system in the Virginia legislature, and partake of a couple relatively un-libertarian actions in his presidential stint, such as the Louisiana Purchase and Embargo Act. Jefferson would be readily identifiable in today's political spectrum as as a libertarian- he disdained deficit spending, opposed central banking and paper money, believed in the right to state nullification and secession, was generally on the side of civil liberties, foreign non-interventionism, low taxes, etc.- but even _he_ was not ideologically pure on the level of a Ron Paul.

----------


## Agorism

Jefferson has the best political rhetoric and his Declaration was ideologically pure. He shrank government and the British government, and he was not one of those at the Constitutional Convention trying to make a new big government to replace it.

----------


## Carehn

One time Ron Paul did something or said something that contradicted his life's work. Guess we have to scrap the old revolution and hold off till the perfect human is born. 

I don't get why so many people who have NEVER read Rand can have so much against her. And on this site! Not just talking about this thread and its posters but all the other Rand threads ever on this site. 

Jefferson had slaves! Should we scrap the declaration then?

----------


## Depressed Liberator

Rand was an $#@! in every way possible.

----------


## doodle

I would have asked:

*Who needs cranky Ayn Rand when we have Rudy Giuliani?*

In quick sampling of philosophies of the two,  both are anti socialists, individualists ( although both seem hypocritical on this at times), objectivists and support pursuit of personal happiness, conservative leaning, anti welfare state,  pro foreign wars and diminshed liberties at home/patriot act.

I have yet to see any meaningful difference in policies/advocaies  of Ayn Rand Institute and Rudy Giuliani.

----------


## low preference guy

> In quick sampling of philosophies of the two,  both are anti socialists, individualists ( although both seem hypocritical on this at times), *objectivists* and* support* pursuit of personal happiness, conservative leaning, anti welfare state,  pro foreign wars and diminshed liberties at home/*patriot act..*


Thank you for destroying your own credibility.

It's good to know you're either a shameless liar or on a cocaine trip.

----------


## Carehn

> I would have asked:
> 
> *Who needs cranky Ayn Rand when we have Rudy Giuliani?*
> 
> I have yet to see any meaningful difference in policies/advocaies  of Ayn Rand *Institute* and Rudy Giuliani.


didn't know thats what we where talking about. I don't see much difference between giuliani and the country Jefferson started. 

So i guess giuliani and Jefferson would be about the same?

----------


## R3volutionJedi

Who cares for Ayn Rand when we have Thomas Jefferson -

Amen!
 +1000

----------


## Agorism

Ayn Rand thought the Arabs were savages.

Wikipedia anti-arab page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism




> In the mid-1970s, a prominent American libertarian author, scholar and philosopher, Ayn Rand, advocated strong anti-Arab sentiment following the Arab-Israeli War of 1973: "The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."[81]


http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ..._arab_conflict

----------


## doodle

> didn't know thats what we where talking about. I don't see much difference between giuliani and the country Jefferson started. 
> 
> So i guess giuliani and Jefferson would be about the same?


Just to narrow the frame, I'll stick with current advocacies/supported policies of Ayan Rand Institute and compare them to those of Rudy Giuliani. AR is not arround,  but let's assume ARI people are faithful to her philosophical outlook.

I'm also thinking if this could derail OP's thread and can start a new discussion on this. 

In the meantime, if there are any key differences in what Rudi Giuliani has advocated vs ARI, I am prepared to be corrected.

----------


## Carehn

> Just to narrow the frame, I'll stick with current advocacies/supported policies of Ayan Rand Institute and compare them to those of Rudy Giuliani. AR is not arround,  but let's assume ARI people are faithful to her philosophical outlook.
> 
> I'm also thinking if this could derail OP's thread and can start a new discussion on this. 
> 
> In the meantime, if there are any key differences in what Rudi Giuliani has advocated vs ARI, I am prepared to be corrected.


We where going at it last night a little right? Fine you win. Ayn Rand was an evil, statist, warmongering, bitch... And a horrible writer. I bet she would have voted for Obama. Twice!

----------


## Carehn

> Ayn Rand thought the Arabs were savages.
> 
> Wikipedia anti-arab page
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ..._arab_conflict


One last thing....


they are

----------


## doodle

> We where going at it last night a little right? Fine you win. Ayn Rand was an evil, statist, warmongering, bitch... And a horrible writer. *I bet she would have voted for Obama.* Twice!


I don't yet enough to predict her vote but her current deciples at ARI I believe would have voted for Obama over Ron Paul. 

Ron Paul wants to cut all foreign welfare ( including financial and military aid to Israel) and would not be bombing foreign countries or bending Constitution to strip liberties by increasing government powers through things like Patriot Act despite any ad campaign  funded by Ayan Rand's students/Atlas Shrugged producers.

There is no win/lose here, just exchange of views.

----------


## Agorism

I wonder if she supported the US Government having a giant nuclear arsenal? 

Bet she did.

----------


## Depressed Liberator

> One last thing....
> 
> 
> they are


get out

----------


## doodle

> One last thing....
> 
> 
> they are


Are you a collectivist or individualist?

----------


## Agorism

Ayn Rand was a collectivist as she was constantly attacking anarchists and Libertarians.

----------


## mczerone

> Jefferson didn't have an ethical system consistent with capitalism. Ayn Rand does. That's why when capitalism is established in the future, it will be thanks to Ayn Rand, not Thomas Jefferson.


Ayn Rand didn't have an ethical system consistent with peaceful interactions. Jefferson does.  That's why when (if) anarcho-capitalism is established in the future, it will be thanks to Thomas Jefferson, AMONG OTHERS, not Ayn Rand, who will be a footnote to a time-gone-by.

Ayn Rand is what makes any strain of libertarianism unattractive to people with emotions.

----------


## Agorism

Ayn Rand's attacks on anarchists and Libertarians (and post-modernists) are something you'd see on a Sean Hannity website from GOP partisans. You must worship the government...they will give your freedom and rights if you pay them off enough.

----------


## Lothario

It's these absurd and unfounded arguments that depress me about the chances of winning converts to Ron Paul on the basis of reason.  I discover Ron Paul and think I'm finally among reasonable people - only to discover there's just as much distorted reasoning in the Ron Paul camp as there is outside of it.

----------


## doodle

> Ayn Rand didn't have an ethical system consistent with peaceful interactions. Jefferson does.  That's why when (if) anarcho-capitalism is established in the future, it will be thanks to Thomas Jefferson, AMONG OTHERS, not Ayn Rand, who will be a footnote to a time-gone-by.
> 
> *Ayn Rand is what makes any strain of libertarianism unattractive to people with emotions.*


Looking at views of a few of strongest AR supporters, I got the impression that she inspired excessive emotions 

In any case, I was already turned off from the movie because of the whole Ed Snider funded pro war interventions, pro increased government powers ads.  Only reason I was thinking of getting the book was because while back RP had said some positive things about it but I think I'm cancelling that thought too.  I don't really  need any collectivist like Ayn Rand tell me that I am myself master of my destiny, my happiness is under my control and I don't need government to make that happen for me. It's common sense.

----------


## low preference guy

> Ayn Rand's attacks on anarchists and Libertarians (and post-modernists) are something you'd see on a Sean Hannity website from GOP partisans. You must worship the government...they will give your freedom and rights if you pay them off enough.


What a clueless post. First, post-modernism is just a mix of skepticism and nihilism. It really is a sad joke.

The attacks of Ayn Rand on libertarians were based on the fact that they didn't have a philosophical justification for their political beliefs, and predicted that for that reason they will be a failure. His criticism had nothing to do with believing that "You must worship the government...they will give your freedom and rights if you pay them off enough." After 40 years, the failure of the libertarian party proves she was right.

----------


## low preference guy

> Ayn Rand's attacks on anarchists and Libertarians (and post-modernists) are something you'd see on a Sean Hannity website from GOP partisans. *You must worship the government...they will give your freedom and rights if you pay them off enough.*


That deserves to be responded with a big LOL.

----------


## low preference guy

> I don't yet enough to predict her vote but her current deciples at ARI I believe would have voted for Obama over Ron Paul. 
> 
> Ron Paul wants to cut all foreign welfare ( including financial and military aid to Israel) and would not be bombing foreign countries or bending Constitution to strip liberties by increasing government powers through things like Patriot Act despite any ad campaign  funded by Ayan Rand's students/Atlas Shrugged producers.
> 
> There is no win/lose here, just exchange of views.


Did you read your own quotes? Ayn Rand didn't want to support Israel with the help of American soldiers; she was in favor of selling them weapons.

Regarding attacks to civil liberties, Ayn Rand never supported that. Even ARI opposed and opposes the patriot act and the department of homeland security. The more you type, the clearer is to everyone that you're either crazy or a vicious liar.

----------


## low preference guy

> It's these absurd and unfounded arguments that depress me about the chances of winning converts to Ron Paul on the basis of reason.  I discover Ron Paul and think I'm finally among reasonable people - only to discover there's just as much distorted reasoning in the Ron Paul camp as there is outside of it.


I don't think there are that many. You'll see the same names in every thread. Doodle is in every thread, and all the three threads against Ayn Rand were opened by the same person: agorism, a guy that is so clueless that he even praises post-modernism.

----------


## Agorism

Post-Modernism > Modernism

Modernism is inflexible like Ayn Rand's views and personality.

----------


## doodle

> Ayn Rand was a collectivist as she was constantly attacking anarchists and Libertarians.


That's not cool.

BTW, what was her take on government welfare programs like social security, anyone knows?

----------


## eproxy100

> What a clueless post. First, post-modernism is just a mix of skepticism and nihilism. It really is a sad joke.
> 
> The attacks of Ayn Rand on libertarians were based on the *fact that they didn't have a philosophical justification for their political beliefs*, and predicted that for that reason they will be a failure. His criticism had nothing to do with believing that "You must worship the government...they will give your freedom and rights if you pay them off enough." After 40 years, the failure of the libertarian party proves she was right.


How is it a fact that the political beliefs of libertarians aren't based on phiosophical justifications?

----------


## Agorism

The Libertarian movement has not failed. 

Real voting is via markets not voting booths. Every government naturally grows larger and larger regardless of which party is in power with a natural trajectory towards bankruptcy including the U.S. The markets will eventually say no to the Federal government.

I'm not saying you should not vote btw. Politics is good fun, and you may be able to slow its progression or not, but I think you would watch the show with some perspective as well.

----------


## low preference guy

> The Libertarian movement has not failed.


Her attacks on "libertarians" were attacks on people in the Libertarian Party, not what we today understand as libertarianism.

----------


## low preference guy

> BTW, what was her take on government welfare programs like social security, anyone knows?


She loved the welfare state, of course.

----------


## doodle

> She loved the welfare state, of course.


So this be true?

*Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same*

LINK

----------


## low preference guy

> So this be true?
> 
> *Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same*
> 
> LINK


Have you ever used a public road? Yes? If so, you're a communist hypocrite.

----------


## Agorism

> So this be true?
> 
> Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same
> 
> LINK

----------


## Pericles

Why settle for a poor copy, when you can have the original?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Have you ever used a public road? Yes? If so, you're a communist hypocrite.


   Yes, there's absolutely no difference between using a road system that existed long before any of us were born and voluntarily accepting welfare.  This is a perfect comparison. /sarcasm

----------


## low preference guy

> Yes, there's absolutely no difference between using a road system that existed long before any of us were born and voluntarily accepting welfare.  This is a perfect comparison. /sarcasm


How are they different? You're taxed to pay from the road just like you're taxed to pay for social security. It's not welfare; it's getting your money back.

----------


## Lothario

Start at 8:22

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Block's argument there is pretty damn good, IMHO. ^^

----------


## Carehn

> Are you a collectivist or individualist?


Please.
lets just put this aside and get Ron in office.

----------


## libertybrewcity

I LOVE Atlas Shrugged.

----------


## MaxPower

Doodle, you're really not being terribly reasonable, here; you clearly have _extremely_ limited knowledge of Ayn Rand and her views, but are going out guns-blazing, declaring her the equivalent of Rudy Giuliani, suggesting she would vote for Obama over Ron Paul, and generally making extremely bold negative assertions on the basis of minimal evidence.

Ayn Rand wanted to see all taxation ultimately abolished, opposed State economic intervention, opposed the welfare state (the fact that she took Social Security money does not make this position hypocritical- our own Ron Paul has explained countless times that it is not hypocrisy for someone who opposes the existence of a welfare system to accept welfare payments if said individual has him/herself been first required to pay _into_ said system- moreover, note that both Ron and Rand Paul accept government money in their Congressional positions, and Rand took Medicare money in his optometry practice), and actually expressed anti-militaristic/anti-war sentiments at times, though I admit that she was not consistent in this regard. I do not count her among my personal idols, but will unhesitatingly state that she was one of the most accomplished and influential of all libertarian authors and philosophers in history.

----------


## low preference guy

> and actually expressed anti-militaristic/anti-war sentiments at times


She opposed the Vietnam war, WWI, and WWII.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ayn Rand thought the Arabs were savages.
> 
> Wikipedia anti-arab page
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism
> 
> http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ..._arab_conflict


I could see how comments like this in support of Israel could be an extension of Rand's anti-communism, which had to be taken into account in every conflict at that time.

Everything was looked at through the filter of USSR v. USA.

It's hard to recall that was the case, I'm guilty of it myself from time to time.

That said, Jefferson > Rand IMO.

----------


## MaxPower

> She oppose the Vietnam war, WWI, and WWII.


 There you have it.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> One last thing....
> 
> 
> they are


And that's why their children deserved to be bombed and their women raped by "brave and civilized" American troops, right?

----------


## nayjevin

> One last thing....
> 
> 
> they are





> + Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. It will not be tolerated here.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ms-Registering

----------


## Justinjj1

> As great as Jefferson was, Rand is among the elite of the elite. She is to philosophy as to what Newton and Einstein were to physics.


This is the most absurd statement that I've ever seen on here.

----------


## low preference guy

> This is the most absurd statement that I've ever seen on here.


That's the opposite of what I think. I think it's an understatement, because Rand is more important to ethics than Einstein is to physics.

----------


## Justinjj1

lol

----------


## TroySmith

People who bash Rand are people who have never read Rand or have any legitimate basic understanding off her. Agorism and doodle (assuming they aren't the same person) clearly both fall into this category. The idea of calling Rand a COLLECTIVIST of all things is so intellectually pathetic it's hardly worth responding to. I doubt they even realize the tragic irony of such a statement. 

Low preference guy is probably right about the Einstein comparison, because Ayn Rand completely dismantled all the older forms of philosophy and completely rebuilt it. Her intellectual ability was nearly unreal.

----------


## Agorism

Maybe the Rand cult has posters on this forum?

----------


## Agorism

Ayn Rand movie bombs out as movie audience go GALT on this POS.





> Twelve days after opening “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film.
> 
> “Critics, you won,” said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” which covers the first third of Rand’s dystopian novel. “I’m having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2.”
> 
> “Atlas Shrugged” was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film’s second week in release even as “Atlas Shrugged” expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.
> …..
> The novel, a sacred text among many conservatives for Rand’s passionate defense of capitalism, takes place at an unspecified future time in which the U.S. is mired in a deep depression and a mysterious phenomenon is causing the nation’s leading industrialists to disappear or “strike.”

----------


## FrankRep

> Ayn Rand movie bombs out as movie audience go GALT on this POS.


That's not fair to say. This was an independently made movie.

----------


## JohnGalt1225

This thread is head scratching to say the least.  Ayn Rand may have been many things, but a collectivist she was most certainly not.  She was in favor of abolishing all taxation and making the funding of the government 100% voluntary.  She opposed all government forced welfare, was generally a non-interventionist, and valued achievement and progress.

The Libertarians she attacked was largely the Libertarian Party because she (rightly) said they would fail.  As far as anarcho-capitalism, she abhorred it because she (rightly) points out that it's a contradiction in terms.  The government serves one purpose: to protect property rights and individual rights. 




> Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.


-Ayn Rand




> If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his dooror to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.


-Ayn Rand

I'm not an objectivist, I do respect a lot of their ideas however.  I also love Atlas Shrugged, hence my username.  I'm just not sure I understand all of the hatred of Ayn Rand.  Was she a bitch?  Yeah probably, who knows.  Thomas Jefferson owned slaves but that doesn't discount all of his ideas.

----------


## Agorism

Ayn Rand novels are for middle schoolers (as that was when I read it and thought it was great at the time.) Then you grow up and realize that post-modernism is legitimate, that a stateless society is ideal not a military society as Rand wants, and that 1984 was 10X as good in terms of an anti-government novel plus Orwell was actually a good writer.

----------


## JohnGalt1225

> Ayn Rand novels are for middle schoolers (as that was when I read it and thought it was great at the time.) Then you grow up and realize that post-modernism is legitimate, that a stateless society is ideal not a military society as Rand wants, and that 1984 was 10X as good in terms of an anti-government novel plus Orwell was actually a good writer.


 A stateless society is a pipedream.  Rand didn't want a "military society," she believed that a military is one of the few legitimate functions of a government.  With no objective laws and no police force our individual rights fall to the mercy of roving gangs.  Society will simply break down to competing gangs fighting over turf and territory and we'll have to pay protection money to a racket in order run a business.

Anarchy?  Really?  You're serious?  And you say Ayn Rand is for middle schoolers, anarchy is for elementary school.

----------


## WilliamC

> Ayn Rand thought the Arabs were savages.
> 
> Wikipedia anti-arab page
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ..._arab_conflict


Just speculation on my part but might this view have been directed at how Arab society and culture treat women more than just the name 'Arab'?

As tolerant as I personally am my entire worldview is based on being a man it's my biology. I have a hard time puting myself in a women's mind but I'm guessing if I were female and knew of a society where women had a similar status as chattel slaves then I'd call those people savages too.

Heck I don't have to be female to understand that.

----------


## WilliamC

> Maybe the Rand cult has posters on this forum?


Well Ron Paul himself has obviously read Ann Rand's writings and is in agreements with many of her philisophical views so that is a reasonable assumption on your part.

Although I really don't consider myself nor Ron Paul to be members of any sort of cult together.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Just speculation on my part but might this view have been directed at how Arab society and culture treat women more than just the name 'Arab'?
> 
> As tolerant as I personally am my entire worldview is based on being a man it's my biology. I have a hard time puting myself in a women's mind but I'm guessing if I were female and knew of a society where women had a similar status as chattel slaves then I'd call those people savages too.


Do you have any real proof or evidence that Arab women are treated as slaves or are you basing this on Hollywood movies that you watch? I've dated some Arab women and they didn't have any chattel slave status.

Have you seen how Arab women dress in music videos? They dress just like Britney Spears. Seems pretty "liberated" to me.

----------


## Agorism

> A stateless society is a pipedream. Rand didn't want a "military society," she believed that a military is one of the few legitimate functions of a government. With no objective laws and no police force our individual rights fall to the mercy of roving gangs. Society will simply break down to competing gangs fighting over turf and territory and we'll have to pay protection money to a racket in order run a business.
> 
> Anarchy? Really? You're serious? And you say Ayn Rand is for middle schoolers, anarchy is for elementary school.




No, the military and a standing army are the main things we have to get rid of. Without it, the president and D.C. can't enforce their bogus laws and wars.

----------


## WilliamC

> And that's why their children deserved to be bombed and their women raped by "brave and civilized" American troops, right?


Rape and dead children/civilians are not the same thing. 

In a state of declared war, where I have every belief that my and my groups continued survival is dependent upon the conquest of another hostile group then I might feel compelled to bomb targets where I knew there to be non-combatants when they are intermingled with those actively trying to kill me. It's not my fault that evil uses the inocent to shield its actions.

But raping would require a deliberate decision on my part to harm someone helpless for some personal satisfaction, and I just can't see any situation where I would want to feel that. It's up there with torture on my immorality scale.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> It's not my fault that evil uses the inocent to shield its actions.


LOL, you believe that's actually the case? Where's the evidence for this? They are only evil because you say they are. 

I would say the invading army is evil. You would do the same thing if your neighborhood was being taken over by foreign army.

----------


## WilliamC

> Do you have any real proof or evidence that Arab women are treated as slaves or are you basing this on Hollywood movies that you watch?


I could give a rats ass about Hollywood movies when it comes to forming political beliefs, so no.

Women have been treated this way by many different cultures throughout history, including US history up until the middle 1800's.

And while I've rightly never been there myself it is my understanding based on reading history and current events that in some middle eastern countries, like say Saudi Arabia, they are largely treated this way today.

I know Iranians are not Arabians, (well Persians are not Arabians but some minority of Iranians most certainly are) and I know Arabian culture is not 100% congruent with Islamic religion and Sharia law, but in many peoples minds they are synonymous if that is what you are getting at though.





> I've dated some Arab women and they didn't have any chattel slave status.


I've dated black women in Alabama during the 1980's and she didn't have any chattel slave status either, but that doesn't mean that in some parts of Africa today (no, Africans ARE NOT Arabians) they are.

Just like in some Arabian counries today women are in many respects treated as slaves, and I have no doubt that they are in some instances bought and sold for money so that would make them chattel. And misogynism is very much a part of Arabian culture based on current events, like the sexual assult on CBS correspondent Laura Logan in Egypt a few weeks ago.




> Have you seen how Arab women dress in music videos? They dress just like Britney Spears. Seems pretty "liberated" to me.


Yes, and quite beautiful as well. I would like to see them have the freedom to behave so in all countries of the world, it makes my heart fill with joy and thoughts of making babies!

Better still arm them at the same time too. Nothing is as healthy for a free society as soverign, capable, armed women going about their daily lives.

----------


## WilliamC

> LOL, you believe that's actually the case? Where's the evidence for this? They are only evil because you say they are.


Where did I say "they"?

I said it is not my fault that evil uses innocence to shield its actions, I never specified any curent group of people as doing this.

You are jumping to conclusions.

And I do not think that the USA is currently in a state of declared war either.

So your statement fails in multiple ways to address my written words and simultaneously reveals something about your own projections and biases. 

This may be an interesting conversation.  




> I would say the invading army is evil.


What invading army? I was talking about bombing targets, that can be done without sending in ground troops, i.e. invading.

Now if you say every single act of bombing is always evil I have to disagree.




> You would do the same thing if your neighborhood was being taken over by foreign army.


What same thing? Use my children to shield my counter attacts? 

I don't understand your question, but the answer to my rhetorical one is no I wouldn't, so don't try to accuse me of being evil thank you very much, which is what you are implying.

Try again though, since I am curious as to where your mind is coming from,

----------


## ExPatPaki

> And while I've rightly never been there myself it is my understanding based on reading history and current events that in some middle eastern countries, like say Saudi Arabia, they are largely treated this way today.


Saudi Arabia is pretty bad because of Wahabi fundamentalism that took over in the late 1700s. But Saudi women are doing much better now despite not being able to vote (just like Saudi men); and not being able to drive. Still Saudi Arabia doesn't represent the Muslim or Arab world.




> I know Arabian culture is not 100% congruent with Islamic religion and Sharia law, but in many peoples minds they are synonymous if that is what you are getting at though.


Yep, a big part of pre-Islamic Arab culture was female infanticide (which still exists in India and China), and Islam eliminated this culture of female infanticide.




> Just like in some Arabian counries today women are in many respects treated as slaves, and I have no doubt that they are in some instances bought and sold for money so that would make them chattel.


Again where is the proof or evidence for this? You're just making this $#@! up.




> And misogynism is very much a part of Arabian culture based on current events, like the sexual assult on CBS correspondent Laura Logan in Egypt a few weeks ago.


So based on what a few people did (could very possibly be Mubarak thugs), you start denouncing an entire people and culture? American culture is pretty sick as well if we look at at the actions of how US troops act towards Arab women.




> Better still arm them at the same time too. Nothing is as healthy for a free society as soverign, capable, armed women going about their daily lives.


Don't worry. Arab women are armed and ready and they have fought many times against Israel and will (and continue to) fight against American invading troops as well.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> I said it is not my fault that evil uses innocence to shield its actions,


And when has this subjective evil ever done this?

----------


## ExPatPaki

> So your statement fails in multiple ways to address my written words and simultaneously reveals something about your own projections and biases.


Only in your own little mind.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Use my children to shield my counter attacts?


This has never happened, so why bring it up?

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Where did I say "they"?
> 
> I said it is not my fault that evil uses innocence to shield its actions.





> I might feel compelled to bomb targets where I knew there to be non-combatants when *they* are intermingled with those actively trying to kill me. It's not my fault that evil uses the inocent to shield its actions.


So they = evil. Why are they evil in the first place in your subjective mind? Why are they actively trying to kill you? Are you really that paranoid of this particular evil "they"? What did you do to compel them to kill you?

----------


## WilliamC

> So they = evil. Why are they evil in the first place in your subjective mind? Why are they actively trying to kill you? Are you really that paranoid of this particular evil "they"? What did you do to compel them to kill you?


Yes I used the word 'they' but you are automatically assuming I am talking about the Palestinians, which I'm not.

You wear your biases openly in this thread, I am not paranoid of Palestinians and they are not actively trying to kill me.

I was speaking in a hypothetical sense and you try to twist my words to fit your agenda.

Typical for a close-minded person, and from your sig line you actively wish to impose Sharia law in the United States, said act which would be in violation of the US Constitution. 

Try to impose it on me or my family though and I'll be 'forced' into defending myself, just as I would against any other attacker.

----------


## WilliamC

> Only in your own little mind.


Obvious projection on your part.

Keep trying though, maybe you will actually learn something new.

But your mind seems pretty closed so it will be difficult.

----------


## WilliamC

> This has never happened, so why bring it up?


Read the post you are replying to. I was speaking hypothetically, not acusing any specific group of people.

Heck if my land was invaded I'd be a 'terrorist' against the invaders too, so I actually don't condem some people as you think I do.

----------


## WilliamC

[QUOTE=ExPatPaki;3248090]Saudi Arabia is pretty bad because of Wahabi fundamentalism that took over in the late 1700s. 

There you go, maybe this is why Ann Rand had a low opinion of 'arabs', because of Saudi ARABIA!

That's the ONLY point I was trying to make in this thread, and you get in a twist thinking I am prejudiced against Palestinians or something.

Dude, don't jump to conclusions, it makes you seem irrational.




> Don't worry. Arab women are armed and ready and they have fought many times against Israel and will (and continue to) fight against American invading troops as well.


GOOD! I want American troops to defend the USA, not to be invading the middle east.

Isreal can do what they damn well please, they are NOT part of my country although sometimes they seem to be treated like the 51st state.

I hope that those Arab women keep and bear their arms in their own defense during peace as well as during war, since I personally LOVE women and wish to see them empowered in ways that many Arab men don't.

I'm glad you don't fit the sterotype of a misogynistic Arab male.

----------


## ChaosControl

I don't care for Ayn Rand.
Thomas Jefferson had good rhetoric but mediocre leadership.

I'm not looking to others as some special figurehead, even if I consider TJ one of the least evils within our government's history.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Typical for a close-minded person, and from your sig line you actively wish to impose Sharia law in the United States, said act which would be in violation of the US Constitution.


Haha, you're a moron. My sig line is a joke and if anyone takes it seriously, they are paranoid little idiots.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> I hope that those Arab women keep and bear their arms in their own defense during peace as well as during war, since I personally LOVE women and wish to see them empowered in ways that many Arab men don't.


Have you conducted statistical surveys of Arab men in the world to come up with this or are you jumping to irrational conclusions?




> I'm glad you don't fit the sterotype of a misogynistic Arab male.


I'm not an Arab and most Arab men are not misogynistic.

----------


## eproxy100

"If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his dooror to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages."

I totally cannot agree with this statement. One shouldn't rely on the police to protect one's self, and one SHOULD go about armed. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a police.

I don't know anything about Ayn Rand. Is she anti-gun?

----------


## WilliamC

> Haha, you're a moron. My sig line is a joke and if anyone takes it seriously, they are paranoid little idiots.


Yes to the first, no to the second.

My sig line isn't a joke, so I assumed yours wasn't either.

----------

