13

If you are not a fan of Ayn Rand, why are you in the Gulch?

Posted by Mamaemma 10 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
272 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

And if someone is a fan of Ayn Rand, does that mean that that person understands and agrees with her philosophy?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    term2 -

    I have found much information in the discussions in the Gulch. ( I do not think I can use them to convert the liberals around me because they will not actually listen. )

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I call that 'making monsters of the mind'. I have tried to train myself out of the habit of doing this, but I find it difficult sometimes.

    There are people who have acted as trolls on this list - short comments, lots of unpleasant labels, and no discussion. You are not short on the quality of 'being willing to discuss' so I do not consider you a troll.

    But if you are not a troll, but your communication style makes people you find interesting repeatedly think that this is your goal, then you might wish to take that under advisement.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not know the answer to your question, but one of the things I would like to accord to Ayn Rand is...fallibility.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But in that case, you would be 'returning' the money to its original owner, not 'giving' it. I see that as different.

    If a man is running down the street carrying a pink purse and I trip him, take the purse, and give it back to the littleoldlady he stole it from it is a different matter than if I were to clobber an innocent pink-purse-carrying man, wrench his beloved purse from his grasp and then toss it to some old woman who 'I' decided deserved to have it.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for the link - don't have time to browse it right now but I will do so later. I have a slight acquaintance with the gentleman and a good deal of respect for him.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Those who refuse to read her works yet speak about her philosophy as though they are knowledgable
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I first read that idea in one of Heinlein's stories (Coventry?), and I do think that this is an aspect of government that no country has addressed. Every country wants to keep their natural/cultural citizens.

    But the devil is in the details and the details of this boggle my brain: How do you keep it from being an oath under duress? Do you export your criminals when they turn 18? (If not, maybe you should slap a cop the day before your 18th bday.) Do people who eschew cars have to pay for highways? Do they pay less? (After all, even if they walk to the supermarket, their food gets to the market via roads.)

    So I think that either a flat rate payment (ahem = tax) or a government ownership of some profitable utility by which it can earn a living sounds better. Have pity on the bookkeepers!

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, amhunt, it is only circular logic if you define "liberty" as 'never paying a compulsory tax'. Ranter's definition does not seem to be circular.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IIGeo2 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I pay to join because the website cost money to run, and I enjoy the comments of others who are from different walks of life and have different perspectives. for example I have no idea what nebuluos means in the context you are using it. But the advantage to me is that I have this website long after the Movie has been produced. How many other websites will actually have a real producer actually answer a question like this?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Third Reich is far from the most evil in history, not even the most evil in the 20th century. Certainly Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed more than Hitler. They merely did so in a less "egregious" manner. It is the gas chambers and furnaces that gives Hitler/Naziism the vile reputation, not the extent of its evilness.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No. Godwin's law is about those who have no rational argument and simply want to invoke inflammatory images.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's the reason why people cite it, for sure. My question is why should that not be appropriate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're pretty much on target. AR understood that the collectivist mindset is very seductive. Those that promise you more by taking from those that "have too much" is very convenient. Nobody thinks they "have too much," but most think they have "too little." Thus, many justify the taking from some to benefit the "many."
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo