Paul Ryan Lived on Social Security

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 04-23-2011 02:51 PM

rumike wrote: Yeah, RA, it took awhile for me to get this, but I now realize that the modern day Republican Party is very simply what might as well be called the Objektivist Party that uses ignorant religious masses to keep them in power. The world makes a lot more sense now. I don't see any diff between her philosophies and the walk that the GOP walks.

Every time I hear that some politician wants to create laws based on their own religious beliefs, it makes my blood boil. Laws need to be created using common sense and for the good of all mankind, not based on a book of which nobody knows who the author is or for what reason it was written. In the future, say 500 hundred years from now, Harry Potter too could be used as a Bible and laws could be created around the fictional fantasies of J.K. Rowling.

Sorry if I have offended anybody, but as a female, the Bible (this best seller) offends me.

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-23-2011 03:19 PM

Objectivists are atheists. They would never consider creating laws based on their or anyone else's religious beliefs.

rumike · Post by **rumike** » 04-23-2011 05:34 PM

Raggedyann wrote:
Sorry if I have offended anybody, but as a female, the Bible (this best seller) offends me.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. I totally agree with you. The Cult of Ayn Rand (the modern Republican leadership) is steering America into a self-centered black hole. And of course, following only the principle of selfishness, they are more than happy to lie and say she is not what the GOP policies are based on.

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-23-2011 05:43 PM

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 04-23-2011 06:03 PM

All I can say is, it is a bit absurd to name your kid, that you sired 40 odd years ago, after someone with the same ideals that you had then. Things change, new information comes to light and sometimes philosophies that seemed modern and everlasting back then, aren't embraced by the populace of today.

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-23-2011 06:13 PM

He's right that there is a cult-like aspect to Randianism. But the whole idea of it is that some concepts ARE everlasting -- indeed, Rand traced her philosophy back to Aristotle, which is a lot more than forty years.

She would also say that whether or not an idea is "embraced by the populace" is irrelevant. The Randian hero is someone who stands up against the crowd.

Really, I'm not a Rand fan. But to say that the modern GOP is really run according to Randian philosophy is beyond ridiculous. It appears to be an attempt to discredit the GOP based on a wildly inaccurate presentation of Randianism.

SquidInk · Post by **SquidInk** » 04-23-2011 09:49 PM

HB3 wrote: Objectivists are atheists. They would never consider creating laws based on their or anyone else's religious beliefs.

Objectivists have an intricate belief system built around certain economic concepts and hierarchies - their belief in these ideas is so tenacious that it is essentially a religion. The idea that within this pseudo-religion a miscreant like Rand to can be exalted to this extent is truly sad.

“The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

This is the core of Ayn Rand, the core of the Tea Party movement (although I honestly think most of them don't realize it), and in fact, it's the core of the entire modern conservative movement.

The party leadership of the GOP/DNC are a a totally separate band of clowns.

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-23-2011 10:47 PM

SquidInk wrote: Objectivists have an intricate belief system built around certain economic concepts and hierarchies - their belief in these ideas is so tenacious that it is essentially a religion. The idea that within this pseudo-religion a miscreant like Rand to can be exalted to this extent is truly sad.

You know, I'll totally go with you there. I just got into a huge fight with a Randian on another site. Naturally, what I was saying was very different over there, and to them, I'm just a worthless liberal looter mystic, rather than a subhuman Nazi swine.

It's very much like a cult and plays into a psychological makeup -- there's some sort of specific trigger that causes a person to become a Randian, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.

There are many valid ways to criticize Randianism. But first you have to start with an actual understanding -- even a small one -- rather than a caricature. And that's what we've had so far. And in a way it's too bad, because it sort of stops the conversation from getting more interesting.

Is that passage you quoted from the John Galt speech? I'd guess it was. It's a peculiar document.

SquidInk · Post by **SquidInk** » 04-23-2011 11:40 PM

Yeah, it's a section of 'Galt's speech'. The whole thing can be read here:

http://jeremysarber.com/2010/03/08/john ... ged-audio/

Grab a coffee... and an overnight knapsack.

It's the ultimate (at least in my reading) example of a 'philosophy' based solely on a particular economic perspective. When reading this, it's as if you're being allowed to glimpse behind the curtain.

I guess the whole idea was to counter the labor theory of value - which I always found to be quite reasonable.

Anyway, this is the core of american right today - no doubt. I remember Limbaugh quoting this stuff on the air back in the eighties (which is why I read it).

This stuff is so off base, it's hard to post about it with any kind of brevity.

SquidInk · Post by **SquidInk** » 04-23-2011 11:57 PM

HB3 wrote: Naturally, what I was saying was very different over there, and to them, I'm just a worthless liberal looter mystic, rather than a subhuman Nazi swine.

Well to me you'll always be a groovy unmentionable leper.

showthread.php?threadid=43588&perpage=1 ... genumber=4

rumike · Post by **rumike** » 04-24-2011 12:14 AM

SquidInk wrote:

The party leadership of the GOP/DNC are a a totally separate band of clowns.

I agree with you, actually. But I think this is the case of the tail wagging the dog. Now the GOP leaders have to pretend to believe in the Rand ideology in or else get primaried. Although Paul Ryan IS most certainly a Rand devotee, and he is emerging as a "leader" I would say.

SquidInk · Post by **SquidInk** » 04-24-2011 12:27 AM

Well, I think the leaders of the GOP (and the Democratic party) do believe in the Randian 'intellectual pyramid" - and have for decades & decades, it's just that now they're forced by the Ryans of the party into being more forthcoming.

It's a secret I think they would have rather kept hidden.

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-24-2011 01:15 PM

rumike wrote: I agree with you, actually. But I think this is the case of the tail wagging the dog. Now the GOP leaders have to pretend to believe in the Rand ideology in or else get primaried.

Wait a minute, I thought you said they were Randians who had to pretend to be Christians. It's all so confusing....

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-24-2011 08:23 PM

SquidInk wrote: Yeah, it's a section of 'Galt's speech'. The whole thing can be read here:

http://jeremysarber.com/2010/03/08/john ... ged-audio/

Grab a coffee... and an overnight knapsack.

It's the ultimate (at least in my reading) example of a 'philosophy' based solely on a particular economic perspective. When reading this, it's as if you're being allowed to glimpse behind the curtain.

Well...she'd say it's based on a reason-based understand on reality first, tracing back to Aristotle. And every facet of existence derives from that, including economics. But, yeah..."YMMV." I'm not against reading something else into it entirely, of, you know, a psychologically maladaptive character. There's certainly room for the rationalization of hostility in her ethos...and the Galt speech, as I recall, has a lot of that.

But don't be too quick to dismiss her. The book wouldn't have lasted if there wasn't something there. There's something powerful and (especially) relevant about it that can't be summarized or translated easily. I see the movie bombed, and what I saw of it looked terrible. Whatever it is, it must be unique to her -- to her prose style, perhaps, and to her character.

Bobbi Snow · Post by **Bobbi Snow** » 04-24-2011 10:52 PM

Comprehension and understanding of one's self comes from one's very own experiences.

If someone is a born-again Christian, and he/she is totally prosperous in life, and feels he/she has not ever harmed anyone to attain it, then he/she thanks god - not the personal intelligence and disciplines exercised from hard work and a good mind. He/she is sutting his/her own self short...

If another person who believes in nothing achieves the very same level of attainment, they thank their parents and themselves for allowing them to have the genes, the upbringing, and the education to have been so prosperous.

There is no difference, except that the person who believes in nothing but him or herself doesn't feel beholding to something or someone they cannot see, touch, smell, or talk to.

Any of their children they have who are prosperous will find their own realities. Some will marry and look to a religion for peace; others will fail and scream at god for forsaking them. Some will find solace in the fact that they had strong parents, and a good education with decent values.

It makes no difference WHAT you believe, as long as you have a good heart and do what seems "right and non-harmful" to you.

Life is a crapshoot... sometimes you win; sometimes you lose.

I would never follow the words of someone else's literature to guide my own path.

Sometimes I win; sometimes I lose. And I have no one to blame but my own short-comings.