HerodotusMao’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
I appreciate you thoughtful comment.
Yes, it can seem like boiling down a theory that believers write enormous tomes about can seem dismissive. But to someone who not only doesn't buy the premise, but actually think its a mean-spirited and infantile way of looking at the world, talking about it too much starts to quickly resemble an in depth and nuanced discussion on the silk embroidery on the Emperor's New Clothes.
To be honest, writing as much as I did above was a struggle, I can't really picture much more to say about either Rand or L. Ron, as much as I might want to participate in a good discussion, this topic is a pretty shallow well.
And as dismissive and snide as it may seem to some, I think your one line descriptions of both Christianity (although I think that one applies more to Catholicism than some of the more wacky flavors of Christianity out there) and Communism are both fair and pretty spot on!
Yeah yeah yeah. Every rich person is a selfish bastard and anyone who doesn't want the government to make choices for them is a conspiracy nut. So nice that you know all. Again people. Fiction!
Interesting that you immediately think that anyone criticizing Ayn Rand and her boorish "philosophy" thinks that her adherents are "Conspiracy Nuts." Where did you get that from? Do you believe that the Moon Landings were a hoax or that 9/11 was an inside job and are trying to get ahead of the game? Last I checked I didn't say a think about conspiracies.
Why do people that admire this stuff get so defensive so fast? It's almost like they know that there isn't much substance there, and have to steer the conversation into victimization as soon as possible, lest they be forced to defend their ideas.
For what it's worth, yes, I do think that people over a certain level of wealth are being selfish. In a world with finite resources, demanding to have as big a piece of the pie as possible means that someone else (usually the people that do the actual hard physical work that they profit from while they sit in an air-conditioned office reading a few e-mails before calling it a day for some early golf) have to make due with less so that they can buy a fourth BMW. That is the definition of selfish, but fiction (as you are so fond of pointing out) like Rand's gives people like that a justification to continue their destructive behavior and dismiss those negatively effected by it as "lazy," when it is usually those exact same "lazy" people that are actually generating all that wealth that only they get to enjoy.
This is Economics 101.
That's not what I was saying at all. And I really don't like the book as much as you seem to think. You can make sweeping assumptions but no one else? I was just responding to the fact that you carried on about selfish adult tantrums and then referred to my post. I must've offended you with my slam on the complain and blame generation. Or simply the fact that I got something from a book that you obvious despise because of how right wingers idolize it. Pardon me for defending a book who's biggest fault is being used by a few too-far-right-right wingers. If that isn't it I have to assume you read my post wrong. Perhaps your reading comprehension isn't as spot on as you'd like to think.
Gee why am I defensive? Has nothing to do with how either of us feel about the book. "However you can save yourself a lot of time if you simply picture a child throwing a temper tantrum while screaming "Mine! Mine! Mine! I don't wanna share!" Then picture them as adults throwing the same tantrum and there you are. Don't believe me? You can read some of Kristin's comment above for a textbook example." Gee, why did I get defensive?
Look, I'm not trying to attack you personally. I'm trying to point out a specific mindset and how wrong I think it is. These two parts of your original comment in particular I thought was as clear an example of this type of thinking as one can get:
"I think it appeals to anyone who is tired of our excuses only society. Just watch an episode of Jerry Springer or any variety show where people moan cry and complain about their lot in life. Usually their own fault. No one seems to take personal responsibility for anything anymore."
and:
"Who wouldn't want to live in a Utopia where like minded, hardworking people live? People who want to live off of the efforts of others, that's who."
A perfect example of this sort of "blame those 'lazy others' for the world not being the perfect world I think it should be" mentality.
Hence why I used your post as an example of how this sort of fiction justifies and reenforces this sort of thinking.
After which you didn't mention Rand or Objectivism or anything in "Atlas," but claimed that I was saying that every single rich person was a bastard (I can give you that one, generalization though it may be) and that I called you a conspiracy nut when I did nothing of the sort. Now you want to say that you didn't actually mean to say any of the above at all, that what you really want to do is talk about "Atlas," even though you really don't like the book at all?
Forgive me for being completely confused as to where you are intending to go with this or what you (unwritten) intentions were... I think it may be best to just leave this alone, as we are obviously both talking right past each other.
I was responding to the initial post. No one else, at that point, liked or appreciated the book. I put my two cents in. I wasn't trying to play "devils advocate" and I am not saying I take anything back. I'm saying you are taking my words the wrong way. I may have gotten a little feisty after your judgmental interpretation. I really don't think I need to explain why personal responsibility and hard work is necessary. Sorry if I don't want to coddle people who's basic nature is parasitic.
She was illustrating the folly of governments who use regulations to save industries that should fail when something better or more efficient comes along. Face it most regulations don't help their intended targets, but hurt or cripple the rest. That is politics 101. They weren't selfish rich people unwilling to share. They were driven business leaders that were being handicapped by governing figures that were trying to keep their own pockets lined. And if you think the governing figures were doing it to help the little guy than you are truly delusional.
You saved me writing a lot, thank you. There is so much wrong with her philosophy. It would absolutely never work and the funny thing is, the way she portrayed the decline of America is laughable and, again, so far from what would occur in reality.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
I appreciate you thoughtful comment. Yes, it can seem like boiling down a theory that believers write enormous tomes about can seem dismissive. But to someone who not only doesn't buy the premise, but actually think its a mean-spirited and infantile way of looking at the world, talking about it too much starts to quickly resemble an in depth and nuanced discussion on the silk embroidery on the Emperor's New Clothes.
To be honest, writing as much as I did above was a struggle, I can't really picture much more to say about either Rand or L. Ron, as much as I might want to participate in a good discussion, this topic is a pretty shallow well.
And as dismissive and snide as it may seem to some, I think your one line descriptions of both Christianity (although I think that one applies more to Catholicism than some of the more wacky flavors of Christianity out there) and Communism are both fair and pretty spot on!
Yeah yeah yeah. Every rich person is a selfish bastard and anyone who doesn't want the government to make choices for them is a conspiracy nut. So nice that you know all. Again people. Fiction!
Interesting that you immediately think that anyone criticizing Ayn Rand and her boorish "philosophy" thinks that her adherents are "Conspiracy Nuts." Where did you get that from? Do you believe that the Moon Landings were a hoax or that 9/11 was an inside job and are trying to get ahead of the game? Last I checked I didn't say a think about conspiracies. Why do people that admire this stuff get so defensive so fast? It's almost like they know that there isn't much substance there, and have to steer the conversation into victimization as soon as possible, lest they be forced to defend their ideas.
For what it's worth, yes, I do think that people over a certain level of wealth are being selfish. In a world with finite resources, demanding to have as big a piece of the pie as possible means that someone else (usually the people that do the actual hard physical work that they profit from while they sit in an air-conditioned office reading a few e-mails before calling it a day for some early golf) have to make due with less so that they can buy a fourth BMW. That is the definition of selfish, but fiction (as you are so fond of pointing out) like Rand's gives people like that a justification to continue their destructive behavior and dismiss those negatively effected by it as "lazy," when it is usually those exact same "lazy" people that are actually generating all that wealth that only they get to enjoy.
This is Economics 101.
That's not what I was saying at all. And I really don't like the book as much as you seem to think. You can make sweeping assumptions but no one else? I was just responding to the fact that you carried on about selfish adult tantrums and then referred to my post. I must've offended you with my slam on the complain and blame generation. Or simply the fact that I got something from a book that you obvious despise because of how right wingers idolize it. Pardon me for defending a book who's biggest fault is being used by a few too-far-right-right wingers. If that isn't it I have to assume you read my post wrong. Perhaps your reading comprehension isn't as spot on as you'd like to think.
Gee why am I defensive? Has nothing to do with how either of us feel about the book. "However you can save yourself a lot of time if you simply picture a child throwing a temper tantrum while screaming "Mine! Mine! Mine! I don't wanna share!" Then picture them as adults throwing the same tantrum and there you are. Don't believe me? You can read some of Kristin's comment above for a textbook example." Gee, why did I get defensive?
Look, I'm not trying to attack you personally. I'm trying to point out a specific mindset and how wrong I think it is. These two parts of your original comment in particular I thought was as clear an example of this type of thinking as one can get:"I think it appeals to anyone who is tired of our excuses only society. Just watch an episode of Jerry Springer or any variety show where people moan cry and complain about their lot in life. Usually their own fault. No one seems to take personal responsibility for anything anymore."
and:
"Who wouldn't want to live in a Utopia where like minded, hardworking people live? People who want to live off of the efforts of others, that's who."
A perfect example of this sort of "blame those 'lazy others' for the world not being the perfect world I think it should be" mentality.
Hence why I used your post as an example of how this sort of fiction justifies and reenforces this sort of thinking.
After which you didn't mention Rand or Objectivism or anything in "Atlas," but claimed that I was saying that every single rich person was a bastard (I can give you that one, generalization though it may be) and that I called you a conspiracy nut when I did nothing of the sort. Now you want to say that you didn't actually mean to say any of the above at all, that what you really want to do is talk about "Atlas," even though you really don't like the book at all?
Forgive me for being completely confused as to where you are intending to go with this or what you (unwritten) intentions were... I think it may be best to just leave this alone, as we are obviously both talking right past each other.
I was responding to the initial post. No one else, at that point, liked or appreciated the book. I put my two cents in. I wasn't trying to play "devils advocate" and I am not saying I take anything back. I'm saying you are taking my words the wrong way. I may have gotten a little feisty after your judgmental interpretation. I really don't think I need to explain why personal responsibility and hard work is necessary. Sorry if I don't want to coddle people who's basic nature is parasitic.
She was illustrating the folly of governments who use regulations to save industries that should fail when something better or more efficient comes along. Face it most regulations don't help their intended targets, but hurt or cripple the rest. That is politics 101. They weren't selfish rich people unwilling to share. They were driven business leaders that were being handicapped by governing figures that were trying to keep their own pockets lined. And if you think the governing figures were doing it to help the little guy than you are truly delusional.
You saved me writing a lot, thank you. There is so much wrong with her philosophy. It would absolutely never work and the funny thing is, the way she portrayed the decline of America is laughable and, again, so far from what would occur in reality.
I understand the critisms of Rand's philosphy, but most of them tend to be snide cheap shots than real debate.