• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atlas Shrugged movie

Will you go see the Atlas Shrugged movie?

  • Total voters
    37
ronpaulvoter said:
And you call yourself a libertarian? I think you should reconsider.
Click to expand...

I should reconsider what? I've read the novel and didn't find it deserving of all the attention some give it.

Why should I not consider myself Libertarian? I hold a lot of the same viewpoints of the LP, but like any political party, there are areas where we part ways. For example - their lack of any definitive foreign policy.

I wouldn't consider the LP to be a party full of finger pointing, lock stepping lemmings and I'm sorry if you think that because I find Rand's painting of uptopia unrealistic and dry, that I'm not a Libertarian? That's on you.

Listen to the Neal Boortz show, or go to Boortz.com for comments.
Click to expand...

For comments on what? The movie? The novel? Libertarianism?

Atlas Shrugged is the greatest novel of all time. It is also the greatest selling novel of all time.
Click to expand...

That may be your opinion, but my opinion differs from yours. As a Libertarian, you should know all about personal choice.
 
I may go if it looks attractive, which it kind of does. More than likely I will pass until it is released for the home markets. As much as I can support a classical liberal viewpoint in a Hollywood filled with vapid New Leftism, to see vapid classical liberalism does only a slight service for the movie going public and Hollywood luminaries, but does much damage as well.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Just look at America before the great depression, the mistreating of employees, child labor, paying of employees in "company money" instead of federal money. No outside agencies to determine the quality of products, and make sure they are safe. It would be terrible, pure capitalism doesn't work, just like pure socialism, doesn't work, a mixture of both is needed for a country to run successfully.
Click to expand...

What do you mean “doesn’t work”.

Today we have a system on the verge of collapse. I know this sounds ridiculous, but that is what both McCain and Obama warned us as they suggested suspending an election campaign to find a solution to a system that “wasn’t working”

In 1971 the system that was in place truly didn’t work, and we were called on the global fraud we were orchestrating.

We are currently at 14 trillion in debt, and can’t even cut spending to levels necessary to stay at 14 trillion in debt. Your system doesn’t work, yet you continue to push it as if it does work.
 
Fiddytree said:
I may go if it looks attractive, which it kind of does. More than likely I will pass until it is released for the home markets. As much as I can support a classical liberal viewpoint in a Hollywood filled with vapid liberalism, to see vapid classical liberalism does only a slight service for the movie going public and Hollywood luminaries.
Click to expand...

I watched Green Zone last night on DVD. I'm guessing that's not a movie a neo-con would enjoy. Have you seen it?
 
Lachean said:
You're talking about the age of the robber barons. The problem with that argument is that it supports my case, because those who got away with such actions used the government to defend them from their workers.
Click to expand...

How? Government was the one that stopped it due to reform and changes. Unregulated capitalism leads to worker abuse, monopolies, and a massive gap between the rich and poor. It doesn't result in more competitive workers being paid more, it results in their abuse. Free market unregulated capitalism would abolish minimum wage, workers rights, and essentially hands everything over to a minute few rich CEOs. Companies would penny pinch to pay the least amount that they can in order to maximize profit. Health care would become a business were you could be turned away if you can't afford to pay for life saving medical attention. You would have the "haves" and "have nots" and this would become US society. I think it's a fantasy to believe that under no restrictions and totally pure capitalism that good workers would be payed more simply because they can do their job well.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
And you call yourself a libertarian? I think you should reconsider.

Listen to the Neal Boortz show, or go to Boortz.com for comments.

Atlas Shrugged is the greatest novel of all time. It is also the greatest selling novel of all time.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should reconsider, and while you're at it look up how Ayn Rand felt about Libertarians. She abhorred the label and association with them.
 
ARealConservative said:
What do you mean “doesn’t work”.

Today we have a system on the verge of collapse. I know this sounds ridiculous, but that is what both McCain and Obama warned us as they suggested suspending an election campaign to find a solution to a system that “wasn’t working”

In 1971 the system that was in place truly didn’t work, and we were called on the global fraud we were orchestrating.

We are currently at 14 trillion in debt, and can’t even cut spending to levels necessary to stay at 14 trillion in debt. Your system doesn’t work, yet you continue to push it as if it does work.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice if you could define some of the terms you're using, including "verge of collapse" "isn't working" and "your system."
 
No, I haven't. I think I intentionally passed on it, but perhaps I will revisit it, considering my reaction may have been initially harsh. Some films are just well-done even though the political ideology is at the forefront. Good Night and Good Luck is one of those films, for me.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
How? Government was the one that stopped it due to reform and changes. Unregulated capitalism leads to worker abuse, monopolies, and a massive gap between the rich and poor. It doesn't result in more competitive workers being paid more, it results in their abuse. Free market unregulated capitalism would abolish minimum wage, workers rights, and essentially hands everything over to a minute few rich CEOs. Companies would penny pinch to pay the least amount that they can in order to maximize profit. Health care would become a business were you could be turned away if you can't afford to pay for life saving medical attention. You would have the "haves" and "have nots" and this would become US society. I think it's a fantasy to believe that under no restrictions and totally pure capitalism that good workers would be payed more simply because they can do their job well.
Click to expand...

^^This.

10 characters.
 
StillBallin75 said:
It'd be nice if you could define some of the terms you're using, including "verge of collapse" "isn't working" and "your system."
Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong person.

I didn't claim our economic system was on the verge of collapse, politicians did.

I didn't say that pure capitalism didn't work, the person I responded to did.

"your system", I can define. It is the system we operate under at this moment.
 
digsbe said:
How? Government was the one that stopped it due to reform and changes.
Click to expand...

They stopped what they were previously supporting, the robber barons.

digsbe said:
Unregulated capitalism leads to worker abuse, monopolies, and a massive gap between the rich and poor.
Click to expand...

Now you're just repeating yourself and not addressing my arguments...

digsbe said:
It doesn't result in more competitive workers being paid more, it results in their abuse.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have a firm grasp on supply and demand, or the history if wages.

digsbe said:
Free market unregulated capitalism would abolish minimum wage, workers rights, and essentially hands everything over to a minute few rich CEOs.
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with the first 2, for the only rights we need are constitutional, and the latter being meaningless tripe. Nothing gets handed over so long as these CEO's cannot also use the government for protection.

digsbe said:
Companies would penny pinch to pay the least amount that they can in order to maximize profit.
Click to expand...

Again, not inherently bad. Nor are profits, in fact profits = success.

digsbe said:
Health care would become a business were you could be turned away if you can't afford to pay for life saving medical attention.
Click to expand...

Thats what it is, thats how it started, and it would be just as affordable as it used to be when doctors made house calls had the government not gotten involved and screwed up the costs, and people started using their insurance for common procedures/visits/medication.

digsbe said:
You would have the "haves" and "have nots" and this would become US society. I think it's a fantasy to believe that under no restrictions and totally pure capitalism that good workers would be payed more simply because they can do their job well.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. We would exist under a bell curve, "each according to his ability." Yes income inequality will be higher, which I'm fine with.
 
Last edited:
ronpaulvoter said:
And you call yourself a libertarian? I think you should reconsider.

Listen to the Neal Boortz show, or go to Boortz.com for comments.

Atlas Shrugged is the greatest novel of all time. It is also the greatest selling novel of all time.
Click to expand...

I don't know what's more funny....a Borg mentality or the fact that a radio show host is one of your favorite places for information.
 
Fiddytree said:
No, I haven't. I think I intentionally passed on it, but perhaps I will revisit it, considering my reaction may have been initially harsh. Some films are just well-done even though the political ideology is at the forefront. Good Night and Good Luck is one of those films, for me.
Click to expand...

It's not quite of the class of Goodnight and Good Luck, but it's a good knock-about thriller with a few points to make about integrity, trust and ethical foreign policy. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
 
I'll probably see the movie, just because the book inspires such emotion (either in defense of, or against it). FWIW, I don't find the ideals of "objectivism" to be even plausible for human beings to achieve. Many people think they are being objective, but in reality they are not. Objectivism has no place in politics, because of the bland nature of it. Most everybody that thinks they are objective viewers do nothing but offer their own evaluations of objective data, which is not objectivism.
 
Yeah, I saw plenty about it before it came out, but I thought it was not at least trying to pump some originality out of the concept. Then again, even when films do, I can have the reaction of seeing it as charming if not incredibly naive.
 
Lachean said:
I don't think you have a firm grasp on supply and demand, or the history if wages.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have a firm grasp on the fact that supply-and-demand are theoretical forces which do not and cannot operate untrammeled and in a free environment. There are far too many forces at work that distort the operation of s-and-d for it ever to be applicable to a living economic environment.

Again, not inherently bad. Nor are profits, in fact profits = success.
Click to expand...
Not for the workers. A decent wage = success for the workers and that is often in conflict with delivering maximum optimal profit. In which case your libertarian society merely becomes one engulfed in class warfare, pretty much like the current state of affairs.

We would exist under a bell curve, "each according to his ability." Yes income inequality will be higher, which I'm fine with.
Click to expand...
A society just waiting for the inequalities of income to become so huge that society explodes into civil war again. Nice prospect.
 
samsmart said:
You mean her.

Here's a place where you can get a pretty good overview of her.

Ayn Rand - Television Tropes & Idioms
Click to expand...

I think it's better to hear her, in her words.
She did Donahue in the 70's or 80's and explains the Objectivist system in greater detail.

Most of what is understood of Objectivism is a misunderstanding.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Rand purposefully wrote her characters to be romanticized.
That's kind of the point.
Click to expand...

This smacks of arguments I hear in defense of Stephanie Meyer.

Just because an author does something that is low-quality intentionally, that doesn't increase its quality.

Honestly I have nothing positive to say about Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, or Objectivism. Rand was a hypocrite (as she used both Social Security and Medicare payments and tried to hide said use while claiming only the weak and unworthy had to rely on them), Atlas Shrugged was poorly written and Objectivism is easy to debunk as an Ethical system (as it involves arbitrary discrimination, it is unethical for the same reasons racism is).
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Most of what is understood of Objectivism is a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

To be fair, though, the reason why that is probably has to do more because she was trying to illustrate it via fictional novels rather than through more practical essays.

Which is why I probably won't see the movie and won't read the book. It's far, far too utopian for me. Such, Rand's philosophy can work when you have the ideal people. But we don't have ideal people, just like we don't live on an ideal world, or in an ideal universe. So I'm very much a critic of idealist philosophies. Give me realpolitik any day.
 
TheBook said:
This smacks of arguments I hear in defense of Stephanie Meyer.

Just because an author does something that is low-quality intentionally, that doesn't increase its quality.
Click to expand...

That's your take on it, I've never read it but I understand what the purpose of the story and characters were about.

They were supposed to be "super men/women."
Doing things that are unbelievable to tell a tail with an idea behind it.
Not much different than Vonnegut and his "Harrison Bergeron" short story.

TheBook said:
Honestly I have nothing positive to say about Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, or Objectivism. Rand was a hypocrite (as she used both Social Security and Medicare payments and tried to hide said use while claiming only the weak and unworthy had to rely on them), Atlas Shrugged was poorly written and Objectivism is easy to debunk as an Ethical system (as it involves arbitrary discrimination, it is unethical for the same reasons racism is).
Click to expand...

Having an ideal philosophy and living in an non ideal world does not make someone a hypocrite.

"Hypocrisy is an unconscious self-contradiction: a state of incongruence between one's professed beliefs and feelings and one's actual beliefs and feelings, or an application of a criticism to others that one does not apply to oneself."

"Hypocrisy is not simply a lie, saying something which one knows to be false. Neither is it simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches."

Hypocrisy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're applying your form of ethics to Objectivism and then saying that debunks it?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Watched a few things about her and she said that she enjoyed romanticized art, saying that it inspires people to do great things.
Something a long those lines.

Romanticized man = ideal
Click to expand...

I guess I am a more practical person than she is. I prefer to deal with real things whenever possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom