• 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!

Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

Agree of Disagree ...discuss?

  • Total voters
    52
jonny5 said:
"Ayn Rand was a joke. Her faux ideology is worse than a joke. Todays randroids would have to multiply their teeny tiny numbers by a factor of at least ten to work UP to the level of a joke."

Always? Oh, I guess you think this is constructive, and not just rhetoric and insults.
Click to expand...

Actually that statement is right on the money and supported by facts and data. Just look at the declining election results for the Libertarian Party - the most identifiable randroid base in the nation - for its Presidential candidate ever four years and compare that to America and my description of TEENY TINY NUMBERS is accurate. Less than one-half of one percent is indeed TEENY TINY.

My description of Rand as pushing a faux ideology is also apt and accurate. It defies any normal tools used in identifying poltical ideologies and is so all over the map that it borders on having a split personality. I distinctly remember in my senior year in college as a poli sci major taking the two classes in Political Philosophy. We had a randroid in our class and he made an attempt to have the writings of Rand included in our discussion. The prof who taught the class laid into him with such fervor and zeal that to say the poor guy was sliced and diced and then crushed and flushed would be an understatement. The prof took the basic elements of any political philosophy and demonstrated how the writings of Rand totally fell far far short of achieving that designation.

And to identify things properly is always constructive.

And please remember the context of my remarks were in this thread using a comparison of Hubbards ersatz sci-fi religious mumbo jumbo to that of Rand. While she comes off a bit saner and mundane in that comparison, there still is plenty of disfunction there just the same.
 
Last edited:
SeekingWisdom said:
I am not sure what the point of this sentence is?
Click to expand...
By defining the conflict as one between the rich and the majority, the talented are still left out of the picture. They are the ones who should be idolized, not Rand's corporate moochers off talent. Ironically, the mythological Atlas held the world in place by brute force, which fits in with Rand's real-life corpocrat heroes rather than the underappreciated benefactors that she tried to make them look like. With the present distracting debate, we still disrespect and under-appreciate creative talent, except as either Cash Cows of the corporations or slaves of the public. I believe in John Galt's supremacy as an inventor, but not his subservience to his predatory bosses. If it hadn't been for a few High IQs, mankind would be living like animals and probably would have gone extinct. From the beginning, the reward for intelligence has been stolen by the rich, the powerful, and the priesthood, who claim that the genius is just the passive instrument of God and should get no special reward. Rand represents the priesthood of the religion of money.
 
haymarket said:
Actually that statement is right on the money and supported by facts and data. Just look at the declining election results for the Libertarian Party - the most identifiable randroid base in the nation -
Click to expand...

I doubt that 5% of libertarians are 'Randoids'. You are giving this HS level book way too much credit. There's just a few HSers running about with this 'objectivist' nonsense, yet you act like they're all over the place while claiming that they barely exist. They are insignificant. Get over them. I mean, really, I haven't had anyone hit me with the objectivist action in over 20 years (since HS). So I don't understand how you get so worked up about it.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Well, you're acting like she started something. That's not really true. There's just a bunch of people too dim to read actual literature on the subject, and they attribute the Ubermensch to her. I mean, I guess there really are 'Randians' or 'Objectivists' but those are pretty much just HS people, right? I've never met an adult that has bought into Rand to the extent that they would actually describe their political perspective according to her rather boring fiction. Anyone who would should at least have the self respect to cite actual literature; for Pete's sake, The Prince is not a big book.

In summary, I think you're giving her too much credit.
Click to expand...

She represents free trade and a laissez-faire capitalist reality. She was about the selfishness of the indvidual: kind of like plants, they grow according to their abilities to receive sun and water over others; that's how they dominate. Of course what she fails to mention is that a forest becomes a forest through the efforts of metaphysical collectivism: human beings are naturally collectists, that's how we survive. Therefore one man cannot do it without walking on the backs of others.
The concept of this very country was to build a system wherein walking on the backs of others was all but outlawed.

As I said earlier, Ayn Rand has no more a handle on utopia than Walt Disney.
 
jet57 said:
She represents free trade and a laissez-faire capitalist reality.
Click to expand...

Not really. She represents the 20th century Ubermensch writer. After Mach in the ~1500s and Niet in the 1800s.

Free-trade and laissez-faire includes government regulations to prevent fraud, discrimination, externalities and such. Your generalization is merely a cheap shot at mainstream right-wing economics.
 
Many Conservatives would be dismayed if they had really read Rand, and discovered that Ryan was praising a pro-choice atheist.
 
ecofarm said:
Not really. She represents the 20th century Ubermensch writer. After Mach in the ~1500s and Niet in the 1800s.

Free-trade and laissez-faire includes government regulations to prevent fraud, discrimination, externalities and such. Your generalization is merely a cheap shot at mainstream right-wing economics.
Click to expand...

I think not. To which Mach writing do you refer? I don't think that Rand and Nietzsche have anything in common other than the probability that Rand read his work.

Right-wing econmcis have consistently been modeled on social darwinsim: a fact that I have touted for years and even president Obama is bringing it into the mainstream. Rand was a social darwinist, that's why I used the plant anology, yet as I said, she and the right-wing forget; convieniently in my view, that the metaphysical reality of collectivism trumps social darwinism. This fact is futher made true by the reality of supply and demand; can't have one without the other, and that by definition is collectivism. Moreover, it has been shown over and again, and put in the records that right-wing economic policies have led to nothing but ruin.

So, I don't see how that is a cheap shot by any stretch of the imagination.
 
jet57 said:
I think not. To which Mach writing do you refer? I don't think that Rand and Nietzsche have anything in common other than the probability that Rand read his work.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli, "The Prince". Anyway, I don't think you have any grasp of her writing except what 'Randoids' and their virulent enemies have told you. If you read her books, I'm afraid you've wasted your time.

Right-wing econmcis have consistently been modeled on social darwinsim
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Plenty of brilliant people do not pursue money. It's modelled on equal opportunity and minimal government intervention. It seeks not the advancement of the few, but of society through economic liberty.

So, I don't see how that is a cheap shot by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

You don't see Ubermensch philosophy being equated with mainstream right-wing economics as a shot? Whatever. I bet you don't see the "social Darwinism" as a shot at them either. Perhaps you just spew rhetoric without even a basic understanding of the concepts involved.

Moreover, it has been shown over and again, and put in the records that right-wing economic policies have led to nothing but ruin.
Click to expand...

Why do you lie about your lean?



Good day.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Machiavelli, "The Prince". Anyway, I don't think you have any grasp of her writing except what 'Randoids' and their virulent enemies have told you.
Click to expand...

I have a terrific grasp of her writing and I'm sure she read The Prince as well: very interesting reading.




Nonsense. Plenty of brilliant people do not pursue money.
Click to expand...

Of course, but that has nothing to do with my point.



You don't see Ubermensch philosophy being equated with mainstream right-wing economics as a shot? Whatever. I bet you don't see the "social Darwinism" as a shot at them either. Perhaps you just spew rhetoric without even basic understanding of the concepts involved.
Click to expand...

The Ubermensch was front and center in fascist society as well; is that a spirit we want to court?


Good day.
Click to expand...

As you like
 
haymarket said:
Actually that statement is right on the money and supported by facts and data. Just look at the declining election results for the Libertarian Party - the most identifiable randroid base in the nation - for its Presidential candidate ever four years and compare that to America and my description of TEENY TINY NUMBERS is accurate. Less than one-half of one percent is indeed TEENY TINY.

My description of Rand as pushing a faux ideology is also apt and accurate. It defies any normal tools used in identifying poltical ideologies and is so all over the map that it borders on having a split personality. I distinctly remember in my senior year in college as a poli sci major taking the two classes in Political Philosophy. We had a randroid in our class and he made an attempt to have the writings of Rand included in our discussion. The prof who taught the class laid into him with such fervor and zeal that to say the poor guy was sliced and diced and then crushed and flushed would be an understatement. The prof took the basic elements of any political philosophy and demonstrated how the writings of Rand totally fell far far short of achieving that designation.

And to identify things properly is always constructive.

And please remember the context of my remarks were in this thread using a comparison of Hubbards ersatz sci-fi religious mumbo jumbo to that of Rand. While she comes off a bit saner and mundane in that comparison, there still is plenty of disfunction there just the same.
Click to expand...

Please show me some facts and data that Rand is funny (a joke), worse than funny and there would have to be more '10x more randroids' to equal funny. Youre just digging your hole deeper. Had you simply started with your second post instead of rhetoric, we wouldnt be having this pointless debate about debating.
 
jonny5 said:
By definition I think it does. But I was simply rebutting Lunas implication that fiction has no relation to reality, which has since been cleared up. Simply because Rand expressed her philosophy in fiction (common among philosophers) does not automatically dismiss it. The very fact that it is a huge topic for debate confirms the opposite. I would say the same of Hubbard, though my personal opinion is that his motive was power, not truth.
Click to expand...

Rand expressed her philosophy in fiction because it just has no bearing on the real world. Her philosophy is complete and total fantasy. People don't dismiss it because it's a fictional story, people dismiss it because it's downright stupid.
 
jonny5 said:
Please show me some facts and data that Rand is funny (a joke), worse than funny and there would have to be more '10x more randroids' to equal funny. Youre just digging your hole deeper. Had you simply started with your second post instead of rhetoric, we wouldnt be having this pointless debate about debating.
Click to expand...

What you seem to need is a course in English language which explains the difference to you in humorous characterization of facts and the recitation of hard and cold facts all by themselves devoid of any humorous characterization.

You obviously lack a sense of humor about the obvious shortcomings of your own religion. ;)
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I doubt that 5% of libertarians are 'Randoids'. You are giving this HS level book way too much credit. There's just a few HSers running about with this 'objectivist' nonsense, yet you act like they're all over the place while claiming that they barely exist. They are insignificant. Get over them. I mean, really, I haven't had anyone hit me with the objectivist action in over 20 years (since HS). So I don't understand how you get so worked up about it.
Click to expand...

You could have part of a point there. I simply am taking what I have observed over the many years of debating with libertarians and their love - for many of them - of Rand - at least in their formative years.
 
haymarket said:
What you seem to need is a course in English language which explains the difference to you in humorous characterization of facts and the recitation of hard and cold facts all by themselves devoid of any humorous characterization.

You obviously lack a sense of humor about the obvious shortcomings of your own religion. ;)
Click to expand...

Since youre now just going to insult me, ill move on.
 
jonny5 said:
Since youre now just going to insult me, ill move on.
Click to expand...

How is explaining to you the various differences in usage of English an insult?
 
Cephus said:
Rand expressed her philosophy in fiction because it just has no bearing on the real world. Her philosophy is complete and total fantasy. People don't dismiss it because it's a fictional story, people dismiss it because it's downright stupid.
Click to expand...

The story? Because you're saying contradictory things here, saying this is both a philosophy and nothing more than fantasy. It cant be both. Philosophy is a study of reality, fiction is a nonfactual narrative.
 
jonny5 said:
The story? Because you're saying contradictory things here, saying this is both a philosophy and nothing more than fantasy. It cant be both. Philosophy is a study of reality, fiction is a nonfactual narrative.
Click to expand...

Actually it can be both. An author can use fantasy to push forth their own philosophy. One form does not exclude the use of the other.
 
Cephus said:
Rand expressed her philosophy in fiction because it just has no bearing on the real world. Her philosophy is complete and total fantasy. People don't dismiss it because it's a fictional story, people dismiss it because it's downright stupid.
Click to expand...


I swear when we disagree, we really disagree. I will admit though when you are on, you are dead on, lol.
 
haymarket said:
Actually it can be both. An author can use fantasy to push forth their own philosophy. One form does not exclude the use of the other.
Click to expand...

It does when the claim is such.

"Her philosophy is complete and total fantasy". This is an oxymoron.
 
jonny5 said:
The story? Because you're saying contradictory things here, saying this is both a philosophy and nothing more than fantasy. It cant be both. Philosophy is a study of reality, fiction is a nonfactual narrative.
Click to expand...

No, philosophy is not a study of reality, it's a particular lens through which one can look at reality. It doesn't mean that it's a valid lens or that it gives an accurate or worthwhile view of reality. There are tons and tons of different philosophies which are contradictory, all of them can't be true, in fact, all of them can be false. Rand's ideas are ridiculous when matched up against reality, they only work in fiction because in the real world, they're laughable.
 
jonny5 said:
It does when the claim is such.

"Her philosophy is complete and total fantasy". This is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Someone cannot make up a philosophy which has no significant basis in the world of reality?
 
Cardinal said:
You tried to waste my time with a thirty page thesis that had nothing to do with the topic, I didn't fall for it, get over it.
Click to expand...

A) It's not some modern thesis, it's a contemporary Roman writing.

B) Tacitus is actually interesting to read, probably because of it's matter-of-fact prose, and I'm not usually into that stuff. So what if it's 30 pages. I'm lazy and have read it, what does that make you.
 
Cephus said:
No, philosophy is not a study of reality, it's a particular lens through which one can look at reality. It doesn't mean that it's a valid lens or that it gives an accurate or worthwhile view of reality. There are tons and tons of different philosophies which are contradictory, all of them can't be true, in fact, all of them can be false. Rand's ideas are ridiculous when matched up against reality, they only work in fiction because in the real world, they're laughable.
Click to expand...

Then prove it using logic. All you guys are doing is saying 'its fiction' or 'its a joke'. By your definition, you are no better than Rand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom