I remember reading an article about that 4-5 years ago, where the writer was whining about how everything in that novel was coming true and that society really was going out of its way to punish the best and brightest.
I still have no fucking clue what the hell he was talking about.
Recent posts on the IMDB forum
"WILL OBAMA LET THE FILM GET MADE"
god dammit so much America, god dammit so much.
I think you confused the internet with America.
warning: crazy motherfuckers from the IMDB thread
If you haven't noticed, the Obama administration is wielding its sword with reckless abandon. They fire CEOs; they dismiss long-serving government personnel and deem them "disoriented and confused" simply because they didn't agree with the current administration; they take over industries and businesses only to appoint those who lack experience to improve upon current conditions; they threaten to oust White House personnel who speak negatively about Obama or his administration (what about "freedom of speech," our First Amendment right?); Obama has appointed numerous and various "czars" (doesn't that make you a bit uncomfortable?); and, they protect the House Speaker after she lies to the nation. It is becoming very clear that those who disagree with and/or speak out against Obama suffer consequences. Our government is rapidly changing for the worse, and there seems to be no end in sight as to what they will do next. That's why I'm curious to see IF this film gets made and, if so, how honest the filmmakers will be in dealing with the subject matter. Lets just hope that they don't water it down into something that it's not, because what it is is a direct representation of what's wrong with our current government.
haha. im actually surprised that liberal hollywood is even making a pro capitalism.they will find a way to make it pro socialism and also make it politically correct!
Terrorism seems pretty non-Randian to me at first glance. It all boils down to motives. Could a Randian support suicide bombing to gain one's ends. I think not.
Randroids are against the initiation of force, but not against the response of force. The thing is what constitutes "initiation of force" is completely up in the air. Which is why anarcho-capitalists feel completely justified when people shoot tax collectors to death for trying to use "force" to take away their money, but will cry foul endlessly when the police attempt to prosecute them for murder.
I once argued with a libertarian who used the whole "taxes are theft, men with guns" argument. He then posted an article about a group of police officers who brought guns to the home of a man who refused to pay his taxes. The fact that the guy shot two police officers dead and escaped the scene alive, or the fact that he publicly declared that he would use lethal force in advanced didn't matter. The police had guns! They were prepared to use them if the guy resisted arrest! Initiation of force!
Basically, what this means is that terrorism can be justified as long as it is justified in your own head.
It starts off with a scientist working in a lab, you cant see his face and you hear the voiceover. "His invention could change the world."
Cut to corporate drones "but some feel it should be theirs for free"
Cut to shot of really impressive motion machine "and now he is going to make them pay!"
Queue the music, lots of explosions, cut aways to hot girls, random running and screaming scenes, and end it all with a pirate dropping through a skylight in slow motion firing duel pistols at the camera.
Then just "Who is John Galt?" on a plain black screen before fading to...
Atlas Shrugged, a Michael Bay, Michael Bay, Michael Bay, and Michael Bay film. Directed by Michael Bay written by Ayn Rand.
Adolf Hitler had some inisghts into social psychology which he shares with the readers of Mein Kampf. There are no valid insights in Ayn Rand's books. There are only pompous expressions of a repulsive value system.
I would have an ounce of respect for Libertarians and their ilk if they hadn't spent the 8 years of Bush cheering him on.
I honestly didn't meet a single libertarian who didn't cheer on the lead up to the Iraq war. Why? Because they're complete fucking hypocrites. Also, a lot of them were Christian bigots who really wanted to the dirty Arabs get bombed into oblivion, although they never said that directly. In the seatbelt thread, we posted about an extremist libertarian who was so extreme that he proudly violated the seatbelt laws as an act of protest, and then was promptly killed in a car crash. Of course, his libertarian principles didn't stop him from cheering on an unnecessary war that pretty bankrupted our entire nation.
Of course, none of the libertarians will admit to that now. Again, because they have no principles.
admiting this book has WAY more cons than pros, there are some good things to be taken from this book
- reward should be based on work and excellence
- a person is entirely responsible for themselves, the things they do, and what they make
- a person deserves compensation for their effort
and i can understand that
rand of course takes these things and creates a rediculous philosophy out of them where she ignores any ideas of generosity or social responsability.
Really? saying that giving a starving man bread is actually hurting him? really?
Really? 100 pages of a speach blatantly stating the purpose of the book, which you've been reiterating every single chapter? Really?
edit: also, those good things can be found in much shorter, better written works, that dont take them to rediculous extremes
Leaving aside the objections to the reprehensible world view it spouts, the characters are incredibly two dimensional (perfectly hard working genius industrialist heroes who are always morally superior and smart and right and represent Objectivism, vs unbelievably whiny, spineless, blind-to-the-consequences jackasses who blanketly represent everyone who isn't Objectivist), and it is incredibly bloated, in desperate need of editing, and in love with its own prose.
I think I once tried to read the wikipedia entry describing all of the strikers.
I think it had more examples of Mary Sue characters in it than the TV Tropes page on Mary Sue.
Meanwhile, the torturers are so incompetent that they don't know how to torture people when their torture machine breaks down, and they don't know how to fix their torture machine without the help of the guy who they're torturing.
admiting this book has WAY more cons than pros, there are some good things to be taken from this book
- reward should be based on work and excellence
- a person is entirely responsible for themselves, the things they do, and what they make
- a person deserves compensation for their effort
and i can understand that
rand of course takes these things and creates a rediculous philosophy out of them where she ignores any ideas of generosity or social responsability.
Really? saying that giving a starving man bread is actually hurting him? really?
Really? 100 pages of a speach blatantly stating the purpose of the book, which you've been reiterating every single chapter? Really?
edit: also, those good things can be found in much shorter, better written works, that dont take them to rediculous extremes
I am responsible for being born into a middle class white family in the outer suburbs?
You have to give Hobbes some credit even if you don't want to believe.
No, Hobbes and the philosophers who worked off his ideas all based their conclusions off hypothetical absurdities.
For instance, that in the distant past we had no society whatsoever until all of the violent savages got together and said, "Let's make a society, and here are the initial rules."
It's not substantially better than Rand.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
For instance, that in the distant past we had no society whatsoever until all of the violent savages got together and said, "Let's make a society, and here are the initial rules."
Wait, so you think that there has always been a society between entities?
admiting this book has WAY more cons than pros, there are some good things to be taken from this book
- reward should be based on work and excellence
- a person is entirely responsible for themselves, the things they do, and what they make
- a person deserves compensation for their effort
and i can understand that
rand of course takes these things and creates a rediculous philosophy out of them where she ignores any ideas of generosity or social responsability.
Really? saying that giving a starving man bread is actually hurting him? really?
Really? 100 pages of a speach blatantly stating the purpose of the book, which you've been reiterating every single chapter? Really?
edit: also, those good things can be found in much shorter, better written works, that dont take them to rediculous extremes
I am responsible for being born into a middle class white family in the outer suburbs?
this i didn't say, i don't claim that you're responsible for where you came from, or your economic background, but that you are responsible to provide for yourself.
im not saying that we shouldn't help people born into lower classes, we should, they are inherently disadvantaged by recieving generally poor schooling and lacking access to learning tools.
im saying that you are responsable for your own well being, if that means making sure you get up, go to work, and pay your bills, so be it. if it means taking advantage of government programs to continue your education, so be it. if it means going and signing up for unemployement because you've worked and payed into the system, so be it.
Doesn't always happen, for a variety of reasons. Not least of which is it's impossible to define "excellence" in many contexts. It's a totally subjective thing.
- a person is entirely responsible for themselves, the things they do, and what they make
No, they aren't. No man is an island.
- a person deserves compensation for their effort
Generally the world works this way. Most of us don't get a 1:1 ratio of effort:reward. Some people get a vastly higher ratio (does a millionaire work fifty times harder than me? no). Most of us get a ratio lower than 1:1, which is the entire basis of our economy, our society, and our values. You get most of the reward, a bunch of other people get some of it too to varying degrees.
Life's all about getting more reward for the same amount of work.
For instance, that in the distant past we had no society whatsoever until all of the violent savages got together and said, "Let's make a society, and here are the initial rules."
Wait, so you think that there has always been a society between entities?
Are you a creationist?
Absolutely not, but society is the set of relationships between organisms and it evolved over time with those organisms; it clearly did not spring from whole cloth, which is closer to the creationist line of thinking.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
For instance, that in the distant past we had no society whatsoever until all of the violent savages got together and said, "Let's make a society, and here are the initial rules."
Wait, so you think that there has always been a society between entities?
Are you a creationist?
Absolutely not, but society is the set of relationships between organisms and it evolved over time with those organisms; it clearly did not spring from whole cloth, which is closer to the creationist line of thinking.
Still, you are kind of straw manning Hobbes a bit.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
For instance, that in the distant past we had no society whatsoever until all of the violent savages got together and said, "Let's make a society, and here are the initial rules."
Wait, so you think that there has always been a society between entities?
Are you a creationist?
I suppose it depends on how you define society. When the first two groups of people interacted I imagine the decision to fight, fuck, help, or ignore each other and how that worked represents a society under some definitions.
Doesn't always happen, for a variety of reasons. Not least of which is it's impossible to define "excellence" in many contexts. It's a totally subjective thing.
- a person is entirely responsible for themselves, the things they do, and what they make
No, they aren't. No man is an island.
- a person deserves compensation for their effort
Generally the world works this way. Most of us don't get a 1:1 ratio of effort:reward. Some people get a vastly higher ratio (does a millionaire work fifty times harder than me? no). Most of us get a ratio lower than 1:1, which is the entire basis of our economy, our society, and our values. You get most of the reward, a bunch of other people get some of it too to varying degrees.
Life's all about getting more reward for the same amount of work.
I agree that excellence is entirely subjective, which is why people have different tastes. but if i as a person am in a position to reward an endevor (a consumer, a boss giving out raises, an art critic giving out reviews) i will reward the one which i subjectively think is excellent.
For instance, that in the distant past we had no society whatsoever until all of the violent savages got together and said, "Let's make a society, and here are the initial rules."
Wait, so you think that there has always been a society between entities?
Are you a creationist?
Absolutely not, but society is the set of relationships between organisms and it evolved over time with those organisms; it clearly did not spring from whole cloth, which is closer to the creationist line of thinking.
Still, you are kind of straw manning Hobbes a bit.
Agreed. I think Hobbes does an excellent job of describing the advent of political philosophy.
I agree that excellence is entirely subjective, which is why people have different tastes. but if i as a person am in a position to reward an endevor (a consumer, a boss giving out raises, an art critic giving out reviews) i will reward the one which i subjectively think is excellent.
But nobody agrees with your interpretation of "excellence." Now what?
You know, I just had this thought. Given that Galt invented a device that would produce free, infinite energy, what precisely was it that he thought would be fair compensation? Did he want to be made king of the world?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I agree that excellence is entirely subjective, which is why people have different tastes. but if i as a person am in a position to reward an endevor (a consumer, a boss giving out raises, an art critic giving out reviews) i will reward the one which i subjectively think is excellent.
But nobody agrees with your interpretation of "excellence." Now what?
thats fine, i dont need anyone else to to think that what i think is great is great, i can enjoy it without trying to make others enjoy it as well
You know, I just had this thought. Given that Galt invented a device that would produce free, infinite energy, what precisely was it that he thought would be fair compensation? Did he want to be made king of the world?
I think he wanted all of the poor people to die, because they were poor.
You know, I just had this thought. Given that Galt invented a device that would produce free, infinite energy, what precisely was it that he thought would be fair compensation? Did he want to be made king of the world?
I think he wanted all of the poor people to die, because they were poor.
The audacity of those damn poor people...living and shit.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
You know, I just had this thought. Given that Galt invented a device that would produce free, infinite energy, what precisely was it that he thought would be fair compensation? Did he want to be made king of the world?
I think he wanted all of the poor people to die, because they were poor.
The audacity of those damn poor people...living and shit.
How dare they not have adequate compensation for his infinite energy device.
Roussau is the pimp of the Social Contract club. He's the best, Hobbes is the worst.
Seriously though, fuck Hobbes, right in his butt.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posts
warning: crazy motherfuckers from the IMDB thread
welp, we know its going to be a big hit at least
Here's a different one:
http://www.xoverboard.com/blogarchive/week_2007_08_26.html
I probably should have posted that in the "The police issue tickets on people... for not wearing their seatbelts!" thread.
Randroids are against the initiation of force, but not against the response of force. The thing is what constitutes "initiation of force" is completely up in the air. Which is why anarcho-capitalists feel completely justified when people shoot tax collectors to death for trying to use "force" to take away their money, but will cry foul endlessly when the police attempt to prosecute them for murder.
I once argued with a libertarian who used the whole "taxes are theft, men with guns" argument. He then posted an article about a group of police officers who brought guns to the home of a man who refused to pay his taxes. The fact that the guy shot two police officers dead and escaped the scene alive, or the fact that he publicly declared that he would use lethal force in advanced didn't matter. The police had guns! They were prepared to use them if the guy resisted arrest! Initiation of force!
Basically, what this means is that terrorism can be justified as long as it is justified in your own head.
It starts off with a scientist working in a lab, you cant see his face and you hear the voiceover. "His invention could change the world."
Cut to corporate drones "but some feel it should be theirs for free"
Cut to shot of really impressive motion machine "and now he is going to make them pay!"
Queue the music, lots of explosions, cut aways to hot girls, random running and screaming scenes, and end it all with a pirate dropping through a skylight in slow motion firing duel pistols at the camera.
Then just "Who is John Galt?" on a plain black screen before fading to...
Atlas Shrugged, a Michael Bay, Michael Bay, Michael Bay, and Michael Bay film. Directed by Michael Bay written by Ayn Rand.
I honestly didn't meet a single libertarian who didn't cheer on the lead up to the Iraq war. Why? Because they're complete fucking hypocrites. Also, a lot of them were Christian bigots who really wanted to the dirty Arabs get bombed into oblivion, although they never said that directly. In the seatbelt thread, we posted about an extremist libertarian who was so extreme that he proudly violated the seatbelt laws as an act of protest, and then was promptly killed in a car crash. Of course, his libertarian principles didn't stop him from cheering on an unnecessary war that pretty bankrupted our entire nation.
Of course, none of the libertarians will admit to that now. Again, because they have no principles.
...when it doesn't benefit them.
Bleeding the beast, and all that.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
- reward should be based on work and excellence
- a person is entirely responsible for themselves, the things they do, and what they make
- a person deserves compensation for their effort
and i can understand that
rand of course takes these things and creates a rediculous philosophy out of them where she ignores any ideas of generosity or social responsability.
Really? saying that giving a starving man bread is actually hurting him? really?
Really? 100 pages of a speach blatantly stating the purpose of the book, which you've been reiterating every single chapter? Really?
edit: also, those good things can be found in much shorter, better written works, that dont take them to rediculous extremes
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I think I once tried to read the wikipedia entry describing all of the strikers.
I think it had more examples of Mary Sue characters in it than the TV Tropes page on Mary Sue.
Meanwhile, the torturers are so incompetent that they don't know how to torture people when their torture machine breaks down, and they don't know how to fix their torture machine without the help of the guy who they're torturing.
I am responsible for being born into a middle class white family in the outer suburbs?
Thomas Hobbes? Everyone's best buddy?
No, Hobbes and the philosophers who worked off his ideas all based their conclusions off hypothetical absurdities.
For instance, that in the distant past we had no society whatsoever until all of the violent savages got together and said, "Let's make a society, and here are the initial rules."
It's not substantially better than Rand.
Wait, so you think that there has always been a society between entities?
Are you a creationist?
this i didn't say, i don't claim that you're responsible for where you came from, or your economic background, but that you are responsible to provide for yourself.
im not saying that we shouldn't help people born into lower classes, we should, they are inherently disadvantaged by recieving generally poor schooling and lacking access to learning tools.
im saying that you are responsable for your own well being, if that means making sure you get up, go to work, and pay your bills, so be it. if it means taking advantage of government programs to continue your education, so be it. if it means going and signing up for unemployement because you've worked and payed into the system, so be it.
Doesn't always happen, for a variety of reasons. Not least of which is it's impossible to define "excellence" in many contexts. It's a totally subjective thing.
No, they aren't. No man is an island.
Generally the world works this way. Most of us don't get a 1:1 ratio of effort:reward. Some people get a vastly higher ratio (does a millionaire work fifty times harder than me? no). Most of us get a ratio lower than 1:1, which is the entire basis of our economy, our society, and our values. You get most of the reward, a bunch of other people get some of it too to varying degrees.
Life's all about getting more reward for the same amount of work.
Absolutely not, but society is the set of relationships between organisms and it evolved over time with those organisms; it clearly did not spring from whole cloth, which is closer to the creationist line of thinking.
Still, you are kind of straw manning Hobbes a bit.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I suppose it depends on how you define society. When the first two groups of people interacted I imagine the decision to fight, fuck, help, or ignore each other and how that worked represents a society under some definitions.
I agree that excellence is entirely subjective, which is why people have different tastes. but if i as a person am in a position to reward an endevor (a consumer, a boss giving out raises, an art critic giving out reviews) i will reward the one which i subjectively think is excellent.
Agreed. I think Hobbes does an excellent job of describing the advent of political philosophy.
I mean, it's more compelling that this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0
But nobody agrees with your interpretation of "excellence." Now what?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
thats fine, i dont need anyone else to to think that what i think is great is great, i can enjoy it without trying to make others enjoy it as well
I think he wanted all of the poor people to die, because they were poor.
The audacity of those damn poor people...living and shit.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Haha! Aw, man, that's excellent.
How dare they not have adequate compensation for his infinite energy device.
Stupid poor people. God, i hate them so much.
Jonas Salk.
Was he poor?
We have very different perspectives; I see that video as representing Hobbes's root assertion.
Jared Diamond is a much more cogent political philosopher, and he achieves this as the inadvertent result of being a brilliant professor of geography.
Seriously though, fuck Hobbes, right in his butt.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
No alleged coercion. Rand should be happy as a clam. Theoretically.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
guy's ideas on education were a damned abomination
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Hey, hey now.
No.
Hobbes is right.