Not saying any of you have to like the book. It's a potboiler; it's clunky in places; I've always had distaste for the parts that malign all charity and kindness. It's a weird book. But there's a spirit in there that's good. It's like -- if "Fanfare for the Common Man" was the soundtrack to your life. People need that. This year, suddenly, the local Borders has two shelves dedicated to Ayn Rand. It started with the recession. You need buoying up when the world is telling you you're expendable.
Isn't that exactly what Galt is claiming about everyone who isn't him or his friends?
I would even apply "death of the author" to OJ Simpson's If I Did It had he been allowed to publish it and I had been able to stomach reading it (which would have probably never happened in all honesty). And I am 99.99% convinced he killed his wife and everything.
...man, when you take on a school of literary analysis, you go all in.
You realize it's possible to try to judge how relevant the author's life is to a text on a case-by-case basis, right? The author was able to separate himself out of this book entirely, the author absolutely spewed herself all over this book, and all points in between. You aren't going to be tracked down by the Death of Author Police if you make exceptions.
Believe it or not, I tend to think that authorial intent tends to be overapplied in general yet I still think there are plenty of books that are very tied to their authors to various degrees.
I think if you're going to make a value judgment about a book, you had better be able to defend your judgment with no resources except the contents of the book. That's my understanding of death of the author, which I perceive to be a sound literary principle. But I'm not terribly interested in making a value judgment about Atlas Shrugged as a work of fiction, because to whatever extent such a judgment ignores the political content and the context of that political content, that judgment misses what is actually relevant about the book.
Hell, it really misses what the book is ABOUT. It's taking death of the author to such an extreme that literary analysis becomes impossible. To consider Atlas Shrugged as just a work of fiction is to close our eyes and ignore what the book is about.
Not saying any of you have to like the book. It's a potboiler; it's clunky in places; I've always had distaste for the parts that malign all charity and kindness. It's a weird book. But there's a spirit in there that's good. It's like -- if "Fanfare for the Common Man" was the soundtrack to your life. People need that. This year, suddenly, the local Borders has two shelves dedicated to Ayn Rand. It started with the recession. You need buoying up when the world is telling you you're expendable.
I may be wrong here, but my impression that the usual wave of "capitalism has failed forever" books started with the recession. The mass of neo-Randian books started with the ensuing Democrat election victory and noise over ARRA. Ayn Rand begin topping the bestseller lists in early 2009, far after the recession had begun.
Not saying any of you have to like the book. It's a potboiler; it's clunky in places; I've always had distaste for the parts that malign all charity and kindness. It's a weird book. But there's a spirit in there that's good. It's like -- if "Fanfare for the Common Man" was the soundtrack to your life. People need that. This year, suddenly, the local Borders has two shelves dedicated to Ayn Rand. It started with the recession. You need buoying up when the world is telling you you're expendable.
Isn't that exactly what Galt is claiming about everyone that isn't him or his friends?
Besides, you are expendable. The world would be a horrible place if you weren't expendable.
Not saying any of you have to like the book. It's a potboiler; it's clunky in places; I've always had distaste for the parts that malign all charity and kindness. It's a weird book. But there's a spirit in there that's good. It's like -- if "Fanfare for the Common Man" was the soundtrack to your life. People need that. This year, suddenly, the local Borders has two shelves dedicated to Ayn Rand. It started with the recession. You need buoying up when the world is telling you you're expendable.
I may be wrong here, but my impression that the usual wave of "capitalism has failed forever" books started with the recession. The mass of neo-Randian books started with the ensuing Democrat election victory and noise over ARRA. Ayn Rand begin topping the bestseller lists in early 2009, far after the recession had begun.
Ayn Rand comes and goes. I remember bookstores having massive displays for her stuff (and getting all confused at how to pronounce Ayn) twenty or twenty-five years ago. Though Randian thought didn't become as big an obvious political ideal until the last two or three years or so. But it was always there, percolating under the surface.
Not saying any of you have to like the book. It's a potboiler; it's clunky in places; I've always had distaste for the parts that malign all charity and kindness. It's a weird book. But there's a spirit in there that's good. It's like -- if "Fanfare for the Common Man" was the soundtrack to your life. People need that. This year, suddenly, the local Borders has two shelves dedicated to Ayn Rand. It started with the recession. You need buoying up when the world is telling you you're expendable.
I may be wrong here, but my impression that the usual wave of "capitalism has failed forever" books started with the recession. The mass of neo-Randian books started with the ensuing Democrat election victory and noise over ARRA. Ayn Rand begin topping the bestseller lists in early 2009, far after the recession had begun.
Ayn Rand comes and goes. I remember bookstores having massive displays for her stuff (and getting all confused at how to pronounce Ayn) twenty or twenty-five years ago. Though Randian thought didn't become as big an obvious political ideal until the last two or three years or so. But it was always there, percolating under the surface.
Also, by way of correction: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People outsells anything by Ayn Rand. Interestingly (but not surprisingly, when you think about it) the second best-selling book, after the Bible, is the Little Red Book.
I do hold to my point, though. I think people turn to Rand in hard times when they need reassurance.
Also, by way of correction: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People outsells anything by Ayn Rand. Interestingly (but not surprisingly, when you think about it) the second best-selling book, after the Bible, is the Little Red Book.
I do hold to my point, though. I think people turn to Rand in hard times when they need reassurance.
Not saying any of you have to like the book. It's a potboiler; it's clunky in places; I've always had distaste for the parts that malign all charity and kindness. It's a weird book. But there's a spirit in there that's good. It's like -- if "Fanfare for the Common Man" was the soundtrack to your life. People need that. This year, suddenly, the local Borders has two shelves dedicated to Ayn Rand. It started with the recession. You need buoying up when the world is telling you you're expendable.
I may be wrong here, but my impression that the usual wave of "capitalism has failed forever" books started with the recession. The mass of neo-Randian books started with the ensuing Democrat election victory and noise over ARRA. Ayn Rand begin topping the bestseller lists in early 2009, far after the recession had begun.
Ayn Rand comes and goes. I remember bookstores having massive displays for her stuff (and getting all confused at how to pronounce Ayn) twenty or twenty-five years ago. Though Randian thought didn't become as big an obvious political ideal until the last two or three years or so. But it was always there, percolating under the surface.
I always said "Ein"
That way I could make "Mein Rand!" joke.
Oh, I say it that way now. But a quarter century ago, it was a silly, silly name.
I'm going to have to once again recommend people turn to The Alchemist if they want a feel good fantasy story that reassures them everything will be alright.
EDIT: A HUNDRED YEARS? Kipling, you are way too generous. Maybe if Mickey Mouse's centenarian creator (I guess he doodled it in his crib and his parents filed for copyright?) were the one seeking to extend the copyright, I would sympathize, but I really see no reason for copyrights to last more than a quarter of that, as they did originally.
Note I don't oppose shorter copyrights, but a 100 years is the MAX limit of what I believe it should be held. Minimum is up for debate.
Its a question of money and disruption really. Lots of major corporations have been built around Intellectual copyrights. Music, Film and Literature. If we deprive them of their copyright too soon it will hurt us more then we benefit. They do after all use it to finance new IPs.
So a balance need be maintained. If not we get dozens of cheap knockoffs of "successful" IPs. Imagine every movie made by The Asylum.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Libertarianism, at least the philosophy (I know the party down in the US is pretty out there), isn't in favor of no government. If it was, it would be anarchy, not libertarianism. It's a philosophy that calls for less government intervention in the day to day lives of people, and more personal autonomy. Regardless of whether someone agrees with it, disagrees with it, or agrees with some parts of it and disagrees with others, it's just a political philosophy.
No, libertarianism really is anarchy. What you're arguing is a "no true scotsman" fallacy. "That isn't libertarianism, libertarianism is only how I define it"
EDIT: A HUNDRED YEARS? Kipling, you are way too generous. Maybe if Mickey Mouse's centenarian creator (I guess he doodled it in his crib and his parents filed for copyright?) were the one seeking to extend the copyright, I would sympathize, but I really see no reason for copyrights to last more than a quarter of that, as they did originally.
Note I don't oppose shorter copyrights, but a 100 years is the MAX limit of what I believe it should be held. Minimum is up for debate.
Its a question of money and disruption really. Lots of major corporations have been built around Intellectual copyrights. Music, Film and Literature. If we deprive them of their copyright too soon it will hurt us more then we benefit. They do after all use it to finance new IPs.
So a balance need be maintained. If not we get dozens of cheap knockoffs of "successful" IPs. Imagine every movie made by The Asylum.
I've always felt that it should be a case-by-case basis.
If you can prove you are still drawing a profit from and regularly making use of a particular copyright, then you should be granted an extension on it. Granted some things like Mickey Mouse would then be held in perpetuity, but he's still a regularly used and marketed property, simply unlocking it, even from a company like Disney for whom I hold no particular fondness, doesn't feel right.
At the very least a system based on filing for and obtaining copyright extensions would inhibit the ever-extending minimum that we're seeing now every time Steamboat Willie approaching the end of its term.
Of course, the copyright system didn't foresee the record-keeping and reproductive capabilities of modern technology, but that's just the way it goes.
I don't know. That sounds like a system that will give major corporations a way too keep things permanently out of public domains. Forever. While depriving individuals of the same rights. Big corporations got entire law firms ready to defend and extend their IPs.
How will it work with things that fall into public domains and then get used by a corporation? Will it go back into copyright? That would be bad news.
A 100 years is enough for anybody. If you can't think of a new IP in a 100 years, then though.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Yeah, I'd say 100 years is a LOT of leeway as it is. I wouldn't be opposed to that being a hard maximum with zero exceptions. I wouldn't be opposed to cutting that in half as a hard exception, either.
I think by and large 15-25 years is more than enough. I think it depends on the medium though.
I don't know. That sounds like a system that will give major corporations a way too keep things permanently out of public domains. Forever. While depriving individuals of the same rights. Big corporations got entire law firms ready to defend and extend their IPs.
How will it work with things that fall into public domains and then get used by a corporation? Will it go back into copyright? That would be bad news.
A 100 years is enough for anybody. If you can't think of a new IP in a 100 years, then though.
Guys, this is getter further afield than a pissing contest over literary criticism techniques. Copyright was never intended to keep things protected in perpetuity. The system might need changes, but that's for elsewhere.
And for a starter on what happens when a company gets a hold of Public Domain items, read up on It's a Wonderful Life. Nobody gives a shit about Jimmy Crack Corn, but fucking Bedford Falls was important.
Not saying any of you have to like the book. It's a potboiler; it's clunky in places; I've always had distaste for the parts that malign all charity and kindness. It's a weird book. But there's a spirit in there that's good. It's like -- if "Fanfare for the Common Man" was the soundtrack to your life. People need that. This year, suddenly, the local Borders has two shelves dedicated to Ayn Rand. It started with the recession. You need buoying up when the world is telling you you're expendable.
I may be wrong here, but my impression that the usual wave of "capitalism has failed forever" books started with the recession. The mass of neo-Randian books started with the ensuing Democrat election victory and noise over ARRA. Ayn Rand begin topping the bestseller lists in early 2009, far after the recession had begun.
Ayn Rand comes and goes. I remember bookstores having massive displays for her stuff (and getting all confused at how to pronounce Ayn) twenty or twenty-five years ago. Though Randian thought didn't become as big an obvious political ideal until the last two or three years or so. But it was always there, percolating under the surface.
Alot of Rand's ideas and stuff have been at the core of the Right Wing in America since like the 70s. They took the stuff they liked (her love of Social Darwinism and hatred of "Moochers" and her hard-on for the Free Market) and dumped the things they didn't (like her distaste for religion).
Not saying any of you have to like the book. It's a potboiler; it's clunky in places; I've always had distaste for the parts that malign all charity and kindness. It's a weird book. But there's a spirit in there that's good. It's like -- if "Fanfare for the Common Man" was the soundtrack to your life. People need that. This year, suddenly, the local Borders has two shelves dedicated to Ayn Rand. It started with the recession. You need buoying up when the world is telling you you're expendable.
I may be wrong here, but my impression that the usual wave of "capitalism has failed forever" books started with the recession. The mass of neo-Randian books started with the ensuing Democrat election victory and noise over ARRA. Ayn Rand begin topping the bestseller lists in early 2009, far after the recession had begun.
Ayn Rand comes and goes. I remember bookstores having massive displays for her stuff (and getting all confused at how to pronounce Ayn) twenty or twenty-five years ago. Though Randian thought didn't become as big an obvious political ideal until the last two or three years or so. But it was always there, percolating under the surface.
Alot of Rand's ideas and stuff have been at the core of the Right Wing in America since like the 70s. They took the stuff they liked (her love of Social Darwinism and hatred of "Moochers" and her hard-on for the Free Market) and dumped the things they didn't (like her distaste for religion).
I was referring mainly to Rand as some kind of pop-culture status. It's bigger now than I ever remember seeing it (and I don't believe the raisins have much of anything to do with it), but it cycles like anything that's been around for a long time. Lord of the Rings is always generally popular, but it took the movies to bring it back as hard as it did.
I've wondered how much Bioshock had to do, indirectly, with the sudden resurgence of Ayn Rand stuff in the past 3 years.
Objectivism has always been floating around on the edges of social thought, but I don't remember it being something you actually heard about say, ten years ago or so. Of course her foundation gives several copies to every school library in the US, but when I was in school those books sat right on the shelf for as long as I was there, and probably had been in place for at least a decade earlier. The fact that the books were well over a thousand pages long probably had something to do with it.
Something re-injected Objectivism/Rand back into the popular consciousness within the last five years, and I really can't think of much else. The only other thing that comes to mind is Ron Paul.
Now, obviously, one videogame didn't do all of it - but people that play the game talk to people, and then those people have the book sitting in their dorm room, so then people who wonder why somebody is reading that huge book look it up on wikipedia, and then they post it on a message board and then there you go. I think this is especially true for this board in particular - I don't think it's a coincidence that we had a huge number of freshly-minted objectivists starting topics on here in 2007-2008. Of course, it was an election year too, but still.
EDIT: Then again, it could just be the fact that the economy is in terrible shape, which leads people to look up economic theories, and Objectivists are always yelling to anyone who'll give them the time of day in that field. But IIRC the resurgence of interest in Rand predates the economy getting really bad, although it hasn't been really good since the late 90s.
I've wondered how much Bioshock had to do, indirectly, with the sudden resurgence of Ayn Rand stuff in the past 3 years.
Objectivism has always been floating around on the edges of social thought, but I don't remember it being something you actually heard about say, ten years ago or so. Of course her foundation gives several copies to every school library in the US, but when I was in school those books sat right on the shelf for as long as I was there, and probably had been in place for at least a decade earlier. The fact that the books were well over a thousand pages long probably had something to do with it.
Something re-injected Objectivism/Rand back into the popular consciousness within the last five years, and I really can't think of much else. The only other thing that comes to mind is Ron Paul.
Now, obviously, one videogame didn't do all of it - but people that play the game talk to people, and then those people have the book sitting in their dorm room, so then people who wonder why somebody is reading that huge book look it up on wikipedia, and then they post it on a message board and then there you go. I think this is especially true for this board in particular - I don't think it's a coincidence that we had a huge number of freshly-minted objectivists starting topics on here in 2007-2008.
It had a large resurgence among the republicans before the game came out by at least a few years stretch.
It's a nice worldview if you're deluded enough to think wealth is based on intelligence and ability rather than luck, connections, family and current resources, with intelligence and ability trailing far behind.
I mean, if you're going to convince yourself you're going to go from lower middle class to fabulously wealthy through some kind of meritocracy magic you might as well go whole hog with the "sweat of the brow" bit.
Well, like I say, I'm sure Rand has always had an audience among think-tank dudes and CEOs and what have you. Those are the people who support the Ayn Rand Institute with the money to put her books in every library in the country.
But I didn't think it had had any kind of profile with the average man on the street until recently. I didn't think it did even now, except on the internet, but if Barnes and Noble (or wherever) feels the need to set up a Rand station then obviously the books are selling better than they used to. And, come to think of it, the last time I was in B&N they had a bunch of copies of AS set up on a table up in the front.
Well, like I say, I'm sure Rand has always had an audience among think-tank dudes and CEOs and what have you. Those are the people who support the Ayn Rand Institute with the money to put her books in every library in the country.
But I didn't think it had had any kind of profile with the average man on the street until recently. I didn't think it did even now, except on the internet, but if Barnes and Noble (or wherever) feels the need to set up a Rand station then obviously the books are selling better than they used to. And, come to think of it, the last time I was in B&N they had a bunch of copies of AS set up on a table up in the front.
EDIT: Fixed for accuracy.
It's a book to reassure wealthy assholes that they're morally awesome when they support policies to completely fuck over the unemployed and the poor. So naturally it becomes popular when there's a lot of fucking the poor.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Well, like I say, I'm sure Rand has always had an audience among think-tank dudes and CEOs and what have you. Those are the people who support the Ayn Rand Institute with the money to put her books in every library in the country.
But I didn't think it had had any kind of profile with the average man on the street until recently. I didn't think it did even now, except on the internet, but if Barnes and Noble (or wherever) feels the need to set up a Rand station then obviously the books are selling better than they used to. And, come to think of it, the last time I was in B&N they had a bunch of copies of AS set up on a table up in the front.
EDIT: Fixed for accuracy.
It's a book to reassure wealthy assholes that they're morally awesome when they support policies to completely fuck over the unemployed and the poor. So naturally it becomes popular when there's a lot of fucking the poor.
I'm not sure if that last sentence means there are a lot of poor people or the generic action of fucking them is occurring extensively.
I'm wondering whether the gaggles of Rand devotees are torn between cheering that Rand is a now a Serious Philosopher, or asserting that Serious Philosophy has always been bankrupt anyway, or - somewhat unlikely - realizing that they didn't understand Rand or its place in philosophy to begin with.
It's a book to reassure wealthy assholes that they're morally awesome when they support policies to completely fuck over the unemployed and the poor. So naturally it becomes popular when there's a lot of fucking the poor.
I guess I'm just working from a limited reference pool. There really aren't a lot of wealthy people where I live, and even conservatives around here usually don't get too harsh against the welfare state (because most of them are on it or know somebody who is).
EDIT: This is not to say that there are no wealthy people here, because there are, but they are definitely a tiny minority - maybe a couple dozen people in the county if we're saying that $150k+ is "wealthy" - and not the sort of thing I'm used to thinking of as a market segment.
I never even knew that the stereotypical "eat the poor" republicans existed until I went to college. I thought it, like the stereotypical Berkeley liberal, was mostly a comedic exxageration. I remember well the first time I ever heard the term "bootstraps" (age 22).
But I guess all those executives and corrupt lawyers and other country-club types have to live somewhere, and they're being marketed toward just like everybody else.
It's a book to reassure wealthy assholes that they're morally awesome when they support policies to completely fuck over the unemployed and the poor. So naturally it becomes popular when there's a lot of fucking the poor.
I guess I'm just working from a limited reference pool. There really aren't a lot of wealthy people where I live, and even conservatives around here usually don't get too harsh against the welfare state (because most of them are on it or know somebody who is).
EDIT: This is not to say that there are no wealthy people here, because there are, but they are definitely a tiny minority - maybe a couple dozen people in the county if we're saying that $150k+ is "wealthy" - and not the sort of thing I'm used to thinking of as a market segment.
I never even knew that the stereotypical "eat the poor" republicans existed until I went to college. I thought it, like the stereotypical Berkeley liberal, was mostly a comedic exaggeration. I remember well the first time I ever heard the term "bootstraps" (age 22).
But I guess all those executives and corrupt lawyers and other country-club types have to live somewhere, and they're being marketed toward just like everybody else.
Seems like an awful lot of them live in Florida. That's my general experience.
Xenogear_0001 on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm wondering whether the gaggles of Rand devotees are torn between cheering that Rand is a now a Serious Philosopher, or asserting that Serious Philosophy has always been bankrupt anyway, or - somewhat unlikely - realizing that they didn't understand Rand or its place in philosophy to begin with.
Browsing that article, I can guarantee you that it is clearer and more coherent than the source material.
Libertarianism, at least the philosophy (I know the party down in the US is pretty out there), isn't in favor of no government. If it was, it would be anarchy, not libertarianism. It's a philosophy that calls for less government intervention in the day to day lives of people, and more personal autonomy. Regardless of whether someone agrees with it, disagrees with it, or agrees with some parts of it and disagrees with others, it's just a political philosophy.
No, libertarianism really is anarchy. What you're arguing is a "no true scotsman" fallacy. "That isn't libertarianism, libertarianism is only how I define it"
Um, it isn't. If it were, it would be called "anarchy" and not "libertarianism". There's a reason we have different names for different things. Depeneding on the context, it is a blanket term to describe a number of different more specific political philosophies which share common traits (minimalist government, specifically NOT no-government philosophies - these are properly categorized as anarchy), some of which may be very similar to anarchy (but many are not), or it is a direction, rather than a place in the political landscape - pointing from any reasonable currently-existing government to one of those minimalist government philosophies.
You are attributing to libertarianism characteristics you may have heard used to describe one specific strain of libertarianism, or simply characteristics which you find convenient because they make it easier to ridicule. Please stop kicking a man while he's down. It's already easy enough.
wfo on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think that charge applies to a great many philosophers.
But rarely so starkly.
Even Nozick, perhaps the most famous philosophical champion of Libertarianism, said of her philosophy that:
"The followers of Rand, for example, treat "A is A" not just as "everything is identical to itself" but as a kind of statement about essences and the limits of things. "A is A, and it can't be anything else, and once it's A today, it can't change its spots tomorrow." Now, that doesn't follow. I mean, from the law of identity, nothing follows about limitations on change. The weather is identical to itself but it's changing all the time. The use that's made by people in the Randian tradition of this principle of logic that everything is identical to itself to place limits on what the future behavior of things can be, or on the future nature of current things, is completely unjustified so far as I can see; it's illegitimate.
I've wondered how much Bioshock had to do, indirectly, with the sudden resurgence of Ayn Rand stuff in the past 3 years.
I think every person who thinks Objectivism is a viable way to run the world should have to play Bioshock and see the actual end results of Objectivism. Because if everyone were really to live as complete selfish silly gooses, worldwide Rapture is what we'd get rather than worldwide Utopia.
I've wondered how much Bioshock had to do, indirectly, with the sudden resurgence of Ayn Rand stuff in the past 3 years.
I think every person who thinks Objectivism is a viable way to run the world should have to play Bioshock and see the actual end results of Objectivism. Because if everyone were really to live as complete selfish silly gooses, worldwide Rapture is what we'd get rather than worldwide Utopia.
I'm wondering whether the gaggles of Rand devotees are torn between cheering that Rand is a now a Serious Philosopher, or asserting that Serious Philosophy has always been bankrupt anyway, or - somewhat unlikely - realizing that they didn't understand Rand or its place in philosophy to begin with.
Wow, that's really fucking sad.
I've never metor talked to a philosopher/philosophy prof/etc that took Objectivism seriously.
Posts
Isn't that exactly what Galt is claiming about everyone who isn't him or his friends?
It does for the speculators who get out right before the crash.
Hell, it really misses what the book is ABOUT. It's taking death of the author to such an extreme that literary analysis becomes impossible. To consider Atlas Shrugged as just a work of fiction is to close our eyes and ignore what the book is about.
I may be wrong here, but my impression that the usual wave of "capitalism has failed forever" books started with the recession. The mass of neo-Randian books started with the ensuing Democrat election victory and noise over ARRA. Ayn Rand begin topping the bestseller lists in early 2009, far after the recession had begun.
If you want something that makes you feel good and emphasizes a strong will and the hard work of a single person read The Alchemist.
Far more enjoyable and nowhere near as likely to turn a person in to a jerk.
Besides, you are expendable. The world would be a horrible place if you weren't expendable.
Ayn Rand comes and goes. I remember bookstores having massive displays for her stuff (and getting all confused at how to pronounce Ayn) twenty or twenty-five years ago. Though Randian thought didn't become as big an obvious political ideal until the last two or three years or so. But it was always there, percolating under the surface.
I always said "Ein"
That way I could make "Mein Rand!" joke.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Also, by way of correction: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People outsells anything by Ayn Rand. Interestingly (but not surprisingly, when you think about it) the second best-selling book, after the Bible, is the Little Red Book.
I do hold to my point, though. I think people turn to Rand in hard times when they need reassurance.
http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
Where does Dianetics fall in all this?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Oh, I say it that way now. But a quarter century ago, it was a silly, silly name.
Note I don't oppose shorter copyrights, but a 100 years is the MAX limit of what I believe it should be held. Minimum is up for debate.
Its a question of money and disruption really. Lots of major corporations have been built around Intellectual copyrights. Music, Film and Literature. If we deprive them of their copyright too soon it will hurt us more then we benefit. They do after all use it to finance new IPs.
So a balance need be maintained. If not we get dozens of cheap knockoffs of "successful" IPs. Imagine every movie made by The Asylum.
No, libertarianism really is anarchy. What you're arguing is a "no true scotsman" fallacy. "That isn't libertarianism, libertarianism is only how I define it"
I've always felt that it should be a case-by-case basis.
If you can prove you are still drawing a profit from and regularly making use of a particular copyright, then you should be granted an extension on it. Granted some things like Mickey Mouse would then be held in perpetuity, but he's still a regularly used and marketed property, simply unlocking it, even from a company like Disney for whom I hold no particular fondness, doesn't feel right.
At the very least a system based on filing for and obtaining copyright extensions would inhibit the ever-extending minimum that we're seeing now every time Steamboat Willie approaching the end of its term.
Of course, the copyright system didn't foresee the record-keeping and reproductive capabilities of modern technology, but that's just the way it goes.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
How will it work with things that fall into public domains and then get used by a corporation? Will it go back into copyright? That would be bad news.
A 100 years is enough for anybody. If you can't think of a new IP in a 100 years, then though.
I think by and large 15-25 years is more than enough. I think it depends on the medium though.
Guys, this is getter further afield than a pissing contest over literary criticism techniques. Copyright was never intended to keep things protected in perpetuity. The system might need changes, but that's for elsewhere.
And for a starter on what happens when a company gets a hold of Public Domain items, read up on It's a Wonderful Life. Nobody gives a shit about Jimmy Crack Corn, but fucking Bedford Falls was important.
Alot of Rand's ideas and stuff have been at the core of the Right Wing in America since like the 70s. They took the stuff they liked (her love of Social Darwinism and hatred of "Moochers" and her hard-on for the Free Market) and dumped the things they didn't (like her distaste for religion).
I was referring mainly to Rand as some kind of pop-culture status. It's bigger now than I ever remember seeing it (and I don't believe the raisins have much of anything to do with it), but it cycles like anything that's been around for a long time. Lord of the Rings is always generally popular, but it took the movies to bring it back as hard as it did.
Objectivism has always been floating around on the edges of social thought, but I don't remember it being something you actually heard about say, ten years ago or so. Of course her foundation gives several copies to every school library in the US, but when I was in school those books sat right on the shelf for as long as I was there, and probably had been in place for at least a decade earlier. The fact that the books were well over a thousand pages long probably had something to do with it.
Something re-injected Objectivism/Rand back into the popular consciousness within the last five years, and I really can't think of much else. The only other thing that comes to mind is Ron Paul.
Now, obviously, one videogame didn't do all of it - but people that play the game talk to people, and then those people have the book sitting in their dorm room, so then people who wonder why somebody is reading that huge book look it up on wikipedia, and then they post it on a message board and then there you go. I think this is especially true for this board in particular - I don't think it's a coincidence that we had a huge number of freshly-minted objectivists starting topics on here in 2007-2008. Of course, it was an election year too, but still.
EDIT: Then again, it could just be the fact that the economy is in terrible shape, which leads people to look up economic theories, and Objectivists are always yelling to anyone who'll give them the time of day in that field. But IIRC the resurgence of interest in Rand predates the economy getting really bad, although it hasn't been really good since the late 90s.
It had a large resurgence among the republicans before the game came out by at least a few years stretch.
It's a nice worldview if you're deluded enough to think wealth is based on intelligence and ability rather than luck, connections, family and current resources, with intelligence and ability trailing far behind.
I mean, if you're going to convince yourself you're going to go from lower middle class to fabulously wealthy through some kind of meritocracy magic you might as well go whole hog with the "sweat of the brow" bit.
But I didn't think it had had any kind of profile with the average man on the street until recently. I didn't think it did even now, except on the internet, but if Barnes and Noble (or wherever) feels the need to set up a Rand station then obviously the books are selling better than they used to. And, come to think of it, the last time I was in B&N they had a bunch of copies of AS set up on a table up in the front.
EDIT: Fixed for accuracy.
(there's also the RAND Corporation, which is wholly unrelated...)
It's a book to reassure wealthy assholes that they're morally awesome when they support policies to completely fuck over the unemployed and the poor. So naturally it becomes popular when there's a lot of fucking the poor.
I'm not sure if that last sentence means there are a lot of poor people or the generic action of fucking them is occurring extensively.
It works both ways, now that I think on it.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'm wondering whether the gaggles of Rand devotees are torn between cheering that Rand is a now a Serious Philosopher, or asserting that Serious Philosophy has always been bankrupt anyway, or - somewhat unlikely - realizing that they didn't understand Rand or its place in philosophy to begin with.
EDIT: This is not to say that there are no wealthy people here, because there are, but they are definitely a tiny minority - maybe a couple dozen people in the county if we're saying that $150k+ is "wealthy" - and not the sort of thing I'm used to thinking of as a market segment.
I never even knew that the stereotypical "eat the poor" republicans existed until I went to college. I thought it, like the stereotypical Berkeley liberal, was mostly a comedic exxageration. I remember well the first time I ever heard the term "bootstraps" (age 22).
But I guess all those executives and corrupt lawyers and other country-club types have to live somewhere, and they're being marketed toward just like everybody else.
Seems like an awful lot of them live in Florida. That's my general experience.
Browsing that article, I can guarantee you that it is clearer and more coherent than the source material.
Um, it isn't. If it were, it would be called "anarchy" and not "libertarianism". There's a reason we have different names for different things. Depeneding on the context, it is a blanket term to describe a number of different more specific political philosophies which share common traits (minimalist government, specifically NOT no-government philosophies - these are properly categorized as anarchy), some of which may be very similar to anarchy (but many are not), or it is a direction, rather than a place in the political landscape - pointing from any reasonable currently-existing government to one of those minimalist government philosophies.
You are attributing to libertarianism characteristics you may have heard used to describe one specific strain of libertarianism, or simply characteristics which you find convenient because they make it easier to ridicule. Please stop kicking a man while he's down. It's already easy enough.
But rarely so starkly.
Even Nozick, perhaps the most famous philosophical champion of Libertarianism, said of her philosophy that:
I think every person who thinks Objectivism is a viable way to run the world should have to play Bioshock and see the actual end results of Objectivism. Because if everyone were really to live as complete selfish silly gooses, worldwide Rapture is what we'd get rather than worldwide Utopia.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Fuck BioShock.
I present, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Enjoy!
but since there are none here for me to talk sense to, i will do it to people who are being silly in other ways
Wow, that's really fucking sad.
I've never metor talked to a philosopher/philosophy prof/etc that took Objectivism seriously.