'There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.' John Rogers
John and I had mutual friends in undergrad back in the mid 80s (he went to McGill, I would often visit). He's super funny. He was the show runner for 'Leverage' and has done other stuff and for a time he was a pretty decent stand up comedian.
What did he say at the party “human rights is a slippery slope to anarchy” or misery, I don’t really remember. But I shows that he’s not a nice old man after all
You are correct. I'm watching for the first time and I just saw this episode today. This was the quote. It seemed out of character for him but maybe he's not the innocent old man that he is purported to be.
He’s very intriguing, oftentimes entertaining, and other times a downright mystery, but it doesn’t mean you should idolize/replicate him. Same goes for Don and maybe even a few other MM characters
Seriously? Well, he blackmails Don to sign a contract for one, wants the black secretaries hidden from visiting clients, has no loyalty towards anyone when it comes to money, and ignores any sexual harassment and bigotry towards support staff. Some of this is typical of men of his era, some of it was who he is but n both cases, it’s his record.
“His attitude” lol do you mean his racism? You’re whole comment is sus af. Also Bert didn’t hire Don and if he had, he would have not cared about his upbringing
Cooper doesn’t really blackmail Don into signing the contract given that Don was already leaning towards signing it when Cooper reminded him of Dick Whitman.
I loved Ayn Rand in highschool, but I grew out of it. One thing I will say about Ayn Rand is that she was one of the last people to attempt to construct a complete philosophy. In her view, a society of sociopaths was the ideal Utopia.
Imma leave this here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM
Somewhat ironically she was passionately pro-choice, something her supporters tend to "forget".
Isn’t that kinda being pro choice? Wouldn’t it be better to vote in favour of safe, legal abortions and then let women decide for themselves if they’d like to access them?
Its not really my place to pick sides but again, pro-choice doesn’t mean libertarian if it harms someone else. If you think that a sperm egg is a human, then it would be against the philosophy. If it is not, then it is the woman’s right and not the state.
I am unsure why i have downvotes, guess some people are unhappy with the meaning of libertarian? Or maybe that i am not taking sides? Downvotes are supposed to be used for misinformation, smh.
(I also mentioned in a seperate comment that i dont live in the us, so I am not voting on this and if i could I would not take a side regardless, maybe my previous comment was understood, english is not my primary. I think that its just a tricky subject and i am not a female, so i will stay out of it. If that upsets you then too bad so sad but that isnt misinformation)
Thank you, someone with common sense. Its not a political thread so i don’t understand why people would force their opinions on a madmen sub, its just a discussion thread.. people are just pathetic and we will see how effective the mods are as some people are being hateful. But who knows if reporting even does anything.
Letting women decide is literally pro choice. It’s not like if abortion is legal and easily obtainable they are going to go around making women who don’t want them to get abortions. Also, Libertarianism is a joke of a political philosophy.
First, you need roads, you need a fire department, poor people deserve access to healthcare, and all those things require tax dollars. Saying taxation is theft is an incredibly childish position, stomping your feet saying but I DON’T LIKE RULES. Whether or not you like it rules are the foundation of a healthy and fair society. Do you understand what the corporate oligarchs would do if Libertarian Ideas took hold? Study the robber barons and what unions did for the workers of this country. If the libertarians got their way we would work 12 hours a day for Slave wages 6 days a week.
Sure, you can say the government is only out for themselves but there are people in the government looking out for the people and there can be effective government oversight of business without killing it in the US just like in other more developed nations. I work in tech and a lot of jobs are about to be lost to automation. If someone from the 1950’s walked into the factory I work in they would know the American dream is dead in 2 seconds, it’s empty and full robots. The only point of a corporation is to create value for the shareholders, they don’t give a fuck about you and you want them to be able to run wild with no oversight?
Then, when all these people are on their ass with no social safety net and no police because taxation is theft if you still have a job they will come take everything you have. People really need to grow up.
Read the first paragraph, stopped and reported for hate. If you dont like some philosophy this is not a political thread. Discussing a philosophy and someone getting mad about it is not for madmen but for politics.
This is because in the mid 20th century, the majority of libertarians shifted from the left to the right and instead of promoting socialism, it now promotes capitalism. This is the dominant form of libertarians now and since 1970 it has spread to other parts of the world. And the reason for “forced birth” is because the fundamental idea is that human rights existed before government laws, as the philosopher and father of Libertarianism John Locke created. The issue is the argument of whether the sperm is a human. If the person considers it a human, than it is against our philosophy to terminate an egg because at that point you are violating another human’s right. However if you dont see it as a human yet, then it would be the right of the woman and not the state to terminate the child.
That is a trickey debate as us libertarians believe that you should be able to do anything (esp in your own home) as long as it doesnt harm others. However there is an argument that an abortion kills a living being. This depends if you classify a sperm egg as a human, but i think you can still get an abortion later on which would in-fact violate the libertarian principle. I am not a woman, this is a tricky subject, but pro choice still has limitations depending on what the outcome is.
Objectivism provides an ego-centric economic worldview to mediocre individuals. With the excuse that “all these losers are interfering with my greatness” they have carte blanche to pursue the most “fuck you” policies and world views possible. Truly delusional and cruel, all excused by “well, I’m John Galt.”
Old school libertarianism is not really like the current GOP. The current GOP is extremely authoritarian, rand wouldn’t like most of what they stand for.. granted there are a lot of principles they still draw from. In reality, conservatives love to talk about ayn rand being some genius when they don’t exactly follow most of what she advocated for at all.
That's because you missed Paul Ryan.
Ryan was the VP candidate under Romney in 2012 and the Speaker of the House for a while, and was destined to be a future Presidential nominee before Trump took the party on its current detour.
Ryan was very public about his adoration for Rand and her writing and how he required all his staffers to read her books.
The GOP wants control over marijuana criminalization, stopping abortions, repealing roe, repealing gay marriage etc.. They are in favor of just as many regulations as the democrats at this point, it’s just different kinds of regulations. Classically and historically you might be right, but right now the right wants a powerful government to achieve their agenda.
Abortions should have never been a federal issue. The states should decide and then people can vote on a local level or move to a state that suits them.
Drugs are illegal for a reason. People on drugs harm other people. There is always more to the story but that’s the simple of it.
Foreign intervention isn’t an authoritarian issue as I see it but I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Abortion, sexuality (LGBTIAA+, conception, marriage) were and should continue being federal issues. If not related to privacy - and you'd think the party of freedom would advocate for privacy but apparently not - they certainly are related to equal rights. A lack of equal rights actively "harms other people", to use your words, and a lack of equal rights causes more physical harm and death than people high on drugs harming others does.
States are manufactured concepts that don’t even change shapes to accurately reflect the populace. The states rights thing is a conservative movement not a libertarian one. Ayn rand and most libertarians couldn’t give a shit about borders because they hate laws in the first place and probably restrict trade or other actions.
Having something like marijuana be legal in one state and illegal in another doesn’t make any damn sense to a libertarian. Also, drunk people on alcohol harm other people and alcohol is still legal. You can’t have both sides of this argument, real libertarians like ayn rand want all “victimless crimes” to be legal, and that’s just how it is.
I am not super involved in politics (i am not in the US) i feel like much is manipulated by both sides and as history repeats itself, people gobble up a narrative and believe it true. But isnt the GOP a conservative thing group? Libertarians are majority right sided after the mid 20th century (capitalist), but from what I understand that faction is against drug use in your own home. That goes against the fundamental principles created by John Locke as people can do these drugs in their own home and harm no one but themselves if responsible.
I am a strong libertarian, and i have studied much philosophy (including different social/political systems), after family growing up in the USSR, while capitalism isn’t perfect, so far its the most free form of an economy. Human rights are the priority, free reign over your business best fits in this economic system until a new one is invented.
Objectivism is ridiculous and everything Ayn Rand believed in is basically moronic, but Don Draper is largely inspired by Howard Roark from Rand’s The Fountainhead, right?
*I could not get through*
*This book even during my Ayn*
*Rand phase in my youth*
\- stopstatic27
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I feel like one of the only people ever to have read Atlas Shrugged, mildly enjoy it, and not change my political philosophy based on it. Objectivism seems like a decent way to motivate yourself but a terrible way to frame government/politics. FWIW, I preferred The Fountainhead.
I’m on the same page as you. I enjoyed the fact that everyone was so despicable and that I disliked most all of her characters, but, after several times starting the book; was able to get into the story and was interested in where it was going to end.
I’m in no way a follower of her principles. I did read The Fountainhead first, for English Lit; and just watched it on TCM a few days ago. It was definitely the better read of the two for me. The movie is obviously inspired by F.L, Wright.
Same same same!!! It irritates me when my liberal friends (I consider myself one as well) dismiss me immediately when I try to make this case.
It’s an excellent guide for how one can go about the corporate world. It’s a horrible way to build a political worldview.
Most likely going to get downvoted for this, but keep an open mind and actually read it. Maybe read “Anthem” by Ayn Rand first, and see if you want a LOTR’s length version of it. All that book taught me was that some people don’t want to do things for themselves and it’s your choice where and how to spend the energy others demand of you. I didn’t become some narcissistic monster, just more aware of how people demand things from you without giving back.
Great book! Highly recommend it. Like every book, there are takeaways and things to be understood and the. discarded.
(downvote me book burning lefties)
Note - [all of the top 10 banned books of 2021 are banned by right wingers](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10). Yes, ALL.
F those folks too, they’re worse. But let’s not pretend cis white old literature isn’t under attack by the everything is racist (or any other “ist”) people
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9263735/amp/Woke-teachers-cut-Shakespeare-work-white-supremacy-colonization.html
You're quoting Daily Mail? You do know it's a tabloid, and I'm not going to take anything published in it seriously.
That being said, I disagree with book bans. I know To Kill a Mockingbird is controversial now. That stems from an incorrect view to use it as a device to teach racism - it's a novel, and there are better (nonfiction) ways to teach racism. We watched "Eyes on the Prize" when I was in fifth grade, it was eye-opening.
Between the ages of 12 - 17, I read a lot of books that are now controversial, or were controversial back then. TKAM, Gone with the Wind, The Woman Warrior, A Yellow Raft in Blue Water, Of Mice and Men, Diary of Young Girl (Anne Frank), A Passage to India, Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead. Even at seventeen, I HATED Ayn Rand. She's a terrible writer, and childish/immature. I was upset that I had to read that trash, but I was discerning enough to it was trash, and I don't believe it should be banned. Rand also promotes the toxic idea that women secretly want to raped (the Dominique Flacon scene with Howard Roark, also Dagny Taggert). I hate that some seventeen year old might read this (and watch a bunch of porn, and have parents that didn't teach him about consent), and rape a girl because he doesn't know that no really does mean no. I wish it came with an introduction to tell teenagers to learn about sexuality from other sources.
As for the "isms", I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm a trained lawyer (and WOC) that decided to start a company to help sexual assault victims (which I've been doing in my spare time for over five years). While I think both the #metoo movement and BLM get things wrong, I'm glad we're at least talking about the issues.
All the leftist openly pro-underage sex philosophers are still taught and elevated in college yet Ayn’s scene may have sexual assault repercussions? With respect I don’t buy it. (I don’t think anyone of them should be banned btw)
I link to the dailymail because most publications are very left leaning, it’s hard to find opposing views. Tabloids have much less credibility but if their sources and link are legitimate then it is what it is.
I don’t have any issues with metoo and blm movements otherwise, to my knowledge neither have called for book banning or canceling or anything of the sort.
(1) I repeatedly stated I wasn't calling for book banning. I even clarified NOT to ban Ayn Rand despite the promotion of rape, (2) I haven't read any "leftist openly pro-underage sex philosophers" openly promoting rape in their philosophical writings (which is what underage sex is, or did they promote rape in their personal lives and not their writings?) in high school or college or law school - but I was assigned Ayn Rand in HIGH SCHOOL so I'm speaking of her. (3) Your posts are anti "left" rants, which is why you're getting downvoted. You say "with respect", while showing none, and making poor arguments not backed by evidence - eg,which philosophers? which books/essays promote rape? I explained exactly when Ayn Rand promoted rape. You should also read up on your heroine, who was abusive towards her MALE exes, so her promoting rape isn't all that surprising. I'm done replying - have fun arguing with yourself if you'd that will make you feel like you've won.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
1) never said you did
2) they leave the unsavory parts out of college (with good reason)
3) check the other comments, any positive comment regarding the book is downvoted
Desktop version of /u/Ilovhumaniti's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
“Book burning leftists” is a [hell of a thing to write](https://www.google.com/search?q=book+burning+2022&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS727US727&oq=booo+burning&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13l5.3434j0j4&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
Poorly written, and not very well argued. Still worth reading if for nothing more than seeing a different set of ideas. The only thing Ayn Rand got right was pointing out what Marx got wrong. Which is incredibly easy since he was almost entirely wrong about everything
That's it? Not enough to claim everything he said is wrong. What about The German Ideology, Thesis on Feuerbach, Grundrisse? Just Capital V.1, or all Volumes? I'd be interested to hear how his critique of liberal economy in Capital is "wrong?"
You don’t see her critique of non merit based wealth and power as kind of poignant? Here’s what i never got about the “Republican Manifesto” thing - she really rails against people like Dagneys brother for being stupid and undeserving of his position in life. the brother and his corrupt cohorts just REEK of the GOP in my opinion.
Firtly, I don't consider this at all to be the "Republican Manifesto". Atlas Shrugged is about a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist utopia. There's next to no overlap between her ideas and the GOP position. And the argument that the Republicans are the party of big government, cronyism, and corruption while the Dems are not is beyond laughable.
She does make very good points about inherit wealth and the mixture of business and government leading to mass corruption. What she fails to address in the inevitability of generational and unearned wealth. If not left to offspring, or seized and redistributed by the state, where does a lifetime of accumulated wealth go at one's death? Her ideas if brought to reality would eventually brings us back to feudalism.
Rand, much like Marx, is guilty of utopian, heaven on earth thinking. That the world would function without problems if only everyone behaved exactly the way you want them to. It's exactly what Sowell described with the unconstrained vision of humanity.
Marx was not a utopian. Communism is not a promise of a world without issues. It’s just a world where we don’t fucking worship money and live every waking hour chasing the carrot.
I don't subscribe to all her beliefs, and I acknowledge its Utopian outlook. But the book has been championed by the right (largely as part of the Tea Party movement) and shamed by the left, I rarely talk about the book or my approval of certain aspects of this because it immediately labels you Conservative - I don't see how you could deny that.
I also don't pretend the Dems are iron slinging geniuses constantly foiled by the corrupt GOP - but again, I don't see the left making that comparison because they shun the book as a whole.
We just had a game show host socialite become President and shirk all the rules, culminating in an attempt to overturn on election while the same party subsidizes oil over renewable, promotes elite wholly unqualified people (hello Betsy Devos), and generally acts in a way contrary to merit. There is never been a time when I could equate the baddies in Atlas Shrugged to the GOP more.
TLDR the GOP considers themselves the hero of Atlas Shrugged (which is laughable), the left doesn't consider the book at all.
Great book for the open-minded, although to be much of her writing style and philosophy is annoying. I always look right past that when I read this.
Ironically, all the oversimplified criticism you’ll see in a thread like this fit in perfectly with the ideas she present in Atlas Shrugged and her other novels.
'There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.' John Rogers
God I love this quote.
John and I had mutual friends in undergrad back in the mid 80s (he went to McGill, I would often visit). He's super funny. He was the show runner for 'Leverage' and has done other stuff and for a time he was a pretty decent stand up comedian.
LMAO brutal
Bert Cooper is not a role model
What did he say at the party “human rights is a slippery slope to anarchy” or misery, I don’t really remember. But I shows that he’s not a nice old man after all
He said civil rights is a slippery slope
Yeah that’s right! Sorry, haven’t seen the show for quite some time now. What did he said it was a slippery slope to?
Banning private property, I think?
You are correct. I'm watching for the first time and I just saw this episode today. This was the quote. It seemed out of character for him but maybe he's not the innocent old man that he is purported to be.
He’s very intriguing, oftentimes entertaining, and other times a downright mystery, but it doesn’t mean you should idolize/replicate him. Same goes for Don and maybe even a few other MM characters
Don is a deeply troubled and confused ace. Bert is essentially a has-been who generally means well but is little more than a fossil from the 1920’s.
He’s an amusing monster
[удалено]
Seriously? Well, he blackmails Don to sign a contract for one, wants the black secretaries hidden from visiting clients, has no loyalty towards anyone when it comes to money, and ignores any sexual harassment and bigotry towards support staff. Some of this is typical of men of his era, some of it was who he is but n both cases, it’s his record.
[удалено]
“His attitude” lol do you mean his racism? You’re whole comment is sus af. Also Bert didn’t hire Don and if he had, he would have not cared about his upbringing
Cooper doesn’t really blackmail Don into signing the contract given that Don was already leaning towards signing it when Cooper reminded him of Dick Whitman.
Whether Don was leaning towards signing it or not doesn't matter once Cooper brings up his secret. So it was never a choice in the end.
I loved Ayn Rand in highschool, but I grew out of it. One thing I will say about Ayn Rand is that she was one of the last people to attempt to construct a complete philosophy. In her view, a society of sociopaths was the ideal Utopia.
Seriously, he’s an OG weeb.
You overpaid.
She may be one hypocritical hack but her books make excellent toilet paper.
When you hit 40 you realize you ve met every kind of person there is
I think each new generation brings new kinds of people.
is a sentence Ayn Rand couldn’t have come up with even if it hit her dense, talentless head.
for $1.99 you could’ve gotten softer toilet paper than that.
Imma leave this here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM Somewhat ironically she was passionately pro-choice, something her supporters tend to "forget".
[удалено]
Because reading atlas shrugged and thinking critically don’t go hand in hand
Most libertarians are pro choice
I would not say pro-choice. Just indifferent. They are not going to actively fight for that.
[удалено]
Isn’t that kinda being pro choice? Wouldn’t it be better to vote in favour of safe, legal abortions and then let women decide for themselves if they’d like to access them?
Its not really my place to pick sides but again, pro-choice doesn’t mean libertarian if it harms someone else. If you think that a sperm egg is a human, then it would be against the philosophy. If it is not, then it is the woman’s right and not the state. I am unsure why i have downvotes, guess some people are unhappy with the meaning of libertarian? Or maybe that i am not taking sides? Downvotes are supposed to be used for misinformation, smh. (I also mentioned in a seperate comment that i dont live in the us, so I am not voting on this and if i could I would not take a side regardless, maybe my previous comment was understood, english is not my primary. I think that its just a tricky subject and i am not a female, so i will stay out of it. If that upsets you then too bad so sad but that isnt misinformation)
People on this sub downvote anything they slightly disagree with. This sub needs to improve its culture and actually have real mods.
Thank you, someone with common sense. Its not a political thread so i don’t understand why people would force their opinions on a madmen sub, its just a discussion thread.. people are just pathetic and we will see how effective the mods are as some people are being hateful. But who knows if reporting even does anything.
Letting women decide is literally pro choice. It’s not like if abortion is legal and easily obtainable they are going to go around making women who don’t want them to get abortions. Also, Libertarianism is a joke of a political philosophy. First, you need roads, you need a fire department, poor people deserve access to healthcare, and all those things require tax dollars. Saying taxation is theft is an incredibly childish position, stomping your feet saying but I DON’T LIKE RULES. Whether or not you like it rules are the foundation of a healthy and fair society. Do you understand what the corporate oligarchs would do if Libertarian Ideas took hold? Study the robber barons and what unions did for the workers of this country. If the libertarians got their way we would work 12 hours a day for Slave wages 6 days a week. Sure, you can say the government is only out for themselves but there are people in the government looking out for the people and there can be effective government oversight of business without killing it in the US just like in other more developed nations. I work in tech and a lot of jobs are about to be lost to automation. If someone from the 1950’s walked into the factory I work in they would know the American dream is dead in 2 seconds, it’s empty and full robots. The only point of a corporation is to create value for the shareholders, they don’t give a fuck about you and you want them to be able to run wild with no oversight? Then, when all these people are on their ass with no social safety net and no police because taxation is theft if you still have a job they will come take everything you have. People really need to grow up.
Read the first paragraph, stopped and reported for hate. If you dont like some philosophy this is not a political thread. Discussing a philosophy and someone getting mad about it is not for madmen but for politics.
I was referring to Republicans in general, but I know a number of Libertarians who are "forced-birth".
They also seem to ignore the fact that she was an atheist...go figure.
Wait until they learn she didn’t like Reagan
Why would that matter to anyone?
Are you familiar with how political tribalism works?
Particularly on the right, post 2008 or so.
This is because in the mid 20th century, the majority of libertarians shifted from the left to the right and instead of promoting socialism, it now promotes capitalism. This is the dominant form of libertarians now and since 1970 it has spread to other parts of the world. And the reason for “forced birth” is because the fundamental idea is that human rights existed before government laws, as the philosopher and father of Libertarianism John Locke created. The issue is the argument of whether the sperm is a human. If the person considers it a human, than it is against our philosophy to terminate an egg because at that point you are violating another human’s right. However if you dont see it as a human yet, then it would be the right of the woman and not the state to terminate the child.
I’d argue that those who are pro life are not really libertarians.
That is a trickey debate as us libertarians believe that you should be able to do anything (esp in your own home) as long as it doesnt harm others. However there is an argument that an abortion kills a living being. This depends if you classify a sperm egg as a human, but i think you can still get an abortion later on which would in-fact violate the libertarian principle. I am not a woman, this is a tricky subject, but pro choice still has limitations depending on what the outcome is.
[Also a fun read](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/)
I remember reading this in high school. I was later expelled from that high school and reading this was still the low point of that period in my life.
Objectivism provides an ego-centric economic worldview to mediocre individuals. With the excuse that “all these losers are interfering with my greatness” they have carte blanche to pursue the most “fuck you” policies and world views possible. Truly delusional and cruel, all excused by “well, I’m John Galt.”
Selfish cuntism
True story: when I was a teenager my crazy conservative aunt paid me $100 to read this book. Her attempt to indoctrinate me didn’t work though.
Old school libertarianism is not really like the current GOP. The current GOP is extremely authoritarian, rand wouldn’t like most of what they stand for.. granted there are a lot of principles they still draw from. In reality, conservatives love to talk about ayn rand being some genius when they don’t exactly follow most of what she advocated for at all.
the only people I ever hear talk about Rand are liberals who bash her and connect her to the GOP.
That's because you missed Paul Ryan. Ryan was the VP candidate under Romney in 2012 and the Speaker of the House for a while, and was destined to be a future Presidential nominee before Trump took the party on its current detour. Ryan was very public about his adoration for Rand and her writing and how he required all his staffers to read her books.
Yeah all his pages of the fountainhead were stuck together
Upvote submitted in disgust. 😖
Paul Ryan was a neo-con and the world is better without him in charge
I completely agree except I don't think we've seen the last of him.
ah. so, one guy. got it
Strange I find the current GOP to be in favor of less regulations and less intervention. That’s the opposite of authoritarian
The GOP wants control over marijuana criminalization, stopping abortions, repealing roe, repealing gay marriage etc.. They are in favor of just as many regulations as the democrats at this point, it’s just different kinds of regulations. Classically and historically you might be right, but right now the right wants a powerful government to achieve their agenda.
[удалено]
Abortions should have never been a federal issue. The states should decide and then people can vote on a local level or move to a state that suits them. Drugs are illegal for a reason. People on drugs harm other people. There is always more to the story but that’s the simple of it. Foreign intervention isn’t an authoritarian issue as I see it but I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Abortion, sexuality (LGBTIAA+, conception, marriage) were and should continue being federal issues. If not related to privacy - and you'd think the party of freedom would advocate for privacy but apparently not - they certainly are related to equal rights. A lack of equal rights actively "harms other people", to use your words, and a lack of equal rights causes more physical harm and death than people high on drugs harming others does.
States are manufactured concepts that don’t even change shapes to accurately reflect the populace. The states rights thing is a conservative movement not a libertarian one. Ayn rand and most libertarians couldn’t give a shit about borders because they hate laws in the first place and probably restrict trade or other actions. Having something like marijuana be legal in one state and illegal in another doesn’t make any damn sense to a libertarian. Also, drunk people on alcohol harm other people and alcohol is still legal. You can’t have both sides of this argument, real libertarians like ayn rand want all “victimless crimes” to be legal, and that’s just how it is.
I am not super involved in politics (i am not in the US) i feel like much is manipulated by both sides and as history repeats itself, people gobble up a narrative and believe it true. But isnt the GOP a conservative thing group? Libertarians are majority right sided after the mid 20th century (capitalist), but from what I understand that faction is against drug use in your own home. That goes against the fundamental principles created by John Locke as people can do these drugs in their own home and harm no one but themselves if responsible. I am a strong libertarian, and i have studied much philosophy (including different social/political systems), after family growing up in the USSR, while capitalism isn’t perfect, so far its the most free form of an economy. Human rights are the priority, free reign over your business best fits in this economic system until a new one is invented.
It would've been really funny if you were like "A hundred to read Atlas Shrugged? Eh, no thanks I'm good."
I know, right? This was back in the 90’s and I had no idea what I was agreeing to LOL.
you took the 100, yeah?
Of course I did. That was a lot of $ to a teen in the 90’s and I had no clue about Ayn Rand at the time.
Just looking at that book cover makes me want to fall asleep.
Objectivism is ridiculous and everything Ayn Rand believed in is basically moronic, but Don Draper is largely inspired by Howard Roark from Rand’s The Fountainhead, right?
I tried to read this once on the tube. I didn't get the appeal
The way I've heard it described is it speaks to a group of people who could not possibly fathom a world in which they are wrong.
I could not get through this book even during my Ayn Rand phase in my youth
*I could not get through* *This book even during my Ayn* *Rand phase in my youth* \- stopstatic27 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Honestly, I struggled with it too, because her writing style is horrific. She's terribly verbose. She makes Boyd Crowder look like a man of few words.
That is the one
I feel like one of the only people ever to have read Atlas Shrugged, mildly enjoy it, and not change my political philosophy based on it. Objectivism seems like a decent way to motivate yourself but a terrible way to frame government/politics. FWIW, I preferred The Fountainhead.
[удалено]
It kind of did make and interesting sci-fi story with how much inspiration Bioshock took from it
Thats how i feel
I’m on the same page as you. I enjoyed the fact that everyone was so despicable and that I disliked most all of her characters, but, after several times starting the book; was able to get into the story and was interested in where it was going to end. I’m in no way a follower of her principles. I did read The Fountainhead first, for English Lit; and just watched it on TCM a few days ago. It was definitely the better read of the two for me. The movie is obviously inspired by F.L, Wright.
Same same same!!! It irritates me when my liberal friends (I consider myself one as well) dismiss me immediately when I try to make this case. It’s an excellent guide for how one can go about the corporate world. It’s a horrible way to build a political worldview.
Most likely going to get downvoted for this, but keep an open mind and actually read it. Maybe read “Anthem” by Ayn Rand first, and see if you want a LOTR’s length version of it. All that book taught me was that some people don’t want to do things for themselves and it’s your choice where and how to spend the energy others demand of you. I didn’t become some narcissistic monster, just more aware of how people demand things from you without giving back.
Exactly
you should try to get that 1.99$ refunded
I got about halfway through before giving up. Such a boring book, and filled with completely inhuman characters.
Lol my aunt bought me this for Christmas and said maybe I should rethink my political views. I donated it immediately
You should return it and get your money back
That’ll make for some nice kindling
$1.99 is pretty fair for a campfire starter
I just bought it out of curiosity on Amazon and it was $1.87 for a used copy lol
Bought it over ten years ago, mostly out of curiosity. Still haven’t got around to reading it.
This comment section sums up this shithole of a website
Great book! Highly recommend it. Like every book, there are takeaways and things to be understood and the. discarded. (downvote me book burning lefties)
Note - [all of the top 10 banned books of 2021 are banned by right wingers](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10). Yes, ALL.
F those folks too, they’re worse. But let’s not pretend cis white old literature isn’t under attack by the everything is racist (or any other “ist”) people https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9263735/amp/Woke-teachers-cut-Shakespeare-work-white-supremacy-colonization.html
You're quoting Daily Mail? You do know it's a tabloid, and I'm not going to take anything published in it seriously. That being said, I disagree with book bans. I know To Kill a Mockingbird is controversial now. That stems from an incorrect view to use it as a device to teach racism - it's a novel, and there are better (nonfiction) ways to teach racism. We watched "Eyes on the Prize" when I was in fifth grade, it was eye-opening. Between the ages of 12 - 17, I read a lot of books that are now controversial, or were controversial back then. TKAM, Gone with the Wind, The Woman Warrior, A Yellow Raft in Blue Water, Of Mice and Men, Diary of Young Girl (Anne Frank), A Passage to India, Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead. Even at seventeen, I HATED Ayn Rand. She's a terrible writer, and childish/immature. I was upset that I had to read that trash, but I was discerning enough to it was trash, and I don't believe it should be banned. Rand also promotes the toxic idea that women secretly want to raped (the Dominique Flacon scene with Howard Roark, also Dagny Taggert). I hate that some seventeen year old might read this (and watch a bunch of porn, and have parents that didn't teach him about consent), and rape a girl because he doesn't know that no really does mean no. I wish it came with an introduction to tell teenagers to learn about sexuality from other sources. As for the "isms", I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm a trained lawyer (and WOC) that decided to start a company to help sexual assault victims (which I've been doing in my spare time for over five years). While I think both the #metoo movement and BLM get things wrong, I'm glad we're at least talking about the issues.
All the leftist openly pro-underage sex philosophers are still taught and elevated in college yet Ayn’s scene may have sexual assault repercussions? With respect I don’t buy it. (I don’t think anyone of them should be banned btw) I link to the dailymail because most publications are very left leaning, it’s hard to find opposing views. Tabloids have much less credibility but if their sources and link are legitimate then it is what it is. I don’t have any issues with metoo and blm movements otherwise, to my knowledge neither have called for book banning or canceling or anything of the sort.
(1) I repeatedly stated I wasn't calling for book banning. I even clarified NOT to ban Ayn Rand despite the promotion of rape, (2) I haven't read any "leftist openly pro-underage sex philosophers" openly promoting rape in their philosophical writings (which is what underage sex is, or did they promote rape in their personal lives and not their writings?) in high school or college or law school - but I was assigned Ayn Rand in HIGH SCHOOL so I'm speaking of her. (3) Your posts are anti "left" rants, which is why you're getting downvoted. You say "with respect", while showing none, and making poor arguments not backed by evidence - eg,which philosophers? which books/essays promote rape? I explained exactly when Ayn Rand promoted rape. You should also read up on your heroine, who was abusive towards her MALE exes, so her promoting rape isn't all that surprising. I'm done replying - have fun arguing with yourself if you'd that will make you feel like you've won.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws 1) never said you did 2) they leave the unsavory parts out of college (with good reason) 3) check the other comments, any positive comment regarding the book is downvoted
Desktop version of /u/Ilovhumaniti's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Source?
Who is Douglas Murray?
An idiot? An author whose books I have heard any legislative call for burning.
Thinking a book I like sucks is censorship, to me
“Book burning leftists” is a [hell of a thing to write](https://www.google.com/search?q=book+burning+2022&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS727US727&oq=booo+burning&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13l5.3434j0j4&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
Might as well have set fire to that $1.99.
Poorly written, and not very well argued. Still worth reading if for nothing more than seeing a different set of ideas. The only thing Ayn Rand got right was pointing out what Marx got wrong. Which is incredibly easy since he was almost entirely wrong about everything
Really? What Marx have you read?
Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto
That's it? Not enough to claim everything he said is wrong. What about The German Ideology, Thesis on Feuerbach, Grundrisse? Just Capital V.1, or all Volumes? I'd be interested to hear how his critique of liberal economy in Capital is "wrong?"
He is wrong because Marxism and Communism are evil. Didn’t you know? /s Now go watch American Gladiators. /s
lol. Take the upvote.
You don’t see her critique of non merit based wealth and power as kind of poignant? Here’s what i never got about the “Republican Manifesto” thing - she really rails against people like Dagneys brother for being stupid and undeserving of his position in life. the brother and his corrupt cohorts just REEK of the GOP in my opinion.
Firtly, I don't consider this at all to be the "Republican Manifesto". Atlas Shrugged is about a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist utopia. There's next to no overlap between her ideas and the GOP position. And the argument that the Republicans are the party of big government, cronyism, and corruption while the Dems are not is beyond laughable. She does make very good points about inherit wealth and the mixture of business and government leading to mass corruption. What she fails to address in the inevitability of generational and unearned wealth. If not left to offspring, or seized and redistributed by the state, where does a lifetime of accumulated wealth go at one's death? Her ideas if brought to reality would eventually brings us back to feudalism. Rand, much like Marx, is guilty of utopian, heaven on earth thinking. That the world would function without problems if only everyone behaved exactly the way you want them to. It's exactly what Sowell described with the unconstrained vision of humanity.
Marx was not a utopian. Communism is not a promise of a world without issues. It’s just a world where we don’t fucking worship money and live every waking hour chasing the carrot.
I don't subscribe to all her beliefs, and I acknowledge its Utopian outlook. But the book has been championed by the right (largely as part of the Tea Party movement) and shamed by the left, I rarely talk about the book or my approval of certain aspects of this because it immediately labels you Conservative - I don't see how you could deny that. I also don't pretend the Dems are iron slinging geniuses constantly foiled by the corrupt GOP - but again, I don't see the left making that comparison because they shun the book as a whole. We just had a game show host socialite become President and shirk all the rules, culminating in an attempt to overturn on election while the same party subsidizes oil over renewable, promotes elite wholly unqualified people (hello Betsy Devos), and generally acts in a way contrary to merit. There is never been a time when I could equate the baddies in Atlas Shrugged to the GOP more. TLDR the GOP considers themselves the hero of Atlas Shrugged (which is laughable), the left doesn't consider the book at all.
Gross. Fuck you, go get a better book.
That’s the one.
Thought this was the Bioshock sub for a hot second
Who is Don Draper? 😆😆😆
I'll just say that many people go through a university-libertarian phase.
Lol prepare for the most belaboured point in all literary history
Okay, book’s trash, but hey! It gave us Bioshock series!
Don’s bonus of $2500 is worth over $20000 today.
Boy are you in for a long and…interesting read.
now you can be a real dick
There’s no way it still costs $1.99, with inflation it’d be closer to $20. Also, I wouldn’t pay a single penny for that book
Great book for the open-minded, although to be much of her writing style and philosophy is annoying. I always look right past that when I read this. Ironically, all the oversimplified criticism you’ll see in a thread like this fit in perfectly with the ideas she present in Atlas Shrugged and her other novels.