Ayn Rand Christmas Cards

Rana said:
It is why Bud and I never did, when we were young, we were poor and now I'm too old, it would not be fair to a baby, maybe an older child, I have talked to Bud about that, but he isn't ready to raise teenagers at 68! Instead we donate to Heritage House in Colorado, run by my childhood friend, they foster pregnant mothers and help them give their babies up for adoption, they do any at risk teenage girls 12-18. They are amazing people. My second daughter is named after her!
Click to expand...

So you choose to be shellfish and have children, rather then helping a poor child looking for a family.
 
Damocles said:
No, you read it wrong (probably wasn't perfectly clear but I'm selfish so I'm blaming it on you) I am talking about libertarians and the misuse of the word "selfish" not that liberals would put out a crappy product. The liberal assumes the libertarian would put out the crappy product, because he is "selfish". I am pointing out that libertarian philosophy takes the longer view, their product would be the best they can provide because their selfishness would demand it for the long term health and earnings of the company.
Click to expand...

This is why I have such a problem with libertarians. A civilization, because by definition a civilization requires people to live by relying on the presence of others, can function successfully either by participants operating in common for one another's mutual aid - ie. some kind of altruism - or by a set of structural agreements.

Libertarians have come to the conclusion that the set of legal arrangements regarding the economy that we have now are so perfect that individual good will is a non-issue. Because the laws of capitalist exchange are so perfect, all we need to do is just focus on ourselves and obey these laws, and the structure of the economy will just naturally take care of everything. There's no need to give a shit, because if everything's functioning just fine, everyone will be fine, and if someone's not doing okay, it's their fault because they're either unwilling or unable (by some defect) to do what is required to prosper within capitalism.

The producer would make the best product he can, because in the long run, that's the best for him. If everybody just fits as they need to within this perfect system, nobody gets hurt, nothing is wrong, and we don't need to bat an eye at the suffering of our kin.

For real, this is a seriously dangerous, infantile, and offensive world-view.
 
Rose said:
This is why I have such a problem with libertarians. A civilization, because by definition a civilization requires people to live by relying on the presence of others, can function successfully either by participants operating in common for one another's mutual aid - ie. some kind of altruism - or by a set of structural agreements.

Libertarians have come to the conclusion that the set of legal arrangements regarding the economy that we have now are so perfect that individual good will is a non-issue. Because the laws of capitalist exchange are so perfect, all we need to do is just focus on ourselves and obey these laws, and the structure of the economy will just naturally take care of everything. There's no need to give a shit, because if everything's functioning just fine, everyone will be fine, and if someone's not doing okay, it's their fault because they're either unwilling or unable (by some defect) to do what is required to prosper within capitalism.

The producer would make the best product he can, because in the long run, that's the best for him. If everybody just fits as they need to within this perfect system, nobody gets hurt, nothing is wrong, and we don't need to bat an eye at the suffering of our kin.

For real, this is a seriously dangerous, infantile, and offensive world-view.
Click to expand...

Just say you want us to care for you
 
Rose said:
This is why I have such a problem with libertarians. A civilization, because by definition a civilization requires people to live by relying on the presence of others, can function successfully either by participants operating in common for one another's mutual aid - ie. some kind of altruism - or by a set of structural agreements.

Libertarians have come to the conclusion that the set of legal arrangements regarding the economy that we have now are so perfect that individual good will is a non-issue. Because the laws of capitalist exchange are so perfect, all we need to do is just focus on ourselves and obey these laws, and the structure of the economy will just naturally take care of everything. There's no need to give a shit, because if everything's functioning just fine, everyone will be fine, and if someone's not doing okay, it's their fault because they're either unwilling or unable (by some defect) to do what is required to prosper within capitalism.

The producer would make the best product he can, because in the long run, that's the best for him. If everybody just fits as they need to within this perfect system, nobody gets hurt, nothing is wrong, and we don't need to bat an eye at the suffering of our kin.

For real, this is a seriously dangerous, infantile, and offensive world-view.
Click to expand...
LOL. And here is what I was talking about Rana.

As I said, they take the word and define it how they wish it to be, rather than what was explained, and then in their failure of understanding pretend that they have "The Answer". And "The Answer" always, yes always, fails to deliver.
 
For people who claim to be so smart, lefties are very shallow thinkers. I don't know any one who would argue that we should not help our fellow man. I think there is universal agreement on that point.

The question becomes what is the most efficient, compassionate means to do that while maintaining individual liberty.

The left advocates satisfying their conscience using the full force and might of the government.

Those of us who believe in freedom think that individual charity is the way to go
 
Yes, let's take some of Christies and Ranas statements and publish them on some Christmas cards to show their liberal hearts for all the world to see and judge.
 
christiefan915 said:
You're not a Catholic and you're stalling for time. But since I'm a bleeding-heart liberal I'll put you out of your misery. Objectivism is incompatible with Catholic teaching. Read and learn.

"The Catholic condemnation of abortion and the death penalty is well known and understood. But Catholic doctrine also condemns unfettered capitalism. We offer here a list of principles of Catholic social doctrine – not to argue their priority over others – but because we judge these to be the most in danger of being ignored or distorted in contemporary public debate.

The Catholic view of the human person is social not individual. Congressman Paul Ryan has stated that he learned from Ayn Rand to view all policy questions as a "fight of individualism versus collectivism". The Catholic church does not espouse "individualism" but rather sees it as an error as destructive as collectivism. Blessed John Paul II described "individualism" as a dimension of the "culture of death" arising from an "eclipse of the sense of God". The human person is "by its innermost nature, a social being". We are radically dependent upon and responsible for one another. Again, in the words of John Paul II: "We are all really responsible for all." This truth of the human person is tied to the central doctrines of the church. It reflects the very "intimate life of God, one God in three persons".

Government has an essential role to play in protecting and promoting the common good. The error of individualism leads to a mistaken understanding of the role of government. For too long politicians have echoed Ronald Reagan's misleading mantra "government is the problem". The Catholic church, on the contrary, because of its social understanding of the human person, considers government to be as "necessary" for human nature as the family. The state exists to "defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies". Thus, while the church does not offer a specific blueprint for policy, it does view our government's action on behalf of the common good a positive good in itself."

(Continued)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/30/no-catholic-should-follow-ayn-rand
Click to expand...

fetter it, don't suffocate it........
 
christiefan915 said:
You do not understand Catholic dogma and you prove it in every post. Just accept that the teachings are incompatible with objectivism and deep-six your sense of grievance. The Church isn't asking you to give up your beliefs because they're pitching their message to Catholics, and I don't give a shit whether people are objectivists or not.

You're looking for an argument for no reason.
Click to expand...

That may be true or not, but since you repeatedly demonstrate you don't grasp what Ayn Rand believed, you're not qualified to make any determination on the subject. You don't understand the basic point of what she means by selfishness, you still think it's bad. When you do grasp what she said, then a real discussion can begin
 
Rana said:
I guess I do not agree with your definition of selfish. It would be selfless of you to constantly take care of the needs of others without doing for yourself, but I think there has to be a balance in all things, exercising instead of feeding the homeless is not being selfish, but playing golf instead of feeding the poor might be ;)
Click to expand...

So, you refuse to give up your own connotation of a word to grasp a point being made by someone else. And you hold her accountable for your view of the word when she tells you that isn't what she means. Typical leftist. Tell us again how liberals are smarter than everyone else, that always cracks me up
 
Rose said:
This is why I have such a problem with libertarians. A civilization, because by definition a civilization requires people to live by relying on the presence of others, can function successfully either by participants operating in common for one another's mutual aid - ie. some kind of altruism - or by a set of structural agreements.

Libertarians have come to the conclusion that the set of legal arrangements regarding the economy that we have now are so perfect that individual good will is a non-issue. Because the laws of capitalist exchange are so perfect, all we need to do is just focus on ourselves and obey these laws, and the structure of the economy will just naturally take care of everything. There's no need to give a shit, because if everything's functioning just fine, everyone will be fine, and if someone's not doing okay, it's their fault because they're either unwilling or unable (by some defect) to do what is required to prosper within capitalism.

The producer would make the best product he can, because in the long run, that's the best for him. If everybody just fits as they need to within this perfect system, nobody gets hurt, nothing is wrong, and we don't need to bat an eye at the suffering of our kin.

For real, this is a seriously dangerous, infantile, and offensive world-view.
Click to expand...

Saying things like that libertarians think capitalism is a "perfect" system are just utter ignorance. You don't know what you are talking about at all. Capitalism is just freedom. There is no perfect system. But at least capitalism lets all the market participants make their own choices. Only government can warp capitalism because only government can use force to compel market participants to make choices against their own interest. Liberals talk against greed, yet you are consumed by it. And you repeatedly use force to confiscate it from those who owned it. You are the epitome of greed
 
People typically justify or choose to be ignorant of their personal selfishness.

Rands emphasis was on selfish outcomes as applied to capitalism. Capitalism that has appropriate checks and balances, where free enterprise allows for ones work to lift them up, is selfishness at work for good of the individual, and what ultimately is good for civilization.
 
I Love America said:
How can anyone be surprised that KKKhristiefan posts something that she doesn't understand? She is a shallow thinker.
Click to expand...

You know nothing about the Catholic church or Christianity and your hate posts prove it.

How about firing up your sad little neurons and actually discussing Catholic dogma v. objectivism?

You've been reduced to shooting the messenger. Pitiful.
 
christiefan915 said:
You know nothing about the Catholic church or Christianity and your hate posts prove it.

How about firing up your sad little neurons and actually discussing Catholic dogma v. objectivism?

You've been reduced to shooting the messenger. Pitiful.
Click to expand...

You know nothing about Ayn Rand, you don't understand what she said
 
ayn_rand_02_zpsb8bcd3e7.jpg


ayn_rand_04_zps6303d260.jpg


ayn_rand_01_zps901c0312.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top