Scapegoating Rand

S

SpiritOf76

Verified User
Romney's demise is good for anyone that ACTUALLY supports limited government. Now the party can drop the dud and put all their money into electing Ron Paul Republicans.

I here them and the troll trying to blame it on Rand which is stupid. She was confused, used and abused by and about the right. They still reject her as "eurotrash socialist scum." First and formeost because she was a woman, Russian, atheist, pro life, supported legalized drugs, opposed the draft, opposed military adventurism and she was against crony capitalism. People lie about or distort her heroes, who were NOT all captains of industry and ignore that EVERY SINGLE ONE of her villains WAS a crony capitalist. The people in that room listening to Romney, those WERE her villains. Roark, Galt and Unity were extraordinary men but not wealthy or powerful.

At her end they used her and her husband's cancer debt (she bought into their lies that smoking was not dangerous and actually glorified smoking as some sign of man's power over nature....doh!) to hijack her movement and if you praise her too much they will drag her through the mud and explain that she accepted government aid. But first they made sure she signed everything over to Peikoff, who is nothing but a hate filled warmongerer. Rand did not understand the language, made errors on human nature and her philosophy of art was confused. She was not the cold heartless person they try to paint her as.

If they can't blame it on a black man (Obama or Steele), then a woman will do. And the a$$#@!3 troll, whatever his angle, will tote water for them on that.

Rand is not the heart of the party that needs a transplant. Everyone knows where the stench is coming from.

Study Rand in the depth that I have and then tell me I am wrong. Don't be like these lazy and dishonest corporate welfare whores.
 
Last edited:
Piero said:
Romney's demise is good for anyone that ACTUALLY supports limited government. Now the party can drop the dud and put all their money into electing Ron Paul Republicans.

I here them and the troll trying to blame it on Rand which is stupid. She was confused, used and abused by and about the right. They still reject her as "eurotrash socialist scum." First and formeost because she was a woman, Russian, atheist, pro life, supported legalized drugs, opposed the draft, opposed military adventurism and she was against crony capitalism. People lie about or distort her heroes, who were NOT all captains of industry and ignore that EVERY SINGLE ONE of her villains WAS a crony capitalist. The people in that room listening to Romney, those WERE her villains. Roark, Galt and Unity were extraordinary men but not wealthy or powerful.

At her end they used her and her husband's cancer debt (she bought into their lies that smoking was not dangerous and actually glorified smoking as some sign of man's power over nature....doh!) to hijack her movement and if you praise her too much they will drag her through the mud and explain that she accepted government aid. But first they made sure she signed everything over to Peikoff, who is nothing but a hate filled warmongerer. Rand did not understand the language, made errors on human nature and her philosophy of art was confused. She was not the cold heartless person they try to paint her as.

If they can't blame it on a black man (Obama or Steele), then a woman will do. And the a$$#@!3 troll, whatever his angle, will tote water for them on that.

Rand is not the heart of the party that needs a transplant. Everyone knows where the stench is coming from.

Study Rand in the depth that I have and then tell me I am wrong. Don't be like these lazy and dishonest corporate welfare whores.
Click to expand...
I've read Rand and studied her work and though I think she made some very valid points, partucilarly in her critique of Marxism. However a philosopher lecturing on objectivity is like an accountant lecturing an engineer on thermodynamics. Ultimately the main failure of her objectivism philosophy is that on that particular subject, objectivity, Rand was a neophyte. A system of though can only be truly objective when it's thoughts, concepts, observations and conclusions can be tested and independently verified. This is where Rand's philosophy proves weak. She often made observations and drew conclusions from those observations that could not be tested and independently verified. When confronted by detractors of this objective fact Rand's typical response was to be dismissive of them. Not very objective on her part.
 
Ok mott, but none of this is relevant to the point. They are LYING about her philosophy and it's influence on the GOP. Politicians pay lip service to it because she has an active and vocal group of followers. However, many people that call themselves Objectivists are anything but. That is, they don't follow her philosophy but rather have created a personality cult that tends now to surround Peikoff. Her personality was not too admirable (Peikoff isa worse) but her philosophy has a lot of value.


But on your points...

So you did not get past the name? It's just a name. I do believe much of her philosphy is objectively verifiable, unless you employ stolen concept fallacies.

As far as what she said about Marxism, I am not sure what you are talking about? She just adopted the Austrians for economics. Except she disagreed with their theory of value. The Austrians "utility theory of value" is the most conclusive refutation of Marx. Marx adopted Ricardo's "labor theory of value" which is stupid and as bad as Rand's. Marx offers nothing of value in economics after that as his foundation is flawed. Rand tried to superimpose Austrian economics on to her own laughable "objective theory of value." Supposedly, Mises told her she was being foolish and that without the proper foundation (i.e., the utility theory of value) Austrian economics falls apart. But, she did not get it.

There are other problems. For instance, she did not understand that "names" don't really matter much.

But her biggest error at lower levels, IMO, is in her misunderstanding of human nature. She claimed we were uniquely rational animals and not instinctual. We certainly have a higher capacity for rationality and do not rely as greatly on instinct. Our instincts are muted and we are often confused by them. But we do have them. She was also wrong about the rational capacities of other animals. The differences are in degree not in kind.

Like I said, her understanding of art was just horrible. That is what kept me from embracing the cultish Objectivists. They told me I could not listen to Kurt Cobain or have an appreciation of South Park's send up of her (Barr Brady Learns to Read) and be an Objectivists. I was like, well fu then. I mean shit, she had already broken the camel's back on religion and many other things, but that's not enough? As a more personable and artistic Russian put it.

Give me Everything Theory
Without Nazi uniformity
 
Last edited:
Piero said:
Romney's demise is good for anyone that ACTUALLY supports limited government. Now the party can drop the dud and put all their money into electing Ron Paul Republicans.

I here them and the troll trying to blame it on Rand which is stupid. She was confused, used and abused by and about the right. They still reject her as "eurotrash socialist scum." First and formeost because she was a woman, Russian, atheist, pro life, supported legalized drugs, opposed the draft, opposed military adventurism and she was against crony capitalism. People lie about or distort her heroes, who were NOT all captains of industry and ignore that EVERY SINGLE ONE of her villains WAS a crony capitalist. The people in that room listening to Romney, those WERE her villains. Roark, Galt and Unity were extraordinary men but not wealthy or powerful.

At her end they used her and her husband's cancer debt (she bought into their lies that smoking was not dangerous and actually glorified smoking as some sign of man's power over nature....doh!) to hijack her movement and if you praise her too much they will drag her through the mud and explain that she accepted government aid. But first they made sure she signed everything over to Peikoff, who is nothing but a hate filled warmongerer. Rand did not understand the language, made errors on human nature and her philosophy of art was confused. She was not the cold heartless person they try to paint her as.

If they can't blame it on a black man (Obama or Steele), then a woman will do. And the a$$#@!3 troll, whatever his angle, will tote water for them on that.

Rand is not the heart of the party that needs a transplant. Everyone knows where the stench is coming from.

Study Rand in the depth that I have and then tell me I am wrong. Don't be like these lazy and dishonest corporate welfare whores.
Click to expand...

paul rand is far more conservative than mittens, but mittens has been dragged to the right in order to appease the repug base, now both turn off independents

sorry wrong rand

i read ayn rand when i was in college

i liked some of her work and disliked some of it, i never finished the long lecture in atlas

i found some of it simplistic and other parts unrealistic

it has been a long time since i have read any of her work though
 
Last edited:
Don Quixote said:
rand is far more conservative than mittens, but mittens has been dragged to the right in order to appease the repug base, now both turn off independents
Click to expand...

Yes, her CONSISTENT atheism, pro choice, opposed to the draft (back then it did matter) and military adventurism, supporting legalized drugs, radical feminism and rabid denunciation of all of conservative thought makes her far more conservative than Romney who has only been pretending to hold Mormon values to attract voters. OOOookkkay.
 
TheSuperstringTheory said:
Yes, her CONSISTENT atheism, pro choice, opposed to the draft (back then it did matter) and military adventurism, supporting legalized drugs, radical feminism and rabid denunciation of all of conservative thought makes her far more conservative than Romney who has only been pretending to hold Mormon values to attract voters. OOOookkkay.
Click to expand...

sorry, wrong rand, i edited my post so try again
 
DQ, that's cool. I am not saying you have to agree with her on much of anything. What bugs me are these completely ignorant editorials/articles that are nothing more than hatchet jobs. The idea that she was the basis for the GOP campaign is just nonsense. But I don't know who is writing this crap leftists or those on the right.

As for Rand Paul being to the right of Romney, well most of what I said on Rand (accept for athesim and abortion) are true for him as well. His faith, I am sure, would not play much of a role. And on abortion he likely takes the state's rights approach, which I disagree with, but is preferrable to some Republicans.
 
TheSuperstringTheory said:
DQ, that's cool. I am not saying you have to agree with her on much of anything. What bugs me are these completely ignorant editorials/articles that are nothing more than hatchet jobs. The idea that she was the basis for the GOP campaign is just nonsense. But I don't know who is writing this crap leftists or those on the right.

As for Rand Paul being to the right of Romney, well most of what I said on Rand (accept for athesim and abortion) are true for him as well. His faith, I am sure, would not play much of a role. And on abortion he likely takes the state's rights approach, which I disagree with, but is preferrable to some Republicans.
Click to expand...

the reps used to be for civil rights and fiscal responsibility, but they got hijacked by the religious right

now they are mostly for social engineering where they have a majority and blocking anything the dems want to do everywhere
 
Piero said:
Study Rand in the depth that I have and then tell me I am wrong. Don't be like these lazy and dishonest corporate welfare whores.
Click to expand...

Rand has no depth. She wrote about a social philosophy that only had applications in her fictional world.
 
hazlnut said:
Rand has no depth. She wrote about a social philosophy that only had applications in her fictional world.
Click to expand...

Do you have any argument or proof to support your assertion?

First off, her's was not just a social philosophy but rather she built an entire system.

There are thousands of fans that will tell you differently. One was the Chariman of the Federal Reserve. Another is a successful author and Psychiatrist. I can tell you her epistemology made object oriented programming seem easy.

So, you are wrong.
 
Some of the responses in defense of Ryan are hillarious and show the incredible ignorance of Rand these people have. She was not an economist. As I have pointed out, her one original idea on economics is just laughably wrong. She was a philosopher. You can't mix her philosophy with Catholicism. NO WAY.
 
TheSuperstringTheory said:
Do you have any argument or proof to support your assertion?

First off, her's was not just a social philosophy but rather she built an entire system.

There are thousands of fans that will tell you differently. One was the Chariman of the Federal Reserve. Another is a successful author and Psychiatrist. I can tell you her epistemology made object oriented programming seem easy.

So, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

The Chairman, I believe, called it a failed policy! Oops
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top