Speaking of Ayn Rand...
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_792184.html

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

Not surprised in the slightest.

From what I've read of Ol' Rand, She was just another in a line of artists (in this case also a playwright) born into a life of wealth and privilege. She lost some of it when her family had to flee the communists, but once again, she really didn't know struggle. Managed to pay all her bills by teaching English to a couple of people, and act like an entitled selfish prick.

Now, I came from a good family (My Dad's an MD and we were upper-middle class), and growing up I was by no means poor, but by choosing the lifestyle of an artist who comes from a family which is NOT obscenely wealthy, and NOT connected with the arts, I've realized how precarious a position people are in who aren't college educated and DON'T happen to have the theoretical support I do.

Basically, I really hate rich people who harbor feelings of entitlement, and Rand particularly annoys me, as she was basically HANDED a writing career on a silver platter, and still managed to act like she did it all herself.

So yeah, basically I've got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about this, and now Rand in particular, as she's a sort of the embodiment of what's wrong with conservatism and the arts, wrapped in a neat little hypocritical bow.

What's unfortunate about Ayn Rand dying of cancer?

This does kinda burn me, and it's disappointing, but it doesn't make her ideas any less potent or inspiring to me. She failed to live up to those standards. That doesn't mean everyone else will, too.

Everyone who has followed her standards ends up with terrible self-esteem issues; just ask Nathaniel Branden.

Even if that could be proved true, it wouldn't matter.

Yeah, empirical evidence doesn't matter.

Ok, show me evidence proving that everyone who follows it has self-esteem issues.

Like I said, even if it were true, it wouldn't say whether the ideas were actually noble and wise or not.

Ya know, everyone should burn their feet so that they can become masters of their own decisions. Doesn't matter how fucking stupid or impractical it may sound, that is irrelevant on whether my idea is wise or not.



You're begging the question, Ophie. What makes an idea wise if it has nothing to do with the way people's feelings and emotions work in real life? You're bordering Onyx right now in intellect.

Lets face it, no matter how self-made, and self-reliant you think you are, you are beholden to society.

Rand's ideas are extremely attractive (especially to Americans) "Man as a heroic figure" the master of his own destiny, who breaks off from society and becomes something better through his stuggle.

That's dynamite stuff, and it mirrors the classical "Hero's Journey" in many ways.

Unfortunately it's not realistic. So you're a hard-working self-made entreprenurial capitalist, who founded his own company, and amassed a fortune through nothing but your own blood, sweat, and tears, right?

Guess what, you didn't. You used the post office to ship your products, you used the public school system to educate your workers, you went to a state-funded University. You used the police force to protect your property and the court system to protect your investments. Your business was able to succeed because the stable society provided to you by the government and people were able to buy your products because all of these things which you enjoy, they enjoy too.

Like Rand, it is very easy to become overly proud and ego centric, it is easy to forget where all this stuff comes from, and take others for granted. Also, like Rand, it is a simple fact that humans are social creatures, who cannot survive without the help of other humans.

When you are confronted with harsh reality, like Rand was, this bluster disappears, and the pleasant fantasy is revealed for what it truly is.

I don't think wise ideas have to be intertwined with human emotion, so I don't really feel that's relevant.

Also, you didn't provide your empirical evidence. I don't want to be a dick about it, but if you say it exists, you should probably supply it.

I agree with this. It is the problem with objectivism and libertarianism that most people are lazy and weak.

I was gonna give you pretty much any link of Nathaniel Branden, but in the same breath you demanded me empirical evidence you also said that it won't matter anyway, so I'm the one attacking you here; you ain't gonna care about evidence anyway so let's attack your flawed reasoning.

Yo, Ophie, what makes an idea wise, then?

But most people AREN'T lazy or weak. Most people are common joe's who happen to work their jobs faithfully to make ends meet. This is a piss poor assumption on the Libertarian front. They fear these imaginary LAZY and WEAK people as if that's the norm. Honestly, these "social parasites" are very very rare and their numbers aren't big enough to hold such an extreme stance as Libertarianism.

Not everyone has ambition to "get to the top", but that doesn't mean they're lazy.

Despanan made a point that you ignored. It is patently impossible to be an island in society. Ophelia, you will never be self-made and there's nothing wrong with a society making sure that all of its constituents are taken care of in one way or another.

Jesus... you remind me of this guy I know named Phantomgrift. He is an idiot.

I don't think that the average hard-worker is lazy if he doesn't "get to the top." That kind of person isn't who I was talking about.

I'm talking about people who only take. They're everywhere.

And the thing that's wrong with a society that takes care of its constituents is that other people have to pay for it, and it gets abused like crazy.

Honestly, wise probably wasn't the right word to use, as wise only means being able to see truth, and the actual truth is what we would be concerned with here.

So you care about truth but you don't give a shit about evidence?

No, don't be silly.

In THIS case, the evidence you mentioned wouldn't really mean anything. People (all of them) who are objectivist develop self-esteem issues. First of all, saying all objectivists are anything is sort of dumb, because it's just a generalization. Then you have to decide, for every single objectivist, that they developed self-esteem issues solely and completely due to objectivism.

Neither of those things are really provable, so any "evidence" would be faulty.

Even if you could prove those things, and had evidence, it wouldn't mean objectivism is inherently bad.
It's like medicines with side affects. A medicine that gives you diarrhea but cures asthma still cures asthma.

...Wow. Say no more, Ophelia... say no more.

This "abuse" that you talk about is actually a very negligible part of society.

Do you know why welfare exists Ophie? It exists, not to coddle the lazy and the weak, it exists to prevent crime and revolt.

People naturally will work as hard as they can to perpetuate their own existence, and as dumb as one might be when the chips are down, any sane person will stuggle as hard as they can to prevent death and keep themselves in a livable situation.

No matter how fair we make things, some people are always going to slip through the cracks, some people will always find themselves in a somewhat hopeless situation. Maybe you made a few mistakes, got addicted to drugs, and lost your job. Maybe you did everything right, but got hit by a car, and your job's health insurance dropped you. Maybe you got a graduate degree from a top univerisity, but no one wanted to hire somewone with your particular skills. What if you got knocked up at a young age and now have a family to feed; without outside support, without an education and a high-paying job, what then?

You're swimming in debt, losing your apartment, you might even be out on the street, your kids are going hungry and arte now missing school. What are you going to do? Sell all your stuff and move somewhere in a last gambit? Try to find a McJob and live on the street? What if that doesn't work? What if no one will hire your now, smelly, desperate ass? What then? Do you give your kids to the state and then curl up and die?

No. It will take MONTHS to die naturally, and your body will be SCREAMING to fulfill those needs. Your deep rooted survival instincts will kick in and guess what you'll do? You'll go to war.

Maybe you rob someone, maybe you scam someone, maybe you kill someone, maybe you form a mob with other peasants and break into a rich families home. Maybe you get away with it, maybe you get caught, maybe you get killed. When society fails you, when your basic needs are not met you will lash out against society.

The lack of a social safety net creates criminals, it creates terrorists, it creates violent revolutionaries.

Just like the women who secretly delighted in abortions and used them as a means of birth control existed primarily in Versus's mind, these people you argue against, these parasites don't exist in a way that significantly impacts society, yet you want legislation to prevent them.

The anti-social will always exist: criminal, the insane, the diseased, the mentally handicapped, but they are not some boogeyman that can be defeated by championing hard work and personal responsibility. Most everyone believes in hard work and personal responsibility, and at the end of the day your ideals are naive and attempting to force society to live by them perpetuates a culture of abuse by the powerful and the wealthy and further de-stabalizes those of us who weren't born into wealth. Libertarianism and Objectivism creates a culture of economic tyrants and violent underclasses. That's just reality.

It is just good business to provide the basic necessities of life for everyone, because the only other options are euthinization of those in extreme poverty, or the unintentional destabalization of society through the creation of a class of desperate antisocials.

This thread just took a turn off Tedious St. into Awesome Avenue.

What you're saying would apply to this conversation if I ever said that social programs should be done away with in entirety. You're arguing with someone that isn't here.