To all teabagges:: Read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, or Virtue of Selfishness

[white_wolf]

or any of the works of Ayn Rand. I'm serious actually read her works and then maybe just maybe you'll realize you would have hated her and she would have hated you. She is everything you despise and you are everything she despised. She was: an intellectual, a philosopher,an author,an elite an elitist to 10th power,a militant atheist who hated the very concept of God, pro-choice,even though she didn't like gay people she could find no logical reason for not letting them get married, oh and she took SS and wellfare.

You all: are ignorant,hate reading(I've heard Limbaugh mock the democratic party as a party of people who can write),religious fanatics,anti-abortion,homophobes,anti-learning,mostly libertarians whom she called monstrous people and hated more than communists.

So in short Teabaggers unless you are willing to denounce your God, denounce your faith,allow woman to have abortions and allow gays to marry,become the intellectual "elite" you despise, denounce the libertarian party and the Pauls. If you are not willing to do this these thing then quit talking about Ayn Rand she would hated you and you her. So choose Jesus or Rand you can't have both.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[white_wolf]

4. Teabaggers are relgious nuts.

She would hated them for that alone.

[Gregorian]

13. I'm the last to be a board Nazi. But "retard" is very different than "retarded".

It does bring Democratic Underground down a notch toward other lesser forums we won't mention.


I agree with you. But sometimes how you say it is more important than what you say.

Sorry. I don't like to preach.

[Iggo]

2. oops

:blush:

[joshcryer]

3. Ayn Rand a philosopher? She was pro-me.

That is, if you didn't want women to have abortions, she wouldn't make you make women have abortions that they wanted, etc, etc. It's perfectly in line with their ideology. Indeed, they would want to completely privitize health care to a point where open anti-abortion consortium "voluntarily" stop women from having abortions (think about that for a bit). And most of all she would respect that consortium because it would be contractual and in line with capitalist thought.

No free thinking liberal would allow such a consortium to exist.

[white_wolf]

6. She considered herself one.

I'm not endorsing her, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the teabaggers by endorsing her. She would have hated them and vice-versa.

[joshcryer]

7. And I'm explaining to you that your entire thesis is wrong, her philosophy is perfectly in line.

She was personally pro-choice, but she has no control over the market having no place for abortions.

Think about capitalism, pure capitalism, no "state" (this is an oxymoron but think about it, where everything is privatized), and think about how absolutely compatible it is with any vile and atrocious position you can think of.

Want a purely religious capitalist state? Easy. Everyone who enters Alabama signs over their soul to the Church, etc, etc. That's the payment / fee. Obligatory church services. You have to sign the contract.

And that's the crux of the issue, all things good or bad can be made contractual, and therefore all things that the teabaggers believe in can be, too. And that's what Ayn Rand wanted. Even if it meant she might wind up in a state where she couldn't get an abortion, and where she had to attend Church services.

[white_wolf]

12. Did Rand want statless capitalism?

I know Rothbard did, but I'm pretty sure Rand believed that some sort of state was necessary to protect individual rights, though I could be wrong. However, you are correct that in stateless capitalism it is compatible with any position. Hell, Rothbard even said there was nothing wrong with parents selling their children if they needed the money, because the market would provide a good home for them. She did not belive in anarcho-capitalism. Here is a quote from here on the topic: "Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs." This is just a short excerpt from a longer answer dealing with libertarians who she seems to view as anarcho-capitalists. Here is the link: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_faq

[joshcryer]

16. She was for a state but under the "non-aggression principle" anything would've still went.

You'd still have cult-like societies that required you to wear blue socks on Wednesdays and crazy shit like that, because it is an act of aggression from the point of view of a capitalist, to deny a contract even if you think it is unreasonable.

[white_wolf]

18. Ahh I see now.

I have to see I've always found the concept of anarcho-capitalism to be laughable. The state is required to maintain capitalism and capitalism itself is a form of oppression and hierarchy, which actual anarchists all seem to reject.

[joshcryer]

19. Yes, it's been a stain on our theory for a little while (particularly since the internet).

But we've been pretty effective at countering it and they're certainly more niche than any other free market groups out there.

An anarchist would agree to a capitalist contract and then completely reject it, fully, a pure act of aggression. ie, sign a rental contract, squat, stuff like that. That is clearly "aggressive" to a capitalist even if said anarchist didn't truly believe in rent to begin with.

This is why Ayn Rand is an idiot, she can believe in, or not, all sorts of shit, she can be a straight up atheist, that doesn't mean she can't be compelled, via contract, to worship deities. And this is the allure of "Objectivism" (a word that itself is so insulting to ones intellect that it's a joke). It lets you contractually mandate any vile creation you can think of. The Teabaggers eat that shit up.

[joshcryer]

20. Here's a good overview, basically her "government" would be an almighty contract upholder:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/childs1.html

Sorry for Lew Rockwell (they do have some liberal stuff there from time to time so they're not totally evil though they are close).

edit: and doubly sorry that it's an "anarcho"-capitalist making the arguments, I link it because it shows just how utterly in line with "anarcho"-capitalists her theory is.

[FormerDittoHead]

15. Exactly. Everything can be a "private" contract...

Free marketers see nothing wrong with slavery, as it is a contract which the slave agrees to.

The real "shorthand" of Rand is that it's a LIE, a imaginary, fantastic ruse, to justify a much darker reality deeply desired by a few rich people and the greedy racist supporters who think they would benefit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Somehow I don't think those you are directing this at

Know who Ayn Rand is... And the Pauls, and Paul Ryan and the rest of the leaders do... Alas they ARE the elite...not intellectuals, but the elite.

:hi:

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

9. Heh, I had a similar thought...

...but questioning ones grammar or punctuation is the last way to engage. :(

[white_wolf]

10. Did I ever say I was?

No. I merely said the teabaggers who hate the people who they think of as intellectual elite would have hated her, but hey nice job on criticizing punctuation on an internet forum.

[joshcryer]

11. Heh, TS'd...

...I feel embarrassed for responding to them but I wanted to kick your thread. :P

[Waiting For Everyman]

14. First of all, Any Rand was not a JOINER - she was contemptuous of all groups.

How do they get around that basic and obvious fact?

I'm sure she would have spit on this pack of lizards.

The Bagger-types twist the Bible around to say its opposite just as they do with Rand. Redefining words as their opposites is "what they do". It goes nicely with their cult of irrationality.

They aren't against "elites" per se. They are against logic and thinking at all (their churches teach that the mind is of the devil, they just "feel" what to believe). In other words, they're all for MYSTICISM. And of course AR just LOVED that. :sarcasm:

Bottom line, because they reject logic and thinking, they can hold absurdly contradictory positions at the same time, and not even notice.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

17. They'd skip those bits.

Their reading of Rand would be as selective as their readings of the Bible or the Constitution. And if they read her work, we'd have to suffer through all of them peppering their diatribes with "second-rater" and "bromide" and all of those irritating Rand-isms. :D

[JoeyT]

21. Well see, there's a problem right in your post title.

You asked a teabagger to read something. They can't be bothered to read the amendments to the constitution they swear they love and that's WAY shorter than Atlas Shrugged. Maybe we could compromise with them and suggest Books On Tape? Wait, that still has the word "book" in it. Never mind.

If Rand were alive today she'd probably be taking money to give speeches beside Palin. She may not have bought what she was saying, but the audience would buy it. More importantly the audience would pay for it. That's what happens when you consider selfishness a virtue. The only principle that matters is "What will make me the most money/power?"

Personally I'd like to seem them stop selectively quoting the people that wrote the constitution. Pretty much to a man they'd have despised the teabaggers.