Dog Eats Ayn Rand

[JWV]

We made a trip to Phx to see Mannheim Steamroller yesterday. While we were gone the dog (100# golden/lab mix) was in his place (garage) with all his toys. When we returned he had made a mess of the place and managed to pull some boxes containing books off shelves. The ONLY book he devoured was The Fountainhead. Now that I know his philosophical leanings I'm shipping him COD to John Galt. Don't worry JG, he doesn't eat much.

Judy

 

[Tadpole]

Another true Ann Rand story. I was determined to read one of the books. The problem was that the book spent more time in the air than I spent reading it. Yes, I was throwing it against the walls. Finally, one day, as it fell to the floor, I figured out how to solve the problem. I went over and stompted on it until it was paper trash all over the apartment floor. Yes, I am the one that cleaned up on Ann Rand.

 

[John Galt]

Please guys, no more dogs I have read 'Atlas Shrugged' at least 10 times, but I will admit it is not
an easy read. If you don't buy into the philosophy
it would be a real struggle for most people. Anyway,
I think Ayn Rand has influenced my views more than any other person. There are many others who merely confirmed what I was already thinking. She brought
it all together for me.

JG

 

[unclemick]

Heh, heh,heh - long,long ago in college, I remember some Ayn Rand readers who were not dogs and brought it all together for me - in a manner of speaking.

Still a liberal after all these years ---- until I get old enough to be a curmudgeon.

 

[JOhn Galt]

Hi unclemick! I think it was Churchill who said
someone who was not a liberal when young had no heart, and someone who was not a conservative
when mature had no head. Something like that.
I guess you are just young at heart

I almost fell in love with an even bigger Ayn Rand fan
than I am. She could have broken my heart I suppose
but after I got to know her I wanted to stay as far away
as possible (Cut-Throat and MIkey, I know what you're
thinking)

JG

 

[johnblake]

I think Ayn Rand has influenced my views more than any other person.
JG

Hi John,

I read 'Fountainhead', but never 'Atlas Shrugged'. I found Fountainhead to be a teriffic novel. Then I moved on to her political essays -- mainly the collection in 'The Virture of Selfishness'. My understanding is that some of the major tenets of Objectivism are: capitalism is a superior economic model, man's problems are best solved by Reasoning, government's role is very limited, and that Objectivists are ardent believers in the separation of church and state.

I just don't understand how you can claim to be an Objectivist, and at the same time support the Bush administration (and by extension, the Christian Right).

Many of Bush's positions and decisions are based on religious beliefs, not rational debate. A large part of his base is Christian Fundamentalists. The wall between church and state is eroding to the point where we actually have a government agency 'Department of Faith Based Initiatives' who's sole purpose is to divert tax dollars to religious institutions. There's been a shift toward teaching 'absenence' instead of birth control and safe sex, not because it's more effective, but for religious reasons. The list goes on and on...

I just don't understand how you reconcile these differences.

Respectfully,
--John

 

[John Galt]

Hello John! Your question is easily answered.

I am not a big Bush supporter, to the contrary.............
I do find him (them) vastly preferable to the
alternatives offered by the libs/Dems. Bush makes me mad as hell frequently, but...........he is pro-gun,
pro-life, pro-business. He is also devout, decisive and
direct, all qualities I admire.

JG

 

[AltaRed]

A secular state is required to maintain democracy and freedom for all. While there are many things that make the Bush administration the right choice (decisiveness and direct), opression of differences in opinion and of choice are dangerous precedents incompatible with freedom.

 

[A former bureaucrat]

Many of Bush's positions and decisions are based on religious beliefs, not rational debate.  A large part of his base is Christian Fundamentalists.  The wall between church and state is eroding to the point where we actually have a government agency  'Department of Faith Based Initiatives' who's sole purpose is to divert tax dollars to religious institutions.

Actually, it's not a Department, just an office within the Dept of Housing & Urban Development of all places. I know some people who work there. And, believe it or not, it was pretty active under the Clinton administration.

And I think "divert" is a rather charged word. If anything, it is Congress' job to divert tax dollars since they have the 'power of the purse' under our (current) Constitution. Jeez, just take a look at that Energy bill they recently passed.

Of course, the Executive branch is usually very happy to spend the money they appropriate. It's the American way. What a great system!

TJ

 

[johnblake]

??.. One of Bush's first acts as president .... and his first executive order.

"In a few moments, I will sign two executive orders. The first executive order will create a new office, called the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives." - George Bush, January 21 2001

Over the next few years he issued more executive orders creating 'Executive Department Centers' for 'Faith Based Initiatives' at 7 Government Departments.

Clinton lifted some barriers as part of the Welfare Reform. He also bombed Iraq on a regular basis.

These initiatives (and many others) are fundamentally contrary to Rand's Objectivist philosophy.

 

[hocus]

I remember seeing "Atlas Shrugged" in the department store that I used to go to to look at Beatles albums when I was young. I couldn't figure out what it was about, but when I saw the book being offered for $1 in a used-book store a good number of years later, I thought "how can I go wrong?" and got in line to pay for it. The guy behind me in line started telling me that it was a really bad book, and I said "it's only a dollar!" and he said, "but it's not worth that much!" He was so insistent that I actually put the book back.

It was a good number of years later when I actually came around to reading it. I loved it and ended up reading it a second time. It was different. I didn't end up becoming a Randian. But I do recommend reading the book. One of the things that is cool about it is that Rand loves engineers so much, and you don't see that much among the sort of people who write novels. I think that is one reason why the book had so much grassroots support. It was word-of-mouth that made that book such a success.

The "Who is John Galt?" line was a fantastic first sentence. That's one of the best first sentences ever, in my view (because of the suspence that comes to be packed into it as the line is repeated later on).

I heard one time that Oliver Stone, the guy who did the Nixon and JFK movies, was going to do a movie version of "Atlas Shrugged," but I don't know what has come of the idea.

 

[John Galt]

John Blake....... I agree with you that there has been a
flood of stuff "contrary to Rand's objectivist philosophy". I am no "Bushie". I think a lot of what he has done is nuts. I still find him vastly preferable to the Dems, so just imagine the contempt I must feel for them.

BTW re. 'Atlas Shrugged', Ayn Rand's magnum opus,
a few years ago The Library of Congress and The Book
of The Month Club named 'Atlas Shrugged' as the most influential book ever published, after the Bible. And, a recent survey of the
members of Mensa ranked 'Atlas Shrugged' as the
number one novel ever.

Love her or hate her, the woman had an impact.

JG

 

[Tadpole]

Understanding JG

John Blake....... I agree with you that there has been a
flood of stuff "contrary to Rand's objectivist philosophy".  I am no "Bushie".  I think a lot of what he has done is nuts.  I still find him vastly preferable to the Dems, so just imagine the contempt I must feel for them.

BTW re. 'Atlas Shrugged', Ayn Rand's magnum opus,
a few years ago The Library of Congress and The Book
of The Month Club named 'Atlas Shrugged' as the most influential book ever published, after the Bible.  And, a  recent survey of the
members of Mensa ranked 'Atlas Shrugged' as the
number one novel ever.

Love her or hate her, the woman had an impact.

JG

JG, do you agree with this article?
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10688&news_iv_ctrl=1021

 

[John Galt]

Absolutely! 100%

JG

 

[johnblake]

Re: Understanding JG

JG, do you agree with this article?
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10688&news_iv_ctrl=1021

Altruism?? He's gotta be kidding. I expect that it's rare that the US isn't getting something in return (Egypt, Columbia). It's like political donations, or corporate sponsorship of pbs.

Seems crazy that we give aid to Egypt when the majority of the people there hate us, but we do, and the aid doesn't seem to help. It probably hurts. Then there's Israel, with a per capita gdp that dwarfs most nations in Asia and Africa.

 

[Nords]

Aid is better than arms...

Seems crazy that we give aid to Egypt when the majority of the people there hate us, but we do, and the aid doesn't seem to help.  It probably hurts.

I think that sending aid to nations whose citizens may hate the U.S. is still cheaper than sending the military. And it's a better use of taxpayer dollars than buying War Bonds!

The aid helps keep open the lines of communication. As long as everyone's talking, or at least arguing, then the aid is worth the expense.

 

[johnblake]

Right, the US is getting something in return, it's not altruism and often comes with 'strings attached'. In the case of Indonesia it seems like a good opportunity to extend a helping hand to the most populous muslim nation.

Whether these are good deals is a whole nother question. They certainly don't always work out for the benefit of the US. Examples that come to mind include Iran under the Shah, and the Afganistan Mujahideen (OSB),

 

[Hyperborea]

Whether these are good deals is a whole nother question.  They certainly don't always work out for the benefit of the US.  Examples that come to mind include Iran under the Shah

The US got quite a lot of benefit out of this. Iran was for many years one of the US's prime listening posts on the Soviet Union. It was considered an irreplacable asset. The immediate costs to the US were just the relatively small cost of funding the CIA overthrow of the Iranian government and the reinstatement of the Shah. The costs to the people of Iran were the imposition of brutal dictatorship. In the immediate/short term this may have been a good deal for the US at large costs in human suffering for others. The long term costs to the US though may make it a net loss.

and the Afganistan Mujahideen (OSB),

Again another situation in which the immediate/short term costs to the US may have been more than covered by the short term gain but the long term costs will overshadow the gains.

Perhaps it's karma or the "law of return" (what you do returns on you 3 fold)? The ends don't justify the means.