The U.S. Goverment

[burgingham]

Should get a parasite leeching off the parasite then.

[jorb]

I knew the term "Fountainhead" sounded oddly familiar. I have the honor to give a presentation on Ayn Rand today. If I manage to get to that part without puking I will also present her novel "The Fountainhead". For Rand fountainheads are geniuses which are the driving force behind societies success. Just wanted to let you know that the term is somewhat ironic being used on people who despised Rand probably as much as I do, while she herself used the term only on people she valued a lot.

I used the word without intending any connotation to Rand, but rather in the general sense of "originator". On the subject of Rand I was completely blown away by Atlas Shrugged the first couple of times I read it, and promptly devoured the rest of her corpus. I still have a fair amount of basic sympathy for her, but her sense of psychology and history are unfortunately rather shallow. Her villains are usually extremely accurate depictions of the ressentiment driven revolt from below against the natural aristocracies of the world, however, and I don't find much in her works worth despising. She has some darker and more... sinister moods, but fleeing from the sanguinary events of Red October and winding up in Roosevelt's America would probably be enough to drive better men completely insane. I could perhaps see that her passionate defense of the primacy of strength can be misconstrued as an unsound contempt for the weak, and she does share at least part of the totalitarian and intolerant passions of many liberals of the democratic/populist/profane/vulgar/revolutionist bent. As pieces of pop-propaganda I still find her works quite entertaining, and there are plenty of people who deserve to have her books shoved so far up their asses that they can't sit, stand, shit or walk for a month. As a sympathetic reader it is hard to not see them as very passionate defenses of human freedom and the power of reason, and there is nothing despicable about that. Needless to say she is a better fiction writer than philosopher, but she admitted that herself.

Murray Rothbard wrote one play in his entire life (afaik), and it was a satirical/parodical piece on Rand, her philosophy and her circle of friends. Mozart Was a Red. Quite funny if you are familiar with the tenets of randianism, or if you've ever had the at times doubtful pleasure of encountering any hard-core randroids.

How about socialism in its many forms? Do you despise that, or are your passions reserved solely for people who just want to be left alone, and not partake of the collectivist-democratic Totentanz? What is it about the fact that I consider myself subject to no one, except perhaps my lawful King, that you find so despicable? I choose my friends and associates, I choose who I do business with, and forcing me to act against my own volition is a crime and a sin. That, really, is all that Miss Rand or I have ever asserted.

Why is it that the gang of thieves holding guns to our heads are to be considered wise and rightful overlords, whereas people who, again, merely wish to tend to themselves are anti-social villains? If you so necessarily desire to live in a corpo-cleptocratic welfare/warfare state then by all means go ahead, but why must I be forced to join it?

in b4 the U.S. and the EU make Iran and Syria safe for democracy by bombing them back to the stone age, go bankrupt, descend completely into abject tyranny, fracture and spend the rest couple of hundred years in the comforting umbra of a new dark age.

[gentleman_squid]

I knew the term "Fountainhead" sounded oddly familiar. I have the honor to give a presentation on Ayn Rand today. If I manage to get to that part without puking I will also present her novel "The Fountainhead". For Rand fountainheads are geniuses which are the driving force behind societies success. Just wanted to let you know that the term is somewhat ironic being used on people who despised Rand probably as much as I do, while she herself used the term only on people she valued a lot.

I used the word without intending any connotation to Rand, but rather in the general sense of "originator". On the subject of Rand I was completely blown away by Atlas Shrugged the first couple of times I read it, and promptly devoured the rest of her corpus. I still have a fair amount of basic sympathy for her, but her sense of psychology and history are unfortunately rather shallow. Her villains are usually extremely accurate depictions of the ressentiment driven revolt from below against the natural aristocracies of the world, however, and I don't find much in her works worth despising. She has some darker and more... sinister moods, but fleeing from the sanguinary events of Red October and winding up in Roosevelt's America would probably be enough to drive better men completely insane. I could perhaps see that her passionate defense of the primacy of strength can be misconstrued as an unsound contempt for the weak, and she does share at least part of the totalitarian and intolerant passions of many liberals of the democratic/populist/profane/vulgar/revolutionist bent. As pieces of pop-propaganda I still find her works quite entertaining, and there are plenty of people who deserve to have her books shoved so far up their asses that they can't sit, stand, shit or walk for a month. As a sympathetic reader it is hard to not see them as very passionate defenses of human freedom and the power of reason, and there is nothing despicable about that. Needless to say she is a better fiction writer than philosopher, but she admitted that herself.

Murray Rothbard wrote one play in his entire life (afaik), and it was a satirical/parodical piece on Rand, her philosophy and her circle of friends. Mozart Was a Red. Quite funny if you are familiar with the tenets of randianism, or if you've ever had the at times doubtful pleasure of encountering any hard-core randroids.

How about socialism in its many forms? Do you despise that, or are your passions reserved solely for people who just want to be left alone, and not partake of the collectivist-democratic Totentanz? What is it about the fact that I consider myself subject to no one, except perhaps my lawful King, that you find so despicable? I choose my friends and associates, I choose who I do business with, and forcing me to act against my own volition is a crime and a sin. That, really, is all that Miss Rand or I have ever asserted.

Why is it that the gang of thieves holding guns to our heads are to be considered wise and rightful overlords, whereas people who, again, merely wish to tend to themselves are anti-social villains? If you so necessarily desire to live in a corpo-cleptocratic welfare/warfare state then by all means go ahead, but why must I be forced to join it?

in b4 the U.S. and the EU make Iran and Syria safe for democracy by bombing them back to the stone age, go bankrupt, descend completely into abject tyranny, fracture and spend the rest couple of hundred years in the comforting umbra of a new dark age.

I read this, and now I feel unworthy of ever speaking again.

[burgingham]

First of all I do not despise you or anything. I am having a lot of fun discussing those matters. The presentation I gave about Rand was in a weekend long seminar about anarchism. Left wing as much as right wing. You would have enjoyed it a lot I am sure

I am curious though how a king is "lawful" according to you, a democratically elected government however is not. I am not talking about the actual flaws in current systems mind you. I am very well aware that democracy has be worn down to be a somewhat questionable lable these days. However I truly believe that is the fault of having capitalistic democracies. The part that needs to go away to make the systems shine again is the capitalism at least in its current form.

I am not a socialist, but I would consider myself a social-democrat and as Spock would have said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". We cannot deny that we are living in a mass society and your approach of "Do as though wilt" might work in Kasper Hausers cell, but not in states with tens of millions of people. In Germany as well as in your countries we have proven that a welfare state is working out pretty well while all the liberal countries are failing right now. The only stable European countries are ours (Germany and the Scandinavian states. Hope it isn't offensive to say "your countries") and the only fair ones supporting those in need ours have been for a long time anyway.

I see where a swedish person, grown up in a probably culturally, socially and probably even monetarily rich background is coming from in criticizing the system he has made all his experiences in and propagating a libertarian system to preserve his or her own wealth better, but in my eyes everyone deserves to be saved and helped and put on the same level instead of having some canibalistic capitalistic system of everyone helping themselves. Because those systems do not prove equality or foster it as has been proven conclusively by people like Pierre Bourdieux. They create new inequalities instead.

It is quite funny in this context how many Americans seem to think too much governemental regulation led to the financial crisis when it clearly was not enough of the very same that did it. History has already proven me right during the past few years and the only thing missing is the population rising up to demand back their right which is the state. The state belongs to all of us and there we have the root of all evil these days. To then once again come back to Adorno (yes I love him very much) that is probably a result of dumbing down the masses by the use of mass cultural media (Adorno was originally a scientist for music and believes strongly in the mind numbing impact of pop music, but also movies etc. I would be interested to see him comment on the internet, would turn in his grave the good man). This dumbing down leads to all of us rather sitting in front of our monitors playing a game than to get our asses into the political apparatus and start to be part of the decision making proccess.


This all has in no way the loss of individual freedom as a result and I love that freedom just as much as you do. Or do you feel repressed in the current system you live in?

Last question is if you believe in an anarcho-capitalistic system entirely without a state such as David Friedman (Miltons son) proposed it? I find the thought not entirely unintriguing, but in the end such a construct would be nothing but an arbitrary system of total power I fear.

Edit: Guess I have to switch my avatar then. You probably don't deem me worthy of the old one anymore.

[jorb]

Edit: Guess I have to switch my avatar then. You probably don't deem me worthy of the old one anymore.

I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow, because it's seven am here and I haven't slept yet, but...

....NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You switch back right now! Right this instant, dammit!

[burgingham]

Not to derail the thread, but I had that planned anyway with all the raider kiddies trolling me by using my old one. I am sure people would start complaining if I just kept them all banned forever. So this was a good incentive, but we will see after your response tomorrow if I reinstate it.

[MagicManICT]

The presentation I gave about Rand was in a weekend long seminar about anarchism. Left wing as much as right wing. You would have enjoyed it a lot I am sure

I've enjoyed reading the discussion here and I'd be interested in reading/hearing this if there is an English translation or one becomes available. (I know just enough German to get me in trouble.)

Edit: burg, for the life of me, I swear know who your avatar is, but I just can't put a name to the face. (Maybe I don't and just think I do... age and the folly of my youth might be catching up with me.)

[a63ntorange1]

I am not a socialist, but I would consider myself a social-democrat and as Spock would have said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Unfortunately Humans that aren't challenged or faced with need vs want, become extremely lazy, and unproductive as a majority. Sure some people will rise up, out of pure self respect and pride, but to what avail? Economically in a socialist environment it won't accomplish anything. No matter how fast you run in that hamster wheel it isn't going to go anywhere that the slowest hamster wont be able to go.

The US govt, under Obama, has decided on top of education, justice, military, transportation, economic regulation, immigration to states..., marriage, sexual persuasion rights, Border security, Gun control, Foreign soverign country leadership destruction, that it will now also control health care for every one of its citizens. Our national debt is now higher than our GDP. We are bankrupt, and our socialist, apologist, left wing, moonbat citizens, want to spend even more. Unfortunately for everyone in the world, there will come a time, when the US and the EU run out of other peoples money to spend and to give out for votes, and you will see just how awful the world can be, when its superpowers resemble Castro's Cuba. One can only pray that in 2012 at least in the US that our self proclaimed educated left wingers, and independants, and republicans, vote for America, and vote for fiscal responsibility, and vote for our childrens futures.

[burgingham]

@MagicMan: My presentation was in German (actually a lot of courses on our universities are already entirely in English, this one however was not) and I don't have time on my hands right now to translate the whole thing.

One of the essences that might help you however was that Ayn Rand never was a brilliant theorist. She started in Hollywood by writing screenplays, later wrote fictional books and only then started to write her theoretical works. The ficitional books already contain all of her theories though. Not metaphorically hidden, but clear as daylight. Often it is her protagonists giving a long monologue about society, economy, politics etc. There is a movie to "The Fountainhead" by the same name with Gary Cooper which contains the longest monolugue in the history of movies btw

What I want to say is that if you want to get in touch with the works of Rand you simply have to read some of her novels which are actually getting more and more sci-fi over the years. A development many right-wing Libertarians authors seem to share as I was able to observe. That probably derives from the fact that they consider their political views to be utopian and thus it is the best possible genre for them to write some sci-fi stories displaying those views in a future society.

The three essential novels of Rand are: "We the living" about her past in Russia and the red revolutions, "The Fountainhead" about the individual genius as the driving force behind society and then "Atlas Shrugged" her most famous work set in an absolutely fictional setting where again it is shown how the "geniuses" (that is an important thought of hers that the strong and individual minds are the only ones progressing society, dragging the rest along. Kinda like Nietzsche if you ask me) are responsible for the uprising and downfall of society as a whole. "Atlas Shrugged" is often considered to be the guilty conscience of the American elite. Democrats and Republicans alike often admit they enjoyed this book a lot and it kinda displays the original American dream, the real American way of life.

So my advice is to read the novels since that will give you a very good understanding of her works as well as being entertaining and not too theoretical and boring.

[Jackard]

One can only pray that in 2012 at least in the US that our self proclaimed educated left wingers, and independants, and republicans, vote for America, and vote for fiscal responsibility, and vote for our childrens futures.

ohboy