MovieChat Forums > Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) Discussion > Rand might hate this review, but it's wh...

Rand might hate this review, but it's who I am


I just left the movie version of Ayn Rands’ “Atlas Shrugged”…part ll; it was obvious that there was more money available for this production than in the case of Part l. But in both productions I saw an opportunity for the author to reach out from the grave and carry her message to a generation that has little or no knowledge of her work.
As I looked around the almost empty theater I was saddened by the lack of attendance. It was my only hope that those watching had seen part 1, and had not read the book. I prayed as I watched the movie, asking God to help instill the message of this production in those attending across the country. I asked my Lord to give the viewers the power of empathy that they may feel in their hearts the pain portrayed on the screen. I wanted the audience to experience something that could only come from witnessing the deterioration of something so great that its demise would bring a pain that demanded a call to action in all those watching. I was tempted to address the small crowd, to give voice to my own thoughts, and to beg that they raise their own voices in a call to arms. I wanted to say something that would be carried out of that theatre and shared by everyone in attendance. But I am no orator, no wordsmith that could ever inspire the kind of response I was praying for. My impotence had me leaving the theatre in tears I could not stop, with a feeling that I had failed my great country at a time when every voice of opposition to our current state should take wings and spread the word that our own future was on display in the movie I had just watched. I felt like a coward for not giving flight to my thoughts, for not shouting at the top of my lungs that our future had been written in 1957!
For those who are unfamiliar with Ayn Rand, she escaped the Russian revolutions that seemed to occur back to back in the early 20th century. Before leaving Russia she experienced the violence, the hunger, the confusion, homelessness, and brutality that were the hallmark of the birth of the Soviet Union. Ayn Rand bore witness to the ravages of war, depersonalization, and the loss of individuality that is Communism. Her flight from Hell, as she might put it, landed her in America finding herself ensconced in Hollywood Society where she did script rewrites, and whatever she could to contribute and earn her way with people that included Cecil B DeMille. Ayn Rand found her utopia; it was in the United States, fueled by capitalism, and driven by American individualism and exceptionalism. Rand’s first major writing success came in her 1943 book “The Fountainhead”, but what is considered her greatest literary achievement came in her 1957 tome “Atlas Shrugged”, which brings us back to the subject at hand.
“Atlas Shrugged Part ll” successfully conveys the failure of all that is part of the Obama Agenda. It is a clear display of the internal rot that is the core of socialism and government control of anything beyond the limits so clearly defined in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. It paints a clear picture of all that is wrong with large government, crony capitalism, and the failure that is always the end result of government control of the marketplace. The dichotomy that is total government control of the marketplace at one end and pure capitalism at the other is presented clearly and concisely by Rand, and is taken to heights others haven’t imagined, or were too frightened to express before. When Obama told every entrepreneur in America that “They didn’t build this!” he was playing a part that Rand had written in more than one book. There is nothing the government can do that can’t be done better and more economically by an entrepreneur that “Didn’t build this!” Anyone with a lifetime experience that is limited to working in government is also limited in the ability to create an entity that is efficient, functional, and profitable. In government there is no need for efficiency, functionality, or ever profitability. When working with money that is taken from the masses there is no concern for those elements in anything that is created. When the money runs out, the government functionary simply applies for more taxes and his shortage is made up. This is the fundamental truth of government, and it is why people stood in line for hours just to purchase a roll of toilet paper during the heady days of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. It is what Ayn Rand witnessed before her escape to America, and it is the underlying truth in all her writing.
Every voter in America should see “Atlas Shrugged” parts 1 and 2, and then they need to read the book. If they did, there would never be another socialist elected in the United States of America again, in fact it could well spell the demise of the Democrat Party as we know it today.

reply

It's adorable that you think you know what a socialist is, your grasp of Russian history is precious and I think the idolization of Rand's life is as sweet as your blatant spinning about American politics is disturbing.

But in all seriousness, if you're not going to use hard breaks between paragraphs, at least indent. To be blunt, I'm probably the only person who fully read your post.

No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. -Mitt Romney

reply

Do you kiss the mirror before or after you brush your teeth? Your sense of self importance borders on mental masterbation. Why should I care if anyone reads my posts? I don't write for you, or any of the other dweebs that have responded with judgemental cries of my misguided efforts.

How's this, PARAGRAPH. Anyway, I keep reading your response and wonder if you used your dictionary properly. I Idolize the writing of Rand, as a person she left much to be desired.

Regarding my short reference to her early history, facts is facts...and technically there was a revolution, a civil war, and a variety of uprisings by as many groups. It was from this experience that most of Rand's values were born. If you were to read her writing you might understand that I am more than a follower...and less. I respect strength and intelligence, rare commodities in this realm.

I will now do something you won't see very often. While I could as easily delete my opening, I think it's good enough to keep, so I will apologize. You may be mistaken in your opinion of me thru my words, but your own wordsmithing is indicative of a mind worth hearing out. It helps me keep my edge.

Thanks for the writing tip.

reply

Your use of paragraphs is a great improvement over the OP.

Also your decision to not shout at movie goers was very prudent. I'm guessing that anyone who buys a ticket to see a movie version of an Ayn Rand boo is already firmly set in his political viewpoint.

Keep up the good work.

reply

I think one can NOT be set politically and still glean a lot from Ayn Rand. Not shocking that the theaters were empty though, as I've seen no advertising or publicity regarding this movie. Shocking I know, as the next wave of remakes/reboots hit the screen.

However, I do have one thing I'd like to point out... something said in the OP.

" I prayed as I watched the movie, asking God to help instill the message of this production in those attending across the country."

Hopefully this is sarcasm, my apologies if you do in fact have an imaginary friend. I think religion (I assume you like the Jesus myth) is just as big a problem as the empty theater and lack of Ayn Rand readers. She did after all, value reason above all else.

TO quote her regarding her finding any value in religion:

"Qua religion, no - in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith."



Yep.

EDIT: @"freethinkingerson"... *masturbation, "facts ARE facts", *through, *judgmental

Also, "Why should I care if anyone reads my posts? I don't write for you, or any of the other dweebs that have responded with judgemental cries of my misguided efforts. " <---- the greatest irony in this statement is that you call out someone for "mental masturbation", yet feel justified in posting something that in your mind should stand alone, without discussion (on a discussion board of all places), without care for anyone else's reading, interpretation, or judgment. Pot, meet kettle.

Oh, and please... do not reproduce.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

reply

I will not comment an the content of the arguments made, I am only posting to support tyrshonor's critique of your first post. I did not read it because it was a giant block of text.

You will find a larger audience when you make your arguments more presentable to the eye.

reply

An Ayn Rand fan criticizing some one for "self-importance"?!?

Now I've seen everything.

reply

Touché.

reply

You hit it on the head. As soon as I saw the monolithic writing I knew the content was going to be worthless. However, after reading your reply I went back and managed to get a few laughs out of it for my trouble ... while confirming that the content was indeed worthless drivel.

reply

And when Obama said "You didn't built that", he was referring to the things that private entrepreneurs desperately need in order for their businesses to prosper that they did not and could not possibly create--railroads, highways, telecommunications networks--all of these were made possible by the Federal government. You can't seriously expect a private business to spend vast fortunes creating something its competitors can equally benefit from.

You don't understand Rand, capitalism, America, or I suspect Jesus very well (since he said 'give all you have to the poor', 'render unto Caesar', and that thing about rich people having about the same chance of getting into heaven as a camel would have getting through the eye of a needle.

You're a mediocrity obsessed with greatness. In that, at least, you are like Ayn Rand.

reply

Your ignorance is exceeded only by the impotence of your argument; in fact you are a poster child for the ridiculous concept that liberalism is a mental health issue. Until I started publishing some of my thoughts, I always thought that was the rant of a right wing nut, guess I am wrong once in a while.
I will slow down my thought process and reach into your lexicon to paraphrase what I related to your confederates in a previous post, here goes so pay attention; I don’t need to live in manure in order to use it to achieve my own ends. What that means, hehe ”Cylon”…lol, is I don’t need to support every edict of Ayn Rand’s philosophy in order to apply that which I can use.
I vote Republican, but I am not a supporter of everything the party has in its’ platform. If Jack Kennedy were running for office, he would have my vote. But he wouldn’t be running as a Democrat with his administrative record. I am a conservative independent, my best friend is gay, my wife is a minority, and I am a small business owner employing people and paying a pretty good size tax bill.
As for your misinformation regarding business made possible by government, wow, you shouldn’t have smoked that blunt before history. The U.S. government couldn’t afford to build a rail system, so, look up this word, entrepreneurs were given incentives to build rail lines. Oh, and about creating something your competition might use, uh, telecommunications giants, like Verizon, rent their networks to competitors. Oh, and spending huge amounts of money in development? In my years with Microsoft and 3 Com I was part of groups with multimillion dollar budgets, the licensing of some of these products we developed to “competitors” paid for years more development of more products to license. I’m sorry, I wanted to say you’re a moron, but you can use spell check so your just…oh I said it before, ignorant.
In closing, I would like to say thank you for the tag of mediocrity, from someone like you it is an honor. I thank God you didn’t say something that was even neutral in its’ praise of me, I would be scarred for life thinking I met such low values.
‘night!
ps Never begin a sentence with a conjunctive

reply

When Verizon rents out its network to a competitor, it charges at a profitable level. Because of this price floor and the pipe's limitation, the competitor(s) will never be able to compete effectively against Verizon. Think of this practice as a local warlord build a gate on a road crossing his land.

reply

The point was that large companies do allow their competition to use their creations. That they charge an obscene amount of money is irrelevant, in the case of Verizon; they laid out the initial investment, they took the chance, and they did not hold a gun to anyones head to get them to sign a licensing agreement. Your metphor about the warlord is perfect, business is war, not four square. Don't jump in the water if you think it's too cold.
'Night

reply

lol, seriously? Not in technology, code, or anything remotely close to whatever imaginary "creation" you are referring to. Apple Samsung lawsuit? Bueller? Bueller?

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

reply

While I respect your passion without sharing in your beliefs, I think you weaken your argument and cheapen your credibility when you resort to petty name calling and derision.

reply

The petty name-calling and derision was the second problem I had with this petty political rant.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

reply

[deleted]

You don't understand ... Jesus very well (since he said 'give all you have to the poor', 'render unto Caesar', and that thing about rich people having about the same chance of getting into heaven as a camel would have getting through the eye of a needle.


I think you might want to read those parts again if you're going to use the mythology to make a point.


My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

Bravo, gabby bm. You sound like an independent thinker, a lost brother perhaps, but someone with a mind that sees not thru a prism of fear and prejudice, but with a set of priciples guiding the process.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

your interpretation of these verses is the typical un-educated mainstream understanding of a verse that is misused by the masses daily..

If you study the context of the statement you quote. YOu will find that he was talking to a "rich" man who had done a pretty fair job of getting his wealth legally and morally.. But here this guy was,, By the text and the situation this man KNEW that he was talking to the True Son of God in the Flesh(God in flesh) and was asked to follow him and be with him one on one to work side by side with God in the Flesh.. And this guy loved his riches more than the offer that Christ made to him..

The other verse you quote about the camel and the needle is an idiom to show a meaning by a mental image or story concerning a rich man getting to heaven is as hard as a camel passing through the eye of a needle) which back in that day was actually a military gate set up before the main gate of a city at night time generally.. A camel could not pass through this gate without actually unloading its' pack and getting on its' knees and crawling back and forth while weaving through the narrow passages to get through.. Basically impossible. Same thing: a rich man by ill-gotten means will have to unload his pack(riches) get on his knees and crawl through the narrow gate. Awful tough for a corrupt man to want to do this.. This Rich man if you read the actual words in the greek you find he was "rich" ( but that form of word used for rich means he has gotten his riches by corrupt and ill-gotten and or immoral means. This type of rich man/person will have as much chance of getting through that gate as that big ol camel.)..

These passages do not mean give welfare and free garbage to all that won't work.. In fact Christ worked for his monies as well as all of his followers. Paul was a master tent maker and always paid his way as he sojourned. But it is a pure and Christian thing to help those in need and in trouble because they need help. We are not advocated to give something to people that are merely holding their hand out. And good givers will help these needy by teaching them how to fish if they can rather than giving them fish for eternity. And these poor will not be poor forever if they get off their butts and do some fishing for themselves.

Beggars and lazy people are about in the same boat as rich people that got it by ill gotten means. If a man will not care for his own he is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8.. and in this verse: 2 timothy 2:15... One can find out how you find out what these passages really mean..

Christs' Uncle,, the tomb that Christ was buried in was a rich man.. And known as a good man.. Abraham of the OT was a rich man and was favored by God.. Even Job was rich, made poor than made rich again and was favored by God.. If your wealth is less important than what the Lord God would have you do with your life and riches than your in pretty good standing..

and by the way.. the verse that says Money is the root of all evil.. The actual translation is: Money is the root of "MUCH" evil.. not all...




reply

Holy crap, stringpickin! You're one of the few people I've encountered that knows the meaning of "eye of the needle" in that passage.
Excellent post.



My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

Hi Gabby..

Isn't it utterly sad and astounding that with over 270 denominations, a church on every corner and so called preachers on every tv channel that simple knowledge that is readily found out is so rare a thing between non-christians and christians alike?

reply

Tell me more of your fairy tales and imaginary friends. Feel free to interpret all the murder, rape, and intolerance as well in that "book".

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

reply

Do you think a book that deals with real life issues, problems, travesties and the like would not have rapes,murders,hates and the like in it?

So many things that are in the written bible are so messed up by religions interpretations and "twists" they put on them. So it is possible that many things that you actually attribute to God, may actually be man's interjections of what they think a particular act or account meant instead of the intended meaning. And without investigating it on your own "one" can never know because they are taking the word of some other interpreter..

Example.. many Christians believe that it is murder to put some one to death for committing murder because the law says: You shall not commit no murder..

If properly investigated one would find that the word murder is a "form" that means: you shall not commit cold blooded, lie in wait, selfish gain, for want of your own motive, or of pure hate. Killing someone in self defense is not murder. Killing someone for murdering someone else is not murder, it is the price for murdering someone.. The person knowing the price is "death" for committing murder that then murders someone actually is putting themselves to death.. Same thing with a parent to a kid.. If you don't do this then this happens to you.. If the kid chooses to disobey... whose fault is it that the thing happened to them? Certainly not the parents.. If I knowingly break into a bank and point a gun at someone and steal money, is it the laws fault that I go to jail for 10 years?? not hardly.. So many of these things that some hold out as being so terrible and vile that happened in the bible are simply reactions to self-serving, or non-caring or idiotic people paying the price for their own actions.. If you take out all of those there may be a few things in the bible that are really hard to take or understand why..

So for example: all this whimpering and the like for murderers and how we will become like them if we put them to death because of their crime is in my opinion "stupid" or at least ill informed. If someone has proven they are capable of cold blooded murder, can you really? I mean really ever trust them again.. Would be stupid to trust them. Send them on there way, and save the law abiding citizens the expense and fear that they may murder again.. Even if they happen to be a bit tweaked.. awe,, like Jodi Arias. she certainly is tweaked, but should that mean we subject her on society. Is it not less humane to keep her locked up in a cell for 80 years instead of dispatching her..

Anyway, I am sure you have many other examples or problems with the things you mentioned than the one example I gave..

But keep in mind, None of the bad things so to speak would have ever come about if man would have "loved another as they would have loved themselves" and valued Gods' authority.

In what system of society do you know of where there is not law and consequence for not adhering to them.. Certainly the Creator of all things that brought all of the children into existence and governs the largest so called public society there is has the right to have laws and actions for those breaking them. A society without laws because man is so selfish is impossible..

reply

Okay, "typical un-educated mainstream understanding of a verse that is misused by the masses daily" here.

Two, okay, three things here.

Number one. I don't see how your context changes anything. Of course, the "rich" man KNEW he was talking to Jesus. What, does anyone think he was going up to random strangers and asking to follow them? (BTW, what's up with the quotes around "rich" ? Is anyone seriously asking the Bible to provide an affadavit to his net worth?) The second point, regarding the origin of the phrase "eye of the needle" is interesting (and I heard that long ago) but it doesn't change the meaning of either quote. Especially in light of . . .

Number two. You are correct. The Bible does NOT say that Money is the root of all evil. However, neither does it say that it is the root of MUCH evil. It says, "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil."

Now, as it happens, I agree with your sentiment. I don't think that ALL evil is money-related. But if you're quoting the Bible, you should strive to be accurate.

And lastly, I'd like to draw your attention to a sermon by Dr. Martin Luther King, "The Man Who Was a Fool." (http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/why_jesus_c alled_a_man_a_fool/)

Dr. King takes as his text a parable from the Gospel of Luke where God called a rich, successful and honest man a fool. Here's an excerpt:

"[the second reason], this man was a fool because he failed to realize his dependence on others. Now if you read that parable in the book of Luke, you will discover that this man utters about sixty words. And do you know in sixty words he said "I" and "my" more than fifteen times? This man was a fool because he said "I" and "my" so much until he lost the capacity to say "we" and "our." He failed to realize that he couldn't do anything by himself. This man talked like he could build the barns by himself, like he could till the soil by himself. And he failed to realize that wealth is always a result of the commonwealth.

Maybe you haven't ever thought about it, but you can't leave home in the morning without being dependent on most of the world. You get up in the morning, and you go to the bathroom and you reach over for a sponge, and that's even given to you by a Pacific Islander. You reach over for a towel, and that's given to you by a turk. You reach down to pick up your soap, and that's given to you by a Frenchman. Then after dressing, you rush to the kitchen and you decide this morning that you want to drink a little coffee; that's poured in your cup by a South American. Or maybe this morning you prefer tea; that's poured in your cup by a Chinese. Or maybe you want cocoa this morning; that's poured in your cup by a West African. Then you reach over to get your toast, and that's given to you at the hands of an English-speaking farmer, not to mention the baker. Before you finish eating breakfast in the morning you are dependent on more than half of the world." [emphasis mine]

Come to think of it, I'd like to see one of these Randian "supermen" (or women, I don't discriminate) build a barn by themselves. They don't have a clue that if early humanity hadn't cooperated for the common good, if they had followed the "Gospel of Selfishness," we'd have become extinct long ago.

reply

You are right.. ONE bible translation and possibly a couple others interprets the greek as saying; "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil." ..

But that is not what the greek says..

study to the langauges and idioms and to the thread tied together with the massorah and then you can have a pretty good chance at getting a proper interpretation of the passage.. so maybe you should check your accuracy and your reasons for stating I was...

Reading one or two of the dozens and dozens of translations(bibles) king james, new world trans, gideons or etc.. does not mean translating the actuall scrolls. That means reading a book where someone else has taken their stab at translating the scrolls... I stopped reading translations for understanding decades ago.. I do read them however to see what other peoples takes are on the actual manuscripts.. Always good to look inside and out at things.. None of us has got it all on the ol chop..

reply

Cyclops, or whatever your name is, you got it backwards--private entrepreneurs desperately need the government in order for their business to prosper, no it's governments desperately need entrepreneurs (and other productive citizens) in order to even exist at all. Where the hell do you think government gets its money? From everybody else, at the point of a gun.

reply

thomasdosboneii, What he said was right because he didn't comment on whether businesses need entrepreneurs. The need for entrepreneurs to have a stable society supported by a functioning government is self evident. What you said, however, can easily and accurately be interpreted as "no, private entrepreneurs do not need government because the government needs them."

This, of course, is ridiculously wrong and shows a degree of retardation well in-line with your inability to reply to the correct post, or spell someone's name right when it's just a button click away.

No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. -Mitt Romney

reply

tyrshonor, you and your opinions don't matter.

reply

thomasdosborneii, it's not my opinions you need worry about as my opinions were not provided here. What you are claiming don't matter would be the facts relating to your poor showing.

I mean seriously, I've had to correct someone who wanted to claim that the police and courts should count as 'regulators.' I've had to point out to someone that works of fiction can not be used as case histories for the real world. I've had to read that women in the medieval ages had it better than they do today, all on this board. Yet you are managing to seem like the least informed poster.

No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. -Mitt Romney

reply

Him and his "opinions" just owned you, as did your ostrich-like response of burying your head in the sand when confronted by logic and reason. I can picture you holding your hands over your ears and stomping your feet.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

reply

gregg-67,--Oh I see, more gibberish...it's been a while, so I wasn't sure what this was about, otherwise I would have automatically deleted the e-mail. "Just move along. Nothing to see here!" Don't bother responding, I still have my head in the sand, which is a better place than where your head is.

reply

"Governments desperately need entrepreneurs in order to even exist at all" ?

Then how did they function BEFORE the entrepreneurial system? After all, humans (and government) have been around a LONG time.

You don't even need to address early societal government (agrarian chiefs and shamans). Were there entrepreneurs in barter societies? How did that work? Or medieval periods when there was little or no currency?

The concept of money (in any form, be it coins or cowrie shells) dates from 2000BC at the earliest. But by that time, functioning civic governments in Egypt, China and Mesopotamia had been in existence for a MILLENIUM.

So I'm really interested in hearing you explain how the entrepreneurs that government "needs to even exist" functioned before money had even been invented!

(Wow. You learn all kinds of things on these boards.)

reply

dwgryph--You DO understand that governments could not exist without being on the back of the labor of soldiers, farmers, pyramid builders, slaves, and tax-payers, right? If every citizen of the United States suddenly stopped paying one cent of tax, if every employer simply refused to withhold a single penny from anyone's paycheck, if consumers stopped agreeing to accept the government's highly inflated toilet paper as "money", then you would start to see the death of our government. That's what Atlas Shrugged is all about--the real economic forces in the nation simply refuse to continue playing that game any longer.

Government is nothing but a parasite (I don't care if that is a chief, a pharoah, a king, a dictator, a sultan, an oligarchy, or "rule by those who have learned that they can vote to make other people pay for the goodies that they want to have without working" like the system we have in the United States. Everything government does, it does worse than the enterprising people can do on their own without government interference and without government getting their stolen "piece" out of their brainpower and their labors.

It's amazing that there are so many who can't see that. But I guess the real world of personal responsibility is just too scary for the average person who really does just want to be taken care of and not be made to think too intensely and realistically. They are perfectly happy to be one of the ones who thinks that the "massah" "feeds them" (wow, how generous!). "The massah feeds them"--WHO was it who was ACTUALLY working in the field? The truth is, it is THEY who fee the massah!

reply

…and you're aware that none of those labourers, soldiers, farmers, tax payers etc… could live a meaningful existence without the protection of the state, without some form of state enforced system of property rights (unless you'd prefer to live in an economic system wherein property rights fall to the man with the biggest stick?), without some form of state enforced criminal and civil legal system and law enforcement. Sure, a purely voluntary stateless society *could* theoretically establish such systems, but such would require agreement on a common (minimum) set of laws and values and the money to fund the administration and execution of such systems as required to uphold them (e.g. a professional judiciary, police, military, maybe even a professional legislature to handle reforms and amendments to said common laws and values). Funny, that sounds an awful lot like a state to me.

Only a moron would hold to right-libertarian absurdisms such as "The state needs the people, but the people don't need the state" and "The state is nothing but a parasite". Whatever the rights, wrongs and deficiencies in the execution of any given state (and lord knows that there are myriad!), human civilization *is* reliant upon some form of organisational principal, whether that be a coercive territorial state (a.k.a. a modern nation state) or the purely voluntary 'states' of anarchist lore. The alternative, I'm afraid, is feudalism; a world were might is right, and momentary weakness is death/destitution (think of the economic inefficiencies people!… Oh, and the inhumanity and misery of such a system! Hmm, I'm only guessing, but I doubt these'll even faintly blink on the Randian's radar screens).


ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!

reply

without doubt rand was an atheist. nevertheless, the general themes in her works appeal to people regardless of religion or lack thereof, as they are mostly economic and pragmatic in nature.

sadly, you are woefully mistaken in this post regarding the infrastructure of this country. highways were built and are supposed to be maintained by tolls, usage fees, and gasoline taxes. larger, commercial vehicles pay higher rates on all of these things, although consumers also pay. therefore, the gov't only can build these things using money they conscript from ordinary people and businesses or corporations. this is done with the consent of those governed in our political system. unfortunately, this money was originally set aside for that specific purpose, and has been commingled into general funds, thus the erosion and failure of maintenance on current infrastructure.

regarding telecommunications, this has always been a private business, although the government established a 'beneficial monopoly' at one time, it was never a government entity or project. even less so today's cellular networks.

railroads also have always been private businesses, although those concerns swindled the government out of money and land to found themselves. government money was provided and grants of land, based on the feeling it was in the national interest. certain clauses in the contracts involved allowed for abuses. because passenger traffic by rail decreased after the popularity of automobiles and air travel increased, the government now manages and owns the passenger traffic monopoly, which loses money annually.

hope that's not 'too much to read' for your distracted mind. but you are wrong

karma, you know, do good things, good things happen; do bad things, bad things happen?

reply

Ah... the old camel vs. needle chestnut. Before you thrash another poster for lack of understanding, perhaps you could learn the true meaning of that phrase. In Jesus's time, the "Eye of the Needle" was a single-person sized gate into walled communities that was opened for late travellers after the main gates were locked down for the night. This was to impede night-time attacks from bands of thieves or private armies. Being designed for a human traveller, not a camel, it was extremely difficult, although not impossible, to lead a camel through the opening. You might want to note that Jesus did not say that it was impossible for the rich to enter heaven, just that it was extremely difficult due to the temptations provided by significant wealth. By the way, many of the Bible's most revered characters were insanely wealthy, and yet still loved by God.

The wealthy-haters of the world love to throw that passage around as evidence of their own moral superiority. The other often (mis)quoted phrase use to justify vilification of the rich is "money is the root of all evil". Given the tone of your post I would guess you to agree with this trope, and may even have used it yourself. The problem is that it falls down on several counts. First, I think we would all agree that a serial killer or child rapist are evil, and yet neither is motivated by money. Even more to the point, Jesus' actual admonition was "the LOVE OF money is the root of ALL KINDS of evil", which is a very different statement, and not at all critical of the wealthy in general.

As for "give all your wealth to the poor", that was a challenge to a particular individual in a specific situation... a test of his conviction, not a blanket instruction to all of us on how to view money and wealth. Remember, this is the same Jesus that rebuked the Judas for complaining that the perfume used to anoint his feet would have been better sold to benefit the poor.

BTW... hate to break it to ya, but telecommunications, railways, even roads, were ALL originally created and developed by private individuals and companies. I realize you think the US rail system is one huge monolithic government-built entity, but even today it is actually an amalgamation of many smaller rail operators that agreed many years ago on common rail gauges and junction locations. Every city or town that has a "Union Station" is evidence of this fragmented PRIVATE creation of the railway system you attribute to the government... a Union Station is any station used by more than one rail company. Spin it any way you want... regardless of how you choose to interpret it, Obama revealed his true opinion of the high achievers in our society.

reply

I'm glad clyons, and all other coments tried to explain that this movie is a cheap propaganda and guess what-against Obama?!... and I'm glad the movie theater was empty.
Liberal capitalism is crisis in disguise...
Алиса Зиновјевна Born, 1905 and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926. She portrayed a socialist Soviet Union with a totalitarian rule...

If someone is trying to fix a problem in the US, soon he will be tagged as communist. Progress means investing in science, education, reason...
this gay is as clyons put it:
"....mediocrity obsessed with greatness.
In that, at least, you are like Ayn Rand."

reply

OP, you do know Rand didn't practice what she preached and made use of the state and other people to pay for her right?

reply

Again I must make clear; I am a capitalist, and as such I am always looking for something that will give me the edge in a situation I am trying to capitalize on. I do not worship at the altar of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, or Selfishness. That said I will take from a philosophy that which I can use, and leave that which I can’t.
Having read extensively of her work I found several takeaways; Communism is NEVER successful, Socialism is NEVER successful, it just takes a little longer to use up everyone else’s money, and both will always develop into a dictatorship. Individualism and the exceptionalism of the individual will always give birth to a better lifestyle for all who participate in creation of the vision of the exceptional individual. The more the individual turns to a government for help in birthing a concept into reality, the less likely the end result will reflect the values of the original creator. Nothing good has ever come from altruism. Nothing good can come from a concept dedicated solely to the masses and funded by the tax payer; it will reek of cronyism, lack of responsibility, and awash in corruption.
So I take from any concept that which fits my needs…that which does not conflict with my values and principles. That I am a Christian does not preclude me from using business formulae written by an atheist. As I told another Liberal today; I need not sit in manure so I can use it as a fertilizer. It doesn’t surprise me that Rand might be guilty of pushing the envelope of her convictions, she had to answer to her own conscience.

reply

No government leader stands in the breadline with the people he leads. The masses will always be put on a different system than their government representatives, thus negating any illusion of equal treatment under the law for all.




My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

Il Duce, Adolph Hitler, Tojo, Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, are just a few leaders who might argue your point. The first was hung and had his body dragged all over Rome, the second took a cowards way out, the third Hari Kari, and the last two just stepped down and suffered miserable ends to life. They all might suggest the illuson was a little too real.

Sometimes justice has it's own way of being metted out.

reply

But in their height of power, were they in the bread lines with the masses? I don't recall Hitler driving around in a Volkswagon.



My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

hitler may have been many things, but he was never one to enrich himself at the people's expense. for a head of state, he lived very simply. of course, when you have all the power imaginable mere wealth is irrelevant.

reply

Rand had you and your ilk pegged perfectly. She called them "Second-Raters".

God might, I won't.
-JCVD

reply

Having read extensively of her work I found several takeaways; Communism is NEVER successful, Socialism is NEVER successful, it just takes a little longer to use up everyone else’s money, and both will always develop into a dictatorship.


You do know that socialism/ communism has played a huge roll in founding the US right? Do you think all those settlements were capitalist? Most were communitarian (communist) and socialist, something Americans seem to have forgotten. So unless you fit the US into the 'nothing good' category, you might want to actually know your history before making such big claims. The US was founded on communism/ socialism.

============
"Outstanding. Now all we need is a deck of cards."

reply

Most communitarian/socialistic settlements failed, and the people in them turned to individualism and capitalism. Read Bradford's "Of Plimoth Plantation," for example. (And, yes, my spelling is correct.)

reply

Most communitarian/socialistic settlements failed, and the people in them turned to individualism and capitalism. Read Bradford's "Of Plimoth Plantation," for example. (And, yes, my spelling is correct.)


By some people's interpretations of Socialism, the United States and all of Western Europe are socialist.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and get into a pissing match about which American colonies only lasted 70 years as "communitarian/communistic" settlements. Largely because those colonies were formed around an irrational set of theocratic laws. Or which Capitalist Colonial ventures started and failed in the space of 70 years. Largely because those colonies were formed around an irrational set of economic principles that don't work when applied to whole populations. If you want to use the colonies as your argument, than your only conclusion can be the end result, a free market economy only works with constantly expanding markets, but when you hit the west coast, your only choice is to mix and regulate.

No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. -Mitt Romney

reply

My comments were not confined just to the colonial era. For a 19th-century example of the failure of a commune, you might, for example, read Hawthorne's "The Blithedale Romance." For 20th-century examples, check out the history of Upton Sinclair's commune. As for the hippie communes of the 1960s, I could give you an earful about them. Dude, socialistic countries either turn to capitalism (like China), or they go under (USSR, Greece, et al.). When China and India started to move away from socialism, they started to prosper. On the personal level, the free individual helps others in the course of exchanging goods and services because both parties benefit from that, and it is in their interest to do it.

reply

actually, since most of the timeline of human existence has been lived communally, "communism" has been the most successful societal structure to date.

what, you don't think humans sprang into existence only 10,000 years ago or so, do you? how do you suppose humans lived for the 100k or so years before the invention of agriculture?

there are still some pre-agricultural cultures in existence which demonstrate the benefits of true communal living, but with increasing globalization they're dwindling rapidly. no, they aren't as technologically advanced as we are now, but the people are (and probably were) happier.

reply

Okay, lets address these examples one by one. "The Blithedale Romance" was a work of fiction, it has about as much weight in a discussion of real world mechanics as "Atlas Shrugged." Upton Sinclair's commune was considered largely successful until it was set on fire and utterly by outside sources. And as far as the earful you're threatening to give me about the hippie communes of the 1960's... I'm sure your examples there would be just as poorly informed or wrong as your previous two. Which is sad because finding hippies that have failed is the low hanging fruit of discussion and could easily be dismissed just by looking at the level of education and skill involved. Capitalism fails utterly when in the hands of the incompetent, so why wouldn't Communism?

Socialism is not, as strange as this sounds, contradictory to capitalism. Socialism is too broad of a term to really contradict anything. That's one of the ways that socialism and communism are different. What China has is a very successful, highly regulated, state controlled economy, with competitive elements that the uninformed would call 'capitalistic.' They aren't 'moving away' from Socialism.

I'm sorry, you're just not informed enough about these subjects for me to really discuss this. Please feel free to continue posting and I'll continue to correct you, but as far as discourse goes, dude, I'm not expecting much.

No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. -Mitt Romney

reply

Tyrshonor: "The Blithedale Romance" was based on the Brook Farm community, of which Hawthorne had been a member. Thank you so much, dude, for giving me permission to continue posting. I do hope that you will be able to find someone on your exalted level to continue discourse with you. (I will refrain from asking for a comparison of our backgrounds.)

reply

[deleted]

pjpconnel: "Atlas Shrugged" was based on The United States of America, of which Ayn Rand was a citizen. "One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest" was based on the MKULTRA program, of which the author was a test subject. And Shaun of the Dead was based on an episode of Spaced that Simon Pegg also wrote.

But the events in The Blithedale Romance didn't really happen, even if it was set in a real place. The events in Atlas Shrugged didn't really happen either. The events in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest certainly didn't really happen. And, ofcourse, the events in Shaun of the Dead didn't really happen. This is why they are called "fiction" and why nobody with a highschool level education would even dream of bringing them up in a discussion about real world forces.

Highschool level education, that is the "exalted level" you have failed to reach. Get here and maybe we can have a dialogue.

No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. -Mitt Romney

reply

[deleted]

The People's Republic of China is hardly what one could call communist, communism calls for a stateless society of which the PRC is not. The PRC can be seen as a mixed socialist state with an increasingly open market.

reply

[deleted]

Ironic that you state Socialism is never successful. It's worked pretty well for Germany, Great Brittain--all of Northern Europe, really, and the United States. In fact, the one country that has done the best in this lovely economy is the one most closely associated with Socialism: Germany.

reply

You do realize that Europe is on the verge of financial collapse, right?

In the United Kingdom the middle class are subject to the highest tax bracket. We currently have the most progressive tax system in the world. The top 7% of income earners pay nearly half of the taxes in this country. Since Obama has been in office the amount of people on food stamps have almost doubled. George Bush was not conservative and spent outrageous amounts of money but the average deficit of George W. Bush was around 800 Billion dollars a year. Obama? 1.2 trillion dollars. Obama has been using class warfare to justify raising taxes when it will amount to nothing. On January 1st, 2013 everybody's taxes will go up because of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) The republicans have put reducing tax breaks and loopholes to get the amount of money in "REVENUE" as Obama disingenuously calls taxes, and Obama has refused to accept that. he is dead set on raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. If they do not come to a consensus EVERYONES taxes will increase on January 1st (on top of the affordable care act)


All of this backs Ayn Rand's warnings of what is to come if we do not change course. The United States government demonizes the doers and praises the lazy. When you raise taxes substantially you get a brain drain. Wealthy people in New York pay almost 50% of their income with state and national income taxes, they then leave the city for Florida or Texas both states have no income taxes and are much more business friendly then most of America.

Does anybody else realize that these evil corporations and rich people provide jobs for people? Why can't we allow businesses to thrive, expand and create new jobs and thus new tax payers. I suppose I am an evil, racist bigot for saying such a thing. What a funny world we live in these days.

Government stifles growth, free-enterprise creates wealth. It's pretty simple.

Obama does redistribute wealth by doing all of this, he has even said redistributing wealth is good for everybody (see: "Joe the plumber") But i would characterize him more as a crony capitalist, giving special breaks to corporations and companies that support his campaigns. Go look and see how much taxes GE has to pay, it will make your stomach turn. Obama also gave tons of money to green energy companies that go bankrupt (see Solyndra).

reply


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/

There you go. Now you haven't really provided any other economic indicators so I really don't have anything else to debunk. You are incorrect about the facts so it's not surprising that your conclusions are specious.


No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. -Mitt Romney

reply

So if I started a factcheck website, as a conservative, would you believe everything I put on there knowing I am biased? Doesn't annenberg public policy center and Obama have a history? I'm just curious because I would bet you wouldn't trust anything that the Koch brothers finance or donate to.

reply

[deleted]


"You're a mediocrity obsessed with greatness. In that, at least, you are like Ayn Rand."
....Sweden?

reply

Rand is not going to hate this review---she is dead! You didn't know?
If self interest and arrogance is your thing then of course you would be fascinated with Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. I think it is just despicable. Amd, no, we won't eliminate the Democrats. We are the only ones who care about PEOPLE. Republicans only care about themselves. ANd maybe a woman who will agree with them all the time and stay in the kitchen, barefoot,pregnant and stupid.Your obvious prejudice and irrational dislike of Obama is freezing your heart and allowing your brain to shrink.You completely misunderstand what he meant by "you didn't build that". You have to be a little bit intelligent to get it. You're not.It means that we all work together to build things. Too hard for you to grasp that concept? Sad.

reply

[deleted]

Pancake: I'm sure that being ignored by you is an absolutely devastating experience.

reply

Freethinkingperson, Absolutely loved your post. Well said sir. When in an argument with a liberal it will almost always break down to name calling or emotional argument on their part. I enjoyed the movie and the message is clear. I feel as if we are living the movie right now since post election. Its almost as if Ann Rand had Obama's play book in 1957.

reply

Rand might hate this review, but it's who I am


She wouldn't hate you.

Your prayer will go unanswered because praying doesn't work. She would say: express a desire, but don't ever expect a desire to take physical form on its own.

OP, you do know Rand didn't practice what she preached and made use of the state and other people to pay for her right?


I doubt the social security she claimed exceeded the amount of taxes she was forced to pay throughout her lifetime. Only an altruist would refuse some of the stolen money that a burglar returns to them.

reply

It's hilarious that you talk about praying to god and *beep* whereas Ayn Rand would have laughed at the thought of prayer.

reply