I have never really understood how the Evanga-publicans, Tea Baggers, and Foxpods could have taken Ayn Rand to their hearts. She is a despicable proponent the most extreme brand of selfishness and Narcissism. (Hmm…maybe it’s not so hard to understand after all). And she is an avowed, nearly militant, atheist. How does that jibe with the Christo-centric rightist movement in America?
The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t. Rand’s philosophy would be abhorrent to conscious religious conservatives. The problem is that so many of them are closer to catatonic than consciousness. Thankfully, most Americans are more aware and have dismissed Rand and her breed of mean-spirited egoism. The recent film version of her “Atlas Shrugged” was a monumental failure, creatively and financially.
But that doesn’t mean that her fans are non-existent or immaterial. So it was nice to see this video from the American Values Network and the accompanying documentation of Rand’s dementia:
From the American Values Network web site:
Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged has been among Amazon’s top 20 best sellers for much of the past year. This year she’s outsold Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life, and The Shack combined! Rep. Paul Ryan–the Republican choice to address the nation following the State of the Union and author of the Republican budget–credits Ayn Rand as the reason he got in to politics, and he requires all his staff and interns to read her books.
So who is Ayn Rand, and why this spike in interest in her teachings? Ayn Rand has resurfaced in recent years as the philosopher championed by the Tea Party and many prominent Republican leaders. But, as conservative evangelical icon Chuck Colson recently pointed out, Ayn Rand’s strong atheism, absolute rejection of Christ’s teachings, and goal of replacing religion with her belief system stands in total opposition to all that which America’s faith community holds most dear.
And a few quotes from Rand:
“I don’t approve of religion.”
“[Faith] is a sign of a psychological weakness. . . I regard it as evil to place your emotions, your desire, above the evidence of what your mind knows. That’s what you’re doing with the idea of God.”
“What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”
“It must be either reason or faith. I am against God for the reason that I don’t want to destroy reason.”
Feel free to pass this on to anyone you know who has been suckered in by this freak.
Please don’t tar all atheists with the same brush.
I don’t believe I’ve tarred atheists with any brush at all. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of Christians. And I certainly don’t think (and not did say) that all atheists are like Rand.
1st ( again ) not all conservatives are Christian conservatives.
2nd why does one have to subscribe to 100% of a person’s philosophy? MLK held political views that were & still are outside the mainstream in the US (he was a borderline communist), so by your reasoning we all have to reject the good he did because we don’t agree with everything he said. If I agree with Washington & Jefferson does that mean I’m pro-slavery. Or better yet if religious people have to reject all of rand because she was an atheist, then I guess atheist must reject MLK, wow Godslayer & Desdinova are fucking racist, you guys are pieces of shit.
Why can’t a religious person disagree with Rand on religion, but agree with her on her belief in limited government? Her belief that the best way for the most people to prosper is through letting people control their own lives and businesses.
I agree with her on religion, except for the charity part. It IS a moral duty; it is a measure of ethical strength and integrity in more than one regard. You don’t need organized religion to tell you that. Other than her views on atheism, (some of her views on it anyway), she’s a goddamn fool. Her ideal for the US would have been a state similar to pre-revolution France. The vast VAST majority toil and starve for the unearned extravagance of the privileged and those self-convinced of divine and/or social entitlement.
It is our moral duty? So if a person states their morality comes from a book or prophet, then you are against legislating morality (like some conservatives want). However, if a person states their morality is inherit in his/herself then we it is ok legislate that.
Also you make the same mistake a lot liberals who are jealous of wealthier people make. You don’t know who the wealthy people in our country are, you think the millionaires in this country are mostly trust fund babies like Paris Hilton. Not the case. 5 or 6 years ago I was offered a job with Merrill Lynch and the 1st thing I was told was to read The Millionaire Next Door, it is a non political book that studied who were the actual millionaires in the USA (they wanted me to know who exactly their clients were). Turns out over 80% of millionaires are self made, the car driven my the most millionaires? Ford F150. This idea that rich people are just born lucky and have unearned extravagance, simply not true. Its class warfare that you are buying into.
I never said anything about legislation…..at all.
I could give a shit who they are. Self made? Who cares? If you make millions and don’t give most of that shit away and keep enough to still live a more than comfortable life, then you’re evil. You’re evil as hell. Damn straight it’s class warfare, rich people shouldn’t exist. Who cares that they made a successful business that employs lots and lots of people? If you keep millions and millions of dollars just for yourself so you can live in pampered extravagance while people who work to make you rich live in diseased squalor, then you are evil. Why should anyone be allowed to acquire so much wealth that they can drop an average person’s yearly salary on an armoire for their bedroom? That money can save ten people’s lives. That money can put four or five kids through a great school for ten years. That money could help build or research the next generation weapons or protection for our military. But no, that money should in fact be used so ONE PERSON can have something pretty to look at for 15 seconds a day. Again, you can keep 200k of your money, I have no problem with that. You could live like a king with that much money; a very, very comfortable life. If not, great! Use that money to expand your business and use it to employ more and more people. Keep 200k for yourself. Next year? Expand, employ even more people, keep 200k for yourself. The majority of that money should come back to the people IN SOME WAY. Instead, you think ONE PERSON should be able to own six mansions in the US and vacation in Europe for five months a year. Extravagance is evil, I don’t need Jesus Christ to tell me that.
HA! This is great comedy. Do you really believe what you said? Are you really that jealous of successful people? Do you really lack that much understanding of how the economy works?
“Who cares that they made a successful business that employs lots and lots of people?” Well you should and everyone employed by them should, because if they didn’t then you’d be homeless on the street.
“If you keep millions and millions of dollars just for yourself so you can live in pampered extravagance while people who work to make you rich live in diseased squalor,” If you don’t like what you earn, then I’d suggest improving yourself and getting a better job. Don’t blame people who have done so and have worked to get ahead in life.
“you can keep 200k of your money, I have no problem with that. You could live like a king with that much money; a very, very comfortable life. If not, great! Use that money to expand your business and use it to employ more and more people. Keep 200k for yourself. Next year? Expand, employ even more people, keep 200k for yourself” I run a small business (I don’t make $200k in this economy, but when the housing market comes back, should hopefully be there), if I’m capped at $200K, I’m shutting down shop when I hit $200K and all my employees are going to be out of work. Why would I reinvest my money into a business I can’t get anything out of? Why would I spend my time and effort expanding a business that I’m not going to get any return from? I’d be spending my spare time on the golf course or traveling, not dealing with the stress of running a business. So your great idea would put millions of people out of work.
People would also stop investing capital in new businesses. When a bank or venture capitalist invest in a new business, they are doing it to make money. If they can’t or have no desire to make over $200K each year, then billions of dollars that are invested in new businesses each year will dry up. As a result thousands of new jobs won’t be created.
“That money can save ten people’s lives. That money can put four or five kids through a great school for ten years. That money could help build or research the next generation weapons or protection for our military. But no, that money should in fact be used so ONE PERSON can have something pretty to look at for 15 seconds a day.” See none of those things will happen if people didn’t have the motivation to get rich and want to have luxury items. Altruism never has and never will be a factor that will motivate a large percentage of the population.
“Why should anyone be allowed to acquire so much wealth that they can drop an average person’s yearly salary on an armoire for their bedroom?” Because they earned it. They put in the time and hard work to get the money, it is theirs and they can do with it as they please. If they want to donate it all to charity or spend it on blow and hookers in a $5000 a night suite at Caesar’s, I don’t give a shit because it isn’t my money. I, and no one else in society, have a claim to it and should tell them how to spend it.
Also I guess people that make high end furniture and other luxury items would just be out of work in your dream world.
Jealous? No, if I made that much money I WOULD GIVE IT ALL AWAY. I don’t need much to live happily, so keeping 80 or 90k for myself would be more than enough.
No, I wouldn’t be homeless, I would just work for a smaller business.
First, you missed the point completely. The point wasn’t that I’m upset with what I make, the point was I make what the millionare’s ‘earn’. I work my ass off and get paid minimum wage while generating the money that makes the owner rich. I make the money for the owner, but I don’t see any of it. The owner sits behind a desk for four hours a day and just takes what I make for him. That’s the biggest scam the human race has ever been subjected to. Rich people DO NOT ‘earn’ what they make, I do. I do the work, I generate the money flow. I DO NOT make what I earn, that’s the problem with this system. And yet another conservative thinks that people can simply ‘improve themselves’ or ‘acquire some skills’. Yeah, I’ll just click my heels and do that asap.
Actually rereading it it does sound like I meant ‘use the 200k to invest and expand’, I didn’t. I meant use those millions to do so but keep no more than 200k, nothing would be able to function otherwise. That would be massively stupid. This point started out very differently, until I reread what I wrote. Sorry about that.
You can have a few hundred thousand a year and still be rich. The idea that one needs millions and millions to be rich is preposterous. You can have workers that generate millions upon millions of dollars but you can still have several hundred thousand and still live way above those workers, while paying them much, much better. It’s too lopsided, it isn’t right to cut workers’ pay or jobs so you (as a CEO) can stay above 10mil a year in salary.
Again, NO ONE ‘earns’ millions and millions of dollars a year. They might pull that much in, but that’s not ‘earning’ it. Black ops soldiers ‘earn’ that much money; sewage treatment workers ‘earn’ that much money. Sitting behind a desk making command decisions is only just as imperative to the business as the worker that makes the product. The worker building the product works harder, and for WAY less than is appropriate. I understand that ‘that’s the way it is in capitalism’, but it shouldn’t be. Workers should make what they ‘earn’.
HA This was a great rant. Your ability to make me laugh knows no bounds.
So let me get this straight, you think people who earn over $200K a year are just lucky? They just sit behind a desk and the money just rolls in?….AWESOME!
You didn’t read the whole thing, did you? No, they aren’t just ‘lucky’. I’ll repeat myself….again. No one ‘earns’ millions and millions of dollars a year. ‘Earning’ money and ‘making’ money, ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Well could you get me a Desdinova Dictionary, because you are making up definitions.
According to Webster Earn means: to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered. So yes a CEO earns his/her money.
By that logic Paris Hilton, the real housewives, and the cast of jersey shore ‘earn’ what they make. Apparently the quotation marks pass your understanding. I’ll say it once more Sean, NO ONE ‘EARNS’ MILLIONS AND MILLIONS A YEAR. There is no work in existence that qualifies as EQUAL RETURN for work or services rendered that justifies such disgusting greed. So no, CEO’s DO NOT ‘earn’ what they make. Aside from what I said earlier, like clandestine operatives or people who have to wade through solid human waste for a living. Are you done purposely missing my point?? I bet not, so let me say it in a different way. There is no task or job that any one person can perform that deserves multimillion dollar salaries. There is no one task or job that any one person can perform that is EQUAL to millions and millions of dollars. Anyone that says differently is consumed by greed and is desperate for rationalization. Are we done Sean?
That was one of the most honest posts I’ve seen here – finally, the curtain is pulled back to see what the real beliefs are. I guess I wasn’t too far off to accuse folks here of not respecting other peoples freedom. Of course I got “yelled” at for that accusation, but clearly the truth comes out eventually.
You’re right, it does. Apparently freedom equals rampant greed to you guys. Every inch of your politics stems from greed, doesn’t it? All you care about is money.
“This idea that rich people are just born lucky and have unearned extravagance, simply not true.”
And you’re making the mistake that a lot of libertarians make when dealing with liberals. I don’ care if the millionaires are “self-made”, whatever that means. I don’t care what kind of truck they drive or whether they had rich mommies or whatever. What I care about is how their action or inactions affect the nation and the body politic. Is their self made business dumping toxic chemicals in our river? Are the risky investments they make threatening the fabric of the economy? Are they just general douchebags? I don’t care whether their extravagance was earned or unearned. I care whether they are being treated as above the law because of their wealth. I care whether one of the extravagances that they feel entitled to is to treat the rest of us like serfs. Mmmk?
You’re mixing issues. allowing people to keep what they earn and having a small limited government is not the same as having the government allow certain businesses to do things and not others.
As to the specifics of your post:
“I don’t care what kind of truck they drive or whether they had rich mommies or whatever.” This suggest you do care.
“Is their self made business dumping toxic chemicals in our river?” Polluting is not a libertarian stance.
“Are the risky investments they make threatening the fabric of the economy? “ This is a lengthy argument if you want to get into it, but the government choosing businesses as “too big to fail” and playing in the market by pushing loans and home ownership on people who shouldn’t have them threatens the fabric of the economy. You can’t take away the loss in a profit and loss system and be surprised when things turn sour in a big way.
“I care whether they are being treated as above the law because of their wealth. I care whether one of the extravagances that they feel entitled to is to treat the rest of us like serfs. Mmmk?” Who advocates people should be treated differently because of their wealth? I, and any libertarians or conservatives that I know, don’t. Actually the only one’s who want people treated differently are liberals. I’d like all people treated the same and held to the same standards and rules. Liberals, like Desdinova, want wealthy people punished with limits on what they can earn or a higher tax rate placed on them.
“Polluting” may not be a “libertarian stance”, but I know libertarians whose businesses pollute or whose empty warehouses rust away as an eyesore because it’s cheaper not to tear them down and detoxify the environment, but they pretend there is not pollution. “I haven’t seen any water/air/ground pollution!”
Ayn Rand thought that “geniuses” should be allowed to do whatever they want…
I think Lou and Desdinova don’t want wealthy people “punished” (which libertarians are always moaning about – “oh you want to punish us for our success!” “Oh you hate wealthy people” “Oh you think money is evil” etc). Give me a break.
The people I know who are self-made millionaires (yes, I know some) actually could not have made their money entirely on their own. They rely on a structure already in place. Some are ethical and honest, some aren’t.
I think it comes down to something simple: (1) pay people who work for you a living wage with benefits; (2) make products and services that do what they are supposed to do without being harmful or defective, and when they are make it right; (3) don’t damage our environment. After that, make as much d@mn money as you want.
Actually, contrary to what you say, I see lots of libertarians and conservatives in the media scape who tell us that rich people “do so much for our country” that they shouldn’t have to pay the same amount in taxes, and despite people saying they want a free market, they’ll say we need tax breaks/credits/subsidies….
“Polluting” may not be a “libertarian stance”, but I know libertarians whose businesses pollute or whose empty warehouses rust away as an eyesore because it’s cheaper not to tear them down and detoxify the environment, but they pretend there is not pollution. “I haven’t seen any water/air/ground pollution!” And I know liberals who pollute? What’s your point? Most libertarians agree it is the roll of the government to settle and regulate these issues. The problem comes on the regulation end when some people want little to no restraints on pollution and other people, like Anne Leonard, use miss informed pseudoscience to advocate over restraint on pollution.
“Ayn Rand thought that “geniuses” should be allowed to do whatever they want…” No she didn’t. She thought that producers should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit, without do-gooders telling them how much to pay their employees, how much to charge for their product, etc. It is a belief in limited government, so that those people who can and do cause great improvements in society can do it with the restraint of government. It is not a belief in different sets of rules for different people.
“The people I know who are self-made millionaires (yes, I know some) actually could not have made their money entirely on their own. They rely on a structure already in place.” What does this mean?
“Actually, contrary to what you say, I see lots of libertarians and conservatives in the media scape who tell us that rich people “do so much for our country” that they shouldn’t have to pay the same amount in taxes” I’ve never seen any talking heads claim rich people should pay less in taxes than anyone else. libertarians and conservatives argue that they should pay less in taxes than they currently pay, which is 13% to 100% more than most people pay.
“and despite people saying they want a free market, they’ll say we need tax breaks/credits/subsidies….” Republicans and Democrats push for subsidies (as it pays their bills and gets them elected) libertarians and a few conservatives are against subsidies. As far as tax breaks or credits it is Reps and Dems who pick and choose who to give these to based on what businesses are in their states/districts and who donates to them. Libertarians and a few conservatives want a tax code that is enforced the same for everyone.
If a business is allowed to become so large that if it ever were to fail, it would drag down everyone with it, then yeah it’s too big to fail. Keywords there are ‘too big’. I never invested in AIG or Goldman Sachs etc. Why should I suffer because they failed? Because they were (are) too big; they work with too much wealth, so much that when they failed it caused a global catastrophuck. If people who have nothing to do with those businesses get screwed when they fail because they’re too big and represent a sizable portion of a nation’s GDP, then they are on fact too big to fail. Too big.
I don’t see it as punishment. I see it as one or two or three mansions for one person INSTEAD of 100 more soldiers, or 100 kids going to the best schools in the world for ten years, or a new rec center for a town that needs one, is evil. The way I see it, you don’t need that much to live a life of luxury. No one person should have remarkable amounts of money. The obscenely rich shouldn’t exist. You can live very well and do whatever you want with a few hundred thousand. Calling it punishment is childish in my opinion. If it were about punishment, prison would be involved.
If there truly is a thing as too big to fail (I don’t think there is), but lets say the government decides there is then the companies need to be broken up like MA Bell.
You’ve convinced me, people who have the nerve to want to make money and buy things are evil. Actually any one who keeps over $40,000 a year is evil. Do those fat cats making $90,000 a year need a 2000sq. ft. house? No, they can live in a 1000sq. ft house and be comfortable. If you don’t agree with me, well you’re just childish.
That’s not even close to what I’ve said. Have you forgotten the above arguments? Apparently…..
My guess is there is a significant gap between the number of copies sold and the number read when it comes to Atlas Shrugged. It’s a long and tedious doorstop of a novel.
I think Sean is a little disingenuous… and he clearly hasn’t heard the same people I ‘ve heard or read Ayn Rand for realz
I guess I could try to refute Sean point by point, but what would be the point? Waste more of my time talking to someone like him? I actually just feel like sighing…. I’ve seen too many people like him on forums and I don’t think it’s really worth a dialogue after a point. We are talking at cross-purposes.
One of the points that brought me back to this page was a comment though that does bear some exploration. It’s not that you have to embrace every aspect of a person’s philosophy to embrace a part, but you cannot be a support of Rand’s philosophy and a devout Christian. Christ promoted generosity and claimed that a rich man would not get into heaven. Rand said selfishness was the ultimate morality.
Sean, one reason why corporations and those who earn more should pay more in taxes (as a percentage) can be summed up with a real life example:
A Walmart was built in my suburb a few years ago. The addition of this behemoth of a store has created a cluster-eff of traffic in and around the major intersections to get to it, so the county has had to completely revamp them, all at a cost to the taxpayers. Walmart’s heirs include four of the richest families in the country along with several other billionaires, and local municipalities all help to pay for that with infrastructure costs passed onto non-billionaire to help the Waltons BE billionaires.
The Waltons wouldn’t be wealthy without the freeway system, the telecommunications lines subsidized by tax dollars, the local cities expanding intersections, etc. Yes, they create jobs. Lots and lots of poverty-level jobs.
So if thousands of citizens are driving to the same location and making a road crowded, it is the businesses fault? The thousands of people driving to that location for their desired product or service aren’t seeing a benefit of the new road?
The Walton’s are rich because they provide goods and services that people want at a low price. The government doesn’t build roads for Walmart it builds roads because its citizens want roads to the locations they travel.
You could make the best most advanced roads and public transit lead to a store selling Turd Burgers and Turd Burger Inc isn’t going get rich. Your argument belongs in one of those burgers.
That one business is the sole cause for the congestion and the principals of that business profit because of it, at the cost of the taxpayers. So in effect, the taxpayers are partially subsidizing their wealth.
When homebuilders build new home developments, it is not uncommon for cities or other local municipalities to tack on fees that are spread among the new residents (and/or businesses) to pay for new freeway offramps, interchanges, street upgrades, etc.
And? Who cares what is the cause of the congestion, if the government is in charge of building and maintaining roads, then they need to keep the roads up to date what ever the reason. And the reason in a Walmart’s case is the citizens are traveling to a location and causing a congestion, so if improving the roads is the answer, that’s not Walmart’s fault and they aren’t unduly benefiting form it, the citizens voted with their feet (or wheels in this case). The citizens want the road, so they get it, God forbid the government actually be responsive to its citizens.
Also Walmart brings in Millions of dollars in new tax revenue, so any city more than recoups its costs.
So a new Walmart gets built who wins who loses.
Winners: Walmart (the get a new location for profit), Walmart’s customers (they get a store closer to home to buy the products they want), the city (they get millions in new tax revenue), Walmart employees (they get jobs).
Losers: People afraid of progress (oh no traffic!…and I liked paying $9 for Crest at Woolworths.), Poorly run businesses.
If there was not a highway system, the Walton family would not have 10 or so billionaires among them, so yes, they do benefit greatly from taxpayer-funded infrastructure more than the Joe Blow who drives to one of their stores to purchase a bottle of Zyrtec.
This is the worst argument I’ve ever heard, but I’ll play along anyway the Walton’s pay FAR more in taxes than Joe Blow and Joe Blow can use the same highway system to create his own business if he wants.
I never said the Waltons don’t pay their fair share of taxes. I have no idea how much they pay. I just said they benefit greatly from taxpayer subsidized infrastructure and in my city were the beneficiary of taxpayer subsidized road improvements that were made for the sole purpose of selling goods in their store.
I notice that for every intelligent argument you make, you also make invisible inferences.
Its not tax payer subsidized infrastructure, It is out right paid for by the tax payers (who by the way are mostly the rich and businesses) and everyone benefits from it and everyone has the same opportunity to benefit from it. Saying rich people or businesses benefit more from the roads only takes into account their income (which isn’t at a result of the roads, but their earning ability. Everyone benefits from faster commute times and safer roads. People who don’t pay taxes or pay little in taxes benefit from the roads that are built by other tax dollars too.
And again, in the example you gave, the additional tax revenue from the new Walmart will pay for any road improvements the city saw necessary to build and millions for other projects.
The town I grew up in had a Chrysler plant. When it was built, the city had to add new roads to the plant and a new highway exit and entrance. The result of the added tax revenue was the road improvements were paid for. In addition city services greatly improved, other roads were improved, a new community center was built all at no extra cost the residents. But I guess another way to look at is it is to just say my town subsidized Chrysler.
The auto industry would not exist without taxpayer funded roads. The airline industry would not exist in its current form without the ongoing massive investment in aerospace research on the part of the government. The pharmaceutical industry benefits greatly from government sponsored research at the NIH. The software we are all using to communicate in this comments section would not have been developed had there not been massive government investment in high technology from the 1950s onward.
Corporations, patents, copyrights and money are all products of the state. Capitalism cannot exist without the state. State and capital are entwined and have always been so. Libertarians are invoking a unicorn when they blather on about ‘free markets’.
You seem to be confusing Anarchist with Libertarian. Limited government and no government aren’t the same thing. So go ahead and burn that strawman.
I’m not burning anything son. I was providing examples of the largest industries in the United States, all of whom have drawn great benefit from government investment. Any private fortunes derived from these industries is therefore indebted to the society who financed that investment.
Comprende?
“I’m not burning anything son.”
hahaha what douche.
But to answer your question. The argument that the auto industry unduly benefits from roads, is bunk, everyone benefits form the roads. People who don’t have cars benefit from the roads.
Do you have an amount of “level of indebtedness” in mind? Somewhere between 0 and 100% – Just curious what you think is just and fair.
Ayn Rand was a racist,God hating idiot just like all the tea baggers and Republitards!!!
I have a Neighbor that is a liberatarian he hates all minorities and is “against” Govt.Programs that is until he started getting social security and public aid.After listening to all his rants for years he became upset when everyone found out he was on those same govt.programs he claimed to be so “dangerous”…what a creep and hypocrit he is…