tell me if I have point

Atlas Shrugged

tell me if I have point

mpunz 12-02-2007, 2:23 AM
Where I disagree with Ayn Rand:

- The world won't function with the impracticality of the system that she wishes to construct. Not everyone is going to abide by her philosophy, and her government can only thrive where everyone's in on it.

Rand applauds industrialists and also commends self-reliance. In Atlas Shrugged, she mentions how the U.S. is plausible because it gives everyone of every stature a chance to succeed. Despite that, she is strongly against welfare and taxing. Without those two factors it would be impossible to have a public education or healthcare. Both of which are factors of success. If a child is born in poverty, how can he possibly go a different direction without free schooling or without his health taken care of?

The fact of the matter is - people have opinions that vary. This is individuality, which is the whole premise of Rand's philosophy.

- Art shouldn't be analyzed. It's art - it should only matter to its creator.

I agree with her thoughts on:

- It would be much simpler to abide by the philosophy that A is A. We live in a world that over analyzes and ignores reality. Why can't we just realize that it is what is? To live life in worry rather than to accept happiness and cherish it, would be a recipe for self-destruction.

- Common sense would tell us that working for our own happiness is the way to go. Religion has taught us otherwise. This became labelled as selfishness and has been forever embedded onto countless minds. It's never a good idea to base decisions on fear rather than logic.

Re: tell me if I have point

Josh 12-03-2007, 1:12 PM
YOU STATED: "- The world won't function with the impracticality of the system that she wishes to construct. Not everyone is going to abide by her philosophy, and her government can only thrive where everyone's in on it."

You have no proof of this, the world has never implemented an ideal "Ayn Rand" style government. And the closest period in the world's history to this ideal occured during what is known as the industrial revolution. This ideal government does not require anyone to abide by any certain philosophy, only that citizens respect each other's "inalienable rights" (this does not include education, social securtiy, health care, housing, 2 cars in every garage etc.) However citizens are required to deal with the results of their actions (or lack thereof) on their own, and not to depend on their fellow citizens who are forced to compensate their "peers" with the threat of prison and loss of certain rights. The role of the government is to protect the rights of citizens, starting with property rights.

YOU STATED: "Rand applauds industrialists and also commends self-reliance. In Atlas Shrugged, she mentions how the U.S. is plausible because it gives everyone of every stature a chance to succeed. Despite that, she is strongly against welfare and taxing. Without those two factors it would be impossible to have a public education or healthcare. Both of which are factors of success. If a child is born in poverty, how can he possibly go a different direction without free schooling or without his health taken care of?"

Wow, I thought welfare was for people who couldn't survive. That doesn't sound successful to me. I would like to see the statistics of how many "successful" people started on welfare (I am willing to wager more "successful" people began on a level that could award them welfare, but refused to accept it). I have no data, but you made the statement that welfare is required for a successful government so it's your responsibility to back up your argument. Most people would agree with public schooling being a key to a government's success, but I personally beg to differ. It's not worth arguing at this time (however I am happy to if you are interested). Although the U.S. has the best health care available, people would say our system is in shambles. My opinion is that medicaide and certain laws are responsible for the outrageous costs, but care you get from doctors in the U.S. is without a doubt the best the world has ever seen.
You didn't really back up any of your statements so I don't feel obliged to back mine up too much, except to say that I disagree with you. Which books by Ayn Rand you have read? She explains her beliefs quite thoroughly in her books (I don't want to imply that I'm just a blind follower of Ayn Rand, but damn, she is right most of the time......like 99.9%)
Thanks for posting your opinion, and if you got this far, thanks for reading mine (also, you are welcome).

Re: tell me if I have point

mpunz 12-03-2007, 3:51 PM
Thanks.

First off, I only posted this because of my strong desire to better understand what kind of system Rand wants to establish. I read Atlas Shrugged this summer, and I was in awe of Rand's brilliance. Being fifteen, I know I might not fully grasp her ideas - but I surely got the gist of it. In fact, I've since been a devoute follower. PLEASE, you're more than welcome, to give me a clearer idea of her thoughts on a perfect government. I'm in no way trying to spite Rand - I have a tremendous amount of respect for her to say the least.

Re: tell me if I have point

mpunz 12-03-2007, 5:44 PM
OH AND BY THE WAY, I JUST WATCHED SICKO BY MICHAEL MOORE. Can you argue against him? I've been deep in thought, drowning in a state of confusion - I'd want to know how you think Rand would address the issues he brings up.

Re: tell me if I have point

Josh 12-04-2007, 8:54 AM
I wanted to post because you made a few claims that I didn't agree with. You have posted your opinion pubicly which is a request for criticism, and I was obliging you with mine. I would be happy to give my simple understanding of Rand's philosophy. I in no way speak for Ayn Rand, but I think I have a grasp of her philosophy as it pertains to politics. Feel free to bring up any subject you like and I'll do my best. There are other non fiction books as well that Rand wrote which discuss her philosophy as well. One that is specific to government is called "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." This is a group of essays written by Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, and Nathaniel Brennan. There are some others as well, "For the New Intellectual" is pretty good. This seemed more of a psychological profile of those who support altruism, communism, socialism, etc. The first book I ever read by Rand was "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" which is a collection of her notes and other pertaining essays which she made when writing "Atlas Shrugged." A friend let me borrow it and I read the first chapter then went out and bought "Atlas Shrugged." This one I really liked because there are accounts of Rand speaking to people she knew which inspired some of the characters in "Atlas Shrugged."
I will have to check out Sicko. The only work I have seen by Michael Moore was "Bowling for Columbine." I was going to watch the one he did about 9/11, but I had read something about him making up a lot of his "facts." But even in "Bowling for Columbine," he didn't seem to be very objective in his pursuit of the "truth." Only revealing information that supports one side of the argument and then acting as if he doesn't care what the truth is. He just seems greasy to me.
That's all the time I have for now.

Re: tell me if I have point

Josh 12-05-2007, 10:21 AM
http://sicko.ncpa.org/
Found this website you might find interesting. Not sure of the validity of it, but then I'm not sure of the validity of Michael Moore either.
As far as public healthcare, it is a horrible idea. The only possible end result can be dramatic decrease in health. Doctors must get paid. They spend years and years studying and even after earning a degree much of their time is spent studying and staying on top of the latest and best ways to treat patients. They are also extremely liable for anything that could possibly go wrong when caring for a patient, even things they have little or no control over.
The misunderstanding here is that citizens are entitled to health care. This may seem heartless; but no one is. It's very sad looking at it from the side of the patient. Life is the supreme value in our existence, and to see someone die when there is an educated doctor around that could save that life, it makes you want to puke. However, no one has a claim on that doctor's ability except the doctor himself. Sure, our government could force people to go to school and be doctors and force them to treat everyone that has the slightest tickle in their throat. You still wouldn't save every life, and you would have a very miserable population of doctors in your country that probably wouldn't want to treat anyone, with no motivation to discover new treatments, medicines, etc.
Well, back to work.

Re: tell me if I have point

Zip 12-08-2007, 10:47 AM

mpunz wrote:
Where I disagree with Ayn Rand: - The world won't function with the impracticality of the system that she wishes to construct. Not everyone is going to abide by her philosophy, and her government can only thrive where everyone's in on it.

Really? The method of government, i.e. Democracy isn't going to change.

Rand doesn't negate taxation in my understanding, just the current level of over taxation. Taxes would still be required to run the reduced functions of the state (Military defence, Police and Law Courts)

mpunz wrote:
If a child is born in poverty, how can he possibly go a different direction without free schooling or without his health taken care of?

Myth #1 that free schooling is not free, nor is the "free healthcare" In Canada we have universal healthcare, 30% of all taxation goes to healthcare through transfers to the provinces from the federal coffers. In other words 30% of my taxes goes to pay for healthcare, so as a middle income earner ($50,000 to $80,000) who pays about 40% of his wage in taxes 30% of that is for healthcare so $120.00 of every $1000.00 earned or, at $80,000/year a total of $9,600.00 goes to healthcare. Personally I haven't been in need of medical assistance for years.

How can he go in a different direction? Work, work hard.

To paraphrase... Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for yourself.

Re: tell me if I have point

Kraig 04-08-2008, 12:22 AM
"Despite that, she is strongly against welfare and taxing. Without those two factors it would be impossible to have a public education or healthcare. Both of which are factors of success."

Quite the opposite, all welfare progams add to the destruction of a society, not it's sucess. Socialized education, while at first seems to be the most harmless, is without a doubt the most evil. This was one of the first welfare programs accepted by the United States, and it will not be the last. You might want to do some historical research into what actually contributed to the sucess of the United States and how those programs you mentioned have been (and will continue to be) attached on after the fact - as leeches. What Ayn Rand described in Atlas Shrugged has happened to the United States, and continues to progress towards the same destruction today. Go read Francisco's speach on money again, and then do some research on the history of the US dollar and the Federal Reserve. Our country is being drained as we speak.

And here are some quotes on education, from those who have said it better than myself:

What's the difference between a bright, inquisitive five-year-old, and a dull, stupid nineteen-year-old? Fourteen years of the British educational system.
– Bertrand Russell

I feel ashamed that so many of us cannot imagine a better way to do things than locking children up all day in cells instead of letting them grow up knowing their families, mingling with the world, assuming real obligations, striving to be independent and self-reliant and free."
- John Taylor Gatto

I don't want my children fed or clothed by the state, but if I had to choose, I would prefer that to their being educated by the state.
– Max Victor Belz

Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.
– Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister (1874)

Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they're not tempted to think about any other role.
– William T. Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1889

The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.
– Karl Marx, "The Communist Manifesto"

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
– Rudyard Kipling

My schooling not only failed to teach me what it professed to be teaching, but prevented me from being educated to an extent which infuriates me when I think of all I might have learned at home by myself.
– George Bernard Shaw

We are students of words; we are shut up in schools, and colleges, and recitation rooms, for ten or fifteen years, and come out at last with a bag of wind, a memory of words, and do not know a thing.
– Ralph Waldo Emerson

In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present eduction conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds, and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people, or any of their children, into philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen – of whom we have an ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.
– John D. Rockefeller, General Education Board (1906)

That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.
– H.L. Mencken

We must create out of the younger generation a generation of Communists. We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists.... We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them. From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children's nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists.
– Communist Party Education Workers Congress (1918)

Intelligence appears to be the thing that enables a man to get along without education. Education enables a man to get along without the use of his intelligence.
– Albert Edward Wiggin

Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted thought at least to be free. The truth is that the materialistic paternalism of the present day, if allowed to go on unchecked, will rapidly make of America one huge "Main Street," where spiritual adventure will be discouraged and democracy will be regarded as consisting in the reduction of all mankind to the proportions of the narrowest and least gifted of the citizens.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
– C.S. Lewis

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.
– Albert Einstein

Re: tell me if I have point

Chris.S 01-10-2009, 10:08 AM
As someone who would be dead right now if not for the Canadian health care system, I gotta say I definitely support it. I also support welfare and public schooling. Yes, as an Objectivist.

1) Healthcare. Please tell me how a low-come family is supposed to pay for life-saving surgery for one of their family members. Without going into massive amounts of unpayable debt. You can't. That's an extreme example, but medical procedures can be very expensive, and there are very few families who could properly afford the costs of say cancer treatments over an extended period. But I do totally agree that Medical Doctors should be very well compensated for their services. In Canada, they are, but I highly doubt that very many Doctors went through all those years of intense learning to save people's lives just to get rich off people's health misfortunes. None of the Doctor's I've been in contact with, and there's been many, had dollar signs in their eyes when seeing sickness. I'd rather think that they did all that because a) they liked learning it, and b) they see their own values reflected in the people they help. Tax-funded essential health care is not the devil a lot of people make it out to be.

2) Welfare/Social Assistance. Using welfare to get back on your feet after a lay-off or some other unfortunate financial happenings if fine. Living off it habitually for years is the problem. That is the reason for welfare's bad rap. In Canada, if you receive social assistance, you also get help finding a job and job skills training if needed. The government wants you off assistance asap. It is definitely unfortunate that people take advantage of it, but the majority of people who receive assistance aren't on it for very long, because they don't want to be a burden on the country.

3) Public schooling. I'm probably going to home educate my children, but the merit of public government funded education is that it provides a basic level of education for the majority of parents who cannot otherwise afford private education. I think I received a pretty good education from public school, but that's because I took responsibility for myself and paid attention in class. But the same thing that is it's merit is also why people rag on it - it only provides a basic level. It caters to the lowest common denominator. What people (mostly parents) should understand is that it's not just the teacher's responsibility to educate their child - it's theirs and the child's as well. It's a "3 way" street, so to speak. The parents must take an active role in helping educate and inspire their child, to supplement and expand on what they learn in school. The child must ask questions, explore, and seek knowledge.

I would rather pay some taxes for basic health care than see higher mortality from preventable, curable illnesses. I would rather pay taxes for social assistance than have even more homeless people or criminals on the streets I walk. I would rather pay taxes for a basic education than have an even lower national IQ, and even less motivation to seek higher learning. Ideally I would rather not pay taxes at all and everyone could afford health care, never lost their job and could afford private school. But this isn't an ideal world.

I pay taxes because I see my values reflected in the majority of people I've worked with, gone to school with and even met on the street. They all have ambition, want to work hard and get ahead in life. Am I my brothers keeper? No. Are they my keeper? Hell no. The world isn't as bad as Rand portrays it. I'm not sacrificing anything doing this because I think it makes my country better (for now).

If you disagree with the above institutions, campaign to abolish them or campaign for an opt-out. This is a democracy after all. But remember if you opt-out you have to pay everything yourself. Not many people can afford that.

Re: tell me if I have point

mjollnir 01-20-2009, 1:20 PM
Having the ability and the means to create a voluntary association to help the less fortunate when one(s) have the means to do so is one thing, but to use 'need' and 'misfortune' as an appeal to the use of government (i.e, force) to assist those less fortunate is another. To do so ('democratically') would be monstrous in Rand's view. Just because a majority voted its consent does not mitigate or justify rights' violations. Individuals cannot be voted into ends that are not their own, lest all of civilization becomes chattel.

Re: tell me if I have point

duffer 01-24-2009, 8:56 AM
chris,
i'm afraid justifying universal healthcare and welfare using rands philosophy is a bit like justifying abortion using the teachings of the catholic church.