Originally posted by PinkFloydOK. Slack given.
Aww c'mon Granny--cut me some slack. No I don't get out much anymore, but that's irrrelevant. One doesn't have to read Mein Kampf to know Hitler was insane, and "getting out" will not change my core values and beliefs, which happen to iclude the belief that most people are altruistic.
Granny.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirSo...what period of history had no "the rich"? The feudal system is usually thought of as a medieval thing, but then what about the Pharoahs and the Jewish slaves?
No. See. History.
The feudal system led to rich land owners.
Industry led to a select group of people owning other resources (like sweat shops, etc.).
These two groups came together to form the loving and caring family we know as "the rich."
Now, obviously this stuck a bit in the graw of the general population who took due note that if they we s worth as much as health, equality and freedom.
Of course it is.
How far back do we have to look to find utopia? How well fed, safe, sheltered and numerous were people back then, if such a time ever existed?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungObviously you can go back to hunter gatherers.
So...what period of history had no "the rich"? The feudal system is usually thought of as a medieval thing, but then what about the Pharoahs and the Jewish slaves?
How far back do we have to look to find utopia? How well fed, safe, sheltered and numerous were people back then, if such a time ever existed?
The point that I'm making is that the ruling classes eventually needed a rationalisation of their behaviour and Ayn Rand supplied it.
Originally posted by shavixmirNothing you've said in this post is relevant to the discussion shav. It has been enlightening though, enlightening to your, er, condition.
And of course property is worth as much as health, equality and freedom.
Of course it is.
Previously you have said humans are not rational, in the same post you say that Rands objectivist rationalism is the problem. Do you deny that any human can lead a rational life? I agree that many don't, it requires effort to examine your own philosophy of life and, extremely importantly, weed out the contradictions.
This little snippet at the bottom of your post caught my eye "equality and freedom" sounds romantic, at least it would sound romantic if it wasn't utter bollocks.
Free people are not equal
Equal people are not free.
If we could magically wave a big wand and every piece of wealth was collected and then divided absolutely equally (does the idea make you moist?) then a week after that event the differences would already be showing, some would have built on their wealth others would have squandered it. The only way for everyone to be equal (the commie wet dream) is for everyone to be equally in the gutter.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou can't even say the hunter gatherers didn't have rich. The strongest among them, the best hunters and gatherers would have risen to the top and had their pick of women, food, pretty much everything. Who is this "ruling class" Shav?
Obviously you can go back to hunter gatherers.
The point that I'm making is that the ruling classes eventually needed a rationalisation of their behaviour and Ayn Rand supplied it.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI suppose so. That's because they didn't stay still so could not accumulate wealth. Everyone is poor, instead of some being rich. What wealth differences could exist did; chieftains, priests and weaponsmiths would have greater wealth than others. Some tribes could outhunt others or war on them to drive them away from choice hunting and gathering land.
Obviously you can go back to hunter gatherers.
The point that I'm making is that the ruling classes eventually needed a rationalisation of their behaviour and Ayn Rand supplied it.
Let us know how things work out in your hunting and gathering community. We'll probably be coming to rescue you one of these days when you discover your complete impotence in the face of outside threats. It might be military support. It might be medical support. We can ship you food.
But the hunter-gatherers? In today's world, they're just welfare recipients. That way of life cannot compete with modern human social structures. It's impractical.
Originally posted by WajomaThat's a tautology and a waste of finger practice.
Free people are not equal
Equal people are not free.
What you're saying is also complete rubbish.
Take for instance Roman times. All free peoples were equal, all slaves were equal, but not free.
Free people are equal in Freedom. Equal people are free in equality.
What the hell are you saying? Twisting words, me thinks.
Originally posted by dryhumpYou don't know who the ruling class are?
You can't even say the hunter gatherers didn't have rich. The strongest among them, the best hunters and gatherers would have risen to the top and had their pick of women, food, pretty much everything. Who is this "ruling class" Shav?
You were born from an egg (old Dutch saying), I presume.
Originally posted by Dace AceWhat's going on here?
I just finished reading this great book by Ayn Rand, and was curious on other folk’s opinion of this book.
It seems that many countries are falling into the trap of just worrying about serving peoples needs, at the cost of burdening or destroying the industrial strength that keeps a nation running.
For a book that was written in the 1950's, it is incredible on how keenly it applies to today’s societies.
Originally posted by shavixmirI wanted your opinion of who the ruling class are. That's why I asked. I didn't want to assume that I knew what you thought. Better to get it straight from the horse's mouth.
You don't know who the ruling class are?
You were born from an egg (old Dutch saying), I presume.
Originally posted by Dace AceGreat book my a$$! Her writing is unbearable! But, at least she has a totally f-ed up social/political "philosophy" to help prop up her crappy prose!
I just finished reading this great book by Ayn Rand, and was curious on other folk’s opinion of this book.
It seems that many countries are falling into the trap of just worrying about serving peoples needs, at the cost of burdening or destroying the industrial strength that keeps a nation running.
For a book that was written in the 1950's, it is incredible on how keenly it applies to today’s societies.
****I'm sorry. Please continue...
Originally posted by bjohnson407It did seem needlessly long to me. I would have enjoyed the story much more if it had been about 700 pages instead of 1168. Still, I think she raised some pretty valid points about the virtues of capitalism.
Great book my a$$! Her writing is unbearable! But, at least she has a totally f-ed up social/political "philosophy" to help prop up her crappy prose!
****I'm sorry. Please continue...
Originally posted by dryhumpIf I was a horse I'd suck my own dick.
I wanted your opinion of who the ruling class are. That's why I asked. I didn't want to assume that I knew what you thought. Better to get it straight from the horse's mouth.
However, I ain't, so I can't. 😉
The ruling class are land owners and big business owners.