Randian Thoughts

@averagejoe1 said
God said tithe 10%. That is a heavy percentage, though I actually do more.
So, you have called me selfish. (altruism). Am I selfish? Is being selfish a bad thing?
This says that it can be a good thing.

https://vantagepointrecovery.com/7-reasons-selfish-good-thing/

There is no god.

@shavixmir said
There is no god.

Yeah, but I was just using that as a reference, it is a go-by for many wonderful people who contribute to the needy. They lean on it, and the grace and hope flowing from them is sustenance for those less fortunate.

@no1marauder said
The strange thing is: no one was asking Roark to do anything.

Oh, well that changes everything! Talk about getting in weeds! I think I will call in sick for this week so that I can read the 800 pages, and also suggest to our monitors to open up a new forum choice just for discussing The Fountainhead. You neeed to get out more.
Let's see....Were they asking him to NOT do something?

@averagejoe1 said
Oh, well that changes everything! Talk about getting in weeds! I think I will call in sick for this week so that I can read the 800 pages, and also suggest to our monitors to open up a new forum choice just for discussing The Fountainhead. You neeed to get out more.
Let's see....Were they asking him to NOT do something?

I guess they kinda wanted him not to blow up buildings.

@no1marauder said
I guess they kinda wanted him not to blow up buildings.

Then they should have abided by the conditions under which the building was designed.

BTW: a building, not 'buildings'. A very specific building. Too bad you need to rely on exaggeration to (try to) make your point

@no1marauder said
I guess they kinda wanted him not to blow up buildings.

😕eems 'they'. brrrrrrr. wanted a lot of things.

One day my mantra will be etched in stone............

Will you leave me the hell alone?

That is all Roark was asking for. Naaaa, libs are in everyone's face, Suzianne and I just had that discussion, I gave her a few examples, and the thread dried up.

@no1marauder said
In another thread, AJ brought up Howard Roark, the hero of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's tedious opus extolling the virtues of a few great men who drag the rest of us peasants towards whatever progress the human race achieves. A few questions were left unanswered by our primary resident Rand acolyte, Wajoma, which I'd like to explore.

He quoted from one of her ...[text shortened]... to the group not merely the individual.

So I'd like to see a plausible defense of the assertion.

Rand was brilliant to dumb down the economic concepts to where someone who has no idea what they're talking about can claim they do.

I'm not an economist, but even I can recognize how absurd these generalizations are to the broader economy. Especially in contemporary life, when we have so much corporate welfare, it makes these concepts pointless.

Like, yes I am moral. I have a job at Walmart and provide for my family at no cost to the government. But wait, you say my government is giving money to the company I work for to give to me? Now the morality is lost.

@wajoma said
Then they should have abided by the conditions under which the building was designed.

BTW: a building, not 'buildings'. A very specific building. Too bad you need to rely on exaggeration to (try to) make your point

Maybe he should have abided by what he knew were the conditions of any contract i.e. that you don't get to destroy other people's property based on a hissy fit.

The fact that you seem to have an ever expanding list of justifications for violence makes your claim that you agree with the libertarian non-agression principle a sick joke.

@no1marauder said
Maybe he should have abided by what he knew were the conditions of any contract i.e. that you don't get to destroy other people's property based on a hissy fit.

The fact that you seem to have an ever expanding list of justifications for violence makes your claim that you agree with the libertarian non-agression principle a sick joke.

It's called principle, some people have them. everyone should, you don't. Thankfully the jury at the trial were convinced.

So what do you do when the manager at the Gay Porno and Gloryhole Emporium with-holds your mop man wages.

Brucie: "No wages for you this week No1, don't be late on Monday"
No.1: "B b b but, we agreed 3.50 an hour plus tips."
Brucie: "Nope."
No1: "B b b but you owe me, we agreed."
Brucie: "Too bad, don't be late Monday."
No1: "O o o ok, Brucie, see you Monday."

No1 turns up Monday with his mop.

@wajoma said
It's called principle, some people have them. everyone should, you don't. Thankfully the jury at the trial were convinced.

So what do you do when the manager at the Gay Porno and Gloryhole Emporium with-holds your mop man wages.

Brucie: "No wages for you this week No1, don't be late on Monday"
No.1: "B b b but, we agreed 3.50 an hour plus tips."
Brucie: "Nope."
No1: ...[text shortened]... n't be late Monday."
No1: "O o o ok, Brucie, see you Monday."

No1 turns up Monday with his mop.

We both know a real jury would have taken 5 minutes to convict him.

Not being mentally deranged, my reaction when promises to me are not fulfilled isn't to blow up the property of other people.

@no1marauder said
We both know a real jury would have taken 5 minutes to convict him.

Not being mentally deranged, my reaction when promises to me are not fulfilled isn't to blow up the property of other people.

Maybe not blow up their property but you do nothing right, just allow people to walk all over you. Car dealers should not be allowed to repossess vehicles, landlords should not be able to evict tenants who no longer bother to pay the rent etc etc etc.

I think we're seeing the outcomes of this now in cities that have legalised shop lifting.

@wildgrass said
Rand was brilliant to dumb down the economic concepts to where someone who has no idea what they're talking about can claim they do.

I'm not an economist, but even I can recognize how absurd these generalizations are to the broader economy. Especially in contemporary life, when we have so much corporate welfare, it makes these concepts pointless.

Like, yes I am moral. ...[text shortened]... say my government is giving money to the company I work for to give to me? Now the morality is lost.

There should be no corporate welfare. Rand spoke against it, wrote pages on it, gave examples of it, gave examples of the damage it does.

Guess it's too dumbed down for you. Below your level.

@wajoma said
Maybe not blow up their property but you do nothing right, just allow people to walk all over you. Car dealers should not be allowed to repossess vehicles, landlords should not be able to evict tenants who no longer bother to pay the rent etc etc etc.

I think we're seeing the outcomes of this now in cities that have legalised shop lifting.

Those are what we call "legal remedies".

Blowing up other people's stuff is not included.

@wajoma said
There should be no corporate welfare. Rand spoke against it, wrote pages on it, gave examples of it, gave examples of the damage it does.

Guess it's too dumbed down for you. Below your level.

As fantasy fiction, sure. But that's extremely naive in the context of reality. That's not the world that exists, even though most Randians like to pretend.

@wildgrass said
As fantasy fiction, sure. But that's extremely naive in the context of reality. That's not the world that exists, even though most Randians like to pretend.

You're telling us we're dumbed down and you're not aware of Rands non-fiction?

The idea that there should be no corporate welfare is not exclusively Rands, it's not unrealistic, it's not dumbed down because there are many corporations that do not receive welfare. Where it does exist the unintended consequences of it are valid topics of discussion. Economists both left and right agree, and you'll see plenty of left-whingers here railing against it.

You want to jump on the Rand hate train, you're going to need to know what you're talking about.

Go back to your Walt Disney comics for your economics.