Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>, <5>

, (new)(back)

CP level of quality

So far this is the worst article I've read in the mainspace of RW.. The whole thing reads like one big smear piece on Ayn Rand, very similar to CP's article on Obama. Do you think you're better than Andy? Then try to put some substance in your article instead of useless name calling. Personally I knew Ayn Rand and the book Atlus Shrugged only by name, I don't live in America and haven't read the book. And for me, this article hardly clarified anything, it apparently assumes you already know about her and hate her like the author does. Here's what I got from the sections:

• Intro. She was a writer and claimed philosopher and I hate her and so should you.
• Biography. She was born in Russia, was a famous writer in America and died, followed by a bunch of irrelevant gossip. Also, apparently she can excommunicate someone from an apparent cult or movement, or that sentence was supposed to be a stab at something.
• "Philosophy" (oh how professional those sarcastic quotation marks look). The philosophy in her book isn't very deep when compared to real philosophy (unlike most books?). For the rest this section is pretty hard to read, since it seems to be written by a first year student in philosophy who wants to show off how much he learned without taking the audience into consideration. For example, pray tell what the average reader is supposed to do with this bit: "Similarly, for Rand's epsitemology - she claims that "reason" is the foundation of her epistemology. Despite the label, Rand's epistemology is empiricist. The sort of questions which exercise contemporary epistemologists (to pick a few: resolving Gettier problems, weighing up foundationalism and coherentism as a response to the Agrippan trilemma, the closure principle) are given scant attention in Rand."
• Literature. Oh ffs I just noticed the immature misspelling of "Shatlus Rugged". This followed by a list of snarky remarks about the book. It doesn't bother telling me anything of value and I still don't know what it is about. It does give me some information about her other 2 books, though you have to dig through the snark.
• The drooling fans. Ayn Rand sucks and people who like her also suck. Apparently another section for this was needed, even though every other line in the article states something like this.
• The enemy. This section looks kinda confusing since out of nowhere it starts talking from the book's point of view. Or so I assume, since it's not understandable unless you've read the books (or are missing some other information the author assumes you possess).
• Environmental perspective on her works. BOOKS ARE MADE FROM WOOD SO SHE KILLED A RAINFOREST HURRR.
• Medical perspective on her works. I guess this is another joke which boils down to "Ayn Rand sucks".
• And to top it all off, 3 out of 7 footnotes don't really reference anything.

I wouldn't even know where to start improving on this. I recommend burning this shit to the ground and see if someone comes along who wants to redo it properly. --GTac (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have little-to-no interest in Rand so couldn't really offer any improvements. However, I've never been a big fan of the tone in most of this one. Though this article has been bitched about numerous times, so we either need to do something with it, or its detractors are going to have to get over it. I rolled back the brainstar for now. ^moral 13:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this, probably early next week. Rand isn't terrible difficult to research, and a number of the more controversial statements (such as excommunication) are correct but do need to be sourced. ConcernedResident ^{drain cleaner for the ladies} 13:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear I wasn't the only one, so it wasn't a total rant. Like I said, I know hardly anything about Rand so can't write much, but I cut out most of the useless snarky remarks from the article. --GTac (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Getting rid of the shitty tone is good, but the snark like describing Atlas Shrugged as a doorstop should stay, you may have been a little over zealout with the cut there. ^moral 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

At least the section that criticises her claim (if she ever made them) that her philosophy is a coherent whole should be put back, those points are valid. Since I'm not familiar with Rand's philosophy and her defense of it, I'm not sure what to make of the stuff about her epistemology being based on "reason", but if that is meant as a resort to a metaphysical foundation, then yes, it would contradict her being an empiricist, which she apparently is. Maybe someone who has actually read her works can comment on this? As for the snarky comments, I'd say keep them in as long as they don't render the text incomprehensible. Röstigraben (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

GTac, I saw the changes you made. Lets not lose sight of the fact that we're not Wikipedia. We're going to have some fun with Rand, but like Rosti suggested, the snark should compliment the facts. It just so happens that Rand was a great source of comedy. --ConcernedResident ^{binder for the ladies} 16:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I'll put the philosophy bits back, though it would be nice if someone made it a bit more readable. As for the doorstop remark, I don't see why we'd have to stoop that low. Sure, I know this ain't a wikipedia or something like that, people won't be relying on this information for writing a paper... but to just use silly namecalling and smears like that merely because you don't like the person, it's just such a Conservapedia thing to do.. Can't we just call a book a book? Or alternatively, move it to the Fun space and make it something interesting instead? --GTac (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - wtf with the evisceration of this formerly excellent article? An attempt to consider her seriously is akin to treating the novels of L. Ron Hubbard seriously. She was a novelist primarily, and her novels are terrible, terrible things - arguably some of the worst prose ever committed to paper. Yet because she espoused bogus and shallow philosophies which some have taken to support, we are supposed to take her writing seriously? Nonsense - let's call a spade a spade and make this article be fun again. There's MORE than enough info on her elsewhere, there's no point us simply trotting out what's repeated there. Moving to Fun space is fine with me - maybe that's all that ever needed to happen. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving to funspace probably would bring an end to the recurring "Oi, this article is evil" comments. It is actually quite funny. --ConcernedResident ^{Xbox for the ladies} 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(UI) "An excellent article"? Seriously? I think you forgot to actually try and read it. Half is a smear job, the other half badly written philosophy. Funspace is fine by me, though it's still a piece of crap. I reworded the paragraphs in the philosophy section, but I ran into so many Edit Conflicts that fuck this. And if the book is so bad, try to add something to explain this better. I never read it and have no idea what to make of that section as it is. --GTac (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Half is a smear job, the other half badly written philosophy." That's the best description I've read of Rand's work ever. ħuman 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is "what does someone who knows dick all about Rand learn from this article?" The answer to that is "practically nothing". I've said it countless times "SPOV" is not an excuse for shit articles. ^moral 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some (most?) of GTac's criticism, but shoving it into crapfunspace is not the solution. If you think the article is crap, click here. -- Nx / talk 12:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Funspace

It's better here. The old cow deserves lots of mud slung at her, and Funspace is the best place to do that. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that it's in fun:, has it been returned to its former grandeur? ħuman 17:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It does leave us with no mainspace equivalent... ^moral 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll start on that tomorrow or Sunday, unless someone else loves Rand enough to want to write something about her and her amazing work that like totally changed the world in a positive way. --ConcernedResident ^{blender for the ladies} 17:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in funspace, & some petulant edit warring is not a valid reason for putting it there. The article is largely factual & more-or-less on-mission. I think it should stay in mainspace. If it's a real issue, pare off the silly parts & make a separate funspace page for them, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to exempt myself from the further debate. As the creator of the article and writer of much of the original snark which GTac and others really dislike, I've made my case - which I freely admit is nothing but 110% snark. I loathe Ayn Rand and do everything I can to disabuse people of notions of her supposed greatness. But perhaps that makes me the wrong person to judge this. I would simply encourage everyone to remember that she is extremely well documented out there, and I believe one of our roles is to puncture the balloons of sacred cows (do sacred cows even have balloons?). Keep it snarky and fun, and don't turn it into a weighty tome like her books. Have away with it! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Doggedpersistence here. In truth, the snark and jokes against Rand are what make the article worth reading. If we take them out because we don't like having jokes, then the article in the anti-snark state is as humorless and boring as Ayn Rand herself. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 19:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This belongs in mainspace, even if one editor behaves as though their personal toe was stepped on - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. ħuman 00:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No toes stepped on here. It's impossible to take issue with different perceptions of snark - one man's snark is another girl's lulz, frankly, and I take no offense from that, none at all. But while I feel strongly about Rand, the point I was trying to make (and obviously poorly, and I apologise for that), is about the oft-debated purpose of RationalWiki, and I don't know what gutting this article of snark and opinion would do other than make a really bad version of her Wikipedia article, or the countless number of other sources on the mad old cow. We have to be able to offer something different, surely? Whatever - please, have at it. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone really mind if I move it back to mainspace? Apart from Gtac and the occasional Randroid troll, no one really hates it. Can it be better? Of course. Everything can always be better. Move it to fun: due to one complainant who doesn't like its tone? Not really the RW way, is it? ħuman 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this. For those outside the US and for whom this person is totally unknown - an even-handed introduction which at least explains why she is controversial and why the mention of her name generates so much heat might be a good idea.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

xkcd on Rand fans

http://xkcd.com/610/ I'm not sure if it should be added to this one or to Objectivism. --ZooGuard (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No. It's funny, but keep copyright in mind. ħuman 08:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be an issue. From the bottom of the page: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. This means you're free to copy and share these comics..." Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Golden, then. ħuman 08:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. It's not the same as our site license. Keep that in mind. -- Nx / talk 12:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question

Do you think we should mention that Rand believed that Homosexuality was immoral?Ryantherebel (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably, with citation. (You can buy Ayn Rand concordances.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Found something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_and_homosexuality For some reason I get the impression that she had some weird form of borderline schizophrenia. Ryantherebel (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For a snarky article like this, the more references the better - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but afraid of being exposed to mass amounts of stupidity.Ryantherebel (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I managed to stumbled upon this gem of a quote, "Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights."

Sources: http://everything2.com/title/Ayn+Rand+on+Native+Americans

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand

Stomach churning, is it not?Ryantherebel (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." And "Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using." Stomach churning, indeed.

Jesus H. Buck-dancing Christ (in the words of the immortal Jake Blues). And Jimbo Wales is proud to say that this creep gives him his guiding philosophy? Holy shit. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is an egomanic power-tripping cretin who invented the best web site ever and is too stupid to retire. MHO. ħuman 09:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pots, kettles and buckminsterfullerene all come to mind... Time drug Phantom Hoover! 20:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo is an extremely nice fellow (he projects this sort of "nice field" that makes people in his presence be nice too) and probably the nicest Randian on the face of the earth. (Trivia: he met Sanger on his objectivism mailing list.) Hell, that's like saying all Catholics support priests raping children by proudly declaring themselves Catholics ... er ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

When I said he invented the best web site ever I guess I also meant that he must be a nice guy people like to work with. About 8 years ago. Notice how "our" founder and "owner" is busy trying to not have "founder" powers? Jimbo could learn a lot from Trent. Or maybe Trent learned a lot from Jimbo. It's hard being the first in a field. ħuman 10:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

His actual job at WMF is basically public relations. It's when he exercises what powers he has there's a HCM - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

South Park on Atlas Shrugged

This made me LOL. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's brilliant! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Government handout

Came across this: ... Between December 1974 and her death in March 1982, Rand collected a total of $11,002 in monthly Social Security payments. ... There's no links to the source given though. 11:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They also had a story on an Ayn Rand college that went under when it failed to get government aid. Rand defeated by her own free market. Welp, time to get a new irony meter. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That is beyond astounding.Ryantherebel (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It never ceases to amuse me

Watching how hysterical you lefties get at the mere mention of Rand's name. Bless your little hearts. --109.153.78.17 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand she's sort of well-known in the states. In the rest of the world she's a non-entity.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new. Lots of non-entities get big press over here. Wasn't it Hunter S. Thompson who said that whereas most developed societies try to marginalize their losers and ne'er-do-wells in the U.S. we celebrate them, put them on display, elect them president? Doctor Dark (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Guess that's why Obama's in now. --109.153.78.17 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, that was such a clever riposte I couldn't help barking like a seal. Doctor Dark (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, BoN, but Rand was a fanatic and a hypocrite, and had no sense of humor besides; that is enough to get most of our dander up, politics or no. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Even some conservatives are embarrassed by her. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's just the US. The UK probably has an even lower barrier for 'slebdom - though in our defence, I'm sure it's just being collectively "ironic". ^moral 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Make that most conservatives; if the atheism does not put them off the radicalism does. She tried to turn Marx right side up in roughly the same way Marx tried to turn Hegel; in both cases a lot of stuff rubbed off onto the disciple. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Doctor Dark. I am very clever, as you'd probably noticed. In any case, despite being British, I admire the USA. I admire it for the American Dream, the notion of being the best one can be for the sake of oneself. After all, what else can be of any significance? I strongly doubt that you people care as much about your fellow men as you claim to. If you did, you would not be quite so backwardly collectivistic and opposed to ambition. --109.153.78.17 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you were to examine the sentiments of the editors here more closely, you would find that several of them are opposed, not to ambition, but to the constraints placed thereupon by the institution of property acting in conjunction with that annoying feature of life called reality. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You know I never been called "backwardly collectivistic" before. But new experiences are always welcome.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean we collect old things? I'll own up -- still have my LPs. Doctor Dark (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose you all believe in authoritarianism and communism, do you? I suppose you believe that individuality is inherently evil and that A is B. --92.3.13.82 (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. True believer or Poe? It's so hard to decide. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, just give me a proper answer would you. --92.3.13.82 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's absolutely true that I believe that A is B. That was a most cogent question you posed and really exposed the folly of my thinking. Could you send me some literature on how I might join your group? I think I've wasted my life. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Strikes me that the only one displaying authoritarianism here is the BoN: "... just give me a proper answer would you". I don't think that we respond well to being ordered about by anonymous juvenile idiots. 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Act like a childish prat and you'll be treated like one, behave like a grown up and you will be rewarded. Get the picture? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Aww, don't frighten it off. Assuming it isn't a poe, it's the first fundamentalist Randite we've ever had come round here. It'll be fun to poke it a while. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ey's not the first & won't be the last. Read some of the other threads further up this page. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Randoids fucking hate this article. ^moral 00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't suffer fools gladly. Nor do I consider myself a Randoid as there are aspects of Rand's philosophy that I strongly disagree with. I don't submit to anyone's philosophy but my own though I incorporate elements of others. Furthermore, I don't see what's wrong with Edgar Alan Poe. --92.3.5.19 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I swear, our critics are getting less imaginative each time... ^moral 02:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Do consider creating an account though. You and ListenerX can amuse each other. You'll get along famously. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Now it's my turn for a new experience. I've never been called unimaginative before. And no, I don't think I'll be creating an account on this "website". --92.3.5.19 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you do read like someone's ran a Markov chain of various RW criticisms... ^moral 02:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest to our anonymous editor that he (or she) move away from the generalised mild abuse and move onto some specifics in the article? Perhaps that might generate some more specific responses to whatever concerns they may have?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's just standard-issue trolling, and not very creative trolling at that. The only way to get trolls to go away is to pretend they don't exist. Making any response -- whether positive, negative, constructive, mocking, or even surrealistic -- only gives them the attention they crave. Doctor Dark (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I just hate seeing brilliant people like Mrs. Rand being derided and ridiculed for daring to be different. --86.181.29.233 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Because if there's one thing the various atheists, Jews, Christians, Odinists, men, women, gays, straights, bis, whites, blacks, Americans, British, communists, capitalists, etc. hate here, it's being different. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be Miss Rand; a title she had to use as she seemed a little confused as to whether she was Mrs. O'Connor or Mrs. Blumenthal.

The whole "different" thing varies widely across communities. For example, I once read about a study showing that right-wingers were a pack of social misfits who as children were the least likely to play well with others. The authors of the study did not seem to think it worthy of consideration that all the test subjects lived in Berkeley, California. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand fundamentally failed to understand the human condition. She wasn't much removed from solipsism and by all appearances was likely a sociopath, or at the very least a bitter fanatic; that in and of itself would disqualify her from understanding much about the way society works. Look at her best-known protagonists -- Howard Roark was an entitled wanker who had little regard for the people who built his designs, and John Galt was not only a douchebag but to all intents and purposes a mass murderer (or enabler thereof). Her economic insights as implemented by Alan Greenspan (a close associate) have failed miserably, a point which Greenspan himself admitted. Her concept of capitalism is almost completely wrong, and her entire way of thinking is that of someone who spent her upbringing being constantly bullied and devoted her adulthood to childish revenge fantasies. In other words, Rand never grew up -- she was an arbitrary and immature failure as a human being who managed to resonate with others like her. EVDebs (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is, of course, entirely absurd to expect anyone to do what they agree to do, such as build a building according to design; they might actually manage to build it so it does not fall down

As to your statement that John Galt is a "mass murderer," I think this quote from Atlas Shrugged is apropos:

“”"Economic service to the nation is just as much of a duty as military service. Anyone who abandons it should be regarded as a deserter. I have recommended that we introduce the death penalty for those men, but Wesley wouldn't agree to it." "Take it easy, boy," said Fred Kinnan in an odd, slow voice. He sat suddenly and perfectly still, his arms crossed, looking at Ferris in a manner that made it suddenly real to the room that Ferris had proposed murder. "Don't let me hear you talk about any death penalties in industry."

As to Chairman Greenspan, you appear to be repeating media hype. He got confused on a rather esoteric point of the application of free-market principles, and admitted he was wrong about it. The media seized upon this admission and put it through the process illustrated in this comic.

See, even though Rand was a fanatic twisted out of shape by years spent masking her hatred for the communists while being educated in their schools, and as Whittaker Chambers put it "[dealt] wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites," she did manage to be right about at least one thing: if the "prime movers," as she called them, were to go on strike, the world would be in hot water. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What pisses me off is that you laugh at the failure of her Objectivist college as though you think that it deserved to fail for refusing to accept money from the oh-so-wonderful state. You're self-proclaimed authoritarians who fail to realise that if the fascist state you desire came to pass, you would lose the freedom of speech you relish exercising. You even claim that Rand was a sociopath when in fact she was a very empathic woman as shown by her desire to help others achieve individuality and realise their full potential. She was most probably a narcissist but that's not necessarily a bad thing. She was hardly a failure as she made a significant amount of money with her books and has been a source of comfort and inspiration to many others who refuse to be held down by the mob. Rand saw first hand the evils of Collectivism during her difficult childhood in the Soviet Union. Socialist values and self-loathing are rampant in the world today. Puritanism and religion are on the rise. People hate to see anyone succeed on their own. They're afraid of themselves and have a horror of moral decadence. They have forgotten the highest of duties: the duty one owes to oneself. Ambition is declining, there's no desire to excel anymore. Even in the States where socialism has always been rightly viewed with horror and disgust. Personally I blame that god-awful Mr. Obama. Americans seem to have forgotten the the description of "the pursuit of happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independance. Independance. There's something else that's on the decline. Fortunately sales in Rand's novels are increasing so there are clearly people in society who have seen the light and are moving towards it and away from pathetic losers like Upton Sinclair and Karl Marx. The election of the Tory government in England is also a great success for capitalism so I have faith that things will soon start looking up. In the words of a great individualist, namely Winston Churchill, it doesn't seem to be much use being anything other than an optimist. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No you greedy, selfish, capitalist bigot! If we're in need then we have a right to your labour and we should be allowed to kill you if you refuse to work for us. What is it with you Randroids who keep telling us we advocate slavery? Absurd, I say!

You were doing rather well until "bigot." --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pull your head out of your arse. Neither ambition nor capitalism nor the pursuit of happiness are in decline in the world (although I wouldn't choose to measure their importance in terms of one crackpot novelists' book sales). Your belief that ambition is declining & self-loathing is rampant does not seem optimistic, & you seem overeager to view politics & economics in grossly outdated polarities of socialism & capitalism. & FYI: England is not a sovereign state; it is part of the UK, currently governed by a coalition of Tories & Lib Democrats, not an exclusively Tory government. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In defence of that statement, the coalition is hardly equal and the Lib Dems are just there to make up the numbers - for practical purposes (regardless of what the Clegg-haters are saying) we have a very much Tory government. That said, saying it's a "great success for capitalism" is fucking hilarious because the only reason we have a bloody coalition is because the Tories didn't really win anything. Labour lost more than the Conservatives won (consider that the popular vote for the Lib Dems went up a massive amount, but they actually lost a seat, that indicates more dissatisfaction with the incumbents rather than support for Tories). FYI, of course! ^moral 00:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX: here's the thing. If the "prime movers" went on strike, the thing Rand didn't understand is that there's no shortage of people who aren't "prime movers" who would be able to step into the breach, given the right opportunities and education. Seriously, there's a lot of "captains of industry" who really belong on the B Ark. One of them thought she could buy a senate seat in California and went down in flames. Rand made a lot of entirely unwarranted assumptions about the nature of meritocracy (among others, that success indicates merit) and de facto went on to encourage a certain group of self-selected "successes" to develop a massive entitlement complex, which made them largely useful idiots to the same "collectivist" plutocrats she railed against.

BoN: You're a remarkably typical example of the sort of blinkered, pigheaded jackoff that says the kinds of things you say. I'd try to come up with a clever flame or something, but you idiots are a dime a dozen, so it's not really worth the effort. (And Upton Sinclair? Did you think he was lying or something about the conditions he wrote about?) EVDebs (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You clearly did read what was said, then. Particularly if you choose to address only a minor fraction of someone's post based on a limited understanding of what constitutes an ad hom attack. But then again, I find that people who claim high intelligence often don't actually posses it. You show it through your deeds and ability, not your claims. ^moral 00:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That presumes that there is an expectation that both sides debate in good faith. Considering the whole debate (and I use the term loosely) was started by blatant trolling, no such expectation obtains, so I feel free to mock you all I think you deserve. Which is not much, because in the grand scheme of things, pigheaded whiners who won't even adopt a handle are pretty close to irrelevant. EVDebs (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The "prime movers," the group who went on strike in Atlas Shrugged, were characterized in the Galt Speech as "the men of the mind." Now, this group is obviously not coterminous with CEOs and other "captains of industry;" Rand herself recognized this, as she included many villain CEOs and some non-CEO striking figures such as actors and university professors.

No shortage of people who aren't "prime movers" who would be able to step into the breach... Ah, the socialist's wet dream, the faceless "replaceable cog" worker. Not happening; brain drain is a well-documented phenomenon.

Seriously, there's a lot of "captains of industry" who really belong on the B Ark. Is that the same B-Ark that was foolishly sent away by the people of Golgafrincham, causing the doom of that planet? Because that seems to support my point and not yours.

Rand made a lot of entirely unwarranted assumptions about the nature of meritocracy (among others, that success indicates merit)... That is the definition of a meritocracy. We (thankfully) do not have one in its purest form, but we have a rough approximation.

And Upton Sinclair? Did you think he was lying or something about the conditions he wrote about? Upton Sinclair was a muckraking hack who exploited the poor state of the meat industry as a talking point to spread the Gospel of Socialism, in consequence of which he got all upset when the U.S. government went and fixed the problems he had highlighted without seeing the gospel light first. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, "brain drain" is more about workers with actual skills, less about "prime movers" whose main skill set seems to be looking good in a suit, and having a resonant schmooze going on. Plenty of that kind of talent to go around, just waiting for a vacancy to fill. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not make me repeat this again: The "prime movers" and the suits are not the same group. Nevertheless the suits do perform useful work, however much the rest of us might dislike their attitude. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the brains being drained are not the prime movers either. Captains of industry hire brains from wherever the wages are cheap. Some suits are useful, but many are stuffed shirts filling a slot in the table of organization. This is based on what I have seen, not upon reading Shatlas. The Fountainhead was enough to put me off Rand for life. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that by "prime movers" she meant the seamen. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX, Sinclair was more disappointed that people focused on the food adulteration issues rather than the plight of the workers, which was his main intent in the book. You should know this already. EVDebs (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That was exactly what I said. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, fine, fine. I've thrown you a stick and registered an account so now you can know for certain who's kicking your arses. Maybe "election" was the wrong word to describe the Tory Party's ascension to power. Coup de'tat would be a better term. Still "Coalition" is a missnomer. The Liberal Democrats are just an ornament. Cameron manipulated in order to get into power. You can practically see the strings attached to Clegg's arms. The irony is that the Lib Dems had the best campaign. At the end of the Tories current term, everyone will want them out because they've had the horrible, unpopular job of getting us out of the shithole Labour left us in. The Lib Dems would have had a shot at power. But now that Cameron's completely emasculated them, it will be decades before anybody takes them seriously again and frankly, all's well that ends well. We do indeed have an approximation of a meritocracy and were I not an atheist, I'd thank god. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get this idea that you're kicking anyone's ass? You're just a cookie-cutter wingnut. You only think you're winning the argument because no one here thinks you're here to debate in good faith; you're just here to be a massive prick about your particular political bent. You're barely even a troll -- just a frothing attention whore. EVDebs (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Never been called a cookie cutter wingnut before. But it is my mission in life always to try new things. ;) --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I adore flattery. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rand and Darwinian Evolution

From what I've heard, ol'Ayn was uncomfortable with the concept of evolution. How true is that?Ryantherebel (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but Rand and some of her followers are science deniers. I just updated the Objectivism article with a new section on how their "theories" run counter to modern physics, psychology, and neuroscience, so I wouldn't be too surprised if this were true.

ETA: A quick search brings up this:

“”As I argued in my essay “Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Religion”,[1] Objectivism is a version of secular humanism. Ayn Rand accepts the atheism and naturalism of most secular humanist thought. While secular humanists are highly supportive of evolution, Rand stated that she was “neither its supporter nor opponent” and was for the most part silent on the issue. Her one-time associate Nathaniel Branden states in his well-known essay The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.[2]

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml(talk) 22:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

John Galt

After doing a bit of research on Atlas Shrugged I must ask, why is John Galt the hero of the story? He basically commits genocide. He's not a hero, he's a long lost Batman villain.Ryantherebel (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you asking? The old hag is dead, you know. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm being rhetorical. Galt is by all means a supervillain. It makes one wonder what Rand's psychological mindset was like.Ryantherebel (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't have the patience to sit down and read it, I tend to think of Rand as an unreliable narrator and John Galt as a cross between Joe Newman, Sun Myung Moon, and Tyler Durden. Needless to say, the book stops just before the inevitable Federal raid on Galt's Gulch to arrest the lunatic who decided to kill the not-so-self-sufficient, and the collapse of society was nowhere near as bad as Rand portrayed it. EVDebs (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Galt killed no one, unless you count the non-battle at the State Science Institute. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Galt's removing himself and the "productive element" is not the same as actually killing people. Remember that from Rand's perspective Galt and his ilk have been unfairly enslaved for just about all time. Researcher (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Galt's buddies Ragnar & Francisco like destroying industrial capital. If some men went around today blowing up ships, mines, port facilities, factories, etc., the Randbots would consider them terrorists who "hate man." Advancedatheist (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should have specified "indirectly" -- the train wreck, for example. But that's why I consider Rand an unreliable narrator -- while Galt and his rich zombie followers are hiding in the middle of nowhere, the world outside is cleaning up their mess and saying "good riddance". EVDebs (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be so frigging awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM

The woman who plays Dagny is unpardonably hot. Looks a bit like Rand herself, actually. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at those big trains, rushing to and fro! And that incredible metal! Squeeeeee! --DogP (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

When she lets him have it in the face with the glass of wine. OWNED! --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the film's flopped. They're not even showing it in my local cinema. Tells you a lot about the sorry state of the world today. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Our "present state of cultural disintegration," you mean? By which it is too much to ask that a film be good, regardless of its ideological message? ListenerX^TalkerX 17:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

For once I actually agree with LX on something... *stops to look for earthquakes and inbound asteroids* If you're going to make a polemic and present it as entertainment, you owe it to your audience to actually make an effort to make it enjoyable. There's any number of great Christian works of art, but nearly none of them (unless you maybe count VeggieTales and early U2) come from an explicitly Christian worldview in the late 20th-early 21st century. There might just be a good movie to be made from Ayn Rand's works, but this fiasco wasn't it (and honestly it probably wouldn't be made by diehard objectivists anyway, because you'd have to take a chainsaw to the source material to make suspension of disbelief possible in many places). EVDebs (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, awesome television production values and writing! ħuman 04:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There might just be a good movie to be made from Ayn Rand's works... I liked The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Trivia: Rand was at one point in talks with Walt Disney about adapting Anthem into a cartoon. Balaam (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)