Yeah, the first one is the obvious one. I.e., HEY THESE HOUSES HAVE GATS! However, I have a suspicion that most criminals, even the big drug gangs, do their absolute best to avoid armed confrontation outside of very specific, narrow circumstances. If this suspicion is correct, then gunowners might not have much to fear. Certainly, if the guns are stored properly in safes, then criminals have nothing to gain by breaking into gunowners' homes. How many gunowners store all their guns in safes? Half? 20 percent? Probably many gunowners have increased security to protect their guns; alarms, dogs, heavier doors and locks, safe rooms, and so on. These features make gunowners as a whole less attractive targets for criminals.
The biggest immediate risk seems to be the homes without guns. Every ne'er-do-well in the country now has a list of all the homes in Westchester that are extremely unlikely to have guns. Legal guns in the hands of honest citizens are a serious hazard to criminals; I suspect many criminals will be consulting this handy list beforehand.
This is outrageous. What about all the NON-gun-owning homes? This newspaper just posted THIS HOME IS A GUN-FREE ZONE signs on all non-gun-owners' houses.
If you think for an instant that this list will not be carefully inspected by criminals seeking to minimize occupational hazards, you have another thing coming. Thanks to Sandy Hook, homeowners without guns will not likely be able to purchase guns for some time (many stores are sold out due to sudden demand). Therefore, this list will remain accurate for some time to come.
From a security standpoint, this list is really terrible, and is almost worse for non-gun-owners than for gun-owners, at least in terms of immediate personal security.
Pretty well, considering that the Libertarian candidate was universally shunned by major media. I confess I feel great about voting with my conscience. My vote wouldn't do much good anyway; I just showed up to vote in all the other elections where individual votes matter more.
Yup. The current ER situation is a classic example of government intervention going horribly awry.
You cannot 'nationalize' one part of an industry. You must nationalize the whole thing, or keep your hands out of it.
DuckDuckGo can sod off, in my opinion. My one experience with DDG results from their inclusion as the default search engine in Linux Mint. 1) Their search results are crap. 2) Trying to replace them with Google as the default search provider was CRAZY DIFFICULT. I don't want to hear about how hard it is to change default search providers to DDG, because changing back was a non-trivial task for me.
There is a market for a not-Google. Just like there is a market for a not-Facebook. But just like recent U.S. elections proved, being a "not-something" is not necessarily enough to gain market share. You have to be better, or at least perceived as being better. DDG is not, at least not in my experience, and whining in public is certainly not helping.
Sometimes, women are not aware of the emotional moodiness involved in their monthly cycles. From a male perspective, I am mildly aware of certain points of mood that many women seem to move through during their cycle.
1) After the end of menstruation, mood is simple, and straightforward, closest to "average."
2) Close to ovulation (before and after), mood is slightly bubblier, happier, and more outgoing. More vivacious, more easily aroused. Many women will show a little more skin, and be a little more adventurous and flirtacious.
3) PMS. This is the most obvious indicator of cycle, characterized by dismissive behavior, subtle rejection, coldness, and sometimes anger. Many women are not aware of the range of emotions beyond moodiness and anger that are specific to this period in their cycle.
4) As menstruation comes close (within a day or two), some women seem to regain some of the bubbly/happy/aroused mood of ovulation.
If you notice something about your mood such as, "gee, I'm feeling happy today," start to note where you are in your cycle. You might be surprised at what you discover!:)
If you take hormonal contraceptives, this changes the moods.
The thing with computers is that they are not a little corner of the world any more. Everything else has become a little corner of the computer world. It's one thing if you lack knowledge of one little corner of the world. It seems like a completely different thing altogether if you lack knowledge of something that pervades every corner of the world. --cej102937
Certainly. I'm working on learning those, and probably will be working on them long after I am dead.:)
Mechanical engineering probably comes a close second. How much does a lack of mechanical engineering hold people back in their daily work and lives?
A lack of knowledge in how computers work holds people back tremendously, in almost every aspect of their lives. The scale is mind-boggling, and people don't even care. Creeps me out.
cej102937
I know a little bit about a city water system works. I used to have a dance student who did IT work for local municipal water plants. I know only a little bit of the metallurgy of nails, mostly corrosion resistance and blacksmithing metallurgy. I know quite a bit of the chemical choices that can be made when making gases of various kinds (chlorine, hydrogen, NO2, CO2...).
Even if I did not, computers are different. They pervade literally every industry. There is no major, modern industry that has not been revolutionized by microprocessors. There is nearly nothing you can possibly do in the world that does not involve computers in some important way. An understanding of how computers work is a tremendous force multiplier, whether or not you ever actually write a software program or not.
Also, it is good to know how your world works.
~cej102937
When I was growing up, I figured computer programming would be a semi-marginal field. Of course, all these people growing up with computers would be as interested in them as I was, to make them work better for us?
Nope.
Now I get paid a ton of money anywhere I want to go to be a computer programmer, in any job or sector I might desire. The average computer user is probably more ignorant of how computers work *now* then the average computer user 10 years ago. It amazes me that people do not care about how these marvelous machines work, but they don't.
Creepy, when you think about it. But it pays the bills.
Your last paragraph is excellent, I'm going to save that quote.
The way I see it, we are discovering our rights in a similar fashion as we discover how the universe works (physics, chemistry, biology). Part of that growth will likely be the creation of a better foundation for human rights than "God gives us these rights." I haven't yet seen it. I have seen lots of disingeneous ways to try to take away people's rights; parts of these attempts nearly always involve some declaration, implicit or explicit, that rights do not come from a higher power. This is why I prefer to think of rights as "God-given," but I understand that is a very Christian- and Western-centric view.
As I understand it, self-defense is part of the basic right to life and liberty. Without a right of self-defense, you cannot assert your right to life or liberty.
As I understand it, gays certainly have the right to marry and adopt children, as part of the right to liberty. This is the crux of the matter, right here. Much of the United States -- and indeed, the world -- does not believe that gays have marriage and adoption rights. That does not change the fact that gays have those rights. Social contracts does not define the rights. Sometimes we need to change social contracts to recognize newly-discovered rights, but the rights were there all along. We were too ignorant and selfish to recognize them.
Health care is an interesting one. Lots of people think they have a right to health care. I argue that they do not, because health care is something that requires someone else's active participation. At no point can someone's "right" encroach on someone else's rights. This is fundamental to the whole theory. I cannot claim that my "right to liberty" gives me the authority to build a road through someone's property, because that encroaches on their rights. A "right to health care" exists only insofar as it does not encroach on the doctor's rights.
Anyway, that's my rambling reasoning. I appreciate the discussion.
Slaves are born with all the rights as every other human.
If rights come from a social contract, then what happens when the social contract changes? If you believe that your rights come from God, you will fight for those rights because they are yours. If you believe that your rights come from a social contract, then you will submit to the contract when it changes.
The whole point in saying that they "come from God" is to maintain the fact that no human trick of words can deprive people of their rights.
'My God is more important than your law.' This idea gives us the authority to assert those rights in the face of human opposition.
Think about it a different way. The biggest problem with Democracy is a phenomenon called "the tyranny of the majority." In the West, this is usually fairly benign, although the Native American and African American communities would disagree. In the Middle East, this is usually violent. Regardless, Democracy is a social contract. If you are part of the minority, and the majority decides you don't need your right to liberty, then what are you going to do about it? Fight? Or submit? If your moral authority comes from the social contract, then you must submit because that authority is rescinding those rights. If your moral authority comes from a higher power, ANY higher power (it does not have to be "God" or "Allah"), then you must fight to keep your rights, because that authority did not rescind those rights, and therefore they are YOURS forever.
It's about rebellion. To put it cleverly: Free people have rights from God. Slaves have prvileges doled out by some form of social contract.
I belive you have missed the forest for the trees. I am sorry you got hung up on terminology.
I'm quite aware of the fact that Ayn Rand is pushing political theories as well as philosophical models. She is also pushing certain moral and ethical models. I was referring to the political theory of Libertarianism that is expressed in her work. That is the part of her story which held in my memory, and which formed much of my world view.
A caricature is not a person. The map is not the territory. A caricature is a story, a model, an archetype. Perhaps that model is useful for describing something in the real world, perhaps it is not. Ayn Rand's expression of a socialist economic model has been useful to me, so I subscribe to it, even though certain aspects of her work (sexual relations and atheism) I have felt free to discard.
None of this changes the fact that I have used Libertarian ideas of self-improvement, hard work, and self-value to open my access to both professional work and academic opportunity. Not objectivism, as I don't subscribe to that. Nor atheism, as I don't subscribe to that. Nor free love, as I don't subscribe to that, either. Just Libertarianism, along with a healthy dose of Laissez-Faire economics.
I would like to hear your reasoning behind this statement, "Libertarianism doesn't believe in laissez-faire capitalism." That runs completely contrary to my experience and knowledge. I understand that some left-leaning Libertarians do not subscribe to capitalism, but I have yet to find a Libertarian that does not believe in Laissez-Faire market systems as a foundational premise.
I have experienced dramatic improvement in job prospects, largely due to libertarian ideas, and yes, due to active discrimination, but not to due political or religious philosophy.
Libertarianism tells me that my value to other peoples comes from what I can give them. If I want to get paid, then I must provide something useful enough that someone else is willing to pay me for it. And I need to sell myself (in a hiring interview), such that my talents are seen as useful. This is what Hank Rearden wanted to see in his workers.
(Popular) socialism tells me that everybody deserves a job. **There is never any discussion about whether the worker is doing something valuable.** This is taken to an extreme in the character of Philip Rearden, Hank's brother.
Employers want to hire people that will produce valuable things for them. When they see my resume and interview me, they want to hire me right away. This is because I have a good work ethic *IN A GOOD INDUSTRY*, and a good sales pitch for myself, all of which I obtained and created with libertarian (non)theology in mind.
This is not the case for job-seekers whose primary goal is to sit in comfy a job with a whole rack of benefits "because they deserve a job." "Deserving a job" is an excuse to skip the arduous process of building a good work ethic, and the sometimes aggravating process of going into an industry that might not be your first choice. From late childhood all the way through younger adulthood, people are not preparing themselves for work. They have no work ethic, they do not choose valuable industries, and they shun self-sales. Without libertarian (non-)philosophy, they do not know to mold themselves into someone valuable enough to get paid for doing good work. Since employers do not like to lose money, these people are discriminated against. Every employer I have worked for discriminates against people that don't have good work ethics.
I understand perfectly well that there are not enough jobs to go around right now. So what? You always need a better work ethic and sales pitch to stand out. Just because you now need to be better than 85 percent should not be a problem. In my experience, nearly all job-seekers right now have no observable work ethic, and no ability to present whatever skills they actually have. If you actually want a job, and seek to actually do something valuable TO OTHERS, finding a job is not hard. Proof: me.
The thing with libertarianism is that it is fundamentally about doing things for other people. Your entire world view is about value for others. You may be doing it for selfish reasons. You are still creating value for other people. This applies even for the leading characters in Ayn Rand's books. Nobody was welcome in Galt's Gulch without having something to provide. It didn't need to be money. They would, however, need to be prepared to have gainful employment. In other words, they needed to have some skill valuable to other people in Galt's Gulch.
In my observation, other people with similar philosophies tend to get jobs very quickly, and tend to be very well paid for their work. It is certainly discrimination; discrimation against poor work ethics, and discrimination against undeserved entitlement.
All good points. Had I been older and well-grounded in libertarian thought beforehand, I might have been similarly disappointed, although I still appreciate very much the character archetypes that she describes. For example, when Joe Biden speaks, I hear Wesley Mooch. Without the archetypes, I'd be confused and irritable over bad political acting. With the archetypes, I feel like I have the whole playbook, and I have the whole story before it happens.
To be fair, though, there are not many libertarian writers, and of those, many of them write very obtuse and obscure prose. Libertarian economics is rather more like organic chemistry or molecular biology in complexity, than arithmetic or Twilight.
LOL It must be the 5-digit UID, signifying grumpy old fart. Or something.:)
I feel that many of the people bashing the book have not actually read it. There are a few people who have legitimately read the book and written scathing reviews of it. Every one of these people has been a self-proclaimed militant socialist or communist. Considering that Ayn Rand grew up under communism in Russia and pretty much devoted every letter of her writing to opposing that economic model, then a socialist writing a review of her books has a pretty obvious agenda.
Now I read a lot of wannabe socialists copying the thoughts and emotions of those initial reviewers, without actually having read the book to form their own opinions. Reading the entirely of Atlas Shrugged is a significant investment of time and thought; it is not a short or simple read.
That's just how I feel about it. Totally subjective, of course.
The reddit.com/r/ronpaul community has been dealing with this bullshit for a while. It smells the same as what they're dealing with. If it is the same, it's a troll attack, purely for the sake of causing trouble. Source seems to be from a group of folks surrounding an EnoughPaulSpam meme.
Reading books also can expose you to many ideas, models, and world views that you might not otherwise encounter. Learning a new world view can radically change your personality and belief systems. Case in point; Young Christians learning about Atheism.
I understand very well where you are coming from, but you are missing the point.
The *actual* lesson in the Bible is that rights, and restrictions, come from a higher power. Not humans. Humans are NOT free to create restrictions, or arbitrarily define human rights. We all have rights that come from God, that cannot be taken away by other humans.
That is the historical lesson.
I am very well aware that the Bible does not actually say that anywhere. Nevertheless, that is the idea that has persistently shaped enormous parts of Western civilization.
I would be curious as to how atheists answer the question of where rights come from. I don't see much thought on the topic, but perhaps I have the wrong social circles.
I feel that you have not actually read her books. I did, as a very young teenager, and again in my early 20s. The books have indeed had a profound impact on my life.
I credit Ayn Rand, along with Robert Heinlein and Richard Maybury, with forming some of my fundamental ideas of how the world works. I am quite the opposite of what you describe. Libertarianism is a recipe for success, whether you are a cutthroat corporate climber or a long-haired farmer hippie. That is my personal experience, and what I have seen in other people who subscribe to libertarian or anarchic philosophies.
To the contrary, the effects you describe perfectly fit my experience of many self-describing "liberal" adults.
cej102937
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the first one is the obvious one. I.e., HEY THESE HOUSES HAVE GATS! However, I have a suspicion that most criminals, even the big drug gangs, do their absolute best to avoid armed confrontation outside of very specific, narrow circumstances. If this suspicion is correct, then gunowners might not have much to fear. Certainly, if the guns are stored properly in safes, then criminals have nothing to gain by breaking into gunowners' homes. How many gunowners store all their guns in safes? Half? 20 percent? Probably many gunowners have increased security to protect their guns; alarms, dogs, heavier doors and locks, safe rooms, and so on. These features make gunowners as a whole less attractive targets for criminals.
The biggest immediate risk seems to be the homes without guns. Every ne'er-do-well in the country now has a list of all the homes in Westchester that are extremely unlikely to have guns. Legal guns in the hands of honest citizens are a serious hazard to criminals; I suspect many criminals will be consulting this handy list beforehand.
If you think for an instant that this list will not be carefully inspected by criminals seeking to minimize occupational hazards, you have another thing coming. Thanks to Sandy Hook, homeowners without guns will not likely be able to purchase guns for some time (many stores are sold out due to sudden demand). Therefore, this list will remain accurate for some time to come.
From a security standpoint, this list is really terrible, and is almost worse for non-gun-owners than for gun-owners, at least in terms of immediate personal security.
Pretty well, considering that the Libertarian candidate was universally shunned by major media. I confess I feel great about voting with my conscience. My vote wouldn't do much good anyway; I just showed up to vote in all the other elections where individual votes matter more.
You're clearly in complete denial about the reality of poverty and income mobility in the U.S.
Medicaid is free. Lots of other things are very cheap, or free, if you are at the bottom of the income scale.
Yup. The current ER situation is a classic example of government intervention going horribly awry. You cannot 'nationalize' one part of an industry. You must nationalize the whole thing, or keep your hands out of it.
DuckDuckGo can sod off, in my opinion. My one experience with DDG results from their inclusion as the default search engine in Linux Mint. 1) Their search results are crap. 2) Trying to replace them with Google as the default search provider was CRAZY DIFFICULT. I don't want to hear about how hard it is to change default search providers to DDG, because changing back was a non-trivial task for me.
There is a market for a not-Google. Just like there is a market for a not-Facebook. But just like recent U.S. elections proved, being a "not-something" is not necessarily enough to gain market share. You have to be better, or at least perceived as being better. DDG is not, at least not in my experience, and whining in public is certainly not helping.
cej102937
Sometimes, women are not aware of the emotional moodiness involved in their monthly cycles. From a male perspective, I am mildly aware of certain points of mood that many women seem to move through during their cycle.
1) After the end of menstruation, mood is simple, and straightforward, closest to "average."
2) Close to ovulation (before and after), mood is slightly bubblier, happier, and more outgoing. More vivacious, more easily aroused. Many women will show a little more skin, and be a little more adventurous and flirtacious.
3) PMS. This is the most obvious indicator of cycle, characterized by dismissive behavior, subtle rejection, coldness, and sometimes anger. Many women are not aware of the range of emotions beyond moodiness and anger that are specific to this period in their cycle.
4) As menstruation comes close (within a day or two), some women seem to regain some of the bubbly/happy/aroused mood of ovulation.
If you notice something about your mood such as, "gee, I'm feeling happy today," start to note where you are in your cycle. You might be surprised at what you discover! :)
If you take hormonal contraceptives, this changes the moods.
cej102937
Studying to become either a doctor or a biomedical programmer, here. Completely agree. Very creepy, and sad.
The thing with computers is that they are not a little corner of the world any more. Everything else has become a little corner of the computer world. It's one thing if you lack knowledge of one little corner of the world. It seems like a completely different thing altogether if you lack knowledge of something that pervades every corner of the world. --cej102937
Certainly. I'm working on learning those, and probably will be working on them long after I am dead. :)
Mechanical engineering probably comes a close second. How much does a lack of mechanical engineering hold people back in their daily work and lives?
A lack of knowledge in how computers work holds people back tremendously, in almost every aspect of their lives. The scale is mind-boggling, and people don't even care. Creeps me out.
cej102937
I know a little bit about a city water system works. I used to have a dance student who did IT work for local municipal water plants. I know only a little bit of the metallurgy of nails, mostly corrosion resistance and blacksmithing metallurgy. I know quite a bit of the chemical choices that can be made when making gases of various kinds (chlorine, hydrogen, NO2, CO2...). Even if I did not, computers are different. They pervade literally every industry. There is no major, modern industry that has not been revolutionized by microprocessors. There is nearly nothing you can possibly do in the world that does not involve computers in some important way. An understanding of how computers work is a tremendous force multiplier, whether or not you ever actually write a software program or not. Also, it is good to know how your world works. ~cej102937
Not contagious, but it does breed. :)
When I was growing up, I figured computer programming would be a semi-marginal field. Of course, all these people growing up with computers would be as interested in them as I was, to make them work better for us?
Nope.
Now I get paid a ton of money anywhere I want to go to be a computer programmer, in any job or sector I might desire. The average computer user is probably more ignorant of how computers work *now* then the average computer user 10 years ago. It amazes me that people do not care about how these marvelous machines work, but they don't.
Creepy, when you think about it. But it pays the bills.
Your last paragraph is excellent, I'm going to save that quote.
The way I see it, we are discovering our rights in a similar fashion as we discover how the universe works (physics, chemistry, biology). Part of that growth will likely be the creation of a better foundation for human rights than "God gives us these rights." I haven't yet seen it. I have seen lots of disingeneous ways to try to take away people's rights; parts of these attempts nearly always involve some declaration, implicit or explicit, that rights do not come from a higher power. This is why I prefer to think of rights as "God-given," but I understand that is a very Christian- and Western-centric view.
As I understand it, self-defense is part of the basic right to life and liberty. Without a right of self-defense, you cannot assert your right to life or liberty.
As I understand it, gays certainly have the right to marry and adopt children, as part of the right to liberty. This is the crux of the matter, right here. Much of the United States -- and indeed, the world -- does not believe that gays have marriage and adoption rights. That does not change the fact that gays have those rights. Social contracts does not define the rights. Sometimes we need to change social contracts to recognize newly-discovered rights, but the rights were there all along. We were too ignorant and selfish to recognize them.
Health care is an interesting one. Lots of people think they have a right to health care. I argue that they do not, because health care is something that requires someone else's active participation. At no point can someone's "right" encroach on someone else's rights. This is fundamental to the whole theory. I cannot claim that my "right to liberty" gives me the authority to build a road through someone's property, because that encroaches on their rights. A "right to health care" exists only insofar as it does not encroach on the doctor's rights.
Anyway, that's my rambling reasoning. I appreciate the discussion.
cej102937
Slaves are born with all the rights as every other human.
If rights come from a social contract, then what happens when the social contract changes? If you believe that your rights come from God, you will fight for those rights because they are yours. If you believe that your rights come from a social contract, then you will submit to the contract when it changes.
The whole point in saying that they "come from God" is to maintain the fact that no human trick of words can deprive people of their rights.
'My God is more important than your law.' This idea gives us the authority to assert those rights in the face of human opposition.
Think about it a different way. The biggest problem with Democracy is a phenomenon called "the tyranny of the majority." In the West, this is usually fairly benign, although the Native American and African American communities would disagree. In the Middle East, this is usually violent. Regardless, Democracy is a social contract. If you are part of the minority, and the majority decides you don't need your right to liberty, then what are you going to do about it? Fight? Or submit? If your moral authority comes from the social contract, then you must submit because that authority is rescinding those rights. If your moral authority comes from a higher power, ANY higher power (it does not have to be "God" or "Allah"), then you must fight to keep your rights, because that authority did not rescind those rights, and therefore they are YOURS forever.
It's about rebellion. To put it cleverly: Free people have rights from God. Slaves have prvileges doled out by some form of social contract.
cej102937
I belive you have missed the forest for the trees. I am sorry you got hung up on terminology.
I'm quite aware of the fact that Ayn Rand is pushing political theories as well as philosophical models. She is also pushing certain moral and ethical models. I was referring to the political theory of Libertarianism that is expressed in her work. That is the part of her story which held in my memory, and which formed much of my world view.
A caricature is not a person. The map is not the territory. A caricature is a story, a model, an archetype. Perhaps that model is useful for describing something in the real world, perhaps it is not. Ayn Rand's expression of a socialist economic model has been useful to me, so I subscribe to it, even though certain aspects of her work (sexual relations and atheism) I have felt free to discard.
None of this changes the fact that I have used Libertarian ideas of self-improvement, hard work, and self-value to open my access to both professional work and academic opportunity. Not objectivism, as I don't subscribe to that. Nor atheism, as I don't subscribe to that. Nor free love, as I don't subscribe to that, either. Just Libertarianism, along with a healthy dose of Laissez-Faire economics.
I would like to hear your reasoning behind this statement, "Libertarianism doesn't believe in laissez-faire capitalism." That runs completely contrary to my experience and knowledge. I understand that some left-leaning Libertarians do not subscribe to capitalism, but I have yet to find a Libertarian that does not believe in Laissez-Faire market systems as a foundational premise.
cej102937
I have experienced dramatic improvement in job prospects, largely due to libertarian ideas, and yes, due to active discrimination, but not to due political or religious philosophy.
Libertarianism tells me that my value to other peoples comes from what I can give them. If I want to get paid, then I must provide something useful enough that someone else is willing to pay me for it. And I need to sell myself (in a hiring interview), such that my talents are seen as useful. This is what Hank Rearden wanted to see in his workers.
(Popular) socialism tells me that everybody deserves a job. **There is never any discussion about whether the worker is doing something valuable.** This is taken to an extreme in the character of Philip Rearden, Hank's brother.
Employers want to hire people that will produce valuable things for them. When they see my resume and interview me, they want to hire me right away. This is because I have a good work ethic *IN A GOOD INDUSTRY*, and a good sales pitch for myself, all of which I obtained and created with libertarian (non)theology in mind.
This is not the case for job-seekers whose primary goal is to sit in comfy a job with a whole rack of benefits "because they deserve a job." "Deserving a job" is an excuse to skip the arduous process of building a good work ethic, and the sometimes aggravating process of going into an industry that might not be your first choice. From late childhood all the way through younger adulthood, people are not preparing themselves for work. They have no work ethic, they do not choose valuable industries, and they shun self-sales. Without libertarian (non-)philosophy, they do not know to mold themselves into someone valuable enough to get paid for doing good work. Since employers do not like to lose money, these people are discriminated against. Every employer I have worked for discriminates against people that don't have good work ethics.
I understand perfectly well that there are not enough jobs to go around right now. So what? You always need a better work ethic and sales pitch to stand out. Just because you now need to be better than 85 percent should not be a problem. In my experience, nearly all job-seekers right now have no observable work ethic, and no ability to present whatever skills they actually have. If you actually want a job, and seek to actually do something valuable TO OTHERS, finding a job is not hard. Proof: me.
The thing with libertarianism is that it is fundamentally about doing things for other people. Your entire world view is about value for others. You may be doing it for selfish reasons. You are still creating value for other people. This applies even for the leading characters in Ayn Rand's books. Nobody was welcome in Galt's Gulch without having something to provide. It didn't need to be money. They would, however, need to be prepared to have gainful employment. In other words, they needed to have some skill valuable to other people in Galt's Gulch.
In my observation, other people with similar philosophies tend to get jobs very quickly, and tend to be very well paid for their work. It is certainly discrimination; discrimation against poor work ethics, and discrimination against undeserved entitlement.
cej102937
WELL PLAYED, OLD WIZARD! :)
All good points. Had I been older and well-grounded in libertarian thought beforehand, I might have been similarly disappointed, although I still appreciate very much the character archetypes that she describes. For example, when Joe Biden speaks, I hear Wesley Mooch. Without the archetypes, I'd be confused and irritable over bad political acting. With the archetypes, I feel like I have the whole playbook, and I have the whole story before it happens.
To be fair, though, there are not many libertarian writers, and of those, many of them write very obtuse and obscure prose. Libertarian economics is rather more like organic chemistry or molecular biology in complexity, than arithmetic or Twilight.
cej102937
LOL It must be the 5-digit UID, signifying grumpy old fart. Or something. :)
I feel that many of the people bashing the book have not actually read it. There are a few people who have legitimately read the book and written scathing reviews of it. Every one of these people has been a self-proclaimed militant socialist or communist. Considering that Ayn Rand grew up under communism in Russia and pretty much devoted every letter of her writing to opposing that economic model, then a socialist writing a review of her books has a pretty obvious agenda.
Now I read a lot of wannabe socialists copying the thoughts and emotions of those initial reviewers, without actually having read the book to form their own opinions. Reading the entirely of Atlas Shrugged is a significant investment of time and thought; it is not a short or simple read.
That's just how I feel about it. Totally subjective, of course.
cej102937
The reddit.com/r/ronpaul community has been dealing with this bullshit for a while. It smells the same as what they're dealing with. If it is the same, it's a troll attack, purely for the sake of causing trouble. Source seems to be from a group of folks surrounding an EnoughPaulSpam meme.
cej102937
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/07/reading-fiction-empathy-study
Reading books also can expose you to many ideas, models, and world views that you might not otherwise encounter. Learning a new world view can radically change your personality and belief systems. Case in point; Young Christians learning about Atheism.
cej102937
I understand very well where you are coming from, but you are missing the point.
The *actual* lesson in the Bible is that rights, and restrictions, come from a higher power. Not humans. Humans are NOT free to create restrictions, or arbitrarily define human rights. We all have rights that come from God, that cannot be taken away by other humans.
That is the historical lesson.
I am very well aware that the Bible does not actually say that anywhere. Nevertheless, that is the idea that has persistently shaped enormous parts of Western civilization.
I would be curious as to how atheists answer the question of where rights come from. I don't see much thought on the topic, but perhaps I have the wrong social circles.
cej102937
I feel that you have not actually read her books. I did, as a very young teenager, and again in my early 20s. The books have indeed had a profound impact on my life. I credit Ayn Rand, along with Robert Heinlein and Richard Maybury, with forming some of my fundamental ideas of how the world works. I am quite the opposite of what you describe. Libertarianism is a recipe for success, whether you are a cutthroat corporate climber or a long-haired farmer hippie. That is my personal experience, and what I have seen in other people who subscribe to libertarian or anarchic philosophies. To the contrary, the effects you describe perfectly fit my experience of many self-describing "liberal" adults. cej102937