Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

mhaze said:

the Holy Grail of a naughty woman who needed a spanking.

that should be investigated by skeptics.

Click to expand...

Ayn always had a superior male as the protagonist of all her stories. As smart as she was she always thought the hero was smarter than the heroine. Ayn thought the alpha male was in charge and could give arbitrary discipline.

Read her books thoughtfully. Ayn was looking for that male her entire life. I wasn't that guy but I might have fooled her for an afternoon

Senex said:

Ayn always had a superior male as the protagonist of all her stories. As smart as she was she always thought the hero was smarter than the heroine. Ayn thought the alpha male was in charge and could give arbitrary discipline.

Read her books thoughtfully. Ayn was looking for that male her entire life. I wasn't that guy but I might have fooled her for an afternoon

Click to expand...

I was told that Dagney was the villian of AS.
Rationale: She was the last to abandon the corrupt society.

Arguably, then, you have a point, the smart males had already all left. But I have some difficulty thinking of sex roles between times this far apart; as another example of this try to read Joseph Conrad and consider them. Briefly for Conrad: woman (always weak) is fooled by evil man, good guy struggles and finally beats up (phsyically) bad guy, weak woman falls for good guy as a result of show of strength. Hard to buy the sub plot today.

Don't we have a similar problem reading AR? Nonetheless and without trying to over analyse the literature (never could stand english profs that did that!) both AS and Fount have strong sex-role sub plots.

ponderingturtle said:

I must say that in Ayn Rands mind the best position to be in must be emergency medicine. Just think how much you can force people to pay you to keep them alive. And such extortion would seem to be moral.

"Hey do you want to keep breathing? $50,000 for the epipen that will permit that" It is just supply and demand at work, your demand for the epipen is high and I have the only available supply. Capitalism at work pure and simple.

Click to expand...

That seems to be what people always project on to Ayn Rand, but I don't see any evidence from Rands writings that she would actually support this.

Understanding Rand, or any philosopher, doesn't mean you have to agree with her. One can certainly disagree with specific aspects of her beliefs while still acknowledging that she makes many valid points that are worth considering.

mhaze said:

Don't we have a similar problem reading AR? Nonetheless and without trying to over analyse the literature (never could stand english profs that did that!) both AS and Fount have strong sex-role sub plots.

Click to expand...

Thay certainly do. In AS and Fount the female protagonist was both brilliant and submissive to the male protagonist. I have no interest in either story but I suspect Ayn Rand needed discipline from a fellow not as smart as she was. I could have been the one. I'm not as smart as she was but I could be a protagonist. If someone just asked.

Always in the wrong place -- the story of my life.

hgc said:

Government collects money and re-distributes it through spending. In the US, all domestic spending lands in one of 50 states (+ some other territories). Byrd is good at getting some decent portion of that into West Virginia. That's what all 535 of them are supposed to do. That's what their constituents elect them for.

Click to expand...

And THAT'S MY PROBLEM. See what I wrote above about the restaurant where all 100 diners shared the check!

And like you said, their constituents are big fans of people that can get money from other states into theirs. In other words, the system rewards people that can steal money from other states.

What exactly did you mean by "some decent portion"? If it's a portion larger than the amount WV put in (which it is), then by what standard is it decent? It's money that came from other states.

So, yes, he's good at his job- which is stealing from people that aren't as good at demonstrating their "need."

Is Byrd corrupt? Perhaps, and if so, he should be hectored for that specifically (with evidence).

Click to expand...

While I wouldn't rule it out, I'm certainly not accusing him of being corrupt. I'm accusing him of taking money from other states to pay for projects in his own (which he's proud of doing). I don't think he's doing it for graft, I think he's doing it to get votes- but he's still wasting other states' money!

But what you really don't like is the role of government, period.

Click to expand...

That's true. I wouldn't deny it.

That goes for all the Randians, libertarians and other flavors of right-wing anarchism. You just label it "Socialist" or "leftist" because that must get the blood flowing, or something.

Click to expand...

About the labels- I explained that above:

Admiral said:

My apologies for the term "leftist," if you're offended by it. I simply don't like using the word "liberal," since liberal used to mean what libertarianism does today (see the term "classical liberal"). It referred to people that were opposed to the growth of government.

I also don't like the term "statist" which is popular among libertarians. Since I don't like imposing labels on people I'm arguing against. It's like when creationists call evolution believers "Darwinists," as if making it sound like a religion made it a religion.

Anyway, from here on out I'll just say "liberal," if that's what you'd prefer. (Of course, this sometimes leads to the accusation that I'm turning "liberal" into a dirty word or somesuch, which is not my intention).

Click to expand...

The trouble is, I'm used to saying leftist simply because when I'm discussing politics with libertarian friends, the word "liberal" can lead to some confusion, since, like I said above, the term "liberal" used to mean what libertarian does today. Some libertarians prefer to call themselves "classical liberals." Anyway, that's why I often use the term "leftist"- and like I said, I apologize for appearing to use it as a rhetorical tool.

As for calling it "socialist"- Most liberals are fine with the term
"socialized" to refer to government controlled. As a quick example, from a very positive review of Michael Moore's Sicko:

http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/story/168807.html

Michael Moore traveled to France, Canada and England to show the wonders of socialized medicine.

Click to expand...

Would you not use the term "socialized health care" to describe government health care? I'll stop saying it in this case, since you're right and it could be considered inflammatory. But I do usually refer to systems involving these principles, (to each according to his need, etc) as being socialized.

On the other hand, you do use the term "Randian," rather than Objectivist, and you refer to "right-wing anarchism." So who's trying to get the blood rushing with unfair terms?

Back to the topic.

Does Socialism reward liars any more than any other socio-political ideology? Do leftists like to get their hands on government spending any more than rightists do? Poppycock!

Click to expand...

I'm CERTAINLY not a rightist, and don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm arguing for Republicans. Republicans are at least as bad about public spending- the differences are only subtle differences in what they want to spend the money on (to broadly generalize, schools, welfare, pork versus national defense, agricultural subsidies, pork).

I want to decrease public spending in nearly every issue.

Admiral said:

Say, for example, that after many years of difficult research I come across a cure for cancer, free of side effects. I then charge a few thousand dollars for each dose. You would probably claim I was an evil, greedy capitalist, and you want to nationalize the drug, providing it for free for everyone that couldn't afford it.

Here's my question, though. I produced that drug for profit, I put that work into it- what right do you have to seize it? You're effectively saying that all the work and money I had put into it was rightfully yours. Now, in a society that can do this, only the suckers would produce anything. By far, the best thing to be is a leech. Like I said, screw those dumb enough to produce.

Click to expand...

If you produced that drug for profit...in a free economy...you'd be much better off charging way less for it. Ideally, you'd charge the exact amount so that there are no doses left over, and no one needing a dose left over. If you want to maximize your profits in a free market...you don't really get to choose how much you charge.

ImaginalDisc said:

Well, our military's incredibly huge cost is partly due to having a "defense" policy of being able to "project" forces in foreign theaters without any compromise to national defense.

We like to invade places as a matter of national policy. Most European countries don't set that goal, so they spend less.

Click to expand...

Let me say also that one of the major reasons these countries don't spend that much on the military is because they can rely on other countries to defend them when some dictator goes nuts. See: The United States and Britain saving France's ass in WWII. Ayn Rand might point out that that is socialist leeching in action also.

Admiral said:

From a 1964 Playboy interview with Rand:

I have a problem with her answer- part of the reason government lotteries can make money is by making it illegal to hold private lotteries, which Rand certainly wouldn't support. Otherwise, government might as well be imposing a voluntary tax of selling vacuum cleaners- they can't possibly survive against competition if they have the additional cost of running a country.

Still, this is her general point. And like she mentioned, it's the last problem that should be solved.

Click to expand...

But, how could we "take the plunge" towards a fully laissez-faire economy if we have no idea how the taxation would work, and if, in fact, all indications are that it would NOT work? I can't see how the conversation even gets started with such a gaping hole in the proposition.

ponderingturtle said:

But Americans pay more on a per capita basis for health care. That is a simple fact. So why is it that these systems that must be more expensive are not in the real world? Where is the savings our capitalistic system gives us?

Click to expand...

because the universal healthcare programs in other countries don't pay for proceedures that they don't deem necessary but you might need anyway. Canadians and some Europeans can come to the US for procedures they don't want to wait for lowering their healthcare costs per capita.

firecoins said:

because the universal healthcare programs in other countries don't pay for proceedures that they don't deem necessary but you might need anyway.

Click to expand...

Name one procedure that they don't deem necessary and you might need anyway, and that isn't covered by the universal healthcare programs in those other countries.

Earthborn said:

Name one procedure that they don't deem necessary and you might need anyway, and that isn't covered by the universal healthcare programs in those other countries.

Click to expand...

How about this procedure?

firecoins said:

because the universal healthcare programs in other countries don't pay for proceedures that they don't deem necessary but you might need anyway. Canadians and some Europeans can come to the US for procedures they don't want to wait for lowering their healthcare costs per capita.

Click to expand...

This is total, utter nonsense. You don't have a single shred of evidence, only ignorant prejudices.

hgc said:

How about this procedure?

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure, because it is not a procedure that is used very often, but I think that probably IS covered, in some countries at least.
If it isn't, you can always deduct it from your taxes as "special medical needs".

I happen to know that here in the Netherlands (and no doubt in far more Catholic countries as well) pilgrimage of sick and crippled people to Lourdes is covered by some insurance companies. Proof here (in Dutch).

Earthborn said:

I happen to know that here in the Netherlands (and no doubt in far more Catholic countries as well) pilgrimage of sick and crippled people to Lourdes is covered by some insurance companies. Proof here (in Dutch).

Click to expand...

Good Lord! I was being entirely facetious, but covering a trip to Lourdes is not materially different from covering an exorcism.

mhaze said:

The question seems unclear. Is the issue of an ambulance driver-capitalist who would charge ripoff sums to take a person to the hospital, or of a society that would extort taxes on the basis of some emergency the solution of which was alleged to be for the common good (eg., say global warming)?

Click to expand...

How would Ayn view the morality of using emergencies to extort peoples property from them. This could well be the fire department trick such as Crassus used in Rome. He would show up with his fire department and buy the land at a discount before agreeing to put them out. That would seem to be a capitalistic ideal.

Mycroft said:

That seems to be what people always project on to Ayn Rand, but I don't see any evidence from Rands writings that she would actually support this.

Understanding Rand, or any philosopher, doesn't mean you have to agree with her. One can certainly disagree with specific aspects of her beliefs while still acknowledging that she makes many valid points that are worth considering.

Click to expand...

The problem is becuase so many people find a truth and think it is the only thing. Free markets work well for some things therefore free markets are the morally superior solution to all problems.

This absolutist thinking produces all the looniest ideologies and political structures.

Here is something I have found bothering me, it seems that everyone regards her as being very very smart, I have to wonder why? Can people tell me that?

ponderingturtle said:

Here is something I have found bothering me, it seems that everyone regards her as being very very smart, I have to wonder why? Can people tell me that?

Click to expand...

She created her own, consistent and logical theory about how the world works, purely from her own observation, and contrary in many ways to what the prevailing wisdom was at the time. It takes a GREAT amount of intelligence to do that, especially when you're going against things that are thought to be correct.

There's also small things you can pick up from the video...the quick and efficient way in which she answers questions, indicating swift understanding and clear thought...an exceptional memory, to be able to hold all of those theories of hers and explain them clearly in response to questions...a very dynamic facial expression with almost constantly darting eyes, indicating a large amount of emotions, thoughts and calculations running through her head at any given time (compare her facial expressions to Paris Hilton's blank face in her recent Larry King interview and you'll see the difference). An almost active anger/disregard for other people's feelings indicated by the intensity of the way she attacks other people's points and dismisses their dearest hopes...(highly intelligent people tend to feel emotions more strongly and to express themselves using stronger language, and they naturally end up being outsiders from the general population, and thus are detached and have very little empathy)...

...and finally...an apparent poor amount of personal hygiene (look at her teeth) and fashion sense. See my thread titled "would you want to be a genius if no one ever knew" for more on that.

Hmmmm...perhaps I should just make a YouTube video comparing this footage to Paris Hilton's interview with bullet points cut in?

You cannot compare the healthcare systems of say, American and Canada, and be comparing free market vs socialized medicine.

For one thing, America's health care system isnt driven by the free market. There is plenty of government intrusion that claims to be socialistic.

The noted difference in the economic reality of these two countries in this regard could simply be related to how bad it is to do things half-arsed. As a single example, many poor in the U.S. utilize emergency rooms as if they were clinics or the local general practitioner. They do so with the threat of legal consequences if the ER does not treat them. Clearly an ER, which isnt designed to be a clinic, cannot perform economically like a clinic would. This isn't free market at all.

Still further, the American legal system puts a very heavy burden on the practitioners of medicine due to our tort laws. Extensive malpractice insurance is essential because our legal system demands it. If you don't have it then you wont be practicing medicine for very long.

On a sort-of-but-not-really-related note: Fully-soclialized medicine rides on the coat tails of the rest. The alure of obscene profits is the primary driver of a lot of medical research. Perhaps a profitless system does better at driving the research into some things ultimately more beneficial to society by and large, but if we are discussing the case of "in an emergency" then we are probably discussing research that is driven by obscene profits where the socialists merely copy what the capitalists came up with.

EGarrett said:

She created her own, consistent and logical theory about how the world works, purely from her own observation, and contrary in many ways to what the prevailing wisdom was at the time. It takes a GREAT amount of intelligence to do that, especially when you're going against things that are thought to be correct.

There's also small things you can pick up from the video...the quick and efficient way in which she answers questions, indicating swift understanding and clear thought...an exceptional memory, to be able to hold all of those theories of hers and explain them clearly in response to questions...a very dynamic facial expression with almost constantly darting eyes, indicating a large amount of emotions, thoughts and calculations running through her head at any given time (compare her facial expressions to Paris Hilton's blank face in her recent Larry King interview and you'll see the difference). An almost active anger/disregard for other people's feelings indicated by the intensity of the way she attacks other people's points and dismisses their dearest hopes...(highly intelligent people tend to feel emotions more strongly and to express themselves using stronger language, and they naturally end up being outsiders from the general population, and thus are detached and have very little empathy)...

...and finally...an apparent poor amount of personal hygiene (look at her teeth) and fashion sense. See my thread titled "would you want to be a genius if no one ever knew" for more on that.

Hmmmm...perhaps I should just make a YouTube video comparing this footage to Paris Hilton's interview with bullet points cut in?

Click to expand...

Are you really trying to defend her inteligence by comparing her to Paris Hilton? Inanimate objects compare favorably to paris hilton.

So that her morality cares nothing for human life in an abstract sense is a true mark of inteligence?