Libertarian Rand

[Guest guest]

> Pete's not alone in his thinkng indeed. He is far from alone; he is

but one

> among the faceless, brainless masses that overshadow and outvoice

common sense, respectability and decency in our world.

FACELESS???????? You FUCKING HYPOCRITE!

I'm not the one hiding in anonymity. If you had any brains or common

sense you wouldnt have said that!

[Guest guest]

Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also

be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it

might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm?

Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that

resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the

Triangle Shirt Waist company?

[Guest guest]

Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also

be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it

might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm?

Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that

resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the

Triangle Shirt Waist company?

[Guest guest]

Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also

be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it

might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm?

Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that

resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the

Triangle Shirt Waist company?

[Guest guest]

maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both

steppist and Randist? WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF does

this have to do with anything?

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also

> be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it

> might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm?

>

> Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that

> resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the

> Triangle Shirt Waist company?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both

steppist and Randist? WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF does

this have to do with anything?

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also

> be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it

> might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm?

>

> Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that

> resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the

> Triangle Shirt Waist company?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both

steppist and Randist? WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF does

this have to do with anything?

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also

> be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it

> might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm?

>

> Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that

> resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the

> Triangle Shirt Waist company?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you had no

face.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

>

> > Pete's not alone in his thinkng indeed. He is far from alone; he is

> but one

> > among the faceless, brainless masses that overshadow and outvoice

> common sense, respectability and decency in our world.

>

> FACELESS???????? You FUCKING HYPOCRITE!

>

> I'm not the one hiding in anonymity. If you had any brains or common

> sense you wouldnt have said that!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

again you arent doing a very good job of ignoring me. I think you

must be powerless. You should start Pete anonymous. Get some folks

coerced to it. Maybe get a federal handout or two.

> maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both

> steppist and Randist?

Me ex sponsor, who I mentioned in the post you responded to.

> WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF

>does this have to do with anything?

This was discussed a while back, presumably before you joined. In abt

1920 or so there was a horrendous fire at that company's factory that

resulted in the death of over 100 ppl, mostly young women. An exit to

the fire escape was locked shut and it collapsed in the heat anyway.

In those much more laissez-faire capitalist times, fire regulations

were very slack, fire ladders were too short to reach the top floors,

and there was no inspectorate to ensure that safety standards were

kept anyway. Emergency crews watched helplessly as agonized girls

leapt to their deaths.

In the aftermath it was stated by some politicians there was no point

in having toughter fire regulations because they were impossible to

enforce anyway.

Now, wouldnt a little bigger bureaucracy, getting in the way of all

those free-spirited laissez-faire capitalists making their money, and

pasing fire regulations and having more bureaucrats going round doing

random checks and such like be rather handy to have prevented this

tragedy?

[Guest guest]

> Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you

>had no face.

What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we

cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I

certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there

are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail?

[Guest guest]

> Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you

>had no face.

What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we

cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I

certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there

are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail?

[Guest guest]

> Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you

>had no face.

What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we

cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I

certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there

are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail?

[Guest guest]

did you watch the Super Bowl or have you ever? Were the faces in the crowd

distinguishable? Why are you playing this game of bullshit now? You are

right (wow that was quite a deduction Petos) there are so many of you, that

the truth is seldom heard and only the communist bullshit of the folks like

you that permeates, the air, the radio waves, TV and print. Your view is

prevailing of course, this is why I complain because communism is

prevailing. In pure democracy there is no other destiny besides pure

communism, and with that destiny only comes war, when those who support

those who steal become fed up and revolt. That will happen, it always does.

Steal from the rich to feed the poor til there are no rich no more... but

the rich see that coming and do something about it, like kill a bunch of

pests, little leeches, the thieves that steal their money. You just don't

get that. People don't like to be robbed. It is not right to be robbed. I

guess if you'd ever had anything you would know that.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you

> >had no face.

>

> What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

> clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

> The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we

> cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I

> certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there

> are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

did you watch the Super Bowl or have you ever? Were the faces in the crowd

distinguishable? Why are you playing this game of bullshit now? You are

right (wow that was quite a deduction Petos) there are so many of you, that

the truth is seldom heard and only the communist bullshit of the folks like

you that permeates, the air, the radio waves, TV and print. Your view is

prevailing of course, this is why I complain because communism is

prevailing. In pure democracy there is no other destiny besides pure

communism, and with that destiny only comes war, when those who support

those who steal become fed up and revolt. That will happen, it always does.

Steal from the rich to feed the poor til there are no rich no more... but

the rich see that coming and do something about it, like kill a bunch of

pests, little leeches, the thieves that steal their money. You just don't

get that. People don't like to be robbed. It is not right to be robbed. I

guess if you'd ever had anything you would know that.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you

> >had no face.

>

> What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

> clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

> The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we

> cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I

> certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there

> are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

did you watch the Super Bowl or have you ever? Were the faces in the crowd

distinguishable? Why are you playing this game of bullshit now? You are

right (wow that was quite a deduction Petos) there are so many of you, that

the truth is seldom heard and only the communist bullshit of the folks like

you that permeates, the air, the radio waves, TV and print. Your view is

prevailing of course, this is why I complain because communism is

prevailing. In pure democracy there is no other destiny besides pure

communism, and with that destiny only comes war, when those who support

those who steal become fed up and revolt. That will happen, it always does.

Steal from the rich to feed the poor til there are no rich no more... but

the rich see that coming and do something about it, like kill a bunch of

pests, little leeches, the thieves that steal their money. You just don't

get that. People don't like to be robbed. It is not right to be robbed. I

guess if you'd ever had anything you would know that.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you

> >had no face.

>

> What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

> clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

> The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we

> cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I

> certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there

> are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Your ex sponsor couldn't be Randist and steppist. Randist as you call it

has no room for religion, and certainly not for Christianity and good deeds

shit. So he's insane. thats why I said that makes sense or whatever I said

comparing it to getting dropped off the roof. He did a good job passing it

on - his insanity that is.

I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid and should

have known better. You try to pass the buck for them. Try to blame someone

else for their own ineptitude and irresponsibility. Just like you, I

suppose. Why is it my job to make sure someone else isn't a stupid fool?

Its not because everyone knows there is nothing I can do about that. I

can't do anything about that, so why then is it my job to make sure the

stupid fool doesn't get hurt?

Re: Libertarian Rand

> again you arent doing a very good job of ignoring me. I think you

> must be powerless. You should start Pete anonymous. Get some folks

> coerced to it. Maybe get a federal handout or two.

>

>

> > maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both

> > steppist and Randist?

>

> Me ex sponsor, who I mentioned in the post you responded to.

>

> > WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF

> >does this have to do with anything?

>

> This was discussed a while back, presumably before you joined. In abt

> 1920 or so there was a horrendous fire at that company's factory that

> resulted in the death of over 100 ppl, mostly young women. An exit to

> the fire escape was locked shut and it collapsed in the heat anyway.

>

> In those much more laissez-faire capitalist times, fire regulations

> were very slack, fire ladders were too short to reach the top floors,

> and there was no inspectorate to ensure that safety standards were

> kept anyway. Emergency crews watched helplessly as agonized girls

> leapt to their deaths.

>

> In the aftermath it was stated by some politicians there was no point

> in having toughter fire regulations because they were impossible to

> enforce anyway.

>

> Now, wouldnt a little bigger bureaucracy, getting in the way of all

> those free-spirited laissez-faire capitalists making their money, and

> pasing fire regulations and having more bureaucrats going round doing

> random checks and such like be rather handy to have prevented this

> tragedy?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say

you

> > >had no face.

> >

> > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

> > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

> > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that

we

> > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea,

because I

> > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if

there

> > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should

prevail?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid

>and should have known better.

Now this is where it stops being funny. This confirms what I already

suspected, that you arent playing with a full deck. Are you the guy

whose response to my advocacy of gun control was " Anyone wants to take

away my guns, let them just try. " ? If so I am very, very glad I dont

have you a neighbour.

So, this is where it stops being funny and is now very offensive, so I

will be ignoring you from now on.

[Guest guest]

Look at the 1960s when the rich did a pretty good number on the poor. It

always happens. Its not the decency of Libertarianism you dolt. Its human

nature, only to take so much then strike against.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say

> you

> > > >had no face.

> > >

> > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

> > > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

> > > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that

> we

> > > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea,

> because I

> > > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if

> there

> > > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should

> prevail?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Look at the 1960s when the rich did a pretty good number on the poor. It

always happens. Its not the decency of Libertarianism you dolt. Its human

nature, only to take so much then strike against.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say

> you

> > > >had no face.

> > >

> > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

> > > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

> > > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that

> we

> > > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea,

> because I

> > > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if

> there

> > > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should

> prevail?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Look at the 1960s when the rich did a pretty good number on the poor. It

always happens. Its not the decency of Libertarianism you dolt. Its human

nature, only to take so much then strike against.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say

> you

> > > >had no face.

> > >

> > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you

> > > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable.

> > > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that

> we

> > > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea,

> because I

> > > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if

> there

> > > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should

> prevail?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

oh I am sorry I offended you. When you need help and I am there and watch

you drown because you stole from me, I won't feel sad. Oh you say thats not

right, thats not Christian, thats bad. Or thats not human. Only a

Christian or otherwise insane person could be so twisted to feel sadness

when his oppressor dies. Those girls may not have been oppressors, but I

owe them nothing, I certainly wasn't oppressing them. I don't even owe them

sadness, that was taught by religion and social epectations. And just

because I don't support your fire codes and altruism you think its not

funny. Well I don't support the fire codes if they stole the money from me

to make them.

But I don't know what your problem is. You act like its someone else's

job to feed you and to employ you. If you go into a place and it looks

unsafe, why would you stay there? They had a choice, they chose badly, its

not my fault, Pete. I guess its your fault. Too bad you can't earn a dime

to pay for their fire codes and too bad you can't employ anyone because you

are too busy demanding that others feed and employ you. You are useless,

but you expect to be fed, and you steal your food from those who would

employ you, commie fuck. Why should you work for them, there are enough of

you little useless commie thieves to just steal from them instead, until

they kill some of you off (ever notice how there are wars pretty

frequently?) And Rita talks about personal responsibility. in the other

thread. Commies don't care about that - its the rich guy's responsibility.

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

>

> > I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid

> >and should have known better.

>

> Now this is where it stops being funny. This confirms what I already

> suspected, that you arent playing with a full deck. Are you the guy

> whose response to my advocacy of gun control was " Anyone wants to take

> away my guns, let them just try. " ? If so I am very, very glad I dont

> have you a neighbour.

>

> So, this is where it stops being funny and is now very offensive, so I

> will be ignoring you from now on.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

it wasn't me

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

>

> > I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid

> >and should have known better.

>

> Now this is where it stops being funny. This confirms what I already

> suspected, that you arent playing with a full deck. Are you the guy

> whose response to my advocacy of gun control was " Anyone wants to take

> away my guns, let them just try. " ? If so I am very, very glad I dont

> have you a neighbour.

>

> So, this is where it stops being funny and is now very offensive, so I

> will be ignoring you from now on.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I like the way you intellectualize it so that no one is

socialist/communist. Not you, not the Nazis, only the Russkies, right?

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

>

> > The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was

> > no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the

> > movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything

> > even vaguely Nazi-like.

>

> While the Nazis indeed called themselves socialists, to describe them

> as socialists is similar to on the basis of their name describing

> Zhirinowsky's Liberal Democrats as liberals and democrats, or to

> say that as Republicans oppose Democrats, they arent democrats, etc.

> etc.

>

> Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism.

> Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire

> competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned

> about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was

> extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt

> seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any

> scientific discovery since Newton!

>

> However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of

> Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant

> individualism.

>

> P.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand novels as

vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys based on

ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who are

portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it when she

makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen win out in

the end.

However... it's really QUITE different. The fascists valued the individual

only as a component of a greater entity -- State or Volk or whatever --

whereas for Rand there is nothing greater than the individual. I'm not up on

Nazi theory, but I did once read an essay by Mussolini on the nature of

Fascism. Mussolini, as he expressed himself, could have been the perfect

model for any Rand villain.

In fact that's one of the main problems with the novels. Dialogue is always

either a little Mussolini speech or an anti-Mussolini speech. It wears

thin...

--wally

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

>

> > The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was

> > no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the

> > movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything

> > even vaguely Nazi-like.

>

> While the Nazis indeed called themselves socialists, to describe them

> as socialists is similar to on the basis of their name describing

> Zhirinowsky's Liberal Democrats as liberals and democrats, or to

> say that as Republicans oppose Democrats, they arent democrats, etc.

> etc.

>

> Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism.

> Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire

> competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned

> about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was

> extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt

> seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any

> scientific discovery since Newton!

>

> However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of

> Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant

> individualism.

>

> P.