Ron Paul - What has he accomplished?

[JasonI am a nobody!]

My main problem with "Atlas Shrugged" is that Rand seems to think the "productive" members of society are the wealthy elite who produce rather than leeching off the labors of others. It seems Rand's assumption is that it's the productive wealthy that are being leeched off of.

She doesn't seem to realize that these "productive" people she idolizes are equally guilty of either prospering off the labor of those beneath them, or claiming the natural resources of large areas as their own and profiting off exploiting them.

You want to see a real Atlas Shrugged, check out if everyone who actually knew how to work and produce things decided to take off and leave all Rand's "productive" rich people holding the bag.

The "main problem" you put forth is not what Rand "seems to think" but an erroneous interpretation of what she is attempting to communicate through the 1074 pages if one can survive the literary marathon. She is trying to show how the "productive" can be preyed upon by the "unproductive" through the monopoly of force which only the "government" has been granted by the "productive". She is illustrating the dichotomy of the individual and the collective and how the "individual" is the only thing that can combat the unproductive "collectivist". She also makes a point that the so called "wealthy elites" are not people that sit in big offices with elaborate furnishings but are functional capable people that have built their fortunes from the ground up and are being pillaged by "bureaucrats" that see themselves as elites and entitled to the spoils from their looting of the productive individualists. Of course, she does make a point that some of the "underlings" believe in the "collectivist" concepts but most of the key people were similar in their beliefs as their bosses and seem to be quitting and disappearing as eventually the bosses did. Your last statement is exactly what Rand illustrates if you had actually read the whole book. The "productive individual" whether the owner or an employee can bring to their knees the "collectivist bureaucrat" by just not producing anymore. I would also recommend Rand's "The Fountainhead" which set me personally on this road when I was in my teens. Who is John Galt?...

Is Ayn Rand’s philosophy compatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
http://www.millennialstar.org/is-ayn-ra ... us-christ/

...pretty much points out the major flaw in libertarianism....as well as why those in power would promote it.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

My main problem with "Atlas Shrugged" is that Rand seems to think the "productive" members of society are the wealthy elite who produce rather than leeching off the labors of others. It seems Rand's assumption is that it's the productive wealthy that are being leeched off of.

She doesn't seem to realize that these "productive" people she idolizes are equally guilty of either prospering off the labor of those beneath them, or claiming the natural resources of large areas as their own and profiting off exploiting them.

You want to see a real Atlas Shrugged, check out if everyone who actually knew how to work and produce things decided to take off and leave all Rand's "productive" rich people holding the bag.

Of course she ignores the reality of obtaining daily bread in a feudalistic society where one cannot obtain property....and well as the deeper aspects of this -




....of course the irony is that film has its own propaganda angle....

[Thinkercaptain of 100]

When someone blames a single politician for all the nation's problems, I wonder what that person is trying to sell.
You should ask: What has our government accomplished?
Lately, US politics seem like almost a game...

People act as if the president is all-powerful & thus deserves all-blame, when really he's a scapegoat.
The president makes all of the promises in the world with all the money he doesn't have.
Corporations then laugh regarding his promises & say, "now this is really what we'll promise & what you will promise in return."
Practically no real financial transparency - & surprise surprise - we're in way over our heads in debt.
Congress has failed miserably & then paid themselves raises for it.
The Supreme Court has given the middle finger to the constitution by legalizing the murder of children through abortion, discriminating based on age.
The government has given into being run by corporations, has put greed above integrity & have been the cause of countless hardships & death by screwing with peoples' water by pretending to help "poor" countries when in reality, are exploiting "poor" countries' natural resources... And when they haven't been successful in exploiting - have made excuses to sacrifice many of the poor countries' lives as well as our own soldiers.
Our government has become corrupt & we need someone with backbone to stand against this!

About who to vote for... it seems like Mickey Mouse might be the best bet.
But since we don't have that option... I'd say Ron Paul would be the best bet, of the given choices.
http://kingdomecon.wordpress.com/2011/1 ... ction-why/

[2BFreecaptain of 100]

Is Ayn Rand’s philosophy compatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
http://www.millennialstar.org/is-ayn-ra ... us-christ/

...pretty much points out the major flaw in libertarianism....as well as why those in power would promote it.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

[ktgcaptain of 100]

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Good one. Can we assume that where there is no liberty, the Spirit of the Lord is withdrawn?

Ether 15: 19 But behold, the Spirit of the Lord had ceased striving with them, and Satan had full power over the hearts of the people; for they were given up unto the hardness of their hearts, and the blindness of their minds that they might be destroyed; wherefore they went again to battle.

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

One thing to consider is that in feudalistic societies the more honorable and decent of the landlords didn't just take. Certainly, they felt it was their divine right to rule and collect taxes, but they also realized that they had a duty to their vassals. That included charity during hard times, public facilities such as hospitals, and generosity to loyal servants and tenants who due to physical ailments could no longer support themselves. And of course the most well-known duty, that of protecting their lands from enemies.

These days many businessmen and politicians enjoy the same benefits of labor from the common man as feudal lords enjoyed centuries ago. But unlike those feudal lords, they have no loyalty to the people who support and build them, and indeed don't even recognize them. They think all their successes are of their own making, and feel no qualms about firing loyal employees, denying healthcare and other benefits, and anything else that will increase their own personal profits.

Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't all be better off living under a decent feudal lord. At least he'd be more likely to recognize his responsibilities.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Cause and efffect are not closlely linked. Many don't understand what there actions cause. In simple, small societies, the landlord could see what effect his actions had on the people under his control. Today it's harder to see.

We might as well wish to be slaves in colonial America. Many of them were kind and just slave holders, who understood that it was wise to treat their property well.

I agree with Fairminded and Jason's assement of Atlas Shrugged. I didn't read the book, but I wasted two hours of my life watching the movie. She completely misses the point and has misled much of her generation.

[2BFreecaptain of 100]

Cause and efffect are not closlely linked. Many don't understand what there actions cause. In simple, small societies, the landlord could see what effect his actions had on the people under his control. Today it's harder to see.

We might as well wish to be slaves in colonial America. Many of them were kind and just slave holders, who understood that it was wise to treat their property well.

I agree with Fairminded and Jason's assement of Atlas Shrugged. I didn't read the book, but I wasted two hours of my life watching the movie. She completely misses the point and has misled much of her generation.

This is astonishing to me that you would "wish to be slaves" and actually mean it. In reality you probably are slaves already or have succumbed to the inevitability of being a slave and hopelessly look for a "just slave holder" to treat you well. What a sad state of thought and to have you and Fairminded even consider slavery to be acceptable in any manner is just mind boggling to me. I am truly sorry for you.

As for Ayn Rand and her philosophy, I do concur that she does leave out a very important element which is that of the spiritual component and God's existence and influence which stems from the horrible experiences she witnessed as a young girl is the Soviet Union but that does not negate the truth that the individual is superior over the collective and is congruent with Christ's teachings of the 99 and the 1 and that we all have individual worth in the sight of God and are "agents unto ourselves". As to your statement that "She completely misses the point and has misled much of her generation" would you please elaborate and clarify where she misled and what points she missed?

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Cause and efffect are not closlely linked. Many don't understand what there actions cause. In simple, small societies, the landlord could see what effect his actions had on the people under his control. Today it's harder to see.

We might as well wish to be slaves in colonial America. Many of them were kind and just slave holders, who understood that it was wise to treat their property well.

I agree with Fairminded and Jason's assement of Atlas Shrugged. I didn't read the book, but I wasted two hours of my life watching the movie. She completely misses the point and has misled much of her generation.

This is astonishing to me that you would "wish to be slaves" and actually mean it. In reality you probably are slaves already or have succumbed to the inevitability of being a slave and hopelessly look for a "just slave holder" to treat you well. What a sad state of thought and to have you and Fairminded even consider slavery to be acceptable in any manner is just mind boggling to me. I am truly sorry for you.

As for Ayn Rand and her philosophy, I do concur that she does leave out a very important element which is that of the spiritual component and God's existence and influence which stems from the horrible experiences she witnessed as a young girl is the Soviet Union but that does not negate the truth that the individual is superior over the collective and is congruent with Christ's teachings of the 99 and the 1 and that we all have individual worth in the sight of God and are "agents unto ourselves". As to your statement that "She completely misses the point and has misled much of her generation" would you please elaborate and clarify where she misled and what points she missed?

Sorry you missed the sarcasm of my statement. Is was meant to protray how indiferent our current masters are. They don't understand that our destruction will cause their own. The slave owners knew they depended on slave labor for their extravagant or better lifestyle. Ayn Rand misses that point.

We don't live in an isolated enviroment. We also live in a finite world. In the end of the movie, the oil tycoon blows up his oil wells and disappears. I guess he is showing everyone how hard it will be to get along without him. The fact is, God put that oil in the ground. The tycoon did not create it. he simply gained control of the ground and hired people to put in a well and run it, gaining huge profits. In real life everyone would have cheered and said good, now he has left us all this oil, what a windfall .Ayn Rand gives all the credit to the tycoon. She gives the credit for all the success of every business to one person. It takes hard work from everyone within a business to be succesful.

Communism is form of slavery but so is capitalism. If the world were infinte and anyone could just go out and get there own oil, that would be great and capitalism would work just fine. Whenever a person or group gained control of resources, you could just move on to greener pastures. The end game of capitalism is control of all resources by a small group, thereby enslaving everyone else for a small measure of the basic needs of life. We will get to that point soon on this planet. Ayn Rand may have suffered under communism and communism is not the answer, but she ignores all the history that led up to communism, which is feudalism. The feudal lords and kings etc. all felt they were entitlted to ownership of all land and resources. They controlled them with an iron fist. There was no opportunity for the common person to live other than by slavery to the landlord. Perhaps these lords were smarter and harder working than average. Does that entitle them to enslave the rest? Those with a moral grounding know the answer is no.

The only way to have freedom for the common man, is for some form of collective cooperation to ensure everyone has a chance at their share of the world's resources. The common man must unite to fight agianst the elites. The problem with communism is the elites run it for their own benefit. it never really was a collective. It really was another form of feudalism. America has had a succesful past because we have had regulated capitalism combined with some aspects of communism, like collectively owned water and sewer, regulated power distribution and the regulation of other key resources, to keep small groups from monopolizing them. Ayn Rand has helped in the propaganda that trys to portray America as a capitilist country verses the communist model. That is one of the most damaging misconceptions among Americians now and for the las t 60 yrs or so. It allows the elites to advance their agenda of moving all resources into private hands under the guise that, it is the American way, which it is not.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Cause and efffect are not closlely linked. Many don't understand what there actions cause. In simple, small societies, the landlord could see what effect his actions had on the people under his control. Today it's harder to see.

We might as well wish to be slaves in colonial America. Many of them were kind and just slave holders, who understood that it was wise to treat their property well.

I agree with Fairminded and Jason's assement of Atlas Shrugged. I didn't read the book, but I wasted two hours of my life watching the movie. She completely misses the point and has misled much of her generation.

This is astonishing to me that you would "wish to be slaves" and actually mean it. In reality you probably are slaves already or have succumbed to the inevitability of being a slave and hopelessly look for a "just slave holder" to treat you well. What a sad state of thought and to have you and Fairminded even consider slavery to be acceptable in any manner is just mind boggling to me. I am truly sorry for you.

As for Ayn Rand and her philosophy, I do concur that she does leave out a very important element which is that of the spiritual component and God's existence and influence which stems from the horrible experiences she witnessed as a young girl is the Soviet Union but that does not negate the truth that the individual is superior over the collective and is congruent with Christ's teachings of the 99 and the 1 and that we all have individual worth in the sight of God and are "agents unto ourselves". As to your statement that "She completely misses the point and has misled much of her generation" would you please elaborate and clarify where she misled and what points she missed?

Sorry you missed the sarcasm of my statement. Is was meant to protray how indiferent our current masters are. They don't understand that our destruction will cause their own. The slave owners knew they depended on slave labor for their extravagant or better lifestyle. Ayn Rand misses that point.

We don't live in an isolated enviroment. We also live in a finite world. In the end of the movie, the oil tycoon blows up his oil wells and disappears. I guess he is showing everyone how hard it will be to get along without him. The fact is, God put that oil in the ground. The tycoon did not create it. he simply gained control of the ground and hired people to put in a well and run it, gaining huge profits. In real life everyone would have cheered and said good, now he has left us all this oil, what a windfall .Ayn Rand gives all the credit to the tycoon. She gives the credit for all the success of every business to one person. It takes hard work from everyone within a business to be succesful.

Communism is form of slavery but so is capitalism. If the world were infinte and anyone could just go out and get there own oil, that would be great and capitalism would work just fine. Whenever a person or group gained control of resources, you could just move on to greener pastures. The end game of capitalism is control of all resources by a small group, thereby enslaving everyone else for a small measure of the basic needs of life. We will get to that point soon on this planet. Ayn Rand may have suffered under communism and communism is not the answer, but she ignores all the history that led up to communism, which is feudalism. The feudal lords and kings etc. all felt they were entitlted to ownership of all land and resources. They controlled them with an iron fist. There was no opportunity for the common person to live other than by slavery to the landlord. Perhaps these lords were smarter and harder working than average. Does that entitle them to enslave the rest? Those with a moral grounding know the answer is no.

The only way to have freedom for the common man, is for some form of collective cooperation to ensure everyone has a chance at their share of the world's resources. The common man must unite to fight agianst the elites. The problem with communism is the elites run it for their own benefit. it never really was a collective. It really was another form of feudalism. America has had a succesful past because we have had regulated capitalism combined with some aspects of communism, like collectively owned water and sewer, regulated power distribution and the regulation of other key resources, to keep small groups from monopolizing them. Ayn Rand has helped in the propaganda that trys to portray America as a capitilist country verses the communist model. That is one of the most damaging misconceptions among Americians now and for the las t 60 yrs or so. It allows the elites to advance their agenda of moving all resources into private hands under the guise that, it is the American way, which it is not.

Great comments...if I might add a little to them.

The collective cooperation is called government and works for the people if managed correctly via representatives who truly represent...and the people (at least the majority) choose to be constrained to law and not self interest. That is what made America great and successful in the past....and that was made possible via moral constraint as well as a majority Christian population who mostly served the God of this land - Jesus Christ.

Ayn Rand and all of similar ilk (Hayek, etc) who service the belief that the smarter man who labors harder results with the spoils which are rightfully his - basically the rule of complete self interest....all while ignoring God and stewardship (much is given, much is required - he who is greatest is the servant of all)....but basically serving the arm of the flesh.

Whether to the extreme left with communism....or to the extreme right with Ron Paul's version of capitalism....it is the devil's playground. Ron Paul's version of government can no more serve Freedom and Liberty than Stalin's or Hitler's.

Are we are brother's keeper? Or are we out for ourselves? Do we serve God by serving each other (done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me)?

What of the government established by Moses of which many have said will be the foundation of Zion???