Posted on 05/03/2011 8:56:01 PM PDT by Tom Mullen
I had the opportunity to see Atlas Shrugged, Part I on Saturday in the only theater in which it is being shown in Tampa, FL. It is running at Cinebistro, a specialty theater where you can enjoy a high-end meal and fine wine served at your seat, which is very similar to a first class airline seat. Admittedly, it is just the kind of venue that progressives might associate with an elitist gathering of selfish capitalists. However, the movie itself tells quite a different story than they might expect if their understanding of Rand is limited to her interviews with Phil Donahue or Mike Wallace.
Like libertarians, Rand’s Objectivist economic theory was rooted in what we today call “the non-aggression axiom,” which Thomas Jefferson and the liberal faction of America’s founders called “the law of nature.” According to this philosophy, each individual has an inalienable right to keep the product of his labor and to dispose of it as he sees fit. The non-aggression axiom forbids any individual or group from using force to take away the justly acquired property of another. Neither does it allow for anyone to interfere with voluntary contracts, as long as those contracts do not involve the initiation of force against anyone else.
This prohibits the government, which is by definition the societal use of force, from redistributing wealth or enacting laws which go beyond prohibiting aggression. Establishment media figures who interviewed Rand immediately focused on the implications of her philosophy for social safety net programs, charging that Rand’s philosophy would not allow for programs for the poor or handicapped. While this is true, it obscures the most important implications of Rand’s philosophy for economic policy in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at tommullen.net ...
It looks like you are the author, so why not just post it all here? :-)
>>It looks like you are the author, so why not just post it all here? :-) <<
Cache’
If you are excerpted you are of the intelligencia..
;)
Either that, or you’ve been CONDITIONED TO EXCERPT BY THE MAN.
I wish you luck in your mission to enlighten Progressives. It's going to be one heck of an uphill slog to get through to people who are too dense to grasp a principle as simple as the one expressed above.
Phil Rearden deserves a seat on “The View” with the other lefty
women. Perfectly cast.
>>Either that, or you’ve been CONDITIONED TO EXCERPT BY THE MAN<<
That has such a TXH1138 feel to it... :)
good article
good movie
thank you
Atlas Shrugged.
I WANT MORE!
I saw it in Madison, Wi. last weekend!
What a hoot!
It was purely a case of mistaken identity that drove me to see the movie: I was under the impression I had seen “The Fountainhead” when in fact it was “Executive Suite” that drew me to Atlas Shrugged. In any event, I found it entirely entertaining and have the book now to start after I finish my current tome (The Brothers Karamazov). I also found it interesting how much the actor playing Phil Reardon sounds like William Holden (again, the Executive Suite connection), and also find it hard to believe Atlas Shrugged was written over 50 years ago. Looking forward to Parts II and III now.
Not the author but just my opinion: I do not blog and have never posted a blog, but I don’t have a problem with this. If his writing is worthy of following up, then he deserves the blog hits. He posted a long enough excerpt that we can decide for ourselves, so I see no point in worrying about the personal benefit he may derive from the link. What I mind (and never follow) are the two sentence excerpts that link to a blog, where you can’t tell the point or the quality of reasoning from the excerpt. He’s not in that category.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.