This is a ping list for those who've decided to stop feeding the beast. Let me know if you'd like to be added to the Atlas Shrugged Ping list.
Posted on 06/23/2011 5:30:04 PM PDT by rob777
Ayn Rand was mostly correct when she wrote her magnum opus "Atlas Shrugged." She was incorrect in one important area. She assumed the final option for the wealthy and entrepreneurial class was to go on "strike" and retire to Galt's Gulch. In the modern world the movers and shakers don't strike, they migrate.
Atlas is shrugging in the US. Capital is relocated to regions where it is treated more favorably. Within the country, we see capital and jobs leaving the overtaxed, overregulated Blue states and migrating to smaller government Red states. That provides partial relief, but onerous federal policies cannot be avoided by moving within the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Dumb observation. This is fiction writing and can not be judged "incorrect." Absurd.
Could you kindly be a little more specific as to Rearden's infamous speech? I wasn't aware he delivered one in Atlas. John Galt, yes, and perhaps Francisco D'Anconia, but not Rearden.
“What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?”
James Madison.
even Madison understood capitalists
Read the book before you make unfounded assumptions and irrational comments. If you cannot do that, go back to DU and DK where I am sure you are welcome.
I would not be welcomed at DU. It is a site that is very positive toward atheism and abortion. Unlike Ayn Rand, I am neither an atheist nor in favor of "a woman's right to choose".
Madison was right, but I think fortunes are still safer here than elsewhere. and all things equal, the natural human feeling of national loyalty will keep most folks tied to the homeland long after mere economic logic would suggest a move.
I stand corrected. Rearden's speech wasn't infamous at all. It didn't even exist! I give credit to Hank for keeping his mouth shut then. A Rand character with the good sense not to drone on is a rare bird indeed.
Bottom line is those who are and have been working hard are tired of footing the bill of those slugs who wish not to. Which part of your liberal mind doesn't understand that?
Mulerider, this tool and his buddy N/S, have made a career here bending the truth to fit their point of view. Not surprising.
In a message board situation, ignorance is not an obstacle to expressing an opinion. In fact, it often seems to promote it. My issue is not with free enterprise, just Rand's atheism and the belief that Rand's selfishness is equivalent to the beneficial role of self-interest. We don't have to have Rand's contempt for the rest of humanity to be productive and to promote our own individual prosperity.
Rand was an atheist who was OK with abortion. That does not sound like a conservative to me. Her philosophy was built on atheism. Surely the case for free enterprise is strong enough so we do not have to rely on an atheistic philosopher and her atheistic philosophy.
A notable observation...
Again you are throwing a NS quip into the mix. We are talking about the philiosphy of A/S, not the lifestyle of the author. Unless you can you explain how going Galt translates into atheism and pro choice.
I am not saying Rand may have had other thoughts, but I am not seeing that in A/S. Was it a short term conservative epihipany, maybe so, but equating other peripheral ideas to this particular prose, is flat our wrong.
It has been some years since reading Rand but I believe that she was against any religion or followers who blindly followed without thinking. It wasn’t so much religion per say but the blindly following she objected to. Since her philosophy was based on what is best for self it makes sense, like it’s OK to believe in a higher power but if you give up your worldly possessions or strap on a suicide belt it is wrong to self.
When talking about the action itself, I have to say that it doesn't. People do have the natural right to be sovereign over their own efforts. It's the underlying philosophy, not the idea that people should be their own master under God that I object to in objectivism.
I Prefer purging.
For a start, purge everything north and east of Manhattan
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.