Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[pjclarke]

Well surely that would depend on whether their 'work products' were designed to encourage evil traits in those that are influenced by them.

And the people who disliked the book did so without mentioning religion, politics or indeed sexuality in their animadversions. But you brought these first two up as a reason to discount the criticisms and gave no other reasons, a logical failure, that was my point.

Rand did far more than get a refund out of Medicaire, she benefitted from the 'insurance' aspect, where risk is shared collectively, and those that suffer the insured risk get back more than the premium, left purely to her own resources, as she advocated for others, she would likely have been bankrupted:

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor ( a social worker tasked with caring for Rand, anyone else find that ironic? PJ) told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.

By her own words, she compromised. Not nice when one's heroine turns out to have feet of clay like the rest of us, but there it is. Have a nice evening.

Source: Oral History of Ayn Rand.

[SpontaneousOrder]

And the people who disliked the book did so without mentioning religion, politics or indeed sexuality in their animadversions. But you brought these first two up as a reason to discount the criticisms and gave no other reasons, a logical failure, that was my point.

That's your failure in logic. Not mine
I wouldn't expect you to see that anymore because you obviously ARE brain damaged:

AGAIN!!!!

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

--Ayn Rand (long before she got ill)


So where is the contradiction?! There is none. That she felt uncomfortable receiving from the state does not mean that she thought that she had no right. It's called pride - and pride can be a bitter pill to swallow. She'd rather have nothing to do with the state. She'd rather have passed quickly and with more dignity. But the point truth remains that despite things not being ideal, she lived until her end in accordance with her published principles & values (see that big block of text I quoted above - don't just stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalalalal').

You can pull random quotes out of your arse all day long (it's 2014 - we all now how google works ), but while they're all made of straw you just make yourself look like a plonker.

[pjclarke]

So where is the contradiction?! There is none.

As I understand it, Rand was opposed to mandatory collective provision by the State, on moral grounds, but when such a provision is implemented the moral thing to do is to accept the benefits of that provision, even when they exceed what one could have gained by ones own efforts, as she did once once her own resources proved inadequate. Hmmmm.

Up thread you stated that 'if he cannot pay for what he needs, then he must depend on voluntary charity' was 'a fair enough appraisal of Rand's position'

She could not pay for what she needed, she relied on the State rather than voluntary charity. Now I think I just found a contradiction....

The wider point is that if the originator and main advocate of a political philosophy finds herself unable to stand by her 'survival of the fittest' rugged individialism, what chance do those of us who are not bestselling writers have?

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/03/05/a-...r-psychopaths/


And it remains the case that your rebuttal of Whittaker Chambers' 5 page negative review can be summarised thusly - He was a communist and then he became a Christian. Apparently objective realists have no need to do any more than give biographical details of their detractors to defend themselves. Unpursuasive, as indeed most non-adolescents find Rand herself.

[SpontaneousOrder]

As I understand it, Rand was opposed to mandatory collective provision by the State, on moral grounds, but when such a provision was implemented she decided the moral thing to do was to accept the benefits of that provision once her own resources proved inadequate. Hmmmm.

Up thread you stated that 'if he cannot pay for what he needs, then he must depend on voluntary charity' was 'a fair enough appraisal of Rand's position'

She could not pay for what she needed, she relied on the State rather than voluntary charity. Now I think I just found a contradiction....

That (the bold bit) is the ideal. The way things should be. The fact of the matter is that she was stolen from to fund this socialised care, and she made no attempt to hide her opinion, as I've demonstrated, that a victim of the states theft is morally entitled (even obliged) to reclaim those funds as and when they are able to.
To paraphrase her own words - those who endorse such a system have no right; Those who condemn it do have such a right.

So no contradiction. Clearly.

And it remains the case that your rebuttal of Whittaker Chambers' 5 page negative review can be summarised thusly - He was a communist and then he became a Christian. Apparently objective realists have no need to do any more than give biographical details of their detractors to defend themselves. Unpursuasive, as indeed most non-adolescents find Rand herself.

Chambers' review may well have been honest and unbiased; But the point is that without knowing, it's hardly convincing for the same reasons that we wouldn't ever consider having a jury composed exclusively of overt neo-nazis to judge the guilt of a Jewish or Black man in court.
You picked 3 people who's core values were specifically targeted, to review the book which unflinchingly calls them out as the worst of man-kinds evils.

[pjclarke]

Chambers' review may well have been honest and unbiased; But the point is that without knowing, it's hardly convincing

You could always take the review in good faith and explain where he is wrong and why ....

[SpontaneousOrder]

You could always take the review in good faith and explain where he is wrong and why ....

Hey... you chose his review. How about you tell me where he is right and why?

[pjclarke]

That (the bold bit) is the ideal. The way things should be. The fact of the matter is that she was stolen from to fund this socialised care, and she made no attempt to hide her opinion, as I've demonstrated, that a victim of the states theft is morally entitled (even obliged) to reclaim those funds as and when they are able to.

Last time. She did a lot more than reclaim funds. She took the benefits of a collectivised system, a system the creation of which she vigorously opposed, that if provided by a private company would have cost her a lot more, that could not exist without the State and which her fellow citizens, through their representatives, democratically brought into being. To me this is a compelling example of why such a system is not just a Good Thing, it is a hallmark of a civilised society.

Hey... you chose his review. How about you tell me where he is right and why?

Because he was a communist and a Catholic.


Actually I've just remembered the best and most complete review of AS you'll ever need, by John Rogers...

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. :

[Old Greg]

Last time. She did a lot more than reclaim funds. She took the benefits of a collectivised system, a system the creation of which she vigorously opposed, that if provided by a private company would have cost her a lot more, that could not exist without the State and which her fellow citizens, through their representatives, democratically brought into being.



Because he was a communist and a Catholic.


Actually I've just remembered the best and most complete review of AS you'll ever need, by John Rogers...

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. :

You'll eat your words when he proves that property rights are objectively natural and inalienable.

[SpontaneousOrder]

that if provided by a private company would have cost her a lot more

Really? Any reason to suppose that? or did you just think it'd sound convincing?
Anyone with an ounce of economic understanding will attest to the fact that it's the state that makes healthcare so expensive - especially in the US.

Even if that were not true, given that we're addressing issues of hypocrisy, it only matters what she believed to be the case.

, that could not exist without the State

Hold on... how can it 'cost her a lot more' privately if it couldn't exist privately? You're just making tulip up now aren't you?

and which her fellow citizens, through their representatives, democratically brought into being.

Are you trying to appeal to my love of democracy and all that mob-rule stands for? Or are you just inserting arbitrary fluff that has no bearing on the situation but might serve to make your argument more appealing to the less discerning reader?

To me this is a compelling example of why such a system is not just a Good Thing, it is a hallmark of a civilised society.

You see the hallmark of a civilised society as forcing people to pay for what you think is good for them, whether they believe that it's good for them or not? So your personal opinion is the arbiter of the rest of the world's personal subjective value judgements & preferences?

You're not making any arguments here. Can't you see that? You're just repeating yourself over and over again and repeating the mantra that she 'took more than she was entitled to' without making any effort to determine exactly what she was entitled to (which you clearly must do if you're then proceeding to base your argument of hypocrisy on the premise that she took more than this value).

Because he was a communist and a Catholic.

So you concede this point. About time.

Actually I've just remembered the best and most complete review of AS you'll ever need, by John Rogers...

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. :

Ooh... you managed to google another one. Well done. Except.... why are you laughing? As you've not even read the book it shouldn't really be that funny. Unless you're just jumping on the bandwagon and pretending. Like most

You don't have to like the book - but the bulltulip is easy to smell from a mile away.


Incidentally, "unbelievable heroes" always strikes me as silly criticism; In her own words the archetypal 'radian' hero was her "projection of an ideal man", and correspondingly her villains were the antithesis of that ideal man.
Ideal man. Hero. Unbelievable? probably.

[pjclarke]

Really? Any reason to suppose that? or did you just think it'd sound convincing?
Anyone with an ounce of economic understanding will attest to the fact that it's the state that makes healthcare so expensive - especially in the US.

Because, by definition, a private company has to take a profit, whereas a State system with an element of compulsion can leverage all sorts of economies of scale. You might want to use that Google thing to discover which is the most cost-effective, the largely state-provided NHS or the US private model.

Vague appeal to hypothetical authority, fallacy No.1.

Hold on... how can it 'cost her a lot more' privately if it couldn't exist privately? You're just making tulip up now aren't you?

Do read that again, old chap. Medicaire could not exist without the State.

You see the hallmark of a civilised society as forcing people to pay for what you think is good for them, whether they believe that it's good for them or not? So your personal opinion is the arbiter of the rest of the world's personal subjective value judgements & preferences?

My personal opinion, or yours, is irrelevant. In a democracy, there will always be Government policies that some disagree with; I see the enshrinement of the principle that a democratic population makes collective provision for treating the sick via a mandatory contribution in its laws as a sign of a decent society. Anyone with an opposing view is free to campaign to abolish or privatise the NHS. Good luck with that.

Straw Man, Fallacy No.2

So you concede this point. About time.

. V.good.

Except.... why are you laughing?

Cos, based on the Randroids I've met, he nailed it.