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

[Old Greg]

Er.. no. it's not supposed to be.

On what page does it get to the bit where patients with end stage renal failure start dying because they cannot afford renal dialysis and the charity cheque doesn't make it through?

[SpontaneousOrder]

and the charity cheque doesn't make it through?

What do you think the NHS is (for those that approve)?

[SpontaneousOrder]

was basically a counter-reaction to her personal and detrimental involvement with communism in her youth.

I reckon almost certainly.
The thing is, she got off on the glory of man-kind - and would see collectivism as the subjugation of one's humanity. Given that she created an entire philosophy centred around the observation of objective reality, there is little room in her mind for compromise on matters of morality or truth - which I agree with. Most people,though, are raised to believe that there are no absolutes in this sense - only opinions, and differing opinions should be reconciled with compromise.
For that reason she comes across as particularly harsh, and ironically, irrational - to those who don't base their rationality on objectivity.

[Old Greg]

What do you think the NHS is (for those that approve)?

I'm asking about the book of course! They get their society, I expect and abolish taxation. When do the renal dialysis patients start dying?

[pjclarke]

Ok, so don't answer the question, that's Ok, you do not have to, I guess we'll never know how applying for State aid while decrying State aid is not the contradiction it appears to be.

Er... yes. Again - have you actually read any of her work? She would describe both faith and collectivism as evil traits. Catholicism & Communism are the among the most snining examples of both.

Once again the point seems to have slid by you, somebody may have 'evil traits' and still be perfectly able to point out why bad writing is bad writing. Dismissing it so is as valid as saying I don't like Rand's ideas because of her aetheism, that is, totally invalid, or as a more pretentious person might say: Ignoratio elenchi. I thought you were strong on logic?

The highlighted sentence does kinda make sense, once explained, but good writing should not require elucidation. And it's all about individual success or failure, the fairly basic idea that individuals only get to be successful by depending on others is, once again, absent. I make something like 4 times the median wage in this country, let us call that 'success'. But I am only 'successful' because of my State education, I can only get to work thanks to the Public Transport system, and so forth. In fact the paradox of my 'success' is that it depends on a small pyramid of less 'successful' people 'beneath' me providing the services that enabled that success.

How can a product be evil? Evil is an adjective that may only be applied to a moral agent.

Oh please, you know damn well what I meant, this isn't the Sixth Form common room (or is it ).

[Old Greg]

I reckon almost certainly.
The thing is, she got off on the glory of man-kind - and would see collectivism as the subjugation of one's humanity. Given that she created an entire philosophy centred around the observation of objective reality, there is little room in her mind for compromise on matters of morality or truth - which I agree with. Most people,though, are raised to believe that there are no absolutes in this sense - only opinions, and differing opinions should be reconciled with compromise.
For that reason she comes across as particularly harsh, and ironically, irrational - to those who don't base their rationality on objectivity.

But the objectivity is not proven. It is based on a belief that property rights are innate and inalienable. That belief may be framed in an argument to attempt to demonstrate objectivity, but that is not sufficient to prove it.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I'm asking about the book of course! They get their society, I expect and abolish taxation. When do the renal dialysis patients start dying?

I don't follow. Health care is now provided free from coercion - why do (presumably you mean significantly greater in number) patients necessarily start dying?

[SpontaneousOrder]

But the objectivity is not proven. It is based on a belief that property rights are innate and inalienable. That belief may be framed in an argument to attempt to demonstrate objectivity, but that is not sufficient to prove it.

I think we've been through this before, but it is provable.
Read her work to see for yourself.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Oh please, you know damn well what I meant, this isn't the Sixth Form common room (or is it ).

I can't possibly know what you mean because the question makes no sense

[SpontaneousOrder]

Ok, so don't answer the question, that's Ok, you do not have to, I guess we'll never know how applying for State aid while decrying State aid is not the contradiction it appears to be.

Omg. I already did about 4 times.

Once again the point seems to have slid by you, somebody may have 'evil traits' and still be perfectly able to point out why bad writing is bad writing. Dismissing it so is as valid as saying I don't like Rand's ideas because of her aetheism, that is, totally invalid, or as a more pretentious person might say: Ignoratio elenchi. I thought you were strong on logic?

Stronger than you evidently

The highlighted sentence does kinda make sense, once explained, but good writing should not require elucidation.

it probably wouldn't if you read more than 25% of the book. Infact if you read more than 25% of the snippet it wouldn't.

And it's all about individual success or failure, the fairly basic idea that individuals only get to be successful by depending on others is, once again, absent. I make something like 4 times the median wage in this country, let us call that 'success'. But I am only 'successful' because of my State education, I can only get to work thanks to the Public Transport system, and so forth. In fact the paradox of my 'success' is that it depends on a small pyramid of less 'successful' people 'beneath' me providing the services that enabled that success.

Again... if you read more than a quarter of the book it might actually make some sense. You should read some Bastiat btw - that which is seen and that which is unseen, etc.

the fairly basic idea that individuals only get to be successful by depending on others is, once again, absent.

You managed to determine that by reading a few lines from an 1100 page book?


Come on... you're arguing against a point which the book doesn't even try to make