Wow, I debated with myself whether or not to predict in the original post that the lefties (and lefties who claim not to be lefties) would respond in Pavlovian fashion with non sequiturs and lies in cartoon form. Throw in a little misogyny and the three stooges don’t disappoint. Pathetic but predictable.
If I were to propose a discussion about Aristotle, instead of Rand, I can imagine the following conversation (if past is prologue):
Bodhi: Hey, what do you think about this article showing how Aristotle’s criticisms of democratic government are applicable to today’s circumstances?
Lefties: Aristotle was a poor writer, and his favorite color was orange.
Bodhi: Ok, the former comment is very subjective and nonsubstantive. And the second, regardless of truth, is completely irrelevant.
Lefties: He was a bad guy.
Bodhi: Hmmm, also a pointless comment. Can we talk substantively about the article? Are there any adults in the room?
Lefties: Magic ponies!
Bodhi: Ummm, yeah.
Sadly, the critics in this thread know as much about Rand as they do economics, which is virtually nothing. Are there any substantive comments addressing the article? No, of course not. There’s a major difference between knowledge and ignorance, between understanding and intellectual dishonesty. I don’t challenge others on subjects I don’t know; I don’t debate without substance. And I can demonstrate with substance that Rand’s critics in this thread are full of crap. Pay attention now.
We have a criticism that Rand is a poor writer, a highly subject contention. Is there any support offered for such a view? No, just a lame comment. Might one to take into account that Rand’s first language was Russian and not English? Might one consider that the point of the novel is the ideas and philosophy behind it and not writing style? Was Plato’s Republic well written? Was Moore’s Utopia? Who cares? Debate the substance please.
And from the standard, lame, strawman cartoons predictably offered as counter-Randian thought . . . . . What makes Milton Friedman’s belief in free markets “loopy”? What makes Art Laffter’s ideas “silly”? Any scholarship to back up these arguments? Bueller? Bueller? Non sequitur crap in cartoon form in still crap.
One thing that is laughable is how the critics use their own bankrupt ideas of class warfare and project it in Orwellian newspeak fashion onto Rand. Per Slab’s cartoon, Rand claimed “only the rich were ‘producers’ and the rest of the human race ‘parasites’.” Total, complete BS. And, IIRC, Slab you claim to have read Atlas Shrugged. Are you sure about that?
Randian philosophy is not a pro-rich/anti poor belief system. In fact, her hero in The Fountainhead (Howard Roark) was desperately poor. Yet, he refused to steal or allow people to steal from him. Rand praised hard work, industriousness, creativity, pride in one’s self, ambition, intellect, etc. Rand championed merit; she favored people who moved human society forward. I can see how the liberal statists would get the panties in a wad over these dangerous concepts.
To Rand the parasites are just that: the takers and destroyers. Her villains aren’t the poor. It’s not a class warfare issue with her; that’s a liberal obsession. In fact, Rand’s villains (the James Taggarts, the Wesley Mouches, etc.) are the rich and powerful destroyers of individuals and economies. They are those who produce nothing and deprive others of their wealth and freedom.
And, if you’ve read Rand, you’d know this.
