4 ms·
Ayn Rand was not an idiot. You just misunderstood what her book was, as did many other people who have never lived under a communist regime. I have lived under
by 0xbear 9y ago
Ayn Rand was not an idiot. You just misunderstood what her book was, as did many other people who have never lived under a communist regime. I have lived under a communist regime, and I remember it well, so I can tell you that her book is basically a fantasy world diameterally opposed to communism, or to be exact the form of it that the Soviet Union was aiming for. Nothing more, nothing less.
- KGIII 9y agoYes, a fantasy world. A world which isn't going to exist, presented as a serious topic. Maybe idiot was too strong a word, but it was shorter than the alternatives. If she'd left it as a work of fantasy, and not encouraged adoption, I'd be less inclined to be disrespectful. However, she gave many talks on the subject and pushed her views as serious political philosophy. This was adopted by others and has pretty much ruined the whole party and platform. So, maybe she isn't an idiot but is actually a genius for undermining a once viable political platform and duping young people into believing in fairy tales.
- 0xbear 9y agoSure, she wasn’t one to turn down an easy buck and a bit of fame. Can you fault her? Libertarianism was never viable. It goes against human nature, just in the opposite direction from communism. Communism postulates that lazy people deserve everything (“to each according to his need”), so the wealthy and aspiring hate it. Libertarianism postulates they deserve nothing (“taxation is theft”) so the poor hate it. The gray reality is somewhere in between. The underlying truth of the situation is that when the poor have nothing to eat, they eat the rich, and moral absolutes do not help either side.
- KGIII 9y agoIt's almost as if you didn't read my posts. You're confused about what a libertarian is. I'm one, and I don't believe I am taxed at a high enough level. Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian. Again, it's a broad spectrum on the political compass. There is still left and right. There are extremes and moderates. You're claiming absolutes and being polarized by assuming the loudest speak for every one. If you read my posts, you'd see that I think Ayn Rand was a moron. You'd also already know that it is far more than just Randians. There's a wonderful Wikipedia article on the subject, if you don't believe me.
- baq 9y agodon't know why you're being downvoted - guess being sane and actually using your brain for figuring out stuff from first principles instead of political axioms isn't fashionable. perhaps never was. i just wanted to add that the poor don't eat the rich when they have nothing to eat. they do it much sooner, when they notice that the rich eat better and better and the quality of their food increases way quicker than theirs. that's when the biggest revolutions happen, anyway. (guess what - i actually live in a post-communist country, too. most people here probably have no idea what they're talking about when they say communism.)
- croon 9y agoI'll also add to that, that the notion of an "opposite" to something so complicated as a _world_ is idiotic, because in running away from the bad of that one, you run into bad in the other. TL;DR: The "opposite" of a bad world isn't necessarily a good world.
- KGIII 9y agoYeah, but sometimes we have to reduce things to a more simple nature as things must be optimized for brevity and attention span. It really is a broad spectrum and it's quite possible to have both authoritarian ideals in one category while having libertarian values in a different category. I do favor the simplicity of the political compass with four points. It has a specific name but I can't think of it at the moment. It is simplistic, and reductionist, but it is handy enough for a forum post and adequate for generalized conversations. But, as you suggest, it's much more complicated than that. We humans really do like putting things into boxes, or so it seems.