4 ms·

The article isn't crap and you're too focused on the wrong part of it. You're missing the bigger point. It wasn't about whether the laws that Uner had trouble w

The article isn't crap and you're too focused on the wrong part of it. You're missing the bigger point. It wasn't about whether the laws that Uner had trouble with we're justified or not, it was about how Disruptive startups try to paint any and all regulation and laws as unjustified despite there often being merit to them. It's about not being a cry baby and just because you label yourself Disruptive doesn't mean that the rules don't apply to you. At the same time yes there are laws that are laughable and truly need disruption. It's a real fine line to walk and this article points out the danger in the Randian attitude. I personally think that Rand did have some good points. Unfortunately the entire ideology is entirely one-dimensional and self-serving to the point where it ignores any and all counter arguments even if they really are more correct. This kind of mentality is dangerous in the same way religion is dangerous. Or can be dangerous. On the one hand you have you the moderates who are all about the good parts and loving everyone but stop short of holy war. On the other hand you have the zealots who take every word of their book as objective fact and will blow up a building to remind you. Not everyone believes what I believe. Luckily, my beliefs do not require them to.

nirvana 14y ago
You actually called a mentality "dangerous" that you aren't even being honest about! Instead of internalizing leftist propaganda and repeating it as fact, you should actually read the book. "it ignores any and all counter arguments even if they really are more correct." The most accurate characterization of that statement is that it is the exact opposite of what he philosophy actually advocates. Which you would know if you'd read Atlas Shrugged. "On the other hand you have the zealots who take every word of their book as objective fact and will blow up a building to remind you." In this case, you are the zealot who is taking lies told about the book as fact, and advocating violence against those who disagree with you. And of course you have to characterize them in derogatory ways. If Ayn Rand was so wrong, why can't you, and others like you, such as Paul Carr, be honest about what she actually said-- and address her actual arguments and philosophy, instead of lying about them and characterizing them in a derogatory fashion? Which is, as far as I'm concerned, nothing short of calling them names. If you weren't a zealot, you'd have read the book to find out what it actually said. If you claim to have read the book, then lying about it makes you a zealot. But worse, anti-intellectual. And that's what I really find offensive.

nirvana 14y ago

You actually called a mentality "dangerous" that you aren't even being honest about! Instead of internalizing leftist propaganda and repeating it as fact, you should actually read the book. "it ignores any and all counter arguments even if they really are more correct." The most accurate characterization of that statement is that it is the exact opposite of what he philosophy actually advocates. Which you would know if you'd read Atlas Shrugged. "On the other hand you have the zealots who take every word of their book as objective fact and will blow up a building to remind you." In this case, you are the zealot who is taking lies told about the book as fact, and advocating violence against those who disagree with you. And of course you have to characterize them in derogatory ways. If Ayn Rand was so wrong, why can't you, and others like you, such as Paul Carr, be honest about what she actually said-- and address her actual arguments and philosophy, instead of lying about them and characterizing them in a derogatory fashion? Which is, as far as I'm concerned, nothing short of calling them names. If you weren't a zealot, you'd have read the book to find out what it actually said. If you claim to have read the book, then lying about it makes you a zealot. But worse, anti-intellectual. And that's what I really find offensive.