menu2: If you like police state that's your right.
What's not to like about a police state? Doesn't the homeland seem somehow more "secure" with Big Brother watching your every move? By the way. Your location can be determined by your cell phone too. So it's not just to keep you paranoid, it's to keep you under surveillance as well.
RayfromUSA: What's not to like about a police state? Doesn't the homeland seem somehow more "secure" with Big Brother watching your every move? By the way. Your location can be determined by your cell phone too. So it's not just to keep you paranoid, it's to keep you under surveillance as well.
Love the Paranoia........Just but a pay as you go phone.....No need to register it...Problem solved....
leigh2154: Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" hits very close to the current state of the World, a broken economy and a government taking more and more power over its people... Last year, people purchased over a half million copies of her book, first published in the late 1950's......
Actually, V, I said exactly that awhile back, and Conrad disagreed! I wonder if he's changed his mind a tad.
Ambrose2007: Actually, V, I said exactly that awhile back, and Conrad disagreed! I wonder if he's changed his mind a tad.
I'm not going to try and find my post, but I wrote something along the lines that "there are stunning parallels between the US that Rand portrayed in Atlas Shrugged and our current state of affairs."
Conrad73: Nope,actually she is for Government that adheres to it's proper function!http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.htmlThe only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.
For the New Intellectual
Galt’s Speech,Actually she was anything BUT an Anarchist!
My point being that Rand does in fact believe in government controls, contra Anon's claim. (I believe she does so logically inconsistently, but that's a whole 'nother subject!) If she didn't believe that the government should control *something*, in other words, she would be an anarchist.
No swearing and little shouting, no kicking in the teeth and not even a sign of a police baton. But they certainly don't need arresting, that serves no purpose, all these over pampered pricks really need is a good punch in the face.
Really, is this is what Grandad died for? The freedom to dance about like a dickhead? - they don't even have any rhythm! - Jesus Christ.
For me, the test of a person's belief in liberty is whether they will defend the rights of those they dislike doing things they don't approve of. That's a belief in liberty *in principle.*
lifeisadreamMexi Go, Mexico State Mexico16,713 posts
Ambrose2007: For me, the test of a person's belief in liberty is whether they will defend the rights of those they dislike doing things they don't approve of. That's a belief in liberty *in principle.*
What Is Liberty?
Written by Darrell Anderson.
The word freedom implies an individual is unfettered in any manner to act. Freedom implies no boundaries to limit human actions.
The concept of boundaries, however, transforms the word freedom into the word liberty.
Whereas the concept of freedom ignores the concept of obligations, the concept of liberty implies potential obligations.
The word freedom ignores interactions with other humans, the word liberty acknowledges those interactions.
The word liberty describes specific freedoms of action without obligations toward others, but recognizes that obligations might exist. The concept of boundaries introduces obligations toward other people.
The concept of freedom implies unrestricted movement and actions regardless of boundaries, but the concept of liberty imply restrictions on actions because of boundaries.
Liberty acknowledges possible boundaries and merely is freedom from fiat boundaries.
There is another word that describes the concept of liberty.
Anarchy.........
From Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, 1983:
The word freedom implies an individual is unfettered in any manner to act. Freedom implies no boundaries to limit human actions.
The concept of boundaries, however, transforms the word freedom into the word liberty.
Whereas the concept of freedom ignores the concept of obligations, the concept of liberty implies potential obligations.
The word freedom ignores interactions with other humans, the word liberty acknowledges those interactions.
The word liberty describes specific freedoms of action without obligations toward others, but recognizes that obligations might exist. The concept of boundaries introduces obligations toward other people.
The concept of freedom implies unrestricted movement and actions regardless of boundaries, but the concept of liberty imply restrictions on actions because of boundaries.
Liberty acknowledges possible boundaries and merely is freedom from fiat boundaries.
There is another word that describes the concept of liberty.
Anarchy.........
From Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, 1983:
Thanks, Life. Some pretty decent writing, I thought.
She was a corporatist (fascist) visionary similar to Marx or Lenin in that she proposed deliberately sabotaging society on the dubious premise that a theology of self-indulgence and greed led by corporate tycoons seeking their own enrichment, would somehow create a better world.
The word freedom implies an individual is unfettered in any manner to act. Freedom implies no boundaries to limit human actions.
The concept of boundaries, however, transforms the word freedom into the word liberty.
Whereas the concept of freedom ignores the concept of obligations, the concept of liberty implies potential obligations.
The word freedom ignores interactions with other humans, the word liberty acknowledges those interactions.
The word liberty describes specific freedoms of action without obligations toward others, but recognizes that obligations might exist. The concept of boundaries introduces obligations toward other people.
The concept of freedom implies unrestricted movement and actions regardless of boundaries, but the concept of liberty imply restrictions on actions because of boundaries.
Liberty acknowledges possible boundaries and merely is freedom from fiat boundaries.
There is another word that describes the concept of liberty.
Anarchy.........
From Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, 1983:
RayfromUSA: She was a corporatist (fascist) visionary similar to Marx or Lenin in that she proposed deliberately sabotaging society on the dubious premise that a theology of self-indulgence and greed led by corporate tycoons seeking their own enrichment, would somehow create a better world.
Thanks but no thanks.
Well, there's one thing that is guaranteed to happen when you attempt a Reader's Digest condensed book summary of Rand; you will fail to accurately capture her ideas.
Ray, you may have honest disagreement with Rand, but in order to determine how you actually disagree you will need to first accurately and fair-mindedly summarize her views. You have failed magnificently to do so with the above.
Ambrose2007: Ray, you may have honest disagreement with Rand, but in order to determine how you actually disagree you will need to first accurately and fair-mindedly summarize her views.
I don't feel any obligation to be any more "fair minded" than Rand herself. She speaks as though her ideas represent the absolute truth. I reserve the right to do the same.
Personally I find her a bore and her supposed "revolutionary philosophy" to be total sophistry of the worst kind.
Here she is in-vitro. It only takes a few seconds of observation to see that she is totally full of herself, with no empathy for others, like a sociopath.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Yes!