Ayn Rand quote

[cadillac]

This quote is so relevant when deciding to accept or reject Bitcoin!

"... and there were no chains to hold you except the chains you were willing to wear ... remember that you have seen another kind of world.  Remember that you can reach it whenever you choose to see.  Remember that it will be waiting and it's real, it's possible - it's yours." 

Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged

[Hawker]

Actually the best thing about Ann Rynd is that she made a fortune from selling her books and still claimed Social Security and Medicare to her dying day.  Truly a case where her actions spoke louder than her words.

[bcpokey]

Ayn rand was a pile of garbage. An intelligent pile of garbage admittedly, but how much does that really say?

[David M]

Ayn rand was a pile of garbage.

That's a bit harsh.

She managed to piss of every collectivism based philosopher on the planet.   

While most had imagined a Utopian future based on mutual wants/needs, Rand told them to shove it and placed individual capital as the back bone for the future.

[shady financier]

Precisely.

Rand and her self-centred sociopathy on one hand, and the murderous Statolatry of the nazi's and the Leninists on the other.

I reject them both. Balance between the individual and the collective is key, neither is anything without the other. They are in fact ultimately, two sides of the same coin. All extremists are basically egomaniacs, I can't stand the fuckers.

[Anonymous]

Actually the best thing about Ann Rynd is that she made a fortune from selling her books and still claimed Social Security and Medicare to her dying day.  Truly a case where her actions spoke louder than her words.

She was forced to pay into those for most of her life. Of course she claimed them.­­

[Anonymous]

Precisely.

Rand and her self-centred sociopathy on one hand, and the murderous Statolatry of the nazi's and the Leninists on the other.

I reject them both. Balance between the individual and the collective is key, neither is anything without the other. They are in fact ultimately, two sides of the same coin. All extremists are basically egomaniacs, I can't stand the fuckers.

There is no collective.

[-]

I reject them both. Balance between the individual and the collective is key, neither is anything without the other. They are in fact ultimately, two sides of the same coin. All extremists are basically egomaniacs, I can't stand the fuckers.

word

[-]

She was forced to pay into those for most of her life. Of course she claimed them.­­

According to her, she should have never needed them.

Really, her life was a mess. She was as irrational as humans come, especially regarding her private life. Irony.

[-]

There is no collective.

There is when a group of people decide they share a common interest and want to work together to achieve it, which they quite often do.

[Anonymous]

There is no collective.

There is when a group of people decide they share a common interest and want to work together to achieve it, which they quite often do.

A group of people never decide. A group is not a single organism nor a singular sentient being. It's consent can never be unilateral. Only an individual is capable of choice and consent.

[-]

There is no collective.

There is when a group of people decide they share a common interest and want to work together to achieve it, which they quite often do.

A group of people never decide. Only an individual is capable of choice.

And when several individuals decide on a common course ... they form a collective for a while.

You can semantically narrow down the word collective until it never applies, yes ... but the social reality remains that humans do collaborate and sometimes even altruistically. Which is a good thing. Call those collaborations whatever you want.

[Anonymous]

There is no collective.

There is when a group of people decide they share a common interest and want to work together to achieve it, which they quite often do.

A group of people never decide. Only an individual is capable of choice.

And when several individuals decide on a common course ... they form a collective for a while.

You can semantically narrow down the word collective until it never applies, yes ... but the social reality remains that humans do collaborate and sometimes even altruistically. Which is a good thing. Call those collaborations whatever you want.

There's a difference between a collective by which all its components voluntarily choose to work together and one constructed by slavery and coercion. It seems most "collectivists" advocate collaboration by force and theft.

[-]

There is no collective.

There is when a group of people decide they share a common interest and want to work together to achieve it, which they quite often do.

A group of people never decide. Only an individual is capable of choice.

And when several individuals decide on a common course ... they form a collective for a while.

You can semantically narrow down the word collective until it never applies, yes ... but the social reality remains that humans do collaborate and sometimes even altruistically. Which is a good thing. Call those collaborations whatever you want.

There's a difference between a collective by which all its components voluntarily choose to work together and one constructed by slavery and coercion. It seems most "collectivists" advocate collaboration by force and theft.

Neither I nor the ~~~~~ guy ever implied anything about force. Actually, we both expressed our disdain for the extreme of both sides. I am no fascist or communist (both being collectivist in the extreme and forceful way).

Besides, I didnt want to argue collectivism vs individualism. I just wanted to point out that flat out denying the existance of collectives was plain strange/false.

[Anonymous]

There is no collective.

There is when a group of people decide they share a common interest and want to work together to achieve it, which they quite often do.

A group of people never decide. Only an individual is capable of choice.

And when several individuals decide on a common course ... they form a collective for a while.

You can semantically narrow down the word collective until it never applies, yes ... but the social reality remains that humans do collaborate and sometimes even altruistically. Which is a good thing. Call those collaborations whatever you want.

There's a difference between a collective by which all its components voluntarily choose to work together and one constructed by slavery and coercion. It seems most "collectivists" advocate collaboration by force and theft.

Neither I nor the ~~~~~ guy ever implied anything about force. Actually, we both expressed our disdain for the extreme of both sides. I am no fascist or communist (both being collectivist in the extreme and forceful way).

There is no middle in this debate. You either believe man is fully entitled to himself and the labor he produces or you believe this can be compromised in the name of your whims and desires.

[-]

You are

1.) changing the premise of the discussion (i did NOT want to argue individualism vs collectivism)
2.) painting a false black-white dichotomy


But for the sake of putting it out there:

You are entitled to yourself and most of the fruits of your labor. You are NOT entitled to all of it without restrictions. But very important: It should NOT be taken by "whims" and "desires". There needs to be a legitimate purpose and (more importantly - if only because ensuring the first restriction relies on the latter) a well-defined democratic process to decide how far to take this.

If you are an anarchist, we will just have to disagree on that.

[Anonymous]

You are

a) changing the premise of the discussion (i did NOT want to argue individualism vs collectivism)
b) painting a false black-white dichotomy


But for the sake of putting it out there:

You are entitled to yourself and most of the fruits of your labor. You are NOT entitled to all of it without restrictions. But very important: It should NOT be taken by "whims" and "desires". There needs to be a legitimate purpose and (more importantly - if only because ensuring the first restriction relies on the latter) a well-defined democratic process to decide how far to take this.

If you are an anarchist, we will just have to disagree on that.

No, I am either entitled to every damn thing I produce or I will not produce at all! I will not compromise! ...and it is not a false black-and-white dichotomy! As their is life and death, there is freedom and slavery!

Who is to define a legitimate purpose? Again, the whims and desires of the few but certainly not all! ...and the only well-defined democratic process that exists is voluntary individual trade! Everything else leaves an enslaved minority.

[Sjalq]

Atlas there is an objective part of reality Ayn Rand chose not to see and hid it behind reason and intellectualism. Individuals have a moral obligation to look after other and love one another, though she was right that people could not be forced to do so or enslaved to do so.

I totally agree she should have pulled social security having been forced to pay into it.

[Anonymous]

Individuals have a moral obligation to look after other and love one another

This comes inherently in human nature. I derive value from helping the unfortunate and so does the majority.  Charities did a wonderful job of enabling us to care for each other before they were crippled by the state.

[-]

No, I am either entitled to every damn thing I produce or I will not produce at all! I will not compromise! ...and it is not a false black-and-white dichotomy! As their is life and death, there is freedom and slavery!

Who is to define a legitimate purpose? Again, the whims and desires of the few but certainly not all! ...and the only well-defined democratic process that exists is voluntary individual trade! Everything else leaves an enslaved minority.

You are preaching anarchism, which I find an absurd concept. An anarchistic society has never existed on earth. (not even on Iceland, as some people claim) There is a good reason for that. You can have anarchy only for a very short moment of time, until some people become more powerful/influential than their fellows. --> Enter tyranny or (if you are lucky) an oligarchy.

Modern democracy is the least of evils (at least its somewhat stable and better than the other stable alternatives), we might yet improve it on some, though.


As an aside: A society that you envision could not be as complex (in terms of division of labor) as ours. It would necessarily be less technologically advanced. Another trade-off that I am not willing to make. (although the less important one)