Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ayn Rand -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Ma who wrote (17)	10/5/2000 12:03:50 AM
From: MechanicalMethod	Respond to of 23

Paul, When thought must produce public goods thought shifts to something else. Quality and quantity of production suffer since little values added to the producer's life. Like Communist Russia in 1900's. It didn't work -- it doesn't work. I apologize for not addressing the specifics you mentioned. I'm willing to concede to get out of the discussion. I don't have the time. Best Regards, Mechanical Method

To: Paul Ma who wrote (17)	10/5/2000 12:24:31 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23

Ayn Rand says that the government should leave the economy alone That is not entirely true. Society admits of as many subsidiary governments as there are human thoughts and desires. Ayn Rand's primary social need was: freedom from force. She found faith to be a denial of the sacredness of the individual life/mind; But philosophically, every individual must choose his/her values through their own thought. Individual faith was (by definition) not rational...but it was a personal choice. The imposition (by force, obviously) of any derivatives of faith upon unwilling individuals (this is for this, or this is for that good, as defined and as imposed by US), she saw as wrong. Initiated force was immoral. I am always surprised when people acquiesce in that belief, but then say: "but it is ok for Government to do it!" Rand was not against charity or giving, or any voluntary behaviour that did not impose on others. She was against FORCE. PERIOD. People can form or join any groups they wish--for whatever purposes...provided there is no force. what she was for is another topic. What she was against was force. Atlas Shrugged is necessarily extreme, because it is trying to set out a philosophy. Thus, we have the dichotomy of extreme opposites. This was the best way for her to exemplify her points, and it worked incredibly well. In practice, however, there is a much more subtle continuum between doers and users. The pragmatic realities of the characters in Atlas Shrugged forced them into the extremes that demonstrated her philosophy. It also, held them back from such changes. However, even in this fictional setting, it was very difficult for the people, who had minds, to stop being used by the others. It was only because it was a fictional novel that they could be persuaded to stop giving--without any value in return. rand is often accused of being against giving or charity, or being helpful. This is silly and nonsensical. Everybody gives. But to give without value sounds insane to me. What does giving by force or without valuing mean? What could it possibly signify?? If I think a flower is beautiful, I water and feed it--I GIVE. But I don't ONLY value flowers...