DallasCowboys

I was literally just gonna ask that about John Galt, you beat me to it. I have another quick question, was Ayn Rand in favor of private security services, like the police and military because isn't that what Anarcho Capitalist's support? Thanks for your answer.

I was just curious what the differences between these two ideas is and why one is the better then the other? Is the only difference that Objectivism would support states and Anarcho-capitalism wouldn't? If this is a bad question I apologize I am still new to Objectivism.

I hate starting new topics just to rant but this really pissed me off. I read Paper Towns by John Green and from what I can tell I have no problem with the themes in the book though I could be missing something. After reading the book I was doing some research and came across John Greens tumblr page and found a post by him and why he hates Atlas Shrugged and it just really annoyed me because not only does he totally misunderstand the book he knocks Ayn Rand's writing when his isn't even in the same league. Nobody has to comment on this I just needed to vent my anger a bit. Here is his post " Why I Hate Atlas Shrugged with a White-Hot Passion(I was asked why I dislike the novel Atlas Shrugged so much; I answered; people asked me to make the answer rebloggable, and so I have. All of this, as always, is offered with the caveat that I might be—and often am—wrong.) 1. Atlas Shrugged is a novel of ideas. The plot exists only so that Ayn Rand can lay out her set of philosophical beliefs. So it’s the kind of book that makes you feel smart because you “get it,” but the story itself is paper-thin and is carefully constructed to explain and celebrate Rand’s objectivism. I have an inherent problem with novels of ideas, because I think they fail to do most of what is interesting and useful about fiction, but I particularly dislike them when the ideas are bad ideas. 2. The philosophy of objectivism is absolutely repugnant to me (and also does not hold up to scrutiny). The philosophy of selfishness is all built around the idea that the person ingesting the philosophy feels special (i.e., that we all identify with John Galt), and of course we do all identify with John Galt, because we all feel that the world is against us and we are secretly a unique flower that could bloom brilliantly if only we did not have to carry the weight of other, lesser people. But the fact that when we read Atlas Shrugged we all identify with the elite is itself evidence of the book’s crappiness, because either A. only extraordinary people happen to read Ayn Rand, or B. we all feel extraordinary, because we are so busy being our multitudinous and complex and extraordinary selves that we do not imagine other people as being as complex or interesting or extraordinary as we are. All of my novels are written in persistent and direct opposition to the ideas put forth in Atlas Shrugged, and since there is nothing to the novel except its ideas (the language of the novel imho could not be less interesting), it follows logically that I would strongly dislike the book." Thanks, David C.

Thank you all for answering, you help me learn everyday.

In my family normal discussions revolve around weird topics like monopolies around the world. One of the monopolies we came across was the De Beers monopoly on diamonds. What I don't understand is how the monopoly could exist for so long. Monopolies don't exist without government intervention and I couldn't find much on any government favors De Beers was or is receiving. Thanks, David C.

I was having an argument with my brother and was curious of your guys/gals opinions. Should states be able to declare holidays, what is the purpose in them? If I want to remember or celebrate something shouldn't I just do it on my own. With regard to being given a day off for the holidays, if I want the day off, I take it regardless of the holiday. Thanks, David C.

Thanks for the list I totally disagree with the Donald Duck one but still interesting. I agree Dldelancey sometimes a cartoon is a cartoon but I also think cartoons are a great way to promote propaganda, just look at Captain Planet which is full of propaganda.

Every year I go on a cruise and a few weeks prior to my vacation I have the tradition of watching old cartoons I used to watch as a kid. The only channel to watch any old cartoons is boomerang, they have a great collection from the Powerpuff girls, which I'll admit was a favorite of my childhood, to Tom and Jerry. Yesterday while doing some drawings I had the Smurfs going on in the background. After about two episodes it hit me, the Smurfs is nothing but communist propaganda. First, every individual works for the better of society. In the episode I was watching Papa Smurf needed some mushrooms, so the whole community stopped on his orders to go look for them because these mushrooms helped the community. Second, any time they harvest food it is taken and distributed evenly to the community. Thirdly, going back to papa smurf, he has a huge white beard and wears all red, maybe he is supposed to represent Santa but to me it just adds up that he is supposed to be like Marx. Another thing is the names and clothing of the smurfs. None of them have actual names, they are simply labeled by there use to the community. They also all wear the same clothes making them almost impossible to tell apart. They also can't switch jobs or move up in society. Before I get to the last piece of evidence keep in mind the Smurfs never trade and they have no money system. Lastly comes Gargamel, who the creators of the show were trying to make represent capitalism. However, he is a complete misrepresentation of capitalism. The creators of the show believe capitalists will do anything to make money including murdering smurfs to make them gold which of course is inaccurate. Maybe I am just tired and losing my mind, anyway please let me know what you guys and gals think? I am pretty close to giving up on TV all together after learning this. Thanks, David C.

I was just curious on everyone's opinion with regard to the trade we made to get back the American Solider. I think it sounds like a trade the mets would do but that's just me. Thanks, David C.

So they can disobey orders if they think they are wrong or immoral or just if they are illegal? David C.

Correct me if I am wrong, I am not too great on this subject but I was watching tv yesterday and a commercial about the military came on, in this commercial one of the mottos was to always follow the orders given from above you. Why would we have such a motto, isn't it mottos like that, that gave the nazi soldiers an excuse to hurt innocent people? Thanks, David C.

Hahaha, I am glad I responded quickly don't want you to have a heart attack.

Hahahaha, I actually don't, I saw it on a news website. I can't stand TV shows actually, I am a movie guy. It just really ticked me off, because people who have never been exposed to Ayn Rand now will assume she is a moron because some TV show said she is.

dldelancey- you make a very interesting point, I do have a question though, so if your child murdered someone would you still love them? Thanks, David C.

What makes me laugh about this show, is I am sure the actors themselves and the writers haven't even read her books. How can people choose to be so uneducated? Just wanted to post this to vent my frustration. http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2014/05/18/cbs-s-good-wife-ridicules-ayn-rand-s-books-awful-12-year-old-s-view-wor

Today I was at the St.John's University for my brothers graduation and during one of the speeches the speaker said that God loves everyone unconditionally. My question is, isn't this a bogus statement, why should god love everyone unconditionally? Shouldn't love have to be earned? Thanks, David C.

Thanks Selene For Posting That Link David C.

But as Kant would say wasn't the cop just doing his duty hahha, I am kidding. I do have a question though, if it was a private school would you believe they had the right to give the students the book? Thanks, David C.

Thank You Selene, I was hoping that would be the answer. So I am right in saying it was just because the southern states were a part of the United States that we had the right to stop them?

Hey don't know if any of you guys saw this. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/07/the-seven-words-the-man-who-was-arrested-at-a-school-board-meeting-says-the-officer-said-to-him/ I was wondering if whether or not you felt he should have been thrown out of the meeting and I am curious as to your guys opinion on the whole "inappropriate books" in school thing?

I had never thought of it that way, you make an interesting argument. However, I do have a question shouldn't we then stop the violation of human rights around the world or was it just because the southern states were a part of the United States that we had the right to stop them? And yes I agree I don't want to be compared to Southern Ideology during the civil war.

Andrew I just wanted to thanks for being so respectful, it is a rare quality to find nowadays. On a side note you didn't need to clarify on the whole burning the religion itself and not the people thing, you being an objectivist I didn't think you wanted to burn religious people, I actually find it sad that you had to clarify yourself because you were afraid someone might jump on the opportunity to say you wanted to burn people. I totally understand your position and you do bring up some interesting points especially with regard to him closing irrational games and the comparison to Wynand closing the Banner. I guess the best test to see who is right, is what Levine does now. Thanks Again, David Czerwin

Ok I am gonna try and answer the original question. First of all I am just curious whether or not we are talking about the Christian version of Adam and Eve or the Islamic version? Second of all I think you misunderstood the story bit. The Devil doesn't like Adam he thinks they Adam is below him, that is why he doesn't bow down to him when God Commands. God gave Adam free will and let him live in Paradise. The Devil thinks Adam is below him because he was made from fire and Adam only clay. He then makes the deal with God that he can corrupt Adam “Verily I will mislead them and surely I will arouse in them vain desires.”. His goal isn't to give Adam knowledge, his goal is to deceive him, so I don't think the Devil is a good guy per say. Thanks, David C.

I am gonna agree to disagree on the Religion thing. Yes I think they could have been more harsh to religion but I certainly thought they were pretty harsh as is. My point was I don't think he is like Gail Wynand. I think Levine has changed as a person. I think by giving into the PR he too has changed as a person. Unlike Wynand who has that passion still there deep inside. Now I might be wrong, maybe you are right and that is why he closed Irrational Games because he thought he was becoming a slave to PR but I think someone who gives into PR so much has somewhat changed as a person. Hope that makes sense. And I apologize for saying "fame got to him" that was the wrong term, what I should have said was PR got to him. Thanks, David C.

Thank You all for the comments. You all make some very interesting posts.The one thing I want to say is in my opinion I don't think the Objectivist stance is to liberate the world. Also thank you for keeping the talk as "civil" (no pun intended) as possible. If I haven't said it before this website is beyond enjoyable and never fails to make me think. Lastly, I especially wanna thank Michael for taking the time to respond with such a detailed answer. David C.