• PAPERBACKWRITER said on Oct 01, 2008....

  
  bookmarking, dearest kruu!
  
  i will (hopefully) have more peace later tonight to string intelligible words together.
  
  i googled the fountainhead out of curiousity have you ever read the book or seen the novel?
  
  {{{muahhhh}}}
  
  <3
  
  paper ~
  
  
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 01, 2008....

  I'm thinking Rand was mistaken.  Civilization rarely frees man from man, but rather ties him more securely to man.

• mobil said on Oct 01, 2008....

  It means this guy was wrong. Civilzation is the process of women enslaving men !

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 01, 2008....

  She wasn't mistaken, she phrased it poorly.  But it means what it saiys.  Civilization is the process of making man free.

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 01, 2008....

  SR - free of what?  civilization is another word for making rules to live by.

• beyondtheveil said on Oct 01, 2008....

  kruu- I thought about this and came to the same conclusion as unique. Its exactly the opposite in my view. The advance of civilization places controls on man, strangles him, tells him how he must act, what he must wear, touches everything he thinks and does and sends him to war. 
  
  Civilization is all about control, all about laws to make men obey. The only way to be free from men is to free yourself from them, not place yourself with them. The only free men who ever lived, as one example, were mountain men.
  
  I'm wondering about Rand's context. I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead but its been way too long for me to place this in her thinking. If I remember right, The Fountainhead was all about not compromising. I don't know how this fits with the quote.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 01, 2008....

  Fountainhead was sorta about not compromising, it was really like most of her books about the merits of capitalism and the perils of communism.
   
  You both have pressed your nose up against a tree and because of it you can't see that most of the forest has been cleared away.
   
  To give an example though I need a date, how far back to you want me to go because I could fill pages and pages and pages but I'd really rather not.

• beyondtheveil said on Oct 01, 2008....

  sean- I remember Rand expressing not compromising, not going with the flow, freedom of thought and action, being your own person, not having to prove anything to anyone, and making your way through moral independence to wealth.
  
  In one hundred words or less tell us how the quote fitted into her thinking and what it means to you. My nose is getting scratched on the bark of the tree and I need relief.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 01, 2008....

  The quote is about freedom to make your own way and your own decisions.  To be free from more than the judgment of others, to be free from DEPENDENCE on him.  In times past were utterly dependent on one another for our day to day survival.  We needed protection from animals, from bandits.  We needed food, we needed help building our shelters.  Up until very recently your survival was directly linked to that of your neighbor.  Today, more and more each day your survival is more closely tied to your actions.

   

  Only one hundred words is far far too few.

• uniquely-ironic said on Oct 01, 2008....

  Sorry, don't buy that.  Sure, we now live more seperately than we did even 1 or 2 generations ago, but we still are very inter-connected.  We may earn our own living, but we work for other people.  Our food is brought in by others, the market is another person, we rent from other (or pay a mortgage to others), etc.
   
  There are so very few truly independant communities left on the planet.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 01, 2008....

  But we have more freedom to choose with whom we do business which is the point.  There has never been and never will be a truly independent man, the concept of community is opposite of freedom.
   
  Rand would point out that it's rare now for more than one generation of a family to live together under one roof as further proof of her philosphy. 
   
  Once again I cannot stress enough SHE WAS A BITCH.

• kruuyai said on Oct 01, 2008....

  I'm finding it hard to find a way to respond to each person individually, so I'll respond to you all collectively (wouldn't Ayn Rand have hated that!) .
  
  But I will respond to mobil separately....  har, har.... I knew I could count on you.
  
  Anyway, I just finished re-reading the book this morning.  I first read it 17 years ago, and at that time, I was appalled at her politics, but thought that she was a great storyteller.  Now, after having read it again, I see things differently.  17 years ago, I thought, as Sean does, that she was a proponent of capitalism and an enemy of socialism.  I now see very clearly that this is not where she was coming from.  Yes, she was very much against collectivism... more about that later, but she wasn't necessarily a proponent of capitalism.  She was against any system that subjugates man's individuality, freedom, and creative expression.  She was utterly in awe of the capacity of the human mind and what it can achieve if allowed to flourish (albeit without the foresight of the consequences of that creative force with respect to the environment... she was the ultimate industrialist). 
  
  She spoke out fervently against what she called the "second-handers," those who only imitate, rather than create, in order to gain the approval of others.  In fact, she despised the motives of approval from other people, wealth or power, because all of those motives indicate a dependence on other people.  The tyrant needs someone to rule, wealth is an acceptable result of creative work, but it is not an acceptable motivation, because the work itself should be the motivating factor... not even the satisfaction or needs of those for whom the work is done.  Recognition is meaningless.  I find myself agreeing more and more with these principles.
  
  uniquely:  You said that Rand was mistaken in that "Civilization rarely frees man from man, but rather ties him more securely to man."  I believe she was speaking of an ideal rather than reality.  She was not at all happy with the reality that she saw around her.  Notice that she didn't say that civilization frees man (singular) from man (singular).  She said it is the process of setting man (singular) free from men (plural).  She saw groups of people as the ultimate enemy of the individual... groups deciding the fate of the individual.... she didn't deny that it happens, but she didn't call this reality "civilization." 
  
  "civilization is another word for making rules to live by"  Do you think there is a limit to this?  Do we reach a point where we have too many rules and thereby create a state of barbarism rather than civilization?  Someone once said that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.  How civilized do you want to become, and how much are you willing to pay for it?
  
  Just another note on your comments, uniquely, Rand wasn't talking about independent communities, but independent individuals.... of course, in modern times, we depend on others to provide goods and services that we purchase from them, but she was talking more about independence of spirit, thought and creative energy.  Anybody who works in an office can testify to the uselessness of the "team" when it comes to getting work done, if any one of the tasks needed are assigned to the team as a whole.  Only individuals can accomplish an act of creation, but this can be done with mutual cooperation.  For example, writing a report.  If you assign a team to write a report, it's a recipe for disaster, but if each person is given a particular part to do, then the parts are assembled, you have a better chance, but it will still be somewhat fragmented and less cohesive than if you just had one person writing the whole thing... so you've got to employ an editor to smooth the thing out and make it all fit together.  A better example of cooperation that works is given in Rand's book where the architect designs the building, the masons lay the foundation and the bricks, the carpenters put in the walls and cabinets, the landscapers move the earth and plant trees, etc.  Each person does his part... his own, truly unique part.
  
  I'm going to post this before I continue ... too much stuff to chance losing it with a computer glitch
  
  
  
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 01, 2008....

  PAPER:  I've read the book a couple of times but never seen the movie

• kruuyai said on Oct 01, 2008....

  beyond:  There were so very many ideas expressed in The Fountainhead, and I'm sure I'll be posting about more of them in the future.  Not compromising one's personal values was certainly one of the themes.  If you'll recall, Roark never allowed any changes to be made to his original designs, even if it meant losing a contract.  His motivation was designing buildings for the joy that he got out of the work.  That's why they couldn't destroy him by financial means.  He was willing to give up everything in order to keep himself.  One point that was made rather poignantly was that "selling one's soul" is the easiest thing on earth to do, and that people do it all the time.  Those people are often called 'selfish' because they may be motivated by greed for wealth, power or adulation.  But Rand had her own definition for 'selfishness' or 'egotism' which she admired, and that definition was steadfastly refusing to sell one's soul... clinging to one's own self and never letting it go... in other words, not compromising.
  
  I think you are right, beyond, about the reality of our "civilization" strangling and controlling men.  Again, I don't think that what we are experiencing is what Rand referred to when she said the word "civilization."  She was pushing an ideal... her own definition of civilization.
  
  "The only way to be free from men is to free yourself from them, not place yourself with them."  Yes, I think she's saying that the surest road to losing oneself is to try to fit in or identify with the rest of society.  She said (and I agree) that a truly free man is one who never compares himself to others.  He exists in his own right, and on his own merit.  You see that competition also has no place in this ideal that she speaks of.
  
  Okay, Sean, you're next.  :)
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 01, 2008....

  When in the nine hells did you get so much more eloquent than me?  And how come you never shout down ALIEN or bloc but leave me to do all the heavy lifting!?

• kruuyai said on Oct 01, 2008....

  Sean:  Yes, Rand was definitely coming out against communism which was really just emerging in the world at the time she was writing.  In fact, she was born in Russia and experienced communism first hand.  Her earlier works, like "Anthem" and "We the Living" were much less masterfully written and much more blatant blasts against communism.  I think, from what I've read in The Fountainhead, if she were alive today and could see how capitalism has evolved, she wouldn't be a supporter of it either.  She would despise the CEO's of the multinational corporations that rely on slave labor from overseas, for example... slavery requires an interdependence that she couldn't stomach... the slavemaster requires the slaves as much, even more, than the slaves "need" the master.
  
  "You both have pressed your nose up against a tree and because of it you can't see that most of the forest has been cleared away."   Who are you talking to and what do you mean?
  
  "The quote is about freedom to make your own way and your own decisions.  To be free from more than the judgment of others, to be free from DEPENDENCE on him. "  Exactly.
  
  "Once again I cannot stress enough SHE WAS A BITCH."  Believe it or not, I actually understand where you're coming from, and to a certain extent, I agree with you.  I might not express it that way, but I certainly think she was a disturbed individual... just look at how she paints the relationship between Roark and Dominique Francon.  Her ideas of "love" are really twisted.  And her total loathing for any form of compassion for others really goes too far in my opinion. 
  
  
  
  
  
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 01, 2008....

  Sean:  My dear.. I have always been much more eloquent than you... I've been eloquent since before you were born.  :)  I don't usually bother with ALIEN, because I don't think it would do much good, and I usually agree with bloc, but I do pop up on those blogs from time to time.  It just takes a lot of energy, and i happen to be a very lazy person.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 01, 2008....

  To be fair neither Fountainhead nor Atlas Shrugged are truly masterfully written.  I occasionally wonder if they were ever meant to be read, as in cover to cover beginning to end.  It seems in many cases she would have been better served writing it in a style closer to the Bible which while it CAN be read in most cases you're better off reading passage A.  That said we'll go back.
   
  I disagree that she would be against capitalism, but your logic for thinking she would is sound.  However without going into too much detail I think the majority of her ire would be focused on things like minimum wage and increased taxes on the rich, which drives work over seas.  I have a hard time believing that a woman whose heros actively brought the world to a halt, burning oil fields, bombing copper (I believe it's been a decade believe it or not since I read it) mines and the such would lose much sleep over sending jobs over seas.
   
  I was speaking most specifically to beyond.  What I mean by that phrase is that individuals (imx) often times become so focused on this detail or that that they aren't seeing the bigger picture. 
   
  Honestly I don't mind most of her relationships, I just find them to be very odd.  Particularly in the case of Dagny Taggart where she is built up continually as strong and independent and almost a force of nature but invariably her relationships with men have her very nearly submissive, the same basic theme seems present in Fountainhead but since the women in that book are no where near the sheer force of nature that Dagny is it's less pronounced.  I've always been curious about that.
   
  Her concept of love is weird but I think that is base comes down to that love is about how the other person makes you feel.  Which seems best displayed by Fransisco.  It's been. . .six years I think since I read Fountainhead, I need to go Amazon up a copy for myself,  my Rand books always end up on permanent loan.
   
  And uh. . .it's not fair that you're all lazy and I gotta do all the heavy lifting myself! 

• kruuyai said on Oct 01, 2008....

  Sean:  Well, she has an abrupt style at times.. almost Hemingwayesque, but what I like about her writing is how is keeps me turning the pages.  For nearly 700 pages, there's not a moment when I was bored or when my attention strayed.  I don't think she always expressed her ideas well, but at other times, I think she did a superb job... particularly in Roark's final speech as a defendant in court.  That was truly magnificent. 
  
  I don't know what I think she would say about minimum wage.  Can you give more support for why you think she would be against it?  Do you think her goal was to make business owners rich on the backs of their employees without paying them a fair wage?  Do you think she would have approved of the fact that people work for a minimum wage that is less than a person can survive on, given the cost of living?  Or do you think she would lay that at the feet of the workers for accepting those conditions and continuing to work for companies and be "employees" rather than making their own way in this world? 
  
  It's been about 16 years since I read Atlas Shrugged, so my memory is pretty blurry on that one.  But I do remember that the relationships bothered me in both of the books.  I do get some of what was happening in The Fountainhead... but I think Dominique was an idiot.  She sacrificed a lot of years of her own life, and for what?  I remember not caring much for Dagny Taggart. 
  
  Rand said in The Fountainhead that love is about "exceptions."  Meaning, from the context, that loving someone will cause you to make an exception to your own ideals... like when Roark took pity on Wynand.   But that is so contrary to everything that she is saying in the book that I have a hard time swallowing it.  I think she was very confused in this area.  Incidentally, I believe I heard that she died in a mental institution.  Do you know any more about that?
  
  Who is Fransisco?
  
  All the heavy lifting?   Okay, next time you come across a juicy debate, just give me a heads up and I'll come take a look, but don't assume that I'll necessarily agree with you.   You and i have had some debates before, and we only agree about 50% of the time.. but I do enjoy debating with you, because you almost always keep it clean, and you stick to the facts, and your logic is usually... um... logical.... even on those occasions when I disagree. 
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 01, 2008....

  I believe that Rand's opinion on minimum wage would lie closer to a man should know his worth and demand it from his employer.  It shouldn't be mandated by the government but rather negotiated between individuals.  Where I'm fuzzy is what she would think of unions, not as they exist today where membership is mandatory and many are just shy of predatory but that's neither here nor there.  That is definitely something I would want to ask her to clarify.
   
  I don't remember Domenique much at all.  She just didn't make a real impact on me as a charachter. 
   
  Love does make people do wierd shit. 
   
  Francisco d'Aconia (I believe is his full name) childhood friend of Dagny, was the king of the copper industry and he's the one that actively sabotages the entire economy by getting investers to invest heavily in him before he blew up the mines and set up their equipment where there was no copper. 
   
  I don't expect you (or anybody) to agree with me all the time.  I know we've debated a few times and I find you to be usually logical.  I might not always agree with you but I often think that you and I disagreeing is like me and bloc disagreeing.  One (or both) of us have had a fatal disconnect from reality.  bloc is screaming "It's a wall!  Why can't you see it's a wall, it's big and grey and hard and I can't move it!  It's a wall!"  While I'm shouting.  "Tree you dummy!  It's a tree!   Well four trees actually, they are stuck to the ground, big and round and rough it's a tree!"  On occasion though we manage to figure out where the disconnect is and step back and then there is this sudden.  "Dude it's an elephant."  "Yeah. . ."
   
   

• Fallyn said on Oct 01, 2008....

  i'm too tired to really get into this right now, but it is immensely interesting.
  
  it reminds me of the saying ... "if you have a boy you have a whole boy with a whole mind. if you have two boys you have the equivalent of half a boy. if you have three boys together, you end up with no boy at all"
  
  the science of mob mentality.
  

• tonibell said on Oct 01, 2008....

  kruuyai:  I don't know.

• kruuyai said on Oct 01, 2008....

  Sean:  You're probably right about how she would see the minimum wage issue.  As far as labor unions, she actually touches on that in her book.  One of her characters (I think Dominique) is commenting on the strike at Wynand Papers.  She says that she could respect them if they were striking for higher wages, but to strike on behalf of the jobs of the four that were fired was incomprehensible (or something to that effect).  That's in keeping with your argument about a man knowing his worth and demanding it from his employer.   It's a sad day when people come to consider themselves fortunate to be "given" a job to the point that they'll accept whatever wage cuts and other restrictions that are placed on them.
  
  I'll have to try to find a copy of Atlas Shrugged somewhere and re-read that, too.  I do remember that I didn't find it as well done as The Fountainhead.  I wonder what I would think of it now.
  
  lol re: your wall/trees/elephant allegory.
  
  Fallyn:  I'm glad you dropped by.  Mob mentality is an interesting thing.  There have been a lot of studies, and it seems that mobs are not made up of individuals.. that is, people lose their individuality when they join a mob.  They have no sense of personal responsibility and are capable of committing horrendous acts that they would never do or even think of doing as an individual.  It's like the mob is greater than the sum of its parts, and the people just become organs or cells of the mob, acting as a single unit, and the liver and the spleen feel no guilt, remorse or responsibility for what the hands and feet have done.  Kind of like barroom brawls where everyone has to get a punch in, regardless of the fact that they have no personal stake in whatever it was that started the fight.  It's just an opportunity to express the violence that they normally keep under control (and maybe it's keeping this violence under control that is the real mark of civilization?)
  
  
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 01, 2008....

  Incidentally, the paperback copy that I have of The Fountainhead was printed in 1971, when Rand was still alive, and it has a postcard in the middle with a photo of her and this quote:  "As an advocate of reason, egoism and capitalism, I seek to reach the men of the intellect - wherever such may still be found."  and you could mail in the postcard to send away for back issues of her newsletter, lecture courses, live and taped, a school offering seminars and conferences on the foundations of a free society, and the Ayn Rand Institute: The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism. 
  
  So, I guess I was wrong about her not necessarily supporting capitalism, but I think that she, like so many other people, confused the concepts of free enterprise with capitalism.  They are not one and the same thing, and capitalism, by its very definition, requires dependency...  dependency of the workers on the corporation (for "providing" them with a job which will allow them to earn a living, as if there were no other options) and dependency of the business owners on the laborers who will do their work for them and allow them to grow rich.   
  
  I have more on this, but have to go to work.  Will come back..  but doesn't it strike you as odd that she's calling for people to unite on the issue of individualism?  Kind  of like an anarchist's convention... a bit of an oxymoron.
  

• Lucytorial said on Oct 01, 2008....

  Having read this to and fro, I am completely and utterly compelled to buy the damn book.  Like I need another one to read.
   
  Kruu, She sounds confused full stop from what you are both talking about.  Nutty? perhaps then again some of the greatest minds in history have been completely left of field.
   
  Great read, going to buy book.

• kruuyai said on Oct 02, 2008....

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Well, the casting and acting are horrible, but here is the movie version of Howard Roark's final speech. 
  
  Lucy:  After you read the book, come on back and let us know what you think.
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 02, 2008....

  Now I remember where i was going with that comment that I started this morning... wondering if Rand would approve of capitalism in its current form, where, at least in the US, capitalism has been converted into socialism for corporations with corporate bail-outs being as commonplace as they are... she seems to be saying that, if a person is not strong enough or wise enough to succeed on his own, then he must fail.  Can not the same be said of corporations, or indeed, countries?

• queenparanoia said on Oct 03, 2008....

  interesting kruu... sorry i didnt read teh comments too long.. lol... but interesting qoute... ;-)

• beyondtheveil said on Oct 03, 2008....

  kruu- (to your last comment) It could be said that the same be said of corporations and countries if their failure affected the leaders of corporations and countries only, but it does not. It affects the people who worked hard to make the corporations and countries what they should have been. The CEO's leave with millions from their failure to another high paying job to fail in and the country leaders leave the office or country to another country to enjoy the assets they accumulated in local and/or foreign banks.
  
  If the people had any kind of choice neither would fail, but they have no choice in the decisions being made to accommodate the riches and egos of the few who do exercise the power. The ones who do exercise the power (CEO's, politicians, power brokers) work solely for themselves and their advancement via any means possible. How many exceptions are there to this?  But some people tell me I'm wrong and can't see the big picture, that may well be.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 03, 2008....

  Sorry I thought I had already commented on this.
   
  I doubt that Rand would approve of corporate bailouts in any but the most extreme of circumstances and even then I think she'd be the one to hesitate to pull the trigger.  She clearly belieed that failure was it's own punishment and the same could easily be said of corporations and countries.  Undoubtedly.
   
  @Beyond:  Human beings almost by definition are selfish and work solely for themselves.  The thing is that as a whole what's good for one of us is good for all of us.  There are of course acceptions and some of those need to be regulated and sometimes employees/customers need to just open their eyes.
   
  Even the most vapid celebrity naturally creates jobs simply by existing.  Papparazzi following Hilton around for a upskirt pic. . .and that's not counting perfumes, clothing lines, television crews for whatever shows/music they may try their hand at.

• kruuyai said on Oct 03, 2008....

  beyond:  I think lfbno7 had a great idea.... if the taxpayers have to bail out the corporations, those corporations should be turned over to the taxpayers.... and the CEO's who mismanaged the things in the first place should be penalized financially (and if what they did was illegal, obviously, they should do time).. sorry, I haven't been keeping up with what's going on enough to comment more than that.
  
  Sean:  We don't have to wonder any more what Ayn Rand would have said about this kind of thing, because she's told us already... I found some television interviews..
  
  This one is a 1959 interview with Mike Wallace... Part 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 03, 2008....

  
  
  Part 2
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 03, 2008....

  
  Part 3
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 03, 2008....

  That is exactly what happened though.  The Government BOUGHT AIG and has an 80% stake in the company, which once the market recovers they intend to sell, ideally for a profit but they intend to break even. 
   
  I just finished part one, and while I agree with the jist of most of what she's saying hearing her speak.  My Gods.  She's at least thrice the bitch I had previously assumed. 

• beyondtheveil said on Oct 03, 2008....

  sean- I basically agree with what you said to me concerning people working for themselves and their families, and there are many times when they should open their eyes - one obvious example is those who buy homes they can't pay for and rely on future pay increases (usually two people) to grow into the mortgage in this economic climate.
  
  But job responsibility varies also. CEO's are directly responsible for employees and the very future of the companies they lead. Politicians are directly responsible to the people who elected them and their welfare in all matters which come before them. They both exist for these reasons and that is where their creativity fails.
  
  If Rand believed what you said about corporations and countries, she is sweeping the population and employees under the rug with the rest of the dirt. Better to blame the population for what happens to all instead of just screwing up their own lives.
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 03, 2008....

  
  And I'll just post the first of 5 parts of her 1979 interview with Phil Donohue.  You can find the other 4 parts on youtube.  BTW, I was mistaken about her dying in a mental institution.  She died of cancer in her home just two years after this interview was filmed.  In the first interview (with Mike Wallace), I found her to be very intelligent, articulate, and rational.  In the later interview with Donohue, those qualities remained for the most part, but she touched on some topics that showed her to be a very closed minded person about certain things (like homosexuality, for example), and it was very revealing when a member of the audience expressed a different opinion, she reacted very strongly, as if no one had a right to a different opinion.  I think, when someone sets themselves up as the one who has all the answers, and thinks that any other perspective must be faulty, that is very dangerous.  However, she still expressed a lot of great ideas, and will give people things to think about and discuss for years to come.
  

• kruuyai said on Oct 03, 2008....

  Sean:  Well, let's hope they at least break even.  BTW, I'm not sure where you were headed with that Paris Hilton stuff... is that somehow related to all this?  About her bitchiness.... how much of your opinion do you think is influenced by her accent?  I actually found myself accepting her opinions more when I heard them coming out of her mouth (but the Donohue interview shows that bitchy side).  Incidentally, her interesting views on relationships played out in an interesting way in real life.  With the consent of her husband, she had an affair with one of her followers who was at least 20 years younger than her and married (with the consent of his wife as well).  After the guy got divorced, he started having an affair with yet another woman without telling Rand.  When she found out, she stopped speaking to him and closed down his branch of the Objectivism organization.  I guess she only believed in rational self interest when she, herself, wasn't victimized by it.

• kruuyai said on Oct 03, 2008....

  beyond:  I think her idea was that, if we truly had a laissez faire capitalist system, things would never have gotten so out of hand as they have.... these corporations wouldn't have grown to the size they did without being able to sustain themselves.  And we wouldn't be faced with a disaster like this in the first place.  She actually, (almost presciently) addresses these issues in one of the interviews (sorry.. I watched them last night, so I can't remember which one... but if you have time to watch them, I'd love to hear what you have to say).
  
  queen:  Hey!  How's it going?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 03, 2008....

  I'll start with clarifying my work for yourself/Paris Hilton point.

  1.  Part of Rand's philosphy that I agree strongly with is that the wealthy CREATE wealth around them merely by existing.  When a man opens a bussiness rarely if ever does he do it for the good of the community at large.  He does it for himself but he directly effects those around him.  He's paying rent, he's buying office furniture, he's buying flyers and bussiness cards and signing up for the yellow pages.  Other people are making money and are getting jobs.  That's however NOT his goal it's just the reality of the system. 

  Hense Paris Hilton, how much money do you think has been made OFF her.  Photographers, magazines sold, how many people worked on and benefited from The Simple Life?  Who did the catering?  Who drove the crew around? 

  As for open their eyes I'll be the first to admit that the information I'm actually refering to isn't as readily available as it should be.  But Americans should systematically boycott Chinese products, we know why their prices are so low and by buying Chinese made X you are giving your blessing to that country.  We know Walmart's business practices as far as how they treat employees.  When you shop there you are giving your blessing.  Now honestly you have to do some digging but we can and should only do business with people that WE find to be moral people.  One of the problems withour modern society is it's so spread out and information is often difficult to get that we don't really know who we are doing business with. 

  At the same time you shouldn't go to work for somebody that you find to be immoral (or stupid).  Bush is responsible for 300 million lives.  But we gave him that responsibility (twice) and we deserve every single thing that happened to us.  The ones who voted for him deserve it double but a lot of people have this insane notion that politics and religion aren't discussed in polite circles.  Think on that a moment.  The process by which our LIVES are controlled isn't discussed.  We don't talk about the guy who can spend 700 Billion dollars by snapping his fingers and doing a dance.   We don't talk about the guy who can instate a draft and start sending your children (me) to fight and die on foreign soil.  If we keep to the standard belief that the soul/spirit is more valuble than the flesh it's even more insane that we don't actively discuss keeping our loved ones and friends from you know suffering forever because we refused to be a little rude.  (Note:  I stress APPROPRIATE and EFFECTIVE measures.  So bludgening someone over the head until they refuse to speak to you obviously defeats the point.)

  2. I hope they make money, I hope they make a fuck ton of money.  It is entirely possible that part of my dislike for her is her accent.  I am American and there are two and a half accents that automatically mean you are evil.  Even if you've saved the world thrice over.  German, Russian and Middle Eastern is creeping on that list. 

  3.  I disagree that she only believed in rational self interest when she wasn't victimized by it.  I imagine that part of the "currency" in their relationship was honesty.  If he'd said Ayn, Marilyn Monroe wants to ride me until I pop like warm champagne she would have given permission.  *Even if she didn't she would have spoken her peice.  I think I'd leave that at she dosesn't believe it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission.  And she was not the one to fuck with.

  4.  Watched the first part of the Donohue interview and I can only think one thing thus far.  That man has been OLD for a very long time.  Is he like Ric Flair where he's been old since he was 22 or is he really a living fossil?

• kruuyai said on Oct 04, 2008....

  Sean:  1.  Okay... now I get your point... (it still doesn't change the fact that she's an annoying twit, but every twat... I mean twit... has a silver lining).
  
  About being informed about who we do business with.. I agree.  And I also agree that it's not always easy or possible to know.  Sure, we know about the big players like McDonalds, Coca Cola, Walmart, Asian Sweat Shops, DeBeers, and my personal enemy... Starbucks.  But business in this world has gotten so big, that it's often difficult or impossible to know which multinational corporation really own XYZ business.  Like, who ever heard of Beatrice Foods, but at one point, (and maybe still) they owned ALL the major food companies in the US, including General Foods.  That's why I prefer to shop at the Mom and Pops... even if it costs a bit more... which, by the way, is often a fallacy.  At least here in Europe, I can get much better prices in the smaller, individually owned shops... and when it comes to produce, the quality is also much, much better. 
  
  I once declined to interview with a company (after I'd already made an appointment and arranged the out-of-state trip) when I found out that another division of their company was involved in animal testing for cosmetics.  This was for my first job in environmental science out of grad school, and I would rather have scrubbed toilets than work for them. 
  
  Giving Bush the responsibility... I'm not so sure I agree that's what happened.  I am among those who believe that the election was stolen... both times... However, that being said, with all the Americans who believe the same thing, why have we just sat back and let ourselves be ruled by this idiot for 8 years... illegally?  So, yeah, we deserve what we got for just allowing injustices to happen... and for just bending over and taking it while our civil liberties get stripped away one by one.
  
  Discussing politics and religion... well, I've never backed away from that.. but it doesn't make me terrible popular in some circles.  I don't care.  And, refreshingly, here in Europe, people are MUCH more inclined to discuss politics than in America.  They are much less preoccupied with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears (although they certainly all know who Monica Lewinsky is).  What do you think is the real reason that Americans don't like to discuss politics?  I mean, supposedly, (and I do stress supposedly), it's the most free country in the world, where people should feel free to express their opinions... and a lot still do.. so  why the social tabu?
  
  2.  You hope WHO makes a ton of money?  Having trouble following you here.  Re: your dislike for Ayn Rand and her accent, I actually woke up in the middle of the night thinking about this (Note to Self:  Get Life).... and thanks for the insights about your aversions to certain accents, but now I'm wondering about whether it has more to do with her gender.  I don't really know where you stand on gender issues.. I know you like to make provocative statements about women to stir the pot and create controversy, but where do you really stand?  Do you think her gender influences your opinion?  I'm asking this question not just to you, but to anyone (including other women) who read this.  In fact, I may do a post on this.. .do you mind if I quote you?  Because it seems to me, that when women behave in a way that is considered perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for men... in business or politics... they are automatically labeled as bitches.  If you have time, why not go back to the video and imagine that she is a man and see if you have the same reaction.  I mean the interview with Mike Wallace... because to me, she just seemed to be logical, and her thoughts were well organized and definite.  They were not softened with the typical "female" tenderness or emotion, but that is exactly what she was saying.... that our lives should be ruled by logic rather than emotion (I don't entirely agree with her on that, but I do wish that people would be much more logical and less emotional when it comes to issues that need to be analyzed). 
  
  3.  I had considered the same thing, actually.  And personally, when the same type of thing has happened to me, I've always been much more hurt by the betrayal of dishonesty than by the person choosing to be with someone else.  Everything has a life span, even relationships.  But I don't know about this concept of asking permission.  I think she's always said that we don't need to ask permission of anyone for anything.  No person owns another.  I wouldn't give another person the right to say yay or nay about whether I could get involved with someone else.  If I decided to move on, I would just do it.  But I would be open about it.  If you truly believe that you are your own person... there is no NEED to lie about anything that you do. 
  
  4.  I think Donohue went gray at a young age.  He was probably only about 40 or so in that interview.  I have no idea who Ric Flair is, but when I think living fossil, I think Dick Clark (if he's still living.. is he?)
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 04, 2008....

   

  1. No it doesn’t change that she’s an annoying twat.  I was merely pointing out what I believe is the basis of Rand’s philosophy.  That selfish (intelligent) people will help other people out of selfishness.  That if no schools existed Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and all the other computer people would open them out of necessity, illiterate people can’t program computers.  It’s just that simple. 
  2. While I’m not against animal testing we are in basic agreement here that it is difficult to know who you’re doing business with and that is something that I would like to see changed.  I should be able to google up a company and see a list of their various practices.  If they recycle, if they employ Chineses labor, blood diamonds, test on animals.  A list of all the controversial practices (and probably a few more since some people have specific things they care about that others don’t.
  3. You can debate that Bush stole the election the first time, he won the second time.  He really hasn’t been half as bad as people make him out to be.
  4. Because we get terribly heated over them and it is often a discussion that will never have an end because one (or both) sides are unwilling to budge no matter what the facts may be. 
  5. Sorry I hope the government makes a fuckton of money on the whole Buy Out deal.  So much money that the companies who got bailed out will regret not having manned up and found their way through this problem amongst themselves.
  6. My dislike for Rand started before I ever heard her speak, I’m just admitting that for the last fifty years bad guys are Russian and German and recently Middle Eastern and while I know it’s not true that there is a trigger.  German Accent=Evil.  Onto women.  Yes I’m capable of being terribly chauvinistic and sexist and I do have a number of controversial views about women as a whole.  That said I disagree that women who act the same as men in the work place are labeled as bitches.  It’s just rare that women act that way.  In my experience a lot of women (not all) are bitches.  Even if they don’t intend to the fact is that there are certain lines that few men would ever cross because to cross this line would get you punched in the jaw regardless of rank.  Women don’t have that fear/respect and thus they get way up in your face and say things and do things that no man would ever dare.  That said I think she’s a bitch more because of the way she chooses to phrase things and for the record just because I don’t think I could tolerate a conversation with her for more than five seconds doesn’t mean I don’t have tons of respect for her.  There are few people that I would prefer to have at my back (once we’d checked priorities)
  7. Dick Clark is a living fossil and I think he’s still around.

• kruuyai said on Oct 09, 2008....

  Sean: Okay, I'm dead tired, so I don't know how much sense I'm going to make, but I thought I really should get caught up on all this.
  
  1.  I have a feeling their "magnanimity" would only extend as far as their own needs.  I believe that everyone who wants to learn should be provided with an education.  It's the least we can do to create a better world for ourselves.  Creating a class system through educational barriers would just exacerbate the tensions that we already have. 
  
  2.  You're not against animal testing?   You really think it's okay to pour acid into a bunny's eye just so that women can safely paint their faces?  And assuming that you thought the cosmetics industry was, indeed, more important than preventing the suffering of innocent animals, what about the fact that more effective laboratory methods that don't involve animals already exist?
  
  3.  Oh brother.
  
  4.  True... and I think an unwillingness to discuss the issues just perpetuates this blind adherence to dogma.. religious, political or whatever.
  
  5.  Yeah, sure, but how do you feel about the government owning the banks?  (if that's what it's about.. I really haven't been following this issue).
  
  6.  I'll have to challenge you on your ideas about women on a different post.  This one is going off on enough of a tangent as it is.   Coming soon... I promise!
  
  7.  Good old Dick.  I don't think he's doing New Year's Eve any more, though, is he?
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2008....

  1.  It would only exist so far as their own needs go.  The thing is you can argue that would be an improvement because you'd have the skills needed to go directly into the work force.  As it stands now we spend twelve years wasting time so we can try to get into college, you can hardly become a McDonalds Manager these days without a degree.  So we hit the same basic problem.  Though I'm not against public education at all.  I'm simply not sure the system we have right now is at all good.

  2.  I was more supporting it for medical testing, two there aren't more effective methods, I've done heaps of research on this.  Yes it's better to pour acid (lol as if that happens often enough to be an issue) into a bunny's eye than it is a humans which is the alternative.

  3.  What?  It's true.  Contrary to popular myth George W. Bush does not in fact eat minority babies for breakfast.  So that already makes him a better human being than he's made out to be.

  5.  I think this is a popular disconnect between reality and mainstream opinion.  Goverment owned ABC does not by definition mean socialist.  If I had my way the government would be involved in nearly every business.  There would be an Uncle Sam's grocery store for example and it's books would be completely public.  The reason is that I do believe that competition is good for everybody.  I don't feel that public schools have destroyed the education market.  I don't feel that USPS prevented UPS, FedEx and now DHL from appearing.  I HATE how the government aquired the banks and the reason behind it. 

  Still I feel that a nationally owned bank would ultimately be a good thing. There are more details on this though as far as how I would go about deregulating things.  I would START with cutting subsidies and closing various loop holes that let people get away with minimal taxes at the top. 

  6. Link me when you get there!  :-)
   
  7.  I dunno.

Comment on "Civilization"

Currently tagged	philosophy civilization life freedom (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously