START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
label:  
  Surprise Me
| track thread
« Back to topics
ATLAS SHRUGGED - The Movie Premieres April 15, 2011
4 years ago
| Surprise Me
New Book March 28, 2011

Atlas Shrugged the Movie

Atlas Shrugged
On April 15, Atlas Shrugged: Part I will be released in theaters in select cities around the country.

Based on Ayn Rand's epic 1957 novel, the new movie plots the collapse of American society after men of the mind (thinkers, industrialists, scientists, artists and other innovators) go on strike and vanish, refusing to contribute to a collectivist world.


To learn more about the film and to get involved, please visit the official website at http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/

 


Atlas Shrugged on Facebook< Atlas Shrugged Movie on Facebook
Atlas Shrugged on Twitter Atlas Shrugged Movie on Twitter
 

 

Cato Institute 
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20001
Phone (202) 842-0200 * Fax (202) 842-3490
http://www.cato.org


4 years ago

Movie Trailer

 

Movie clip

 

 

John Galt's Speech

4 years ago

This resurgance of Ayn Rand is because the powers that be know people are getting f**king pissed off at the masters of capitalism. It's just a way to brand corporate power as personal freedom.

4 years ago

I was thinking it was more about people being f**king pissed off at watching their personal liberties vanish.  But what do I know, I haven't read Atlas Shrugged.  However, what I've gleaned from articles and quotes it's about personal liberty and personal responsibilty - not 'taking' from one to give to another (which does not = charity doesn't exist but rather voluntary, as expressed in the trailer).  

 

That's not to say you're wrong, Bryan - the banksters and their warriors will exploit anything if they think it will benefit them, just like the GOP did with (to) the tea party movement by planting their own GOP candidates in elections to pose as 'tea party' candidate.  Now that they are in office they all forgot all about their oath of office and the Constitution.

4 years ago

Ayn Rand is all about GREED.  She wears jewelry in the shape of a dollar bill.  She claimed that she never received any help from anyone.  I say B*llSh*t. 

 

Ayn Rand wouldn't give a penny to a starving child- she is the antithesis of charity.

 

The boojk itself is the silliest drivel I ever read.  I decided I could only view it as a "RIch" soap opera.

 

Personal responsibility is a great thing.  Excsessive greed is BOT.

 

What makes the movie is important is that Alan Greenspan was a bnig follower of hers.  He is part of the reason we had so much deregulation.  She (and HE) believe that the "good people" will always do the right thing.  The economy since at least 2008 has proven that wrong. 

 

The problem is that many think they are in the John Galt/Daphne Taggart class and really aren't.  Nobody is.

4 years ago

She (and HE) believe that the "good people" will always do the right thing -Nancy

 

I'd have to read the book to properly put your words in context or perspetive, Nancy, but I'd be hard pressed to believe anyone involved in the financial collapse of '08 (or any other before it!) were the "good people", particularly when we consider all the 'wealthy' people they ripped off and who are also very charitable people.

 

 

4 years ago

That's why I put it in quotes. 

4 years ago

What was Ayn Rand’s view on charity?

 

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. -Ayn Rand

 

 

Dropping Context

4 years ago

I realized that's why you put in in quotes, Nancy, but those people are not who Rand would consider "good people" ... to put it into context to the video I just posted, putting into Rand's context, she would consider those "good people" as "parasites, looters, moochers, thugs"

4 years ago

Why do you think the CATO institute is behind the making of this film? 

4 years ago

Why do you think the CATO institute is behind the making of this film? -Nancy

 

With what little I know about CATO Institute I know that some so-called liberals bash it - in fact the first time I ever heard of it was when someone who brands themselves as a liberal off-handedly dismissed an article I posted that I had found interesting simply and only because it came from the CATO website.  I hadn't even noticed where the article came from - it was just something that came up on a google hit list for my search criteria, I clicked the link, read, and liked it  

 

But if I were to offer a mostly ignorant-of-CATO-guess based on what I just read their "About Us" page on their website, I would say it's because, like Ayn Rand, they believe in a free market principle.  Because, like Rand, they don't believe people should be compelled or coerced or dictated to by government or anyone else what happens to the fruits of their labor.  Because like Rand they believe in freedom of choice and individual liberty. 

 

Why do you think CATO is affiliated with the film?

4 years ago

"I realized that's why you put in in quotes, Nancy, but those people are not who Rand would consider "good people" ..."

 

If they are followers of her Objectivism as Alan Greenspan is, then uyes she would. 

 

Katii- I think you are putting words in Ayn Rands mouth.  You gotta read the book.  It is unrealistic drivel, hence the need to refer to the Objectivists as "good people".

4 years ago

From wikipedia:

 

"The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the oil conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company (after Cargill) by revenue in the United States.[1][2]"

 

Hmmm, is that the same Koch as in the Tea Party?

 

I haven't paid much attention to Cato Insitute either.

4 years ago

I don't have a problem with the libertarian philosophy

 

I don't know anything about Koch either except he's painted as a villain.  Why is Koch a villain?

 

4 years ago

"I don't have a problem with the libertarian philosophy "

 

I do know that about you and was not trying to indicate that it is a bad thing.  There are things I like about it and try myself to take care of myself first and foremost.

 

The Koch brothers are spending huge amounts of money to support the Tea Party which IMHO is really a front for porporatism.  They may be disguising it and I also do think there are some places with true generation Tea Party people who are genuinely doing the right things.  But doing the bidding of corporations is not a good thing, IMHO.

4 years ago

David H. Koch ...He and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes.

 

OK, so they are 'posing' as Libertarians if they are supporting 'right-wing causes' or is someone accusing Libertarians of being 'right-wing' ?

 

On May 17th, a black-tie audience at the Metropolitan Opera House applauded as a tall, jovial-looking billionaire took the stage. It was the seventieth annual spring gala of American Ballet Theatre, and David H. Koch was being celebrated for his generosity as a member of the board of trustees; he had recently donated $2.5 million toward the company’s upcoming season, and had given many millions before that. Koch received an award while flanked by two of the gala’s co-chairs, Blaine Trump, in a peach-colored gown, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, in emerald green. Kennedy’s mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, had been a patron of the ballet and, coincidentally, the previous owner of a Fifth Avenue apartment that Koch had bought, in 1995, and then sold, eleven years later, for thirty-two million dollars, having found it too small.

 

The gala marked the social ascent of Koch, who, at the age of seventy, has become one of the city’s most prominent philanthropists. In 2008, he donated a hundred million dollars to modernize Lincoln Center’s New York State Theatre building, which now bears his name. He has given twenty million to the American Museum of Natural History, whose dinosaur wing is named for him. This spring, after noticing the decrepit state of the fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Koch pledged at least ten million dollars for their renovation. He is a trustee of the museum, perhaps the most coveted social prize in the city, and serves on the board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where, after he donated more than forty million dollars, an endowed chair and a research center were named for him.

 

One dignitary was conspicuously absent from the gala: the event’s third honorary co-chair, Michelle Obama. Her office said that a scheduling conflict had prevented her from attending. Yet had the First Lady shared the stage with Koch it might have created an awkward tableau. In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.

 

With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.



Read more 
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

4 years ago

Well Nancy, I would not agree with much you think anyway; as I read where you did not think state sovereignty was important at all.

 

So, your view on Ayn Rand, a Russian born woman who came to America and lived how she wrote is different from mine.  Did you even read the book?    The Rand Institute has been in existence for years because of the author.  She was a remarkable woman and way ahead of her times.

4 years ago

Tea Party which IMHO is really a front for porporatism -Nancy

 

I think the elected Republicans who billed themselves as 'Tea Partiers' are guilty as charged, not the original intent of the movement, however, which was calling for a Constitutional government, small government, and low taxes - which are libertarian ideals, not today's so-called conservative republican ideals, which are a front for corporatism.

4 years ago

Katii- I think you are putting words in Ayn Rands mouth.  

 

If the guy in the video was not actually reading from Rand's essay, no I'm not.

 

If they are followers of her Objectivism as Alan Greenspan is, then uyes she would. 

 

If, like Greenspan, those "good people" are parasitic robbers - which he certainly was (or believed in), then they were not followers of her Objectivism, so no she wouldn't.

4 years ago

Caroline Kennedy and Mr. Koch, interesting.  The wealthy elite are a privaledged class amongst their own, irregardless of political preference; particularly in this scenario. 

4 years ago

"as I read where you did not think state sovereignty was important at all."

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.  I have never said that, certainly not in this thread.

 

"Did you even read the book? "

 

Yes.  And at the time I was having an eamil "book Club" with several people who pretty much thought the way I did- simply put, it is unrealistic.

4 years ago

I did get a chuckle that it opens on April 15!

4 years ago

Ugh, I really hate to think that not living with parasitic robber/thug governments and laws is unrealistic (but yeah, I suppose there will always be parasitic individuals).  Actually, I think eventually society 'will' - eventually - decide that self-governing under the rule of law is the best way to go and it will happen.  Not in our lifetimes, certainly, but some future generation will finally 'get it' and say "enough is enough."  It would be nice though if we started paving the way - it's not like we can't see the historical and current folly of people believing that 'powerful' = 'good' or that those in government have all the answers and have their best interests at heart.

4 years ago

First of all, I have to see that I didn't totally see one of your comments katii.  Here it is:

 

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. -Ayn Rand"

 

I have to say that is NOT as bad as I thought from having read a few of her books.  So I don't totally agree with it, but don't totally disagree either- at least as a philosophy.

 

I think you should read the book, (or at least see the mmovie- if it is at all accurate).

 

Greenspan is an Objectivist and there are many things he did with the economy that IO thought at the time were good.  But he has always been for deregulation.  After he retired from the Fed, he admitted that we do need some.

 

BUT, they all THINK they are objectivists and few actually are.  It is almost an impossible ideal.  Nobody is that good.  If we all were, we wouldn't need any "rules" in "society".

 

So many out there today THINK they are- but it is just more elitism.

4 years ago

I haven't read any of her books or essays.  But I just ordered a copy of AS.  I'm very interested in finding out why some make her out to be such a villain, because so far I'm just not seeing it.

 

Atlas Shrugged is fiction, presumably based on her Objectionism philosophy, but I'm wondering if there isn't some degree of 'context dropping' or bias in the opinions of critics who dislike her so much it comes off as hatred.

 



 

 

Atlas Shrugged (Paperback) ~ Ayn Rand (Author) Cover Art

Product Description

At last, Ayn Rand's masterpiece is available to her millions of loyal readers in trade paperback. 

With this acclaimed work and its immortal query, "Who is John Galt?", Ayn Rand found the perfect artistic form to express her vision of existence. Atlas Shrugged made Rand not only one of the most popular novelists of the century, but one of its most influential thinkers. 

Atlas Shrugged is the astounding story of a man who said that he would stop the motor of the world--and did. Tremendous in scope, breathtaking in its suspense, Atlas Shrugged stretches the boundaries further than any book you have ever read. It is a mystery, not about the murder of a man's body, but about the murder--and rebirth--of man's spirit. 

* Atlas Shrugged is the "second most influential book for Americans today" after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club

4 years ago

Katii, i haven't read Altas Shrugged either, and of course it's not as black and white as just saying the government should have more/less involvement or there should be more/less freedom for businesses when it comes to various issues.

 

But i don't see personal liberties being taken by gov bureacrats so much as our economic freedoms (which is key for many things) being steadily compromised by powerful corporate interests. Corrupt bureaucrats are definitely part of the problem, but they do the biding of their masters.

 

Personal freedom and responsibility is one thing, and i think pretty much everyone believes in it, but to say corporations should have total freedom with no regulations is a completely different thing. As far as parasites, it has been the  wealthy industrialists that Rand paints as heroes that have been the biggest parasites in our modern society -- using resources that should to some extent belong to all of us (the commons) for their own wealth and power. Or, by using their positions of power, perpetuating the wasteful and destructive use of resources because it means more money for them -- and they just externalize the costs to everyone else.

 

Rand tries to paint these characters as a Nicolas Tesla, or Albert Einstein leading society forward with their great and creative minds (only to be held back by evil bureaucrats), whereas in reality these fabulously wealthy corporate leaders have only sought to concentrate their wealth and power, they own the government, and they will not hestitate to stiffle any innovation that would threaten their own profit.

 

Of course not all  extremely wealthy corporate owners are the same, or do all bad things, but i'm just talking about the direction our society has taken on the whole under the direction of corporate power.



This post was modified from its original form on 29 Mar, 20:42
4 years ago

As far as parasites, it has been the  wealthy industrialists that Rand paints as heroes that have been the biggest parasites in our modern society -Bryan

 

Like you say, not all wealthy corporations are the same, so...

 

However, I don't think there are any 'industrial' companies on earth that don't exploit at least the environment and pollute it, or any companies at all that don't depend on those industries, or any American who doesn't support them whenever they purchase - well, anything.  Which is why a 'resource based economy' v. the 'consumer based economy' we have now is so attractive to me.

 

 

4 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

 

Atlas Shrugged is one of the most popular books in this country and has an endless audience; it resurged to growing demands in the wake of the economic decline within this country.   

4 years ago

I find it refreshing that bright college kids are picking up copies of Atlas Shrugged as they did throughout the decades and that this book has just as much appeal as it did for decades. "The more things change - the more things remain the same".

4 years ago

Let me ask you then, who are the "good guys" because I really don't see any.  What are the "good products" because I only see some products that have potentail flaws so that it is a matter of the lesser of two non-perfect products.

4 years ago

Nancy, I'm not sure exaclty in what context you're asking, but it's a good question.  

 

I can tell you who the "good guys" aren't.  Start with the institution called our 'government' then just work your way outward upward and downward from there following the money trail in both incoming and outgoing directions.

 

Well, 'mom and pops' are "good guys," generally, so I depend on them for goods and services however and whenever I can or I am 'allowed' to.  

 

4 years ago

This is where you need to read the book.  because it was the business executives of the world who were the "good guys" and were abandoning all the Moms and pops. 

 

So I do basically agree with what you wrote but it doesn't fit with Rand's premise at all.

4 years ago

Me too, Ss.  If something worthwhile, and I suspect Ayn Rand's works are, will kick-start a breaking-free of the brain-washing we're all subjected to, including if not especially students, then I'm all for it.  

4 years ago

Nancy, in what context were the 'good guys' abandoning?  Why were they abandoning?

 

My book should be here in a few days.  Can't wait to read it.

 



 

Rand on Pollution:

 

As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved—as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry—if the preservation of human life is the standard.

 

It has been reported in the press many times that the issue of pollution is to be the next big crusade of the New Left activists, after the war in Vietnam peters out. And just as peace was not their goal or motive in that crusade, so clean air is not their goal or motive in this one.

-“The Left: Old and New,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

 

4 years ago

Q&A with Ayn Rand

 

Should the growth of technology and science be restricted by the state?

 

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire. -“The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

 

Nothing can raise a country’s productivity except technology, and technology is the final product of a complex of sciences (including philosophy), each of them kept alive and moving by the achievements of a few independent minds.

“The Moratorium on Brains,” The Ayn Rand Letter

 

The demand to “restrict” technology is the demand to restrict man’s mind. It is nature—i.e., reality—that makes both these goals impossible to achieve. Technology can be destroyed, and the mind can be paralyzed, but neither can be restricted. Whenever and wherever such restrictions are attempted, it is the mind—not the state—that withers away. -“The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

 

 

Technology is applied science. The progress of theoretical science and of technology—i.e., of human knowledge—is moved by such a complex and interconnected sum of the work of individual minds that no computer or committee could predict and prescribe its course. The discoveries in one branch of knowledge lead to unexpected discoveries in another; the achievements in one field open countless roads in all the others. The space exploration program, for instance, has led to invaluable advances in medicine. Who can predict when, where or how a given bit of information will strike an active mind and what it will produce?

 

To restrict technology would require omniscience—a total knowledge of all the possible effects and consequences of a given development for all the potential innovators of the future. Short of such omniscience, restrictions mean the attempt to regulate the unknown, to limit the unborn, to set rules for the undiscovered.

 

And more: an active mind will not function by permission. An inventor will not spend years of struggle dedicated to an excruciating work if the fate of his work depends, not on the criterion of demonstrable truth, but on the arbitrary decision of some “authorities.” He will not venture out on a course where roadblocks are established at every turn, in the form of the horrendous necessity to seek, to beg, to plead for the consent of a committee. The history of major inventions, even in semi-free societies, is a shameful record, as far as the collective wisdom of an entrenched professional consensus is concerned. -“The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

 

 

If you consider, not merely the length, but the kind of life men have to lead in the undeveloped parts of the world—“the quality of life,” to borrow, with full meaning, the ecologists’ meaningless catch phrase—if you consider the squalor, the misery, the helplessness, the fear, the unspeakably hard labor, the festering diseases, the plagues, the starvation, you will begin to appreciate the role of technology in man’s existence. -“The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution


4 years ago

Should the state intervene to curb pollution and limit damage to nature caused by industry?

 

City smog and filthy rivers are not good for men (though they are not the kind of danger that the ecological panic-mongers proclaim them to be). This is a scientific, technological problem—not a political one—and it can be solvedonly by technology. Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death. -“The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

 

As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved—as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry—if the preservation of human life is the standard.

 

It has been reported in the press many times that the issue of pollution is to be the next big crusade of the New Left activists, after the war in Vietnam peters out. And just as peace was not their goal or motive in that crusade, so clean air is not their goal or motive in this one. -“The Left: Old and New,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

 

Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .

 

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire. -“The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

 

...Read more Here

4 years ago

What does it really mean to say that science is not political?  Of course it isn't.  Same with pollution.  What is the point here?

 

Think though about pollution as depicted by Ayn Rand versus what happens in the real world. 

 

In Ayn Rand's world, every decision is clearly right or wrong on EVERY THING.  Every product is BOTH better stronger, more cost-effective, cheaper to make AND produces less pollution.  It's a no-brainer!

 

In the real world, we are faced with choices where sometimes.  Frequently the more cost effective (i.e. the GREED decision) is short sighted and wrong in the long term.  That is where regulation comes in.  And even Alana Greenspan himself now admits that it is needed.

4 years ago

Nancy, there's not a 'philosophy' in the history of man that is actually practiced in the "real world."  But that's not to say we can't or shouldn't strive for a better "real world."

 

Alan Greenspan wasn't practicing Objectionism - he supported parasitic practices in the lending industry, which he 'referred to' as "free market" principles - but, as he KNEW, we have no such thing as a 'free market'.  

 

If regulations are laws, and they basically are, then I'll have to read where Rand says there shouldn't be laws to protect people from the bad guys, such as the Federal Reserve, their evil friends, and the government that blesses them.

4 years ago

Well, I think I read up above that you have ordered the book.  And you do have that sense of reality that I found completely lacking in her writing.

 

As a way to lead your own life, I do think it is an OK philosophy.  But even in a certain sense, it is unrealistic.

 

She has claimed over and over that she has NEVER asked for nor receievd ANY HELP from any other individual.  And I simply don't believe it.  We all help each other in ways we don't even realize.

 

 

 

 

4 years ago

I'm guessing she's referring to 'hand-outs' and probably referring to 'finanical' help (but maybe I'm wrong) ... again, I'd venture to guess there was a context in that claim that is missing in the interpretation.

4 years ago

I can agree with the idea of not asking the government for help- but hey- I did have student loans so I guess I reallly did.

 

When you get your copy, you can read how she worded it.

4 years ago

Send a Green Star to Nancy M.

Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Nancy because you have done so within the last week.

4 years ago

Thanks Angelica- and back at you!  And to Bryan as well.

4 years ago

I wonder why it is that when rich people that give to Liberal political actions it's considered OK but when other rich people give to any non liberal political group or movement it's suspect or even evil?  

 

I wonder if people understand that the very Corporations and CEO's that Liberals condemn give a significant multiple of their "contributions" to Progressive political campaigns.  Or that the CEO's of these companies consider themselves Progressives? 

 

I wonder why Liberals find it so hard to support Libertarians even when Libertarians act on their beliefs that Wars are wasteful and immoral?

 

 

4 years ago

I haven't read the book either. But, I do recall reading absolutely scathing articles about her on the NN from the very liberal Alternet.

 

Google gives me:

 

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/politics/143205/right-wingers_believe_ayn_rand%27s_every_word,_but_they_forget_she_wrote_fiction/

 

but that's no the one I remember from the Care2NN..that would be this one:

 

http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers

4 years ago

"I wonder why it is that when rich people that give to Liberal political actions it's considered OK but when other rich people give to any non liberal political group or movement it's suspect or even evil?"

 

To me that comment is so off topic- since Ayn Rand wouldn't give a penny to anyone and promotes that philosophy.

 

"I wonder if people understand that the very Corporations and CEO's that Liberals condemn give a significant multiple of their "contributions" to Progressive political campaigns.  Or that the CEO's of these companies consider themselves Progressives? "

 

Some do and some don't.  Again, what does this have to do with Atlas Shrugged.

 

"I wonder why Liberals find it so hard to support Libertarians even when Libertarians act on their beliefs that Wars are wasteful and immoral?"

 

I find many liberals now supporting more Libertarian candidates.  But of course, liberals overall have different points of view than libertarians on many issues.

4 years ago

I'd like to explain that the term "Progressive" is not the same as "Liberal".  That's been distorted by those that have warped Liberals into accepting policies that they in fact oppose.  Just like Neo-Cons have warped Conservatives into supporting policies that the Conservative philosophy is against. 

 

We are all being duped into accepting Oligarchical control of "our" government and the Worlds economies.  The rulers of the system run it for their own benefit.   They don't care about the people.  They don't care what we think or what we want.  We are seen as a inconvenience to their control.  They divide us and deceive us at every turn.  All the compassion and self government is merely Kabuki theater.

4 years ago

"I wonder why it is that when rich people that give to Liberal political actions it's considered OK but when other rich people give to any non liberal political group or movement it's suspect or even evil?"

 

To me that comment is so off topic- since Ayn Rand wouldn't give a penny to anyone and promotes that philosophy......  Well Nancy as they say in court: "you opened that door" with:  "The Koch brothers are spending huge amounts of money to support the Tea Party"

 

"I wonder if people understand that the very Corporations and CEO's that Liberals condemn give a significant multiple of their "contributions" to Progressive political campaigns.  Or that the CEO's of these companies consider themselves Progressives? "......   This was a follow up to the above but, if you have read the book, you should already know the answer to that question.

 

 

 

 

4 years ago

"

To me that comment is so off topic- since Ayn Rand wouldn't give a penny to anyone and promotes that philosophy......  Well Nancy as they say in court: "you opened that door" with:  "The Koch brothers are spending huge amounts of money to support the Tea Party""

 

And that was because the movie is put out by Cato Institute which has KOch as one of its sponsors.

4 years ago

So rather than continue this, I will simply ask you Jim who you think the "good guys" are?  In today's real world that is.

 

I asked before and got an answer from Katii but not Ss L.

4 years ago

 The Cato Institute has a lot of funders and if Koch wants to fund it, so what?  How does that relate to the book?

 

Again, if you read the book, some of what I said might become a little clearer. 

4 years ago

"gain, if you read the book, some of what I said might become a little clearer. "

 

I read the book.  The Cato Institute realtes to the book BECAUSE they are making the movie.  I am sure that you and others will find other reasons.  Pehrpas you'd rather just EXPLAIN THEM rather than insinuate that someone hasn't read something based on the fact that they disagrre with you about the interpretation of the book.

4 years ago

"Again, if you read the book, some of what I said might become a little clearer. "

 

Well, if I were grading your essay, it would be an F.

4 years ago

Really, I don't see the connection that is supposed to be some 'bad' thing that CATO is involved in the making of the movie.  

 

Why is CATO suspect?  Merely because the Koch brothers help fund it?  Don't liberal think tanks have other really wealthy people funding those?

4 years ago

"Why is CATO suspect?"

 

I didn't say it was. 

 

I did tlak about the Koch brothers and one could guess from what I wrote, that I am not a fan.  If you want to say that I said soemthing is bad, it would be the Koch brothers, not Cato per se.

4 years ago

There are few absolutes Nancy.  There are many who have good intentions that do bad things.  Does that make them the "bad guys"?  No. It means they are wrong. 

 

For me, those that seek to impose their will on others by using force, some type of manipulation or coercion are doing a bad thing.  The thing doesn't change based on their intentions. 

 

There are those that espouse the concepts of maximum liberty and freedom and IMO those things lead to the greatest potential of personal development. 

 

I heard someone once from the Ayn Rand institute.  Listening to him, I came to the conclusion that he was an asshole.  Why?  Because he didn't believe in the function of charity.  I do.  I think it builds us and brings us together morally to help those that are legitimately in need.  "We all need someone we can lean on"..... 

 

On the other hand, there are those that, IMO, are just bad people.  Evil exists in the world.  Sometimes it is difficult to separate those that are bad with those that have good intentions and are doing bad things.  You know what has been said about good intentions though. 

 

This probably didn't answer your question.

4 years ago

So why is Koch bad then Nancy? 

4 years ago

"Don't liberal think tanks have other really wealthy people funding those?"

 

Of course they do and I didn't say I liked that either now did I.  There is a great deal now of funding going to all kinds of political agendas and it is excessive, IMO.  Every time I hear about certain groups and the funds they have I can think of many other "better" uses for that money.  Like JOBS!

4 years ago

"This probably didn't answer your question."

 

I actually loved it!  Woo Hoo.

 

I admit I have read a few Ayn Rand books and viewed them as basically silly at best.  To me, she writes only in black/white absolutes. 

 

I have to admit I have never heard anyone from the Rand Insitute speak though.

 

But I do like your answer.  I too believe in charity.  And that is one reason I differen from her philosophy though I like the idea of personal responsibility.

4 years ago

Nancy, my question wasn't directed at you personally - I just put it out there because as I mentioned before in the past I'd had people say to me that anything CATO indorsed must be suspect.

 

I believe in charity as well.  But, so did Rand 

 

Charity is not evil
The Ayn Rand Institute does not oppose charity per se; the Institute itself is a charity, gaining its support from voluntary contributions. Helping others is appropriate as long as it is not a sacrifice and as long as it is not taken as the basis of an individual's moral worth.
My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong with helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.
--Ayn Rand, Playboy interview (March 1964)

 

4 years ago

I heard someone once from the Ayn Rand institute.  Listening to him, I came to the conclusion that he was an asshole.  Why?  Because he didn't believe in the function of charity. -Jim

 

I think it's clear there are many people who 'use' Rand's philosophy of Objectivism as an 'excuse' to be assholes.  I don't think that makes Rand herself one.

4 years ago

Interesting debate,here.  I have not read any of her books and I don't actually know why except maybe had it been offered as required or suggested reading in school or book discussion group, I might have done so.  I really have nothing either constructive or destructive to add to this thread other than I am impressed with the civility of this debate.

4 years ago

Well, I have to admit that I have always thought she was, but you are right.  With no direct knowledge other than her novels, I guess I can't really say.

 

Still I don't"worship" her or the dollar bill.

 

As for "I do not consider it a moral duty." 

 

I do consider it a "duty" of the soceity but not necessarily the individual.  That may be a place where you and I differ.  There are many in soceity- mostly children but also some adults- who do need to be cared for.  It is the duty of soceity to ensure that is done.  It is may duty to give what I can afford.  There have been times in my life where that wasn't much, there have been other times where it was substantially more. 

 

I think that may be one place where some people do view her as "evil", maybe I am wrong.  And the view you posated above does not come thorugh at least in Atlas Shrugged.

4 years ago

Well, I don't 'worshipanyone.  I don't know of anyone who worships Ayn Rand, tho I've heard people talk about her with respect.

 

 

It is the duty of soceity to ensure that is done. -Nancy

 

I agree, though we may differ on what is the best way to accomplish that goal.  Since society and individuals do a far greater job of providing charity than does government, I'm more apt to lean in that direction.  

 

If our tax system allowed for up to unlimited tax deductions for charitable constributions (specific - for the truly needy, I don't mean every tax-exempt 'non-profit' organization there is) I think charities would have more money than they knew what to do with.  I think our welfare system works against individual charitiy because tax-payers assume it's 'all being taken care of by uncle sam' because they're making their yearly donations to the government via income taxes.  Same assumptions apply to education on the state and federal levels - but just look at some of our schools!  It's horrible, and embarrassing.

4 years ago

"If our tax system allowed for up to unlimited tax deductions for charitable constributions"

 

That is a great idea.  I would totally agree with you on that.

4 years ago

Elect Nancy/Katii  2012!

 

4 years ago

Well- you can be the Prez- I am happy with the VP spot.

4 years ago

Oh no, I put your name first for  reason

4 years ago

You're smarter than I am 

4 years ago

I want to be the head of the A.T.F. or the D.E.A.Then I will fire everyone or do such a horrible job, according to the "talking heads", that it will all seem moot and we can get past it all. Just be done with those agencies and save all of you a whole hell of a lot of money. Maybe we could put it all in to social security and be sure that all of the contributers for all of these decades are covered.

4 years ago

You ladies can have the job.  I just want to be the man behind the women.  A little role reversal never hurts. 

 

Just don't become the next Hillary!!!!!

4 years ago

Jim, if you're willing to work I'd hire you as my chief of staff in a heartbeat LOL  ... 'work' of course would entail the really hard stuff, like making sure I have a beautiful glass of wine (in a beautiful glass) at lunch and again at dinner  You may have to help plan our R&R retreats too.  OK?  lol

 

 

4 years ago

If I ever started to become a Hillary you have my permission to bitch slap me (verbally, that is - if you laid a hand on me I'd have to have the secrect service shoot you in the foot )

4 years ago

Bitch slapping Hillary is not a abuse of a woman, it's a public service. 

4 years ago

Jim S.  Already sent the max of my GREEN stars to you; but that one is priceless above!

 

The hero is John Galt.

I wonder what book some have read; was it the complete and unabridged ed. of Atlas Shrugged; it doesn't sound it.   

 

Perhaps after the movie debut; we should have another discussion.

4 years ago

Most interesting comments and the trailor definately is enticing. I need to read the book, research the author and then see the movie before posting a comment.
Thanks

4 years ago

"Just don't become the next Hillary!!!!!"

 

I have no intention of that.

 

"I wonder what book some have read; was it the complete and unabridged ed. of Atlas Shrugged; it doesn't sound it.  "

 

I read the complete unabridged version.  I think mahny of us are seeing different things but it is based on our own personal philosophies.  But by discussing it with Jim and Katii, I have a better sense of where they are coming from.

 

How about you Ss L, who are the bad guys, who are the good guys?

 

( I feel like I have wandered into an episode of that show LOST!)

4 years ago

"You're smarter than I am "

 

No, not so.

4 years ago

Are so

4 years ago

Nancy:  to me, the real and only hero is John Galt.  I would add as runner-ups Dagney Taggart, Howard Roark, the Italian industrialist Francisco D'Antonia.

 

It was the other novel "The Fountainhead" who the real villain was memorable:

Ellsworth M. Toohey.  He was representative of all the politicians who mask their intent to help the people while personally profiteering and seeking their own selfish gain at the expense of the people.

4 years ago

Well, what I meant was who is John Galt in our real world?  Or Dagney, Howard, and Francisco.

 

Fountainhead is on my reading list, BTW.

4 years ago

He was representative of all the politicians who mask their intent to help the people while personally profiteering and seeking their own selfish gain at the expense of the people. -Ss

 

Sounds like he represents our government rolled up into one person.

4 years ago

Most all politicians suck -- they toe the line and do whatever it takes to keep their positions of power. Most have much more greed than backbone or compassion.

 

But focusing on this or that or all politicians is like constantly complaining about various members of the police force if open bribery was legal, and even necessary for the officers to partake in to get their jobs. Though i'm not saying we shouldn't be against the slimiest politicians.

 

But i think the last thing we should do is think individual politicians are the actual source of our problems, and believe in a fairy tale version of the corporatists behind the scenes as Ayn Rand would have us do.

 

 

4 years ago
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Bryan because you have done so within the last week.

4 years ago

It is a BOOK and what gives it credibility she draws from reality and moral lessons can be made!  Give me a break here!  Did you even read the book???  It is a good read and like any author who is worth their salt they draw from real life; but it is fiction, not fact!

4 years ago

Bryan, all I can say is that from what little I've read of Rand's own words (which so far have not been reflected in the opinions of her dissenters; that goes for many of the 'powerful' who claim to be Objectionists!), she would not approve of the blood-sucking 'corporatists' you refer to.

 

I hope my book comes today.  It's a stormy day here today and perfect for settling in with a good read.

New Clip from Atlas Shrugged
4 years ago

4 years ago

"If that bridge collapses, there will be no Railroad".... company  ....  Out of business. 

 

Actions produces consequences, and that result can be FAILURE.  A key element in Capitalism.   And our system has been undermined by government.  Some are now deemed to big (important and powerful) to fail.  Government moves in to protect them from their own actions.  The result is those Corporations or Unions have no downside risk.  So, they take MORE RISK.  To gain more for themselves.  When it crashes, we get handed the bill instead of the Corporations stockholders and bondholders.  Or. in the case of Unions that reach for more benefits than can be afforded, we Americans take the hit in jobs going overseas and again, bailouts of businesses that payed excessive compensation.

 

  "Do what you want Mr Brady, but leave them a choice."   

 

Exactly.  Here, the Union was deciding, not their membership.  In many cases the Union leadership has their own agenda that does not benefit the workers.  They have become aligned with the political class.

4 years ago

Just like now, the Union bosses are aligned and massively supporting the political leaders of their choice, not their members choice.  They use members' dues to promote their candidates and pay themselves.  Yet, the dues continue to rise and their pension plans are in jeopardy and who is expected to foot the bill?  The taxpayers of the states where the public unions operate are expected to pay when all else fails.  That is why there is anger.

 

This is a farce!  

4 years ago

Thanks Nancy, and same to you. Katii, i agree that Rand may not explicitely agree with blood sucking corporations, but it comes down to, in her own words, believing corporations should be left to do whatever they want because their actions will be sufficiently regulated by market forces and their own self interests. That has simply been proven to be false.

 

It may be a fictional story Ss., but Ayn Rand is expressing her social/economic beliefs in her books, and people advocate those beliefs as real world solutions today, just as with other writers.

 

 

"Do what you want Mr Brady, but leave them a choice."

Oh please, you have truly got to be kidding me. Dagny implies that leaving business unregulated is about giving workers a choice (?!) Along with implying that her company is already regulated because it has to consider the consequences of the bridge collapsing -- even more ridiculous! Does anyone really believe that big corporations adequately keep safety in mind because of the potential consequences? They just  pay an inconsequential fine and leave it up to their lawyers.

 

Sure, government is in cahoots with many of the huge corps and helps enable them to avoid responsibility. But this situation originated with the wealth and power that corporations weild, and the solution is not to give them free reign.

 

 

4 years ago

"Katii, i agree that Rand may not explicitely agree with blood sucking corporations, but it comes down to, in her own words, believing corporations should be left to do whatever they want because their actions will be sufficiently regulated by market forces and their own self interests. That has simply been proven to be false."

 

Absolutely.  Her premise in Atlas Shrugged was about "greed" being used to make the right decision.  It is a work of fiction and thus her examples were completely false.  In the real world, the "greedy" decision may not the be right one.  The housing market and stock market bubbles were two examples of that.

 

I would say than being the solution, too much greed is the problem.

 

"from what little I've read of Rand's own words (which so far have not been reflected in the opinions of her dissenters; that goes for many of the 'powerful' who claim to be Objectionists!), she would not approve of the blood-sucking 'corporatists' you refer to."

 

She may or may not.  You may be right.  The problem is that THEY think she will and that THEY all think that greed is the answer and that THEY are doing what she would do.

 

And while we are at it, doesn't the idea that Dagney, Francisco, Harry, et al all run off to join John Galt while the rest of the world collaspes kind remind anyone of the New World Order?

4 years ago

Brian...."  corporations should be left to do whatever they want because their actions will be sufficiently regulated by market forces and their own self interests. That has simply been proven to be false." You state things as an absolute and assume it's true.  And what is the truth?

 

The government is controlled by the Corporations now.  Some call it "regulatory capture".  In actuality, it control of all phases of government.  The corporations through Lobby's write the legislation with loopholes.  Those loopholes are used by the heads of the regulatory agencies to write the actual regulations.  The heads of those Agencies have been appointed by the Executive branch (the President) and they come from the same industries to be regulated.  Geithner, Paulson and Rubin for examples in Treasury.  They promote what is good for the giant corporations they represent.  That's why those corporations are getting bigger and bigger and looking a lot like monopolies.  BECAUSE government regulations are used as a tool by these corporations. 

 

Corporations will use and advantage they can get.  So, they use government and propagandize people into believing that they are regulated and controlled.  The truth is what is being regulated and controlled is us.  By them.

4 years ago

Nancy & Bryan 

4 years ago

corporations should be left to do whatever they want because their actions will be sufficiently regulated by market forces and their own self interests. That has simply been proven to be false. -Bryan

 

As Jim just pointed out (again), no it hasn't been proven to be false:

 

BECAUSE government regulations are used as a tool by these corporations. ...  Corporations will use and advantage they can get.  So, they use government and propagandize people into believing that they are regulated and controlled.  The truth is what is being regulated and controlled is us.  By them. -Jim

 

Exactly, Jim.

 

4 years ago

Yes! Nancy and Bryan  

 

And Jim!  

 

And Ss!

4 years ago

Jim, I would have to say what i said about corporations is demonstratably true. Are you saying that giant corporations can be sufficiently regulated by market forces if we could government out of the picture?

 

I agree with what you say, and you say Katii, about regulatory capture, but i don't think that means we do not or cannot have any useful oversight. For example, the meager environmental regs we have do make some difference, that's why some politicians are always pushing to have them abolished. Maybe if people would have paid attention and demanded that certain financial regulations been kept in place instead of just going with the slogan "government is the problem," we wouldn't have had quite the systemic meltdown.

 

I agree it's a tricky thing, since the most powerful corps can use loopholes or use so called regulations to their advantage. But it also isn't like corporations would be denied having monopoly power if not for the government. If we just completely give up on the government representing our wishes then what is supposed to be the counterweight to the huge concentration of corporate power? The market??

 

Just because government is corrupt, or mostly controlled, does not prove that corporations can be regulated by the market or their own self interest.



This post was modified from its original form on 04 Apr, 16:15
4 years ago

Thanks Katii! and...

4 years ago

I will say that I really have enjoyed this discussion and am very much looking forward to Katii reading the book.

 

For everyone:

 

4 years ago

Brian...."But it also isn't like corporations would be denied having monopoly power if not for the government." 

 

Government is creating monopolies.  That should be pretty obvious. 

 

And government has a role to protect us from our rights being violated.  Instead, often government facilitates our rights being abridged.  This is what happens when government exceeds it's authority. 

 

Brian, a close examination of the good things that government takes credit for indicates that it is  has been simple natural progress, not government actions.  Usually through technology, sometimes through social conscience.   Not because a bunch of corrupt politicians got together and decided to do the right thing.  Or had an idea.

4 years ago

 If we just completely give up on the government representing our wishes then what is supposed to be the counterweight to the huge concentration of corporate power? The market??  -Bryan

 

Let me pose a counter question...  Do you think the market (= the people and the consumer) would put up for one minute what the government 'allows' big business to do?  

 

Emphatically, I don't.  You wouldn't, I wouldn't, Jim wouldn't, Nancy wouldn't, nobody in this group would.  In fact, considering all political stripes, I don't know 'anyone' who would - except our two-party controlled and bought-off government.  Big business would be extremely hard pressed to buy-off 200,000,000 consumers.  It just wouldn', couldn't happen - especially today with the power of the net and the instant communication to 'everyone' it provides.

4 years ago

Nancy, my book still didn't come today ... damnit.  I hope it gets here before I see the movie

4 years ago

Jim, It's true that things aren't done by a bunch of politicians getting together and deciding to do the right thing. But things like labor rights and protection against discrimination are in fact gauranteed by laws which are upheld by the government. I don't want to go back the robber-baron age when there were no laws protecting workers.

 

It is simply not correct to say that the only way giant corporations can obtain monopolies is through government. Not at all.

 

Katii, the average person may very well not want to put up with corporate abuses, if they are even aware of many of them from what they see in the corporate owned media that is. There is no way that consumer choices are going to prevent some chemical company from dumping toxins into our water, or some factory from abusing workers. Sure, when enough people die, and the problem becomes so huge there's no way to deny cause and effect, there'll be a large enough uprising against a particular corporation.

 

I'm not sure where the idea that abuses committed by big business can only come about due to government involvement comes from (probably people like Ayn Rand), but these abuses happened before government regulation and happen moreso where there is no oversight.

 

I don't think anyone would say government doesn't need drastic reform. The first step would be campaign finance reform so as to get more representatives not owned by corporations.

 

4 years ago

"Nancy, my book still didn't come today ... damnit.  I hope it gets here before I see the movie "

 

Good luck with that.... it is well over 1100 pages.

4 years ago

There is no way that consumer choices are going to prevent some chemical company from dumping toxins into our water, or some factory from abusing workers. -Bryan

 

I disagree.  I think without the legal blessings from government these companies would clean-up or get run out of town.  I would note, too, that these companies you refer to are, in fact, to this day, with the blessings of the government, dumping toxins into our water, our earth and our air.  

 

As far as factories abusing workers goes, this argument just doesn't work because we don't live in the 19th century anymore and there are an abundance of laws already in place to protect workers from abuses.  Abuses, I highly suspect, Ayn Rand would not advocate.

4 years ago

Well, my book arrived today - all 3 pounds of it

4 years ago

"I think without the legal blessings from government these companies would clean-up or get run out of town."

 

There are still plenty of chemicals in waters and NO regulations prior to maybe the 1960s.  And of course, it was far cheaper to just dump and so much better for the GREEDY.  Plenty of twons throughout the Northeast have faced problems because of chemicals.  Bryan is right.

4 years ago

 

Nancy, Bryan is right about what?  

4 years ago

Good question Katii so I have to confess that I misread what you quoted of  his post.

 

"There is no way that consumer choices are going to prevent some chemical company from dumping toxins into our water, or some factory from abusing workers. -Bryan"

 

If we have REAL information rather than marketing HYPE, and that is a big "IF"  then consumer choices might prevent some pollution and other "evils".

 

 

4 years ago

Wesley Mouch Voice Mail

 

 

Click HEREto demand Atlas Shrugged Part I in theater near you. 

 



Who Is Wesley Mouch? Why Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged matters today

Tonight, my Fox Business Network show about Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged will finally air. That should stop the emails like this one from Karen Cooper:

 

"Oh for the love of god! 'Atlas Shrugged' explains about 99 percent of what's wrong in all of the arenas of topics: health care, education, climate change, unions, the economy, etc. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE cover 'Atlas.'"

 

Cooper makes a good point. Even though Rand published Atlas in 1957, her descriptions of intrusive and bloated government read like today's news. The "Preservation of Livelihood Law" and "Equalization of Opportunity Law" could be Nancy Pelosi's or Harry Reid's work.

 

The novel's chief villain is Wesley Mouch, a bureaucrat who cripples the economy with endless regulations. This sounds familiar. Reason magazine reports that "as he looks around Washington these days," Rep. Paul Ryan "can't help but think he's seeing a lot of Wesley Mouch."

 

Me, too. I also saw a lot of him under George W. Bush.

So I'm conducting this unscientific poll: Who is our Wesley Mouch? Hank Paulson? Tim Geithner? Barney Frank?

 

You can vote here: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/12/31/atlas-shrugged-poll/

 

Personally, I think Chris Dodd's ridiculous financial proposals ought to win him the honor. But he isn't among the choices on Fox's list. As I write this, Geithner, President Obama, and Barney Frank lead the voting.

 

My first guest on the show (FBN, 8 p.m. Eastern Thursday, repeating at 10 p.m. Friday) is BB&T Chairman and Atlas fan John Allison. Allison's bank, the ninth largest in America, is doing very well, but he's angry the government forced him to take TARP money.

 

Allison once told The New York Times, "To say man is bad because he is selfish is to say it's bad because he's alive."

 

I'll pack the audience with some Atlas haters. That shouldn't be hard. My daughter's boyfriend offers up his Yale classmates. Many "liberals" agree with the "South Park" episode in which one character said that "because of this piece of s--t, I am never reading again." Rand brings out ferocious hatred in some people.

 

Also, I'll get a fish pedicure. Really.

 

This is a dubious Turkish idea that's become popular in Asia and is now trying for a foothold (pun intended) here. Instead of scraping dead skin off their feet, people have little garra rufa fish gently chew on them.

 

Fourteen states have banned fish pedicures, claiming they are unsafe, and other local governments have proposed bans. OK, compared to the assault on entrepreneurship described in Atlas Shrugged, this is sort of a dumb example, but look—I work in television—dumb examples can make good points.

 

The bureaucrats say the fish can't be sterilized without killing them. They say customers will get infections. People could die! It's not safe! And it's cruel to the fish!

 

Has anyone died? Can you refer me to someone who got an infection? Anyone? The bureaucrats' answer is always no. But it's better to be cautious, they say.  ...read more Here

 

 

John Stossel's Atlas show...
4 years ago


 

 

 

 

 

4 years ago

 Hank Rearden Voice Mail


 

 

 



 

 

Barron's review of Atlas Shrugged...

 

Atlas Shrugged, Part I is that rarest of rare commodities, a movie in which capitalists are the good guys. After almost 40 years of attempts to bring Ayn Rand's epic novel, or at least part of it, to the screen, this film will have its world premiere—in a delicious irony—on traditional Tax Day, April 15.

 

The 102-minute film offers suspense, pathos and even a little sex. Although it covers just the first third of the novel–Parts II and III are being planned–it provides a tantalizing taste of the story's seductive power, while leaving viewers hungry for more.

 

It should also satisfy followers of Rand's objectivist philosophy, which celebrates the virtues of laissez-faire economics. Among market luminaries, proponents of objectivism include Cliff Asness, Victor Niederhoffer, and Monroe Trout. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan was a member of Rand's inner circle in the 1950s, and speaks admiringly of her in his memoir, The Age of Turbulence.

 

Partisans will argue that the sweep and scale of the novel (it comes in at nearly 1200 pages) deserve a Hollywood mega-budget. They can also point to its extraordinary influence. In a 1991 survey conducted for the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of Congress, Atlas Shrugged ranked second only to the Bible among books that made a difference in people's lives. A best seller on publication in 1957, it has remained perennially hot–and set sales records since the 2008 financial crisis.

 

THE NOVEL FEATURES a mysterious strike, in which government's increasingly crushing directives—designed to solve government-created problems—are resisted by society's most productive members. Thus, Atlas "shrugs"—refusing, as the novel explains, to continue to hold the world on his shoulders. (The Atlas of Greek mythology actually held up the heavens, but no matter.)

 

Admirers of this vision might expect the movie adaptation to feature A-list actors on the level of Gary Cooper, who starred in the 1949 film of Rand's The Fountainhead, for which she herself wrote the script. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were, in fact, among the names mentioned during Atlas Shrugged's long journey to the screen. But the major studios saw too little commercial potential in producing a movie faithful to the colossal original. One proposed screenplay even left out the strike, an omission likened by objectivist philosopher David Kelley to filming Gone with the Wind without the Civil War.

 

Entrepreneur John Aglialoro, who had acquired the film rights in 1992, was determined to hold out for a version true to the novel. But after repeated deal-making snags, he faced expiration of the film rights on June 15, 2010. On June 13 of that year, Aglialoro started shooting, with a self-financed budget of only $20 million. In lieu of major box-office draws, his team cast Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart (the actress was 26 at the time of filming, nearly a decade younger than Dagny), and Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden. Best known for their television appearances (in Mercy and True Blood, respectively), they do solid work in these demanding roles.

 

WITH AMERICA'S ECONOMY STAGGERING and its infrastructure collapsing (masterfully portrayed in an opening montage), Dagny Taggart undertakes to rescue Taggart Transcontinental—a railroad that is going broke under the mismanagement of her brother, who relies on lobbyists, rather than initiative. Dagny enlists the talents of Hank Rearden, inventor of a miraculous metal that threatens the status quo. Fearful competitors and their Washington cronies have conspired to cut him down to size.

 

As Hank and Dagny's business relationship turns personal, they uncover a clue to the baffling disappearance, in series, of America's ablest business leaders. In the planned sequels, the strange motor that the lovers find in an abandoned factory will also help answer the question they initially believe is merely a catchphrase for resigning oneself to economic disintegration: "Who is John Galt?"

 

Cont'd...

4 years ago

Hank Rearden's blindness to the forces opposing him is poignantly depicted in a scene in which he comes home exuberant over the momentous first pouring of his new metal. He is greeted by the condescension of his wife, Lillian, as well as the disdain and resentment of his mother and his brother Phillip, whom he feels obligated to support. Phillip wheedles a contribution to a dubious-sounding philanthropy, but asks Hank to help him disguise the source of the money. The organization doesn't want to be associated with a notoriously rapacious industrialist.

 

Hank agrees in order to make his brother happy, a highly un-Randian motive. Understanding what makes Hank happy is beyond Phillip's worldview. Capping the indignities, Lillian turns the exploitation on its head, saying it is her husband who holds his family in chains.

 

Brian Patrick O'Toole's well-crafted screenplay keeps faith with Rand's message: Producers of wealth must wake up to their exploitation by government regulators and corrupt industrialists who expropriate it.

 

Rand's advocates will regard this film as an eloquent statement of her call for individual freedom. Moviegoers interested mainly in entertainment will appreciate its locomotive-like pace, and will be moved by searing images of America in a devastating depression in 2016. Add to that Elia Cmiral's stirring score, and Atlas Shrugged, Part Iis a gripping, although unsolved, mystery. 

 

Barron's

4 years ago

Some comments left by readers of Barron's review...

 

- The quintessential anti Obama movie

 

- Rand's book was not only against a big controlling government but also against big controlling corporation's that block innovation and lobby to create monopoly's.

 

- What an auspicious time in history for this movie to be released. I can hardly wait !

 

- I am so excited this film has finally been done, and it appears to be done right, but we'll see. Haven't seen much buzz about it, so I'm a bit concerned about how it will do financially.

 

- I rarely if ever go to the movies to see the latest sensation that Hollywood puts out. But having read "Atlas Shrugged" in the early 60's over a Thanksgiving weekend, I can hardly wait to enjoy this film. We the American populace must wake up to the insidious taking away of our freedoms by both the government and the corporate elite. Perhaps our citizenry of couch potatoes can at least watch a movie to and take to heart their need for action.

 

I read Atlas Shrugged while living in Hong Kong, pre- takeover. I finished it drinking beer and eating wonderful food in Singapore, after working 6 months with no days off. Somehow, that added to the story. I doubt the rich liberal elite will care about this movie, as they have already made up their minds about life, right after they scored the Trust Fund. The working people may catch on what is happening, I do not know. It will be interesting to watch MS/NBC and NPR pee their pants to pan the movie and the book (again).

 

4 years ago
 

 
 
 

“Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it.” — Ayn Rand

The trajectory of this country over the past six years has been troubling to those of us who understand the power of individual freedoms. Encroachments on individual and corporate liberties, such as making us buy health insurance while exempting favored unions, go almost unnoticed by the average person. That is why the debut of the movie “Atlas Shrugged” is so important.

“Atlas Shrugged” warns of the indifference of government to individual freedoms in favor of the “hitchhikers of society.” And how vilifying the true heroes, entrepreneurs, slowly kills a society. Sound familiar? It is about the spirit that has made America great. Alexis de Tocqueville, the author of Democracy in America, called it “American exceptionalism,” and we are on the brink of losing it.

Our elitist, narcissistic, condescending president is all too happy to squelch the individual and entrepreneurial spirit of Americans, who he thinks rival him in importance. When it is about you and me, it cannot be about him. And it is only about us in his rhetoric every four years, when he is up for election.

As government takes more and more control of our lives and of the economy, the creeping incrementalism which it uses to gain power over us is often not noticed by the average citizen. It is hidden in the false promise of what an all-powerful government will do for you.

Our education system has pandered to the lowest common denominator and has resulted in falling math and science test scores when measured against rival countries. If we know too much and are allowed to think for ourselves rather than as part of the teachers’ union collective brainwashing, we might question government’s power.

Our pop culture has been so blurred with politics that Forbes’ list of most powerful women has Lady Gaga ahead of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and reality TV star Donald Trump feels he can run for president. More people can name “The Situation” from Jersey Shore than a Supreme Court justice.

Even the Tea Party does not seem to agree on what programs to cut from the budget, nor has a clear leader emerged. They are a traditional group, so I assume the only thing they have decided for sure is that South Carolina will secede from the Union first.

For the most part, the Tea Party movement is on the right track — if it can avoid being hijacked by the religious right. Their de facto leader, Sarah Palin, starts her speeches: “Let me ask you, Florida, do you love your freedoms?” Which is like asking a

4 years ago
 

 
 

“Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it.” — Ayn Rand

 

For the most part, the Tea Party movement is on the right track — if it can avoid being hijacked by the religious right. Their de facto leader, Sarah Palin, starts her speeches: “Let me ask you, Florida, do you love your freedoms?” Which is like asking a Grateful Dead concert crowd, “Any of you here like smoking weed and ordering Domino’s delivery?” Yet Palin would outlaw a woman’s right to choose, take a dim view of the religious rights of non-Christians and would seek to codify her version of the Bible into law.

In a society where the liberals silence the voices of freedom, we must all fight for it. As I type my column on my Word document program, I notice that it shows “Ayn” in “Ayn Rand” as misspelled with no corrections suggested. It’s like Word does not want to acknowledge one of the most admired writers of modern times. “Exceptionalism” does not spell-check either. Interestingly enough, Word recognizes both “Kucinich” and “Dukakis.”

We libertarians have been against these wars and about the only thing Obama campaigned on that we liked was his promise to end them. He has done just the opposite. In fact he added a war by bombing Libya on the 8th anniversary of the Iraq War. With a government shutdown looming, he spends billions to bomb Libya. Gaddafi’s regime is still operating and ours about shut down.

It seems our politicians’ convoluted logic goes: America uses 28% of the world’s oil supply but only invades 10% of the Middle Eastern oil producing countries. We need to invade more.

See the movie “Atlas Shrugged.” If not, pay attention to Washington, D.C., as we seem to be living in Rand’s novel.

Ron Hart is a syndicated op-ed humorist, author and TV/radio commentator. E-mail Ron@RonaldHart.com or visit RonaldHart.com.


 
4 years ago

I think Katii's posts are great and I like Ronald Hart's blog; I suggest we all go to the movie and keep a very open mind.  We are 'living' in the world of John Galt right now.  Ayn Rand had the masterful knack of perception and her book is timeless as it manifests itself on multi dimensions from the human plight to the social injustice and power manipulations of government and corporate elitists.

 

4 years ago

Thanks for the Hart piece, Ss.

 



 

The establishment will not want the people to see this movie - hell, they wouldn't even make the movie.  What does that tell me?  It tells me I need to see this movie.

 

Everyone in my house has used the 'demand AS in a theater near you' tool.  I hope you will too:

 

Click HERE to demand Atlas Shrugged Part I in theater near you.

4 years ago

Well, the nearest theater to me showing AS is in Nashville, 198 miles away.  This works out because we'll be going to Nashville with in days of the opening

 

 

See THIS PAGE for a list of theaters that will be showing AS.

4 years ago

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/la-et-0410-atlas-shrugged-20110410,0,190827.story?track=rss

 

From the Chicago Tribune .... the history of the making of this movie which took 20 years and it is an 'Outsider' movie not in the Hollywood tradition.

Very interesting read and exactly what I would imagine for this epic novel to be made into a movie which does not compromise the message.

4 years ago

Honestly, with all the anger and hatred spewed at 'capitalism', how do people think America, arguably the most industrious and prosperous country in the world, was built if not through individual innovation and a drive to succeed?  How can you live in a free society without capitalism, without the freedom to exercise and own one's personal creativity and initiative and the fruits thereof?

4 years ago

you can live in a free society without capitalism by eliminating the monetary system and take what is needed and give what you choose without putting harm upon yourself or others.

4 years ago

"How can you live in a free society without capitalism, without the freedom to exercise and own one's personal creativity and initiative and the fruits thereof?"

 

In some fields, one coudl say they can't express personal creativity and initiative BECAUSE of capitalism.

 

Just a though...

 

Good point Aaron.

4 years ago

That is a good point, Aaron - it sounds something like the Venus Project's 'Resource based economy' philosophy.

 

Nancy, how does, or could, capitalism interefer with the expression of personal creativity and initiative?

4 years ago

I should have qualified my statement above by distingishing true capitalism in a truly free market from what is passing itself off as capitalism today.  We don't have a free market economy.

4 years ago

Remember when we heard that Ron Paul gave millions in left over campaign money back to the government?  The rest of our politicians don't do this.  They are allowed to keep that money.  It's criminal, but true. We can only imagine how many millions they are keeping.  A lot of it comes from corporations, who can donate unlimited funds to one single congressman.  So, Congress, under this system of legalized bribery, functions for corporations (who are, one could argue, using our tax dollars to bribe politicians).  There are only so many tax dollars to go around. 

 

Now, the right wing in our government is insisiting that services be cut to the most vulnerable, schools, programs for the arts, etc.   This can certainly stifle one's creativity.  If you want to be a musician, and you are a child who is learning how to play your instrument in school; and then suddenly, the music and band program gets shut down for lack of funds, - well, that sure can stifle creativity and expression. 

 

When programs for the arts get cancelled for lack of funding, many developing artists suffer.  

4 years ago

"Nancy, how does, or could, capitalism interefer with the expression of personal creativity and initiative?"

 

When you work for a corporation, there are limits to you behaviour.  You have to have the corporate persona.

 

Also, when I think of truly free expression, I think of the arts.  That's me anyway.  ANd there really isn't much place for art in a capitalistic society, IMO. 

 

 

4 years ago

Nancy, you don't 'have' to work for a corporation tho.  If you're inventive, industrious and have an idea to market you're free to do that on your own (in a free market of course).

 

As far as artists go, if it wasn't for capitalism there'd be nobody supporting them because without the personal wealth capitalism affords individuals then artists would  have no patrons.  I know a few artists, from very successful to moderately successful to just squeaking by, and none, I'm sure, would agree with your sentiment because they know they would ever make it without the patrons and benefactors who support them (and arts foundations) - all of whom are 'capitalists'.

4 years ago

Well, I had started to write some more and then cut it out.  But we are thinking similar things I think and I will be back to have more discussion.  It is hard to bput a tangible price on services too.

4 years ago

It is easy to see a connection to a pay check when someone is producing something useful.  Pens, televison, cars, computers, etc. 

 

Art?  I guess I can see it as a product but not a necessary product.  That's part of the problem for artists.  you don't NEED that product necessarily.  So it could be easy to be low-balled and hence turn into a "starving artist".

 

But what to say about other kinds of jobs and services without that direct connection to something you can bill for? 

 

I was in a position about fifteen years ago when I took a new job at a hospital.  My then fiance now husband had a friend who was completely obsessed with the "bottom line" and couldn't figure out why I would have been hired.  I was not directly involved in patient care, thus, how much was I worth- in his mind anyway. 

 

What I did was provide a service to my own hospital as well as others in the area.  We charged the other hospitals for that service- enough to more than cover the costs but not enough to cover my pay.

 

So what is that worth?  Not much in our firends mind.  But Then one day, my lab notebook went into meeting withe the hospital lawyer and a patient's famlies lawyer.  After the meeting the lawsuit was dropped.  I had saved the hospital from a million dollar lawsuit- PRICELESS!

 

 

 

re: venus project thingie
4 years ago

yes. that is pretty much exactly what i am saying. never had heard of it before, but after reading how they view the 'economy'. yes, that is right. it solves multiple problems all at once and is the easiest and quickest to implement if only people will agree fully on doing it and not just making some excuse and ruin it all with just a brush of the shoulder. and it is even more likely to have a HUGE and POSITIVE affect on the world simply because we dont need to have such a massive group of people working in warehouses and etc doing jobs that we all know that we could have an automated procedure or module to do. the technology is there, leaving so many of these people who have been working jobs they have been bottlenecked into because of the capitalism of today simply to survive. what of those people who want to make their business that will change the future? they have no means because of the monetary system. remove the monetary system and you will still have the supply of materials and the demand of the public leaving the need for those creative aspects to thrive without the bounds of monetary systems.

the statement of money is the root of all evil is so close to the truth its scary... but its still only one head on a beast that will destroy the world.

4 years ago

Actually, the quote goes, "The love of money is the root of all evil."  Money is not evil, it's merely exchanging, or trading one thing of value for another.

 

The Venus Project could become more attractive to most than anyone thinks,  looking more and more attractive to people once our government collapses the dollar and destroys our economy, which it seems hell-bent on doing as it continues to allow a central bank to monetize debt with money created from nothing, inflating prices.  Worse, Americans allow this crap with not only their concent but with their help. While they spit on those who tell them the truth they keep voting for the same people who lie to them (and they KNOW they are lying to them!) and are responsible for everything wrong in this country:  Demlicans

4 years ago

after looking more into the statement, or quote.. it is from 1 Timothy in the christian bible. going off of that and such translations, and notable mistranslations that even i have just made, just shows that what i was saying is true. the statement itself can be broken down into the fact that a certain greed(more than just a monetary greed, since even pride is a greed of ones self) is a root of evil. the elimination of such greed will not really make the problem fixed, but the management and moderation of such greeds, and all things, will solve the problems. pointing fingers can make us feel better about it all, but in the end it doesnt solve the problem. so i really dont care who it is to blame for the problems, even if i do slip and point my own fingers ( i am still human, like we all are, after all). i just believe that if we stop the pointlessness and actually make it happen, then we would not need to constantly fight about who did what when where or why.

4 years ago

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-voice-mail-lillian-rearden

 

Lillian Reardon on Union Strikes....

Movie premieres today and  I am going to the very first show in Boston today.

 

I will let you know my take on it; or my 'amateur' critique.

4 years ago

"Honestly, with all the anger and hatred spewed at 'capitalism', how do people think America, arguably the most industrious and prosperous country in the world, was built if not through individual innovation and a drive to succeed?  How can you live in a free society without capitalism, without the freedom to exercise and own one's personal creativity and initiative and the fruits thereof?"-- Katii

`

 

But remember,individual innovation and a drive to succeed are completely different things than corporate dedrgulation. maybe Ms Rand didn't believe in big cronyistic corporations when considering how she would like society to function. But the same can be said of early communist thinkers and revolutionaries. There movement was all about empowering the workers to make their own decision. A controlling central government would be anathema to theie ideas.

 

 

 



This post was modified from its original form on 15 Apr, 23:40
4 years ago

Hi Everyone:  I highly reccommend this movie.  It takes place in 2016 which is quite interesting that they gave a date to the events.

 

The characters are very interesting; actually Dagney Taggert is by far the best.  As a woman, I admired her tenacity and strong will.  She has the appearance of under-stated elegance.  I loved her simple jewelry, the necklaces on Egyptian motifs and the black pearls were lovely.  I will stop with the trivia.

 

The scenery was exceptional from Colorado to cocktail parties which was quite entertaining.  Regarding the point of Ayn Rand ... it is the assault on capitalism by a government who wants equality amongst all.  No one company is to make more profit than another.  Everything is government controlled.  The lobbyists and the politicians control everything in industry and company presidents are merely hacks of Wash. D.C.  like Dagney's brother who plays into the system.

 

Dagney, Howard Roark and the oil tycoon are individualists.  Slowly, the great minds disappear under the guise of John Galt who whisks them away. 

The first segment of this movie ends with the question of Moral Power by the Government to control your LIFE.

 

I personally believe in capitalism; but I also believe in some regulation as power and greed run amok and can be quite devastating ... just look at 2008 and the Wall St. Banking fiasco of too big too fail.

 

But, we do need total government control; that is not what this country was founded upon.  And any politician who trys to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the freedom and liberty of U.S. citizens needs to be voted out.  That is a personal decision for each person to make and vote for the person they believe in.  Someone representative of our Founding Father's Principles is someone who ideally should be sitting in Congress, Senate and Presidency.

 

The film is very relevant to what is going on today and again, it is a good movies, I cannot wait to see part 2.

 

 

4 years ago

I am interested in seeing the movie.  I will have to find out if it will be here or in Indy.  Probably.

 

I have owndered about the part one versus part two, if enough of the message would get throuhg in one part.  Do you know when part 2 will be out?

4 years ago

Nancy, I think part 2 depends on the success of part 1.  In one of the reviews posted above they said if part 1 was successful enough shooting part 2 would start toward the end of this year sometime.

 

Yes, Bryan, I think a huge centralized cronyism government would be anathema to Rand's philosophy.

 

Thanks for the review, Ss - if all goes as I am 'guessing', I'll see it this week.  If not then I guess I'll just have to wait for the DVD (like I usually do)  

 

In the first Stossel vid up there (that shwo was from last year I think) he talks about how utterly relevent AS is to what is happening right now.

 

I agree there needs to be some regulation, but only so much as it 'protects' the free market rather than subvert it, which is what has happened to America.

4 years ago

Nancy... Indianapolis

4 years ago

I already checked.  Can't get there this weekend though- maybe next weekend.

4 years ago

"Yes, Bryan, I think a huge centralized cronyism government would be anathema to Rand's philosophy."

 

I think we all have to remember that she was from Russia, saw her families business confiscated by the government, and was really writing about anti-communism. 

 

We aren't THAT bad....... well, not yet anyway.

4 years ago

I probably could have worded my last post better (waited 'til morning to write it). I'm just saying it's irrelevant if Rand was against, in principal, the big powerful corporations we have today. Just like early communists were against an all powerful state, but their ideals didn't save them from flawed ideology and human corruption and lust for power. Rand's philosophy is just another way to concentrate power in the hands of a few -- especially if used to fight against a nonexistant communist state.

 

I agree Nancy, Rand's writings reflected experiencing an all controlling state that did not even allow private business. In the US, we are on the opposite end of that spectrum, where powerful corporations own and control the government. The very last thing we need to do is give them more "freedom".

 

The founders of this nation specifically warned against the power of concentrated wealth having control over the government of checks and balances they envisioned.

4 years ago

Let's hear it for flawed ideology!

4 years ago

Rand's philosophy is just another way to concentrate power in the hands of a few -Bryan

 

Respectfully asking because you've read her and I haven't yet... How so?



This post was modified from its original form on 16 Apr, 11:39
4 years ago

Katii, simply by concentrating more power in the hands of giant corporations. By letting them do whatever they will and believing market forces will regulate these entities that control the flow of billions of dollars just gives them more power.

 

I know we've been through the idea that only by using government can corporations form monopolies and commit significant abuses, and it's probably not useful to go back and forth on that.

 

I did mention before that i haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and i haven't read any of Rand's books. But i have read some of her own words and heard people from the Ayn Rand Institute speak. I'd also say the sentiments expressed from the two film clips i've watched on this thread are completely wrong-headed, imo.

 

 

4 years ago

The worst of the "Giant Corporations" would wither and die without the nanny state. The best of them will have to break up into smaller companies in the interest of creating a more competitive market economy.

4 years ago

I really doubt Exxon or Aetna will be withering anytime soon without  government.

 

It's one thing to be against government policies and subsidies that only benefit giant corporations, but that's not the laissez-faire free market fundamentalism which basically assumes if it makes profit then it must be good.

4 years ago

Sorry, Bryan, I'd forgotten you said you hadn't read AS.

 

I'm not sure a business can do 'whatever they will' when they are operating in free market and are as subject to market forces as everyone else.

 

Using Jim's experience with someone from the Rand Inst. to go by, I wouldn't go by what others say about her philosophy unless it matches up to what she actually said.  From what little I've learned so far, the man in the Stossel video above seems to be relating her philosophy correctly.

 

Anywho... Laura and I are headed to Nashville tomorrow and will go see AS on Monday  Then I'll take up the book - I had started it but then I decided that since book-movies are usually more like a 'preview' to the book I'd wait till after I watched the movie before reading it.

4 years ago

No worries Katii, i wasn't sure if you thought i had read AS or maybe another book -- just thought i'd clarify.

 

I think it's good to consider how much trans-national corporations are controlled by market forces in comparison to a small or medium sized business. And again, thinking these giants shouldn't be unregulated is not the same as being against entreprenuers and free enterprise, as some claim.

 

Anyway, have fun in Nashville!

4 years ago

Free Markets are essential to make Captialism work at its best; not socialized capitalism.  This administration I fear is going down that road.  The idea that the Federal Government will determine which corporations will produce and then cap profits and promote economic distribution of power and profits amongst corporations is wrong.

 

This is a great power grab.  I have not seen John Stossel show yet, I do like him.  He is a good man.  I do hope they make Part 2, it is a good movie.  It holds your attention and it is challenging to make you think of what is prevalent and what really matters. 

4 years ago

Part 2 is scheduled for April 15, 2012 and Part 3 for April 15, 2013.  That is a long stretch.  First choices for Dagney Taggart were Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron.  Charlize T. was going to do the mini series on TV but they wanted to use 5 other actresses for same role and she refused.  I don't blame her and the tv mni series was ditched.  I would have preferred the tv mini series rather than waiting long periods like this.

 

I don't know why Angeline Jolie did not do it; maybe money.  This was a low budget film.  Charlize Theron is an actress who will do a part irregardless of pay as she is an artist first.

 

Both would have been great as Dagney, esp. Charlize as she is tall and blonde. 

4 years ago

China is socialized capitalism and it appears that Obama and the progressive movement prefer that type of government.  It is not in accordance with our founding fathers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.  I do think it hinders the indivdualism and pioneer spirit in creative people.

 

China and Japan are NOT innovative countries; they copy masterfully; but they do not create a concept first.  We do that and allow them to copy our great works and allow jobs to go overseas.

 

I did listen to Chris Wallace on his Sunday show and he had guest panelists on that indicated our children lack the scientific knowledge to produce and create the innovative technology of past industrial minds.  Our academic expertise is dwindling.  However, most of these people who invented these technologies went to private schools.  So, I am not in full agreement with these statements.

4 years ago

What is Obama doing that is socialized? Because he bailed out GM? That hardly transforms our economy and is not some permanent government control or anything that would hinder creativity. The socialized democracies of Europe are doing better than us because their economies are more stable, yet they still have no shortage of private business.

 

Our founders did warn against the concentration of wealth becoming stronger than their planned government of check and balances.

 

Even if most of our inventers went to private schools (which i don't believe, but really don't know the numbers) that is no excuse to think we'll be OK  if we let our public schools deteriorate.



This post was modified from its original form on 18 Apr, 0:53
4 years ago

What the Founders warned most against was a big fat centralized government.

 

Whatever the word for robbing peter (the working class) to pay paul (the government and it's handlers) is, that's the kind of government we have.  And it stinks.

 

4 years ago

Well they argued against both, though true, the main concern of the time was not to have an all powerful ruling body like the monarchies of old.

 

I don't know what to do to bring about a government that actually works for the people other than to fight for it. I don't see that being the same at all as demanding government leave big business unregulated. Especially when the power of big business is one of the main reason government does not represent, or need to care about, individual people.

 

But two things can happen at once -- we can demand the government enforce common sense regulation, such as financial regulations that were lifted shortly before we had the meltdown, and also demand government itself follows the Constitution and respects the rights of individuals, and even remove useless corrupt regulations. 

 

Getting a seperation of corporation and state -- ending corporate financed elections and the power of lobbyists would make a difference. This open bribery and collusion called a "democracy" is ridiculous.



This post was modified from its original form on 18 Apr, 23:26
4 years ago

I don't know what to do to bring about a government that actually works for the people other than to fight for it. 

 

That's it.  We have to fight for it - that's how it's always been and always will be because those who seek then are given power (as Americans have so willingly given) are never willing to relinquish it.  

 

We can start with our most valuable weapon:  our vote.  America needs to stop wasting their votes on the Dem and Rep party favorites, which, except a dozen or so individuals includes everyone already in office .  Only when we stop wasting our votes on the two-fer party system can anything else be addressed, like removing useless corrupt regulations. 

 

If Americans would stop wasting their votes, then it really doesn't matter how much money big business spends on campaigns and lobbyists.  We have the power, with our votes, to make all that wasted money (except for all the money it injects into the economy).

 



 

Laura and I saw Atlas Shrugged yesterday in Nashville.  Veerrry interesting; I wish we could have watched it twice as it was fairly fast paced.  Clearly a low-budget film, but still well done I thought - the Hollywood glam and glitz wasn't missed in the least.  

 

As soon as the DVD is released I'll be buying it so I can watch it again.

 

Ss, using someone like Jolie to play Dagny, and someone equally 'big' for Reardon, that alone would have taken up the entire budget (including marketing!), and a bigger budget would have meant relinquishing control over the entire project including the screenplay - then Atlas Shrugged would have been lost.  

 

I agree a TV miniseries would have been my choice as well, Ss, but I can't imagine any channel being willing to air it - it would be like The Matrix giving everyone the 'red pill'.  I'd bet cable or satelite won't even offer AS as a pay per view!

 

4 years ago

 

This thread is getting long...  Please continue at Part II HERE