Excerpt: "'Atlas Shrugged' is a fantasy ... the book is a perennial favorite among adolescent boys. Most boys eventually outgrow it. Some, however, remain devotees for life."
Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Ryan's Ayn Rand Devotion
24 August 12
So far, most of the discussion of Paul Ryan, the presumptive Republican nominee for vice president, has focused on his budget proposals. But Mr. Ryan is a man of many ideas, which would ordinarily be a good thing.
In his case, however, most of those ideas appear to come from works of fiction, specifically Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
For those who somehow missed it when growing up, "Atlas Shrugged" is a fantasy in which the world's productive people - the "job creators," if you like - withdraw their services from an ungrateful society. The novel's centerpiece is a 64-page speech by John Galt, the angry elite's ringleader; even Friedrich Hayek admitted that he never made it through that part. Yet the book is a perennial favorite among adolescent boys. Most boys eventually outgrow it. Some, however, remain devotees for life.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN at any level, we have states that need cleaning out too.
DO VOTE and vote Democratic, vote as if your livelihood depends on it, as it certainly does.
Unless you are one of the G.I.s who will die under the current administration' s never ending war foreign policy.
Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy preached greed and selfishness over altruism and community. Yet, she herself received Social Security and Medicare benefits under her married name.
A bigger hypocrite we couldn't hope to find — until, of course, Paul Ryan came along.
Medicare is much the same. So to try to recoup at least part of what you paid before you die and the government confiscates the rest is not greed, it's good sense.
Having said that, I'll also say the Romney/Ryan ticket is possibly two of the most evil, self-centered jerks in the USA. Even George W. Bush would be better than these two. At least we can deal better with simple stupidity.
She never denied that she was going to accept Social Security, so she was not a hypocrite. If she had said she wasn't accepting it but she did accept it, that would have been hypocrisy.
One of her fans wrote to her and asked if they should accept Social Security. AR said yes, you paid for it so you can accept it.
For those of us who believe in an equitable society, this is a good system that helps to keep people afloat. In pushing hard to end Social Security for all Americans, Ryan is applying objectivist principles that he learned at the feet of Ms. Rand. The fact that he accepted Social Security benefits without having paid into it, but would deny it for the rest of Americans, including those who have already paid, is the height of hypocrisy.
Last year Beck declared Ryan to be a virtual "soulmate."
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2012/08/beck-is-ecstatic-over-romneys-choice.html
Like Jesus, Rant DESPISED hypocrites (other than herself).
She said that neither individuals nor nations should engage in the first use of force. That is, violence is for self-defense only. Sounds good.
But she condoned what was done to the native Americans by the European invaders. She said the natives had an obligation to "step aside". Step aside to where, Ayn? There was no "aside".
She also had an unwavering support for Israel. Did she really think the Zionist invaders practiced "no first use of force"?
Thanks, I had not heard that idiotic pearl of Randian wisdom.
What we have now is a war on the middle and lower classes ... you think that is better ?
Diocletian and his colleague solved the crisis with a command barter economy. In other words, a soviet system. Ironically, that is what going back to the gold standard would force the economy into. A more detailed version Friday on:
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Great story, with a lot worth considering and thinking about,and, as far as I am concerned, one major role of government, is to protect the commons of nature, and the basic rights of all beings and environments..........
Regulation of systems, and keeping them in line with the laws of nature, and a livable future, are a good thing, and not to be left to corporate, or any other entity out for short term $ profit, which is not a good gauge of much anything.
GMO's, Fracking, Nukes, etc, are an absolute failure of protecting the commons and the future health of life on this finite planet.
Let's face it, Randianism is just a justification for narcissism and greed. It is a way for these people to not recognize their own immorality and sociopathic beliefs, by turning it all around to believe that they are doing good by stepping over the bodies of the less fortunate and not paying back to the entire system that allowed them to become rich in the first place.
One morning when Paul Ryan was sixteen years old he went in to wake his father up and found him dead of a heart attack. He assumed the role of adult at an early age, never having the luxury to pursue youthful drug use and the art of socialist revolution. What is most despicable about Paul Ryan is that he has had the nerve to write the House Budget for three years in a row. He's is brazen and heartless in advocating in that budget for a $5 trillion dollar reduction in federal spending over the next ten years! The House passed his budget three years in a row and three years in a row the Democratically controlled Senate has let it die in the upper house, without ever proposing a budget of their own. Paul Ryan seems heartless to me. He keeps wanting to cut government waste, he keeps wanting to put a halt to those big GSA conventions in Vegas and, worse, he keeps trying to make people look at that $16.7 trillion dollar deficit! The guy's no fun at all!
Party Hearty folks! At least until November.
If he really wanted to pare down the deficit, Ryan would advocate cutting wasteful spending by the Department of Defense, which is far and away more costly and than any program serving the elderly, women or the poor.
Do we really need another A-bomb? Do you know that the Defense budget in one year is more than what NASA gets? NASA has given us a lot of what we use today. Micro computers, cell Phones, Satellite TV, clear braces, water filters, U.V. sunglasses, memory foam and electric car batteries to name a few. Oh and also Tang.
What do wars give us because it should be department of war or offense not defense. They give us better guns and bomb that Americans are now using on themselves. They give us hate that never goes away. They give us widows and orphans, maimed soldiers, and death. Yet the Republicans was to cut NASA and increase defense (I.E Offense-war) spending.
Isn't it rather the other way around?
Obama has had to try and work with an opposition which automatically, by default and regardless of any reasoning or negotiations, attempts to make him appear ineffectual, AT ANY COST including to the American populace, who may as well be categorized as collateral damage, in their mindless quest for power and dominion over all. Party on that mate!
And Herman Cain, although I am not sure how many people even in the GOP thought of him as an "intellectual leader", got his 9-9-9 tax plan from a computer game, SimCity!!
And I'll bet my kilted toosh that he wouldn't donate a tosser if it wasn't well and carefully-resea rched as TAX DEDUCTIBLE; that's how these people work o' starry-eyed, "yes-boss", well-wisher to the ruling class!
Come on. We can take it. Exiled gave it to us: http://exiledonline.com/paul-ryans-guru-ayn-rand-worshipped-a-serial-killer-who-kidnapped-and-dismembered-little-girls/
While I agree everyone should get it back what they paid in--nothing else is fair--the benefit promises made exceed the projected tax revenues under the current structure, so something must be done. We need to stop burying our heads in the sand on this issue, as there are no easy answers. We can only cut benefits (the default), raise taxes (a burden on current workers), increase the number of taxpaying workers per retiree (more immigrants and/or raising the retirement age), or some combination of the above. I don't like Ryan's plan but no one has offered a functional alternative, either.
They have, and repeatedly.
SS and Medicare are officially OFF-BUDGET programs, ie, they have their OWN structure and revenue sources, designed to be adjusted, as is a reasonable prediction given fluctuating population and eligibility.
SS can easily be made solvent in perpetuity by removing the cap on contributions. And do not try to tell me the wealthy don't owe that to humanity considering what they've done to "create" and maintain that (at best)wastefully hoarded extreme wealth.
Medcicare, which does an incredibly difficult (and unchallenged) job being a solely highEST-risk pool, would be wildly successful(Cadi llac, denial-free insurance for $100/month) by including the young and healthy. The proposal of HR676 is years old with still no majority of takers, as it might enshrine the first black President in history as the American Tommy Douglas. Or worse, it might actually and finally outlaw Protection Rackets at ANY level.
Whatever the real amount the private charity load will increase dramatically. Almost all the churches lack the administrative economies of scale to run such programs efficiently. So the actual nation-wide cost, private and public, might double. And this is just an example of what might happen with a small to medium size budget cut. And if the churches don't pick up the slack even larger social costs will show up somewhere else. And that's the price we, the 99%, will pay for the 'free' market!
So, your position is that not everyone should get back what they pay in, no? Medicare should become a dual income transfer program--from current workers to the elderly, and increasingly from high-salary workers to those earning less. Or do you also propose raising the maximum benefits, so that high-salaried workers get much larger pensions than currently entitled to, in exchange for paying much higher taxes?
Also, Medicare is not really "off-budget" when 45% of its expenditures come from general tax revenues and not Medicare payroll taxes. (Read the trustee report.) Just saying....
RSS feed for comments to this post