deviadah

No, USA is not the most free or has got the best economy! As for the Freedom Fighters statement I meant that the freedom they say they fight for is on false grounds...

Iraq is not anarchy! Also many of the thugs are Freedomfighting Americans... When you say better than most what are you basing that on? Which countries has got a better economy than the USA accroding to your standards? Which are close? What about paying tax? What captialist state does not have a tax system?

Yes, there it is obvious it does not go along with Rand, but I was only talking about the actual phrase Root of All Evil and where it comes from.

Don't know how relevant it is but the Money Speech starts with Bertram Scudder saying: "You know, money is the root of all evil – and he's the typical product of money." In 1 Timothy, 6:10, of the New Testament (KJV) it says that "the love of money is the root of all evil", but contrary to this it’s more common to say that "money is the root of all evil". The difference is that the former, and probable originator of the concept, tells us that to love money is wrong but not to use it. The latter merely states that money is wrong altogether. In conclusion, as I understand it, the Bible and Rand are in agreement because Ayn Rand, as I understand it, thinks money is nothing more than a payment for efforts that can be exchanged for the product of the efforts of others. Or am I lost in the woods?

I will answer the above with the quote below (sorry I can't give source, found it flying around on the internet - but it is derived at least from Emma Goldman's ideas): Well as I think I have said before, and if I haven't I'll say it again: The Capitalism described in AS is not the Capitalism of modern day USA - or if it is I have certainly failed to see that. If capitalism's purpose is to establish individual right then I am all for it, but it does not. It just bonds us even further because it is - like communism - not used in the way it was intended. I understand many here think I disagree with Ayn Rand - and yes I do on many points - but I agree on a great deal others. I don't follow One Person's ideas blindly: why should I. She is not a God (and I don't follow a God either). I understand it might be confusing to some when a person respects and is inspired by Rand, Goldman, Nietzche and Chomsky (for example) at the same time. Regardless I find all discussions here thought provoking which I hope a forum is for: and not jerking over the agreements - that would be dull. Question what you love: you will find you love it correctly in the end or you will change your mind!

Here is the Money Speech in a length fit to a film: "So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil? Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out.”

What I mean is that the IDEA is logical when you hear/read/think about it but if ever put into practice it would not work because the Human Race are illogical (as a mass with individual exceptions)!

I have only read Atlas Shrugged, and some material written about Ayn Rand. I have never admitted more. I got The Fountainhead in my 'to read' pile. From what I have read here on the forum and compared to Atlas Shrugged there is a difference. Or maybe it is because in the end Atlas Shrugged is FICTION and therefore open to interpretation - regardless of her other works it stands on its own. What I meant in regards to government I agree with Rand's idea of government, but I don't agree that it can ever work i.e. I acknowledge the existence and logic of the idea but I oppose the notion that it will ever become a reality!

Well it's more that we probably needs to be saved from nature. And who is to say who agrees more. In the end it is all about how you interpret her ideas. Remember that Atlas Shrugged, for instance, is fiction with ideas within. She says so herself that the End of her work is the story.

For instance how she places women in the kitchen and men in the factories.

Angelina Jolie? Not my ideal choice. As for the score why not Phillip Glass? His Akhenaten Opera for instance would be a great example of what kind of score he could write - remember in the book he, Halley, is an innovator not a conformist like most other Hollywood composers.

That there is a problem is not an issue I would like to discuss. You are entitled to your opinion, but there are hundreds of examples of how organisations have managed to stop and/or change enviromental crimes.

One problem with Ayn Rands ideas is that people tend to forget she wrote most of it pre-1960! It's not very objective to place all those ideals in 2006... What I mean is that if she wrote Atlas Shrugged now then the issue of women, and their portrayal, would be very different. Also the pro-capitalism she has been accused of, by leftist groups, is - in my opinion - not the capitalism of today. In the same manner that Communism has never been performed in the manner the theories have suggested neither has Capitalism (in the manner Rand portrays it). Or so I think...

Well if the charity you give money to works to support, improve, such areas that you yourself think are important to you - then give to it. For instance enviromental problems is important. In fact it would be out of interest to yourself to support such groups that try and save nature and stop pollution. It doesn't matter what you want to do with your life and what values you have etc if you don't have a planet/world to do them in. In this case it would be egotistical to support such a charity because it will help your own world.

There are even quotes by Hitler I like, that doesn't mean I approve of his ideas. I agree somewhat with Ayn Rand, and also with your, idea of government, but in the end power corrupts always. I wish it wasn't so. Ayn Rand, and her mind, is Great - that does not mean I agree with everything she says. I hope this does not make me look like I am here to spread criticism of her work, but I do think that all areas of Objectivism that I agree with are not interesting to discuss - more that which I don't agree with. Such discussion will lead to either acceptance or the opposite. All knowledge is important. The government issue is one!