ers

I just found a fairly good retort to the article here: http://www.thecommentator.com/article/969/george_montbiot_s_abject_failure_to_understand_ayn_rand

I've seen these cropping up intermittently over the past few years with higher and higher frequency. Here's the latest one I've seen from The Guardian: "How Ayn Rand became the new right's version of Marx" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/05/new-right-ayn-rand-marx Rife with ad-hominems and other logical fallacies, the author seems to demonstrate nothing more than a cliffs-note understanding of Objectivism, to say the least.

I'm somewhere between utabintarbo and softwareNerd. I do think there is real potential for things to get very nasty. As such, I've prepared the best I can without getting too crazy about it: freeze dried food supply, plenty of guns and ammunition, precious metals, etc. That being said, I do think that progress will continue, despite the continual onslaught from the collectivist filth. I chose a career based on what I knew would be profitable (Computer Science). In a "down market" I'm not only gainfully employed, but I get regular calls and emails from recruiters. In the short term, I plan to continue work on my Master's degree while working full time and building up savings that isn't dollar-denominated. At some point in time, it will be time to invest in stocks again, namely genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence (which is a field I plan to be involved with in the future). Human beings have an amazing drive to create and innovate, in spite of the second-handers. If innovation doesn't continue here in America, I may consider moving elsewhere (East Asia). But that's a worst case scenario. So in some ways I'm very nervous about the future, but also cautiously optimistic. It could definitely all come crumbling down very quickly. If we can just hang in there past this rough patch, I think we're about to accomplish some very amazing things as a species. "Moon Pie.... what a time to be alive."

I just got a rather disturbing email from my local city rep. In it the following text stood out and literally made me ill: Apparently this trend has been sweeping municipalities for a while now. This statement above, especially the text I've bolded, and the way it's stated so simply, so casually, really alarms me. It reminds me of this Rand quote: Here's to looking forward to a higher electric bill.

Oooh! He can be a chef at a school cafeteria.

A while back, I was having an argument about something or other with a person and was winning. Every time he made his case, I made sure my counter-arguments were fallacy free, as well as grounded in Objectivist thought. He slowly conceded to each one of my points as the exchange continued. Toward the end, I used an Ayn Rand quote as part of my argument because her wording exemplified the point I was trying to make perfectly. As soon as I did that, his attitude completely changed. No longer was he receptive. He immediately declared that I "wasn't going to make any friends quoting Ayn Rand" and that he didn't see a purpose in discussing things further. I was curious to see if other people have run up against this phenomenon, where you are expressing ideas to a person which they either agree with or are forced to concede to, but as soon as you mention the name Ayn Rand they completely shut down. It really leads me to believe that the average person truly has no idea what her philosophy is about at all. But if her name is left off of her ideas, the philosophy somehow becomes more appealing.

Hello, I'm having an online debate with someone about certain aspects the entertainment industry. I am defending its right to existence, while the counterpoint argument is that it is exploiting the people it "takes" profits from. The person I am arguing with seems to think that once a company gets too big it becomes evil since it then uses its influence on the government. I've argued that this is not, in fact, Capitalism, but a form of corruption. The argument itself seems to have devolved into what the nature of Capitalism actually is and the concept of property rights, as well as limited resources, which he refers to as "the commons". Since I still consider myself a neophyte to Objectivism, I'd like to get some more seasoned feedback on the following quoted argument from the person I am debating. Any help or pointers in the best way to counter arguments like this would be greatly appreciated.

This article makes me sick. How GM IPO Proves the Tea Party Wrong

Thanks for all the input, everyone who responded, I appreciate it. I do think I'll start with VoS, then depending on if I struggle with ITOE, I may read OPAR instead. Atlas Shrugged and Anthem.

I want read some of Rand's non-fiction, and was curious as to which book I should start with. I've heard that Virtue of Selfishness might be a good place to begin, but was extremely interested in Rand's discussion on how rights are derived in the first place, and thought that maybe Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology might be a better choice. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -ers

A city built UNDER the water would be largely undetectable. It could be called.... Rapture.

Actually I was responding to Greyhawk's original post/question. But I'm sure any similar strategies on the part of Blizzard are also fundamentally self-interested.

I suspect that Nintendo has a rational, profit driven motive behind this. Specifically, it generates good P.R. and in the end, furthers the company's self interest (rather than harming it).

This made my day as well. Four days ago I thought this was just a long shot.

Exactly. This election is not really about Brown vs Coakley, and their respective ideologies (however flawed or abhorrent either of them might be). This is about stopping, or at the bare minimum, slowing down an extremely socialist agenda.