Who is John Galt

BearMtnHIB wrote: She was right- look how many people voted for Obama!

She would probably scorn most of those voters. But she'd also scorn at least as big a percentage of those who voted for Grandpa McCain and Caribou Barbie. She scorned practically everyone.

And as someone else pointed out, I'm not "complaining" about her elitism, although it's extreme and detestable in my estimation, just finding it wildly ironic that Tea Partiers who react like vampires at the site of the One True Cross at any hint of "elitism" have chosen her as their patron saint.

Rand was a flawed woman, but most of us are. But from reading her books instead of slanted opionion pieces about here, she seems to prefer the individual over the collective, and free will over socialist eleites controlling the economy.
And you wonder why the Tea Party supports her over Obama, Arugula eater, golf player, educated on leftist, elitist campuses?

I've read most of her books, but I've also read about the woman herself, and both sympathetic and critical reviews of her philosophy, which puts her books into better context. It appears to me that what the right is doing is picking and choosing the stuff in her philosophy they agree with, but they are ignoring huge gaping differences between their outlook and hers.

I, too, prefer the individual over the "collective", but I there are huge glaring problems with her brand of Objectivism and they show up in her novels - provided one is reading critically and not just gulping down the parts of her philosophy that appeal to personal self-interest, as many who are worshipping her these days seem to be doing. And it's not her flaws as a person I find problematic when I talk about her elitism, it's a problem with her philosophy. It's at the core of almost everything that is wrong with the Neocon movement, from promoting secrecy in government to Greenspanian economic puffery to endless wars abroad.

AspenValley wrote: I've read most of her books, but I've also read about the woman herself, and both sympathetic and critical reviews of her philosophy, which puts her books into better context. It appears to me that what the right is doing is picking and choosing the stuff in her philosophy they agree with, but they are ignoring huge gaping differences between their outlook and hers.

I, too, prefer the individual over the "collective", but I there are huge glaring problems with her brand of Objectivism and they show up in her novels - provided one is reading critically and not just gulping down the parts of her philosophy that appeal to personal self-interest, as many who are worshipping her these days seem to be doing. And it's not her flaws as a person I find problematic when I talk about her elitism, it's a problem with her philosophy. It's at the core of almost everything that is wrong with the Neocon movement, from promoting secrecy in government to Greenspanian economic puffery to endless wars abroad.

I agree with your first para.

As to your second, do Obama supporters "worship" him, or agree with everything he has done? I think not. I do not percieve the difference.

AspenValley - Rand would not agree with most politicians these days- her idea what government should be would be drastically different from what we have today. Her idea of government would be to get back to what the founding fathers envisioned- she even commented that "they mostly had it right".

Your right- she would scorn at "Grandpa McCain and Caribou Barbie". But she would be even more critical of the left- and it's ideas that government should play such a massive role in the average Americans life. She would scorn at the massive scope of it all - the regulation, the corruption, and most of all the welfare state.

Maybe the politician she would have the most in common with would be Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul.

In fact- she warned about a welfare state becoming what it is today, she said it would destroy the country and you know what?

She was right!

Hard to see her as an icon when she took her Social Security and Medicare under the radar. She took part in the welfare state she so despised in her books instead of using her earned income to take care of herself. Instead, she let the government health care take care of her...

BearMtnHIB wrote: In fact- she warned about a welfare state becoming what it is today, she said it would destroy the country and you know what?

She was right!

Nope, don't agree that a "welfare state" destroyed the country. Here we fundamentally part ways. I'd like to see the size of the social safety net shrink drastically. But since so many people are just "thrown away" by a society that has become ruled by the hive-minds without souls that is global corporatism, it will probably continue to grow until the number of "useless eaters" grows to such a point that we just let them starve in the streets. The only way to shrink the size of social entitlements is to ensure there are enough jobs that pay living wages so that anyone who wants one can get one. That will not happen so long as the oligarchs are running things. It's bad for their kind of business to have full employment at living wages.

The battle is not, and never was, between the "productive classes" and the poor. The battle is, and always has been, between the global elite and everyone else. They have done a splendid job of making so many believe it is the first. In fact, as far as I can see they have already won. Welcome to the world where we all are FREE....free, that is, to compete directly with a worker in Bangledesh or Indonesia earning $2 a day. I know, I know, you think that can't happen to you. But it will, and sooner than you think.

And yes, it will happen to all the Joe The Plumbers and small business owners who think they are members of the "Producers" class envisioned by Rand. They aren't and never will be. They are better off than those already pushed into the underclass, allowed to eke out a living by the elite class but never, never, to enter it. But they keep dangling that carrot of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous in front of them, just to keep them believing in the One True Religion of their own ruthless brand of Capitalism. And it IS ruthless, ruthless even beyond the imaginings of some of you ravenning dogs of the free market on this forum. When they have all they can steal from the middle class, they will crush it. They have already started. Do you think the trilliions of dollars in wealth that evaporated in past three years belonged to the ELITE? Not a chance. Our pensions and 401ks and stock portfolios and home equity went up in thin air even as these bastards were fattening like vultures at the feast with multi-million dollar bonuses. The real money didn't suffer. But I know I did, and I'll bet you did. The difference between you and I is that I know it wasn't stolen by some poor idiot on welfare, it was stolen by someone who owns and earns astronomically more than the rest of us put together.

But that's okay. Just go right ahead and quote Ayn Rand and think you're so much smarter than the rest of us. She was nothing more than a tool, too, so maybe it is fitting that the tools of today should take her to their bosom as some kind of goddess of liberty. You can be damned sure some robber baron in a leather and brass boardroom somewhere is laughing his butt off every time one of you fools quotes her.

AV,it is not just a welfare state.


"The US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) says it will seek an order to require Boeing to place the second 787 production line in Washington state, in response to charges filed by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) 17 months after Boeing selected North Charleston, South Carolina to host the site."


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -line.html

Soulshiner wrote: Hard to see her as an icon when she took her Social Security and Medicare under the radar. She took part in the welfare state she so despised in her books instead of using her earned income to take care of herself. Instead, she let the government health care take care of her...

So you believe Social Security and Medicare are welfare? That our senior citizens who payed into the plan for decades are looters?

Why not take back what you have been paying for? My father is a small goverment guy but after paying into Social Security and Medicare for 53 years, he believes he is entitled to the benefits for a couple years.

SS109 wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: Hard to see her as an icon when she took her Social Security and Medicare under the radar. She took part in the welfare state she so despised in her books instead of using her earned income to take care of herself. Instead, she let the government health care take care of her...

So you believe Social Security and Medicare are welfare? That our senior citizens who payed into the plan for decades are looters?

Why not take back what you have been paying for? My father is a small goverment guy but after paying into Social Security and Medicare for 53 years, he believes he is entitled to the benefits for a couple years.

SS, it is just a low brow attack on the messanger.
(Yall have fun. If I do not get off now my wife will shoot me.)