Bill Maher on Ayn Rand: ‘It’s all stuff that seems very deep when you’re 19 years old

Lucius Cornelius Sulla said:
Influential in ways the author never wanted.

Anyways, if you want GOOD books to influence your life, I highly recommend Meditations, the Gallic Commentaries, The Prince.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that at all. Sinclair was all for reforms in the food processing industry. I'd say that it was influential in ways the authoer did not intend. That he was trying to influence economic reform, which he did to a limited degree.

]I've read the Commentaries and I read the Prince in college (and a few times since). The Commentaries never influenced me, I mean propaganda is propaganda even if it was one of the first examples of such. Don't get me wrong, it was brilliantly written and has passed the test of time but it's mostly Caesar bragging about his accomplishments with a specific political agenda in mind.

The Prince now was vastly more influential. It and The Art of War are the most important political strategy books I've read.
 
Last edited:
Sea Bird said:
Globally, I believe. And especially during the US financial crash. They've also had far more influence than Rand's.
Click to expand...
I think 3D meant, from an ideological point of veiw, "were have Marx's ideas been succesful?" From his viewpoint, that's a rhetorical question.
 
Grind is Dead said:
who cares about ayn rand. the libertarian platform isn't based off of atlas shrugged. Bill maher completely mischaracterized libertarians. Libertarians are not fucking anarchists. And paul ryan has never even claimed to be a libertarian, nor does he really sync up with the majority of the libertarian party platform.
Click to expand...
You know you sound just like the Bush supporters who claim that Bush's problem is that he wasn't a true conservative and that he wasn't conservative enough and that he should have doubled down on conservatism and that's why he was so inept. It's amazing that they just can't accept that it was his rigid ideologically conservative implementation of policy that was the basis of his ineptitude.

In other words they don't accept the outcomes of the implementation of their own ideology. Ironically your statement is in much the same light. You preach libertarianism but you won't accept the consequences of libertarian policies.

The flaw of libertarianism isn't political in nature. The problem with libertarianism is that it rejects utilitarianism as a governing philosophy when so far human history has shown that no governing philosophy not based in large measure on utilitarianism philosophy has ever succeeded. EVER!

To succeed politically libertarians have to demonstrate they can govern affectively. To do so they must demonstrate thier governing philosophy, based on a rigid respect for individual right, can benefit the most number of people. Libertarians just simply have to accept that the value of their ideas are determined by the resulting outcomes.

If you try, as the modern conservative movement is currently doing, to distance the outcomes of your policies from your ideas, you only end up discrediting yourself.

So that's the eye of the paradox for civil libertarians. Where can you find a workable junction that balances civil liberties with utilitarian outcomes?

Until Libertarians can resolve that paradox they won't be taken seriously by the mainstream as they won't be able demostrate that they can govern affectively.

Now you can whine about being called anarchist but you have to accept that Libertarians are not called "anarchist" because of a proactive and overt belief in anarchy but because that has been the only known outcome of libertarian policies. Simply stated, Libertarians cannot distance themselves for the results and outcomes of their ideas when they don't work.
 
evince said:
he was a pompus ass but I have to agree with him on Ayn.

she was a poor writer and selfishness in man does not need to be protected through exaultation
Click to expand...

Yes he could be a little pompous but you can excuse that in someone who was a brilliant writer, journalist and raconteur. It's ironic though that his brother, who is considered more right wing, was against the second Iraq War whilst he was for it.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You know you sound just like the Bush supporters who claim that Bush's problem is that he wasn't a true conservative and that he wasn't conservative enough and that he should have doubled down on conservatism and that's why he was so inept. It's amazing that they just can't accept that it was his rigid ideologically conservative implementation of policy that was the basis of his ineptitude.

In other words they don't accept the outcomes of the implementation of their own ideology. Ironically your statement is in much the same light. You preach libertarianism but you won't accept the consequences of libertarian policies.

The flaw of libertarianism isn't political in nature. The problem with libertarianism is that it rejects utilitarianism as a governing philosophy when so far human history has shown that no governing philosophy not based in large measure on utilitarianism philosophy has ever succeeded. EVER!

To succeed politically libertarians have to demonstrate they can govern affectively. To do so they must demonstrate thier governing philosophy, based on a rigid respect for individual right, can benefit the most number of people. Libertarians just simply have to accept that the value of their ideas are determined by the resulting outcomes.

If you try, as the modern conservative movement is currently doing, to distance the outcomes of your policies from your ideas, you only end up discrediting yourself.

So that's the eye of the paradox for civil libertarians. Where can you find a workable junction that balances civil liberties with utilitarian outcomes?

Until Libertarians can resolve that paradox they won't be taken seriously by the mainstream as they won't be able demostrate that they can govern affectively.

Now you can whine about being called anarchist but you have to accept that Libertarians are not called "anarchist" because of a proactive and overt belief in anarchy but because that has been the only known outcome of libertarian policies. Simply stated, Libertarians cannot distance themselves for the results and outcomes of their ideas when they don't work.
Click to expand...

Great post!
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Yes he could be a little pompous but you can excuse that in someone who was a brilliant writer, journalist and raconteur. It's ironic though that his brother, who is considered more right wing, was against the second Iraq War whilst he was for it.
Click to expand...
A little pompous? Isn't that like saying George W. Bush could be "A little obtuse".

Hitchens was "Extremely pompous.". He was also an obnoxious drunk but you're right, much of that was forgiven as he was a brilliant writter.

Now imagine if Hitchens had written Atlas Shrugged! That would have been interesting.
 
NOVA said:
SS her only income ?.....what bullshit
Click to expand...
It's true. In her elder years Rand was solely dependent on SS for income. In her later years Ronald Reagan attempted to make her a conservative movement icon, which I'm sure would have netted her substantial income, but she publically rebuffed him and that was the end of that. Shortly there after she died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top