'Atlas Shrugged' Continues Its Development Hell

Haw! That made my afternoon!

Because neo-fascist Ayn Rand's neo-fascist fans want to see a movie of their favorite neo-fascist novel.

Let's see...free markets, free thought, no monopolies, no government intervention in the private sector...

...Yep. That fits the definition of Fascism like a glove.

To be truly free you'd need one man dictating the direction of private enterprise, especially the automotive, energy, and health care industries. Or at least a handful of dubiously qualified men who dictate the direction of industry and report directly to a leader who legislates the social and economic plan of the entire nation.

Chameleon FTW!

Ignoramus.

Who reads a 1000+ page novel and calls it "dreadfully bad"?

You really need to look up the meaning of 'fascism.' Rand was not any form of it.

Mike: When did she ever advocate that one should not help others? Maybe I misread her philosophy, but it seems to me her position is simply that a proper government should not force altruism. By doing so, it is essentially turning you into a sacrificial animal - requiring the fruits of your labor to be given to someone else. For example, she writes:

"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: 'No.' Altruism says: 'Yes'."

-- Ayn Rand in Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World

Yeah, Mike. In all seriousness, it's guys like you whoa are fascists. No one has a RIGHT to the products/services someone else produces with their own sweat and intellect. All transactions should be on mutually agreed upon terms, trading value for value, not service for guilt-relief.

I wanted to sock Obama through the television screen last night. He said lots of things that made me want to do it, but I just want to mention a couple.

First, he said that government healthcare is a civil rights issue--that everyone has a RIGHT to healthcare. That sounds nice, but let's compare it to the old standard: Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness ("natural rights"). At who's expense are these rights granted? Nobody's! They are rights because all people are entitled to them and can achieve them without coercion. Where do these rights come from? Hell if I know. God? Man's "nature"? (I'll come back to this)

Obama says everyone has a right to healthcare. At the basic level, we all have a right lick our own wounds, but that's not what he meant. He meant we have a right to RECEIVE healthcare from physicians. This is not something that can be achieved w/o coercion. For everyone to have a RIGHT to see a doctor, every doctor must have an OBLIGATION serve new patients. Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't think doctors spend 11 years of their lives learning the trade to be forced to treat patients they haven't accepted. This “right” does not come from God, or from man’s nature. It comes from the whim of government.

Forcing new patients on doctors may or may not be part of Obama's health plan, but it is part of his philosophy, and any Altruist who claims healthcare is a right. But healthcare is not a right. Healthcare is a service provided by individuals who spent years honing their craft. Many do it solely because they love to help people, and that's wonderful--as long as it's on their own terms. No matter their motivation, doctors promise patients the best healthcare they can offer in exchange for a mutually negotiated fee. When the government steps in to any business (and that's what the healthcare industry is--a business), mutual transactions are no longer the priority. NEED trumps desire. Not the needs of the patient, but THE NEED OF THE COLLECTIVE. Not just the desire of the businessman to be paid, but the desire of the customer to receive personalized service.

I want to put this further into perspective with quotes from Obama's Q&A last night, but you won't read anything if I attach it in this reply.

Altuism IS in fact evil.... thank you miss Rand for pointing it out!

maybe you should have read the book instead of the DemocraticUnderground reviews of it. And if you did, you completely missed the whole point, and aren't smart enough to have your opinion voiced.

1. We are NOT a democracy, we are a Constitutionally Limited republic. Democracy = Mob rule. (Democracy is 3 wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner). Beware the tyranny of the majority. We have a Constitutionally Limited Republic that if properly followed provides for equal protection under the law, and freedoms from intrusion by criminals and government (due to the limitations set forth in our Constitution. Rand believed we need a government, though there are arguments that can be made for privatization of police and or military. (Rand did not believe in this concept though. Running things without government is called Anarchy.)

2. Rand did in fact understand altruism, and she experienced it's evil first hand as she grew up in the people's paradise of soviet socialism. What is remarkable is that she had the insight to recognize the evil concept that is altruism, and then the courage to write about it in frank terms. Putting another's welfare above one's own can only lead to your own destruction. Likewise, having government mandate that you do so can only be destructive to society. Ask yourself "at who's expense" before you try to decide what amount of taxes should be taken from you at the point of a gun? The answer is zero. Is it altruism to give to the poor at the point of a gun? I'll answer, NO it is immoral. Moral "Giving" is done for the advantage and satisfaction of the GIVER, and benefits the receptor as a result.