Rand tapped into the most base, most instinctual, least intellectual human emotion of all, selfishness. She gave a rational to it, gave people an excuse for their greed.

Reagan continued and mainstreamed this 'greed is good' attitude, and the modern GOP has known nothing else since.

Neither party is innocent, I'm not niave, but the right has a special knack for it the left just hasen't been able to match yet.

This is how it's going to be fomr now one, people. It won't get better, we can only slow down how fast it gets worse. It'll keep getting worse until we finally have some kind of uprising, might be violent, might not be, don't know. But eventually the people, as the middle class continues to errod and the poor start to form a majority in this country, eventually they'll step up and whatever comes after is going to be a hell of a lot more socialist than anything the right is afraid of today.

They'd be better off letting some shit change now, keep it managable, but they can't see the end game. It doesn't even exist in their minds.

the trouble is Rand would say the greedy people were those in the governments, taking from their productive people and giving to people who do nothing. Isn't receiving without working greedy as well?

Just for arguments sake, how unselfish are those who are hoping that Obama will pay their mortgage with other people's taxes (other people's money)? Isn't that greed?

Suddenly a tea-bagger shows up to tell us it's all about Obama.

(rolling eyes)

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much."

And the commenter is correctly analogizing the desire for a big, UNEARNED, house with the general human desire to accumulate more efficiently, i.e., to steal the resources of others.

The hyper-idealistic claptrap that Ayn Rand writes is, of course, just window dressing.

Rand was for hard work and clear thinking, but was a horrible example of rationality run amok, untethered to the reality of human nature. She yearned for control because of her past, and tried desperately to construct a world where her type would be comforted.

In her failure to connect with other humans, she came up short of the information she might have been able to use to construct that better world for a much larger portion of that despised humanity she longed to join.

While I agree with much of what you wrote, I disagree with the assessment that Ayn Rand was in any way 'rationality run amok.' While rationality was her favorite window dressing, rationality incorporates more than a claim of rigorousness. Rand was an intellectual bully who bluffed her way to a position where she could surround herself with syncophants and yes-men while generating excuses to listen to dissenting views.

That's not living a life of rationality, that's living a life of faith, a life invested in a fervent belief buttressed by jargon cherry-picked from freshman philosophy courses.

Rand advocated for “rational self interest.” The left is the purveyor of greed. Socialism is progressive greed for others’ wealth. Russian communists were known to have their neighbors murdered for having a few more eggs. Socialism is collective greed, economic envy fanned by green eyed progressives, who want what they did not earn, and would take your property by force.

Just like the Obamaoist Government today is currently demonizing the greedy Anglo and Jewish businessmen, the National Socialist Party of Germany and the Stalinist Government demonized the greedy Jewish businessmen. Just like the Obamaoist Government today, all oppressive/fascist Governments demonize the bourgeoisies. The Government Bolsheviks demonized the Bourgeoisie in order to increase Government size and power, under the guise of an equitable redistribution and promised social justice, while the ignorant, lead by their noses, proletariats scream, “Off with their heads!”

When Government tells businessmen to commit suicide then Government has become too oppressive. The problem is that Government has directed the proletariats’ “Righteous Anger” towards businessmen, and deflected the fact that Government itself has caused these problems. Governments have a history of fanning hatred towards the bourgeois, instead of acknowledging its own failings.

Rand’s ideas promote peace and prosperity. Progressive ideas lead to economic destruction and mass murder.

Utopian Marxist equality, no matter how cleaver leftists mutilate the definitions of capitalism and socialism, is the most murderous destructive ideology the world has ever known.

Redistributive taxation harms economies: How arrogant are you progressives to continue to believe that you crazies are smarter than the market? Where has central planning not caused economic destruction and deaths?

Why do “liberals” continue to promote class warfare and economic envy despite the destruction, hatred and deaths caused by progressivism? Don’t feel! Think for once! For the first time in your hate filled, envy the wealthy lives; think about the consequences of socialism

Rand and Marx shared at least one common trait - neither started off studying reality, especially not in terms of human behaviour. Where Marx tried to pretend away human motivation as applied to economics, Rand tried to pretend that she had done a rigorous study of psychology, philosophy and economics. She declared that human beings could live fore themselves and then proceeded to die alone, alienated.

The ideas of both socialism and Objectivism have been tested in the real world and been shown to be unbalanced. True Believers of each declare that their pet theories have never truly been tried in their pure states.

Which is a good thing when you consider how unbalanced they each are.

Smores:

...Why do “liberals” continue to promote class warfare and economic envy despite the destruction, hatred and deaths caused by progressivism? ...

Why do rightwing nutbags keep flogging that lame "why do liberals..." rhetorical?

Oh. yeah! Probably because they imagine it's a good way to insert some indefensible premise into the discussion without anybody noticing. I guess this is how muffie gets around the "feelings" thingie.

EbenCooke:

Why do rightwing nutbags keep flogging that lame "why do liberals..." rhetorical?

LOL, probably for the same reason you keep calling them things like "rightwing nutbags"?

To be fair, that is IslandMuffin he is talking about right? Is there really a harm to saying rightwing nutbags if he clarifies that he only meant IslandMuffin? Certainly there are right wing nutbags out there just as there are leftwing ones.

Rand’s history does not betray the truths in Objectivism. My main objection is to her atheism. Moreover, minimal Government is not anarchy. We support a more-efficient less-intrusive Government that protects lives, property and the rule-of-law.

Rand supported individual rights and free markets. Liberty is better than living under Government tyranny. We want a firewall between Government and business like the separation between church and state. Protecting/preserving property, life and liberty is enough to allow us to pursue happiness. Free market capitalism best preserves individual liberty.

Rand supported the US Constitution. We demand that the US Constitution be enforced (the whole Bill of Rights), and no more and no less. Let the people decide, not Government, the ACLU, and activist judges. Absolute equality under the law for everyone, without exception and without preferences, is good enough. It’s what the Constitution demands.

Finally, freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. People have the right to worship publicly and privately if they choose. Your offense is notwithstanding. Rand’s atheism is meaningless as well.

stateoflove_N_Trust:

To be fair, that is IslandMuffin he is talking about right? Is there really a harm to saying rightwing nutbags if he clarifies that he only meant IslandMuffin? Certainly there are right wing nutbags out there just as there are leftwing ones.

no, no harm at all, imo.