" ... most have a dislike for Rand ... "

Rand links money to effort at value creation and delivery. That is
nothing to dislike. The dislike takes over when money itself becomes '
the ' value.

On Nov 22, 11:39 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> The term Randism or any such the like, encapsulates the whole, when in
> all actuality I've expressed very little of any of it as having
> pertinence, only for a specific point.  One could have a dislike for
> communism but my point is that when viewed in schematic way there may
> be some component that seems reasonably sound.  But we can leave it
> there as most have a dislike for Rand and there are other sources to
> cite. Back on the track, I do think much of the breakdown lies in the
> lack of truth from 'demas' but mostly, for me, I see something that is
> that wasn't supposed to be, the original design has been modified
> beyond recognition, abridged to give new meaning to old words that
> only retain the original spelling, like freedom.  The puppet masters
> pull the strings, the people dance to the tunes they are fed while
> analysts calculate the receipts of the day.  The task master whips the
> production team to the limits to learn how much can be squeezed out,
> how much people are willing to bear, how much they are willing to toil
> for those who reap the spoils of their labor.  How high a price for a
> gallon before the scale tips, no longer in favor of the profiteers,
> how high till the ink turns red?  That became the benchmark from which
> to perform the balancing act, but someone wasn't watching, blind faith
> was put into trust, another empty word, and now the scales have
> collapsed sending shock waves around the globe, a financial Tsunami
> leaving millions dismayed with jaws agape in disbelief and founding
> fathers rolling in graves. The towers are being rebuilt but only to
> shore up the walls of the castle, the moat is still in place, the
> people remain outside and function as always without change.  The day
> after elections the alarm clocks sound, the day begins like the day
> before at the same place for the same pay.  The only thing that
> changes is the political rhetoric of fixing all the problems that the
> other one caused, explanations and reasons for poverty and suffering
> offered to the populace, the now we know what went wrong song.  But I
> guess the bright side might be that some are making money as political
> pundits on talk shows and the people get to go online, piss and moan
> in chat rooms and forums, spew their anger and blame in blogs, in a
> whirlwind of blather that goes nowhere.  So I too am putting in my
> piece, my two cents or wee bit which might somehow cause a microscopic
> ripple that one day becomes a wave of real change.
>
> On Nov 21, 7:08 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I go along almost all the way here Slip, though I don't like Randism.
> > Truth eludes us in the absolute sense and I probably agree with Rorty
> > that we wouldn't know when we had achieved it even if we could.  One
> > can look at Orn's citation of Emma Goldman and agree, yet see that the
> > world's population has increased three-fold since we were kids, find
> > no decent revolution anywhere and worry that certain types will soon
> > be using the term 'carbon footprint' with the same callous intent
> > carried by 'collateral damage'.  Politics, as Slip says through
> > Mencken, is screwed.
>
> > I'd slip off to the fact that we could now operate real-time feedback
> > in evaluating what we are doing in order to be more truthful.
> > Technology could get the banks and politicians off our backs and bring
> > about more direct democracy that had no room for the 'demas'.  The
> > design of this would require that we take genuine looks at what goes
> > on in terms of cover-up and manipulation.  Yet how do we start when
> > honesty is such a joke?
>
> > On 21 Nov, 16:33, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > “I don't find anyone to be anathema, I find the word harsh,
> > > especially
> > > based on opinionated views that don't coincide with yours.  Sometimes
> > > enlightenment can lead one into darkness, like the far right.
> > > Impartiality is hand in hand with being open minded.” – SD
>
> > > Cool Slip!...you not finding anyone anathema and all.
>
> > > And, harsh or not, the term is a part of our language and as such has
> > > specific uses. I mostly reserve it for those I sense are professing
> > > things against humanity. Having impartially approached Ms. Rand in an
> > > open-minded way, in fact I dare say as an idealist looking for new and
> > > preferable ideologies and methodologies when I first read her decades
> > > ago, my conclusion (for I do possess a discriminating mind) is
> > > precisely as posted.
>
> > > “Our impartiality is kept for abstract merit and demerit, which none
> > > of us ever saw.” – George Eliot
>
> > > “Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with
> > > the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness.”
> > > – George Bernard Shaw
>
> > > “The open mind never acts: when we have done our utmost to arrive at a
> > > reasonable conclusion, we still…must close our minds for the moment
> > > with a snap, and act dogmatically on our conclusions.” – George
> > > Bernard Shaw
>
> > > = = =
> > > “The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish
> > > the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every
> > > human being to liberty and well-being” – Emma Goldman
>
> > > On Nov 21, 7:40 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't find anyone to be anathema, I find the word harsh, especially
> > > > based on opinionated views that don't coincide with yours.  Sometimes
> > > > enlightenment can lead one into darkness, like the far right.
> > > > Impartiality is hand in hand with being open minded.
>
> > > > The art of politics, under democracy, is simply the art
> > > > of ringing it. Two branches reveal themselves. There
> > > > is the art of the demagogue, and there is the art of what
> > > > may be called, by a shot-gun marriage of Latin and Greek,
> > > > the demaslave. They are complementary, and both of them
> > > > are degrading to their practitioners. The demagogue is one
> > > > who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he
> > > > knows to be idiots. The demaslave is one who listens to
> > > > what these idiots have to say and then pretends that he
> > > > believes it himself. -- H.L. Mencken
>
> > > > On Nov 20, 11:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > As to Rand, I find her to be anathema.
>
> > > > > Truth is of value. Truth and reason are only one aspect of humanity
> > > > > and thus any system based on a partial view of our ‘being’ will not
> > > > > address the other aspects.
>
> > > > > Two kinds of democracy:
>
> > > > >http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/f9OP2YXKIFs-noam-chomsky-two-kinds-...
>
> > > > > ----
>
> > > > > “Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
> > > > > only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
> > > > > the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
>
> > > > > On Nov 20, 4:56 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Truth be that it is and has been, but it doesn't seem to correlate
> > > > > > with democracy and therefore we the people as has been demonstrated,
> > > > > > have been duped and cajoled into what is basically a falsehood.
> > > > > > Randian and Randism are terms that Ayn Rand detests and I can see 
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > you could have just set it as Ayn Rand socioeconomics. The rest is
> > > > > > based upon socialist and communist presumptions of a lack of inner
> > > > > > light, and I agree, but they are not without validity if founded 
> > > > > > upon
> > > > > > pure truth politics.  Let's face it, no system works without truth
> > > > > > within its tenets, which coincides with Rands tenet of Reason 
> > > > > > leading
> > > > > > the way.  The system of government within which we live in today 
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > not reflect that of the government of reason that the founding 
> > > > > > fathers
> > > > > > envisioned. Everyone loves to chew on Rand but you have to admit 
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > some of it has value, even if it lies in the value of alternate
> > > > > > aspect.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 20, 3:43 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The US has always been mostly an oligarchy with some fascist
> > > > > > > tendencies. There has always been an extreme divide between the
> > > > > > > socioeconomic classes with a short lessoning of this for a few 
> > > > > > > decades
> > > > > > > last century. However during that era, the tax structure was the 
> > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > progressive and the US reached its zenith economically during the 
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > time period. Those who embrace Ayn Randian socioeconomic theories 
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > the neo-cons at once expand the economic divide and exacerbate 
> > > > > > > human
> > > > > > > suffering with a lack of empathy and compassion, similar to pure
> > > > > > > capitalism. Even when socialism and communism are founded on a 
> > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > inner light and wisdom does a similar chaos and arising of non-
> > > > > > > idealism result. The problem is not ‘out there’. We all have met 
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > enemy and it is us.
>
> > > > > > > __
> > > > > > > “Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is 
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom 
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 20, 6:54 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the 
> > > > > > > > wealthy
> > > > > > > > out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, 
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > person must work for without receiving. The government cannot 
> > > > > > > > give to
> > > > > > > > anybody anything that the government does not first take from 
> > > > > > > > somebody
> > > > > > > > else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not 
> > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > work because the other half is going to take care of them, and 
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work 
> > > > > > > > because
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=.


Reply via email to