If You Could Ask Ayn Rand One Question....
If you had the opportunity to ask Ayn Rand any one question, what would it be?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
THANK YOU!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-b...
I would ask her if waiting any longer would help in exterminating the scourge that is destroying America.
Just kidding... it would be "What the hell do we do now?"
In the nonfictional world of the here and now, there really is no place to shrug, is there?
Bonus question~
We really have to find a way to beat those progressive slugs, don't we?
Jan
there is no way to defeat them. the usa government pays well over 3 or 4 million and they will not allow their positions i.e. incomes be stopped. Just like L.Peikoff has thrown up his hands in disgust I believe he has, Ayn Rand would as well. If asked what should we do she might very well tell us you can take a horse to water, etc. I think the retired Col from yesterdays posts is probably very right in his observations. Once we hit bottom and I do not believe it is to far off the usa will have a population that is as ill educated as that of most of the rest of the world and those of us who are thinkers of today (our generation) will have died off and those left will not have any around to guide them in the rebuilding process. This will go to show that the usa is in fact not invincible.
I would say good luck to those who survive but they will need more than luck.
For their sake, I will not go quietly into the night.
My passed away mama used to say, "The squeaking wheel gets the grease.".
It does not appear that squeaking buys grease unless you're PC or a Muslim anymore, but that movie, "The Mouse That Roared" suddenly comes to mind.
I'm not going to be one of a "few good men" who do nothing about evil either.
Okay, a few good ladies too. I was thinking about a quote that just has "men" in it.
Yes.
The system was set up to put the power in the hands of the citizens that is the source of power. A lesson that wants graphically driven home but it won't be at this election.
First prepare then wait for life to become unbearable? No. First prepare and then use the tools provided by the Constitution. One of them is big heavy baseball bat which some on the left have only begun to realize exists.
Primarily Obama. He's got one year and he won't be successful.
What he wants to do according to his own statements is against the law but not against the Law Of Obama. It is his stated desire to make the DHS equal to or greater than in power and strength than the military. Why?
The military swear it's oath of allegiance only to the Constitution nothing else. But if he can get them to violate that oath once he changes the parameters and redefines everything.
Same as Cruz running for the Presidency. There is conjecture and some support for Cruz but the law has never been changed from it' s context of the times written definition. If it were different then I could run for President but it isn't and I was born of US parentage in another country. Ihad truly changed that part would be the subject of an amendment. It wasn't and therefore the context of the time definition stands.
Change would require a constitutional amendment or a SCOTUS decision and one not contested by Congress. Same thing with suborning the military. No difference.
The military were given a certain stated requirement as as part of their oath of office. As were all federal officials elected or hired. 'support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Changing the meanings by ignoring them is the act of a domestic enemy. No problem if it was filed as an amendment or as a case before the supreme court. Big problem when it's the individual edict of some lower level judge or the President.
So it's a test of will and a test of morals standards and values. All the military has to do is say. We're not allowed to do that and quote the law ....unless the law is legally changed. It's not a strike for they are still up holding their oath of office.
They are not allowed to decide anything except one thing. Is the Constitution in danger. And then they are given an obligation to protect the constitution.
I happen to believe the country is worth the effort nor are the citizens. the Constitution however is worth defending. Those that try to weasel snake their way around it are Enemies Domestic.
I have not changed my evaluation of country nor citizens but it changes nothing. The country and the citizens as a group were and are not worth defending. They gave up that privilege. The Constitution is worth defending. We who took the oath without mental reservation retain that privilege.
The military is in a unique position of being left, by the constitution to decide for themselves and if they do decide it is a legal counter revolution. legal, authorized, and required. Their duty, responsibility and their job. It is a hard hard decision for any soldier to make, especially when we are taught and learned to live a life of almost unquestioned obedience. Key word is 'almost' The careerists poor example made sure of that.
Will the uphold that oath? One answer is doesn't matter. I will. The other answer is...
50 50 they will or they won't.
The majority that won't uphold it are found at the top of pecking order. By royal appointment. but when they retire having not upheld their oath they are liable. The Congress has, not doubt exempted itself. Legally. Who knows?
Now Obama can threaten even declare martial law and then demand the obedience of the second part of the oath. The military is relieved of zero responsibility for their action or dereliction of duty regardless of the order given.
It's a hard job but someone has to do it. They are after all the last line of defense.
Either way it would mean martial law. The difference is one group will return you to the Constitutional Rule like it or not. The other will rewrite the oath of office and the Constitution to one of their own liking.
Damn.. speaking of responsibility How are you going to vote?
Jan
Quite the opposite: I object to Ayn Rand's worldview that the only possible relationship between a man and a woman is that the woman must look up to a man as her superior (not as her friend) and that if the woman herself has a large amount of power then she 'cannot find a man'.
Here is more of what Ayn Rand said on that topic:
"...the higher [a woman’s] view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother - or leader.
Now consider the meaning of the presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the president is the highest authority; he is the “chief executive,” the “commander-in-chief.” ...In the performance of his duties, a president does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work, and their responsibilities).
This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. ... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values - a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would beome the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch."
That is a spectacularly twisted view of male-female relationships. While I admire most of Ayn Rand's work, her definition of a 'properly feminine woman' is boggling to my mind. The limits she sets on relationships demean both men and women...and are not accurate. We live in a later era and have examples all around us of various successful permutations of relationships of all sorts.
Jan
I wonder if Ayn Rand ever met Margaret Thatcher?
I can only attribute her narrow view of women in power to reflecting Victorian sensibilities. This is certainly a 'human fallibility' that I am quite capable of overlooking - but I would want to ask her about it, if I had the chance.
Other than that, I think the allosaur has the right of it: try to squeeze her brilliant brain about 'how you would make a Gulch in today's visible world'.
Jan
Atlas Distribution is working on a movie (Queen of the Desert) about Gertrude Bell who was this really "ahead of her times" woman. She helped define the Middle East... yet she thought women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
And then consider also how many men look up to her for having significantly influenced their lives. She, by example was changing many previous perceptions and mores.
"Looking up" is probably not the best characterization. It implies the pedestal thing. I prefer "gaining respect" for intellectual achievements.
Having read hundreds of Jan's posts, I can't say if Jan is a man or a woman from the reasoning of the arguments made. Jan is a well reasoned Gulcher and has earned my respect.
If you do not make a worthy reply, I will cease to respond to your comments.
Jan
It is a sad commentary on men if you feel that the only way a man can have a romantic relationship with a woman is if she is clearly his inferior. It is astonishing that such a strong voice as Rand's should adopt this attitude.
Jan has very much found her way and is quite comfortable with who she is. She does not feel the need for others to be small for her to be large.
Are women not capable of rational behavior even under stress of the monthlies? You can argue that point. I know how difficult it is having been the recipient of wierd on schedule behaviour
I'm thinking some examples of your samples might be simpler for those of us who are awaiting for something besides personal opinion.
Remember the FemNazi movement proved their worth during the Clinton era. and destroyed the viability and the credibility of the WomanMovement. Since then relegated do just another minor role in later years supporting the Bimbo Brigades.
Most don't even remember that term unless they listen to Limbaugh nor is it relevant.
My Dad's generation engaged in winning WWII and are due all the respect that it requires.
into a war for the future. . using government force is the move
which amounts to initiating civil war. -- j
.
Since so much of what she wrote in AS has come (or is coming) true, I figure she must have been able to see into the future.
She trusted in the best that mankind has to offer, and in doing so, has ensured that failure will never be an option.
I would also want to know how important the tobacco and amphetamine use was to her in thinking while writing.
I have thought that part of the downward spiral of the U S is the war by government and society on stimulant use.
" while the collective-altruistic purpose, if any"
From what I've seen, of her works...she was a woman after my own heart. Had she been born a man...this would have been awkward!
In that way, we'd have the opportunity to ask many more questions. Unless she said no, in which case kidnapping might be an option.
Today, it's a longer road back. JG might well die and hope his children are better at persuading producers to shrug.
I would ask: May I have an interview? :) In this case the questions are like Lay's potato chips...
Respectfully,
O.A.
having sex with Dagny when he was married to
Lillian? Why shouldn't he have divorced Lillian first,
or, if that was impossible, at least have given her
a sort of advance notice?--Granted, Lillian was a b----, and the way she traded off that bracelet
was an insult to him and all he stood for, but
shouldn't he have said, 'All right, if that's what
you think of me, I divorce you, I divorce you, I
divorce you, and from now on I'm going to do what I d--- please.'? Or was it because, at the
time the book was published (1957), it was al-
most impossible, in some cases, to get a div-
orce?"
.
or an essay at least. . And, sometimes, learning something new
from a friend." . just thinkin' -- j
.
Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity not so much.
he thought (incorrectly) "She would never want to
leave him and he would never have the right to leave..." which was wrong, because of course he
had the right to leave. But I think, as long has he thought like that, it would have been better
if he had just abstained until he realized that he
really did have the right to leave.-Of course,
once Lillian discovered who it was and had the
option of divorce and turned it down, she was
at fault for betraying him and Dagny to the gov-
ernment.
In the form of a motor - for those of you who are familiar with the prime mover in the story a "factory remnant" teaser can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/johngalt.iam...
and elaborated here:
http://www.GaltsGulchPortal.blogspot.ca
You've probably seen this before but we have begun recruiting for this years Atlantis XI and every appropriate occasion should be grasped.
So, not really a question - more like an affirmation of her own genius - as if she needed such a thing.
She would be Proud, I am certain of that and pride is a virtue as you all know.
And I mean it.
JohnGalt Iamoura
Load more comments...