Well, as anybody reading the ng may have noticed. I'm back. And from the looks of things, there are plenty of you who'd recognize me. It's good to see you guys, Jordan, Affinity, Joe, and others. Notable absences include Ali, Lady Interferance, and others I fail to remember.
I remember in a discussion of objectivist philosophy, someone recommended "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand, to me. Well, I'm finally reading it, and am not regretting it in the slightest. I'd intended to get to bed a bit earlier than I apparently will; I've not found a book quite so exciting since Robert Jordan published his second to lastest. Who was it that recommended it? Step forward, so I might thank you properly!
Oh, yes, and I see we have a new pet troll. This one is a frisky one! I do hope he doesn't leave too soon...
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 10:43:07 GMT, [email] (Daryl Sawyer) wrote:
Atlas Shrugged was checked out at my library (I was shocked anyone else in this little shitplop town even uses the library), but I am working on "We the living" and loving it.
Kyle The Todd Dunwoody of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On 05 Jun 2001 22:10:41 GMT, [email] (MMan37x) wrote:
For what it's worth, I finished the book today and absolutely recommend it to anyone and everyone (who has the kind of taste to enjoy reading a book, that is...).
Kyle The Todd Dunwoody of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
Sole Member and President Of All Chapters DBFC Magic Number: 97
In article , herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com says...
---
Andrea and I want to know:
1. Has Daria ever been seen reading 'Atlas Shrugged' or 'the Fountainhead?'
2. In 'The Fountainhead,' the hero (Roark) raped the heroine early in the book. Ayn Rand excused this by explaining that he had the right because he was a superior man. Do you think Daria would agree with this?
Because Daria, unlike Ayn Rand, doesn't seem to have a strong streak of sexual sado-masochism. Ayn Rand was at her worst when she manifested this trait.
And I don't think that Daria wants to make love in a train tunnel, either ;-)
Issue-dodge. Rand's personal psychology is interesting, but not very relevant to the points of the Novels she wrote. She intended her novels to be instructional, not literary. Rand discussed social issues in 'The Fountainhead," not psychological issues. We should take her at her word, since that was what she intended; and not start speculating.
What Ms. Rand SAID, was that Rourk had the right to commit Rape because he was a better man than the masses of 'average' men who comprise Society, and that Laws are made to regulate the behavior of average men; not of men like Rourk.
NOTE: If you want to blame the rape on Rand's personal sado- masochism; then you would have to attribute her whole Libertarian/Objectivist philosophy to sado-masochism as well. Not a good foundation for a political philosophy.
Which brings us back to Daria.
I think Daria would be revolted by Rand's division of Society into 'average men' and 'men who are above the law. She would have been absolutely disgusted at the rape and the way it portrayed womens' social value. I doubt that Daria would be a Rand- Libertarian and I KNOW she couldn't have brought herself to approve of, or consider voting for, George W. Bush.
I'm _not_ speculating. I'm very familiar with Ayn Rand's work _and_ her biography, and I can clearly see where her personality and in particular some of her emotional problems colored her fiction. And I don't really care that Objectivism would claim that her personality was irreleavnt here, because I'm not a doctrinaire Objectivist.
I don't recall that precise justification being given in the book itself -- but then it's been many years since I read the book.
I don't see how that follows, unless I also accept Rand's claim that she was perfectly logical and that as a result every one of her opinons formed a seamless web and that if one is true, so are all the rest, and conversely if one is false, so are all the rest. Since I do _not_ believe that Ayn Rand was perfectly logical, I do not have to assume that if she held an irrational belief about sex that she held irrational beliefs about everything else as well.
Indeed it would _not_ be. Good thing that she didn't found Objectivism upon the premise that "Rape is OK," then?
This is not a division which Rand actually made. Her division was between just laws, which are worthy of respect and obedience, and unjust laws, which are not.
Quite probably.
She _couldn't_ be. Ayn Rand was opposed to the Libertarian movement.
This is a total non-sequiteur, as George Bush is neither an Objectivist nor a Libertarian.
A kind of libertarian vibe comes through on this group sometimes, that annoys me personally. While people here have the right to read Atlas Shrugged and enjoy it, I think I also have the right to politely object to their assumption, that Daria would naturally line up with Ayn Rand. I think I've made a pretty good case.
You and I have a reasonable difference in logical interpretation here. From my perspective, I think the fact that Ayn Rand was a sado-masochist is irrelevant to the worth of the social observations she makes in 'the Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged.' Her observations stand or fall on their own merits.
You argued that Rand justified rape because she was a sadomasochist. I went to the book and looked at her logical justification of that act, to see if it would stand or fall on its own. I find her explanation wanting.
To follow your logic one step further; if we can dismiss Rand's justification of Rape because she was into S&M; then we can dismiss or justify her whole political philosophy on that basis as well. While I don't agree with your logic; that IS the argument you made.
* * *
The Daria issue is more important to me on this group. Daria has never appeared in an episode reading any of Rand's books. Writers use book titles as an ongoing incidental plot device in 'Daria' episodes. It is fair to assume, therefore, that Daria's writers do not see Daria as a very strong Libertarian.
Daria's comedy is strongly based on Social interactions and the hypocracy they sometimes produce, and on her own attitude toward the alienation she feels when she has to deal with that hypocracy. This doesn't make Daria a libertarian. It makes her a teenager.
No, you haven't. Your case is based entirely upon Ayn Rand's justification of one "rape" (Ayn Rand herself called it "rape by engraved invitation," the point being that it was not precisely "rape" in the normal sense of the word, because Dominique was giving pretty clear come-on signals to Roark in that particular scene): you are assuming that if a person disagrees with that scene, she must disagree with _everything else the person advocates_. This makes _no_ sense: almost _any_ author will express at least one opinion, at some point, that any given reader will disagree with: this does _not_ invalidate the whole work.
That makes no logical sense. Why would her sadomasochistic tendencies invalidate her entire political philosophy? Her political philosophy was not contingent upon the validity of sadomasochism.
No, it is not. In fact, my argument was the precise opposite of yours. The only thing I said which you agreed with was that Ayn Rand had sadomasochistic tendencies.
... it's libertarian and it annoys me because it does. If you want examples of prior atDaria newsgroup posts; I can post them, but it would be tiresome. Don't be disingenuous. Just let me state that it annoys me.
Yes I have. If you want to discuss literary theory or political ideology, I can -- but I'd rather not in a cartoon fan newsgroup.
As far as I am concerned, I think Daria would take Rand's novels at their face value. If Rand presents a rape and then justifies it by saying that some men have the right to commit rape; Daria would set the book down and make a mental note to not vote for Libertarian candidates for the rest of her life.
You can dress the rape up any way you want. I gently note here, that the " ... she really wanted it" defense is just not a very good justification -- whether it is just your explanation, or is in fact the point Rand tried to make. It stinks on ice.
I think Daria would be even more appalled by what I *really* noted in my previous post: That Rand justified the rape by writing that some males are sooo very much better than the rest of us, that they have the right to commit crimes against the rest of us. THAT is NOT an isolated plot device. It is the major theme of both Rand's novels.
Tell me Jordan: Do YOU believe that we live in a country where some men have the right to break the law because they are better than the rest of us?
Bless your heart, Jordan. You are disagreeing with yourself. That's OK with me. I really am not out for blood, here.
Fact is, that I did not argue that Rand's S&M tendencies invalidaded Objectivism; I argue that YOU argued that by extension. I prefer to take a philosophy at its word, to judge its value to me by its actions and implications when it is applied in a real-world setting -- and to set aside the psychological stuff as being interesting in a historical sense, but ultimately irrelevant.
I've obviously read Rand's novels and came to different conclusions than you did. I think they are good books to read, to think about, and to discuss. They are probably not good books to swallow as gospel.
We probably should agree to disagree, here. I think I've made my point -- there are Daria fans around who are NOT Libertarians or Republicans, and we can hold our own when we need to, and those of you who ARE politically and socially Conservative need to start considering us as part of the Daria family of friendly fans.
I have _absolutely_ no idea what you're talking about. _I'm_ a conservative libertarian (or libertarian conservative), but have tended to avoid politics on this group; it's not a particularly political group.
... being totally incapable of getting any of the subtler points?
So, let's get this straight.
Because Ayn Rand has one of her heroes "rape" (it wasn't precisely a rape) one of her heroines, in one of her books, Daria will:
1) Refuse to finish the book (why? Do you refuse to finish reading any book in which something you disapprove of happens?)
2) Refuse to vote Libertarian (despite the fact that Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, nor is _The Fountainhead_ a book about the Libertarian Party)?
Does it also logically follow that, if I am reading an Ernest Hemingway novel, and I encounter a scene which I morally disapprove of, I should refuse to finish the book, and forever after hate the British Labour Party? (*)
(*) Yes, Hemingway was a Communist not a British Labour partisan, but then Ayn Rand was an Objectivist, not a Libertarian.
Nope.
No, I am not.
I made no such argument.
You would first have to learn how to "disagree" in a logical fashion. I am disagreeing, you are making random negative noises.
Actually, a critique of your debating tactics, which mostly consist of making factually and logically unsupported statements and then drawing long chains of guilt-by-association from them. Oh, and appealing to the "authority" of Daria by claiming she'd agree with you, which is pretty damn funny.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:34:16 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:
Um... did everybody here miss the "OT" at the beginning of the subject line? I didn't start this thread to argue that Daria would like _Atlas Shrugged_. I started this thread to say that *I* had liked it, and wished to know which member of *this* group it was that had recommended it to me. I am referring, in an Off Topic thread, to another Off Topic thread that occurred many months ago.
And as to not wanting to discuss literary theory or political ideology in a cartoon fan newsgroup, you obviously haven't been here long. Between seasons, that is pretty much all we do here. Why? Because Daria fandom seems to be a very thoughtful and intelligent group, generally capable of discussing hot issues rationally, and agreeing to disagree if necessary. And the reason we do it is the same as the reason Dagney Taggart and Dr. Robert Stadler (in Atlas Shrugged) got along so well (before Stadler sold out completely): they recognized intelligence in each other, and recognized it as a breath of fresh air.
Then again, this whole argument of you and Jordan could be the result of tensions that have developed in my absence.
It is fair to assume that the writers don't intend to be particularly specific about Daria's _political_ philosophy, for the obvious reason that they would alienate viewers, and the show is _not_ about politics. The only thing we know about Daria, politically, is that she doesn't like Communists.
Which is unsurprising. Someone with her independence of mind would have very little patience for totalitarians in general.
Who said she was a libertarian in the first place? You're attacking a strawman.
But a lack of patience for hypocrisy isn't all that amazingly "teenaged" an attitude either. Indeed, quite a lot of teenagers are thoroughgoing hypocrites.
I agree, but politics isn't just ideology -- it is also about specific social issues. Daria takes stands on lots of political issues. In just the last couple of episodes, she didn't like school commercialization, segregation, McCarthyism, dress codes or 50s conformity.
If Daria disagrees with Communism because she doesn't like totalitarianism; then she wouldn't like Libertarianism, Fascism, or even some aspects of small-town Democracy, either.
I will almost plead guilty. The fact is, I see a lot of re- interpretation going on in the Daria fan community -- people reading politics into Daria that weren't there to begin with. I didn't start this 'Atlas Shrugged' thread. I haven't responded to other frankly political posts here. If people are going to speculate that Daria agrees with their political beliefs; I just might speculate that she doesn't.
Even hypocrites are obsessed with hypocracy. It's part of what makes "Daria" interesting.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:33:55 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:
I'd agree that Daria is actually somewhat liberal in nature. Unsurprising, given her upbringing and intellectual background. Note that this isn't me attributing my views to her, as I am actually slightly right of center in my political views, at least from a fiscal perspective.
Umm... okay L&R. You're going to have to explain that one to me.
The whole thing is a massive hype which Daria would see through in seconds. So called "libertarian", etc. movements are actually quasi-fascist. They only believe in some kinds of freedom for some kinds of people. Remember the Thatcher-Reagan axis supposedly rolling back the state. Then when teachers, miners or air traffic controllers did something they did not like they rolled it forward all over them. Those who pride themselves on their individualism are the most mindlessly conformist, and those who pride themselves on their worldly wisdom are the most rigidly indoctrinated. Neil Peart, the drummer of Rush, found it necessary to deny that he was a fascist. If he needed to deny it, presumably somebody had suggested it. Ayn Rand was an anti-Communist refugee, which should give a few clues. _____________________________
******Martin Edwards.****** |
_____________________________
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel
On 10 Jun 2001 07:34:42 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
It's not so much what they believe as who ends up unfree: the poor.
Good point. Peccavi.
I don't really think that she is a fascist, but people like that tend to have a one-eyed view. I've met quite a few of them. We have many in the English Midlands. _____________________________
******Martin Edwards.****** |
_____________________________
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel
Thank you so much for reminding me why I left Daria fandom the first time. If there was another season left, I'd be gone again by now. I have actually picked up some useful information from this newsgroup, but it looks like it's time to stop reading it again.
And we all know that Reagan and Thatcher were card-carrying Libertarians and members of The Objectivist Center. Le sigh...
Wraith "Society is a cancer of the mind" -- Serial Experiments: Lain
[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in news:[email]:
I haven't left yet, but it's getting close. I work in the IT field, and deal with corporate customers. This leaves my non-work tolerances for willful ignorance very... how shall I put this? Close to nonexistence? Yeah, that's about right.
Being a Libertarian Party member and a neo-Objectivist, these kind of comments don't sit well. When someone can't tell Reagan from a libertarian, there's a problem... and I already have a political forum to deal with.
Wraith "Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others." -- Edward Abbey
Well, the direct analogy is between someone who assumes that the Khmer Rouge, Soviet Communists, British Labour Party, and US Democrat Party of the 20th century were all identical because all were "leftist," and that hence any criticism that may be logically made of the Khmer Rouge invalidates the position of the US Democrats.
-- I don't blame you for wanting to disengage yourselves from Reagan and Thatcher. The problem you have, is that Libertarians were *very* involved in those Administrations, whereas American Liberals and Moderates were decidedly *not* involved with the Khmer Rouge or Stalin or Communism.
In Elections, do Libertarians tend to vote for Republicans or Democrats? ... it's 90% GOP, Nationwide. It's one of the strongest voting blocks the GOP has.
Do libertarians support GOP Privatization efforts? Yes.
Do Libertarians support GOP efforts to deregulate various industries? Yes.
Do Libertarians support the GOP policy of 'Benign Neglect' when it comes to civil rights and social justice? .... Yes.
Did you know that Milton Friedman identifies himself as a Libertarian? Did you know that four of the five USSC Justices who voted for Bush to become President identify themselves as Libertarians (Rhenquist, Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy)?
... and on and on.
********
Jordan and Wraith; you aren't responsible for any of this. You have the right to believe whatever you want, for any reason you want. However; I think you also have the obligation to admit that the people with whom you disagree also have a case. You also need to deal with whatever objections they raise with something more than disparagement and denounciation.
When did I say that I wanted to disengage myself from Reagan?
You are trying to imply that the Reagan and Thatcher Administrations were the moral equivalent of totalitarianism. But your logic fails, because they were not totalitarian.
I agree that they were not totalitarian, but they were fascistic in their use of state power on behalf of the capitalist ruling class. NB I do not seek to imply that they were as bad as fascism, which would be a ridiculous suggestion. _____________________________
******Martin Edwards.****** |
_____________________________
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel
On 11 Jun 2001 18:54:37 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
I meant exactly what I said. Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Old Admiral Horthy and all used state power in the interest of the capitalist ruling class. The term "fascist" comes from the "Fasci di Combattimento", Mussolini's original group, which were a confused mish-mash of semi-socialists, artistic types and right wing thugs, or Squadristi. The third element gradually predominated and were found useful for strike-breaking activities. Thatcher/Reaganite policies were an analogue, though I repeat that I in no way wish to imply that they were as bad. Please exercise more circumspection before accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about.
_____________________________
******Martin Edwards.****** |
_____________________________
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel
However, it does not follow from this that "using state power in the interest of the capitalist ruling class" is an essentially "fascist" action. In fact, the term for such action is "mercantilist," not "fascist," and you start to see such action in the Late Renaissance!
(you might as plausibly argue that, because all these fascist states had bureaucracies, that bureaucracy is "fascist.")
Facisism is authoritarian to totalitarian dictatorial nationalism. It denies the existence of morally grounded individual civil rights and repudiates democratic government (like Communism) but (unlike Communism) identifies the purpose which the state serves to be the national group, rather than the economic group.
Fascism is _not_ necessarily business friendly. It has no particular reason _not_ to be, and since business is generally a good thinbg, tends to be business friendly in practice. But if the interests of the "nation" (in the view of the dictator) and the interests of the business owners collide, the business owners will go down, and far more swiftly than in a liberal democracy.
Reagan and Thatcher were business friendly and nationalistic, but they were not totalitarian or dictatorial. Hence, they were not even remotely fascist.
The "White" Russians opposed the "Red" Russians during the Russian Civil War Lasting roughly from 1917 to 1928 or so. The White Russians raised an army and sought help from Western Countries (including the US) to oppose the new Communist Regime in Moscow.
The Monarchists who organized the White Army movement pretty much escaped to France within a few years, leaving the White Army behind. The Army became Fascist movement at that point, seeking to reorganize Russian Society the way Mussolini had reorganized Italy. Trotsky and his Red Army beat them for the last time outside Moscow sometime in the late '20s.
Ayn Rand was a part of the "White Russian" movement, wasn't she? Tell me again what she thought of Democracy, and in how much esteem she held Liberals? How much respect did she have for what she called the "masses?"
She sympathized with them, in some respects. She was hostile to them in others. What she really was, more than anything else, was pro-Kerensky, but Kerensky's faction lost early in the Civil War..
She was a supporter of liberal democracy.
More than the Communists did -- which wouldn't be hard :)
I'm 36, have a BA in History, and have probably forgotten more about the history of the rise of Fascism and Naziism than you ever learned. Which is precisely why I find your claim that Reagan and Thatcher were similar to Fascists so damn silly, shallow -- and disrespectful to those who suffered and died under _real_ Fascist and Nazi regimes.
On 13 Jun 2001 18:29:06 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Are the three of you aware that you're starting to sound like Helen, Rita, and Amy on a severe PMS attack? I'm sure I speak for more than just myself when I ask you guys to drop it if you can't discuss this issue in a civil fashion (and I don't care who started it or who said what or who thinks they're being civil and who thinks who's being an irrational twit; finger-pointing and blame-laying is irrelevant now, as this situation has gone much too far for any of that to matter).
Helen, Rita and Amy -- I like that. I get to be Amy.
And no, I won't drop it. In the time that this thread has continued, I've seen two or three other threads start that were avowedly political, rather negative, and very obnoxious to me. You don't get to object to the topic of a thread I am contributing to and then NOT object to other threads with similar topics.
This thread is almost dead, anyway -- but you certainly can contribute even your objections to it if you want to. I believe that "Daria" has presented some political themes that are worth discussing. Do you disagree?
I take your point, really, but every time I decide to stop I see another post and think up another riposte. I'm thinking of getting counselling for the first time in my life.
_____________________________
******Martin Edwards.****** |
_____________________________
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel
Well, Jordan; your Degree *is* reassuring (but irrelevant -- your opinions stand or fall on their own, just like mine do), but you know, I don't know of ANY History Department in the US that studies Objectivism or Libertarianism. Not even in a 20th Century Political Movements course. There certainly aren't any in Great Britain.
Also; you have to admit that we have the right to wonder about YOUR acquaintance with Fascism, since you so pointedly wondered about OURS. The fact that you seem oblivious to ideological similarities between Conservatism, Objectivism, Libertarianism and Fascism, also leave me wondering.
I've recently read a pretty good History of Fascism. I suspect that you're acquainted with it, but here it is anyway:
FL Carsten, "The Rise of Fascism," Univ. of California Press, 1982. It reviews the history of Fascism around the world and traces the development of Fascist ideology. Very readable, and brief enough to be a good, accessable review of the topic.
Weeeeeeeell, my degree's in History as well, but it is dated 1970, so who's forgotten the most is a moot point. Historians deal in probability, so it must be obvious that your claim to have forgotten more than I know would be very hard to test. I'd say it was not impossible but very improbable. As to being silly, yeah I do that now and again, maybe you should try it. _____________________________
******Martin Edwards.****** |
_____________________________
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:51:07 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:
If we wish to continue this debate, perhaps we should first define exactly what we mean by "conservative" and "liberal", rather than simply taking a label, throwing it about as a meaningless insult, and making broad generalizations as to it's nature. Or perhaps we could ignore the labels completely, and argue upon the merits of our own personal ideologies, rather than the flaws of the group with which we identify our opponents.
Oh, and in that last comment (particularly the bit about greed), ythe reason for your opposition to Rand's philosophy as presented in "Atlas Shrugged" is quite apparent.
Well, this'll be my last comment here. I don't care to deal with this, so I shan't.
Libertarians were almost totaly uninvolved in those administrations. I would love to see any proof you have to the contrary. Reagan increased government spending. That is a libertarian no-no. You don't seem to have realized that someone can say they're for something without actually being for it. Reagan and Thatcher may have mouthed the phrases of liberty, but that doesn't make them any more libertarian the Democracts who mouth the phrases of liberty but are perfecty content to take other people's money to spend on their own pet projects.
Libertarians tend to vote for Libertarian party candidates. The LP is also made up from about 1/3 ex-Republicans, 1/3 ex-Democrats and 1/3 traditional non-voters.
Libertarians support privitization. You don't seem to understand the fundamental difference there.
Libertarians support deregulation. Ditto.
Since you seem to be making up the GOP policy for your own use, I can't rightly refute that. It's hard to convince people that there are no Invisible Pink Unicorns running around on their desk when they insist that there are.
Do you know that no libertarian would agree with any of the four calling themselves that? Libertarians, for instance, are strongly opposed to the War on Drugs and all its infringements on individual rights. Those four can't claim the same.
You mean like they support Democratic efforts to prevent flag-burning amendments? Or Democratic efforts for seperation of church and state? Sorry, but the LP supports Democratic efforts as well. Doesn't make us Democrats.
Your only problem is that the Democrats have been moving closer and closer to socialists as time has gone by. They've largely abandonded their old civil liberties stances in favor of enforced PCism and reversed discrimination. This makes the Libertarians appear to be distancing themselves from you, when it's rather the other way around. The LP has a solid, coherent philosophy underlying their positions. The Demopublicans don't, except "get re-elected". The Republicans are at least still using the same old lines, as little as they bother to do anything about them.
And I'm perfectly free to think they're short sighted yo-yos who couldn't tell a burrow from a donkey.
You also need
When their objections are nothing more than disparagements and denunciations, that's rather difficult to do. Your opponent actually has to form a stance and present facts before you can counter them.
Wraith "God created the world out of nothing, but the nothingness still shows through." -- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
On 11 Jun 2001 18:53:41 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
The pronoun refers to the last occurring noun, ie "Reagan". Come to think of it isn't the last occurring, but it would be very unusual to use it (the pronoun "he") to refer to a noun preceded by the indefinite article. I do concede a slight ambiguity, but I felt that quick repitition of a proper name would be inelegant and lacking in conciseness.
_____________________________
******Martin Edwards.****** |
_____________________________
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel
All Presidents do. Incidentally, you seem to be arguing that everyone who praises "freedom" is a Libertarian _and_ Objectivist, and somehow then see this as _bad_.
I'm sorry, but Thatcher and Reagan were not even close to being Libertarians, though they sometimes spouted the rhetoric. They were hugely corporationist.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:57:48 -0700, Mikel Midnight wrote:
This is precisely the point I was making. In the same way the name of Adam Smith, who was against joint stock companies, is used to sanctify corporate propaganda. _____________________________
******Martin Edwards.****** |
_____________________________
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel
Daria probably has read Rand's books, since she seems familiar with most of the classics (whether or not one considers A.R. a classic) and long novels don't seem to deter her (hell, she was reading The Gulag Archipelago, and that's about three times as long and dense as Atlas Shrugged), and she does seem pretty frustrated with all the inferior minds around her. It's worth saying that not all people who read Rand's books necessarily agree with her political philosophy, anyway - Hunter S. Thompson has said that The Fountainhead is one of his favorite books.
I think it's a stretch to say she actually agrees with much of Rand's philosophy simply based on what we've seen of her personality and reading habits, since she also reads Sartre. And trashy KGB spy novels.
Actually, she seems fairly apolitical. I don't think she subscribes to any particular political philosophy; she's very liberal but doesn't seem to be a Marxist. She doesn't seem to be too much enamored of the corporate-driven capitalist system in America, either. Moral: cartoon characters don't necessarily have precise, cut-and-dried world views, no matter how clever they sound.
-Justyn
~
"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast." - Oscar Wilde
On 07 Jun 2001 01:24:22 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
This is the one thing about the book that I'm not sure I agree with. Though I agree with the general analysis of sex (particularly Fransisco's analysis of that from which sexual attraction stems, and the refusal to separate the mind and the body as most do), Rand seems to go deep into a very violent sort of sex with gratituous glee.