Some of my best friends are communists
What makes a "good" person or a "bad" person is (no surprise) personal: within the individual. That is usually hidden from external view and judged only by actions and words in the world. That judgment is also personal: it depends on the person making it.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 8.
But still, help me out here for a moment: I see a contradiction.
Why would she become a Producer... Why would she fund a movie that's going to show the world more of this ideology she doesn't agree with? Isn't Ayn Rand just a 'money-worshipper antichrist', for her? This is a bit confusing.
I remember when I was very young, high school aged in the 70's, I said to someone, "Communism sounds like a great idea in a perfect world," but even then I was half-hearted about it. At the time I was intrigued by a society that ensured people had what they needed.
Within a couple of years I registered to vote as a Republican. But I wasn't really interested in politics. Reading the second Dune novel really turned me on to politics. Then I saw Harry Browne speak on C-SPAN during the LP National Convention in 1996.
I immediately recognized that I was a libertarian. I had never heard of them or what they stood for, but I knew that every single policy he mentioned I agreed with. Every criticism he made of the R's and D's and how government worked I agreed with.
It was nice to find out there were other people who thought like I did. People whose beliefs were consistent instead of seemingly random.
I have a cousin who's a member of a group called Anti-Capitalism Youth, so, I can't stand being around him anymore, it's hopeless. And he was such a bright young engineer!
I can never forgive these people for ruining his mind so badly... And now he's even working for the Landless Workers' Movement as well.
*sigh*
But yeah, some friends are worth the effort. If their qualities end up being more important to me than their failures, I don't mind it as much. That's true.
I don't want people to get hung up believing that I think Obama's brilliant. I said I think he's smart and I stand by it. I also disagree with every progressive idea that he has and I believe he is willingly destroying mankind.
My original point was that because he's smart enough to know what he's doing, it makes him evil.
People like that are destroying man.
I met a man recently and I would bet that his IQ is quite high. He was also extremely well informed when it came to national and world events, and he's over 80 so he has a lot of history under his belt. Also very well traveled, all over the world. In spite of those things he's an enthusiastic, vocal and influential progressive. He actually said, right to my face during after-dinner conversation, that he wanted government to force people to take care of people that couldn't care for themselves. He absolutely loves Obama and Obamacare and he's unrepentant about any of the problems.
THIS man is evil!
But he also donates hundreds of hours doing pro-bono legal work for the poor. At over 80 years old he just started a new law firm that does nothing but pro-bono work. Only the para-legals and non-lawyer staff will get paid, but not by the clients.
I will say it again. If you are really interested in it, at the very least, I would recommend that you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal if you want a better understanding of the rights of man, the role of government, and why true capitalism is the only just system for man to live under, according to Rand.
The Lexicon is nice, like a dictionary of ideas. However it lacks the hierarchal structure necessary to comprehend those ideas in a proper context. In order to do that, you will have to do more than to read the cliff-notes of Objectivsm.
Check out the gulch store( link at the top of the page) for most all of her books.
Load more comments...