This is either going to be really cool or it's gonna suck badly.Probably both, but not in the same way at the same time.
Several Facebook Comments on the trailer--
#
The trailer sux. The only people who are going to get excited about that are Randroids. People are going to wonder wtf the movie is about. I'm wondering, and I read the book. Is it supposed to be a teaser? I would think there's enough action in the story to stick some of it in the trailer instead of having them talking about business. Hell-- show some disaster shit like the horrible train crash caused by stupid bureaucrats trying to ignore reality. Show the Armageddon by gubment shit going down. Show a teasing glimpse of some amazing view of the Gulch or something.
#
Also, so far I'm not feelin' it from those actors. Some key lines of extra boldness from these titans would have been inspiring as well. Show them saying something outrageous but true to the dumbass looters. Ima watch it again and see if I'm being hypercritical.
#
Oh, Part I?! Oh...
dear.
Umm, this isn't an action flick...Also, there are lines of boldness: the initial offer to Mulligan by Galt, the "my goal is to make money" line by Rearden, and a few more. My vote is hypercritical.
Yeah, my prediction is suck.
Umm, this isn't an action flick...Also, there are lines of boldness: the initial offer to Mulligan by Galt, the "my goal is to make money" line by Rearden, and a few more. My vote is hypercritical.
Hmm. Help please.
I've (obviously) not read the books, so...
Is this a movie about a brother and a sister who run a railroad company and pit steel companies against each other so they pay less for their steel and make more money on the railroads?
If so, what's the big deal?
Nope. It's about gooberment repeatedly cracking down on people who are competing for marketshare and taxing the shit out of them.
The brother is a commie pro gooberment asshole who is shooting himself in the foot throughout the whole story.
Also, steel companies are using FUD to get the gooberment to ban a new, super light, super strong, fairly cheap alloy because they can't compete.
Oh, that is actually kinda interesting.
Wow, looks good. I do think they will make it into a business people are greedy scum movie though, or at least some socialist media hack will get that meme going.
Wow, looks good. I do think they will make it into a business people are greedy scum movie though, or at least some socialist media hack will get that meme going.
yeah, you haven't watched the behind the scenes? Did you even watch the opening? about not letting others live off of your production? Man, this is the movie I've been waiting for since watching that Wall Street crap.
Wow, looks good. I do think they will make it into a business people are greedy scum movie though, or at least some socialist media hack will get that meme going.
Damn, this means I have to read the book now.You better get started. It's a looooooooong read. Worth it, but long.
I read somewhere this is a limited release on April 15? I hope it ends up being a national release, because I know the book is too long for most to read. Hell, I only read half of it before getting the cliffnotes.
I went the audio-book route. I spend most of my day reading text in my business, fuck if im gonna read a almost 1100 pages of written text when I get home.. I liked it, but it was a little bit too detailed and rambling about minor details that didnt really pertain to the meat of the story. Maybe Rand was trippin' on acid when she wrote it, I dont know.
A must read, especially for statist type people. If this doesn't make it sink in, nothing will.
I went the audio-book route. I spend most of my day reading text in my business, fuck if im gonna read a almost 1100 pages of written text when I get home.. I liked it, but it was a little bit too detailed and rambling about minor details that didnt really pertain to the meat of the story. Maybe Rand was trippin' on acid when she wrote it, I dont know.
A must read, especially for statist type people. If this doesn't make it sink in, nothing will.
no dolph lundgren?
no dolph lundgren?
Mmmm... yeah. Dolph Lundgren.
Mmmm... yeah. Dolph Lundgren.
Mmmm... yeah. Dolph Lundgren.
jesus h christ
had to bring queer to the party, didn't u
The first time I read it I sort of skimmed it, Still took a week.
The second time I read it very carefully, and studied all the key speeches, I also tended to watch the dramatisations on youtube of whatever speech I was on. They are all there and some are very well done. My favorite is a little unknown, this one.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCmJUobwKQk[/youtube]
On the second reading I reread the "Galts Gulch" part several times. :)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygQvB6OjHOU[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygQvB6OjHOU[/youtube]
That clip sends my masturbation fantasies all over the fucking map! Oh, yeah... tell me how you're gonna break me, Dolph! I feel so helpless against your tall hunky nordic self!
The result is that Iron Man 2 would be identical to Atlas Shrugged, if only it contained no humor and concluded with the bad guys unanimously standing down after Stark gave a 25 minute speech.
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_18967_6-famous-movies-with-mind-blowing-hidden-meanings.html#ixzz1EPtBvjIe
It could have been really retro in a cool way like Bioshock.
Why is Dagny getting that guy coffee?-- "Do you want one lump of sugar in your coffee, or do you want two?"
Striker,
In response to the overwhelming reception, and seemingly endless debate, accompanying the unveiling of the Atlas Shrugged Movie trailer, we are proud to share with you a very special clip pulled directly from the film.
The clip shows Henry Rearden...
the clip shows Henry...
Eh ehm...
I guess you'll just have to watch to find out exactly what Henry's doing. (http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-scene-henry-rearden-comes-home)
That's a good choice for fans of the book, but I also am wondering if the movie will get/hold the attention of people who are not already fans of the book.
http://silverunderground.com/?p=1616I don't think I've ever been this excited (and nervous) for a movie...My road away from religious conservatism began with Atlas Shrugged. LOTR was awesome when I was still in middle school, but this review just kindled hope that this might actually be worth watching.
I disagreed with Ayn Rand's whole worldview on sexuality from the get go. I say this as a admitted chauvinist and heterosexual.
I hate to think of a world where woman want to have a man who can rule over them, even if he has to earn the right. I also note that a "Randian" woman would leave Mr. Wonderful for a better man if she can get him. Woman would also compete for the best men, with no sense of loyalty to her husband and family or the new man's for that matter. The highest men in a Randian society could trade out the old wife every few years. It would be a mess.
I sincerely hope they rewrite some of the original love story from Atlas Shrugged, I think many would find Dagny's always taking the better man and family ruining hobby repugnant.
For the record, I read Dr. Ferris, Hugh Akston, and Eddie Willers as gay when I read the book. Evidently I was wrong.
But then Ayn didn't have any children, did she? Hmmm... Hypocrite. |
is that some shit? any of that true? i'm too lazy to research.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqWd46O64zU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Atlas Shrugged Striker:
Are you ready to stand up and be counted? It's not who's going to let us open on the 15th... it's who's going to stop us.
Tonight, our friend, JOHN STOSSEL, is on Hannity at 9pm ET on Fox . . . and the topic . . . "New Movie Hated by Hollywood?! (http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/03/09/new-movie-hated-by-hollywood/)"
Are the liberal elite trying to stop you from seeing an American classic brought to life on the silver screen? John Stossel has "reel" insight on the new movie "Atlas Shrugged".
We need your support!
Please watch tonight and don't forget to "Demand!" Atlas to a theater near you (http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/get_involved) at the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Website and "Like" us on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/AtlasShruggedMovie) at our Official Facebook Fan Page.
Thank you! Let's create the noise this movie deserves!
Harmon Kaslow, Producer
Scott DeSapio, Director of Online Marketing and Strategy
Someone just created a BitTorrent of an audio-book of version of Atlas Shrugged split by chapters (http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Atlas-Shrugged-by-Chapters/4358d5055352817367e92510feb7e80fbd38deaae194), which can make it a lot more convenient to listen to. The audio quality is low, but that shouldn't matter much, especially on MP3 players. Fits on one CD (566 MB total), if your CD player supports MP3. 55 hours total.
Someone just created a BitTorrent of an audio-book of version of Atlas Shrugged split by chapters (http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Atlas-Shrugged-by-Chapters/4358d5055352817367e92510feb7e80fbd38deaae194), which can make it a lot more convenient to listen to. The audio quality is low, but that shouldn't matter much, especially on MP3 players. Fits on one CD (566 MB total), if your CD player supports MP3. 55 hours total.
That's ironic.
People who deserve it get 1000x more from me than the puny audio-book license fees.
Well, I've spent most of my time as a libertarian being a crazy tax resister, so I've contributed very little financially so far - say a Hyundai for all political things in total. But Objectivist institutes alone deserve a nice Porsche 911. Gotta end this underground bullshit and get my career back on track... Unfortunately going crazy doesn't come with an easy "undo" button...
Oh, and a nice nuclear aircraft carrier for Patri Friedman. :lol:
Quote Strikers, |
I've seen good reviews on it from sources that matter to me (fans of the book).
I've seen good reviews on it from sources that matter to me (fans of the book).
Would a fan of the Bible trash on a movie about the Bible even if it sucked? Talk about a biased review. :P
Keep us updated on how it is though.
Some genius rendered the Bible into novel form a few years ago. Bestseller, it was. My wife listened to the audio version of it. Of course, as with most bestsellers, it had plenty of sex and violence. The thing works better as pure fiction...Are you talking about 'The Message'? It was still crap...
jesus, mary & joseph
*my old man not only took the lord's name in vain......he brought the WHOLE family into it*
Looks like it's only playing in two theaters in Colorado.
Looks like it's only playing in two theaters in Colorado.
It's only in AMC theatres in roughly 80 "markets", whatever those are.
Looks like it's only playing in two theaters in Colorado.
It's only in AMC theatres in roughly 80 "markets", whatever those are.
Well, it turns out it's in a few more than two theaters, but locally (that is, within ten miles of SW Denver, only two (go Northeast, it's in a couple more.) It IS in more than AMC, though. It's in Century and UA too, which happen to be closer than the AMC which has it. It's not in the AMC that's nearby, either, or a dozen or so other nearby theaters.
Typical Alternet ad hom. My mother sent me a bunch of their bullshit about the "Evil" Koch Brothers.
I guarantee this is going to be horrible and boring.
The A-list actors left the film,
the budget was cut down to $15 million,
and the cgi looks atrocious.
Ya want Brangelina doing the leading parts, with Michael Bay adding explosions at every turn?
...maybe a few AT-ATs and some lizard mounts in the background?
Let me see if I can sum up what I've read into a whacked-out opinion.
I take from this that this movie is the Libertarian version of The Passion Of The Christ where the most devout Rynd fan would praise it no matter how bad it really was. "It has a good message" does not qualify as a positive to a movie in my view and that includes messages that I agree with. In fact (a word being used way too loosely), the more of a focus on the message it has, the worse the movie becomes. Same goes with music. Entertainment with a message turns me off.
I guarantee this is going to be horrible and boring.
It wasn't.The A-list actors left the film,
No, that was a different production.the budget was cut down to $15 million,
No. This production was around 10 million, and it wasn't "Cut down". That was always the budget.and the cgi looks atrocious.
No, no it wasn't, it was fairly decent. Better than a TV movie or miniseries.
How does it feel to be so wrong?
$1,775,800 for opening weekend, give or take, obviously.
Typical Alternet ad hom. My mother sent me a bunch of their bullshit about the "Evil" Koch Brothers.
Agreed, Alternet can have some shit articles. The Koch Brothers are shit heads though; they're government welfare queens pretending they're free marketers.
Typical Alternet ad hom. My mother sent me a bunch of their bullshit about the "Evil" Koch Brothers.
Agreed, Alternet can have some shit articles. The Koch Brothers are shit heads though; they're government welfare queens pretending they're free marketers.
Please elaborate and/or substantiate...not being combative; I really want to know.
Remember when I said this?$1,775,800 for opening weekend, give or take, obviously.
From Box Office Mojo -
"Atlas Shrugged: Part I was the top-grossing limited release of the weekend, generating an estimated $1.7 million at 300 single-screen locations. "*
Now, let's everyone kiss my ass.
@Shadowtheweak - This means a near guarantee that they'll make a profit. You'll see the rest. Also, you are incorrect about the budget. Again.
How does it feel to be so. Wrong?
*Edit - The rest of the article was a hit piece, of course.
Typical Alternet ad hom. My mother sent me a bunch of their bullshit about the "Evil" Koch Brothers.
Agreed, Alternet can have some shit articles. The Koch Brothers are shit heads though; they're government welfare queens pretending they're free marketers.
Please elaborate and/or substantiate...not being combative; I really want to know.
Remember when I said this?$1,775,800 for opening weekend, give or take, obviously.
From Box Office Mojo -
"Atlas Shrugged: Part I was the top-grossing limited release of the weekend, generating an estimated $1.7 million at 300 single-screen locations. "*
Now, let's everyone kiss my ass.
@Shadowtheweak - This means a near guarantee that they'll make a profit. You'll see the rest. Also, you are incorrect about the budget. Again.
How does it feel to be so. Wrong?
*Edit - The rest of the article was a hit piece, of course.
Na bro i'm actually right about the budget. 1.7 million is nothing for an opening weekend
Atlas Shrugged numbers for Friday - $683,000 with $2277 bux per theater showing.
The big opener was RIO at 10 million with $2666 per theater.
Scream 4 pulled $8,000,000 with $2,421 per theater.
On a per theater basis, AS opened at number three. Whether that would scale up for more theaters is unknowable, but that's a respectable pull.
By studio style projections (VERY ACCURATE) you drop twenty odd percent for your Saturday and Sunday, and you get:
$1,775,800 for opening weekend, give or take, obviously.
Not horrible.
Sustainable? Can't say. Usually second week is half of first week*, unless you get a wider release. Doing $2277 per theater with a 300 theater opening is pretty close to buying a bigger release. Can't say yet.
We'll see how close I am on Monday.
*That means that if nothing changes next week, theater wise, they'll make $887,900ish
<<<Doesn't talk movies from the business end very often because he knows it's boring to most people, but knows the fuckin' biz yo.
nuttin to say-
Much of that is unsubstantiated sensationalism. GMU is one of the premier economic schools in the world and private funding is never a bad thing. Also a funny thing to indict a company because they operate in a subsidized industry. The same things could have been said about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Hill; all great men. I don't have any knowledge of eminent domain abuse or other nonsense, so I can't refute that, but I've already left your scathing diatribe much diminished.
Much of that is unsubstantiated sensationalism. GMU is one of the premier economic schools in the world and private funding is never a bad thing. Also a funny thing to indict a company because they operate in a subsidized industry. The same things could have been said about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Hill; all great men. I don't have any knowledge of eminent domain abuse or other nonsense, so I can't refute that, but I've already left your scathing diatribe much diminished.
Yeah...It did sorta sound like the lefty claims, and with them, most of it is selective...stuff they like in solar and wind (subsidies) is evil in other industries (oil) whereas, I'll bet the Koch attitude is that they don't make the rules, they just compete in the current environment (something we all struggle with) and they'd prefer a truly free market. That's the feeling I get anyway. The eminent domain thing may be interesting, if there's actually anything to it. Same goes for the environmental claims.
Much of that is unsubstantiated sensationalism. GMU is one of the premier economic schools in the world and private funding is never a bad thing. Also a funny thing to indict a company because they operate in a subsidized industry. The same things could have been said about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Hill; all great men. I don't have any knowledge of eminent domain abuse or other nonsense, so I can't refute that, but I've already left your scathing diatribe much diminished.
Yeah...It did sorta sound like the lefty claims, and with them, most of it is selective...stuff they like in solar and wind (subsidies) is evil in other industries (oil) whereas, I'll bet the Koch attitude is that they don't make the rules, they just compete in the current environment (something we all struggle with) and they'd prefer a truly free market. That's the feeling I get anyway. The eminent domain thing may be interesting, if there's actually anything to it. Same goes for the environmental claims.
It's like saying I'm not a real libertarian because I'm married and the state gives me tax breaks for it. I can't help it the government wants to steal $600 or so less of my money.
Much of that is unsubstantiated sensationalism. GMU is one of the premier economic schools in the world and private funding is never a bad thing. Also a funny thing to indict a company because they operate in a subsidized industry. The same things could have been said about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Hill; all great men. I don't have any knowledge of eminent domain abuse or other nonsense, so I can't refute that, but I've already left your scathing diatribe much diminished.
Yeah...It did sorta sound like the lefty claims, and with them, most of it is selective...stuff they like in solar and wind (subsidies) is evil in other industries (oil) whereas, I'll bet the Koch attitude is that they don't make the rules, they just compete in the current environment (something we all struggle with) and they'd prefer a truly free market. That's the feeling I get anyway. The eminent domain thing may be interesting, if there's actually anything to it. Same goes for the environmental claims.
It's like saying I'm not a real libertarian because I'm married and the state gives me tax breaks for it. I can't help it the government wants to steal $600 or so less of my money.
You could go far with marriage as an argument. Some would claim marriage is a surrender of your 'self' in order to serve a small (and by giving the "institution" to the government to govern... a large) collective. I am married, too.
My "self" really wanted to stick with my wife, for my own reasons, and her condition for that to happen involved the marital contract. So, I entered into the arrangement with her knowing full well what it meant. Sure, I've suffered in some ways, but I've thrived in others. Whether the government decides to steal a little less due to this is not really in my control, and I'll readily take back even a small portion of what they took. To believe it's a form of welfare, you have to believe what they tell you about tax refunds being an "expense" that the government somehow is "paying" to you. No. It was mine in the first place.
Now... if I'd been getting the "earned" income credit or the like... yeah, that's welfare.
No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.
No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.
Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.
Much of that is unsubstantiated sensationalism. GMU is one of the premier economic schools in the world and private funding is never a bad thing. Also a funny thing to indict a company because they operate in a subsidized industry. The same things could have been said about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Hill; all great men. I don't have any knowledge of eminent domain abuse or other nonsense, so I can't refute that, but I've already left your scathing diatribe much diminished.
Yeah...It did sorta sound like the lefty claims, and with them, most of it is selective...stuff they like in solar and wind (subsidies) is evil in other industries (oil) whereas, I'll bet the Koch attitude is that they don't make the rules, they just compete in the current environment (something we all struggle with) and they'd prefer a truly free market. That's the feeling I get anyway. The eminent domain thing may be interesting, if there's actually anything to it. Same goes for the environmental claims.
Much of that is unsubstantiated sensationalism. GMU is one of the premier economic schools in the world and private funding is never a bad thing. Also a funny thing to indict a company because they operate in a subsidized industry. The same things could have been said about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Hill; all great men. I don't have any knowledge of eminent domain abuse or other nonsense, so I can't refute that, but I've already left your scathing diatribe much diminished.
Yeah...It did sorta sound like the lefty claims, and with them, most of it is selective...stuff they like in solar and wind (subsidies) is evil in other industries (oil) whereas, I'll bet the Koch attitude is that they don't make the rules, they just compete in the current environment (something we all struggle with) and they'd prefer a truly free market. That's the feeling I get anyway. The eminent domain thing may be interesting, if there's actually anything to it. Same goes for the environmental claims.
Yeah that could be right, but I tend to think they use it as a means to gain power and reap profits. Especially when they are granted a no bid contract on Wisconsin energy, which is the opposite of free market practices.
No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.
Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.
OK, so the biggest fans will like it no matter what anybody says? Doesn't any form of art have that contingent? I've mainly seen, "good movie, but the (insert issue here) wasn't so good."
No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.
Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.
OK, so the biggest fans will like it no matter what anybody says? Doesn't any form of art have that contingent? I've mainly seen, "good movie, but the (insert issue here) wasn't so good."
All forms of art has it in one form or another. Many of which are too trivial to take seriously. It's the art with a "message" that bugs me the most. Not to say that it has one primarily, but that's the only thing that would seem to matter. It ceases being a movie and becomes a sermon. You've seen "Good movie, but..." and not see what is being said as to what makes it "good" in their minds. I dare say that if they took out the "message" from the equation, hardly anyone would say AS was a good movie. Same goes with anything where the message is primary focus.
Now, perhaps AS was never intended the message to be the primary focus (I don't know, never read the book, don't care to) and if that was the case, than the fans made it so. For the longest time, I thought AS was a political book and not an actual novel. Call that misunderstanding ignorance, but the diehard fans of Rand fed that ignorance to me. Unintentionally, of course.
No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.
Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.
OK, so the biggest fans will like it no matter what anybody says? Doesn't any form of art have that contingent? I've mainly seen, "good movie, but the (insert issue here) wasn't so good."
All forms of art has it in one form or another. Many of which are too trivial to take seriously. It's the art with a "message" that bugs me the most. Not to say that it has one primarily, but that's the only thing that would seem to matter. It ceases being a movie and becomes a sermon. You've seen "Good movie, but..." and not see what is being said as to what makes it "good" in their minds. I dare say that if they took out the "message" from the equation, hardly anyone would say AS was a good movie. Same goes with anything where the message is primary focus.
Now, perhaps AS was never intended the message to be the primary focus (I don't know, never read the book, don't care to) and if that was the case, than the fans made it so. For the longest time, I thought AS was a political book and not an actual novel. Call that misunderstanding ignorance, but the diehard fans of Rand fed that ignorance to me. Unintentionally, of course.
I think plot and meaning are major components of whether something is 'good'. If you just want something mindless to stare at, by all means, go ahead. Good art, however, is defined differently by different people. It was a good movie because it portrayed Rand's message mildly effectively (double adverbs allowed?) and because I enjoyed the plot, Rearden's acting, and the twist on Rand's settings.
So that's your misconception, and I think it biases you against the project. One of the greatest arguments that critics of Ayn Rand have is that it is a fiction novel. Randroids love the fact that she's a storyteller as well as a philospher.
All the same, it's impossible for me to get my head around the idea that AS is a story. Not at long as the praise and hatred remains the way it is.
All the same, it's impossible for me to get my head around the idea that AS is a story. Not at long as the praise and hatred remains the way it is.
If you base your opinions around what other people say rather than your own experiences, you should probably never read AS. You won't enjoy the story.
It's a story. A semi science fiction/mystery story. There is a high tech engine and choo choo trains and people backstabbing each other and people fucking and people doing what people do. There are plots, subplots, flashbacks, snarky dialog, suicides, murders, people listening to music, peopl building shit, people tearing down shit, death rays, etc.
But like I said, if you are more interested in basing your opinions on hearsay than the evidence of your own senses and experiences , then really, you probably should avoid the book.
All the same, it's impossible for me to get my head around the idea that AS is a story. Not at long as the praise and hatred remains the way it is.
If you base your opinions around what other people say rather than your own experiences, you should probably never read AS. You won't enjoy the story.
It's a story. A semi science fiction/mystery story. There is a high tech engine and choo choo trains and people backstabbing each other and people fucking and people doing what people do. There are plots, subplots, flashbacks, snarky dialog, suicides, murders, people listening to music, peopl building shit, people tearing down shit, death rays, etc.
But like I said, if you are more interested in basing your opinions on hearsay than the evidence of your own senses and experiences , then really, you probably should avoid the book.
I actually based my opinion here on what I thought the book was and how the realization of what the book is has caused a creation of skepticism towards its worth as a story. It's not what people said, it's how the book was treated. Doesn't matter by whom. Positive or negative, it was treated the same way. Keep in mind that I never read or heard any reviews of the novel prior to the movie. No opinions on if someone liked it or not, but I've been barraged with an abundance of AS references in political discussions. The use of the book as a measuring stick on how "libertarian" one is. Or even the recent acknowledgement of problems in this country causing an increase in AS book sales. How can anyone expect me to think differently than I currently do when AS is shrouded in a messiah environment?
I do not, DO NOT, want my opinion to feel like a discrediting of AS. I like that people take to heart the message in the book (based on how it's treated, it's not rocket science to figure out the gist of what that message is). This is only my reason why I'm not caring to see the movie. You say that I should avoid it. All I've done was explain why I am.
Whether Objectivists are "libertarian" enough for your tastes, AS is certainly libertarian in that it promotes anarchism and denounces government. "Galt's Gulch" is about as libertarian a place as it gets!
You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service — it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue. Some of you may not be consciously aware of it. I want to help you to realize it.
The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest — as the armies of other countries have done in their histories — only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army in the world has achieved it. You have.
West Point has given America a long line of heroes, known and unknown. You, this year's graduates, have a glorious tradition to carry on — which I admire profoundly, not because it is a tradition, but because it is glorious.
I kinda hate the ancap/minarchist war, but Rand was, by definition, a statist. She believed that government should have a monopoly on inventionary force and used those exact words.
I kinda hate the ancap/minarchist war, but Rand was, by definition, a statist. She believed that government should have a monopoly on inventionary force and used those exact words.
"Hey, why the fuck you callin' me a statist? Just because I support the state? I'll have you know I'm WAY less statist than those other statists!"
I kinda hate the ancap/minarchist war, but Rand was, by definition, a statist. She believed that government should have a monopoly on inventionary force and used those exact words.
"Hey, why the fuck you callin' me a statist? Just because I support the state? I'll have you know I'm WAY less statist than those other statists!"
I loves me some Ayn Rand. She was just wrong about some shit. No one else has done as much brain work on the philosophy of liberty as she did in centuries, imho.
But she sure was a bitch. And kinda a dirty statist. Poor gal.
<<<Still 95% Objectivist. Minus the dirty statism.
Doesn't that pretty much amount to Rothbardian Libertarian? (minus his weirdness about children)
If I recall correctly she was also big on the golden rule, which is as busted as fuck.
If I recall correctly she was also big on the golden rule, which is as busted as fuck.
Someone quoted The Golden Rule on a BDSM site. I wondered if he goes around spanking people and electrocuting their testicles.
TL;DR: Ayn Rand was an arrogant cunt.
So, in your words, is a statist anyone who would support or likes or could tolerate the idea of any type of governing body?
If so, I think this term would cover a vast majority of people within the liberty loving community.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have been inclined to use it as an insult to describe people who truly love the State and want to expand it's power. Most of the population is statist but I don't go around insulting them for it. It's usually some bureaucrat, politician, cop, etc. doing something worthy of insult before I would single out that particular characteristic to describe them.
I used to poke a lot of fun at (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/09/21/top-ten-causes-of-minarchism/) (not exactly "insult", but I admit it's a fine line) the minarchist form of statist but I don't have much passion for it anymore. Like the Shaw, arguing over that particular subject has grown tiresome and rarely feels productive. It just seems like a matter of time before they come around on their own anyway. They're almost there. Insulting people doesn't seem to be very effective persuasive.
So much of communication gets lost in text on a dead screen.
Did you guys ever discuss the topic of statism on the show tonight? If not, when will you be on next?
Did you guys ever discuss the topic of statism on the show tonight? If not, when will you be on next?
As always, but no more than usual. The more specific topic of how people define statism, no. We did not. I'll be on again next Monday.