Neil Peart and Ayn Rand
Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:15 PM
I don't really see an "argument" there. Malice basically says "Rand makes a logical argument" without explicating any of the actual logic. He's speaking in platitudes pretty much the whole video.
More directly, neither of the two of them are ACTUALLY objectivists, so that video doesn't really answer any questions.
- Pariah Dawg likes this
Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:46 PM
Here's another Malice appearance that I caught more recently. Haven't replayed it since either but just fast forwarded to find the beginning of the Objectivism talk (it's about 56 min in).
He was also on Joe Rogan a few weeks back but won't bother posting because I don't recall it being heavy on Rand. Mostly North Korea, etc
MAKE AMERICA GRATEFUL AGAIN
Posted 10 August 2017 - 07:31 PM
Like a few others here, I always took the last lines of The Trees as ironic. If you have to destroy trees in order to enforce their equality, then there is something deeply flawed about your solution. People often think their solutions are "noble" when they are in fact butchery and devastation.
In reality, maples and oaks coexist just fine. So do people of different economic status (though perhaps not right next to each other ... just like trees). Just because someone has more money than you doesn't take anything from you. The economy isn't a zero-sum game. It's impossible for the masses to see their plight get better without the people at the top--the ones who pay their wages--earning more money. You can't pay higher wages with sunshine.
The person who said that laws are necessary to protect trees today is missing much of the picture. There are more trees in the U.S. today than 100 years ago, and that's not because of the national park system. The lumber industry plants more trees than it cuts down (otherwise they'd soon go out of business). You don't need the government to protect trees. Private property rights help avoid the "tragedy of the commons."
But national parks are cool, too.
Posted 16 October 2017 - 08:31 AM
Rush was, without doubt, by intention or not, the very embodiment of Ayn Rand's concept of the "Producer". They forged ahead for decades with great confidence and assumed great risks and in so doing received great rewards for their titanic efforts against an industry that tried to expell and exterminate them for most of their career - all the while being authentic and humble. Why was the industry so against them? Because they couldn't understand them. They couldn't understand a popular music act that didn't write songs about pedestrian ideas and espouse self destructive behavior, that inspired the listener to think and use their mind. All the while, Rush themselves eschewed bombastic behavior, avoided narcissism in a career field where such an attribute is difficult to dodge, and always looked at innovative and new ways to produce what was a truly unique and extraordinary musical product.
There is little doubt that if John Gault (from 'Atlas Shrugged') was looking to liven up the atmosphere in "Gault's Gulch", this is the rock band he would have invited to his entrepreneurial Shangri La. I am uncertain as to whether the members of Rush would have taken him up on his offer, though it does seem like Neal Peart's sort of place.
- chemistry1973 likes this
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users