Jump to content


Photo

Neil Peart and Ayn Rand


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#81 Pariah Dawg

Pariah Dawg

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • LocationCalmer than you are

Posted 08 June 2017 - 07:46 PM

Here's two decent discussions on Rand (and Rothbard) by Tom Woods & Michael Malice.




987655260thumbjerryplayph8.gif
MAKE AMERICA GRATEFUL AGAIN

#82 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,658 posts
  • LocationTexas

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

#83 Pariah Dawg

Pariah Dawg

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • LocationCalmer than you are

Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:46 PM

Agreed. I only said they were discussions I remember hearing that sprung to mind. I also didn't rewatch them before posting and the first one is a few years old, so I don't claim to remember all the content.

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
987655260thumbjerryplayph8.gif
MAKE AMERICA GRATEFUL AGAIN

#84 AsIfToFly

AsIfToFly

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 03:41 PM

Brilliant.

https://www.theguard...ritish-election

#85 AsIfToFly

AsIfToFly

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 04:55 PM

Whoops, thought I was posting that in the UK election thread!



#86 Zarathustra

Zarathustra

    Member

  • Peeps
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

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.   



#87 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 5,466 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 11 August 2017 - 06:14 PM

"The Trees" is indeed an anti-collectivist fable.  Agree that it is an ironic ending that the only way to achieve equality is to destroy the "upper class" indeed this being "The Oaks".  That's how they are all equal.


  • Rick N Backer likes this

#88 LeStudio

LeStudio

    Member

  • Peeps
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

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

#89 Valium

Valium

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 16 October 2017 - 08:46 AM

I think John Galt has already contacted Rush just before they released Vapour Trails, causing them to destroy their reputation and ruin the record industry. Can't be long before they vanish.

Ayn Rand sucks cocks in hell.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users