Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DaveGBx (Talk | contribs) at 10:57, 10 December 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

What Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged (and ofcourse in all of her books) is remarkable as to how the concepts stand the test of time. Liberals AND Conservatives hate her, except specific portions that they like to use. She rejoiced in "man" and "humanity" and defined a code of ethics/morality as part of her philosophical novels. Alan Greenspan used to be in her discussion group at one time. Atlas Shrugged will remain, in my opinion, the greatest book ever written. User:Seekcommon

Yes. Though she adamantly wants Objectivism to be completely purist, Objectivist clubs need to be less close-minded and bitter. I'm not saying that the philosophy itself should change, however. User:Cthx

No, I don't believe so. I am a liberal, and I do not hate her. I agree with what she says about objectivism. I do not necessarily agree with others interpretation of her words. If we pay attention to ourselves and do not mess with the lives of others, we cannot hurt others. Everyone has an equal opportunity if everything relies on one's skill and determination. There are no poor if we all have a chance. No employers, no interference, nothing to keep people from reaching their full potential. This is something that does not change easily, and will not change until the world becomes the ideal and suggesting it is redundant. User:LiberalStephanieO

Without the poor there is no scale by which to judge the wealthy. With no negative there is no positive. Polarization makes the world go round. Conservative need Liberals and Liberals need Conservatives. Though I don't understand why religion (specifically christianity) is so necessary in Conservative belief. Ayn Rand was an Atheist.DaveGBx 10:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)