"Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should."

[deminks]

I was just watching Bill Maher repeat of Friday's show, where he quoted Alan Greenspan talking about Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged. Here is the entire quote:

Shortly after Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957, Mr. Greenspan wrote a letter to The New York Times to counter a critic’s comment that “the book was written out of hate.” Mr. Greenspan wrote: "Atlas Shrugged is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should."

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001729.html

Maher made the point that many of these deficit hawks like Paul Ryan are fans of Ayn Rand and probably share this "parasite" view of Alan Greenspan. Thus the "300,000 teats" comment of Alan Simpson and many others. They are unaffected by the suffering of the little people.


Sociopaths.

Another link here:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/80552/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[silverweb]

2. Actually...

I agree with the original premise. I just disagree about who the parasites are.

Rand/Greenspan/Ryan et al stick that label on the disadvantaged and downtrodden, the poor and working class, and now the middle class. They consider themselves among the "creative" elite, deserving of all homage and reward.

In actuality, the only thing they're creative about is theft from those who cannot fight back, which makes them the real parasites, and I hope they "perish as they should" ... soon.

[napoleon_in_rags]

5. Exactly.

Suppose there's one factory job in a small town, and one open house for sale. A guy gets hired to work at the factory producing goods. HE applies for a loan to buy the house, but doesn't get it, it goes to a rich landlord. The landlord buys the house instead, and makes the guy pay rent, and proceeds to sit on his ass watching TV and live off the rent. Meanwhile the guy works at the factory, producing goods for society. HE lives paycheck to paycheck to pay rent, and at the end, the guy who produces goods for society has nothing, but the landlord who lives off the fruits of his labor has the house paid off by another persons labor, for hundreds of thousands in value in pocket. The Randroids call the worker the parasite in this situation.

That's a picture that repeats at so many levels much larger than the modest landlord situation. Its ridiculous. But you've also got to see the fundamental bluff in their position.

[silverweb]

7. Yup.

It's a lot clearer now just who _georgie was referring to when he talked about an "ownership society," isn't it?

[napoleon_in_rags]

8. Yeah, thanks for pointing that out.

The whole sub prime mortgage mess came out of the "ownership society" thing, people forget that.

It reminds me of this book "Natural Capitalism" which described how a capitalist society could more or less become almost communist like by making everybody rent everything, then recycling the goods when done. (very green, but almost nobody owns anything) The ownership society policies came after that and almost seemed like a direct reaction, pro or con I don't know. It makes me wonder if we're headed in that direction.

[silverweb]

9. Do you recommend the book?

I've heard of it before, but haven't read it.

The pendulum keeps swinging back and forth, with one generation/administration reflexively reacting to its predecessor.

I still have hope that eventually we'll settle into a form of democratic socialism, where the basic needs of all people are met equally and justly, and capitalism is reserved for things like cars and TVs.

A bright line needs to be drawn that differentiates between basic needs that should never be considered for-profit commodities (healthcare, education, housing, food, public transit) and those goods/services that can be considered non-essential commodities (including more luxurious versions of necessities of life).

[napoleon_in_rags]

11. It was an environmentalist with an idea.

Basically something like this: You buy the 6 pack of Coke, but the industrial nutrients the bottles are made out of are owned by the coca cola company, and are returned to them through recycling. Same with your carpet, same with everything. The idea is that everything will be recycled once the producers have a stake in the recovery of the materials, the so called industrial nutrients. He also acts the part of a futurist, saying this point where recycled materials are valuable comes in the not too far off future, and he speculates about the existence of new political parties more relevant for those times, and so on.

I honestly wasn't that moved by that book, but it seems as though it became an influential idea in top policy circles, though whether it was feared are adored I am still not sure.

But I myself agree with him in a sense, that I don't think business ideas and ideas for the general welfare of the people need be separate. Its the short sited individual benefit motives that are ruining things... They say corporations are people. If corporations would start ACTING like people, which is to say concern themselves with their long term self interest that might stretch hundreds of years in the future, we might be a lot better off.

[silverweb]

13. Thanks.

The book's idea is interesting, but I'm rather doubtful that making product manufacturers responsible for recycling industrial nutrients would work. They want materials delivered ready for use in manufacturing, then to ship their product and to be done with it.

I think it would make more sense to have separate companies extract industrial nutrients from refuse, then re-sell those recycled materials to the manufacturers ready for re-use.

I think I'll pass on finding/reading the book, but I do agree with your last paragraph 100% and appreciate your insights.

:fistbump:

[napoleon_in_rags]

14. What you're saying isn't too far off from his premise though.

That was the idea of industrial "nutrients" is that they were really quick to cheaply recycle, designed that way from the get go. But you're right, it looks like waste management will handle the recycling. This could emerge into a strategic partnership with manufacturers, to boost mutual profits.

The missing link is cradle to grave product packaging awareness. A major part of this is addressed when our smartphones become our wallets, purchases can be instantly monitored, and trash output instantly predicted, for an entire region or a single waste bin.

But yeah, pass on the book. It had good ideas but its dated, and this game is moving REALLY fast.

[Demeter]

3. Randians Calling People "parasites" Is Clear Psychological Projection

of their own worthlessness upon others. Not to mention, psychopathic.

[Recursion]

4. Rand and Lenin both used "parasite" language

Neither use was a sign of a healthy soul.

[Keith Bee]

6. And we know we can trust Alan Greenspan

Our economy wouldn't be anywhere NEAR what it is now if not for him!

[nuttymango]

10. Ayn Rand's self reliance

Here's a great piece on Ayn Rand's vacuous philosophy: http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Here's the take-away:
1) She was a great admirer of the child murderer William Edward Hickman.
2) When diagnosed with cancer, Ms. Self-reliance accepted medicare.

[deminks]

12. Thank you for the link. And welcome to DU!

Whenever I think of sociopaths, I think of Ayn Rand. And the dozens of her desciples in the Republican Party/Fleabagger Party.

[999998th word]

15. Thanks-excellent info,useful 4 'discussions'.

[regnaD kciN]

16. Actually, the second point isn't that hypocritical...

I'm sure she could rationalize accepting Medicare on the grounds that the taxes she had (unwillingly) paid as a best-selling author more than paid for the Medicare benefits she received, so she was simply "getting her own back."

[IDemo]

17. Read "Griftopia" by Matt Taibbi for more on Greenspan

He blames much of our present predicament on Greenspan, whom he refers to as an a-hole and explaining exactly why. He has been wrong almost every time he opened his mouth but has been treated as a guru by nearly every president for the past 40 years.