Can a good Mormon be an Ayn Rand Objectivist?

[_Morley]

Your grandfather built 'water and sewer pipelines' for the government, right? So he worked for and was paid by the government. Is this correct?

There were many private works (golf course's, sub-divisions etc.) but yes a lot of city and county work.

Perhaps that was where some of the 'chunks of bread' that the government took went. To your grandfather. And for sewer and water systems.

[_zeezrom]

I want to go live in a commune.

[_RockSlider]

Perhaps that was where some of the 'chunks of bread' that the government took went. To your grandfather. And for sewer and water systems.

Sure, and a large part of that work ethic involves paying one's own way in society. It's those with a sense of entitlement, whom without the sweat of their own brows also contribute to society, but instead expect to be feed from others works that seemed to be the contrasting theme of Atlas Shugged.

[_Morley]

Perhaps that was where some of the 'chunks of bread' that the government took went. To your grandfather. And for sewer and water systems.

Sure, and a large part of that work ethic involves paying one's own way in society. It's those with a sense of entitlement, whom without the sweat of their own brows also contribute to society, but instead expect to be feed from others works that seemed to be the contrasting theme of Atlas Shugged.

Not sure what you're talking about, Rock. Please be specific. Who has this 'sense of entitlement.' To what do they feel entitled?

[_Blixa]

Possibly the most juvenile "theorist" of any ideologue in history. When someone says they "like" Ayn Rand it's usually a good indication that you are dealing with an conceptually illiterate asshole with astonishing levels of narcissism and entitlement.

Ouch!
I was raised around my Grandfather, from whom I learned my work ethic. He being of the generations that endured the Great Depression, and emerged from it as a very successful construction company owner. He did water and sewer pipelines, putting in a fair amount of the original infrastructures in SLC, Utah.

It was hard grueling work, of which I worked with him during the summers of my youth.

I remember the groups of "auditors" that would spend countless hours in his offices pouring over the books and how much he resented them. This is how I was raised, that it was good that by the sweat of our brows shall we earn our bread, and yet having a government hand constantly reaching in and taking larger and larger chucks of that bread.

I would suggest that the industrial revolution of the America's during this time, with the logarithmic growth of technology and quality of life in America, up through the baby boomer generation was a direct result of many men and women like my Grandfather. Those who had no concept of entitlement but instead went after the "American Dream" with a vengeance, and with much success.

I assume you can guess how my read of Atlas Shrugged went.

I know that I've always been narcissistic and unfortunately not well read, yes that fits … but entitlement … no just the opposite.

Well, Rockslider, it is also paradoxically true that one can draw pure water even from poisoned wells. You read a story of individual accomplishment in this work, and did not necessarily see the obscured truth that such accomplishment is never created in a social and historical vacuum (which Randians seem to mistake for reality).

If you are interested I can pm you some materials I'm currently using in class about the birth of Modern Society, the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of the kind ideological myths that Rand trades in (though not directly addressing her or her contemporary champions).

I'm sure your Grandfather had no sense of entitlement. But the same can not be said of the Paul Ryans of today who feel entitled to pursue the desires of ruling class as against the larger social good: i.e., the very material conditions that allowed your Grandfather to be able to flourish.

Ayn Rand and the mythologies that followed in her wake are dedicated to destroying the idea of society itself. They are pushing the argument back to pre-18th century levels (if not further), and attempting to destroy the hard fought for and won human rights that people like your Grandfather enjoyed and deserved. They are attempting to erase the legacy of the Enlightenment, out of which, among other things, the Constitution of this country was created.

[_RockSlider]

Not sure what you're talking about, Rock. Please be specific. Who has this 'sense of entitlement.' To what do they feel entitled?

Well as Blixa keenly points out, I'm not educated or well read, and so my take was/is very simple.

As I read Atlas Shrugged, I viewed it as the battle between a pure Capitalistic economy verses a Socialist even Communistic Economy.

I was raised that Socialism was bad, and as I attempted to point out it was capitalism that once made America the strongest greatest nation in the World. So who has the "entitlement" … socialist systems are all about entitlement.

[_Blixa]

Well as Blixa keenly points out, I'm not educated or well read, and so my take was/is very simple.

As I read Atlas Shrugged, I viewed it as the battle between a pure Capitalistic economy verses a Socialist even Communistic Economy.

I was raised that Socialism was bad, and as I attempted to point out it was capitalism that once made America the strongest greatest nation in the World. So who has the "entitlement" … socialist systems are all about entitlement.

I see where you're coming from and its totally understandable why and how you reached the conclusions you did. However, I would suggest that "socialist systems" are about organizing social resources to meet basic human needs as the foundational principle of society, and not the bogeyman of "entitlement." Human rights, those hard won ethical concepts taken as "self evident" centuries ago, the best, most progressive elements of modern society are what are being slandered and attacked by the post-Randian neocons. We're not talking about classical conservatism or liberalism (both of which are different shades of capitalist ideology), we're talking about the irruption of the irrational and chaotic as transnational (making claims of "patriotism" the sickest joke possible) elites attempt to privatize every aspect of the public sphere in a quest for greater and greater profit which serves no human interest but itself. That stooges who are the victims of such forces have been hoodwinked into supporting it, is part of the sad and depressing farce.

[_3sheets2thewind]

There doesn't seem to be a single example of how obeying a command from God wouldn't advance one's self interest; to gain a reward, to avoid punishment/consequences, to lead a better and more worthwhile life, etc.

Where one might be morally obligated to disobey is when one does not believe in God. But that case is outside the conditions imposed which assumes God exists and one believes in Him.

Bcspace, ayn rand is an antichrist, if you want to follow an antichrist so be it, just stop trying to promote yourself as standing on moral high ground.

[_Equality]

I see where you're coming from and its totally understandable why and how you reached the conclusions you did. However, I would suggest that "socialist systems" are about organizing social resources to meet basic human needs as the foundational principle of society, and not the bogeyman of "entitlement." Human rights, those hard won ethical concepts taken as "self evident" centuries ago, the best, most progressive elements of modern society are what are being slandered and attacked by the post-Randian neocons. We're not talking about classical conservatism or liberalism (both of which are different shades of capitalist ideology), we're talking about the irruption of the irrational and chaotic as transnational (making claims of "patriotism" the sickest joke possible) elites attempt to privatize every aspect of the public sphere in a quest for greater and greater profit which serves no human interest but itself. That stooges who are the victims of such forces have been hoodwinked into supporting it, is part of the sad and depressing farce.

*swoon*

[_bcspace]

There doesn't seem to be a single example of how obeying a command from God wouldn't advance one's self interest; to gain a reward, to avoid punishment/consequences, to lead a better and more worthwhile life, etc.

Where one might be morally obligated to disobey is when one does not believe in God. But that case is outside the conditions imposed which assumes God exists and one believes in Him.

Bcspace, ayn rand is an antichrist, if you want to follow an antichrist so be it, just stop trying to promote yourself as standing on moral high ground.

Non sequitur. The example given to me included the notion of obeying God's commands. On top of that, the Ayn Rand Objectivist definition I posited was not challenged and it contained no mention of God or the non existence of God. In addition, I have not stated whether or not I follow, like, or agree with Ayn Rand. I have merely demonstrated that LDS doctrine did not conflict with the definition I gave.