Greatest American

[ttbrowne]

I'll go with Ted Williams before John Wayne. John Wayne??? Really?
Williams was a flight instructor during WW2, flying the Corsair.
Then he was drafted back in at the time of the Korean War. Saw combat and was almost shot down. (Plane was on fire when he landed it). He flew 39 combat missions. Was John Glenn's wingman. He wasn't happy about being drafted but he never complained publicly about it.
Oh and there was all that baseball stuff too.

 

[ttbrowne]

I would have to say (and most people would agree) that America is by far the best country in the world. America has so much more history then Europe and the rest of the world.

Best country? Without fudging, how many OTHER countries have you been to?

And I wouldn't say the 'much more history' thing in front of a person who actually KNOWS anything about history.

 

[Claudius]

I'd go with Bill Gates.

 

[max]

This poll is sad in light of the recent news item about the historical amnesia among recent high school graduates. . . and my own experience asking young people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and what the Civil War was about. Young people aren't any stupider than previous generations: their teachers just aren't as demanding. Just my 2 cents---but an informed 2 cents.

 

[Steady Eddy]

Someone has been reading their Ayn Rand.

Rand had pretty sensible ideas...but there's no way I'm going to read Atlas Shrugged!

 

[max]

Rand had pretty sensible ideas...but there's no way I'm going to read Atlas Shrugged!

I don't know. . . I don't know many people who are as selfish as she recommends us be.

 

[Fearsome Forehand]

Easy. Washington. Without him, our country would probably not exist.

There are many runner ups. Too many list. We have been blessed by having a lot of great people from diverse backgrounds over our 235 year history; most of whom never made it into the history books.

Dick Winters for one.

 

[rovex]

Malcolm x is right up there.

 

[rovex]

America has so much more history then Europe and the rest of the world.

Seeing as you used then in the wrong context I can only assume you're kidding.

 

[Steady Eddy]

I don't know. . . I don't know many people who are as selfish as she recommends us be.

By selfishness she meant self discipline. For example, more Americans should work out. Working out is a selfish act, you do for yourself. No system of morality will mean much unless the person has self control. She didn't advocate selfishness in the way we tend to think of it.

Malcolm x is right up there.

And Al Sharpton too.

 

[r2473]

By selfishness she meant self discipline. For example, more Americans should work out. Working out is a selfish act, you do for yourself. No system of morality will mean much unless the person has self control. She didn't advocate selfishness in the way we tend to think of it.

Let's not get too carried away. The first link will show "her place" in the larger picture. The second gives a pretty good picture of her thought (at least from a certain perspecitive).


http://www.friesian.com/hist-3.htm

http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

In "the real world", recall that Greenspan was a disciple of Rand and this very much influenced the way he did things. Critically having a very laissez faire approach to regulation, that was promising for years, but was ultimately devestating, as we realized first with Long Term Capital Management and later when the whole system tetered on the edge. Sure, the reasons for all of this are complex (no single thing is responsible), but letting the markets police themselves (the market will punish bad choices and reward good ones and government should stay out of it) turned out to have near catastrophic effects.

Did anyone see the Frontline program?

http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/

 

[Steady Eddy]

Let's not get too carried away. The first link will show "her place" in the larger picture. The second gives a pretty good picture of her thought (at least from a certain perspecitive).

Let's not get into some false dilemma that Rand was either perfect or perfectly evil. Rand titled one book, The Virtue of Selfishness, probably as a way of shocking the reader and gaining their attention. (Nietzsche did the same sort of thing with titles like Beyond Good and Evil). I only wish to clarify that in many cases, "selfishness" isn't really so bad. For example, if more Americans were "selfish" and exercised regularly, health insurance would be much more affordable. All problems can't be attributed to "you're just thinking of yourself".

It's not surprising that her views would not be valued much by academics. Academics usually aren't very open to people outside of disciplines.

Thanks for the links!

 

[r2473]

I think we can agree.

Most people would substitue the word "selfishness" with "personal responsibility".

As you say, Rand wanted to shock the reader (advocating personal responsibility isn't going to sell too many books). Rand goes deeper than that of course, but I'm addressing only what you are highlighting in Rand's work.

At a basic level, agreeing with and living in accordance with this piece of Rand would help a lot of people. In the words of Kris Kristofferson:

"If you waste your time a-talkin' to the people who don't listen,
"To the things that you are sayin', who do you think's gonna hear.
"And if you should die explainin' how the things that they complain about,
"Are things they could be changin', who do you think's gonna care?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTC26gcFSlo

The links are interesting. The Frontline program is very interesting IMO. It will only take an hour out of your day and will be an hour well spent.

 

[Claudius]

Ayn Rand received Social Security and Medicare benefits, while decrying all forms of welfare. How do you even take such a hypocrite seriously?

 

[r2473]

Ayn Rand received Social Security and Medicare benefits, while decrying all forms of welfare. How do you even take such a hypocrite seriously?

She probably would not have been in favor of the program(s).

But, she did (and was forced to) pay into them.

On a side note, for all the bad press it gets, Social Security has been and remains one of the greatest programs ever created.

You do realize that it is still running a huge surplus (and was the lions share of the "surplus" of the early 2000's)?

Also, it won't go away. Simply put, at around 2017, the payments out will start to exceed the payments in (it has always been the other way around). At that point, we will have to dip into the fund principal to meet obligations.

Around 2030, the fund will be "broke". What this means is that the only money in the program will be the money coming in each month from paychecks. It doesn't mean that there is "no money". Where do you imagine the money from the payroll tax line called FICA will go?

The fixes are "easy".

We reduce to payments out. Normally, this comes in the form of increasing the age at which we can receive full benefits, encouraging us to work longer, and thus collect less (and variations on this theme).

We increase payments in. The so called "2% rule". If payments in were increase by 2% across the board (and nothing else changed), Social Security would be solvent until about 2070 they say.

Anyway, Rand should be read when you are young, so you can embrace the philosophy and be in a position to reject it later.

 

[chrischris]

Dan Ellisberg