Business

More Than 100,000 ‘Atlas Shrugged Part 1’ DVD Title Sheets Need to Be Replaced Because of Poor Wording

For fans of the film “Atlas Shrugged Part 1,” there is good news and there is bad news.

The good news is that your DVD is available. The bad news is that you may want to contact the filmmakers for a new title sheet.

On the back of the film’s retail DVD case, the movie’s synopsis reads, “AYN RAND’s timeless novel of courage and self-sacrifice comes to life… [emphasis added]”

Although the description may seem innocuous at first, avid followers of the philosophy behind “Atlas Shrugged” know that the term “self-sacrifice” is completely antithetical to the idea of Objectivism.

In an effort to correct this seeming lapse into unorthodoxy, the producers of the film have announced that they will “replace more than 100,000 title sheets,” reports Gawker.

Apparently, whoever wrote the synopsis hadn’t seen the movie, read the book, or heard of Ayn Rand. It would be the same if someone were to write a synopsis for the 1994 biopic “Cobb” and claim that it faithfully depicts Ty Cobb’s love of good sportsmanship and his jovial, carefree manner.

More Than 100,000 ‘Atlas Shrugged Part 1’ DVD Title Sheets Need to Be Replaced Because of a Poor WordingPictured above: Ty Cobb’s jovial “spikes up” manner.

“It’s embarrassing for sure and of course, regardless of how or why it happened, we’re all feeling responsible right now.” said Scott DeSapio, a spokesman for Atlas Productions, according to the films official blog.

“You can imagine how mortified we all were when we saw the DVD but, it was simply too late–the product was already on shelves all over the country. It was certainly no surprise when the incredulous emails ensued. The irony is inescapable,” he added.

In fact, fans found the term “self-sacrifice” to be so incongruous with Rand’s message that the DVD distributor has set up a web site for customers to request a new title sheet.

More Than 100,000 ‘Atlas Shrugged Part 1’ DVD Title Sheets Need to Be Replaced Because of a Poor Wording

The reaction against the synopsis shouldn’t come as a surprise.

After all, critics and devotees alike agree that “self-sacrifice,” or altruism (defined by Webster as a “Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; — opposed to egoism or selfishness”), would be the last term one would use to describe “Atlas Shrugged.”

Take, for instance, William F. Buckley Jr. who, in reference to Whittaker Chamber’s review of her book, criticized Rand for promoting a “scorn for charity, for altruism.”

And before Rand supporters start accusing Buckley of being a “neo-con,” a RINO, or of not “getting it,” remember that this is the same man who helped make Ronald Reagan’s presidency a possibility; his conservative credentials are unquestionable.

But let’s put Buckley aside for a moment.

What did Whittaker Chambers, the man who penned “Witness,” a work that would later bring the superb journalist Robert Novak into the conservative fold, say about Rand’s philosophy?

It’s pretty scathing:

That Dollar Sign is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads. More importantly, it is meant to seal the fact that mankind is ready to submit abjectly to an elite of technocrats, and their accessories, in a New Order, enlightened and instructed by Miss Rand’s ideas that the good life is one which “has resolved personal worth into exchange value,” “has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash-payment.’” The author is explicit, in fact deafening, about these prerequisites. Lest you should be in any doubt after 1168 pages, she assures you with a final stamp of the foot in a postscript: “And I mean it.” But the words quoted above are those of Karl Marx. He, too, admired “naked self-interest” (in its time and place), and for much the same reasons as Miss Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment.

Granted, one could argue that his treatment of “Atlas Shrugged” is a bit heavy-handed, but it‘s an undeniable fact that Rand’s philosophy “scorns” altruism.

And it’s not just her critics who say so–she herself has denounced the concept on numerous occasions:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one‘s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one‘s ego and the integrity of one’s ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul — (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one’s soul?) — Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men’s natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work.

Indeed, Rand‘s philosophy maintains that man’s “highest moral purpose is the achievement of [his] own happiness.” It seems that this would involve the rejection of altruism because selflessness for its own sake, according to Objectivism, is “irrational.”

Watch Ayn Rand address altruism at the 3:00 mark (however, it may prove beneficial to watch the entire video, especially at the 5:15 mark):

After reading some of Rand’s harshest critics, and taking her own view of altruism into account, one comes to the inevitable conclusion that it would be incorrect to use the term “self-sacrifice“ in describing ”Atlas Shrugged.”

Realizing this, the filmmaker’s have decided to change the DVD title sheet so that it reads,  “AYN RAND’s timeless novel of rational self-interest comes to life…[emphasis added]“

This would seem to be a much more accurate and appropriate synopsis.

Comments (188)

1 2 3 4
  • raiderglenn
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:59am

    a “1st!” post major fail… hehe

    Report Post » raiderglenn  
  • FlowerBell
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:21am

    In my own self interest I believe I will keep my money and not buy the DVD.

    Report Post » FlowerBell  
  • Chet Hempstead
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:13am

    I think I have found the answer to the philosophical paradox that so befuddled Ms. Rand. The secret is that altruism can actually be part of achieving your own happiness if you are a good person rather than a creep.

    Report Post »  
    • raiderglenn
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:57am

      She wasn‘t ’befuddled’ at all, she knew exactly what she believed and stuck to it. It is you who is befuddled about how anyone could not think the same way as you do… must be something wrong with them if they don’t have your same take on everything…

      here is altruism in a nutshell for you sheeple out there:

      give a man a fish and he’ll take it,
      then he’ll show up the next day looking for another fish,
      then he will show up the next day with his wife and kids looking for 4 fish,
      then his friends will hear and 10 will show up looking for 20 fish(10 for them today and 10 for tomorrow so they can sleep in instead of coming again),
      then 100 will show up every day and demand all your fish…
      when you don’t have any more, they will occupy your store and call you the devil!

      Altruism might make you feel good, but it does nothing but harm to those you foist it upon…

      Report Post » raiderglenn  
    • Miami
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:05am

      You would first need to learn how to feed yourself before you could feed others…

      Report Post » Miami  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:24am

      (sorry my Little White Brother Glenn Beck). Ayn Rand had a convoluted and delusional mind. She lived for socialism, and she sucked entitlements all the days of her worthless life. The fact that she had to be on drugs (probably cocaine) is the likely reason she had no clue what the teachings of Christ Jesus were. I’d be shocked to actually discover she ever read the Bible.

      When I want to talk about Economics I’ll pull down my books by Milton Friedman.
      When I want to talk about liberty and individual rights, I’ll read any number of the American Founders.
      When I want to learn of war, I’ll read books about Patton, or Schwartzkopf.
      When I want to learn to be a leader of men, I’ll read the leadership secrets of Attila the Hun.
      When I want to know the Bible, I’ll ask the Holy Spirit to teach me.
      When I want to discuss know about Marxism, I’ll learn about Lenin, or Stalin or Wilson, or Obama.
      When I want to learn about “right” liberty, I’ll read Thomas Jefferson.
      When I want to read about perversion, and abject ignorance and stupidity, I’ll read Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • koyettsu
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:52am

      Altruism is a major problem, the timeless saying applies here, “You can give a man a fish and he will eat for a day or you can teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.” People in dire need should get help from family, friends or citizens but never from helped stolen from hard working productive citizens. No one should be getting long term assistance unless they are severely physically handicapped, people must take care of themselves.

      The more you hand out the more they will need and the more damage you do to them. Altruism is a disease that is inflicted on people in need and traps them for the rest of their lives as a victim instead of allowing them to hit bottom, drag themselves out and make themselves a better person. The more you people think you are helping people the more you are ruining their lives and the lives of their children. You are literally creating an entire class of slaves whose lives are controlled by you the slave master.

      Let them care for themselves, life will suck until they work their way out of it but until you let them do that they will be depressed and broken.

      Report Post »  
    • raiderglenn
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:54am

      @The10thAmendment,

      maybe you should actually read it, then comment on what it has to offer. that way you wouldn’t sound like such a fool to those who have read it. (I know its such a big book, it might be hard to get thru it all…)

      Report Post » raiderglenn  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 3:27am

      @ raiderglenn
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:54am

      @The10thAmendment,

      maybe you should actually read it, then comment on what it has to offer. that way you wouldn’t sound like such a fool to those who have read it. (I know its such a big book, it might be hard to get thru it all…)
      —————————————————————————————————————————————–
      I’ve read it a couple of times. I’ve also taken the time to research Rand (that’s not her name by the way, that was her typewriters brand).

      Rand was a moron, and though she tried to write something she knew would sell (predatory marketing), she lived and died for, and ON the entitlements of socialism. Maybe if you would make the effort to actually know the subject matter, you wouldn’t open your mouth and remove all doubts about your ignorance.

      I do have a question. Does your ass get jealous over the crap that comes out of your mouth?

      The10thAmendment  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 3:47am

      @RAIDERGLENN
      I’ve read every bit of published writing that exists of Rand. I’ve read Atlas shrugged through twice. I understand her arguments completely. Rand was wrong. Rand didn‘t understand Christianity and Rand didn’t understand the difference between voluntary charity and socialism – which is the same problem socialists/collectivists have.

      For one, if a man is dehydrated and dying teaching him how to dig a well isn’t going to save his life. It’s a waste of time. You have to save someone before you can teach them how to do anything to improve their life. Teaching is in-and-of-itself a generous giving thing to do. A human isn‘t meant to live as an island to themselves any more than they’re meant to be clones of one another for the sake of equality.

      Jesus doesn’t mandate how much to give and in what manner one should give. Jesus doesn’t tell us to think of others to our own detriment. Jesus tells us to treat others as we would want to be treated. Jesus tells us to be generous. But Jesus also tells us to be wise with our gifts (talents) and wealth. He tells us to invest our talents and wealth in ways that are productive. Jesus tells us to do our very best. To do everything we do as if it was for God. Jesus tells us to strive for perfection.

      Ayn Rand became familiar with the tendency of the Catholic church, the Universalists, and the new-age Christians of her day that believed that government welfare was equivalent to Christian charity. It is not. That

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 4:10am

      koyettsu
      You have a limited view of altruism. You seem to imagine that the man who teaches another to fish is not as altruistic or more altruistic than the man who gives away a fish. You’ve been told that altruism is stupid, so you think that only stupidity can be altruistic.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 4:16am

      @ MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 3:47am
      ——————————————————————————————————————–
      People read the book and they think those are the ideals of Rand. They are anything but. She may have a claim in position with-in the Libertarian movement, but it ends at the door. Her Romanticism was founded on the mixture of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. Anyone who has ever studied Nietzsche in particular are confronted with all of Rands idea’s in a nutshell, and yet, some people claim that Rand projected moralism, but that’s a complete lie. She platformed moral equivalence.

      Atlas Shrugged is cartoon book essentially no different than the superhero’s portrayed by Drew Martin.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • mr molotov cocktail
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 4:46am

      lol at raiderglen she was a welfare queen a lowly- taker she took both social security and medicaid plus state welfare!
      she was nothing more then trash she lacked healthcare she should of been denied-healthcare she should of died on the street!~
      fricken fracken stupid ayn rand cultists!

      Report Post » mr molotov cocktail  
    • Caunotaucarius
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 5:09am

      10th ammendment, you are ignorant of Ayn’s life. She rejected socialism. She collected social security only and has given interviews justifying it, ie she was being taxed and was only reclaiming her property that was stolen from her by a socialist tax. When you want to know the bible you’ll invoke an invisible spirit to tell you about it? Delusional much there buddy? Without the bible to first tell you what to believe you might not even know of Jesus or god if the bible was never written. She used something called reason to justify ethics based on natural law without it being laid out for her in a book like you did. She had a principled, open, and individualist mind, unlike yourself.

      Report Post » Caunotaucarius  
    • Caunotaucarius
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 5:20am

      @ Molotov

      she was nothing more then trash she lacked healthcare she should of been denied-healthcare she should of died on the street!~
      fricken fracken stupid ayn rand cultists!

      Your ignorance betrays you. First learn the difference between then and than (hint you didn’t use the correct one). I believe that is what first grade English class? You are also apparently unaware that she gave reasoning and justification for accepting those socialist programs. She has said that she was reclaiming her property ($) that was in essence stolen from her through force of government for a socialist program. How very kind of you to wish that she had died in the street. I‘m glad it’s people like you who rail against her and others of similar individualist philosophies and make up lies about her like 10th amendment’s claim she was influenced by Marx and Nietzsche, two completely unsubstantiated claims. When in fact she railed against any system that lacked private property, she even condemned the left libertarians who wanted a stateless society of communal property rights. She was most adamant against using state force for your own benefit. So next time try having some actual research to back up your lies.

      Report Post » Caunotaucarius  
    • raiderglenn
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 6:03am

      And the hufpo trolls spew their talking points…. bla, bla, bla…

      Now, do I have an altar to Rand set up in my basement? no…

      Do I believe in the values put forth in Atlas Shrugged? That a man’s work is his? That he should not be compelled to give it away? That any government that doesn’t keep its hands off of everyone’s property is tyrannical? That blind charity leads to hopeless dependence? YES! I believe all of that!

      Report Post » raiderglenn  
    • teamarcheson
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 6:11am

      She Had No Way Of Knowing That In The Future The Federal Government Would Nationalize Railroads

      Her novel depicts railroads as being privately owned. Our nationalized railroads are the worst on Earth. AMTRAK is a failure. Its service is terrible, workers are rude, dirty, dangerous and untrustworthy. Rail lines are shut down and torn up rather than repaired. But then it does not matter because the nation as we use to know it is Gone With the Wind.

      The TEA cannot save you now.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 6:17am

      @ Caunotaucarius
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 5:09am

      ————————————————————————————————————————-
      Ah yes, the deflective defense of America’s second most egotistical despot, Ayn Rand. Sorry she was nothing but a selfish whore, and a collective tramp. Interesting that her little gatherings were known as “the collective” whose entire basis of interaction can be taken directly from the communist playbook of infiltration and destruction.

      Ayn Rand influenced no one but the weak minded anarchists, like you. The “liberty” she proclaimed was no liberty at all, because it gave no audience to the equal rights of others, but christened self to be the entirety of all that good meant. She like you, would be one of the Occupy Wall Street creeps, because why? Attention whores of the me, me, me society. Spare me your distorted verse of ambiguity. While she, Rand, is credited (and I’m sure she strutted so from every account of her disgusting, and immoral life) with the ideologies associated with Libertarian ideals, she’s nothing of the kind. That title should go to Rose Wilder Lane, and Isabel Paterson. Both fundamentally, and essentially greater than the parasite Rand.

      Rand should have given proper credits for her plagiarism of not only Atlas Shrugged, but the earlier novel Fountainhead.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 6:27am

      @ raiderglenn
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 6:03am

      And the hufpo trolls spew their talking points…. bla, bla, bla…

      Now, do I have an altar to Rand set up in my basement? no…
      ———————————————————————————————————————-
      Obviously you have that altar built in your head, since you are apparently as heartless as your idol Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum.

      I could care less if you worship Rand, and her plagiarized works, that’s your right. But to think that you can toss that salad and expect critical thinkers to eat it up without asking what it is and weighing its flavor is absurd.

      Do yourself a favor and not just read the glowing adoration reviews of Rand, read her critics and the reasons for their dismissal of her egoistic irrationality.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • jhaydeng
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 6:55am

      I think the synosis is perfedt! If you want to expose lots of people to your product leave it!!! A normal human being will understand the message if you just let them think for themselves for once!

      Report Post »  
    • raiderglenn
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:16am

      @The10thAmendment

      your own words show you for what you are here. you spew vile hate at someone and then call someone else heartless… too funny…

      so what part of my post makes me heartless?

      [That a man’s work is his?] this one? so you favor some degree of slavery then?

      [That he should not be compelled to give it away?] Or its this? you believe that charity should be by force? kinda back to the slavery thing again…

      [That any government that doesn’t keep its hands off of everyone’s property is tyrannical?] or is it this one? not slavery, just serfdom perhaps?

      [That blind charity leads to hopeless dependence?] the worst of them all! what a heartless SOB I am… I just can’t get past the evidence of what the welfare state has done to 3 generations now… economic slavery…

      spew whatever inane crap you want my way…. just don’t try to go thru these points or you might have trouble keeping your story strait

      Report Post » raiderglenn  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:18am

      In life there are many polarities which we must straddle. Both sides are true, but not at the expense of the other. Free will versus determinism: We all know there are forces that influence our actions and thoughts but we also believe that we are in some sense free, and without that belief moral thought is impossible. Nature versus nurture. It’s always a little of both. Faith versus good works: Both are needed. Individualism versus the community: every man is accountable to God but “it is not good that man should be alone”

      Ayn Rand was a genius in showing the pure form of one side of the tension that human beings must live with if we are to be civilized and moral. Pure collectivism is evil. Socialism destroys the human spirit. She showed this by opposing it with pure individualism. But anyone who thinks that such individualism ALONE can create a sustainable or even tolerable human society, let alone achieve human happiness, is deluded. Sadly, Rand was one of those deluded individuals. She exemplifies the very essence of rational fanaticism, as opposed to simple madness, in that she rigidly held to only one side of the polarity and spurned any idea that it might need to be moderated even slightly by a contrasting idea.

      Her inability to understand the cross is the key to her misunderstanding of everything. But there are many who don’t understand, so she’s in good company. The Marxists and Muslims don’t understand it either.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:43am

      @10thAmendment,

      Interesting. You do realize that Milton Friedman was an Austrian school economist. That being in line from Ludwig von Mises. Von Mises and Rand were fans of each other’s works in various ways and Objectivism aligned with praxeology sans some disagreement on apriori. In fact, Rand was close with Hayek who was a teacher for Friedman.

      Your closed mindedness to “I know what I know” is quite limiting in terms of developing informed opinions. Said differently, I’ve found my faith in the Lord grows stronger when I question it.

      Now, as for the hypocrisy of Rand, on that we can agree. None of us is perfect and all fall short. At some point in my life I hope to have said something meaningful. I’m certain a disection of my life could render it under scrutiny. Take for example the classical liberal hero Jefferson. You read him for “liberty” when he owned slaves. Thomas Paine inspired a revolution of devine providence as an athiest. Ronald Regan argued for collective bargaining as head of the SAG. Rand is a whore eh? Well Franklin was a man whore with syphilis. We can do this all day. Fact is you create standards for your heroes and blindly remove their clay feet and in your enemies you see only flaws. It’s a terribly misinformed and myopic way of engaging in debate and education.

      Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:48am

      @ raiderglenn
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:16am
      ————————————————————————————————————————————————–
      Don’t be mad because I am able to show your complete and utter lack of subject knowledge. You’ve stated that man should be able to keep the fruits of his labor. Of course he should be, but not as described and defined by Ayn Rand. Hers is a perversion of liberty that advocates lawlessness, ie, anarchism. That version of “Capitalism” is better known as socialism. Why do you think the FED under Alan Greenspan became such a den of harlots and thieves? Greenspan, apparently like you, worship the illogical version of Capitalism as an economy, rather than as the civilization that is powered by the Free Market economics prescribed by Milton Friedman.

      Rand plagiarized EVERYTHING she ever wrote in raging against totalitarianism, and what washes out of it as a Capitalism known as Laissez Faire. At face value that sounds all pretty and frilled with lace, but it’s not, nor does it protect the rights of the people but erects a Crony Capitalism of the elite.

      Laws are what binds governance in ensuring the equal rights of the individual. Laissez Faire becomes predatory, and thus the reason the Founders of this Nation wrote the Commerce Claus. Fairness requires regulation so that the equal rights of others is not infringed. Laissez Faire leads directly to anarchy.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:55am

      @ Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:43am

      @10thAmendment,

      Interesting. You do realize that Milton Friedman was an Austrian school economist. That being in line from Ludwig von Mises.
      ————————————————————————————————————————————–
      Actually Rand worshiped Von Mises.

      I’m familiar with Milton Friedmans education, and have every lecture he ever gave on demand. What’s your point? Friedman was aware that some regulations were necessary to keep a Free Market vital, and could only work properly in a governance shackled to a Representative Constitution. Unbridled Capitalism without that are easily corruptible to a centralizing of all wealth creating at the same time, monopolies and monopsonies, ie cronyism, or the tyranny of the elite.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • t00nces2
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:55am

      Ayn‘s Atlas wasn’t really anti altruism, it was more anti self entitled, selfish, unappreciative do gooder who demands the proceeds of others generosity.

      She points out that it isn’t the person or corporation that earns the money and uses it how they see fit who are greedy, but those who have not earned it that demand to have it used how they see fit who are greedy.

      The characters who were successful were very generous until they grew tired of those who were not generating income demanding to be supported or demanding the power to control those who produced.

      It is not anti altruism to be against having YOUR money stolen or controlled.

      Report Post »  
    • veracity79
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:56am

      “And before Rand supporters start accusing Buckley of being a “neo-con,” a RINO, or of not “getting it,” remember that this is the same man who helped make Ronald Reagan’s presidency a possibility; his conservative credentials are unquestionable.”

      How is this journalism? I thought Beck hates this sort of tilt. How about you stick to the facts and let us make up our own minds? As for Reagan, I like a lot of what he did, but let us not forget he did bail out Harley Davidson. Was that capitalism? Was that conservative? Just what we needed, more overpriced, oil-leaking, garbage.

      Report Post »  
    • raiderglenn
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 8:25am

      again, a lot of bla, bla, bla… but nothing at all really… I challenge you to go point for point and you can’t do it.

      you say “You’ve stated that man should be able to keep the fruits of his labor. Of course he should be, but not as described and defined by Ayn Rand. Hers is a perversion of liberty that advocates lawlessness, ie, anarchism. That version of “Capitalism” is better known as socialism.”
      WTF man? put down the crack pipe! you somehow take the idea that a man should be able to keep ALL of his labor and make it socialism or anarchism somehow??? you are totally baked my friend!

      then you say “Laws are what binds governance in ensuring the equal rights of the individual. Laissez Faire becomes predatory, and thus the reason the Founders of this Nation wrote the Commerce Claus. Fairness requires regulation so that the equal rights of others is not infringed. Laissez Faire leads directly to anarchy.”
      totally wrong again… our founders leaned towards less central govt. not more! Thats why they said our system would only work with a moral and just populous. the more LAWS you need to force people to behave like they should on their own, the more FREEDOM you lose!
      as for the commerce claus its clear that a good reading of the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention will show you that the Framers were trying to make the New Republic a FREE TRADE ZONE.

      Report Post » raiderglenn  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 8:47am

      @ raiderglenn
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 8:25am
      ————————————————————————————————————–
      You’re a funny little guy if nothing else. It might do you well to tune out Glenn, or at least follow up on what he suggests, and what Jefferson suggested. “QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS”.

      Government as established by the Founders has 1 purpose, to prevent the harm of all individuals (their rights) by any tyranny. The Constitution was to protect the people. ALL the people. Without Laws there can be no freedom, and that includes economic freedom. To ensure that the equal rights of every citizen to “do, and to succeed”, regulations on Commerce are necessary evils to prevent monopolies and monopsonies. Ayn Rand like Von Mises advocated no regulation and unbounded self glorification where the equal rights of others enterprises does not exist. That creates what? A Tyranny of the Elite.

      Rand promoted self adoration, egoism. “I shall gather unto me, all that is mine, and yours that is mine, because I am all that matters”.

      That type of lawlessness is no liberty at all, because in a Constitutionally Representative Republic it is the Law that gives the power to the government to prevent harm against the equal rights of the individual. Laissez Faire is an economy of anarchism that erects a tyranny.

      There are only so many ways to say that Rand was a quack who understood nothing.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Postolic
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 9:08am

      Just as Karl Marx was the pervayor of social altruism without God, Ayn Rand was the pervayor of individualism without God. They both advocate rebellion from the rulership of God. The problem with both of these view is that without a divine authority to reference morality, there is no way to limit man from realizing the negative effects of extremism. Just as men have committed evils in the name of religion, they have also committed evils in the name of objectivism. This is because one has to submit to the Love of God, and not the love of theirself or their fellow man.

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 9:34am

      The poles of European Socialism are… Communists on the Left… and Fascists on the Right… which has nothing in common with the NonSocialists of America. So, how Ayn Rand ever became associated with the American Right is a mystery… as she is clearly a Social Collectivist and Atheist!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 9:35am

      @ Postolic
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 9:08am
      ————————————————————————————————————-
      Very well stated.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • cecil123
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 10:59am

      The thing that befuddled Ayn Rand was the English language. She admitted to sometimes choosing the wrong word to describe a concept, e.g. “selfishness” should have been “self-interest”.

      Report Post »  
    • You cant handle the truth
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 11:11am

      Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
      Teach a man to fish and he will eat for himself.
      Then he will teach another man, That man will teach another–
      That man will teach another man and so on
      Pretty soon the lake is overun by all these men fishing and you can’t catch a damn thing.

      Report Post »  
    • jakartaman
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:37pm

      Hey 10th,
      leave the kids alone – they are way over their head!
      Ignorance is bliss – they are not stupid just not real smart.
      Cut them some slack

      Report Post »  
    • swenk
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:42pm

      Basing happiness on the mind, on self control, is minimally fulfilling. Happiness is in letting go of the mind… realizing that the mind is just a tool for living, for understanding… we ultimately rely on God for our being and existence and the mind needs to be quiet and listen to hear and understand that. “Thou dost show me the path of life, in thy presence there is fulness of joy… forever more”

      Report Post »  
    • tifosa
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:59pm

      Hypocrisy->definite (do we know that she took out of SS/Medicare ONLY what she paid in, used infrastructure, hospitals, fire/police?) and penultimately consistent: selfish from beginning through BITTER end. Sociopath in rapt admiration of a serial murderer. Gotta love Rand.

      She concludes that the wealthy/powerful are deservedly so because they work harder and are smarter, so if you’re not wealthy and powerful, you’re slothful and ignorant.
      ….or maybe she just had yet to write the book on inheritance, luck, nepotism, exploitation, white-collar crime? (Must be all that laziness that comes with collecting government benefits. :P) Gotta love Rand.

      Flawed then, flawed now. Gotta love Rand.

      Swallow whole.

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • Cesium
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 7:21pm

      Hilarious that 10THAMENDMANT thinks even for a second that Ayn Rand would be at OWS protesting!

      Report Post »  
    • A Conservatarian
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 10:17pm

      The idea that sustains a rational and proper understanding of the words self, selfish, selfishness, self-centered, self-less and the like, is: To understand You, I must understand I (The I, the Ego, Self, etc. your animus, whatever you will call it). Those who do not understand the self, cannot properly understand the I or the You. I is the most misunderstood word, after God, in all of the languages as most do not understand how to grasp what they are or how to do so properly. Further, if you condemn the self in your rantings on these boards and how bad the self is, you condemn not just your self but all others, including whatever spiritual leaders you choose to point out. Any further arguments or debate you wish to make on or from your own behalf becomes quite ironic and frivolous.

      Perhaps Rand’s exposition of the self is not your cup of tea, if not, in that case do read –>> I and You by Martin Buber (or I and Thou; Ich du [in german]). My thoughts where philosophy should head is a synthesis of Buber‘s and Rand’s ideas. For those wanting to understand the real nuts and bolts of Objectivism, drop Atlas Shrugged and pick up An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Rand and Peikoff. If you can handle the grind, it’s a good work the lays out in detail what Objectivism is and how it works.

      For all those that are angered by Rand, take solace in the thought that anger is the first sign that there is something that you are not understanding.

      Report Post » A Conservatarian  
    • eBushy
      Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:03am

      I was stunned as I read these comments that some of you think she was a socialist and collectivist. Read her book The Anthem. You can finish it in 2 hours and then come back and tell me she supports socialism or collectivism. The whole point of that book is to show the evils of socialism and what it looks like in its extreme form. It was about a man who broke off from a socialist society and learned about individuality and the joys of freedom and knowledge, and not vice versa.

      Study John Galt, Francisco, and Rearden, who are the heroes in Atlas Shrugged who portray Ayn Rand’s ideal man. Do they sound like socialists? Are they crony capitalists? Did they love the new regulations and taxes forced upon them? Did they support the corrupt socialist government? Absolutely not.

      Look at the community that Galt and the others created in the book. Was that a socialist system? Was that a crony capitalistic system? Absolutely not.

      THE10THAMENDMENT you should try arguing your points by using her book and the characters instead of just saying she was socialist hypocritical whore who was friends with so and so and worshipped so and so and was influenced by so and so. You remind me of the leftist media.

      I agree with RAIDERGLENN, you guys need to stop smoking the crack pipe while reading her books.

      Report Post » eBushy  
    • eBushy
      Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:27am

      Here is a quote from John Galt.

      “We are on strike. Why should this seem so startling? There is only one kind of men who have never been on strike in human history. Every other kind and class have stopped, when they so wished, and have presented demands to the world, claiming to be indispensable — except the men who have carried the world on their shoulders, have kept it alive, have endured torture as sole payment, but have never walked out on the human race. Well, their turn has come. Let the world discover who they are, what they do, and what happens when they refuse to function. This is the strike of the men of the mind, Miss Taggart, this is the mind on strike.”

      And you say she would support Occupy Wall Street? She knows better then most how ridiculous, mindless, and without reason the OWS movement is. She paints it beautifully in Atlas Shrugged.

      Report Post » eBushy  
    • George Patton
      Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:46am

      Just because the socialists have hijacked language and claim that “altruism” is their motive does not mean we have to accept their premise, as Ayn Rand did, that what they define as altruism actually is altruistic. Yes, altruism as defined by the left is every bit as bad as Ayn Rand believed….but that’s because it is not really altruism.
      When altruism is permanent and without restriction then it ceases to be altruism…its something else, called dependency.
      When altruism is forced it ceases to be altruism and it is something else…theft. Ayn Rand was a human and therefore she was wrong sometimes. Some of you take it to such a crazy extreme that it sounds as if you condemn goodness! To claim that helping someone is actually NEVER really helpful but harmful, is untrue. Did Jesus ever claim that to be generous we should indefinitely support our non-working neighbor and their 7 children? Of course not, but the left defines this as the altruism of Christ…and so does Rand. THE FOUNDING FATHERS LEFT ALTRUISM IN ITS PROPER AND MOST BENEFICIAL PLACE….THE PRIVATE SECTOR. And it was banned from its most harmful and perverted place…government. Madison said to congress in response to the possibility of allocating funds for french refugess from the haitian revolution “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

      Report Post »  
    • George Patton
      Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:47am

      Madison did not oppose benevolence….he opposed government usurping the benevolent role of the individual.

      Report Post »  
    • Apple Bite
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 12:55am

      altruism= Sugar coating the truth
      That’s it in a nut shell….

      Report Post » Apple Bite  
    • thered
      Posted on November 16, 2011 at 12:00pm

      I think the idea is that man’s moral duty is not to serve others it is to pursue your own happiness and comfort. Some people do find joy in helping others, but that’s not the case with everyone.

      Report Post »  
  • Workforit
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:57am

    Come on Blaze… “Atlas Shrugged DVD” – Major Fail”? Your headline bias is showing again…

    This is a great movie and I can’t wait to see the rest of it!

    I don’t care what the cover of the DVD case says… I’ve got a couple of really liberal (socialist) friends that are going to get this movie as a Christmas gift! The irony of this is so thick you could cut it with a butter knife!

    The sad thing is … They won’t even get it.

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 9:52am

      The movie is a fail.. They are not making the rest of it. I don’t know why they made 100K DVDs, they will be lucky if they could sell 100.

      Report Post »  
    • Apple Bite
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 1:04am

      encinom
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 9:52am

      “The movie is a fail.. They are not making the rest of it. I don’t know why they made 100K DVDs, they will be lucky if they could sell 100.”

      Ummm…Anyone have any nuts and ragweed for the troll here? Anybody?

      Report Post » Apple Bite  
  • Pigpen
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:49am

    Article states: “And before Rand supporters start accusing Buckley of being a “neo-con,” a RINO, or of not “getting it,” remember that this is the same man who helped make Ronald Reagan’s presidency a possibility; his conservative credentials are unquestionable.”

    Yes, and he is also the man who took apart the John Birch Society because he found both its members and its founder to be gauche, uncouth, and poorly dressed. In other words, only Yalies and the occasional Harvard boy are entitled to DIRECT or even publicly DISCUSS politics in either this country or this world. Stop selling Buckley, Mr. Adams; he is no friend of the working man. His CREDENTIALS are proof of that. (And I agree with him on most topics, including RR and Ayn Rand. Love RR, unimpressed with Ayn Rand).

    Report Post » Pigpen  
    • Exrepublisheep
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:03am

      Ship it as is. Then ship a corrected version. Its the mistakes that are always worth more to collectors in the end.

      Report Post » Exrepublisheep  
    • MASSACHUSETTS MILITIA
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:47am

      @PIGPEN-
      Nice call. Reagan was a GOOD president. He was not
      a GREAT president. Buckley at one time was relevant.
      His time has passed. JBS is an organization that tells the truth, any individual
      Who says otherwise is not a true conservative.
      Reagan and Buckley= neocon thought process. Buckley has lost his cred.
      Everything I post gets deleted. Haven’t looked at this site in some time. Let’s see
      If Glenn has appointed a site admin that actually believes in free speech….

      Report Post »  
    • mr molotov cocktail
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 4:48am

      ayn rand took welfare state and federal anyone she couldnt even follow through with her own beliefs!
      she was trash anyone who is a libertarian is trash…she should of been denied welfare she should of been thrown on the street she should of died under a bridge!

      Report Post » mr molotov cocktail  
  • ThoreauHD
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:47am

    ’The Encyclopedia Galactica’ defines a robot as being “a mechanical apparatus designed to do the work of a man”. The Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as “your plastic pal who’s fun to be with.” ‘The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ defines the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as “a bunch of mindless jerks who’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes”, with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of Robotics Correspondent. Curiously enough, an edition of ‘The Encyclopedia Galactica’ that fell through a time warp from a thousand years in the future, defined the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as “a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came.”

    Report Post » ThoreauHD  
  • The_Almighty_Creestof
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:45am

    Sounds like she is decribing the Vulcan philosophy. I wonder which came first, Mr. Spock or “Atlas Sgrugged.”

    Report Post »  
  • your sensei
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:42am

    bwa . . . bwaa ha . . . bwa ha ha . . . ha ha . . . bwaaaa haahaa haa haaaaaaaa. . . bwahahhahahhahahahahahaaaaahahahahaahaahhaahahahahhaaaahhahhahaaaaahahahahahahahahhahaha . . .bwa ha

    Report Post » your sensei  
  • oriondma05
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:38am

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I really just want the stinking DVD. I can‘t remember the last time I’ve actually read the box. Just get the DVD to the store one way or another so I can enjoy the film.

    Report Post » oriondma05  
    • Diane TX
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:54am

      I haven’t been to a movie theater in many years. Why, you might ask? Well, it’s because of the annoying “other” people who put their feet up on the back of my seat, or those who talk incessantly during the film, and those that have some need to tell those around them – what’s going to happen next.

      I’ll continue waiting for the DVD to come out, so that I can enjoy it in peace.

      Report Post »  
    • rdietz7
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 3:21am

      Diane you should look for a remote area in a mountain valley hidden away from the rest of the world so you can live in peace. The world does not deserve what you have to offer anyway.

      Report Post » rdietz7  
    • oriondma05
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 11:00am

      I like going to the theatre, but talkers/obnoxious people can ruin the movie.

      RDIET – I don’t think she meant that she was more aloof than other people, merely a comment on how courtesy and manners have been drained out of people. I understand that people may cough or sneeze during a movie but to outright talk through it is obnoxious.

      Report Post » oriondma05  
    • John Morton
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 5:48pm

      The DVD IS out, I’ve had the BluRay version for 5 days already, I watched it twice, I also have the bad cover page.
      It’s only the “Collector‘s Edition’s” that aren’t in stores.
      If you just want to watch the regular movie, you can go out and rent it now, or you can buy it at the store.
      However, there are 4 different collectors versions with bonus-features, but they are not going to stores, you can only buy them online direct from the studio that made the film.

      http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/merchandise

      There is a:
      Collector’s Edition,
      Reason Magazine Edition,
      Atlas Society Edition, and
      FreedomWorks Edition

      The stores didn’t want to sell the Collectors editions,
      because of obvious things like FreedomWorks is one of Glenn’s major sponsors,
      and Media Matters would create a boycott of stores that sold it.

      Report Post »  
    • rdietz7
      Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:07am

      The word for my humor here is facetious. (You have to read the book to get it) I like Diane from TX and agree that home entertainment is sometimes better than attending public venues. Although, I doubt the theatre goers for this movie would be throwing popcorn in your hair.

      Report Post » rdietz7  
  • The Noodle Fish
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:37am

    When I say “Sabotage”, you say “Irony”!

    Sabotage!
    (Irony!)
    Sabotage!
    (Irony!)

    Report Post » The Noodle Fish  
  • IM John Galt
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:32am

    Atlas Shrugged should be read by everyone. Those who read it claim it changed their lives.
    The title sheet was not a mistake. The novel is about courage and self-sacrifice.. it praises courage and individualism, and condemns self sacrifice and collectivism.
    A is A.

    Report Post »  
    • rdietz7
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 3:38am

      It is a good book but really do people have to read it to learn the dangers of Communism? They could just Wikipedia Stalin and get a pretty good idea how dangerous that system is. I really think Rand offers an interesting solution to societies pitfalls but there really is no remedy for her frustrations. It is like saying that we can rid the world of poverty. If Rand was still alive she would just say told ya so. And she would scoff at all of humanity with no love or compassion.

      Just as the poor will always be with us, so will there always be men that try to take power and wield the world to suite to their own standards and needs. And people will suffer at the hands of the dictators. Socialist or collectives will say that anything is permissable as long as it satisfies their goals and objectives. The capitalists and individuals will say look what I did for myself so why can’t they do the same? Both of these systems are flawed and neither will bring us to a utopian society. If they could a, they would a. They’ve had over 6000 years to do it.

      At the end of the day I would be on the Objectiveist train. (No pun intended)

      Report Post » rdietz7  
    • rdietz7
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 3:40am

      BTW, I still have not seen the movie. Nor do I care to. I read the book when most people should. As a teenager. That is who it was really meant for. Adults read history and they watch the signs of the times.

      Report Post » rdietz7  
  • SLARTIBARTFAST
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:26am

    One doesn‘t have to totally agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophy; there is a balance to be struck. If not requesting the replacement title page makes it a bit easier for them to make Part II, then I can live with it. I REALLY want to see this work finished!

    Report Post » SLARTIBARTFAST  
    • 98ZJUSMC
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:40am

      Exactly!

      Report Post » 98ZJUSMC  
    • AZindependent
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 9:40am

      I am looking forward to part 2 and 3, even if they have to be direct to dvd.

      Report Post »  
    • kevininflyovercountry
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:57pm

      loved the book! loved the movie! read WE THE LIVING and have about 100 pgs left in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. I may not agree with 100% of her work, but enough that i read more than one!!

      Report Post »  
  • Socapex
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:24am

    The irony of the synopsis where the writer likely hadn’t seen the movie, read the book, or heard of Ayn Rand isn‘t as amazing as the irony where it is clear as day that Ayn Rand hasn’t read the bible and clearly has no knowledge of Christianity. “a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul” uh, no, you cannot be saved by your good works, salvation is a free gift, it is by grace that we are saved, all you have to do is receive it. You can be a rotten scoundrel all of your life, and call out Jesus in your last breath on your death bed, and odds are you will be saved, such is the love God has for us.

    God is one with His word, and His word, The Holey Bible, is of no private interpretation, read it for yourself. Seriously, you don’t want to miss God, He is wonderful far beyond measure, and He loves you more than you can possibly imagine.

    Report Post » Socapex  
    • LibertarianRight
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 3:38am

      Some denominations of Christianity say baptism is required to be saved. Others say confession or Communion is. Yours may not require these things. Who’s to say which is right?

      Furthermore, while someone may be able to accept Christ on their deathbed and be saved, what of those that choose him earlier in life? Can you honestly say the Bible has no strictures on how they should live, other than according to their conscience and thought process?

      Any rational thought process tells us that charity must be limited. We cannot give to everyone that needs it. Why should I not, even as a Christian, choose to help the people I know and respect first? And why should I not be the one to choose how much I can afford to give? Rand may not have accepted Christianity, but that doesn’t make her completely wrong on this. In fact, it was likely the way the major denominations taught Christian doctrine in her time that caused her misconception.

      The Bible speaks of “good works”. It doesn’t, however, really define this outside of the legalistic manner of the Pharisees that Christ himself preached against. Why can’t the individual determine what those are themselves? This is the simplest answer – to allow individuals to sort out their own relationships with the Almighty. And thus, Rand’s philosophy of government is compatible with tolerant religions of any stripe, including Christianity, as government is removed from determining right and wrong outside of preventing inju

      Report Post »  
  • One Man Progressive Wrecking Crew
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:23am

    That sounds like a big deal printing wise aside from the word clash issue, but frankly printing wise that’s really a short run on a large format 5 color press and some cutting, to them not much at all. An single DVD insert is 5 1/4 by 7 1/4 which can be run about 16 up on a 23 X 35 perfecting press (2 sides at once) which means about 6,250 sheets of paper plus makeready,(warm up paper) which is really an hour of press time.

    How they get them to the customers is a different thing although they could bulk rate those out if they put em on card stock and the one side had the postage indicia, or they could put em at Blockbusters or something like that and print em on thinning gloss enamel stock and save money there on postage and paper.

    These mistakes happen all the time (daily) all over the printing industry because most of the people want everything yesterday and stuff gets rushed and don’t count out the idiots coming out of our colleges today that are being hired in this business. That got by some college grad typesetter or designer guaranteed, as I know from 20 years in the commercial printing industry with 10 at the Tribune and now as a freelance artist and web coder and have done it myself!!

    Report Post » One Man Progressive Wrecking Crew  
  • TheGreyPiper
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:13am

    The brilliant and engaging English Catholic apologist,G.K. Chesterton, had a habit of taking two seemingly opposite concepts and showing how they were really the same thing in some way. For example, he chided both the contemporary Prohibitionists (yes, they were in the UK too) and alcoholics for being the same in that they treated alcohol as a drug rather than a drink. In the same way, he accused both Communism and capitalism (at least of the extreme Randist school) of making the same fundamental error of treating Man as a unit of economic production, and not, first and foremost, as a spiritual being.

    He advocated an idea called Distributism – not a complete system, more of an ideal, where all were free to do their own work and make their own way as they would, with the economic role of government limited to seeing that everyone had the essentials to start off with, and succeed or fail as they might: possibly in the way the West was homesteaded. As I say, he never formulated a specific methodology. His favorite emblem of this was the Scriptural “Every man his own vine and fig tree.”

    As well as being a brilliant amateur theologian, he was also the author of the “Father Brown” mystery series.

    Report Post » TheGreyPiper  
    • artistskeptic
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:27am

      But after all that :who is John Gault” you pseudointellectuals are trying to destroying rational thought.

      Report Post »  
    • Pigpen
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:14am

      Bravo, PIPER, bravo. Well said. The godless are hard for me to understand, as are the laissez-faire capitalists. Look, the early days of the corporation, the robber-barons, etc. all prove to this Irishman, that if the government did start an “objectivist” approach to the economy, MY pasty, white @ss would be right back down the coal mine with a wage that can’t afford milk for the baby. BUT, we didn’t throw away capitalism, and we didn’t outlaw corporations, and we are ALL better off for it. It is the same with today’s unions. YES, the current Unions’ behavior is both egregious and inexcusable. BUT, like with corporations, it would be STUPID to get rid of unions. After all, my fellows, how can the market efficient wage be found on a wage if there is only DOWNWARD pressure on the wage? NO, a man CAN’T just take it or leave it. There is NO longer a FRONTIER to which one can escape and farm and hunt and live off the land. And unlike corporations, a worker can’t be shelved or shutdown until the economy improves. You HAVE to eat EVERYDAY! So BOTH unions and corporations must exist. BUT neither must EVER get upper hand! !

      Report Post » Pigpen  
    • KNaggieland
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:31am

      ARTISTSKEPTIC
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:27am
      But after all that :who is John Gault” you pseudointellectuals are trying to destroying rational thought.

      Uh that is John Galt spelled G A L T and could we get an english translation of that last thought please?

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 8:50am

      Excellent comment. But i would expect no less from someone appreciative of Chesterton.

      Life is balance, and the incomprehensible holding together of the antipodes.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
  • YoungBloodNews
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:08am

    Why not read THE BOOK? Straight from the author? Oh, thats right, America likes to be entertained, short attention spans and all…

    Report Post » YoungBloodNews  
    • CatB
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:52am

      Many have read the book and want to see the movie .. others may want to see the movie first and then read the book .. usually the book is so much better than the movie that if you do it the first way you are disappointed .. it doesn’t have to be one or the other.

      Report Post »  
    • YoungBloodNews
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:02am

      @CAT

      Ive read the book, heck its in a shelf next to me, and its thick as hell. I stand by my claim most people are too lazy to read. If you doubt this please engage my generation in a conversation on this topic. Most will defer to pop culture, partying, and the latest MTV craze.

      Report Post » YoungBloodNews  
    • Av8tor056
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 8:03am

      What was that you were saying? Sorry, my short attention span got in the way. What were we talking about again?
      I’ve read the book several times. I picked up the DVD the day it was released. What’s the problem?

      Report Post » Av8tor056  
  • Robert999
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:07am

    If you have the DVD, don’t turn it in. The one with the mistake may be valuable some day, like the stamp printed with the upside down airplane.

    Report Post »  
  • Diane TX
    Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:07am

    I have the DVD with the words as described above. Frankly, I just don’t “get” the people who prefer Socialism over Capitalism. Are they completely unaware that Socialism is FAILING, at this moment in time, in the European Coalition?

    The United States of American is successful BECAUSE we chose Capitalism over Socialism and/or Communism. The OWS people are 100% wrong in their belief that the purpose of the Federal Government is to provide social services of shelter and food to Americans. Their main purpose is defend and protect Americans from those who want to conquer us.

    Report Post »  
  • sbenard
    Posted on November 12, 2011 at 11:59pm

    I have just come to the conclusion that I will not be buying or viewing this DVD. Unlike Rand, I believe there is no contradiction between individualism and altruism. It is a careful balancing act between accountability and stewardship of the resources God has given us. That’s one of the great challenges of life — to balance all our resources, including time, material means, emotional support, and charity. Pure selfish-interest cankers the soul. Charity and altruism exalt it!

    Report Post » sbenard  
    • quickstudy
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:01am

      Would you be kind to someone else if it made you miserable to do so?

      Report Post »  
    • artistskeptic
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:11am

      OMG, it is a movie of an OLD novel written by an athiestic communist which is for ENTERTAINMENT!! Anyone feeble minded enough to be influenced by a novel/movie has no true intellect so they would be voting with the getto-trailer-park slugs anyway so who the hell cares.

      Report Post »  
    • tiredofdeception
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:13am

      Your condemnation is a knee-jerk reaction. The philosophy of individualism is in context to the role of government.
      What YOU do is YOUR business. What government MANDATES or FORCES you to do is a whole ‘nother ballgame.

      Report Post »  
    • LibertarianRight
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 3:27am

      @ArtistSkeptic Learning new ideas, and potentially adopting them, from a novel or movie is “feeble-minded”? Really? And here I was thinking that referred to people like you that formed an opinion based on misinformation and shut your mind to change. Especially since nothing Ayn Rand wrote was for the base purpose of entertainment.

      And for the record, Rand didn’t have a problem with the act of charity – many of the heroes of her novels were charitable. They were, however, charitable only to people they felt DESERVED their charity – not of a notion that they were supposed to be charitable to anyone, but out of respect for the individuals that benefited from their actions.

      Report Post »  
    • Andrew Panken
      Posted on November 16, 2011 at 1:15pm

      Some are so ignorant to think that “Ayn Rand, the author of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” is a communist and collectivist. I say it is you who have demonstrated your collectivist thought patterns by failing to read her works. There just isn’t anyway after reading her books, which are hated by socialist liberals, could be communist. I guess ignorance is as common on the right as the left. Just hate on the lady without thinking. Why bother thinking when you can just make conclusions based on other’s thoughts. That would make you a second hander. Though, you would never know even think about such a “complex’ idea. Might mean get up off the couch, putting away the remote control and reaching for a “book”. I would call you a Commie hating Commie. LOL!!

      Report Post »  
  • quickstudy
    Posted on November 12, 2011 at 11:58pm

    So get a copy and put some tape over the original words “courage and self-sacrifice“ and write over the tape ”rational self-interest”. Done.

    Report Post »  
  • TheGreyPiper
    Posted on November 12, 2011 at 11:55pm

    I don‘t care who y’are, that’s funny!

    Report Post » TheGreyPiper  
  • FaithfulFriend
    Posted on November 12, 2011 at 11:49pm

    Pre-ordered my copy weeks ago and it came the day after the release just this week. I won‘t register for the fix as I’m more interested in the producers producing.

    Report Post » FaithfulFriend  
    • jzs
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:18am

      Everyone should listen to this video in full. Ayn Rand, like Nietzsche before her, proposed a system of ethics where the individual was supreme and defined his own morality based on his own interest, apart from the interest of anyone else. In this ethical system, empathy is a weakness, concern for other, except to the degree they can help you achieve your goals, is a weakness. The man, the superman, is supreme, and he defines morality, what is right, by those things that further his happiness.

      To many Republicans, Ayn Rand’s books are their bibles, although they profess belief in Christ and the Bible. But Rand mocked Christ and everything he believed. She was an athiest who ridiculed those who would help those less fortunate, those who do nothing to support goals of the powerful.

      Watch the video, and decide if you can love both Christ and Ayn Rand.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Shotgun167
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:47am

      And yet, the hero of the book, Hank Reardon, chooses to break the law and put himself at risk in order to help a small tractor manufacturer that comes to him asking for steel. Why would Ayn Rand portray such an act of altruism in a such a positive light?

      Do you think you might be missing something about the philosophy, JZS?

      Report Post »  
    • your sensei
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:15am

      Because he turned to himself and not to god. Man is refuge/source/provider to an atheist like Rand.

      Report Post » your sensei  
    • spikebu
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:38am

      @JZ…You disregard the fact that the characters have empathy, just not with people they vehemently disagree with. Should I show empathy to the Shia man who buries his daughter alive because she dishonored him by being raped? No. My empathy goes to the daughter. You can think he’s right. Your mind is up to you. Do you comprehend the meaning of empathy? My morality is birthed from my personal beliefs, not “interests”. If my morality was based on interest, it would change every few days.
      Simple fact is, I do not want what I did not earn.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 9:03pm

      Watch the video, listen to her words, and then tell me if you agree with her. You haven’t watched the video.

      Report Post » jzs  
  • the hawk
    Posted on November 12, 2011 at 11:49pm

    There sounds like some closet rino’s & libs got involved .

    Report Post »  
  • CatB
    Posted on November 12, 2011 at 11:48pm

    I wonder if that is why Amazon has not sent my order yet .. they are usually really good .. but it came out on the 8th and still has not shipped .. now I may know why .. ship the movie … I just want to watch it! Also want the rest of my order!

    Report Post »  
    • wearelegion
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 11:04pm

      I purchased the only two copies at Walmart and a Blue Ray at BestBuy. There were only two copies there. When I saw it at the theater in Terre Haute, Indiana, they were showing it on the afternoon matinee when most people wer working. The left loves to denegrate opposing ideas.

      Report Post » wearelegion  
  • Tear Em Up
    Posted on November 12, 2011 at 11:45pm

    The left is trying to co-opt the message of Atlas Shrugged?? Do they have no shame??

    http://traffic.libsyn.com/mikeleeandterrymartin/Number_89_Nov._12th._2011.mp3

    Report Post » Tear Em Up  
    • tiredofdeception
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:15am

      Nope. They have no shame and never have. However, they will ruin you by drowning you in manufactured shame, if it suits their ends.

      Report Post »  
    • One Man Progressive Wrecking Crew
      Posted on November 13, 2011 at 1:24am

      Dittos on that Tear and Tired!!! .they (not all but far too many) have no morality, no pride, no self worth, no direction, no values, no goals, no loyalty, no work ethic, no work experience, no knowledge of American History or world history for that much, no honesty, no useful education because We over 30 know what they learn in college today we were learning in middle school in the 50-70‘s and early 80’s.

      They also have no value of money, they have no respect for elders or GOD, so on other words, they‘re the all around antithesis of what AMERICANS have been all about since our country’s inception until again the end of Reagan’s 2nd term for the most part is when the wheels started coming off.

      More specifically when the commander in chief lied to the faces of the American people about his sexual predator hobby and the manipulation and exploitation of an intern who‘s parents sent her to DC to learn about the ’greatness’ of American Governance…lololololl and it’s been downhill ever since.

      This nation used to consist of the best, the brightest, the hardest working, most goal oriented, like polar opposites and that’s why we clash with this “for REAL nowhere (wo)man generation” like ketchup and chocolate. Even the slaves were better citizens and Americans than most of the under 30 crowd today and frankly far less bitter and angry!!! Which is absolutely incredulous but true. :(

      Report Post » One Man Progressive Wrecking Crew  
    • nolemming
      Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:38pm

      Terrific, one and all!

      Report Post » nolemming  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love