Francisco Ferrer

If I had actually bought a diamond, filed an insurance claim or made a purchase through a stock broker, I would realize that since I had suffered no fraud, no one else could either. We call this the logic of composition. And what is the point of a law, if it does not serve to deter? (As if deterrence were needed in the insurance industry which never makes a payout without a fool-proof investigation.) Why would any victim of Bernie Madoff want to sue him? It won't stop another Madoff, will it? Finally, what good is a law against lying politicians? As Moralist has observed, since the citizens of the United States deserve socialism, anything that interferes with the delivery of that socialism is an act of injustice,

If a stupid person deserves to be defrauded in Chile, then why wouldn't it follow that a stupid person deserves to be defrauded in the United States? What would be the point of having government protect people from liars and charlatans? Surely we don't want to save people from the consequences of the own actions? Just as people in America deserve Obama, so they also deserve credit card fraud, insurance fraud, pension fraud, real estate fraud, and concert ticket fraud. Let's call it winnowing the herd. People who keep their own cow never have to worry about buying spoiled milk.

As we all know, the omniscience of insurance companies prevents them from ever having to pay a false claim. Ever. With his reputation in the balance, no stockbroker has ever committed fraud. Ever. And no diamond merchant would ever be stupid enough to sell fakes. Ever. Furthermore, since those scenarios are impossible to imagine and since caveat emptor is the guiding principle of the free market, why not abolish all laws against fraud? If the one out of a million chance of a fraud ever occurred, wouldn't the victim deserve it?

And for godsakes don't prosecute the Madoffs! They provide a sort Darwinian clean-up of the slow movers. Someone hacked your ID and cleaned out your savings? You deserved it, sucker!

Nobody deserves to be fleeced, swindled, defrauded, robbed, beaten, molested, raped, or murdered. That's why we call them "crimes." There is an old saying: Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware. If people get less than a bargain because they did not exercise due caution, then perhaps they brought their woes upon themselves. Ba'al Chatzaf Then there should be no prosecution for fraud. A jeweler sells a customer a piece of glass and calls it a 14 carat diamond. The customer is not entitled to a refund. A stock broker sells a customer 100 shares of McDonald's. The stock certificates are counterfeit. The customer deserves the worthless paper. A man falsely files a disability claim with his insurance company and collects $100,000. The insurance company cannot get their money back. It's their own fault they gave money to a liar. Everybody who is deceived must be stupid. Stupid people don't deserve to keep what they have.

I want to thank you . . . and say I'm stunned. I'm not used to that kind of courtesy and honesty on internet forums.

Like a few 'Nam vets I know, Uncle Joe was paranoid. That'll teach him to murder 40 million.

Do people off their rocker suffer anguish for their transgressions?

Nobody deserves to be fleeced, swindled, defrauded, robbed, beaten, molested, raped, or murdered. That's why we call them "crimes."

So when he says, "we have to let only the fit breed," he means he will to set up his own police force? Well, that gives us at least one alternative to the monopoly.

I see, you're not an Objectivist. So I misidentified you as being uptight and fretting about people not being converted by the films to Objectivism. You're actually uptight and fretting about their not being converted to laissez-faire capitalism. Yeah, I don't think that you feel doomed, or that you like doom per se, but rather that you like the feeling of being above the doom. You seem to really enjoy finding something to bitch about so that you can feel superior to it. Your review doesn't sound like laughter. It sounds like bitching and disappointment. It comes across as too personal and important to you to be laughter. No, I think that the problem is that the book isn't something that translates well to film. It's romanticized, heroic talky-talk. It's not cinematic. It would be quite difficult for even the best people in Hollywood to make a great film (or films) of Atlas Shrugged. Rand called her style Romantic Realism. The people who produced these films decided to go contemporary, thus placing more emphasis on the Realism half of the equation, and the films' harshest critics (at least the ones that I've read) have suggested that the style should have leaned even farther toward the Realism side -- they wanted deeper character development (much deeper than what was contained in the novel), they wanted realistic-sounding dialog (despite its not being in the novel), etc. I think the opposite approach should have been taken. Every frame of the films should have had the look and feel of a clearly alternate reality. On a previous thread, Michael Marotta suggest the visual style of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, as well as possibly steam punk/diesel punk. And I agree that the novel demands something like that when translated to film: more Romanticism than Realism in the mix -- both in visuals and in acting. Maybe even something like Sin City. The posed, talky-talk artifice needs to be ramped up rather than toned down. I don't think that any of the three films were great, nor were they bad. Compared to their contemporaries at Redbox or on Netflix streaming, I'd say that they're better than 50 or 60 percent of their competition. J Uptight? Not as long as it's some other fool's money down the drain. I've never told an acquaintance to read Rand's magnum opus in order to understand the free market. If the film tanks, there will be other, better books to read about freedom. When I mentioned that Atlas the Movie would become a sign of misdirection, it was only to point out how badly the producers had failed at what they set out to do: introduce people to Ayn Rand. I cannot imagine a worse introduction. A couple of years ago, Water for Elephants was made into a movie. I was not a fan of the book, but I recognized how clumsily the filmmakers had treated the source material and what opportunities they had missed. My criticism of AS3 is on the same level. It's rather like listening to Bartok being badly played. Better not at all than badly. You can search these forums. I've never had much admiration for the novel, much less a personal attachment to it. In fact, I once incurred a barrage of anger when I criticized Rand's passage justifying the deaths of train passengers in the tunnel disaster. If you feel that I am wrong to "bitch" about AS3, all you have to do is write a positive review about it and demonstrate that the film deserves praise, not criticism. In the absence of a set of reasons to like Atlas, my bitching is entirely justified. (And by the way, are you certain that your bitching about my bitching to make me feel superior to the filmmakers is not just to make you feel superior to me?) Finally, I like your idea of doing Rand's work in the style of Sky Captain. But that does not invalidate any of the bitchy remarks I made in my review.

If this was true of Stalin, produce some evidence to back it up. The evidence is your own life, Frank... and you can't produce any evidence that Stalin was not subject to exactly the same moral causality that you are! You deny the moral principle that what you are is the result of what you do operates in your own life exactly the same as it does in the lives of others. And that denial of moral causality in your own life can only be done with an abysmal lack of self reflection. Greg My life is not Stalin's life. Even if you proved that I suffered ill consequences from performing some evil act (which you have not), it does not follow that the leader of a foreign country, 5,000 miles away, 60 years ago suffered repercussions for the crimes he committed. You claim that my self-reflection is abysmal because I see no "moral causality," i.e. automatic consequence for crimes. Now all you have to do is prove that that your own self-reflection gives you perfect knowledge of the mental state of every member of the human species after they have committed a transgression. Show this and you will have made your case.

From the Vice story: “A con of this magnitude could only have existed in the libertarian community because [Johnson] used their paranoia and distrust of the government to say, ‘Put everything in a trust, I won’t tell anybody who you are, don’t let anyone find out you’re investing, and I prefer you use precious metal or Bitcoins so it can’t be traced,’” Kirley said. “It really worked out well, whether it was intentional or just the perfect storm.”

So reproduction should be controlled by the same folks who run the post office and who gave us Obamacare? No thanks.

Big money does not always mean big quality. The Atlas movies could have been made with a budget equivalent to Waterworld (the most expensive movie ever made at the time, 1995) and still had the same disastrous outcome. More importantly, there have been quite a few low budget movies that didn't have to sacrifice quality for lack of funds. Mad Max, Dr. Strangelove, and Being John Malkovich, three great movies set in the future, come to mind. You may be right: no matter how good Atlas the Movie turned out to be, the liberal establishment's attack dogs would have shredded it. But, face it, Aglialoro and Kaslow wrote a lousy script, blew a small fortune on incompetent directors and miscast actors and ended up with a film that richly deserves to be attacked--by people of all persuasions. Atlas is my least favorite Rand novel. Still, Rand thought cinematically and there is much in the book that would transfer well to the screen. If Aglialoro and Kaslow had given us a work marred by a few gaffes and weak production values but at least distinguished by heart and spirit and--what's the term?--sense of life, I'd praise it to the skies no matter what the critics said.

If this was true of Stalin, produce some evidence to back it up. I want to know exactly how Stalin "became" as the result of what he did. In the absence of evidence the claim is bogus.

Another article has appeared, this one on Vice. A promo video is included: ..

After al-Qaeda was very quickly and efficiently defeated in 2011, they continued to be defeated in 2012-2014. Current Pentagon plans call for their defeat to be extended into the foreseeable future.

Stalin died of a stroke March 5, 1953, at the age of 74. What does "He did not escape what he became as the result of what he did" mean? That he got punished? Was it before or after he died? Who performed this punishment? Was it as severe as the horrors he visited on the millions of people he tortured and killed? Where is the evidence for all this?

Clearly, you have me mixed up with someone else. I am not an Objectivist. I disagree with Rand on nearly everything, with the exception of the moral and practical need for laissez-faire capitalism. I am not interested in converting anyone to Objectivism--although it's worth pointing out that such was the apparent aim of the producers, and now what do they have to show for it? If there is doom--it won't be mine. As I made clear in my review of this movie on this thread, http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14641&p=217206 Atlas Shrugged is an unintentionally hilarious film. It is on the order of Plan 9 from Outer Space. The fact that I am not the only one to say so, might suggest there is a nugget of truth in the comparison. The only possible bright spot is that over the years it might become a camp classic and return its financiers' investment through DVD sales. If I have pointed out how far the movie deviates from the style and content of the novel, it is only to show how clueless the filmmakers were about the original property. They must have skipped the big book and read an internet summary instead. Had another team put the socialist Looking Backward on film and made the same number of errors, I'd be ridiculing them too. Of course, if you would like to challenge anything specific I said about this turkey, go ahead. You've seen it. You apparently liked it more than I. Now is the time to speak on its behalf.

Except for Stalin who died peacefully in his sleep.

Only true for short-term sex workers. A mistress, who is essentially a professional girlfriend, understands that her time with the client varies directly with her remuneration.

Enough to know a non sequitur when I see it.

Would it not be a mistake to assume that sex is the only service delivered by a prostitute? Some, I'm told, are good listeners and ready to dispense sensible advice, from a woman's point of view, of course. The smart prostitute knows how to be emotionally supportive, how to fortify a man's ego and make him ready to face a competitive world the next morning. And the wise prostitute knows when to give a man his space. The idea that no wife in mankind's brief history on earth ever shopped her physical assets for financial security is a comforting thought in this Great Land of Mom and Apple Pie, but may be at odds with reality. Has there never been a Playboy bunny who tied the knot with a billionaire octogenarian? Was that marriage really a union of "soul mates"?

Dream on, Frank... never gonna happen. By the higher authority of moral law, no one ever escapes what they become as the result of what they do. Greg I was speaking of an earthly authority. I know that eventually everyone has to answer to Bozo in the Sky.