You do know the plot of Atlas Shrugged didn't involve businessmen going on strike in demand of bailouts, right? Quite the opposite in fact. Rand would have been appalled by the corporate favors handed out over the past couple years. There are plenty of fair-weather capitalists deserving criticism but Rand at least had the virtue of consistency.

1reader likes this

That title is certainly in keeping with the new Blue Oregon. The name is the game. You do certainly hear her name a lot lately.

This is just like the popular Marx of the 1950s. You heard his name a lot then too. Everyone that had never read a word of his writing and had no idea about the context he was speaking in, suddenly decided that EVERYBODY knew what Marx meant. It was bad. And the left decided that they all knew what it meant, and it was good. Nobody ever bothered to learn what Marx actually was talking about. It was a very convenient way for left and right to hate each other. Enter Ayn Rand.

The word "libertarian" itself has become like "quality preowned vehicle". They really exist. That doesn't mean that the label ever gets applied correctly, though. Both sides of this argument like to think their points are so obvious that only morons or the deliberately obstinate wouldn't get it.

That "real" libertarianism is just as much of an unrealistic utopian idea as "real" Marxism. Besides, doesn't acting in rational self-interest mean it's only logical for those with power (regardless of how "libertarian" they present themselves to be) to not only accept, but encourage bail-outs? You'd be hard-pressed to find a CEO who would not accept government assistance to stay in power, regardless of how "libertarian" they claim to be. It's when other people accept government assistance that it's ideologically evil. Mainly, this comic is to point out the flawed idea that the corporate heads are what are holding up our society. It's the other way around--where would they be without a workforce, or a military/police force to keep that workforce in its place?

I've had 8 people email me and say they tried to respond to this topic but their accounts were banned. Same on the "New BO Thread". Any irrefutable error in logic has been removed. Obviously they didn't have any problem with your new policy. Silently removing people from the conversation to make it seem you won the point is being an anonymous coward beyond anything you've critisized. You really don't seem to get it. Or what a VPN is. I'm guessing. Your logic is just whack.

Just like this thread. I've got an inbox full of Libertarians that have read this and said, "that's how the far right has defined it; why are Democrats repeating it"? For five years you've redifined "progressive", to the most base of hack ends. Your bound and determine to screw around with the language even if you have to ban everyone to do it.

If you were serious, you would have bothered to at least email Bill Bodden or Harry Kershner. This stuff is just another Democratic Party of America reprint without them. (kudos to MP for plodding on).

We're going to make the rounds with Dem leaders this week and let them know how this is reflecting on their party. As you narror the conversation ever more, you make it more and more indensible that you are not affiliated.

Whatever the faults of Any Rand are, this post represents a complete misunderstanding of what she stood for and what other libertarians stand for.

The notion of governments bailing out banks is the kind of thing Rand and libertarians deplore.