I am tempted to do a "name and shame"

[fpb]

Minutes after I had posted about dignity and honesty, I meet with the exact opposite. A (former) friend had posted that the current writer's strike in Hollywood seemed "Ayn Randian" to him, because the writers had brought the industry to a halt by withdrawing their brains. Now that seemed like nonsense to me. I reminded him that what was going on was called trades-unionism, and that Rand did not have much time for that sort of thing. Yes, you know, unionism - the kind of thing that Reaganthatcher was supposed to have consigned to the dustbin of history?

And that was it. Nothing personal; no insults; only a disrespectful reference to a few conservative idols whom everyone knows I have no time for.

So I wake to find my comment deleted and myself banned.

Wow, laddie, that is really brave. That shows integrity, belief in your convinctions, and confidence in your ability to defend them. That absolutely does not suggest that you are terrified that all your ideologies may be built on sand.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would rather say that only Ayn Rand could possibly imagine that most rich people were in any way creative or even enterprising.

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

The rest of us have to observe it?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

What is the percentage of people who deserved their wealth, let alone made it in a creative and novel way? Bill Gates (whom everybody hates)... Warren Buffett... er... um. My view (and I have posted about this) is that a major and increasing percentage of rich people are rich because they inherit wealth and position, or because they are part of a social network that occupies the top ranks of big business, politics and related fields. The notion that wealth has anything inherently to do with achievement is, to say the least, very hard to prove.