⒈ Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart

Tuesday, December 21, 2021 3:34:51 AM

Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart

Tens-of-millions of doses have been administered Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart without incident. Throughout Europe, the will and way to this day is called progress. Libertarian Review. From a surety in the soul the "I" modern philosophy has come Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart wonder if the "I" is only apparent, that Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart, that the think may create the "I". If you read Nietzsche Congress Quiz to some rubric you deem appropriate, you miss his point entirely. Slaughterhouse 5 quotes a result, Persuasive Essay On A Road Trip significant organizations Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart the line. Rand's fiction received mixed reviews from literary critics. Her brother Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall ApartCreative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart railroad's president, seems to make irrational decisions, such as Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart from Orren Boyle's unreliable Associated Steel. Again, as I have told you multiple times if there was as easy an intervention for obesity as gaining consent from patients is for COVID in the form of vaccine, I would agree Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart you.

CHINUA ACHEBE'S Things Fall Apart

An extreme right-wing ideology has brought us to this place. In the meantime, educate yourself. The same can be said for people who drink,smoke,overweight take drugs but they are still people are you going to stop them for going places or using hospitals, we all pay taxes for this service sound like you could use a little help. Also the rate of issues cause by those problems are at a fairly steady state in the population at large and the hospitals are set up with capacity to cope with that ongoing rate. And some of the people who are prevented being treatment sir to the unvaxxed will be people who smoke, drink and are obese.

Trying to draw false equivalence between hospital users is not a reason to decline an effective, free vaccine. The point is this country has freedom of choice if governments start taking that away we will end up like China as we have seen in history if you start telling citizens what to do or making it hard to live this is called tyranny. People have the right to do what they like with own body, no one is trying to make you not take the vaccine. Most people understand the vaccine is a good way to protect themselves and family I just do not agree with making people take it. People in society are allowed to choose who they interact with. You know, personal choice and freedom of association, things the Chinese government likes to assert control over. Society has standards, like wearing clothes in public.

Vaccination is another standard that society may choose to impose. Edit: in fact, society already DOES impose many vaccination standards, in some countries its required to attend schools and to fly internationally to some places. Flying internationally is a choice - just as vaccination is currently. If you want to fly, then you will need to meet the criteria for doing so, or you chose not to fly. Lanthanides It seems that you would be happy if the government put some rabbit ears on you and put you in a lab cage at night.

Lanathanide, for which an effective vaccine exists. According to Oxford language dictionary pfizer is not a vaccine? Looks like some folks, govts and agencies are taking some creative license in calling what they have been jabbing folks with, a vaccine. This has caused confusion among some folks. In the name of public safety, the solution is clearly to ensure the vaccine passport also excludes those with a BMI over Is it a privilege to be treated in a hospital? No, it is a right. Right 4 Right to services of an appropriate standard 1 Every consumer has the right to have services provided with reasonable care and skill.

Exactly, but you will find that these rights only extend to the level the country can afford it. I hope you are not in need at any time, as you may find you are waiting in line - as many people already are - to receive these rights. Having a whole lot more people requiring hospital treatment because of acute or long Covid will not improve waiting times for anyone. Dunedin hospital only has around 8 ICU beds. That is unlikely to be enough for even vaccinated people if we had a real outbreak in the South, and I don't believe that vaccinated covid infected people should take priority over any one else that needs ICU if they don't have covid. Evidently you either have never seen DNR on a bed notes in hospital and do not understand resource limits on public largesse or are rather naive.

Don't care too much about vaccine passports for international travel as the precedent there is well-established anyway and I think countries should have the right to refuse entry for whatever reason they see fit. Completely disagree with vaccine passports for domestic use. All it will do is cause division in society, breed resentment, stir up more aggressive conspiracy theories you think Covid conspiracies are bad now, wait until people have to be vaccinated to partake in modern society , and possible risk disorder in the form of protest and violence as seen in countries like France. What's more, presumably if there's domestic vaccine passports, then businesses will be responsible for enforcing them?

Unless we want the cops going around doing the whole "Ihre papiere, bitte" routine. Why should some minimum wage hospo worker have to place themselves at risk of harm when they are forced to deny service to someone without their vaccine passport? That is before you get to the impacts on business. Will domestic passports really see people flooding back into hospitality venues etc? The only people I know in real life who favour domestic vax passports are the types who are so afraid of Covid that they refuse to leave the house during lockdowns, sanitise their Countdown deliveries etc - are they going to suddenly feel comfortable going out when they know everyone is vaccinated around them?

Probably not if Covid can still circulate. Also wait until the triple-vaxxed start demanding the double-vaxxed lose their vax passport privileges. If there is a domestic vax passport, when will we pull it like Denmark have announced once a certain threshold is hit? Or will we still be scanning in to stores in 20 years time? And before anyone accuses me of being a rabid anti-vaxxer, I'm booked in for mine thank you very much. Bravo, just look at Israel, no longer considered vax with only 2 jabs. When the governments can, and do, just shift the goal posts, thats when you have to start worrying as a citizen.

What percentage of the double-jabbed or soon-to-be-double-jabbed who are in favour of vaccine passports will suddenly not be so enthusiastic when they realise their privileges will be revoked for not taking the third booster, and then the fourth, and so on? Some would gladly queue up for a daily booster shot if it was offered, but I suspect much of the population was sold on the idea they would get their two jabs and then life could return to normal. As they say, its gona get interesting when the thrice jabbed start hating on the deuce jabbed.

And the fourth and fifth jabbed call out the thrice jabbed. What say you then Chris? Will people with 2nd gen vaccines that don't require endless booster shots get to demand that the "unclean" Pfizer-passport holders are denied access to public services? I'm going to "vax max" and get as many as I can from as many brands as possible, just so I can demand that everyone else is locked up at home A lot of fiery rhetoric in this article, but no real analysis of the facts around the virus and the vaccine that are increasingly relevant.

It also ignores the countries around the world who have passed through this crisis and are now dropping their emergency mandates. So from these estimates that is about 5. With the peak being well behind us, at what point does the cost benefit analysis of continued restrictions just not make sense? Dying is part of life and we cant stop it. Novel viruses killing people when we have an effective vaccine for them is not a normal part of life. Lots of causes of death have been reduced and prevented due to technology improvements. This is another one. Let's give up sanitation and indoor plumbing in New Zealand, people dying from diahorrea is part of the normal human experience going back thousands of years.

It will barely make a blip in global death rate. Where are you going to get the "facts" from Brutus? Its now pretty much impossible to trust any source you care to name. The level of knowledge and accurate information out there is no better than what Chris Martinsen was putting on video before this pandemic even got going. If you ever wondered whether you'd resist the Nazis, or willingly comply Mr Trotter - it's clear you'd be fully signed up. I pay my taxes. I earn export income for the country.

I provide food and lots of it for the people in this country as well. According to Chris Trotter, aptly named, oh how aptly named with Animal Farm up front in my conciousness these days , I am opposing the official policy of an authoritarian state, according to the dictionary. It's fine, it's for your own good you see, it's to "keep you and your whanau safe" from the virus Juden and their "hate speech". Is there any documented evidence of a significant number of people believing the 5G or microchip conspiracy? I have observed people reading too much into some parts of endless studies and data trying to figure out if we are getting the whole truth from the media but the go to conspiracies by the MSM appear to another fabrication.

And another question are we all OK with having Israel's case and death statistics here? Conspiracies evolve over time. I don't think many people are seriously believing the 5g conspiracy any more, but some cell sites around the world were destroyed by angry mobs. Also many people just believe multiple conspiracy theories at once, and upon questioning are not likely to admit to believing all of them, especially the sillier ones. I remember a couple towers being attacked here but arrests or other evidence proving the connection with the conspiracy and thus more than few people involved was missing. The media is still pushing these as the main conspiracies and CT uses them as the examples.

If there's no basis for this, then its just more misinformative narrative pushing by the MSM. Can you show me documentation where the MSM is pushing them as the "main conspiracies" please. Something published in the last 2 months. Is CT's column not enough that he still believes it. Its still Siouxsie's go to example of disinformation. You know they still in use it as a placeholder when desired. Your arguing for the sake of arguing, I don't think it's beneficial for me or possibly anyone to reply to you unless you have read the comment fully and are trying to be constructive.

You are right Tim. The msm just love to quote chips in the vax, 5g theories etc. They call ivermectin horse drench. And by simply naming people as antivaxxers it is denigrating people. Its done to differentiate us, to create friction. This has gone too far, and the consistent wording used in media is too same same to believe otherwise. Chris has fallen for it completely. As npc said. We now know which way he would have jumped in the s and 40s.

Ivermectin is a horse treatment, and people are talking about it in that way because humans are buying medicine made for horses and using it themselves, because all of the supplies of it made for humans are either out of stock or require prescriptions which these people cannot access. Ok, so no examples of it being "pushed" as the "main conspiracy theory". Just some people using it as an example of a conspiracy theory. What are they supposed to do instead, list every single conspiracy theory? Not talk about any of them? Cycle through conspiracy theories in each thing they publish? OK, I could not help my self.

Lanthanide, you seem to be driven to have the last comment on the "arguments" you start so you can think you have won. You don't think before you start these with almost undefendable positions and when you take positions that are obscure enough that there is no MSM narrative to fall back on which no one can be bothered to deal with just for you you resort to increasing erratic and arbitrary points trying to drag something that might have been interesting down into pointlessness. The unnecessary strict and arbitrary test 2 months you came up with means nothing if not fulfilled and if you though about it Siouxsie publishes her disinformation graphics all the time.

Some people will always react to somethings, and with the number being administered it is bound to happen. I think the biggest issue is the discrimination based around you Vax passport. You can be vaccinated and still oppose the segregation based on you vaccination status. I mean, after all if you are vaccinated then why do you care if someone else hasnt been? If you get it and anyone who leaves NZ is very likely to get it at some stage then thats what getting the vaccine was for. Any nutjob that believes the 5g or microchip shit is beyond help, and should be ignored.

Why microchip everyone when we all voluntarily carry around cellphones with us all day, and willingly input all our personal data into it? I think it is sort of an attempt to lump in everyone who doesn't buy into the "war on covid" as a conspiracy theorist. If you are against people being imprisoned for catching covid which they are or you are against level 4 lockdowns as you believe that house arrest for an entire population is not a practical way of managing the virus you are some nutjob conspiracy theorist. The logical fallacy is "appeal to the extremes". I think moving forward this country will be much more polarised, divisive place. Its a shame the current govt is going down that road. Remember totalitarianism is embraced by the people first, and exploited by corrupt leaders second.

The German people, happily helped round up the Jews, and Gypsy, and handicapped, referring to them in exactly the same way the pro-vax majority are starting to talk about any anti-vax person! Exactly, so why not let them make their own decisions, and they will live, or die, with the consequences? No need to force it on people. I'd describe it as utilitarianism. Greatest good for the greatest number. And I'm completely on board with that. The problem is, many goernments will not drop these emergency mandates even once the threat is over.

I applaud Sweden and Denmark for lifting their covid limitations and pray the rest of the world follows their lead. If we do so, we might see a well-defined narrative outline emerge, whose succinct summary reads as follows: lockdowns and the global suspension of economic transactions were intended to 1 Allow the Fed to flood the ailing financial markets with freshly printed money while deferring hyperinflation; and 2 Introduce mass vaccination programmes and health passports as pillars of a neo-feudal regime of capitalist accumulation. As we shall see, the two aims merge into one In financial markets powered by cheap loans, any increase in interest rates is potentially cataclysmic for banks, hedge funds, pension funds and the entire government bond market, because the cost of borrowing increases and liquidity dries up.

The only way to defuse the contagion was by throwing as much liquidity as necessary into the system — like helicopters dropping thousands of gallons of water on a wildfire. The mainstream narrative should therefore be reversed: the stock market did not collapse in March because lockdowns had to be imposed; rather, lockdowns had to be imposed because financial markets were collapsing.

With lockdowns came the suspension of business transactions, which drained the demand for credit and stopped the contagion. Had the enormous mass of liquidity pumped into the financial sector reached transactions on the ground, a monetary tsunami with catastrophic consequences would have been unleashed. A small list of chemicals that were thought to be safe at the time, therefore thou shall not question the science? Have you thought that you are saying something like we know people have been killed crossing the road, so it is unsafe to cross roads? There is a level of risk in most things we do - but the risk is small, and generally we accept that.

For instance, forget about Chris Trotter's being "struck by lightning" - every time we take a car out on the road we have a statistical chance of dying - died on the roads in New Zealand last year - we all know people die in crashes, but we don't stop driving. Having a vaccine with a known track record of almost negligible serious outcomes over many, many millions of doses is similar to that. Very good article CT. More an more lately I enjoy reading your work. And just like in many of your other articles you overlook the odd point. A strong argument in this debate is people's health, and you mentioned the potential racist accusations from Maori over the vaccination programmes.

Health, as I have argued before, is largely a consequence of choice. Very few are genuinely lumbered with the genetics that cripple our health. So Maori, or any others to argue that not being vaccinated as being unfair or racist, need to look at themselves in the mirror. I am fully vaccinated, and when the opportunity came up I not only reached out to get the vaccination, but took myself there to do it too.

I did not expect the vaccination team to come to me. Nor did I expect that because I am of European extraction, that the person I would be talking to was white skinned. Indeed the person who in the end took my details for the first vaccination and gave me the needle, despite her Kiwi accent was of African extraction, and I felt perfectly satisfied with her calm professionalism, and importantly the skill and resulting lack of pain when the needle went in.

I doubt the service and care could have been better irrespective of who delivered the service. So ultimately if Maori are going to be what they want to be, they need to reach out, organise it and take themselves there, and not wait for the world to come to them. We already have an inadequate hospital service that cannot cope with ordinary demand for surgery and often patients need to be discharged earlier than is ideal, to fit in even more serious, new cases.

Imagine if any new resources put into the Health system at vast cost are swallowed up in future in dealing with out of control Covid cases? This would make getting hospital care very difficult for the entire population - whatever their health need. It would also be an enormous drain on public money that would take that money from providing services in another area of need. The costs of long Covid would also be very high - to individuals and the community providing necessary Health care to people who can no longer work or operate normal lives.

I believe that we all have the freedom to choose whether to get a vaccination - more and more opportunities to do so are being offered but no-one has to get that vaccine. However, that those anti-vaxxers should expect to have their access to community resources and opportunities reduced, to protect both themselves and others from infection. The latest CDC research in USA has said those who are not vaccinated are 11 times more likely to die of a Covid infection - so if we get to the point where a particular ethnic group is dying in greater numbers than the rest of the community, then maybe the anti-vaxxers will see merit in curtailing opportunities for themselves after all. I wish they where Randian Objectivists, that way they could stick to their idological bent and not clog hospital beds when infected.

As it stands we'll have months of sob stories about "I should have got vaccinated but I believed some codswallop on the internet. Woe is me! Government need to make clear we are going in one direction as a society and everyone needs to get aboard before the departure time. Announce a firm border reopening date and provide guidelines for the non-vaccinated as to how to become social hermits. Agree Squishy Ayn Rands Objectivism was what drove Alan Greenspan's doctrine on his financial decisions and history has shown that to be a massive mistake arguably the beginning of the financial mess we are in now.

I hope the government makes its decisions regarding the safety of its populace in the interests of the best medical outcome for all and not pander to extremist views by internet experts. Is world doing anything about that or a myriad of other causes of death which action and dollops of cash might be reasonably expected to be dealt? Yesterday a 13 year old died in NZ after receiving her vaccine. Barely made news on tv. Meanwhile epidemiologist in USA doing study of vaccines and kids featured at length on Sunday programme last night and no mention of report in aThe Guardian yesterday of USA study showing teenage boys 4 times more likely to have serious reaction to vaccine than they are to catching CV Telling people who are NOT infected and have a negative test that they cannot get out of NZ without the vaccine is a form of blackmail and ridiculous.

Vaccination does not stop you getting CV19 nor does it stop spreading of it. It substantially reduces chance of going to icu and dying. You are well over top. Correction, acc to worldometer this morning there have been 0. And Bloomfield said he would have been informed immediately of such an incident, and he had not been. The Yr 13's school principal also said the death was from another cause. No such report had been made. Mike, I'm really disappointed to see this repeating of blatant misinformation from you. Not cool man. Deciding not to be vaccinated is, to my mind, morally wrong in a country with socialised medicine, because you are essentially prepared to 'free load' on the rest of the population who pays for your treatment, should you need hospitalisation.

Perhaps we would be better determining that in future once everyone has had the opportunity to vaccinate , hospitalisation should become user-pays for the unvaccinated who require hospital admission for COVID-related treatment. I can't figure out why in the US, for example, the insurance companies haven't yet said to the customers: no vaccine - no insurance cover for COVID-related illness. My profile being the rabid anti 'anti vaxxers' are actually just self serving as they are more likely to be old overweight, type 2 diabetics. Now before all you aav's out there lose the plot completely I fit that profile almost. The latest level four got me beavering away in the kitchen and it shows. Anyway just saying the AAVs are just concerned for their own welfare.

They dont really care that the young in our society really dont benefit from being jabbed with an experimental drug. And to suggest children get it is the height of self interest. Oh Belle. Based on that logic i. Well I dont disagree with you over social media. You didnt cover the context. The question is who is it thats the most rabid anti anti vaxxer, and is it through fear the young and the unvaxxed will lead to them getting covid? Is 'them' the old, overweight and diabetic? I cant see behind the comments on social media. But I do know who Chris Trotter is.

Perhaps a poll is in order along with an announcement of each persons co morbidities. Lets see if being an anti anti vaxxer is deranged self interest. Thing is, is all self-interest deranged, or is just some self-interest deranged? I don't get the meaning of "deranged self-interest". Treating obesity is generally not at all simple as more often than not there are psychological drivers.

Reducing your risk for covid is incredibly simple and is completely funded. I am on board with Kate's reasoning here. Yes, it is definitely absurd that you're drawing a false equivalence between an infectious, deadly disease and a lifestyle choice and treating them as if they're identical and have all the same risks and controls available. COVID: infectious, very deadly amongst some groups of the population, health system not set up to deal with it as it is a novel virus, very effective and freely available vaccine available. You'll probably find that the weight loss industry has made x as much in profits selling diets, exercise guides and equipment etc as the vaccine developers for COVID have.

Since you are very slow on the uptake, or being deliberately obtuse, I will spell it out clearly for you. In a study of COVID cases in patients aged 18 years and younger, having obesity was associated with a 3. So please, educate us about why society should apparently not tolerate the burden that the unvaccinated place on the health system, but then should tolerate the burden caused by the "lifestyle choices" of the obese that contract covid? If people have a moral responsibility to get vaccinated, the same moral responsibility should apply to have a healthy weight. No, that doesn't follow, sorry, because the intervention for COVID vaccine is very cheap, easy and effective.

The intervention for obesity weight loss industry is expensive and does not work equally for everyone. There are some very effective medical interventions to fight obesity, ie bariatric surgery, but unfortunately it's not cheap and not everyone is eligible for, and it takes up a huge amount of hospital resources so we wouldn't be able to give everyone who was eligible the intervention, whereas the COVID vaccine does not put nearly as much pressure on the health system and so it is possible to give it to everyone who needs it without bankrupting the health system. If the treatment for obesity was a vaccine similar in effectiveness and cost to the COVID vaccines, then it would be directly comparable and I would agree with you.

There is an easy, cheap and effective cure for obesity too that puts no pressure on the health system. We can just ban fat people along with the unvaccinated from entering shops as a "stick" as you mentioned earlier. The only obstacle is psychological. Similar to the psychological obstacle of forcing untrusting people to inject themselves with an experimental vaccine. Obesity is in many cases not a choice. I suppose you will say cancer is a choice next. After all, if you live a completely joyless, puritan life, you're much less likely to get cancer, therefore anyone gets cancer chose to live in a way that was different to minimizing their chances of cancer, so they actively made a choice to get cancer.

Do you suppose the people in the countries near the bottom of the list like Switzerland, Italy, Norway or Japan are living completely joyless, puritanical lives? Far from it. They simply tend to make better lifestyle choices. If the profound links between cancer and obesity are unclear to you, then you may educate yourself here:. Obese people are dangerously burdening our health system with covid AND cancer.

All the more reason to check BMI before we allow people into shops, restaurants and airports. There's really no point arguing with you on this, since the existence of a multi-billion weightloss industry is clear evidence that there are not simple, cheap and effective methods for the wider public at large to lose weight, yet you persist in saying that there are.

This is correct and that change can start by banning them from shops and restaurants. Everybody in the team of five million needs to play their part to be "covid safe" for our whanau. Show your BMI passport please! Why, have you analysed the prevalence of these factors in each of those nations - and determined they are not applicable? Additionally, forming healthy dietary and exercise habits during childhood may be the most valuable prevention against obesity and lifestyle-related diseases. But number 5, leptin resistance, is the only one that can be totally detached from free will. Most of the other factor pre-dispose people to certain behaviours or outcomes. It's just harder to make those choices, but the choices can be made, apart from leptin resistance:.

Trying to exert willpower against the leptin-driven starvation signal is almost impossible for many people. If it was as cheap, effective and easy as you claim, the weight loss industry would not exist. It does exist, urgo you are plainly wrong. Very few people who are morbidly obese freely choose to be that way, and the vast majority of people who are overweight or obese would like to easily lose weight if they could. Like if there was a vaccine for obesity that was as effective and cheap as the COVID vaccine is, they would use it. It's why the pharmaceutical companies put huge money into trying to find drugs that will help with weight loss, which mostly have not been successful so far. Turns out trying to limit and interfere with one of the body's primary instincts, in a safe and controlled way, is hard.

I bet if we checked BMI before letting people into shops and restaurants or flights the obesity epidemic would rapidly improve. Again, as I have told you multiple times if there was as easy an intervention for obesity as there is for COVID in the form of vaccine, I would agree with you. There is. Do exactly what you propose with unvaccinated people. Don't let them into sources of food like shops and restaurants. Yes but the point is that despite the antivaxxers and the obese having psychological drivers, the solution to the risks presented to society from both situations is on one hand immediate and funded vaccinate , and on the other hand extremely expensive with low long term success rates.

If there was an immediate long term fix to obesity, people would take it, as generally people don't want the outcome, they are just stuck in the habits. The only thing anyone cares about for covid is the outcomes and they are easily addressed vaccinate! Very simple really. Brock just wants to sneer and poke fun at people, instead of having an honest debate about facts and evidence. With enough co morbidities from lifestyle choices you outcome risk from exposure will be worse than being unvaccinated.

Not a valid comparison at all. We were able to freely offer bariatric surgery to everyone who wanted it, we'd be in a much better place in that regard. And, if we provided all healthy foods free-of-charge and conversely, all unhealthy high carb, high saturated fat, high sugar foodstuffs were a user-pay system of commerce, again we'd be in a much better place in that regard. So, yes there are many ways to solve our obesity problem. I'd far rather my taxpayer dollars were spent on that, as opposed to treating the unvaccinated for COVID-related illnesses. And I'm sure health insurance providers would happily develop an insurance product for those unvaccinated that want to insure themselves against user-pay treatment for COVID-related illness.

So it's morally or ethically more acceptable because it's harder to deal with? Actual question I'm not educated on this. I'm not sure I can see any other differences. There is plenty we could do about obesity if the obese believed it was amoral but that's hypothetical. In answer to your first question, I see morbid obesity as matters of circumstance, more so than choice, as per this explanation. Obesity is not a matter of morality of the individual, but in many ways, it is a matter of the morality of the society we live in.

I'm not sure anything on that list establishes causality for adult obesity or would not be fixed by prohibition. I do think in theory we could compel people into healthy diet and excise where you could prove they would be physically healthier but this is morally not justifiable. I am thinking a full ban on fast food would just be the start and we could follow that up with BMI checks before entering a restaurant like vax passports. To the extent we get informed choice about the vaccine, I believe it is possible to educate about health diet and excise habits and the benefits. It's just the solution is much more difficult but fundamentally they are the similar compelling people to do something they really don't want to do for the benefit of society. Wow, that's interesting.

I have a son living in the US and he hasn't mentioned this. Existing and future Charity hospitals may take non vaccinated covid patients Kate - tough if you don't live in an area with one. After all there are many out there now who are unable to be vaccinated for medical grounds. Wonder how they feel reading all the generalized 'if you aren't vaccinated, you won't be treated, or will have to pay for your own treatment', comments on here. The reason why very few cannot use medical grounds for not getting jabbed If you take blood pressure pills, had leukemia, are pregnant, nothing. Go to medsafe and read the pfizer application.

Its as plain as day. Absolutely, those unable to vaccinate on medical grounds would be exempted from the user-pay policy. It's not a no medical assistance proposal at all - it's a user-pay proposal, and we have user-pay principles throughout our legislation. Socialised medicine, such as we have here in NZ is to my mind needs to be protected at all costs. Part of that protection is not to overload the system unnecessarily. Costs for unpreventable diseases and accidents etc. I just think where a vaccine exists, choice should be up to the adult individual - whereas the MMR vaccine in childhood should be mandatory.

Depending on how COVID and zoonotic diseases more generally develop, once we have a vaccine for children it might become similarly as accepted throughout society as the MMR one is now. Meantime, given the communicability of COVID, we have to safeguard the future of socialised medicine in our country. George Gammon did an excellent reasoned video on vaccine passports and social credit scores last week. I'm pro-vaccination and am myself vaccinated, but I do believe in examining all sides of the argument, and I wonder why Chris doesn't bother to do that. It's more than ideological and to lump them all or suggest that it's mostly ideological, e.

What I've found out so far is that there are sub-groups and quite a number have legitimate concerns. Some of course are more on the fringes the microchip, flat earth, 5G and New World Order crowd but like UFOs, I find those fun and entertaining and not worth being offended or riled up by. But those legitimate ones we should listen to and take seriously, so that we remain a democratic and free society. Why are quite a number vaccine hesitant?

Let's start from the more legitimate to the least, and if I have left out any others, please feel free to add:. Those who have already gotten Covid and have a high level of immunity - perhaps even higher than those who are only vaccinated but had not been infected previously. Those who seen legal and moral objections to the way the vaccinations are being almost forced on them. Those who - either by word of mouth or actual medical experience - say that there are alternative methods of treatment and even prevention, which the governments, media and big pharma are reluctant to talk about. Those with health issues and are concerned they may suffer negatively from the vaccines or at least the current batches. Those with a healthy level of skepticism of government over-reach, corporate profiteering and lack of transparency.

Let's be honest - the government's there to spend money, corporations are there to get your money and the media is in large part influenced by advertisers which include corporations such as banks and big pharma. Even among Maori, there are those who view the vaccinations and the government with suspicion and rather than being left out or left behind, they are hesitating for historical and personal reasons. Those who wonder how and why a bunch of vaccines could have been developed in such a short time for something so global in scale and seriousness. Those waiting for a vaccine such as Novavax with a tried and true methodology for its creation instead of the lesser known mRNA vaccines.

Those who just don't know who to believe because they can see points on both side that make sense. But we should always keep in mind and be wary of those profiteering from the arguments on both sides AND stirring up those arguments, often by generalising and simplifying views into bite-sized click-baity chunks for the masses to consume. These could be quacks fake doctors or nurses , some real health professionals enjoying the limelight, politicians, corporations, social media personalities, and some members of media. Just like war, there are parties who benefit and those who suffer.

We should always examine and debate the legitimacy and moral grounds of any actions before we commit to them. There have been plenty of examines of false grounds on which governments have taken actions which later turned out to be detrimental - Iraq, and Libya are two such examples. Ivermectin: Australian regulator bans drug as Covid treatment after sharp rise in prescriptions Health The Guardian. Arent they in the health game? Or are they in the drug biz game? A number of asian countries have also prescribed ivermectin as PART of the treatment for covid infection. I think it may be because those countries are more familiar with the drug and therefore less hesitant about using it it was invented by a Japanese, BTW , even if it is in a way that is different from its intended use.

But there are many drugs which turned out to be useful for different uses - e. Agree - Ivermectin is actually derived off naturally occuring bacteria It is now being used free-of-charge as the sole tool in campaigns to eliminate both diseases globally. It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found. This is the part that people should be paying attention to: "It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found. However, they simply cannot get all the Avermectins off the market as they are used in farming on a daily basis.

Sadly viruses are very hard to cure, there are a few slightly effective antivirals for certain viruses only; there are plenty of well proven vaccines, so prevention is your main option. Very objective view and well put, I've been fully vaccinated - but still likely fall into the 3 and 5 category. Yet we are being driven into this government and media focused state of fear and paranoia based decision making which is myopic and narrowly focused. Too many examples to note of governments doing this historically and even more recently within NZ, hence the scepticism. You have left out a sizeable group that I have most sympathy with - those with a major pre-existing health condition that already makes their hold on life precarious.

They may wonder if a vaccine dose may push them "over the edge". For these people, this is a very valid concern. However, these people will not be the ones clamouring to get into bars and mass gatherings in the future. They are also unlikely to be planning overseas travel. I find that there is a significant group who think they are too sick to get vaccinated. They are very willing to have the vaccine when I explain that it is safe and that they are the cohort that would benefit the most. They feel much more confident and secure after being vaccinated, many have been over-isolating out of fear. Mack13 You're right, those who do have health issues and do have valid concerns, they should be included.

I'll edit my original post and add them in On another note, I know some people who are very elderly - one is 76 and has diabetes and high blood pressure and takes daily insulin jabs, the other my mom is 84 and fit as a 25 yr old. Both had no after effects of the jabs other than a little soreness in the arm. Be aware Dale the difference between a dissenter and a dissident. The first is a nonconformist. Chris used the second, one who actively goes against an authoritarian government. Usually I would not even notice the difference. However this is Chris Trotter.

He will understand the difference and he specifically used the word dissident to describe a person who would not get this experimental jab. I am appalled. I think he should apologise. Interest should think twice about pursuing this divisiveness. No good will come of this. The issue is there Belle, and it will not go away. In fact, it is likely to become of more interest and concern. It is something that each of us needs to consider carefully. Are we an anti-vaxxer? If so, are we a dissident? Or are we a dissenter? Why not? What is our real reasoning? Vague talk of "divisiveness" only pushes issues under the rug.

The dissenters or dissidents are being swept under the rug by naming us as such. It demeans our argument? You may have a point. Should I be proud to be a dissident? I just dont want to be labelled for my views on a stupid jab I am not interested in having. I feel the world has gone mad arguing over this when much more important things are going on. That should have been the name of this article. But no surprise that if you disagree with a Labour Govt. Sort of hand in glove. According to Oxford: "a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state.

And we know what happens to dissidents in many countries. They get arrested. They get jailed. They get disappeared. They get tortured. I think it is very odd someone who knows his language and his history as well as Chris Trotter should write an article choosing that word to describe fellow New Zealanders who wish to take a different road for their health. He expects trials at the Hauge in years ahead. This passport idea has dangerous implications, The author is clearly a pro-passport protagonist portraying views on human rights that are contradictory.

Compared to actual mortality rates COVID in NZ is near the bottom of the list, if we were serious about saving lives we would spend hundreds of billions on preventing heart disease or other heath issues with extremely high mortality rates. Not so fun fact, 1 person dies from heart disease every 90mins straight from the heart foundation website that's 5, people p. There is no context. It is possible that less than 5, a year would have died from Covid if we had just let it rip. The number of covid deaths would have also decreased significantly year by year but I bet the numbers dying from heart disease continues to increase year by year. Just imagine if the money spent on covid had been spent elsewhere, hospitals, roads, schools and improving everyones overall fitness.

This has been a campaign based on fear and the people have just accepted it. Always trust the science. I am vaccinated, I think many anti-vaccers are nutters but I am not sure if I will vaccinate my kids. Guardian News paper in the UK is reporting that the risks of heart complaints in boys is higher from the vaccine than from Covid. UK Joint committee for vaccination and immunisation says science does not support the vaccination of children against COVID given the balance of risks.

Why is this not being discussed in NZ. The suppression of debate fuels distrust. Because the studies are underway right now to determine the risks and rewards. Until the studies are complete, the answer is going to be that the balance of risks is unknown. Have you read the article? I suggest you google it. This is a reputable news source. The JCVI is a well respected committee of scientists. We must debate based on facts not fear or political agenda. Interesting reading. It is not what I thought you were talking about in my reply above, which is vaccinating children under This is for teenagers I couldn't get the link to work. Thanks for doing that.

Normally the NZ media is quick to pick up stories from the UK. I am just surprised that no Journalist has run with this. Vaccine debate is often shut down on radio talk back and has become polarised between pro and anti - vaccers. My understanding is that the Vaccine reduces viral load but vaccinated individuals can still spread the virus. Therefore the vaccine is primarily protecting the individual rather than wider society and reducing the chance of them using up a hospital bed which is of wider benefit. As the risk to year olds from COVID 19 is incredibly low, it does make me wonder what the rationale is for vaccinating them, unless they have underlying medical issues. So anti-vaxers are "Nutters" but your hesitant on vaccinating your kids?

Says it all really. Sorry to keep having to bring this up but I suspect that there are some intelligent people in the group that don't want the vax as it currently exists. Some of us live healthy lifestyles, are not overweight, don't smoke, don't take drugs, don't drink to much and have done their own risk assessment and decided to take a pass. I have lived my whole life not running in the "Herd" and I intend to keep it that way.

Get the vaccine if you think your at risk of being hospitalised but don't force it on me. I said many are nutters, not all. I agree that people should have the freedom to choose. Those that think it is a cover for the insertion of micro chips - are nutters. Unvaccinated people have higher viral loads when contracting delta than vaccinated people. This likely means they are more infectious and will pass it on to others not yet proven, but a reasonable hypothesis. By saying "I'm alright, mate", they're putting themselves in a situation where they are more likely to first catch COVID and then to pass COVID on to others who may not be "alright mate", even if they've been vaccinated, because unfortunately the vaccines aren't perfect.

If these fit healthy people are vaccinated, then we already know they're less likely to catch it in the first place, meaning they can't pass it on, and if they did catch it, it seems likely they would still be less likely to pass it on. Yes, it'd be great if the vaccines were perfect and everyone who took them became immune, then the fit healthy people could make solely a personal choice and leave other vulnerable people to be covered by their own vaccinations. But we don't live in that reality, we have to live with the situation as it stands, and that is that the vaccines aren't perfect. So everyone should get vaccinated, and if you're really that healthy and fit, you're even less likely to get side-effects from the vaccine.

And hypothesizing if you do get side effects from the vaccine, then perhaps you would be one of the people who would have fallen seriously ill with COVID. With about 5. And still get Covid and get long-term complications or die,or occupy a hospital bed that someone else should be in. A bit selfish. Life is not fair, you can be super fit and still have a near death experience with covid while joe average who doesn't know what the inside of a gym looks like can get it and not even know he had it. Shit happens. For me it was as important a choice as whether or not to invest in tobacco companies or companies that use slave labour or produce land mines or sponsor terrorism. Some people are hesitant to use the vaccine on ethical, nay moral grounds, namely the use of aborted foetal cell lines in the production or the testing of the vaccines.

Astra Zeneca used it in both testing and production. Pfizer's vaccine only used cell lines in the testing of the vaccine, not the production. Incidentally, the Novavax vaccines fall into the same camp as Pfizer, so no issues with a booster from there either. I'm pro-vaccine, but I may have been labelled vaccine hesitant if the government had bought AZ instead of Pfizer for NZ, because I draw the line at testing.

Those who have this sort of hesitancy are wrongly put in the same camp as the anti-5G camp or the mind control lizard chip wackos. It's just not that simple. This is literally the first time I've seen anyone have moral issues around the way the vaccine was created as a reason to be hesitant about receiving one. I'm pro-GMO, pro-Roundup, pro-technology, pro-meat, pro-technology, pro-5G, pro-freedom of speech, pro-boxing, pro-business, pro-vaccine. Also pro life. The cost of a lockdown can be estimated. The probability of a lockdown and its length can be estimated for any given vaccination rate. Effectively we will never hit this either if booster shots become the norm and new strains emerge like they already are. There is a distinct possibility that in 10 years time we will look back and the whole lockdown and vaccination attempt will have been a complete waste of time.

I get the flu shot every year - after having contracted what might well have been SARS-1 overseas But not sure why you'd see that as a waste of time? Chris misses a major point - opposition to a vaccine passport domestically is not the same as being opposed to vaccines. I'm vaccinated and I oppose a vaccine passport domestically on principle, with perhaps an exemption for visiting a rest home or a hospital. Those who want to travel will need some to comply with the laws of the lands they visit. People should be free not to be vaccinated. As a vaccinated person Covid, especially Delta, is not scary i. Get vaccinated or role the dice. If you get snake eyes you could be done. There are people out there that still believe the world is flat so do we really want to waste tax payers money on understanding their thinking.

No point getting it once you are critically sick. Now that its apparent that vaccination requires not just one or two shots, but a constant never ending 6 monthly vaccination schedule, I am not so keen to be vaccinated and join this merry go round. If it was "one and done" sure - but I'm not signing up to be injected with spike proteins every 6 months. Show me the safety studies done on people who have been forced to constantly be producing spike proteins from their cells?

Prove to me that the blood clot and heart inflammation disorders don't get worse every time you get an injection until eventually you just stroke out in the street one day. So I plan on not getting vaccinated unless and until I absolutely have to eg. Bit of a shame we cannot purchase this here. I can quite understand why the Government funded-programme would be a single type no choice , but it would have been good to get additional vaccines approved for purchase in NZ for those who would like to make their own choice.

We noticed that you're using an ad blocker. Or, your browser is blocking ad display with it's settings. Please help us keep it that way by allowing your browser to display ads. If you're already a Supporter, please use the Supporter Login option here. Chris Trotter argues that what Covid dissidents should be required to explain is why they refuse to be vaccinated. Atlas Shrugged was Rand's last completed work of fiction.

It marked a turning point in her life—the end of her career as a novelist and the beginning of her role as a popular philosopher. To depict the industrial setting of Atlas Shrugged , Rand conducted research on the American railroad and steel industries. She toured and inspected a number of industrial facilities, such as the Kaiser Steel plant, [28] visited facilities of the New York Central Railroad , [29] [30] and even briefly operated a locomotive on the Twentieth Century Limited.

Robert Oppenheimer , which influenced the character Robert Stadler and the novel's depiction of the development of "Project X". Rand's descriptions of Galt's Gulch were based on the town of Ouray, Colorado , which Rand and her husband visited in when they were relocating from Los Angeles to New York. For example, her portrayal of leftist intellectuals such as the characters Balph Eubank and Simon Pritchett was influenced by the college experiences of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, [33] and Alan Greenspan provided information on the economics of the steel industry.

Libertarian writer Justin Raimondo described similarities between Atlas Shrugged and Garet Garrett 's novel The Driver , which is about an idealized industrialist named Henry Galt, who is a transcontinental railway owner trying to improve the world and fighting against government and socialism. Bradford said Raimondo made an unconvincing comparison based on a coincidence of names and common literary devices. Due to the success of Rand's novel The Fountainhead , she had no trouble attracting a publisher for Atlas Shrugged.

This was a contrast to her previous novels, which she had struggled to place. Even before she began writing it, she had been approached by publishers interested in her next novel. However, her contract for The Fountainhead gave the first option to its publisher, Bobbs-Merrill Company. After reviewing a partial manuscript, they asked her to discuss cuts and other changes. She refused, and Bobbs-Merrill rejected the book. Hiram Hayden, an editor she liked who had left Bobbs-Merrill, asked her to consider his new employer, Random House. In an early discussion about the difficulties of publishing a controversial novel, Random House president Bennett Cerf proposed that Rand should submit the manuscript to multiple publishers simultaneously and ask how they would respond to its ideas, so she could evaluate who might best promote her work.

Rand was impressed by the bold suggestion and by her overall conversations with them. After speaking with a few other publishers from about a dozen who were interested, Rand decided multiple submissions were not needed; she offered the manuscript to Random House. Upon reading the portion Rand submitted, Cerf declared it a "great book" and offered Rand a contract. It was the first time Rand had worked with a publisher whose executives seemed enthusiastic about one of her books.

Random House published the novel on October 10, The initial print run was , copies. The first paperback edition was published by New American Library in July , with an initial run of , Dutton in , with an introduction by Rand's heir, Leonard Peikoff. The working title of the novel was The Strike , but Rand thought this title would reveal the mystery element of the novel prematurely. With Rearden unable to answer, d'Anconia gives his own advice: "To shrug". The novel is divided into three parts consisting of ten chapters each. Each part is named in honor of one of Aristotle 's laws of logic : "Non-Contradiction" after the law of noncontradiction ; "Either-Or", which is a reference to the law of excluded middle ; and "A Is A" in reference to the law of identity.

The story of Atlas Shrugged dramatically expresses Rand's ethical egoism , her advocacy of " rational selfishness ", whereby all of the principal virtues and vices are applications of the role of reason as man's basic tool of survival or a failure to apply it : rationality, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, productiveness, and pride. Rand's characters often personify her view of the archetypes of various schools of philosophy for living and working in the world.

Robert James Bidinotto wrote, "Rand rejected the literary convention that depth and plausibility demand characters who are naturalistic replicas of the kinds of people we meet in everyday life, uttering everyday dialogue and pursuing everyday values. But she also rejected the notion that characters should be symbolic rather than realistic. My characters are persons in whom certain human attributes are focused more sharply and consistently than in average human beings". In addition to the plot's more obvious statements about the significance of industrialists to society, and the sharp contrast to Marxism and the labor theory of value , this explicit conflict is used by Rand to draw wider philosophical conclusions, both implicit in the plot and via the characters' own statements.

Atlas Shrugged caricatures fascism , socialism , communism , and any state intervention in society, as allowing unproductive people to "leech" the hard-earned wealth of the productive, and Rand contends that the outcome of any individual's life is purely a function of their ability, and that any individual could overcome adverse circumstances, given ability and intelligence. The concept "sanction of the victim" is defined by Leonard Peikoff as "the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil , to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the ' sin ' of creating values".

If it turned out to be me, I have no right to complain". John Galt further explains the principle: "Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us", and, "I saw that evil was impotent Rand's view of the ideal government is expressed by John Galt: "The political system we will build is contained in a single moral premise: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force", whereas "no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property". In the world of Atlas Shrugged, society stagnates when independent productive agencies are socially demonized for their accomplishments.

This is in agreement with an excerpt from a interview with Playboy magazine, in which Rand states: "What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy—that is, a mixture of freedom and controls, which, by the presently dominant trend, is moving toward dictatorship. The action in Atlas Shrugged takes place at a time when society has reached the stage of dictatorship.

When and if this happens, that will be the time to go on strike, but not until then". Rand also depicts public choice theory , such that the language of altruism is used to pass legislation nominally in the public interest e. Rand's heroes continually oppose "parasites", "looters", and "moochers" who demand the benefits of the heroes' labor. Edward Younkins describes Atlas Shrugged as "an apocalyptic vision of the last stages of conflict between two classes of humanity—the looters and the non-looters.

The looters are proponents of high taxation, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government planning, regulation, and redistribution". Some officials execute government policy, such as those who confiscate one state's seed grain to feed the starving citizens of another; others exploit those policies, such as the railroad regulator who illegally sells the railroad's supplies for his own profit.

Both use force to take property from the people who produced or earned it. The character Francisco d'Anconia indicates the role of "looters" and "moochers" in relation to money: "So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or the looters who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. The novel includes elements of mystery , romance , and science fiction. Ruddy if a screenplay could focus on the love story, Rand agreed and reportedly said, "That's all it ever was".

Pierce describes it as a "romantic suspense novel" that is "at least a borderline case" of science fiction, [66] specifically libertarian science fiction based on its political themes. It peaked at number 3 on December 8, , and was on the list for 22 consecutive weeks. The novel's sales in exceeded , copies, [72] and it sold , copies in Atlas Shrugged was generally disliked by critics. Rand scholar Mimi Reisel Gladstein later wrote that "reviewers seemed to vie with each other in a contest to devise the cleverest put-downs"; one called it "execrable claptrap", while another said it showed "remorseless hectoring and prolixity". Is it a nightmare? Is it Superman — in the comic strip or the Nietzschean version? There were some positive reviews.

Richard McLaughlin, reviewing the novel for The American Mercury , described it as a "long overdue" polemic against the welfare state with an "exciting, suspenseful plot", although unnecessarily long. He drew a comparison with the antislavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin , saying that a "skillful polemicist" did not need a refined literary style to have a political impact. Atlas Shrugged has attracted an energetic and committed fan base. Each year, the Ayn Rand Institute donates , copies of works by Rand, including Atlas Shrugged , to high school students. Rand's impact on contemporary libertarian thought has been considerable. The title of one libertarian magazine, Reason : Free Minds, Free Markets , is taken directly from John Galt, the hero of Atlas Shrugged , who argues that "a free mind and a free market are corollaries".

In a tribute written on the 20th anniversary of the novel's publication, libertarian philosopher John Hospers praised it as "a supreme achievement, guaranteed of immortality". Former Rand business partner and lover Nathaniel Branden has expressed differing views of Atlas Shrugged. He was initially quite favorable to it, and even after he and Rand ended their relationship, he still referred to it in an interview as "the greatest novel that has ever been written", although he found "a few things one can quarrel with in the book".

He criticized the potential psychological impact of the novel, stating that John Galt's recommendation to respond to wrongdoing with "contempt and moral condemnation" clashes with the view of psychologists who say this only causes the wrongdoing to repeat itself. The Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises admired the unapologetic elitism he saw in Rand's work. In a letter to Rand written a few months after the novel's publication, he said it offered "a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled 'intellectuals' and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you.

Murray Rothbard , another Austrian School economist, wrote a letter to Rand in in which he praised the book as "an infinite treasure house" and "not merely the greatest novel ever written, [but] one of the very greatest books ever written, fiction or nonfiction". In the years immediately following the novel's publication, many American conservatives , such as William F. Buckley, Jr. In the 21st century, the novel was referred to more positively by some conservatives. In , Republican Congressman Paul Ryan said that Rand was "the reason I got into public service", and he required his staff members to read Atlas Shrugged , [3] although in he said his supposed devotion to Rand was "an urban legend".

Conservative commentators Neal Boortz , [4] Glenn Beck , and Rush Limbaugh [5] offered praise of the book on their respective radio and television programs. References to Atlas Shrugged have appeared in a variety of other popular entertainments. In the first season of the drama series Mad Men , Bert Cooper urges Don Draper to read the book, and Don's sales pitch tactic to a client indicates he has been influenced by the strike plot. The story depicts a society that has collapsed due to Objectivism, and significant characters in the game owe their naming to Rand's work, which the game's creator Ken Levine found "really fascinating".

In , it was announced that Galt's Gulch, a settlement for libertarian devotees named for John Galt's safe haven, would be established near Santiago in Chile, [] but the project collapsed amid accusations of fraud. A film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged was in " development hell " for nearly 40 years. Ruddy approached Rand to produce a cinematic adaptation. Rand insisted on having final script approval, which Ruddy refused to give her, thus preventing a deal.

Screenwriter Stirling Silliphant wrote the adaptation and obtained approval from Rand on the final script. Rand, a former Hollywood screenwriter herself, began writing her own screenplay, but died in with only one-third of it finished. Peikoff would not approve the script they wrote, and the deal fell through. Hart [] and rewritten by Randall Wallace , [] but was never produced. Stephen Polk was set to direct. Filming was completed on July 20, , [] and the movie was released on April 15, The film was met with a generally negative reception from professional critics.

The film was released on October 12, , without a special screening for critics. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the novel. For the film adaptations, see Atlas Shrugged film series. Philosophical fiction Libertarian science fiction Mystery fiction Romance novel. See also: List of Atlas Shrugged characters. Main article: Objectivism. Main article: Atlas Shrugged film series. Main article: Atlas Shrugged: Part I. Novels portal. Artistic depictions of Atlas holding a sphere representing the sky led to a later misconception that he held the earth.

Cato Policy Report. November—December Archived from the original on April 20, Retrieved April 14, December 18, Archived from the original on February 5, Retrieved September 12, Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 4, Retrieved January 14, In Younkins , pp. In Younkins , p. In Mayhew , pp. In Mayhew , p. Ayn Rand Institute. Archived PDF from the original on June 21, Retrieved June 21, In Rand , pp. Playboy Magazine. Archived from the original on March 12, Retrieved April 12, Archived from the original on February 10, Retrieved April 18, January 21, Archived from the original on November 26, Retrieved January 12, February 14, Retrieved January 1, October 14, The New York Herald Tribune.

Los Angeles Times. December 2, Random House. Archived from the original on February 3, Retrieved February 1, Archived from the original on June 6, Retrieved July 1, Archived from the original on May 8, Libertarian Review. October Letter dated January 23, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. ISBN The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 8, Mother Jones.

National Post. Archived from the original on February 9, Retrieved August 22, National Book Foundation. Archived from the original on February 25, Retrieved June 28, Libertarian Futurist Society. Archived from the original on May 22, Archived from the original on May 29, Retrieved May 28, Libertas Film Magazine. Archived from the original on August 1, Retrieved August 26, Screen Daily. Archived from the original on July 30, Retrieved July 29, Rotten Tomatoes. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved September 21, The Numbers. Barnes, Anita March 4, The Washington Independent.

Archived from the original on February 12, Retrieved June 27, Beam, Christopher December 17, New York. Archived from the original on October 23, Bidinotto, Robert James April 5, The Atlas Society.

Note I'm not saying he's bad Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart he's sexist and so Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart, it's that he's seemingly incompetent Clovers Speech In Animal Farm it comes to applying his worldview to his own worldview. He was interested in the enhancement of individual and cultural health, and believed in life, creativity, power, Analysis Of The Movie Unbroken the realities Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart the world we live in, rather than Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart situated in a world beyond. I enjoyed the writings of this philosopher. I Creative Writing: Ayn Rands Things Fall Apart x brand vaccine instead of Modern Masculinity brand?

Current Viewers: