/biz/ - Business & Finance

You answered your own question

The people running our country have fucked its people to the point where your yurotrash slav self reffers to our country as bugerland

>>659950
For me personally - because the author was a hypocrite.

I don't get it either. Whenever I talk to anyone about the book they always say. "So stupid, objectivism, bullshit" and I ask if they read it. They all said no. So why have an opinion if you never read it? I started reading it and it is long winded and the characters are a bit 1D, but I do enjoy the principles of the plot and can appreciate the parallelism in the modern world.

>>659950
It's not that it's pleb. It's that it's very basic, with radically simplistic assumptions made about the intrinsically complex human nature. The example is terribly cherry picked, and there are a ton of critiques to be made about it. In truth it should be taken with the grain of salt, and not become something around which you base your living philosophy. The same goes for a whole bunch of other simplistic writers like Nietzsche, and Marcus Aurelius. Great to keep in mind, and great food for thought, just don't let the ideas consume you.

>>659955
That doesn't explain much. Why do murricans hate, with passion I might add, a book that I found comparable to Brave New World and 1984 in its critique of SHTF scenario?

>>659957
But isn't that just ad hominem? How does that address the ideas expressed in the book themselves? I'm not talking about Ayn Rand or objectivism or any other lung cancer strawman, I'm talking about ideas expressed about a society that has lost the people who pushed shit forward and replaced them with people who would decommission a steel mill for pennies on the dollar because they are incapable of running them.

>>659950
The only answer:
>Who is John Galt?

>>659964
Second.

I think the government over regulates tons of shit but im not about to suggest roads shouldnt be publicly funded.

I think gays should be able to marry but i wouldnt support like 3rd trimester abortions.

You see how individuals can have varying opinions?

The book doesn't acknowledge that at all.

>>659990
The book insists that your opinions are not my moral obligation. I happen to agree, but if you don't it's cool.

Are you from Brazil?

>>659990
>The book doesn't acknowledge that at all.
Yes it does. He cheated on his marriage.

>>659961
I have frankly enjoyed it's length. I wish there was more. Again, I found it very comparable to Brave New World and 1984. I'm confused with the level of contrast of respect between >muh sophisticated satire critique of totalitarian regimes and >fugging elitism. Even if this is /lit/ level of discussion, I genuinely can't find the difference between widely respected works of Huxley and Orwell and widely shat upon Atlas Shrugged. Are people expecting direct correlation, 0.99, with the real world? Critique I saw was on the intellectual level of "Orwell is shit because animals can't talk". Again, genuinely confused.

>>659964
I suppose that's how I took it. All the critical works I saw around it are strawman-ish, assuming the work is absolutely literal. There is plenty food for thought and 1D characters are probably the best thing for such a novel, as character development would probably take another 2k pages while adding nothing to the actual point.


>mfw googling for critical approach to Atlas Shrugged
>10 insane things about Atlas Shrugged:
>muh lack of feminism
>muh unhealthy smoking
>muh positive characters are positive
>muh negative characters are ugly
What the shit, it's like the article was written by Rand as a parody of looters, complaining that negative characters were described as fat and incompetent. I expected serious reasoning here, what the shit.

>>659990
Why do people insist of taking it seriously? Genuine question. It's like calling Animal Farm racist towards pigs or Brave New World elitist just because of the plot. It's not supposed to be scientific. I had plenty food for thought moments but I'm not too nuking of making it my literal Bible. Why do people insist on both proving that it isn't Bible and that it should be Bible?


Again, a non American here, who has just read the book.

>>659994
No, yuroslav. We had relatively developed infrastructure ran by capable people until the new "democratic" government took over, told the capable people to fuck off and started the process of dismantling and selling what was once a very profitable industry, leaving shit ton of people unemployed and poor. You can see some paralleles between my day-to-day life and the book.

>>659996
Nuking=keen*

Because it's so fucking full of itself. No one wants to read 1000 pages of horse shit that could be condensed into a fanfic short story that you might see on some lolbertarian forum

>>660016
>muh feels
>muh short attention span
Well that was a waste of time.

>>660016
>No one wants to read
Sold 7 million copies

>>659957
The author paid taxes and received services for it.

If she was free from taxes she would not have demanded her treatment to be paid.

Ad hominems are also quite petty, btw.

>>660023
>muh john galt
>muh selfishness
>muh philosophyyyyyy

wow I can do it too. start listing the number of modern day john galts that are fans of Rand's philosophy

she's a hypocritical slav that worshipped capitalism because she hated living in the soviet union

>>660039
ad populum

>>660034
no one intelligent* wants to read

the bible is the number one selling book of all time. do intelligent people enthusiastically read, believe and preach the bible?

>>660044
They have for thousands of years, and continue to do so. Who doesn't like a decent allegory?

>>660040
if john galts are the saviors whose ideas and actions bring the greatest benefit to our society, surely they should champion ayn rand's amazing philosophy?

>>660039
>>660044
>>660051
You are actually making an argument for it by being the tard murrican hating on something without an argument, which makes other people consider it more carefully than they usually would.

People, I don't give a flying fuck about her philosophy, I don't think I'm qualified enough to understand it and neither are you, I'm wondering about the plot of Atlas Shrugged, specifically why do people hate it when it is, in my experience, accurate in it's predictions. I'm still not hearing any sound arguments that aren't strawman or ad hominem.

>>660051
How many John Galts have you interviewed? Maybe they all do. Maybe none of them do, but given he is a idyllic representation of the perfect mover, we won't have many to ask, will we?

>>660048
really? intelligent people believe and enjoy reading the bible? surely you've seen the studies that show an inverse correlation with religiosity and IQ

Let's look at the "John Galts" of today. Are any of these people huge fans of the bible or ayn rand? I can't name a single one

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, Michael Bloomberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Lee Kuan Yew

>>660056
ok

Socialists are scary. Socialists are frightening creatures who lurk in corners, waiting to pounce on you. They are unpredictable, they have curvature of the spine, and they often foam at the mouth.

Capitalists, on the other hand, are calm and rational beings who never lose their tempers. You can always trust a capitalist. And they are super easy to spot, too—just look for the hummingbirds who sew their clothes for them.

>>660063
A bunch of salesman relying on others genius and regulatory barriers to amass billions. Not quite John Galts, are they?

>>660066
Ayn Rand’s characters come in only two flavors, and which kind you get depends solely on the extent to which they embody her philosophical ideals. The capitalists (the “good guys”) are the moral heroes of the story, the ones who fight back against economic regulation. This regulation is seen as unwanted intervention, the government essentially trespassing on one’s property rights by means of unfair (unfair to the capitalists, I might point out) legislation. The “bad guys” are, of course, represented by the socialists—the ones passing the legislation, although Rand does a good job of throwing anyone else into this category who, while not active participants in passing these laws, may not be totally opposed to them, either.

The problem with all of this is the fact that her characters are not at all believable. They are robots who mechanically spew forth her inane drivel or, if they are of the other flavor, behave in a manner so utterly ridiculous as to demonstrate the rationality of the capitalist over the vicious, gun-toting socialist who’s come to rob your house, rape your Ma, and shoot your Pa. Rand is so egregious in the maltreatment of her antithetic characters that it’s almost laughable. Beyond that, the narrative itself is monotonous and repetitive. This is not exactly a beach read.

>>660069
But even if I were to put all of that aside, I still wouldn’t be able to get over the fact that Rand’s argument here is to put an end to social collectivism of every form. That means: no social security, no unemployment insurance, no federally funded health care, no public roads, no public housing, no public education, no income taxes, no property taxes—does this not sound insane?! I get the whole “ooh” and “aah” aspect of libertarian freedoms, but I’m betting there wouldn’t be a lot of volunteers willing to relinquish their adequately funded public services on the basis of a free market economy. And ultimately, this is the fundamental principle on which Rand and I disagree. Although I do believe, and strongly, that the government should have no authority to interfere in the private lives of its citizens, do I think the government should also abstain from interfering in the regulation of the economy? Hellz, no! I want those corporate mother fuckers taxed and if that means Ima start foaming at the mouth, then so be it.

>>660069
What are you talking about? There is also a third kind of character, those are the people who are not a party to either groups whims and who simply are observers up until the point when the conflict is over and they are expected to pick up the pieces of the situation.

>That means: no social security, no unemployment insurance, no federally funded health care, no public roads, no public housing, no public education, no income taxes, no property taxes—does this not sound insane?!

What's more troubling from your reading is that you did not pick up that these programs and functions are usually more about the personal beliefs and crusades of those advancing them rather than about any sort of actual social good being expected.

>>660016
I really have the need to go further here. Your main complaints, are, in your words,
>I feel it's horse shit
>it's too long
>sounds like something you'd read 60 years later
I quote you on what you said and your reply, instead of making yourself extra clear, is
>muh main character of a book
>muh selfishness
>muh philosophy (I don't agree with but I present nothing against)
Please do elaborate because you are the part that confuses me.

>>660066
Well I really can't call that anything but strawman. Remember, I'm not your average Republican voted-for-bush guy, I'm not American and I live in the parts of book you skimmed over and you don't believe could ever happen (to you).

>>660069
>>660072
>>660072
>But even if I were to put all of that aside, I still wouldn’t be able to get over the fact that Rand’s argument here is to put an end to social collectivism of every form. That means: no social security, no unemployment insurance, no federally funded health care, no public roads, no public housing, no public education, no income taxes, no property taxes—does this not sound insane?!
I don't remember reading about those specific issues you mention.

I'm starting to get a feeling that Ayn herself is controversial, not the book. If I made a topic discussing what would happen if [plot of the book] I probably wouldn't get as much people shitting on objectivism but people discussing what would happen if current corporation leaders that are worth shit disappeared because of the shit government.

>>660072
>should have no authority to interfere
>I want those corporate mother fuckers taxed
"Do it to Julia!"

>>660083
Yeh, its kind of impossible to seperate the authors stated reasoning behind her most popular work and the book. We could discuss the fountainhead and it would be the same problem.

So as a non american reading this book is your real question why we hate libertarianism so much?

because that premise is also up for debate.

>>660068
Yeah, sure. Just dismiss all of those people. I'm sure you know better.

>>660069
>>660072
Basically this. Capitalism itself is collectivism in a way. It's predicated on ownership and society is the one that has "decided" that it's okay for one guy to own 10 factories and 50 apartment buildings.

A centralized government that acts through socialism on behalf of its people is natural and necessary. Most people believe that you should help your fellow man and not leave him to his own determination.

>>660102
I didn't dismiss them at all. They aren't John Galts; moreover, you haven't established e whatsoever that any of them aren't fans of the book.

>>660087
You purposefully took what I said out of context to neatly fit it into your argument.

But you're trying to draw me into a philosophical debate about basic premises such as personal liberty and the like, I'm not buying into it mate.

In the reality we live in we have this thing called society, reasonable amounts of laws and regulation of behavior (limiting peoples freedom) is neccesary for us to function, you'd like to believe elon musk types would rise up and free us from ourselves but again, pure fantasy, whats stopping that from happening is cold hard reality not the fact that we're constraining him with "taxes"

People are stupid and weak and easily fooled, until we have a bit more working knowledge of behavioral psychology and we have an actual functioning education system that actually produces more than consumers and meatbags for war I think they need to be protected from themselves and I need to be protected from them.

I'll end on this quote which might seem odd to you but, you're a black or white type so I wouldn't expect you to understand that people can have a range of opinions and thoughts about a subject.

A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”

>>659950

It's simplistic to speak to the dunces of the world who, having literally had the most simplistic narrative of what socialism and collectivism for its own sake will eventually lead to, hold it up as an excuse for ignoring their neighbors and behaving like an asshole.


That and conservative Republicans who claim to like the book while clearly having no idea that Ayn Rand herself was a Libertarian in thought, pro-choice, and atheist.


>I live in a country where competent people left and incompetent government has taken over and looted everything of value created by men vastly more capable than them.

When I was reading this, I was astonished at the accuracy of predictions, yet people find it "pleb as fuck brah, gtfo primary school brah". Why? Is there something I'm missing, given that it's the book for Americans, which they hate?


Ayn Rand grew up in the Soviet Union and watched as the government completely obliterated all wealth her father had created. Her story speaks to a truth most Americans won't understand and treat as farcical and fantastical for no reason other than that they can't conceivably think of how such a thing could happen.

>>660092
As a non American (can't stress this enough, is there part of your culture that I'm missing?) I'm wondering why do many Americans hate this book and things presented in it? What concrete argument do you have, except "it's horse shit"?

Again, I have seen a lot of it come true, which makes me more inclined to believe the rest of it than an armchair philosopher in his mother's basement. I need very convincing arguments. Do you have European or Far East respected philosophers that have written who is it horse shit?

>>660114
You can't prove a lack of evidence. Give me some John Galts then

I know that Buffett and Munger don't take Ayn Rand seriously. In fact, they're giving away 99% of their wealth back to society. That doesn't sound like they don't feel responsibility to their fellow man, does it?

>>660115
People do have a range of opinions, don't they. Ours are at variance, and that's ok.

>>660128
There's no objection to charity in Rands philosophy.

>>660117
>Ayn Rand grew up in the Soviet Union and watched as the government completely obliterated all wealth her father had created. Her story speaks to a truth most Americans won't understand and treat as farcical and fantastical for no reason other than that they can't conceivably think of how such a thing could happen.
That explains a lot.
I have seen billion dollar companies destroyed so a few people could make 200k on machines and tools. I've experienced cities going from respectable working/middle class to poverty. I've seen everybody but the thieves destroying what was created for years, fail. You can see why Atlas Shrugged seems so different to me than it is to you.

>>660128
Ayn Rand never implied you owe nothing to your fellow man. She wrote extensively on what happens when the hand of aid is *forced* however. Buffet and Munger are generous because their wealth has accumulated to the point that more is useless, and they could make due with far less. If you wanted to make human nature an economic value, they value their legacies at this point more than more money.

>>660138
Oh right silly me. Cause he's an individual. He can do whatever he wants!

What about soliciting others to collectively come together for charity? What about the higher income tax that Buffett has lobbied Congress for?

>>659993

The suggestion that my opinions are not moral obligations are the heart of objectivism, though Ayn Rand explains that poorly.

The problem with that is:
>serial killer
>won't or can't accept that murder is wrong
>the use of force is required by society to bring him into custody or kill him

Objectivism is a philosophy that only works in a white room and, at best, remains willfully ignorant of the practicalities of keeping a society running.

>>660151
I'm not sure what you're driving at here... Are we assaulting my personal philosophy, or are we still talking about the book?

>>660119
What country do you live in though? if our opinions are biased because we're americans vs the author who experienced first hand soviet "socialism" then surely you also have a biased view of the book from the conditioning of your society?

I guess to put it bluntly, I don't think that "atlas shrugged" does a very good job of arguing for "objectivism" , defining "self interest" as a moral virtue doesn't fly.

But the book doesn't just stop with an offering of a political philosophy, it also tries to sell us on her epistomology and ethics, it endorses imperialism. she takes a word, changes its meaning to fit her needs and then complained that no one was using the right definition (altruism, reason, mercy, mind, evil)

"There is one word that is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.'"
—Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand holds the position that it is immoral to give, or to receive aid to another of any kind that is not in one's own self-interest. She explains this in an interview in 1959, where she specifically says that man must not live for others, and that altruism is immoral.

>>660154
99.9% of every day, you are living in pure anarchy, and the remainder of the time, with the exception of possibly the fire department, you are subject to, at best irksome, systematic harassment / extortion by the state.

>>660161
This can be criticized on several grounds. Firstly, this arguably means that it is immoral to be a child, or to raise a child, since a child requires constant attention and aid from the parents. This probably explains why Rand never had children, and also means that if the human species adopted this, we would be gone after one generation. One counterargument would be that passing on one's genes would certainly be in a person's best interest from an evolutionary standpoint, and justifies the effort put into raising children, although this would fall apart in the case of a child who will be unable or extremely unlikely to reproduce for any number of reasons.

A stunning example of this problem, especially if you're Finnish, is the case of Simo Häyhä. Häyhä was a sniper in the Finnish White Army during the Winter War against the Soviet Red Army who killed at least 505 enemy soldiers (including counter-snipers), survived temperatures as low as -40°C and numerous attempts to kill him both by carpet bombing and by assaults of infantry and mechanized units. The actions of Häyhä were instrumental in preventing the Finnish from losing the Winter War, which prevented them from being taken over by the Soviets. When asked to explain actions like these (partly since actions like these happened in Atlas Shrugged) Randroids respond with a rather dehumanizing, and frankly insulting, response that the person is not acting out of group interest, but is instead expecting to survive and is trying to gain self-respect or popularity.

But alas, if he didn't care enough to do such a thing Finland would have gone Red. And ol' Ayn wouldn't have liked that, would she.

>>659950
>required reading for high school and freshman year college fags
>everyone regurgitating the essays they had to write for their classes
Cool thread, bros.

>>660164
The pursuits and preservations your describing: Children, and country/ way of life aren't altruistic at all. They are entirely self serving.

>>660144
The individual should "exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself".

>>660158
I'm driving at her point that people owe nothing to one another. It's morally void.

>>660164
>reading that much into him
He was trying to save his ass, and in the end still got half of his face blown off and had to eat through a straw till he died.

>>660168
You're mistaking, it seems, her objectivism for "morality is the advantage of the stronger" sophistry.

>>660163

The fuck are you talking about pure anarchy? The other day I walked down the street without fearing for my life because should anyone commit a crime against me the state will pursue them. A few years back when there was a domestic disturbance in my college dorm we resolved it by finally calling the cops.

I'm sorry that I'm not an angsty faggot spouting "government this, government that" while I ignore the invisible but real benefits of living in an orderly and lawful society built upon legacies of established law and institutions created by previous orders.

As an American do you know why I REALLY hate Objectivism? Because it epitomizes the smugness of the modern zeitgeist: people want to do whatever pleases them, and want to not only be told that it is acceptable but exalted for doing so. Fuck that. There is no sense of responsibility for oneself, one's neighbors, one's society, or one's planet, just a never ending chain of excuses for your failure to man up to the difficulties besetting society and escape into your own personal bubbles of whatever it is you deem to be success.

It's fucking disgusting and degenerate, and I insist upon combatting such attitudes wherever I see them. Whether its Republicans who think that they should be allowed to be corrupt polluters or Democrats who think that it's okay to be drug addled dropouts from Americas obligations toward preserving global order, or goddamned Libertarians who think both, I despise all such notions and reject them with every fiber of my being.

>>660172
In English?

>>660174
Start at the beginning with Plato.

>>660173
Crimes still happen, right?

>>660181
Rand rejected plato. To her she had this entirely rational philosophy built up but to anyone with some sense we can see that she just made it up to attract a personality cult.

>>660182

Compare crime in Somalia or Mexican and Guatamalan badlands where there is no rule of law with crime in a typical US town and get back to me.

>>660181
Plato is actually an enjoyable read and makes more sense than the mother of lolbertarianism.

>>659950
>Why do burgerlanders hate this book so much?
I studied political science in burgerland and it was impossible to step into any classroom and not find at least one outspoken proponent of libertarianism, despite social dems and american liberals being the majority.

>>660188
So there is still crime?

>>660213
Yes. Crime still happens. Would crime be eliminated by laissez faire capitalism?

>>660186
>To her she had this entirely rational philosophy ... that she just made it up to attract a personality cult.

Does not follow.

>>660214
Who suggested that?

>>659950
this shit happens like once a week

>>660213

To a lesser degree.

>>660219

Don't hide your implication behind disingenuity.

>>660161
>What country do you live in though? if our opinions are biased because we're americans vs the author who experienced first hand soviet "socialism" then surely you also have a biased view of the book from the conditioning of your society?
Ex communist, not Soviet bloc tho. Surprisingly enough, I don't have anything against communism as we had it, as it was pretty mellow compared to other regimes. The more I think of it, the funnier it gets - the democratic government removed capable people who ran the companies for years in the communist time and replaced them with men who drove the companies into ground due to incompetency (or just to bankrupt them asap so they can cash in)

>Ayn Rand holds the position that it is immoral to give, or to receive aid to another of any kind that is not in one's own self-interest. She explains this in an interview in 1959, where she specifically says that man must not live for others, and that altruism is immoral.
Eh, not a huge believer in pure altruism.

I'm not competent to judge the philosophical implications. I'm just saying that the plot is pretty believable and that the people saying otherwise just underestimate how corrupt or incompetent can a government be.

Post shit bitches. 703 again

>>659950
I have read around 200 pages now, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
AS is not bad, but the story doesnt make sense in some regards. Great people create something because they want/need to create, not because they want to make money.

The reason some love AS is that its basic theme is: "the world is run by greedy retards, so let the gifted do their thing and everthing will get better" which is a theme everyone can agree to and has some merit.
Telling us that a completely free capitalistic system, where everyone just does everything to suit their own needs is retarded. You just have to look back into the early times of industrialisation, where the bosses did as they pleased. Most people suffered through horrible and short lives.
Examples:
-children died young as their lungs gave in fast if they where sold to work in mines.
- i have read about a sewing company that employed young women in 14 hour days, letting them work on unsafe machines. If they broke a part of the machine instead of letting their hands get mutilated when a machine broke down they got fired because they valued their hands more than the machine. And if they put their hand in there to save the more expensive parts? they got fired too. This time for not being able to work with broken hands.

AS has some good an convincing themes but Rand gets some things so wrong that it hurts.

>>659950
It's a stupid book that's written terribly an almost childish view of the world.

>>660173
>degenerate
lol

>>659950

here's a decent article:

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html

>>659950
Because it is philosophically naive, overly long, meandering, pretentious, dense, out-of-touch, self-affirming, un-subtle trash fiction. And trash philosophical tract, come to it.

Like what this guy said >>659964, it's interesting, but the minute you start mouthing off about it being a wonder of philosophy, it just becomes apparent how little you read/know.

>>659950
Americans have the luxury of living under a government that isn't so corrupt that it spills over onto the streets in plain view, so it is difficult for someone like Ayn Rand to reveal the corruption behind closed doors.

>Why do burgerlanders hate this book so much?
Because Ayn Rand was a humongous hypocrite. She lived the last ten years of her life on welfare, completely supported by the system she hated.

>>661091
I'd agree that if anything, the book is philosophically naive in that Rand crafts the world to convey her message more so than crafting a world that attempts to be more realistic. The fundamental lessons that this book tries to convey still remain relevant to some extent if taken with a grain of salt. Personally, I do not believe that taking extreme stances about government policy and economy is how the book should be productively interpreted, but instead that taking the book as a sort of warning against overly-powerful government is most beneficial.

>>659950
I would encourage your to read the jungle by upton sinclair

This book is tells the errors in the libertarians wet dream

>>661282
Unfortunately the Jungle was nothing more than a hit piece on ebil capitalism. Upton Sinclair said that himself. It's hard to take seriously in the same vein that Atlas Shrugged is hard to take serious. It's myopic in scope and cherry picks an example of Latvian Immigrants and meat packing. He doesn't explore the reasons they immigrated in the first place, or the fact that those jobs paid relatively well for that era. He just talks about how ebil the capitalists are and how dead Latvians are ending up in your food because of...capitalism.

>>661392

But arguably, by complaining about ebil capitalism didn't their conditions improve. Haven't all of our conditions improved because of this?

>>661124

Our politicians aren't corrupt because we've legalized bribery. We're a joke of a democracy.

>>661189
>I work so hard all the time you guys! I work so hard no man was ever worthy of me.
Meanwhile in the real world she produced less books than an author like Stephen King, who himself consgtantly complains about how much of a slob he is, her prose was amateurish at best and her knowledge of Aristotle is a fucking joke, even though she kept reffering to him. She doesn't measure up to the heel of a libertarian author like Nozick.
I hate hypocrites with a passion. Sermoning hypocrites even more.

>>660173
This man gets it. Libertarianism is one thing, but arguing AGAINST altruism and responsability is degeneracy.

>>661430
I'm not saying it didn't, I'm just saying it's the same single-sided logic of Atlas Shrugged. It's food for thought, but it should be taken with a grain of salt. The only book that I've ever really been harsh on is probably, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." It's basically delusional conspiratard level tomfuckery masquerading as a legitimate treatise on international diplomacy and economics.

>>659950
It's a piece of shit because her only good works were Anthem and The Fountainhead.

>>659950
burger here; I think it's great

I'm a minority though

>>659964
people always say this but they never say compared to what. How is it basic and what is similar to objectivism yet better because it is complex. Moreover, why is basic inherently worse than complex?

tl;dr you're the kind of faggot that doesnt know they are a faggot

>>659967
it is ad hominem, but most Americans cant into logic and fallacies

>>660044
yes they do

The bible is a great piece of work, developed over generations, and examining the worst and best of human nature. No, you don't have to take the mystical stuff literally. Yes there is more than just mystical stuff in there.

>>660069
you idiot, the government was regulating the market in favor of less efficient capitalists against the efficient capitalists because the former lot were incompetent and could not compete. There was nothing about socialism in there.

>>660164
just lel
this >>660171

>>661571
>ask question
>doesn't wait for the answer
Read Aristotle you massive plebe. It's "similar" to objectivism the same way the Sistine Chapel is similar to a kid's drawing.

>>660235

Ex-communist states have ended up being run, often as not, by a sort of mafia. The oligarchs and criminals who made enormous money from the dismantling of state owned assets are the kind of people that Rand rails against, and that's probably the most successful aspect of her book. A free market is inherently better and fairer than a controlled one, but that doesn't lead to the notion that taxes and social structures are automatically bad. Certainty about their costs is what allows business to invest, not low taxes. The same goes for workplace and product regulations. So long as the playing field is level, and everyone is equally free to succeed or to fail, then government need not be a burden. Besides, an educated, healthy, and comfortable workforce is a benefit to business. I think Rand appeals to some Americans because there still is a lot of corruption, particularly crony capitalism, which holds back growth and new ideas. Look at the treatment of Tesla by a lot of states, for example, with them banning the marketing or sale of their cars. That's a clear example of the kind of protectionism that politicians enact on behalf of established businesses that Rand was right to rail against. When it comes to everyone paying a little more tax so that the roads are in a good state of repair, and so the populace has access to healthcare, education, and housing, that's not an unreasonable burden, so long as it's fairly applied.

>>659964
>Nietzsche
>simplistic

>>662268
I agree and disagree. Aristotle's nichomachaen(sp?) ethics was what's up, but the work was expanded upon by theolgians (Aquinas et al), to twist the virtue ethics philosophy into a more Catholic appropriate altruistic /suffering is good philosophy. She attempted to set it back to Aristotle, with her own, perhaps mangled, anti-collectivism twist

>>661437
>go to court
>sue someone
>present proof
>get a fair judgement
>the end
Oh you poor, poor fucking babies, thinking that corruption is a billionaire donating 10 million to a senator's campaign. You wouldn't survive a fucking second in a less developed country.

>>662326
>implying he's not
Read Heidegger's principles of metaphysics. He's light years more complex than Nietzsche.

>>659957
Irrelevant. Ad hominem.

>>661550
I liked Confessions of an Economic Hitman - but I filtered out the whiny bits on how ebil it all was, and enjoyed the genius of what they actually did.

What annoyed me most is the author's willingness to pretend like this sort of thing was something new in world history and politics. Again, if you ignore the bits that seem like they've been edited by someone who writes for 'The Green-Left Weekly', it's an interesting story.

>>660063
romney
was prez of a PE firm, sounds pretty rand to me

>>660087
>He thinks quoting 1984 makes a good argument

Stay pleb, friend...

>>663268
You never read Nietzsche, did you?

>>663857
Yes, I have. He's a great philosopher for edge-lord fedora tipping high-school students. They describe his work as "life changing". I'm sure you agree, until your first freshmen philosophy class.

>>664961
>implying Heidegger didn't took things ffrom Nietzsche

>>663744
You knew where the quote came from. You're so smart and handsome!

The philosophy is alright to me. But its poorly written. Ayn Rand herself was on the dole when she wrote it, and was bumming money from a Rothschild fuckbuddy or something at the time. She was a huge hypocrite.

>>659950
There is this litle thing call game theory bitch. This book is shitty compare to game theory.

I've read all of her fiction, not because I'm much of a fan or subscribe to her philosophy but because I have no life and enjoyed the first book of hers which was We the Living. I'll never understand why Atlas Shrugged is the most discussed book when the others are more interesting stories (fucking railroads) with characters who are slightly less black and white but with the same Nietzsche fan fiction theme. She was good with her libertarian romance novels but went overboard with the watered down philosophy on this one

>>665008
What a detailed, well thought out post.

>>659950

American here. Read the book, loved it, agreed with a lot of it, but don't base my life around it. It's obviously pretty heavy-handed, and belabors a few points (most) that could have been made much more succinctly. I don't actually even know anybody who's read it that hates it.

>>659950
Start to read book. Hey, I like this idea! This is going to be a great book! Wait, this part is totally wrong. And it's getting worse. Fuck, I wanted this to be a good book, and now I'm pissed off.

=> Hateful review

>>666049
which parts are wrong?

>>659967
It's as easy to say you hate a book as it is easy to make grand generalizations of populations. Have you spoken to 300 million plus Americans about this book?

I liked the book, read it in ninth grade and it got me interested in politics before I realized making money was a better rabbit hole to go down. Reading it again a decade later I realized that it was overly simplistic, but when you're writing to make a point and not to tell a story, that's to be expected and not an intrinsically bad thing.

Annoyance at this book comes from a couple places. People who haven't read it say they hate it because other people say they hate it, and the fanbase. So pretty much people people stupid everywhere in the world. Welcome to the fucking jungle, my friends.

>>667940
>So pretty much people people stupid everywhere in the world.
>people people stupid everywhere

>judging peoples intelligence
>has none of his own
Kek

>>667032
>which parts are wrong?

How about the part where the main character, and obvious hero makes the trains run on time.

>>659964
>Nietzsche
>simplistic

Is that why there are legions of philosophers who spend their lifetimes studying his works? Is that why he's counted amonst the most influential philosophers of the 19th century? You are a total fucking pleb.

Also, on Marcus Aurelius, he never intended for his diary to be published. His book is essentially many proverbs and aphorisms to encourage himself to live well. It's not meant to be a complete philosophy.

Retard.

>>665178
>Ayn Rand
>same as Nietzsche

You are one dense motherfucker. Can you even fucking read?

>>668002
>trains run on time
didn't read the book, was it supposed to be an analogy or is it just this retarded?

>>659950
That book really is pleb as fuck. You must be one simple minded person, OP.

>>668025
>didn't read the book, was it supposed to be an analogy or is it just this retarded?

"Say what you want about [Mussolini] but at least he made the trains run on time"

When we meet Dagny Taggart in 'Atlas Shrugged' she's on a train that's stopped. She pulls rank and orders the train to disobey a potentially broken signal light.

So, yeah, the hero of Atlas Shrugged starts off the novel shadowing the (apocryphal) actions of a fascist dictator.

>>668002
How does that make it "wrong"?

>>668026
Well argumente'd my friend.

>>668020
>le edge

>>668276
>How does that make it "wrong"?

See: >>668045

>>659950
This is a large country with 300+ million people. Some like the book, some don't. Though most real Americans (that is, those who have familial ties to the founding stock of this country) tend to be sympathetic to the book's message.

Unfortunately, that group is dwindling in numbers and influence.

>>669061
it's funny you say that since Ayn Rand was an immigrant from Russia

I actually loved the book, sure it romanticizes the subject the book takes from out of the ass but honestly I appreciate it. Still reread it from time to time, also I think what I really love though is the parallels at least to me it drew from the major Industrialist's in America with people such as Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Gould etc. To me it's the same because those actual people were moving the world they enabled America to become the world dominating power it is today, but they were portrayed as villains in their time same with the main characters in the book.

Then again I fucking love those people so I'm biased to begin with.

>>669061
Generally people dislike it because of the stigma associated with Capitalism and "Robber Baron's" now. Honestly it's usually your bagel eating hippie sitting in a starbucks writing on their Mac, OR a more broad generalization usually Liberals (people on the left) hate the book on how it patronizes and romanticizes on the use and abuse of the working class.

>>669296
You're exxagerating, there are plenty of conservative people who disagree with the selfishness and lack of serious moral values in Rand's vision.
You can't seriously be a Christian and approve of Randism.

>>669311
>You can't seriously be a Christian and approve of (fill in the blank)

yet the US is full of people claiming to be Christian and doing things that would make Christ spin in his grave.

>>669311
You're right I exaggerated a little bit, but generally the book is frowned upon in the first place because as stated the stigma associated with the "beliefs" in the book.

tfw agnostic

>>669233
It's true, which is one of the interesting things about it. Rand's idealized Man is clearly modeled after an early 20th century Anglo-American archetype, though she did add a certain coldness and selfishness to that persona which turns people off.

It's funny though - reading Rand really did make me appreciate many of my own ancestors, some of whom were exactly the type that influenced her (self-made, New York industrialists). One big difference is that they all had families, were Christian, and were proud to be American.

>>669296
I agree, but I think if you really peel back the onion, liberals don't like the book because they are frightened by a world in which merit is the sole arbiter of success. They need to justify they inferiority by tearing down the successes of people greater than they.

>>669422
>liberals don't like the book because they are frightened by a world in which merit is the sole arbiter of success.

No, they're not frightened of such a world at all for the same reason they're not frightened by monsters in their closet. That reason being they are both childish fantasies and cannot possibly exist.

It would be nice if hard work determined success, but it doesn't; the hardest working people on the planet are impoverished African women. It would be nice if intelligence determined success, but it doesn't; unrewarded genius is frightfully common. It would be nice if inventiveness or persistence or innovation determined success, but they don't.

This idea you have that "liberals" are a group of frightened, shrinking pansies is horseshit. It sounds frightfully close to how they're portrayed in Atlas Shrugged.

You didn't just finish reading it, did you? Are you sure you didn't swallow it whole?

>>659990
>over regulates tons of shit
The clapistani government regularly paints itself into a corner. First, courts insist that laws must be clear, consistent, and enforceable. What the country really needs are laws and guidelines that say "don't be an asshole, bandit, or world destroyer."

The financial industry is a great example of over-regulation since it attracts cretins like flies to shit. Every time some asshole manages to cook the books while skirting the law, five different agencies have to throw three hundred pages each at it to make sure it doesn't happen again.
You should have seen Timmy G's original HAMP implementation.

>>668045
>>669057
>it's wrong because main character's occupation can be related to an unconfirmed anecdote about [insert a bad person]
What the shit man, get the fuck out.

>>659950
>believing a lying kike like Ayn Rand

>>669929

You know what? Just don't ever touch a history book. Why bother? I mean, fuck it, right? Just don't worry about it. Keep on doing whatever the fuck it is you do all day. That'll be good.

>>670885
Ehhh. I have to agree with that other anon. "Mussolini made the trains run on time" was propaganda with the message that "even dictators can help society/the economy". Of course, in reality the trains ran due to reforms by his predecessors, but disregarding that- it really has no relation to Dagny making the train run.
On one hand, a brutal dictatorship managed to help society. This is pro-fascism. On the other hand, a competent female was able to recognize incompetence and correct a mistake. This is pro-"competence", or pro-objectivism. The two anecdotes don't have a strong relation despite their superficial similarities.

>>670885
I should add that trains were formerly the DOMINANT economic factor- running trains would be a symbol of economic strength, hence their presence in both propaganda and an economics novel.