/lit/ - Literature

>>21507949
I never felt the need to show this idea to other political science professors because crypto-anarchism is a pretty niche political theory. Admittedly, it is less niche due to the prefoliation of cryptocurrencies (and none of them uphold the principles of crypto anarchism that birth the moment so w/e). There has been a lot of essays on how Silk Road represents the essence of anarcho-capitalism with its ability to buy and sell anything, but no one seemed to identify the core issue which is that websites are points of failure. If you read old Ulbricht posts before he created Silk Road, he's pretty inspired on how to create a new world based on trade, without any coercion. That's the libertarian idea: if I want to buy and use drugs, who are you to stop me? And the issue with Darknet markets is that if you identify their servers or find their base of operations, you can shut down the whole thing. So if you build a system on a decentralized storage which distributes the data anonymously and people are independently paid to hold that data (not torrent or IPFS where people do it altruistically and are unreliable), you create a system where governments can't identify or stop the data and shut it down, leaving the website operational without a point of failure.

It inherently fixes the agorist idea of an independent market because it is physical. If you start a bazar that is big enough and don't pay taxes, the government will shut it down. If it's on the internet and the data is decentralized, the government has a harder time identifying and stopping it. Silk Road was meant to be that but governments found Ulbricht and shut it down, and even though there are new Darknet markets, governments keep shutting them down, with each having a very small lifespan (on average a year or two). Essentially, so if you make it so that the data itself that runs the website cannot be found, you basically win. Now, while this might sound theoretical, there's already a system that is in pseudo infancy that can create this but it might not happen for four years or so, and mentioning it would be shilling, and no one wants that. But, yeah, condensed and summarized: Silk Road that you can't shut down.

The best part of this idea is that it also circumvents the need to argue about politics. For example, say X nation makes speech illegal. With this system, you could create a social media website that can't be shut down without any observable administrator to arrest. So unlike stupid websites like gap or w/e that claim to be pro-free speech, you can create an actual free speech website where no one can be banned and governments can't shut down or prevent you from speaking your mind. You don't have to advocate for governments to restrict themselves to not violate free speech, in practical terms, free speech is ensured.

So if you have pure Silk Road laissez-faire capitalism and social media website where your speech is always free, is this not an objectivist utopia?

>>8419382
>I'm just saying that this video is an example of bad capitalism
You're simply using capitalism as a blanket collectivist term on how every company must act to its customers. I am simply saying that his hierarchy of values conveyed is that he wants to make it clear that he will not give hand outs, free samplings or for his time to be altruistically thrown away.

>>8419394
>literally no one is arguing for this
See >>8418631 and >>8418706 as well as OP implying that ''I will NOT do X ANYTHING for free. You HAVE TO pay me. Period'' is an outrageous demand.

>>8223899
Then you simply have your son lower on your hierarchy of values and you value his life less than lying.

>>7798371
Are you dissing the greatest author of the 20th century?

ITT: present your criticisms of Ayn Rand as a novelist. I'll rebut them.

Not an objectivist or even particularly right-wing.

"Atlas Shrugged"

>>3299702
They aren't objectively wrong you child.

Hey /lit/ I have been wanting to read an Ayn Rand novel for a while but do not know which to pick. I am leaning towards Fountainhead but was wondering how it is compared at Atlas Shrugged.

>>3065773

You have 10 seconds to prove that compassion is a good thing.

Go.

If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.

BRRRRMMMM BRRRRMMM BRRRMMMM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF9QT43uDQU

Just read Ayn Rand, OP, she's got it all nailed

>“The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.
>This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.
>What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.
>If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.
>There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.
>But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

Just read some Ayn Rand instead.

Why, hello there, young man!

So I'm working my way through The Virtues of Selfishness and Philosophy, Who Needs It?
It seems as if Ayn Rand's ethics are basically a bunch of Freudian concepts (and all the other burgeoning psycho(logy/-analysis) of her time).
It seems to me that when she describes selfishness, egotism, and rationalist thinking, that she is really describing human nature (the ways things are) rather than good ethical choice-systems (the ways we ought to act).
What are your thoughts, /lit/?

Ayn Rand
USA/USSR
>Novelist, Philosopher, Game-Changer
Works
>Atlas Shrugged
>The Fountainhead
>Anthem

>>2429837
Problem?

don't make me say it...

>>2283288

>nobody cares
>capslock response

why, the GOAT of course

It's waaay too alpha for little beta bitch /lit/fags

It's pretty simple, OP. Ayn Rand is alpha as fuck, while /lit/ is beta as fuck. Enjoy your basements, fags.