/lit/ - Literature

why liberals and libertarians keep claiming there is a self

>>11161425
OP here

Why can't altruism be a part of one's identity as well? I mean its not like everyone is running ahead of everyone else just to perform acts of kindness. Of course there are those who do choose to do that, but there are those who commit to kindness with nothing in return, save for their own contentment.

Also, wouldn't the idea of altruism be partially impossible? There isn't a total abandonment of one's self in doing acts of good for the sake of a person's own being. People (nearly all) will find pleasure in doing acts of good. Would that negate the idea of total altruism or even total human goodness?

>>11161429
There has to be a self, this is a concept of Rand which I actually agree with. Yes we might be largely influenced by stimuli and information which has bombarded our existence since its conception, and yes all of these have influenced our thoughts and upbringing; however, if we did not have a self, then there would be no invention or discovery. The self projects its existence by action and product.

>>11161425
Ah yes, the 16 year olds greatest philospher. The Russian emigre who took social security and Medicare because reasons.

>>11161457
>There has to be a self
>but that's where you're wrong kiddo

>>11161425
>otherwise we will lose our own ego.

implying that's a bad thing

>>11161425

well she happens to be right for the wrong reasons

>>11161425
>Charity is s destruction of the self
>Government shouldn't be responsible for charity
>Rich individuals should be
If charity is a destruction of self what incentive is there for the wealthy individual to be altruistic? On the flip side if you believe altruism and charity to be destructive to the self why would farming these acts out to the government, which by definition is a collective of selves, not be an adequate solution? Yes the average man has not as much means as the wealthy man but the wealthy man can pay more in taxes.

He's right for the wrong reason.
It's bad because by helping people with deficiencies you are going against natural selection, not only allowing them to live, but also letting them breed.

As a former anarcho-capitalist/libertarian, who was oblivious to the concept and question of morality and ethics. I can today absolutely destroy this ideology in a single sweep, with one argument alone.

Libertarianism is for people who believe that the world revolves, only and uninterruptedly, around money. Funny how I realized this once I started to study Economics at Uni.

>>11161425
>>The subnormal and poor should not rely upon the state for the any sort of assistance, this is catastrophic to men who actually can earn moderate wages.
Sure
>These people can be taken care of by charities run by the rich.

>>11161855
>>11161868
This

>>11161855
>>11161868
>>11162255
Buddah died while the Christ came back.

>>11161596
>The Russian emigre who took social security and Medicare because reasons
I don't like her, but she took it because she paid taxes and was therefor entitled to it. For her, while not ideal, taking it was still better than giving her money to the government and not taking anything in return.

>>11162232
if you made that mistake that is your fault, don't lump other libertarians in with it

>>11162332
There are NO moral incentives in a true libertarian utopia.

>>11162281
Yes He did. But Buddha wasn't a bad dude. He lead many people to enlightenment.

>>11162232
Libertarianism is the ideology of the merchant, communism the ideology of the peasant. Study Traditionalism.

>>11162347
>communism the ideology of the peasant
No, it isn't. The peasants mostly supported the ancien régime.

>>11162352
This is true. I didn't claim otherwise. Communism is the ideology of the peasant in the "spiritual" sense, it is the primordial desire of the low to tear down all others to their level.

>altruism is bad
prove it dumb bitch

>>11162347
>Libertarianism is the ideology of the merchant
Exactly what I came to realize upon studying economics! You are spot on.

My argument against libertarianism is this: There are NO moral incentives at all. Appeasing to peoples desires (e.g supply & demand) is not a sign of inherent morality (this is what Libertarians actually believe), because human desire, "Want" doesn't always ≠ the humans "Need".

The problem that persists by getting rid of the "wants" that interfere with the "needs", and this is something that the Libertarians would point out, is: Who defines "Need? This is a very legitimate question, and we have seen this question in play many times, especially during the 20th century. Fascist believe that they can easily define and identify "Need", I don't believe this to be the case because no human is omniscient.

>>11162413
>i know what's good for people better than they do
Fuck off Stalin.

>>11162415
You stupid pleb. Did you even read the last part of my post?

>>11162421
>implying i'm going to waste my time reading autocrat poison
I read up to
>"Want" doesn't always ≠ the humans "Need".
and even that was more than I felt safe consuming.

Fuck totalitarian shitbags. Death to tyrants. You belong on a fucking guillotine you shit.

>>11162415
People wouldn't know what was good for them if it came up and bit them in the face.

>>11162425
You are most likely a Jewish Merchant, I'm not even going to be bothered by your stupidity.

>>11162452
I see now that you've dropped all pretence of not being exactly the kind of scum that deserves his own gas chambers.

>>11162458
You haven't even read my post in its entirety, thus everything you say from here on out can be regarded as blind hatred.

>>11162475
Please. There are a thousand just like them over on /pol/. I doubt your special snowflake justification for jackboots is going to be any more impressive than the next mouth-breathing retard's.

>>11162427
But not only that. Even people who KNOW what's good for them have a hard time acting upon that instinct. Marketing, temptation and hedonistic wants are hard to ignore, thus why libertarianism will always decay into decadence and short term gratification.

>>11162486
Jesus dude finish reading his post you're making a fool of yourself

>>11162491
>free, liberal societies have lasted for centuries
>german reich lasted 10 years and wasn't even good then
"LIBERALISM ALWAYS FAILS"

>>11162413
>because no human is omniscient
This is why there must be a spiritual basis for rule.

>>11162497
Fuck off /pol/yp.

>>11162339
if you have to be incentivized to be moral, it wasn't moral. If people can be moral, freedom allows them to be moral. If morality exists at all it comes out of an individual.

>>11162500
And this is why, as far as I can tell, propose a religious foundation (Christianity, what else?) to be the cornerstone of our society.

>>11162513
You assume 100% free will.

>>11162499
Your definition of failure is very short sighted.

>>11162515
Really I think you should start reading Traditionalist literature. You seem to have the right disposition for it. Rene Guenon more or less founded the school of thought and his works form the basis. I can't overstate how profound his thinking was. He's extremely obscure, although there is a Traditionalist presence on /lit/.

>>11162519
how is that? I don't believe the government can come in an add any free will, or morality. And any corruption and evil and amorality that was in the citizen, you will find at least as much in government.

>>11162540
Thank you, I will read it. I'm young and I just started to get into this stuff. I used to be a hardcore follower of Molyneux for many years. I used to eat whatever he fed me, until I started watching Petersons lectures. Peterson always talks about "Need" in a individualistic context; "You should aim for whatever's good tomorrow and in a week and in a year and so on". I took his idea and placed it in a societal context and it worked just as well, except for the problem I raised conserving the potential rise of a tyrant which I haven't been able to work out. After realizing this, I snapped out of the Libertarian hallucination that was slowly subsuming my soul.

>>11161457
Where is this self you speak of located?
We are merely an intangible concept. Information with no fixed physical form.

>>11162118
She isn't really in favor of charity (as it is in opposition to her ideology) but that sounds better than let the poor starve

>>11162573
Stop it anon. You'll trigger the Stirnerfags

>>11161443
if you want ayn rand's opinion, I believe she would tell you that you can divide selfishness into two categories, rational and irrational. Irrational selfishness is whim worship, whatever feels good, is good. She only supports rational selfishness, no self-indulgence

>>11162552
The government can easily remove anything they deem amoral in a society. Again, I'm not saying this is the right way of doing it because who gets to define morality and ethics (but God?). The problem, which Libertarians raise, is that it's highly likely that everything will just lead to relativistic totalitarianism. But just because this point is valid, doesn't mean that Libertarianism is the optimal solution, which Libertarians love to spout.

Libertarians think that there is only one kind of freedom, freedom from government. But what about freedom from the self? What about freedom from impulsive behavior and freedom from hedonistic, short sighted pleasure?

>>11162567
Be wary of Peterson. He has some good advice but politically and philosophically he is garbage when you get down to brass tacks. He has mastered a captivating way of rehashing the same bullshit that we've been told our whole lives.

But anyway. I'm glad you will read Guenon.

>>11162613
>being this bootyblasted
Peterson did nothing wrong.

Philosopherlets are just assmad because he circumvents their thousand years of wank to actually solve real problems for people instead of just telling them that to clean their room they have to start with the Greeks.

>>11162611
>asking rhetorical questions
>when those exact questions were answered 60 years ago
Go read Isaiah Berlin, brainlet.

>>11162513
>If you have to be incentivized to be moral it wasn't moral
Who cares? Why does it matter whether a thug isn't mugging me because it's wrong, or he isn't mugging me because he doesn't want to go to jail?

>>11162619
Did you ever stop to think that I might not have been around 60 years ago? Or 50 years ago? Or 40 years ago? Or 30 years ago?

I will look into it, thanks.

>>11162611
Freedom from the self negates the concept of freedom. Who is the person who is suppose to be getting the freedom in this case?

>>11162620
>Why does it matter whether a thug isn't mugging me because it's wrong, or he isn't mugging me because he doesn't want to go to jail?
If you take this position you might as well abandon philosophy completely.

Consequentialism is the art of sounding profound while dribbling on the floor. If all that matters is consequences, nothing matters. Attempt to genocide the Jews but accidentally destroy right-wing totalitarian thought for at least two centuries, freeing the world from the spectre of Fascism because your spectacular failure has made it a literally untenable position? Nobel Peace Prize for Mr Hitler, please.

>>11162616
He is a left-leaning Feminist Liberalist in defense of the Neoliberal world order with a psychological reductionist stance on Christianity.

The problem isn't about cleaning your damn room. All of the aforementioned positions are cancer to society.

>>11162628
Isaiah Berlin - two concepts of liberty.

It is a foundational text for modern liberalism, written during the Cold War in direct response to the "freedom to be your best self, unaffiliated by irrationality and materialism and vice" crowd over in the USSR.

It is first and foremost a thorough dismissal of everything other than liberalism, and then a codification of the American ethos. It's a seminal text and people who turn their nose up at it can be immediately ignored. Its criticisms of "freedom to" ideologies are still biting today because they have not (cannot) be answered.

Sic semper tyrannis.

>>11162620
well mainly because of the way the poster I was responding to phrased it, he was talking about a government creating moral incentives, which it doesn't.

>>11162638
>left-leaning
Reality has a left wing bias. Sorry to break it to you, conservacuck.

>feminist
Hardly, excepting that he views females as human beings who deserve to be judged on their merits.

>liberalist
Liberalism WILL win.

>neoliberal
Not really. Internationalist and globalist, maybe, but he's a big critic of neoliberal domestic policies which have led to our massive social inequity.

>psychological reductionist
More like psychologist. If you actually think that products of the human mind, like value structures and dogmas like Christianity, have nothing to do with the human mind they come from, you don't just resemble a lobster, you fucking are one.

>>11162640
>unaffiliated
unafflicted

>>11162643
I never claimed that government can create moral incentives, I said that there are NO moral incentives in Libertarianism. What government can do is to limit the exposure of amorality.

>>11162660
If there are no moral incentives in libertarianism, how are there in whatever type of government you are proposing?

Sorry if this is a tautology, but the only moral incentive is morality. If morality is a real thing that exists at all in any person, then it must be inherent in some way. Libertarianism does not provide moral incentives, but it allows people who are moral to act accordingly.

>>11162630
>If all that matters is consequences, nothing matters
Except... the consequences? Political philosophy is inherently consequentialist. I'm not personally into ethical consequentialism, but when discussing governmental systems it's pretty important to keep in mind what the fuck the actual consequences are.
>>11162648
>Reality has a left wing bias
You may not have realized this, but democracies have massive media apparatuses in order to manufacture consent from the governed. Obviously this is entirely unrelated to your perception of reality.
>Hardly, excepting that he views females as human beings who deserve to be judged on their merits.
He believes females should be treated as males, which is the essence of Feminism, so he is by definition a Feminist.
>Liberalism WILL win
Liberalism has already failed.
>He's not a neoliberal, he's an internationalist globalist!
No comment.
>More like psychologist. If you actually think that products of the human mind, like value structures and dogmas like Christianity, have nothing to do with the human mind they come from, you don't just resemble a lobster, you fucking are one.
Obviously they have something to do with the human mind. You fundamentally misunderstand what psychological reductionism is. It's the idea that they ONLY have to do with the human mind.

>>11162673
It also allows immoral people to act immorally as long as it doesn't violate consent or property rights. But to the libertarian brain that is the entirety of the realm of morality, sad.

>>11162673
>Libertarianism does not provide moral incentives
Thank you for saying this! Really, I mean it.

I have been listening and reading to so many Libertarians, for so long and none ever admit to this. The always try to sell you this idea that Supply&Demand=Morality, because "Want" always=Good (moral).

I have no longer any dog in this fight. I just wanted to hear what you just said from another persons mouth than my own.

>>11162680
>when discussing governmental systems it's pretty important to keep in mind what the fuck the actual consequences are.
See, this is what I mean by sounding profound while dribbling on the floor.

>democracies have massive media apparatuses in order to manufacture consent from the governed
Yeah, I'm sure Fox News and MSNBC are really in cahoots with their carefully tailored jigsaw agendas.

Democracies don't need to manufacture consent. People fucking like democracies. Well, people who aren't wannabe tinpot dictators like yourself. Although I guess I don't need to make that distinction because you aren't a fucking person, Stalin. You're just slime that we haven't yet scrubbed out.

>He believes females should be treated as males, which is the essence of Feminism, so he is by definition a Feminist.
This is possibly the most retarded thing I've ever read.

This criticism basically only exists in the fringes of third wave feminism like Solanas. It's not real philosophy.

>Liberalism has already failed.
Wishful thinking, fuccboi. Don't forget to vote.

>No comment.
Of course not, because you have no idea what neoliberalism is. Neoliberalism is a suite of foreign and domestic policies, not just one or the other. You cannot be a neoliberal if you only embrace one plank.

>Obviously they have something to do with the human mind. You fundamentally misunderstand what psychological reductionism is. It's the idea that they ONLY have to do with the human mind.
Okay champ. Well you let me know when you have empirical evidence for some second factor. Until then keep your dumb fat amerimutt mouth shut.

>>11162673
>but it allows people who are moral to act accordingly.
I agree, it also allows High Iq people to triumph and make the decision they "Need" to make in order to live a meaningful life, but if you lack this innate capability you are out of luck in this utopia, bucko ;)

>>11162232
>Libertarianism is for people who believe that the world revolves, only and uninterruptedly, around money
But that's not true at all. Maybe for Randroids, but for libertarians in general, the quintessential lifestyle isn't so much that of a corporation CEO as it is that of a liberated farmer/settler who rides his John Deer tractor.

>>11162702
>you aren't a fucking person, Stalin. You're just slime that we haven't yet scrubbed out.
and thus the mask of tolerant humanitarianism falls from the face of the power-hungry creature, a facade for rootless wretches erected for those onlookers who possess what they lack: a soul.

>>11162772
Death to tyrants.

>>11162696
That's a very weird conclusion to make.
I suspect what most libertarians told you, and you were deaf to that, is that it is not libertarianism's ambition to give you a moral philosophy, nor should it. Libertarianism has no intention of being a total system of thought that would regulate every aspect of your life, but apparently that concept goes badly with people who expect an ideology that tells you EVERYTHING.

>>11162781
Based.

>>11162781
>>11162788
Men like you killed Socrates.

>>11162785
>That's a very weird conclusion to make.
Not if you have been under the spell of Molyneux like me. I'm simply regurgitating his pro-Libertarian arguments to debunk them.

>>11162822
In the name of Humanitarianism and Tolerance, I assume?

>>11162288
>but she took it because she paid taxes and was therefor entitled to it.

No, she took it because she was poor and old.

>>11162696
well, are you saying that any other system does provide them?

What I said is very common for someone like, say, Milton Friedman to say. It's not about adding any sort of morality as much as not negating it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q84y08nu74I

>>11162688
And the law allows people to act immorally so long as it is within the law. And this is ignoring the fact that there is no system of government where the immoral people can't just become members of government themselves, and write laws that are immoral and protect immorality.

I'm open to additions to morality beyond consent and property rights, but I think those are some great starting points at the very least. I don't think you can have a moral system without them.
>>11162709
I don't think that is true. Capitalism allows there to be more than a zero sum game. Which means that the high IQ person making decisions can be to the benefit of the low IQ person. And I don't think the government has the ability to come in and make these stupid people happy, at least not in any way that couldn't have been done with private interests instead. But supposing you are right, I still don't that then makes sacrificing the high IQ for the low IQ a good idea

>>11162822
And I'd kill him again.

Thus ALWAYS to tyrants.

>>11162824
Cenk Uygur use to be a republican, and says the same sort of things about them as you do about libertarianism. Any political side that is big enough to be considered a side, big enough that there is a word for it, is sure to have some stupid people who are there for stupid reasons, who never understood the original arguments in the first place. Switching someones side isn't necessarily a good thing. I could hypothetically convince a retarded socialist to become libertarian, but it wouldn't make him not retarded. Now I'd just have a retard on my side, who would just make bad arguments and embarrass me.

I am not saying you are completely retarded, but it is clear that when you were a libertarian, it was never for the same reasons I was, and you don't seem to represent the beliefs of the libertarian thinkers that I agree with either, and you seem to have bastardized molyneux just here. So, for one, that you've switched sides is not necessarily a bad thing to me. And two, big you telling me that you WERE a libertarian until you saw all the flaws in it's logic does not sway me at all, because you were only seeing the flaws in your own separate, terrible logic, not flaws in my own.

>>11162822
No, men exactly like you did.

>>11162882
Fuck off Molymeme you mommy issues creepy bald fuck

>>11162893
>>11162822
socrates killed himself you fucking brainlets

>>11162902
So did Rommel right, you utter twit?

>>11162882
Not to mention a lot of libertarians are libertarian-conservative (and thus probably Christian). It would be silly for them to expect an extra moral philosophy from libertarianism itself.

>>11162882
>Any political side that is big enough to be considered a side, big enough that there is a word for it, is sure to have some stupid people who are there for stupid reasons, who never understood the original arguments in the first place.
Unlike Shrek Yoghurt, I do understand the original arguments. I even stated the most fundamental argument for Libertarianism in one of my posts. I just believe that Libertarianism has a vital flaw that its advocates never bother to concern themselves with.

>>11162916
>Not to mention a lot of libertarians are libertarian-conservative (and thus probably Christian).
Socially Conservative and Monetarily Liberal Libertarianism doesn't bother much. I actually believe this to be far superior alternative to true Libertarianism (liberal in every sense of the word). If I haven't been clear and concise on this, it's Social Liberalism that I have a big problem with. Austrian-Economist are right in their notion that Inflation is bad, debt is bad, saving and investing is good, which is essentially Delayed Gratification.

It's social liberalism, which the left is also very positive towards, that's bothering me.

>>11162281
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_body

>>11162962
>Unlike Shrek Yoghurt, I do understand the original arguments.
No you don't, and since this is a big pet peeve of mine I am going to go back through your previous posts and find at least some of the parts where I felt misrepresented

>Libertarianism is for people who believe that the world revolves, only and uninterruptedly, around money.
I remember having money explained well to me in third grade, and I've looked back and wonder if that moment was an important part in my own ideological path. The teacher explained how money is useful, by comparing it to how inconvenient a hypothetical moneyless barter economy would be. I mulled it over a lot. Since that moment I have always thought of money as a useful tool, an inbetween for goods. But that's it. A useful tool, doesn't mean it is the center of my universe, doesn't mean the whole world revolves around it, and I don't know of a libertarian who does.
>Libertarians think that there is only one kind of freedom, freedom from government.
There are other types of freedom, obviously. Socialists (not sure if you are one) tend to misuse the word freedom, in a sense. They say that because the rich person could pay for the starving persons food, that is its own type of force, and starvation is its own lack of freedom. In a way they are right and in a way they are bastards. The only force involved here is the force of nature. What they are complaining about is not the rich person causing the starvation, as much as they are complaining that they didn't prevent it. The socialist can't take away the tyranny of mother nature itself, what they propose is actually more along the lines negating its effects. You'd still be just as unfree, the forces of nature would still be upon you, but they propose then using other forces in the opposite direction. And you too, it seems. I never said or believed freedom from government is the only kind of freedom, and if possible I'd do what I can to remove those forces as well. But counteracting a force is not the same as giving someone freedom.
>It also allows immoral people to act immorally as long as it doesn't violate consent or property rights. But to the libertarian brain that is the entirety of the realm of morality, sad.
I'm completely open to there being more to morality than these, they are just good starting points. But adding more wouldn't negate the importance of these things.
>I have been listening and reading to so many Libertarians, for so long and none ever admit to this. The always try to sell you this idea that Supply&Demand=Morality, because "Want" always=Good (moral).
I'm not sure if I could even find any libertarian who agrees with this concept, other than your former self.

not sure if I missed any others in this thread
>

>>11163085
>I'm not sure if I could even find any libertarian who agrees with this concept, other than your former self.
Every libertarian agrees with this concept. Either You do too, or you can't simply call yourself a Libertarian.

Do you believe McDonalds should be legal? If yes, then why? Do you believe Porn use should be legal? If yes, then why? Do you believe drugs should be legal? If yes, then why? Do you believe that people should be able to have consensual butt sex in front of children in the public (happens today in San Francisco)? If yes, then why? Do you believe that gender reassignment should be available to children, like it is today? If yes, then why? Do you believe that one should be allowed to charge desperate people a big interest on a loan? If yes, then why?

Non of these violate the idea of property rights or the non-aggression principle, so how is this different from Want=Good (Moral)?

>>11163085
>I'm completely open to there being more to morality than these
Yes YOU are open to adding more, the wast majority of Libertarian followers don't seem to be. Libertarianism has been around for how long? A very long time, right? So how come they have only been able to muster up TWO principles thus far, the Non Aggression principle, and Property rights?

In all of the reading I have done in this topic, I haven't encountered one Libertarian who advocates in favor of expanding the moral principles of the ideology. They seem to think that those two principles are enough.

>>11163140
I think things all those things should be legal for a lot of reasons, but I'd more put it on the person who thinks it should be illegal, why do they think it should be illegal. The burden should be on them. But anyways, I would never put it as all those things = good, or that anything anyone wants is good. But I guess if you are forcing me to put it as generally as I can, it should be legal to allow people to pursue their own ideas of good. Maybe they make a mistake, and then they realize it, and change their idea of what is good around it. Maybe I am making a mistake, and by allowing them to pursue their own interests, they can change my mind by example. Maybe we just will never agree and we can just leave eachother alone. But trying to destroy one persons concept of good, or trying to force them to go along with ideas of good and bad they don't agree with, I would call that actively bad on multiple levels.

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of men who attempt to reverse the law of causality - men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants. Money will not give him a code of values if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value. It will not provide him with a purpose if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, thus trying to replace judgment with money, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered, that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?" - Ayn Rand

daily reminder that arguing with libertarians is even more pointless than arguing with commies

>>11163157
Milton Friedman or Hayek, right off the bat. Two of the biggies, imo, and you looked right over them, apparently.

>>11162962
>it's social liberalism I have a problem with
Ah, well, then sure in that case I agree with you. In any case those left-libertarians are mistaken imo. A really libertarian society would be conservative, given that most "social advances" have been pushed by governmental elites. Societies left to themselves tend to be conservative.

>>11162368
Fountainhead did this, but I believe it was a bit hyperbolized

>>11162573
You can express the information you possess, our being is commensurate with all which we have done, can do, and will do. Our self is located in our actions, this defines our self in terms of a singularity when in fact it is a multitude of things. We might be what we eat, but we are also what we shit.

>>11162368
selfishness is sort of an assertion that there is such a thing as good. If something is good, that means you want it, and if you want something, that means you think its good. And that's selfishness. If altruism is the opposite of selfishness, then it must be the destruction of the good, or the belief that we should deny our wants for its own sake. There is a lot of paradox to this, but the paradox is only brought on by the creation of the concept of altruism, which is sort of a form of self-cannibalism. Want cannibalizes want. Wanting to not want. It is irrational. Which is why rand always emphasizes rationality first, then selfishness. Irrational selfishness and altruism are overlapping bad things.

>>11163833
cancer is selfish body cells. being selfish is to ignore order. bring chaos.
selfishness is destructive by nature.

>>11163894
cancer doesn't have a self, silly

anyways, it can bring chaos, and it can bring order. Selfishness destroys orders which stand in its way to create new orders which are aligned with it.

>>11162288
oh yeah real strong ideals there

>>11162118
>>11162593
Rand wasn't against charity.

>>11163157
Tell me a principle that's not covered by non aggression principle and property rights.

ann rand is a kike faggot

>>11164958
Chastity, to name one. As long as female misbehavior is considered a "right" of theirs we will have a tragedy of the commons as we do now.

>>11163175
>why do they think it should be illegal
Not that anon, but:
It is better that a person be forced down the right path than to go down the wrong path. It is best for man to choose the right path, but to say that it is better for a man to choose the wrong path than to be lead down the right path is to say that the wrong path isn't actually wrong and the right path isn't actually right. Fundamentally the libertarian doesn't conceive of "right" and "wrong" as existing outside of their employment in pursuit of libertarianism. To the libertarian, "right" and "wrong" are just ideas one invokes in order to keep other's hands off their stuff.

>>11161425
>We should not advocate a love of others over ourselves at any moment, otherwise we will lose our own ego.
Barring the clumsy language, I don't see anything wrong with this statement. Operating in the interests of someone else makes you no more than a tool. They have power over you. You are facilitating their goals, not your own, i.e. you are just a part of them.

If you want to be your own person, you must operate in your own interests. You can love others over yourself but if you wish to retain your autonomous spirit then it must be done out of your own self-interest. You must love others over yourself because you want to, not because you were told to.

>>11165013
What are you talking abour? Charity was never opposed by rand. She opposed altruism, placing others higher than yourself, saving others kids before you save yours.
Rand was opposed to mandatory charity in the form of government welfare. The fundamental difference between the two is the violation of the two principles in the case of welfare.
What is this female misbehaviour?

>>11162491
>the first half of Notes from Underground in 3 sentences

Yeah. Though I still would maintain that the retards that would destroy themselves should be allowed to destroy themselves freely rather than be enslaved. The problem is that almost everyone will destroy themselves if given the chance.
>>11162500
>>11162515
>no human is omniscient therefore we should set the task of knowledge and rule to an imaginary being, knowing that this is impossible, and instead championing it as a figurehead under which human rulers preside
Absolute ressentiment, try again

>>11165140
he said chastity, of all thinks, kek. As in nofap, cock cage

>>11161425
>altruism is bad, therefore
Hold the fuck up. You can't just say that as a presupposition and not have people question you

>>11165050
a) I have to consider that I don't actually know the right path and that this person could be right, or at least that the government wont know the right path any better than him
b) If he is wrong how will he learn? You will just have to keep guiding him and it will never stop, the amount you will have to do will grow exponentially as his self-responsibility shrinks to nothing

>>11165360
Not original anon, but
>He who cannot command himself should obey. And many can command themselves, but much is still lacking before they obey themselves.
From Zarathustra.

>>11163730
as if Rand's life's work wasn't reliant on hyperbole in the first place.

>>11163833
An alcoholic wants alcohol though they know it is not good for them.

>>11165378
but that nietzsche guy also said something like that if they dont die they can get stronger. So if they dont die, then let them get stronger okay? That doesnt happen your way.

>>11165390
no shit

>>11165353
Ah lol
Didn't see that about chastity, thought he was talking about charity.
>>11165013
When is chastity a principle?

>>11165468
Yeah. He said a lot of shit. He also said, within a few pages from that quote:
>O my brothers, am I cruel? But I say: What is falling, we should still push. -- And he whom you cannot teach to fly, teach to fall faster!
It's funny you say "my way" when I'm a libertarian as well. Rand was an idealist and hardly knew the reality of capitalism for all her idealism. She condemned Nietzsche when she would have done better work if she had studied him.
>>11165390
Theoretically, an alcoholic who did not rectify his alcoholism would drive himself and/or his family into the ground, thus making them less reproductively successful, thus reducing the amount of alcoholics and those with a genetic tendency toward alcoholism (as there is one). It is up to him to save himself and his genes.

>>11162962
>Austrian-Economist are right in their notion that Inflation is bad, debt is bad, saving and investing is good,
t. brainlet
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.nl/p/blog-page.html
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.nl/2014/02/how-new-classicals-drank-austrians.html

>>11165494
well then I guess we don't disagree on much, I'm more of a nietzschean than objectivist as well

>>11161855
>>11161868
>birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering
>Ah yes, the 16 year olds greatest philospher.

Both are interesting, both are bullshit. Wait until you get a little bit older and you'll see...

>>11161425
>listening to atheist jew literally sent from soviet union

>>11165357
Rand thinks that

>>11165057
I'm not arguing Rand's concerns with altruism, I'm arguing the fact that Rand is contradicting herself.

>>11161443

Ayn Rand merely asserted that altruism is immoral when it is seen as a major moral ideal.
Individuals of whom engage in altruism for their own enjoyment are not deviating from morality.

What is altruism? It is self-sacrifice for the welfare of others. It is not defined as kindness or courteousness.

How does one achieve it? That is when its flaw becomes apparent. How does one further the world? Is it through racial purity, through the conquest of foreign land and extermination of the natives? Is it through coerced egalitarianism and elimination of the bourgeoisie?

Is altruism anti-selfishness? Yes.

What is selfishness? It is the means through which one survives.

Altruism therefore abnegates the means through which one survives--a vile ideology.

>>11161425
>subnormal
Is normality the modern day replacement for morality (both slave and master)?

>>11161425
how the fuck did this bitch not realize that altruisim is an ego defense mechanism, and a healthy one at that? When you tell yourself that you are capable of giving, you are also labeling yourself as a provider, a fountain of strength. It's a very good thing. Likewise, selfishness is a sign of insecurity and weakness.

join general lit discord

https://discord.gg/kEmXQYW

>>11161429
*clears throat*

I

>>11165747
why cant you tell yourself you are capable of giving without actually doing it

>>11165709
altruism and egoism both are means of survival. the difference is in scope. egoists thinks only about today, while altruists thinks about tomorrow.

>>11165817
you probably could, you'd just have to block out the dissonance

>>11165757
no.

>>11165825
stop having dissonance in the fucking first place, be rational and face reality

>>11165865
reality means different things to different people, depending on whether or not you view ideas, material things, or both as real

>>11165873

>>11165892
imma finna boutta dab on dis nigga ass cup tellin me wats real'n shit

>>11165492
Sluts make for awful wives, awful wives cause divorce, divorce results in asset liquidation and psychological damage to children, all without violating the NAP.

>>11165291
Organizing society along religious principles is the norm of human history, it is contemporary Western civilization which is an aberration.

>>11165905
>people exist who don't consider scientism/liberalism a religion

>>11165820
Altruism is placing others before yourself. It is saving a strangers kid before you save yours.
Dont confuse the definitions.
And dont confuse rands rational self interest with acting on a whim.

>>11165820
Altruism is selfless action, sacrifice that gives no future benefit. It is by definition not a means of survival. It's completely separate from mutualism, where individuals are codependent, where they trade value for value. Rand was opposed to the notion that it is a virtue to simply give with nothing returned, especially when forced to by the state.

To think that charity is pure, selfless, altruism is also ridiculous. Charity is perused by rich philanthropists as a means of gaining public respect and support, by religious groups as a means of conversion, by political groups to the same end, and by the state (with it's ill gotten wealth) as a means of bribery. The act of giving is almost exclusively veiled will to power.

>>11163833
>If altruism is the opposite of selfishness
But it's not.

Altruism is doing good to/for others without seeking reward.

It's only opposite insofar as people rarely exhibit both altruism and selfishness together. It's not actually conceptually opposite.

Selfishness = getting what you want without regard for others.

Altruism = doing good to/for others without expecting a reward.

You can see why a person would struggle to be both selfish and altruistic because they require incompatible personalities, but they're not mutually exclusive on a conceptual level. I can decide I really fucking want a promotion and fuck over everyone and everything in my way driven by pure cloying selfish entitlement, and then turn around and anonymously donate 100 tons of toys to starving children or whatever just because I was feeling altruistic.

It's just that people generally aren't wired that way.

>>11166034
is that one person can switch between both proof that they aren't opposite behaviors?

>>11165584
I usually hate this meme because it derides people with a level-headed moderate stance but it’s actually the perfect time to use it.

>>11161443
>wouldn't the idea of altruism be partially impossible?
That's kinda her point. Self sacrifice as a way of life is impossible. You can do acts of good but live as a slave to others is impossible without the use of force. Thus living for yourself is the only way to live.
However, that doesn't mean that you can't be charitable or be nice to others when it costs you next to nothing. She was just against giving up your sense of self or property for nothing.

>>11165820
Egotist think about themselves for today and tomorrow. Altruistic think about how to use you for tomorrow.
You cannot survive by using other people because your life ends up being at the mercy of someone else. If your means of survival is using other people and they all die, you would die as well. Whereas an egotist would find a way to sustain himself by living only for himself.
The height of egotism is independence. The height of altruism is relying on other people for the rest of your life without having to do anything.
It's no wonder why she called the latter parasites.

>>11161425
The fact you people even let information like this into consideration for a second is enough.

>>11165873
>I was almost wrong, but I'm not lol

>>11166473
>implying cavewdwelling snobby /lit/tards are people

>>11162281
The Buddha did not die; he come into the Deathless.

>>11162962
>Socially Conservative and Monetarily Liberal Libertarianism doesn't bother much.
>Austrian-Economist are right
Imagine actually being such a pathetic lifeless retard

>>11162746
>"liberated" farmer/settler
>uses a tractor made from parts from China, Japan and Mexico delivered to his country by international shipping services that only operate as effectively and seamlessly as they do due to a massive body of international legislations that all involved national governments willingly adhere to and who's shipping lanes are safeguarded by militaries and international treaties run and conducted again by national governments

Hmm yeah alright let's just get rid of the government that won't massive collateral consequences at all hmmmm

>>11166540
>libertarians
>get rid of the government
lol

>>11162862
So I assume you're planning for the overthrow of your government, or have you rolled over and accepted authority and safety over freedom?

>>11166545
>all government is tyranny
stop being dumb

>>11166544
They want a neutered, pointless "government" that only exists to stop one desperately underpaid person from beating up another desperately underpaid person at fully legal meth dens after getting into a fight because they're both psychologically twisted from being desperately underpaid.

>>11166540
this, but you should also make them notice how governments and welfare have been fundamental in mitigating the effects that globalization has had on some of the working class, thus preventing social unrest that would have been fatal to capitalism.

>>11166557
I don't believe that's a fair description of their argument.

>>11166561
It's a fair description of the result of their policies however. Also

>lolbertarians
>releant

Top kek

>>11166561
What would be a fair description then?

>>11166562
>It's a fair description of the result of their policies however.
I don't think that's accurate either.

We've been living under neoliberalism since the '70s and there are no fully legal meth dens near me.

>>11166563
Neoliberals want a government that enhances market action and respects individual rights, rather than one which suppresses market action and infringes on individual rights.

>>11165584
>both are bullshit. Wait until you get a little bit older and you'll see...

>>11165584
>claims Buddhist thought is for 16 year olds
>in a thread about Ayn fucking Rand
What did he mean by this?

>>11166572
>Neoliberals want a government that enhances market action and respects individual rights
No, that's libertarianism. Neoliberals are still all about shitting on the little guy if it's """"good for business.""""

>>11165584
*tips bible*

>>11166585
>i refuse to have an actual discussion because i can't get over myself enough to resist pithy insults
Don't expect further reply.

>>11166592
Wait, are you an unironic neoliberal?

>>11166572
First, you're conflating libertarians and neoliberals. Second, no, we haven't been living under neoliberalism since the 70s. Many fundamental neoliberal reforms, such as the abolishment of the distinction between investment banks and popular banks, have been passed only in 80s and 90s. Third, saying "we" is kinda nebolous. "We" who? Americans? Because the EU has been explicitly ordoliberal since its birth.

>>11166596
People are unironically libertarian too so why is that surprising?

reminder that this dumb bitch died poor living off of social security.

>>11166677
In my experience, neoliberals tend to be business major normies who pursue mainstream social status and reject counter-cultural places like 4chan for being "weird." I'm just surprised to meet one on /his/ out of all places.

>>11166696
This is /lit/, silly

>>11166550
Once the promise of safety is ensured in exchange for obedience tyranny is created. Look at all great cultures and governments throughout and then come back to me.
>BUT IT WORKD 4 Ahwhile dyuude.

>>11166683
Reminder
http://www.aynrandmyths.com/

>>11166473
t. reddit

>>11166557
do you understand that unemployed people are a lot more "underpaid" than low wage workers, as well as having a lot more time on their hands to get into such a scenario?

>>11165747
Selfish assistance to others for one's long range benefit=/=altruism
People apparently do not adequately grasp what it really means for a word to possess an -ism at the end of it. If Altruism meant what you are implying it does it wouldn't be an ism and you would have used another word or phrase.
An Ayn Rand quote comes to mind.
>You must attach clear, specific meanings to words, i.e., be able to identify their referents in reality. This is a precondition, without which neither critical judgment nor thinking of any kind is possible. All philosophical con games count on your using words as vague approximations. You must not take a catch phrase—or any abstract statement—as if it were approximate.

>>11167732
literally everything that people volitionally do is for their own benefits.
the only difference is the understanding of what benefit is.

>>11168967
Correct, agreed.

>>11162281
That makes Buddha the real winner doesn't it?

Ayn Rand: The Undisputed All Time Reigning Queen of TL:DR
Self Proclaimed Expert:
>I know all there is to know about Ann (sic) Rand! I played both Bioshocks AND read her Wikipedia article AND watched Slavoj Zizek call her brutal and say mean things about Alan Greenspan! Her book used the word "Moocher" like a thousand times! Also she's a Nazi. Also, I'm blindly devoted to my ideology/political party but everyone who says one positive thing about Rand is an unthinking 'Randroid'. Ann Rand's beliefs are exactly the same as Ron Paul and whoever else I don't like this week.

>>11169071
Weirdly enough, Alan Moore called The Fountainhead white propaganda nazism.

>>11167013
The Myth - Ayn Rand violated her own philosophy by collecting social security.


The Truth:
This is the same as claiming that if you are against robbery, and you were one of Bernie Madoff's victims, you violate your principles by putting in a claim for partial restitution.

She addressed a similar issue in her article "The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist, June, 1966. From that article:

"Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

nice job at attempting to defend her, but her quote mentions nothing about using welfare. which she did.

>>11169577
>mentions government help/grant
>hurrr it says nothing about government welfare
Gee

>>11163730
>the self is located in actions
no its not those are just physical systems

you’re a fucking retarded shallow insect

Daily reminder that Ayn Rand never read Kant but presumed to call him "the most evil man in history." She would be a shitposting Wikipedia scholar if she were alive today

>>11169684
>Ayn Rand never read Kant
Moving the goalposts to what Kantianism constitutes again I see.

>>11169655
>government research grant
do you even know how to read retard?

a research grant is much different than SS, to which Rand criticized and wanted stopped . yet herself used.

>>11170004
but she paid taxes for SS

>>11169700
Nope. From the "Ayn Rand Lexicon":
>The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty: man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled “categories” and “forms of perception”) which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant, that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape.
The thing-in-itself is a regulative concept of reason; we know that when someone starts trying to prove a thing to be as it is in itself or treating things as they are in themselves at all, they are engaged in empty wordplay. This doesn't mean that Kant thought reality subordinated to the forms of human perception was any less real, or objective. He lays out explicitly how we are to attain objective knowledge, and how objective knowledge itself is only possible if we treat objects as phenomena. That "the phenomenal world is not 'real'" is so far from a Kantian statement that it borders on Berkeleyianism; this is the sort of glib understanding I expect from philosophy undergrads who have only read supplements and Hegelians, not a person who purports to have read Kant.

>>11169668
So everyone is nothing?
Okay.