/lit/ - Literature

The Queen of /lit/ filters yet another wagie.

>>21500271
>even though it makes a better society
It doesn't.

>>21500277
this. you don't feed wild animals

>>21500276

Put it up your ass

>>21500276
>>21500271
Rand sexually abused her male followers.

>>21500326
based

Ayn Rand along with Max Stirner is something that I read just for the lulz.

>>21500271
What's fucking "we". No one stops thou from helping the poor with thy resources and time.
The oldest fucking excuse for robbery is that "we" need money for helping the poooor!

>>21500271

A points made in that book are that mutal cooperation undertaken in rational self interest helps both the poor and the wealthy, while attempts to just give handouts to people inevitably fail. Additionally, nothing in that book or Objectivist philosophy states that people shouldn't be allowed to give charity, just that nobody should be forced to.

>>21500271
Nah, her philosophy is more
>Rich people good
>Poor people bad
>If someone doesn't want to help poor people, it shouldn't be stigmatized or looked down on by society, because "egalitarianism"is always co-opted by tyrannical governments like the egalitarian Nazis and the egalitarian soviets

>>21501204
Why shouldn’t it be in the rational self interest of anyone to hinder someone else in their rational expression of self interest? Wouldn’t it be in the rational self interest of any partaken of a free market to go against the free market?

>>21500271
>t. hasn't met poor people.
I grew up dirt poor and let me tell you 99% of the people I lived around were the most morally reprehensible people you could find- drug dealers, pedophiles, lifestyle criminals, thugs, scum.
I know you all have leftist fairy tale vision where the most immoral people are rich and the poor worker leads a noble struggle against injustice, but in real life immoral behaviour alienates and corrupts a person and they often end up poor as a result.
Atlas Shrugged is 100% correct, many people who are failures are bitter and scheming Bioleninists who want to tear the world down for perceived slights.

>>21501238
English please you pseud

>>21501259
So true, but what's a Bioleninist?

>>21501259
> most morally reprehensible people you could find- drug dealers, pedophiles
Behold, the noble rich guy

>>21501285
Whoa a small handful of examples! Btfo!!!

>>21501280
Bioleninism, a brief introduction: https://vjmpublishing.nz/?p=21454

>>21500271
Unfathomably based.

>>21501285
Cool it with the anti-semitism

>>21501285
>rich from state derived stolen slave money
>rich from industriousness

>>21501304
As opposed to the other anon, who blessed us with his anecdotal evidence
>yeah dude trust me when I say poor people are lying pieces of shit, I am one myself

>>21501348
Kek'd & shrek't

>>21501348
Poor people can't even be trusted with access to bathrooms. Enough said. They are subhuman.

>>21501213
>Nazis
>egalitarian
Hello r*ddit.

>>21501386

>>21500271
I like the book, mostly because it makes marxists and commiefaggots seethe. Simply because they cant refute anything in it.

>>21501259
>>21501280
>>21501373
Brought to you by

>>21501426
not learning hebrew as an american is like ignoring medical and dental benefits that are just there

>>21500271
>>21501285

Atlas Shrugged features a number of wealthy characters who are absolute degenerate slimeballs. Because Rand didn't give a shit about subtlety, almost every good wealthy character in the book has an evil wealthy counterpart, and far more time is spent castigating them than any poor people.

>>21500271
>help poor people makes a better society
citation needed

>>21500271
>I didn't read the book but commies told me it's bad so I will repeat their intentionally bad faith lies uncritically

Though to be fair it isn't a pleasant read.
I am almost certain that Ayn had autism.
She is not a good story teller or maker of believable characters. I get the impression from her other writings and what people have wrote being around her that she didn't "people" very well. And for fuck sake her magnum opus contains long soliloquies about trains in autistic detail.

Still less of a slog then trying to get through all of Das kapital.
If it wasn't for audiobooks and long graveyard shifts I wouldn't have made it through ether.

>>21500326
Objectivists are the original paypigs.

>>21501431
You gotta at least learn yiddish

>>21501407
implying that a free market will be able to regulate itself and not just recreate the problems that we already have thanks to capitalism, not realizing that such a system will only recreate the same kind of wage-slavery that is common in so many countries

ayn rand's followers are afraid that not 100 percent of their profits will go to them, not realizing that socialism aims to give everyone, no matter who they are, basic human annemities, from which they themselves will also profit. they somehow assume that they are some kind of special person that will end up making a shitton of money only through sheer effort, and they are already afraid that someone may take some of that and re-invest it into society. it's the american dream par excellance and a dream it is

>>21501538
I like her ladyboner for superior dudes to dick her down and put her in her place in the books

>>21501677
But we don't have a free market. We have a quazi-facist one

>>21501690
the free market will only work for so long.
it's nice to think that the market will regulate itself, but it wont. income is very much tied to political power and it's naive to think that this power wont be used to change the free market/society to rich people's advantage.
barriers to entry is one such example.

>>21501386
Sacrifice your fighting age son to fight for mother Germany citizen. Don't be selfish
All our food has to be meted out for the war effort. Don't be selfish
We're all in this together. It's all for the better of our home land. It's for the future of our children.

>>21501710
It sounds like you want a free market then. You want to free it from governmental meddling which is the problem you described

>>21501710
If the state has no power over the market under pain of death then it cannot be crony.

>>21501711
>He read a propaganda poster from 80 years ago and took it literally
Pretty sure the British empire also demanded that their citizen make sacrifices and have their food meted out. Mostly out of neccesity because its wartime not because they believe in the bullshit fairytale that is equality. Try again faggot.

>>21501677
>they somehow assume that they are some kind of special person that will end up making a shitton of money only through sheer effort, and they are already afraid that someone may take some of that and re-invest it into society.
I'm middle class and the government took 12k in taxes from me last year. Not counting sales tax or inflation (which is a form of tax). My mom is a lower class naturalized citizen, and she has to work even though she's retired. Inflation is putting a strain on her. We have never asked for unemployment benefits or EBT or any of that, so why should niggers and lazy Mexicans get it?

>>21501737
Retard the British empire is known for being historically a huge welfare state. Plus, you don't have to read propaganda from 80 years ago; operation Iraqi freedom, the Patriot act, COVID mandates, global warming. They all rely on Kantian imperatives, positive externalities, negative externalities, and "greater goods". It in other words: egalitarianism. And Ayn Rand foresaw it 60 years ago

>>21501722
>>21501734
Libertarians don‘t fail to understand basic rules of power and consequence for ten minutes challenge (Failed)

>>21501751
Ironic how the marxists dont seem to understand vice versa.

>leftists getting filtered by atlas 100 years later
Never fails to amuse.

Rand paints a beautiful picture about how private property is the best friend of all productive members of society. If you are productive, you hate collectivism of any kind.
Parasitism isnt exclusively a thing among the rich or among the poor. You have unproductive rich parasites such as politicians who steal money from productive people via taxes. You also have unproductive poors who just beg for welfare. Both groups dont work and both groups call for collective good, just like mafia calls for collective safety while demanding protection money.

Atlas shrugging is just productive members of society opting out of collectivist society.
Productive people have markets and private property.
Collective people have Soviet style famine where everyone begs for taxes and handouts and no one wants to work because no one owns anything.

>>21501319
>rich from industriousness
If people got rich from industriousness then Mexican fruit farmers and pajeets that work 13 hour days would be the most wealthy in the world instead of people that trace their wealth back so far they barely even remember how their family got it in the first place.

>>21501737
He's mostly arguing against liberal democracy here. Liberty, equality, fraternity we're the rallying cries of our current economic and political system. Even Rand with her instance on the NAP protects a form of inalienable equality that Nietzsche hates.

>>21501772
>parasites
You mean like landlords? They use their superior wealth to buy up real estate thus driving up the price of real estate and in turn making it even harder for poor people to find housing while being able to charge whatever they want. Taken to it's ultimate ends it's just a big game of Monopoly.

>>21501816
Yeah sure, landlords. But dont forget 30 year olds with blue hair, no marketable skills, no work experience, vanity degrees, tattoos, gucci lattes, felonies and narcotic dependencies.
Both are subhuman. And Rand says this.
Politician, landlord, and unskilled unproductive poor. All equally subhuman from the perspective of someone who actually builds homes and does construction for all 3.

Retard leftists cant get over the fact that there are filthy poors out there who are just as degenerate as the filthy rich.
Now if you had private property law and contracts, you can safely not care about either. Productive construction worker making homes for both the rich and the poor doesnt give a fuck. He can just make a private construction company and build homes for both.

Atlas is about rich degenerates and poor degenerates destroying private property, chasing this construction worker (in Rand's case, rail company) out.

>>21501740
these people are not your enemies.
the people exploiting you and your mother are.
your employee does not give a shit about you and your mom beyond what he can get out of you. this is not some minorities' or some lazy people's fault or responsibility. everyone should be able to have their basic needs met and taken care of so you can give them a chance of actually improving their position and ultimately give back to society.

rich people are not more or less qualified than anyone else.
nor are fascists or racists lol.

>>21500271
Unfortunately, you have not grasped the meaning of it.
It's more "talented, diligent people good", and "useless, jealous people bad".

>>21500271
Charity got shit on because the people who do it generally lord their power over the people they are "helping" but they don't want them to get out of a bad situation because then the people feeling powerful from "helping" lose that power.
There was also a huge distinction between those that earned their position through grit and motivation over those who simply coast on the coattails of others.

>>21501816
Yes like landlords, the main character has a brother who simply uses his vast wealth to crush any competition though regulations or just buying them out.
It is such an on the nose mirror I'm shocked people don't pick up on it instantly.

The copes itt are delicious

>>21500309
Uh wrong? We feed them so we can cull them but inbetween they feed the populations of carnivores which eat niggers so its a net positive. Think about it. We help poorfags so the more intelligent can scam and benefit off of them. A stagnant elite leads to a degenerate society. An influx of competent enterpreneurs is what makes a society truly great.

>>21501816
The entire housing market is fucked by the federal reserves artifically low interest rates driving housing to higher prices based on a low cost of money. In a free market housing would depreciate like a car and people wouldn't have to use a house as a fucking savings account. The entire housing markets problems are directly caused by federal central banking.

>>21501854

You're right in that the employer doesn't care about that poster in the sense of a mother caring for a child, or a friend caring for a friend. His employer only cares for the labor he provides, and in turn anon (likely) only cares about his employer as a source of income. The relationship is entirely selfish, and it is a voluntary, functional relationship. And then the government picks his pocket for $12k to benefit people who've done nothing to earn it. Who's the exploited here?

>>21502022
The government puts a gun to your head, they don't pick your pocket. Then 11k of that 12k go to corruption and 1k of it go to lazy niggers.

A literature board is treating gdp go up as a serious objective of social fulfillment

I have to hope this is an elaborate troll in which case well done

>>21502022
i am not saying that the government is doing a good job, it isn't, but immigrants are not your enemies. the problem is not wether you pay taxes or not, but how they are used.

>Who's the exploited here?

this question is pointless. i never said that an employee wasnt being exploited.

>His employer only cares for the labor he provides, and in turn anon (likely) only cares about his employer as a source of income

which is also not true. you only care about your employer as a source of income in a society that has already failed.
you know it's possible to like your job even if it's cleaning toilets. when you can barely afford to live and have no other options than cleaning toilets, that's when it becomes a problem.

>and it is a voluntary, functional relationship

yeah, no, it's not.

what you need is a decentralized form of government that prioritises people over profits.
you know, some form of libertarian socialism. giving the market free reign is not gonna solve any problems, it's just gonna end up in the exact same position that we are now.

>>21502050
minorities arent your enemies, the rich are, politicians are. not your local communities who are trying to get by.
being racist is such a sheep mindset. first your conservative overlords tell you that all your problems stem from people with different skin color, then they use the money they steal from you to enrich themselves and keep you and those other people poor. but obviously, it's the other poor person's fault that your life is shit...

>>21502084
The rich flood the country with migrant labor that will both lower the value of my labor while at the same time putting them on welfare so that they will keep supporting the current power structure that feed them money.
Immigrants are the tool of the rich to oppress the middle.

>>21502103
what? lol

first, dont act like you are willing to do every job like cleaning toilets. migrants arent taking your jobs and they arent voting for conservative parties, much the opposite.
obviously the rich are gonna use any kind of tool to make your work worthless. but that's not an issue that has to do with immigrants, people fleeing from warzones and stuff like that.
welfare and social benefits apply or should apply to all people in a country. if they dont apply to you then your government has failed you, not immigrants. automation is also making a lot of jobs worthless and i dont see you hating on software. it's not the software's problem but how it's used. immigrants arent also your only competitors in a job market. everyone is.
this has nothing to do with immigrants. read up on barriers to entry. this has nothing to do with immigrants. and yet you are willing to suck up to those exact same people that are in favor of barriers to entry because they say that people from outside of your country are taking away your jobs lol.
you are a cuck. your jerk of the people working against your personal self interests.

>>21502084
Gee I wonder where all these minorities came from. Was it the immigration reform act of 1965? Thanks for killing JFK and installing LBJ so this could get ratified.

>>21502151
Lmao kys

>>21502151
This is the power of public education
it is functionally lobotomized. Anon the purpose of immigration is the devaluation of labor.

>>21502174
i hope you are at least self aware

>>21502081
Social fulfillment would be killing every politician but rand paul in public in minecraft then killing every single government worker in minecraft and ending state education, the irs, the fbi, the cia, the nsa, the dod, all in minecraft, and bombing the federal reserve in minecraft, then disembowling and throwing everyone on wall street off the buildings in minecraft, then euthanizing everyone who got the covid vaccines in minecraft.

>>21502189
You are a champagne socialist high on egalitarian nonsense.

>>21502188
there are so many things devaluing your labor but the one thing you focus on is immigration, why?

these people come from horrible circumstances and want to have a good life, much like yourself.
these people arent your enemies and your government profits from you hating each other.
it's classic "divide and rule". if a society's people arent united then they can be taken advantage of.
you are too much concerned with infighting than taking the fight where it actually matters.
nothing will change if you keep thinking this way and dont think that you can change the government by way of the government.

think a bit for yourself

>>21502210
>i put you in a box much how i put immigrants in a box, so i dont have to engage with the truth of what you are saying

get a grasp on reality, you bitter, bitter human being.

>>21502213
Anon how do you divide us without immigration. The opposite of unity is diversity. Mass immigration is the tool they use to divide the working class. Always was. Read about the labor party before it was completely subverted by the rich.

>>21502217
>We have to help the poor rapefugess
Why
>We have to invade and install democracy
Why
>We have to bring in thousands of immigrants without background checks
Why?
>Also we have flood the entire market with birth control and introduce feminism to lower birth-rate so we need to those immigrants
Why? Anon u really need to kys if not stop being a brainlet marxists in case u havent noticed they are all subhumans that do nothing and preach nothing but cheap humanitarianism.

>>21501431
I'm Jewish and I know Hebrew. Can you point me in the direction what you're talking about? I kind of need a decent doctor and dentist

>>21502245
Shut up gay adam

>>21502226
it does not matter where someone comes from.
why would it?

> The opposite of unity is diversity

lol. you are all humans.race is just a construct.
that's the unity you need. you dont belong to some kind of white race or whatever haha.
humans originated in africa anyway.

>>21502226
why do you keep focusing on immigration anon?
why do you ignore everything else i say?

>>21502293
Because you keep defending it.

>>21502286

>>21502298
i also told you on several occasions other ways that your labor is being devalued, which is the actual thing we were talking about, yet you keep focusing on immigration. anon, are you stupid?

>>21502306
Anon I am a 0 immigration and end the fed and end all social welfare and end the irs guy. Without both the fed going off the gold standard and without women working and wothout mass immigration from the reform act of 1965 wages would have actually risen. All three are the culprit.

>>21501259
>the most immoral people are rich and the poor worker leads a noble struggle a
I agree with you having been around poor people there's a lot of just scummy people, but not everyone. I've also met plenty of poor people that are good natured just maybe a bit dim or down on their luck.
Conversely not every rich person is scummy but you can't deny that there are plenty of rich people that make their money in scummy ways.
Like it was found that a big bank had made a lot of money intentionally giving and catering their services to the cartels in Mexico.
Plenty of other examples of white collar crime and worse...

>>21502213

Mass immigration is cancer to a sense of unity.

>>21502278
>Gay Adam
What?

>>21502332
the thing with being poor is also that it is connected to a lack of education which are both connected to criminal behavior. it's really expensive being poor, which is why a lot of people end up doing crimes, which in turn will disable them from finding a normal job, which then forces them to do crime to survive and so on.

somemorenews on youtube did an episode on systemic racism, which goes into that, also showing how historic circumstances still very much affect certain minortities' access to education in america and makes it really hard for them to get out of their circumstances.
here is the video. in the description you will find sources on everything he says. ignore his style of talking. it's not for everyone but it's an interesting overview of what a lot of black peolpe have been dealing with for a long time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ciwjHVHYg

>>21502415
being a white supremacist and incel is cancer to a sense of unity.
why dont you want us to be united, anon?

>>21502424
>Systemic racism
>White supremacy
Is this bait or is this r*dditnigger serious?

>>21502424
Educating peoples culture away is whay you are suggesting as a solution to black culture lmao.

>>21502286
Jebem ja tebi mater u pičku, i sestru ti silujem stoko belosvetska
Translate for yourself if we are just a construct you scum

>>21502433
watch the video then you will find out how the system very much works against certain minorities. facts dont care about your feelings.

>>21502434
that's not what i am suggesting.
it's also not what that means.
you dont even know what education means. well i guess i am wasting my time here. haha

>>21502437
>differences exist
>i have to put myself on top of someone else now

>>21502443
>Watch this video about some kike podcaster who isnt like the other thousands of podcaster
Honestly, consider suicide.

>>21502443
>that's not what i am suggesting.
>it's also not what that means.
>you dont even know what education means. well i guess i am wasting my time here. haha
Anon trying to erase peoples culture via state indoctrination facilities is what we did to Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians. Have you learned nothing from the past?

>Immigrants Reduce Unionization in the United States
https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-reduce-unionization-united-states
Cato wants open borders just for that reason.

Never finished this book, but I've been to the irl Gulch inspiration. It's a very cute town. Also, Anthem is unironically good and probably the best modern dystopia-trite out there. 1984 and BNW are shite and overly long for what they are.

>>21501262
Aka dictatorship of the proletariat aka Communism. The washed masses rise up and rob the wealthy blind. It's in their self interest to do so.

>>21503076
Lol meet the new boss same as the old boss

>>21501213
It's insane how you have given her a shit ton of charity with that definition and yet it still sounds absolutely unhinged. There is a reason why no academic philosophers take her views seriously, If you hate poor people just read Nozick desu

>>21504372
>There is a reason why no academic philosophers take her views seriously,
Academic philosophers take derrira, Marx, and Nietzsche seriously. Derrira said text precedes speech. Which is beyond retarded. Marx explained motion using the communist law of opposites, which sounds retarded to any physicist because you can't have motion without first having motion. Nietzsche surmised the origin of morality using etymology. And concluded slavery and monarchies invented morality, which is retarded because those things are relatively recent inventions. So there's your academic philosophers for ya

>>21501395

>>21501259
poor people can't develop virtue precisely because they are poor. read aristotle.

One of these days I'm going to get around to reading The Fountainhead.

>>21500276
>Randtard
>posts Funko
Kek.

>>21500271
>When I drop an object, it falls down.
>Water is wet.

What a hack.

>>21504607
Those guys are retarded, and the second you learn that "philosophers" are just people who string words together, that they believe other people will think sounds smart, is the second you become an adult.
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."
Means nothing, and any attempt to explain it is just more stringing words together. If he was serious about learning, he wouldn't utter such nonsense.

>>21501259

I feel like I needed to hear this quote. Feeling bitter about having to get a real job and becoming a wagecuck makes me mad and sad.

>>21505192
When the world is full of lies it is a act of defiance to state objective truths.
>A is A
Or something more currently year
>2+2=4 and only 4 no matter how you subjectively feel about it or try to break it down using critical theory.

>>21500271
>We shouldn't help poor people even though it makes a better society because they hate rich people and we can do whatever the fuck we want
I dont think this is completely right. Helping some poor people is good, but there are many poor people who waste their wellfare money on shit they don't need like drugs. Some of them are also retarded with their money. Here in Norway, most stores are closed on sundays, but gas stations are still open. Gas stations are more expensive than normal stores. Even so, I have heard about people getting a taxi straight to the gas station when they have gotten their wellfare money for the month.

>>21505302
>>21505192
Sometimes her quote was "A is A and man is man" which has gained a different gravitas in our modern day. She knew, 60 years ago that moral relativism would go so out of control that just stating "that man is not a woman" would be a revolutionary thing

>>21501259

>>21505192
A-anon you didn't take the covid **vaxxine** r-right?

>>21501816
Yep like landlords. People really forget that the modern landlord exists solely because barely any new housing is being built in the big cities due to zoning laws?

Housing used to be a relatively cheap commodity (in the same ballpark as a new car is today give or take) before government decided that your land actually belongs to them (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. for the United States)

>>21500271
This book sucks and Ayn Rand is retarded but she happened to be right that taking money from people who earned it to give it to people who didn't is also retarded

>>21505302
it's more akin to how ben shapiro uses rethoric. she states a hypothetical as a fact and therefore comes to the conclusion that it's true, even though the beginning assumption was already incorrect. e.g. she argues that man does not need society and is in constant rivalry with his surroundings. that's the basis of her thinking and it is not changable because according to her it is objective truth. meanwhile matriarchal, egalitarian, non hierarchical societies have always existed.
she argues against socialism because man only exists for himself and only through his own effort, ignoring the fact that humans are among the species where the mother/family takes care of their child the longest of all animals before it leaves the "nest". humans are not very good at surviving alone, at all, but humans do have the advantage that they have huge potential. ayn rand fails to see this.
she fails to see how a social environment, a social safety net is actually beneficial to one's development.

>>21505416
a third gender has existed for centuries in certain cultures, for example in india. there are also societies where if a man dies, a woman may take up his role and live as a man. i really dont get why some people want to dictate others how they are suppossed to live their lifes, given that trans-people do not hurt anyone, yet there are people who are willing to hurt trans-people simply for existing. it's the same with the abortion ban. those are things that are no one's business except for the people who are going through these kind of things.
with trans people it's been proven that gender reassignment surgery actually improves their mental health, as they tend to have a pretty high suicide rate. what does not improve their mental health is being bullied for being trans. why should that be ok?

>>21505685
>trans
>People
Is this some troon cope? U freaks will never be people.

>>21505698
the irony of being a supremacist is that, as much as you are willing to put others down, you are eagerly licking someone else's boot.
how does that feel? haha

>>21505704
>Being a normal human without mental disability is now a supremacy.
How about u join the 50% troon.

>>21505709
nice ad hominem.

facts dont care about your feelings though

>>21505716
>facts dont care about your feelings though
Very ironic statement coming from a degenerate faggot.

>>21505718
nice ad hominem

facts dont care about your feelings though

>>21505722
Care to state your "facts"?

>>21505722
>If i hold my hands to my ears and keep screaming they will be considered facts.
Fucking hell.. U faggots really are deranged.

>>21505734
see:>>21505685

>>21505745
nice ad hominem

facts dont care about your feelings though

not even a tranny lol.
are you mentally challenged or something?
you really dont do yourself or the view you are holding a favor.

>>21505685
>a third gender has existed for centuries in certain cultures, for example in india. there are also societies where if a man dies, a woman may take up his role and live as a man
None of these are even close to your belief that a man can be secretly a woman on some metaphysical level and needs to cut his penis off and in other ways mutilate his body to conform his "true" identity
>trans-people do not hurt anyone
Trans-people indoctrinate mentally ill children into irreversibly mutilating their bodies
>with trans people it's been proven that gender reassignment surgery actually improves their mental health
No it doesn't, highest suicide rates are among transpeople after srs.

>>21505685
Trans people groom children into irreprable damage. They are also likely a result of the hormonal collapse from a diet of goyslop and the decline of community.

>>21505776
> A 2014 study carried out by the Williams Institute (a UCLA think tank) found that 41% of transgender people had attempted suicide, with the rate being higher among people who experienced discrimination in access to housing or healthcare, harassment, physical or sexual assault, or rejection by family. A 2019 follow-up study found that transgender people who wanted and received gender-affirming medical care had substantially lower rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts.

source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200513172602/https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Suicidality-Transgender-Sep-2019.pdf

facts dont care about your feelings

>None of these are even close to your belief that a man can be secretly a woman on some metaphysical level and needs to cut his penis off and in other ways mutilate his body to conform his "true" identity

i think a lot of trans people want to be openly a woman, they are not cross-dressers.
also they do not necessarily have gender reassignment surgery performed on themselves.
there are people who identify as trans that do not change their body through hormones or surgery.

>Trans-people indoctrinate mentally ill children into irreversibly mutilating their bodies

examples? this is not a process that is just done on a whim, it's a longer process involving mental health professionals.
you act like that just because someone has gender dysphoria they will all of a sudden have such a long lasting surgery performed on themselves.
this is not the case. gender disphoria is a thing of its own and pretty common in people going through puberty.
you are just fear mongering on something that you obviously do not understand.

>No it doesn't, highest suicide rates are among transpeople after srs.

citation needed.

>>21505778
see above

>>21505802
Sorry champ but a priori allowing grotesque mentally ill demons into my community is a no go. For me it's ostracization until the creature commits suicide. Hell, maybe upon reincarnation it will have the chromosome it thinks it needs to fill its god hole.

>>21501453
Does she ever shit on poor people in any of her stories? It's easy to say that she said that the smart productive rich are good which implies that the poor are bad but I don't think she ever shits on them. She even has a part in Galt's speech that even a janitor is useful in the productivity of a company.

>>21502651
My theory is that if Ayn Rand had never written The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and only wrote Anthem, people would be celebrating it on the same level as 1984.

>>21500309
You literally do. It's hilarious how you autista habe zero clue how a real society works. Literal millions of people work to cull or strengthen wildlife populations every year. Sometimes they receive additional feed in the fall/winter, sometimes they're shot if they overbred. Everyone should really know this.

>>21501213
>Egalitarian nazis

The layers of retardation present are fascinating

>>21501319
Literally the same thing. No one gets rich with labor you imbecile. All smart businessmen must steal from the state (subsidies, tax evasion) to be competitive, because everyone else is doing it.

>>21501802
Based

>>21501816
Beyond based

>>21501802
>If people got rich from industriousness then Mexican fruit farmers and pajeets that work 13 hour days would be the most wealthy in the world instead of people that trace their wealth back so far they barely even remember how their family got it in the first place.
That's what idiots believe when they say you can't create wealth, only steal it or inherit it. It's wrong by the mere observation of companies throughout history. It would imply that the only successful companies are old companies (as you say), but it is also impossible for any new company to ever become dominant, which is absurdly wrong.

>>21505929
Imagine if you will that there were no parasite corporation (state) to have to deal with.

>>21500271
Her great entrepeneur-man theory of history has been conclusively disproven by
a) Elon Musk wasting 44 billion dollars on twitter, a bag of pure AIDS, for the express purpose of turning it less gay - you cannot turn a bag of AIDS less gay. It is gay by definition. Also, you still need an age-verified account to watch videos of fireworks. Unfathomably gay. Furthermore, I cannot wait until his neuralink brain chip enters human trials, as it has so far killed and maimed almost every monkey he tried it on, and the people signing up for the human trials are the exact people who deserve the most to die in the most gruesome body horror way imaginable.

b) Mark Zuckerberg, at one point the richest person in the world, great entrepeneur of the internet age, tanking his net worth to oblivion via his insistence on creating LE METAVERSE, a technically unimpressive VR world, that relies on the user buying extremely expensive and difficult to calibrate special equipment, for the privilege of paying a premium for being allowed to hang out in budget version of Second Life - Second Life, which failed even though it was completely free and easy.

c) Jeff Bezos. Look at his new wife, then look me in the eye and tell me this is a succesful man.

>>21501213
>unemployment benefits is literally the gulag
lmao, I'm staying NEET.

>>21505966
>>21505923
See
>>21501746
>>21501711

>>21505820
>my arguments are based on my feelings

>>21505685
The fact that you have to go deep into the rainforest to find one(1) tribe with one word like two spirit that vaguely can be misinterpreted as gay shit is proof that you're cherry picking. You are overlooking the thousands of cultures were gender is conventional: the mongols, the gendoku jidai, the aenu, the sumerians, the Chaldeans, the creek, the chicktaw, the Peruvians in 1954, everyone. Are we all in a conspiracy together along with every single culture, cultures that have lived thousands of years ago, cultures that we don't speak the same language with. Are we all in a huge conspiracy to have men act like men, women like women and a small percentage of fags? The left is not the party of science. They're the party of cherry picking

Man is man, and you will never be a woman

>>21500271
How could you not understand such an easy reading?

>>21501677
Shut up you filthy communist, go back to r/socialism your tired arguments hold no water.
You babble about exploitation, yet my employer and I entered into a voluntary contract that I can choose to leave at any time.
Meanwhile, the government in total takes around 50 percent of my earnings, by force or the threat of violence to my person, and maintains elaborate and massive organizations to track and enforce that payment.

Socialism would only work in the presence of total goodwill between citizens. But that doesn't exist. My money is spent on narcan for drug addicts, welfare for degenerate coal burners and various other forms of "gibs" while my roads are cracking and my health care system (wow it's free) is collapsing.
Taxes are only tolerable if taken in good faith, and they are not any longer. Likewise, your arguments are made in bad faith, because you know everything that I'm saying already. Please just go back.

>>21506055
>understand
Not OP, but Rand basically deifies the concept of the free market as a perfect and unbias arbiter. It oversimplifies reality and you end up with Randtards making arguments that sound exactly like "not real communism" nonsense. Some of her social criticism was on point but as far as her "philosophy" goes she's a joke and her writing is mid at best.

>>21500271

>Go to local bookstore with cutest chick
>"One copy of Capital 1-2-3, Conquest of Bread, Manufacturing Consent, Anarchism and Other Essays, Mutual Aid, Gender Trouble, Second Sex, Phenomenology of the Spirit please"
>"Sir are you a communist or smth?"
>"If you like communists then I am. Here's my number let's build a commune together"

>>21506028
I'm not a baconian zealot who worships a corrupted church that fucks children and is funded by slave labor. If something cannot be explained in 3 sentances it is a scam. Always.

>>21506172
Nature solves the problem itself; gommies evidently don't reproduce.

>>21506156
>Rand basically deifies the concept of the free market as a perfect and unbias arbiter
Where?

>>21506039
can you please explain to me what exactly is male and what is female? and how you come to the conclusion?
can you not see that whatever you describe as either exists in both genders? that there isnt some such big gap between men and women. your categories are useless in reality. you sound afraid of your own sexuality, that's probably why you are so concerned with the sexuality of others. i still dont see who someone loves should be any of your concern, at all. does not matter wether homosexuals arent as common as heterosexuals or that trans people are a minority. at the end of the day, this is none of your business.
homosexuality and trans gender have been observed in many animal species as well, anon.

>The left is not the party of science
>something is not common, therefore it is not science.

the left isnt even a party...
this is the last time i reply to you.
you are either ignorant or stupid, but i get the sense that you are both.
so far you have provided nothing but general claims and not a single time posted anything remotely any source of scientific fact.
for someone so hell bend on science and trans gender, you know surprisingly little about it. maybe, you should actually read up on it before you run around screaming nonsensical bullshit.
i know you wont. you are not a "man" of science. facts still dont care about your feelings breh.

>>21500271
You must be a colossal imbecile.
>>21501259
99% of the people I lived around were the most morally reprehensible people you could find- drug dealers, pedophiles, lifestyle criminals, thugs, scum
Whilst we didn't have pedos around (small place, everybody knows everyone), for the rest, you're fuckin' spot on!
>Atlas Shrugged is 100% correct
I like the book, bot it's not 100% correct, more like 85-90%

>>21506077
>that I can choose to leave at any time.

not true, many people live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford not going to work to a point where it will seriously affect their lifes (e.g. becoming homeless). it's voluntary in theory, it's not in reality, when the circumstances leave you no choice.

not even a communist.

as for the rest of your post see:
>>21505651

also, your government failing you is not a result of socialism, it's a result of capitalism.
democracy does not work anyway. that's why you need to decentralize the power the begin with.

what you also fail to see is that these drug addicts and what not can be turned into functioning citizens, therefore giving back to the system again. you act like your money is used to buy someone drugs for life. it is not and you are a retard. a socialist society would aim to rehabilitate said drug addict, your capitalism would through him in a cell and make him work for cheap.

>>21506240
Literally who cares. Just let them be ostracized and kill themselves.

>>21506235
Throughout her entire philosophy. The idea is that the free market is representative of capitalism, it determines the true value of individuals and their output, and the failings of the system we have now must be attributed to the fact that it isn't actually a free system. If you can't see how the logic of that is overly simplistic there's no hope for you. When this is pointed out the next step for Randtards is to display their immaturity by focusing on "IT ISN'T FREE THO!" (i.e. not real communism) and project nonsense about the messanger being a "collectivist."

That's the problem with Rand. She doesn't present a philosophical system so much as a collection of loaded concepts that distract from the fact her central premise is utopian and thereby nonsensical. People call it "inverted communism" sometimes but I don't think it's structured the same way--it's just an ideology and shares characteristics with it because of that. Randtards frequently become ideologically possessed but some of that is due to the self-help aspect of her work and not just buying into her worldview--Randianism acts like a cult.

>>21505951
Companies get their necessary starting capital from investors/share holders and that's where their profits will flow/accumulate. You can't just become such an investor/share holder by working.

>>21506273
Kek no they get their ***capital*** from the federal reserve who steals it from yoh by debasing the currency you currently have and giving it away for free to central banks.

>>21501995
>>21505571
The US housing market is far more complex than you suggest.

People refuse to let housing prices go down because it means a catastrophic loss of wealth in the property class.

There's also a tremendous shortage of skilled labor to produce new homes.

There's also a shortage of raw materials due to the supply chain breakdown.

There's also a tremendous amount of obstructions to making a house with endless government regulation, multiply this by 100x for places like California.

And the list goes on.

The banks are the least of it, but the cause in all cases is the same....the government is fucking America over.

>>21504607
Who the fuck is the guy with the eyepatch in the chad’s hair?

>>21501259

>poor dude grows up with death, crime and bad education; often the result of poverty and/or the marginalized culture it creates.
>poor dude often has no good role models, no hopes for a better future and no money
>poor dude sees that the few stories of success in his environment come from criminals; so that's where he often ends up

Is this really that hard to understand? Or do you genuinely believe that every poor person is designed by God as a deviant?

oh gee I wonder why there's a lot of crime and degeneracy in poor communities, it must be the devils doing!!!!

>>21506240
Make is XY chromosome. Female is XX. Anything in between us called hermaphrodite (not intersex). They are a thing, but have always been rare. Males have more testosterone and the traits that come from testosterone: more aggression, higher bone density, more upper body strength, more risk taking. Females have more estrogen and what comes with estrogen: crying, being emotional. Every single culture since the beginning of time has known this. In every single culture (even the ones without any contact with the West) the gender that goes through 9 months of gestation stay home, while the gender that doesn't get pregnant fights the war. This is true with lions, apes, seahorses, toads. Everywhere. The gender that gets pregnant is the less aggressive gender. Yes, albino zebras exist, but it is scientifically dishonest to say zebras are white. It's called cherry picking. Yes, faggotry has always existed, so have transvestites, so have tomboys, but like albino zebras it is scientifically dishonest to say that zebras are not black and white.
Man is man and you will never be a woman

>>21506262
Utter lies. I myself have effortlessly switched jobs 4 times in the last two years. In no way am I beholden to my employer, your arguments were formulated by an obese unemployed Jew in a time when sweatshop conditions and exploitation were admittedly more common than now, but this is just untrue.

Secondly you sidestepped my point that it's far more voluntary than the force that the state brings to bear. My employer may cease to pay me, and this may leave me without money for staples, but the state gives me no option whatsoever. Even if I ceased to work to dodge the income tax, they will tax the land that I own my house own, tax every good that I buy, and so on and so forth.

>these drug users can be turned into functioning citizens

You are an ape, a laughable simalcrum of a human. Either that or you are simply a child, in fact if I had to guess I'd say you're either younger than 25 or a woman. No, those drugs users will not be turned into citizens. The chance of a meth junkie becoming a net positive to society is lower than that of a crypto-communist like yourself making a valid argument - that is to say, infinitesimal.

>>21506293
Basado.

>>21506267
i know someone who is really into ayn randt and he keeps using the word "collectivist", especially in the sense of "collectivist propaganda" so often lol

anyway, his main argument is that whatever she says is based on reason and objectively true if you just follow her logic. i disagree with her (to see why check this post: >>21505651).
he also says that the problems we have with capitalism today are due to a mixed economy. the economy and the state should be seperate. once you have your ayn randtian society there is no way that this form of free market economy could ever change back into what we have today because since it's based on reason and logic people will realize that it is sound and be happy or whatever. he also ignores the fact that wether an economy and the state are seperated or not, money still does have the power influence individuals, especially in any form of centralized government where all power accumulates in a single place. he also talks about any form of socialism being bad because you are using force on people to take away their stuff and give it to others and you are forcing rich people to be less rich. yet he does not seem to have a problem with rich people exploiting their workers, which would def. fall under "force".

he also never ever talked about how he imagines that a society would even change into this form of governance. are there any historical examples?
or how do these people think this change will occur?

>>21506289
>poor people have no agency
Why do libtards dehumanize poor people so often? I get that you really just want to keep the status quo for yourselves, you have no experience of poverty and it's basically a game wherein you sacrifice nothing while patting yourselves on the back, but you'd think a few of you would be self-conscious to a certain degree.

>>21506305
i dont have anything more to say to that.
or more like, i cant be bothered. it's exhausting.
and it makes no difference anyway.
also you are an incel and supremacist, no wonder you hate socialism, you failed as a human being.

>>21506326
Hahahahahahahahaha

>>21506293
you know what the sad thing is: you actually believe this and think you have to be a certain way because you were physically born a man. at the end of the day you should just accept who you are and not what you think some kind of external culture wants you to be.
trust me, you will be happier for it. i know you wont accept that though.

>>21506318
>his main argument is that whatever she says is based on reason and objectively true if you just follow her logic.
Kek, it's always the same. The fact adherents called themselves "objectivists" is such a joke. It's basically a way to claim a monopoly on reality and force you to accept their premises without criticism.
>he also ignores the fact
You have to understand it isn't that he's actively ignoring so much as he's automatically filtered. Anything that runs outside of his ideological calculus is redefined according to satillites that protect the central core of his beliefs from actual criticism. The only way to deal with that is to define the central premise he's acting from and give justification to reject it (i.e. expose the Randian concept of the free market to the complexity of reality and refuse to accept anything that falls out of his structure without him addressing the criticism as directed at that ideological core--no slides of side-stepping). This will undoubtedly piss him off, when someone internalizes an ideology it becomes emotionally rooted, especially with Rand who sells her work through self-help, and attacking the core is literally an attack on the given ideologue's sense of reality.
>are there any historical examples?
Not on the scale required to justify the pretense of "Objectivism."
>how do these people think this change will occur?
They don't see reality as complex. Simple as. Their ideas are utopian and they think that subscribing to Randianism will just create an ideal world in accordance with their preexisting beliefs about the free market distributing to each what they deserve. Nevermind the multitude of divergent inputs that create an economy let alone the fact there will always be bad actors--the fact an economy is complex is all the more reason to oversimplify it and just leave it alone for them. They don't live in reality.

>>21506359
Hahahahahahahahahahaha

>>21506319

>poor people have no agency

Where did I say that?

Do you think that people's environments have no effect in the way they think and behave?

>Why do libtards dehumanize poor people so often? I get that you really just want to keep the status quo for yourselves, you have no experience of poverty

shit nigga, are the libtards in the room with us right now?

>>21506326
Lmao bitch, you're a woman aren't you. You don't have a response because you're wrong and you know it. It's ironic that your materialist thought is predicated upon a utopian framework by the way.
>Incel
What's hilarious is that I'm married with children, low middle class, living in a home that I practically built myself. I'll never be rich, but then again, you'll never be a human.

Ps I don't even like Rand, or any form of idiotic materialism, but a world run by Rand would interfere with me far less than one run by infernal and Subhuman busybodies like you.

>>21506369
>Where did I say that?
It's implicit to your argument.
>Do you think that people's environments have no effect in the way they think and behave?
Do you think that people's behavior has no effect on their environment?
>shit nigga, are the libtards in the room with us right now?
Respond to the question. Your characterization is a standard libtard projection regarding people's lack of agency due to their environment. The problem is that welfare programs have done nothing over the last several decades to alleviate poverty and there's a fair argument to be made that the attitude that drives them entrenches it. You can't remove the idea of individual agency while neglecting traditional means of producing stability (e.g. handouts that aren't geared towards familiy units but individuals not to mention the denigration centres that arrise due to closed communities).

Basically, you're ideas about poverty are simplistic and the reality of them is that they entrech the status quo and make it more difficult for those with the internal means to escape poverty to leave it.

>>21506380
Unfathomably based. I am also married. And I support the lolberts not because they are perfect but because they are the only people autistic enough to actually stand up to corruption and try to get rid of the irs or fbi or social services.

In a perfect world all technology would be destroyed. The best compromise is getting the fucking boot off my neck as much as possible and the lolberts are the ONLY major party who want to do that.

>>21506366
>expose the Randian concept of the free market to the complexity of reality and refuse to accept anything that falls out of his structure without him addressing the criticism as directed at that ideological core

i think i've been there before. he just says "but that's not real capitalism". i forgot what he talked about after that.
but he is really into her, like i get the idea that he is kind of in love with this idea he has of her, which is kind of weird because i have never seen him like this before. but for him she is infallible, and everything is based on logic and reason. we were also talking about anarchism, and it's a concept that he cannot grasp at all, but he firmly believes in what ayn randt says on it, which is bascially that any form of anarchism will end up in riots and looting eventually. i dont think she knows what it actually is or how it works. ironically, her thinking is very much at the basis of anarcho-capitalist thought (which generally all other forms of anarchism disagree with as it goes very much against their foundation)

thanks for your post though.
i do understand her a bit better now.

>>21506417
I am in the same boat. Ideally I would love a Christian theocracy or semi commune style regionalism like the Amish, but if I must be ruled by secularists, it is an empirical fact that libertarian and capitalist systems promote (at least for a time) more freedom and success than the alternatives.
The person I replied to runs their mouth under the ostensible cause of humanitarian concern, but their program leads to total control, paranoia and eventually mass death. Never tolerate or suffer these fools, they will line you up against a wall as quick as you can say "equality."

>>21506433
I am moving near my extended family in south Kansas so we can have subsistance agriculture and homeschool. My wife and I are both in school to be able to get remote work jobs and do as little as possible in tech. I would also like to do as the mormons do and legally divorce her so she can file as a single mother during the maternity times so we can get single mother welfare and write off my "child support" to her as well. That is how the mormons afford so many kids.

>>21505957

Real billionaires don't match Rand's conception of them to be sure, but despite their quirks and failures, all three of those men have left indelible marks on modern society that were in no way inevitable.

>>21506457
if by "indelible marks" you mean dents, then yes.
i could happily do without those 3, and their "quirks"

>>21506423
>"but that's not real capitalism"
Yeah, that's the slide (and it helps if you point out where their logic will lead them before they have the chance--predictability is the mark of being ideologically possessed). You make him define real capitalism and point out that it's utopian while restating the fact his central premise can't integrate the criticism you just made without redefining it according to it's own narrative. The only way to argue with an ideologue is to keep attacking the central core of their beliefs while not allowing them to side-step and assert a monopoly on the discussion. That's what they're really doing--they're monopolizing the perameters of the discussion without even realizing it. It makes them infalliable, in their own heads at least but the reality is they're simply filtered, and you have to assert what it is that makes them feel that way and why you reject it.
>for him she is infallible
Because Randianism is a cult, anon. There was an internal fiasco with them about a decade ago over a book called "The Logical Leap." Basically, the author wrote how Rand solved the problem of induction (notice he can't say he did but has to attribute ideas as already existing within Rand's work) and a professor at Stanford, who was affiliated with them through ARI, gave it a lukewarm review. They pilloried him, taking away grants and cancelling speaking engagements he had through them, because of it and ended up looking like a bunch of cult members.
>everything is based on logic and reason
That's because Rand monopolizes reality. She literally says her ideas are based on a really simplistic mantra--I think there are four of them called the "Pillars of Objectivism" or something (i.e. A is A, Existence Exists, and two others I can't think of)--and people sublimate the details of her argument back to those which are tautological and therefore infalliable. But the thing is you aren't criticising "A is A" or that "Existence Exists" (aside, notice the simplicity of them--it's literal cult programming) but rather the fact Rands ideas oversimplify reality. The ideology doesn't allow for counter examples.
>i do understand her a bit better now
Another thing that will help you understand is the fact Rand's ideas are emotionally rooted and a represent a theory of everything. You friend is comforted by the stability they represent, there's a disincentive to criticise, and they literally don't even have to think (i.e. they don't have to wade into complexity and experience the discomfort that comes with that).

>>21506480
At the absolute minimum real capitalism requires real capital aka sound money. What we have is quazi-fascism.

>>21506480
i see how it has cult-like qualities, which also comes from my experience with people who are really into enlightenment.
having discussions with those was a real pain in the ass as every conversation, every time you were talking about something specific, they would always backtrace it to an objective (but meaningless) truth. e.g. you talk about a social issue and things that are directly connected to it and they would say (you know why it's like this? because people aren't enlightend" and it has gotten to the point where any sort of discussion is an utter waste of time. and in this case i have a pretty good idea of why they are so obsessed with it.

i will keep the things you said in mind next time i happen to talk about ayn randt with him.

>and you have to assert what it is that makes them feel that way and why you reject it.
i am pretty sure we have been there at least once, through text and through talking, which is why i sometimes just tell him to read what i already wrote that i dont agree with her basic assumption of how humans exist in this world (see:>>21505651). like seriously we have had the same conversations several times by now.
and it's really hard to get him to even read something else. and when he reads he seems to already be constantly thinking he disagrees with it because it's not objectivist. he cant seem to follow someone elses logic because it disagrees with his, even though i am merely asking him to try and understand, and not adopt whatever he is reading.

i think it's also weird that he is using the phrase "collectivist propaganda" for anytthing slightly socialist.

one last thing, one of the main issues he also seems to have with socialist ideas is that according to him they ignore the individual.
i disagree with this, as an individual does act in a society as part of different groups and whatnot but at the same time is also an individual.
socialist politics do not necessarily ignore that fact. there are forms other than communism where people are very much allowed to have their own property, and even earn more than others and stuff. still it's a matter of how you handle the social question first and foremost and not the economic, which obviously go hand in hand, but i rather have it be in favor of the people, not the market.

>>21506267
>Then this is pointed out the next step for Randtards is to display their immaturity by focusing on "IT ISN'T FREE THO!" (i.e. not real communism)
They're right. Not even economists that support government intervention think the system we have is fully capitalist. Its a mixed economy dumbass

>>21501285
The conclusion: we are all evil, rich and poor

Der Mensch ist ein Raubtier.

>>21506573
and how would you keep a fully capitalist economy fully capitalist? my basic assumption is that you cannot truly seperate money and politics, especially when political power is centralized. it's naive to think that someone who is rich would not use the money to influence and corrupt politicians in his favor.

>>21504604
You are an actual fucking clown. All those philosophers you've mentioned had incredibly insightful, revolutionary writing. The fact that they had some retarded ideas doesn't implicate the rest of their ideas. Ayn Rand has 100% retarded ideas, nothing to take seriously, she's to philosophy what marvel films are to cinema, it's actually embarrassing.

>>21506646
Academics are worthless retards. They are a parasite class.

>>21506573
>They're right.
Not the point, retard. The point is they're expressing a utopian ideal and slide into nonsense like "NOT REAL CAPITALISM THO" whenever systemic issues concerning the subject are brought up. It's an illustration of shallow and predictable thinking--commies do the same shit. This guy gets it >>21506608.

>>21506676
the problem with communism is that they think they can somehow reach a socialist society by creating an authoritarian state that then somehow willingly will gives up its power. history has very much shown, over and over again, that this is not the case.

>>21506652
>highshchool dropout who couldn't get into any college
>dismisses academics
shocking

>>21506719
You are like a catholic defending the church after the child rape. The university system and journals are completely and utterly fucked and have been since at least the early 90s.

>>21506710
It's more that there's a natural organic inclination toward authoritiarianism and institutions have to be built in such a way to inhibit it. Socialism is a big umbrella and is a nebulous term in a lot of ways. In the early 20th century different forms of government expressed socialism in different ways--there's overlap between them but you can see how their focus differs if you compare something like Soviet-style socialism and National Socialism. There's substance to the argument that socialism gives the state power that has the ability to become hegemonic and unchecked but there's also substance to the argument that socialism is needed to restrain pseudo-political oligarchy from attaining too much power and usurping institutions for their own benefit (e.g. as we see in the West with both sides of the political spectrum forwarding the interests of corporatism at the expense of individual will and traditional communities).

>>21506770
national socialism wasnt socialist. i think there is also a quote from hitler where he talks about that.
after a while at least it was nothing more than the name of his political party. his party wasnt socialist though. he fucked over many of his own people as well and created a fascist dictatorship. you argue that because a dictatorships needs a society to function it is therefore socialist, i very much disagree.

it's similar with soviet style socialism. communism was nothing more than the ussr's export of its own political influence. it was a dictatorship(which is part of the communist plan, but they never managed to fulfil their own promises, more the opposite). the ussr was actively fighting against anarchists in the spanish civil and in ukraine, even though they have very much the same goal in mind. communism was the ussr's way of getting political support overseas.

>>21506735
what a retarded fucking argument. why would you argue for the early 90s when we talk about an author who wasn't taken seriously when she started publishing in the 40s and 50s?
That's the form of logical reasoning that leads you to think academia is fucked, thanks for proving you're an ant.

>>21506871
Namely because that is when the actual hard science journals were bought out and conaolidated and when researchers started having to spend all their time writing grant proposals and having to chase only popular grant prolosals rather than actually doing research on important or personally interesting material because of the administration overhead. I took it as a given from the start that humanities are worthless and charitably assumed you meant actual researchers. Sorry if I was too kind.

>>21505914
If you feed wild animals you have to take responsibility for culling them and all that. It's a whole thing. I don't want to murder people. It's a whole thing.

>>21506866
>national socialism wasnt socialist
Yes it was. It had platform policies like interest free loans distributed to newly married couples so they could buy a house (and a portion of the loan was forgiven for every child born).

Socialism was a new political concept that was expressed differently by varying political systems in the early 20th century. The Nazis were socialist but it was bent toward nationalism and directing funds to bolster traditional institutions (e.g. family). Soviet socialism involved the things like a state mandate to provide housing through deprivatization.

Both systems were socialist. You have to view them according to the fact they developed in the early 20th century in the age of ideology and how this affected the flavor and outcome of their socialist inclinations.

>>21506888
>I took it as a given from the start that humanities are worthless and charitably assumed you meant actual researchers.
You're literally lying though, you responded to me talking about philosophers. Why would you think I was excluding humanities?
If you're so dishonest about this, why would I believe any of the dipshit conspiracy theories you propose which at worst, you actually believe, and at best, are just tools you use to calm your ego over your lack of academic achivements?

>>21506646
>All those philosophers you've mentioned had incredibly insightful, revolutionary writing.
Lol, ok then name 3 incredibly insightful revolutionary ideas that Derrida had. In your own words. And Marx and Nietzsche. In your own words. It should be so easy for you.
You don't know anything about Rand's philosophy because you dismissed it off the gate because "academics" told you to

>>21506907
Calm down. I was being charitable. Ayn Rand herself called all the university parasites worthless dregs even back then. You defended universities and I was being nice about it. The world is beyond pozzed with sdgs and esg running the entire system now even in the hard sciences. It's over. Roxanne Gaye does the yearly top short fiction compilations every year. I assumed you wouldn't possibly be even ironically attempting to defend the liberal arts because it's too ludicrous.

>>21506608
That's begging the question, where the answer is anarcho-capitalism. You're not wrong in your assertion that in Ayn Rand's minarchist government, the rich would still be able to influence the state, but that's just a part of her politics where she inconsistently applied 'laissez-fair capitalism' but not really fully laissez-fair by having some restrictions of capitalism such as intellectual property and the police and judicial system operated by the state rather than private companies. You can go read up on anarcho-capitalist literature on how such a society would remain fully capitalistic with a system of private police, contracts and arbitrators, but I'm not here to argue how it works.

>>21506267
>the failings of the system we have now must be attributed to the fact that it isn't actually a free system.
And why is it wrong? Ayn Rand is very open about how a mixed economy is bad and that proper capitalism is one that has little to no involvement of the state. Furthermore, in The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand also shows immoral capitalism with Gail Wyand selling yellow newspapers.

I think you're just wrong and base your views on arguments you've had with other objectivists rather than the points made by Ayn Rand herself. I do nonetheless agree that a majority of objectivists operate as a 'regurgitating everything Ayn Rand said without independent thought' to be cultish, and I don't consider these people objectivists.

>>21506480
>Because Randianism is a cult, anon.
No, the issue is deeper than that. You're being reductivist by misunderstanding the internal problem of objectivism, which is that Ayn Rand named her philosophy rather than having it attributed to her name, thereby creating the 'closed system' vs 'open system' conflict. You're not wrong to recognize cultish attitude and positions of authority from members of ARI, but you're not looking beyond the issue to understand why it is that way.

>Ayn Rand monopolizes reality
See, this is where you're wrong. You conclude that her ideas are simple without challenging them. You're mistaking simplisticty for as a byproduct of being wrong because only complex things can be correct. So by not being complex, it cannot be correct and she must be wrong. Ayn Rand is unironically correct of metaphysics.

>>21503076
It is? Is that why it turned out so well in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc?

>>21506944
but anon, an-cap is anarchy's bastard child.
i am more into anarcho-syndicalism.

i'll read up on it out of curiosity though.now that i am mostly done with ayn rand, i guess i might as well get a proper idea of an-cap,

>>21506273
>he thinks companies only count if they're corporations

You can have an opinion when you start paying taxes, parasite.

>>21503076
Lol the only way that anarcho-communism can work is by destroying all wealth and reverting to tribalism. So long as any wealth exists at all it will be collected. Communism and fascism are both just human instinct to return to tribalism that has been bastardized into gay political scams.

>>21506985
i dont think so.
anarcho-communism, from my understanding, aims to organize the government/society using soviety(councils) or even communes. that's where it gets its name from. also, obviously having the people who work in a factory also own those exact factories, thereby letting them create their own wealth, als managing themselves which would make something like a CEO basically obsolete.
i dont think that it necessarily requires people to have no private property at all.

>>21500271
>Industrialism and exceptionalism good
>Laziness and envy wrong
>You are ultimately responsible for your own happiness. Altruism and welfare corrode the human spirit, whereas being able to take pride in yourself and your own work are uplifting.
FTFY

>Rich people good
Multiple rich characters are evil
>Poor people bad
In The Fountainhead, Roark says that he wouldn't penalise someone on the basis of them only being able to afford $15 a month rent, but that he hates the idea of penalising someone on the basis that they can afford $40.
Objectivism is like Aristotle's virtues for a modern age.

>>21507006
Communes will simply be outcompeted by actual companies. The trouble with tooling is it requires constant r&d or you end up making a piece of shit like the Lada for 60 years.

>>21506944
>And why is it wrong?
Already explained in the post. Rand's idealization of capitalism is overly simplistic and utopian. It's based on ideological assumptions that elivate the idea of the free market as being non-bias by ignoring the complex mechanisms by which it forms and the human input that inevitably characterizes it. The point of the post is how Randtards ignore the above by asserting "IT'S NOT FREE THO" as an excuse when the failings of capitalist systems are brought up (which is what you've just done).
>I think you're just wrong and base your views on arguments you've had with other objectivists rather than the points made by Ayn Rand herself
No, I've read a lot of Rand.
>You're being reductivist by misunderstanding the internal problem of objectivism
The open/closed system was indirectly referenced an aside when refering to "The Logical Leap." I'm not being "reductavist," but you're missing the point of the posts and talking past it instead of addressing it's context.
>You conclude that her ideas are simple without challenging them
I challenged the central premise of Randianism according to how it characterizes capitalism and the free market. I also gave examples of how it operates like a cult of ideology.
>You're mistaking simplisticty for as a byproduct of being wrong because only complex things can be correct.
No, that's a strawman. My argument is that Randianism is an ideology and operates like one. It uses loaded terminology that monopolizes the grounds for discussion by forcing it's ideological core without justifying it. I've already given examples in the post to which you're responding and you can address them.

So no. I do not agree with your characterization of what I said in those previous posts and you failed to address my main criticism. Randianism is cultist because it's constructed that way. Rand's cult of personality is another example of this (slide into that if you want) and I also referenced how Randtards do things like attempting to monopolize context or slink back to the ?four? pillars of objectivism (e.g. argue in terms of disconnected tautologies instead of addressing criticism in detail).

>>21507027
i dont see how research and development is exclusive to capitalism.

>>21507037
Well it does require capital. Read Human Action.

>>21506911
Hey dipshit, you operate under multiple false premises:
First, I'm not going to do your homework for you, I know it's fun for you to continue reading the same dogshit Rand books you've been digesting over and over again since you're 13, but if you want to understand ACTUAL philosophy you're gonna have to read it.
Secondly, academic philosophers dismissing something because it's so easily disproven (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/)) is an incredibly good heuristic for me dismissing it. Why would I engage with Rand, when I can engage with Plato? Why are the 0.01% of philosophers who are Objectivists incapable of convincing anyone but preteen incels?
Thirdly, I did read some of Rand's philosophy. And it was enough for me to read her proposed solution to the is-ought problem to understand that her entire philosophical system falls apart.
>>21506925
>I assumed you wouldn't possibly be even ironically attempting to defend the liberal arts because it's too ludicrous.
Every single comment I've made here either appeals to or defends philosophers. I guess it takes a distinctive lack of reading comprehension to be a Rand fan, so I'll let you be without pursuing it any further.

>>21507021
Look at that, someone who actually read these books. Get out of here, the teenage pl*bbits are discussing philosophy.

>>21506969
>an-cap is anarchy's bastard child
Or maybe it's the legitimate heir to anarchism. The point is that it doesn't matter what anarchism you subscribe to, the communists tried to have a society within a state and were destroyed, and taking over the state leads to corruption as the state never relinquishes its power, even if it has anarchist intentions.

If you want a proper idea on an-cap, I recommend Michael Mueher's book's The Problem of Political Authority. Also, note that anarcho-capitalists, just like anarcho-communists, do not have an answer on HOW to reach this society. When people say 'oh, it's cope that Ayn Rand says that it isn't true capitalism,' it's because it's the same as communists saying that X communistic country isn't communist. The endpoint of both capitalism and communism is an anarchist state, but it's impossible to achieve through conventional means.

The only actual means of achieving it is with crypto-anarchism but that's a different political argument altogether. Ayn Rand does not have the political answer unfortunately. You can read Atlas Shrugged as a 'we must reject the state and find a solution,' without ever establishing that solution, as the book ends with the characters flying off to the sunset to establish that society, not that they know what it will look like. This is why I argue that Ayn Rand is 95% correct on mostly everything (barring meta-ethics) and correct on laissez-faire capitalism but her political system is wrong. This is also the place that most people tend to criticize Ayn Rand because she's right on the trajectory of capitalism but not how to achieve it.

>>21507053
Rand, and really anyone who advocates for a sort of anarcho capitalism, is guilty of just advocating for liberty as an end in and of itself. Rand seeked liberty so she inferred from that that liberty is the fundamental thing mankind seeks. She was selfish not just ideologicaly, but in her worldview as well.

I love how Rand keeps filtering people to this day.
It is amazing.
And the most hilarious thing is how the modern libertarians keep worshipping her, when they are the first she would despise when you actually read her writings along with both US and Japan.
She truly can stand shoulder to shoulder with Hegel and laugh because nobody seemingly can get her.

>>21507033
>all these nuh uh
Worthless. You have nothing to say beyond characterizing her as simplistic and cultish. You have nothing to say about her philosophy in any capacity. I doubt you have anything to criticize beyond repeating that her views are simplistic and that objectivists have cultish elements to them.

>Randianism is cultist because it's constructed that way
I see that as laziness and poisoning the well by refusing to engage with her philosophy in any way. Do you have anything to say other than she's wrong in how she is absolutist in the laissez-fair system of capitalism compared to a mix economy, that she explains her positions in a clear and simple way compare to obscurantist philosophers, and that objectivists tend to have cultish elements because it is simple to learn? You're just being second-handed by emphasizing how other people argue rather than criticize ideas themselves.

>you failed to address my main criticism
I addressed them adequately. The characterization of simplicity is because your notion of complex = good is wrong.

>>21507049
>All those philosophers you've mentioned had incredibly insightful, revolutionary writing.
Me: ok name 3
>I'm not going to do your homework for you
Lol faggot

>>21507076
not that anon

freedom for freedom's sake is stupid, as if freedom was virtue that outweighs all other virtues. it does not and it fails to see that fulfilment can very much come from helping others. i like being nice to people and helping them, for the sake of it. it makes me happy being a positive influence in my environment. i like being part of communities that i can engage with in various ways. it does make me less free, but i am not a sheep. there is a difference

>>21507049
>Every single comment I've made here either appeals to or defends philosophers. I guess it takes a distinctive lack of reading comprehension to be a Rand fan, so I'll let you be without pursuing it any further.
I never said I was a Rand fan I said that academics are worthless parasites. And they objectively are. The entire university system is parasitic.

>>21507076
>She was selfish not just ideologicaly, but in her worldview as well.
And that.... bad? But no, liberty is not an end in itself, even if it characterized that way. Liberty is a means to acquire happiness. Without physical coersion, man is free to coexist with reality and act to gain and keep that which they consider important in life. Ayn Rand is actually explicit in the importance of liberty in its relation to being able to think and life, not as a mere end in itself. If anything, I classify this as either a misrepresentation of a misunderstanding of Ayn Rand.

>>21507098
>Worthless. You have nothing to say
Stopped reading there. You didn't address anything that was said, brought up open/closed as if it were new when it was referenced, and were obviously filtered by the main point of the post. Cope, retard. Enjoy your big boy cult.

>>21507076
So slavery is the superior thing worth striving for over liberty? I guess slaves are cool to have....

>>21507108
Are you mentally retarded? If you are choosing to participate in your community that is freedom. Slavery is having a state put a gun to your head and steal your money with community as the excuse. Nowhere in lolbert philosophy does it tell you you can't be kind in your community, the entire point is to have it be a FREE choice to do so not a gun to your head.

>>21507116
>>21507076
To give further example, liberty is important, not its own sake but to be obtain happiness, as one cannot obtain happiness without freedom. When one is in a nazi concentration camp where their life is not their own, they desire to escape because they lack the capacity to choose and value; freedom becomes a prerequisite for living and happiness. It FEELS as though liberty should be sought as an end in itself because it is fundamentally tied on an ontological level to how we operate, but it can't be argued as an end in itself. Nor does Ayn Rand defend it on those terms. I do believe that anarcho-capitalists defend it on those terms with idiotic concepts like self-ownership which is wrong.

>>21507120
I will. Enjoy repeating that Ayn Rand is too simple to ever be right about anything because only complex things can be right. I might be the world's best critic of Ayn Rand. While you're at it, mention how her books are for children and quote critics who say that her books are fantastical or some bullshit.

>>21507101
>Me: ok name 3
Marx's theory of alienation, Nietzche's perspectivism, Derrida's deconstruction.
That's not what you asked me for though, you lying piece of shit. You asked me to name in my own words - implying a degree of explanation, 3 insightful ideas from each of these philosophers (9 total). That's doing your homework for you. It's like a child who has only read Harry Potter, who grows into an adult who only reads Harry Potter, and then asks for a summary of actual great novels.

>>21507154
Damn dude calm down hahaha post your wrist now so I can see how weak it is

>>21507137
see;>>21506608
her system does not guarantee individual freedom, it just promotes rivalry.

the thing with rich people is that they extract wealth from their community and then do not have an obligation to give back. if someone works for someone, their employer should be responsible for his employee's well being. however, capitalist interests are very much in the way of that. a lot of capitalists are completely happy with just amassing massive amounts of money to sit on and not do anything with it. which is not money they made themselves, it's money they made off the backs of others.

how will an ayn randtian society build roads or infrastructure or recycle trash?
those are all things that cost money.
it's more of a question of how taxes are used

>>21507147
>Enjoy repeating that Ayn Rand is too simple to ever be right about anything
Stopped reading right there. That wasn't the argument, retard. Simplicity and simplistic are two different words. You should reread my posts and focus on the part about how Randtards think they're infalliable when they're really just filtered.

>>21507116
>And that.... bad?
Probably, as it led her to dismiss any other viewpoint.
>Without physical coersion
Why? I can very easily use coersion (via taxes) to increase liberty in the world, and therefore happiness in general. Do not reply to me in regards to empirics as they are besides the point if we're engaging only with her philosophy
>>21507122
Happiness is the superior thing to strive for. Defending liberty as a deontic right does not get one closer to happiness
>>21507147
In the concentration camp there is also intense suffering, not just lack of liberty. If you replace that intense suffering with intense joy and happiness, the concentration camp does not seem so bad anymore, I lack freedom but I'm intensly happy so why do I care?
If you replace the slavery in the concentration camp with freedom, you are still left with the miserable life of a concentration camp.

>>21502203
>rand paul
Randy Paul is a literal leech living off the government teet.

>>21507171
Cool, so now will you outline how metaphysic is much more complex than how she described them? Or are you just going to keep mentioning how objectivists are cultists for another dozen times?

>>21507163
Anon what they give is a product or service for the lowest possible price. That has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of life.

Roads are currently built by contractors who bid on the work then bleed your taxes of as much as possible by drawing out the work as long as possible while giving kickbacks to the politician who granted the project. Infastructure fucking sucks dick and can be done utilizing superior housing techniques that do not pass government mandated codes like the Earthship model. And recycling is only a functional system with glass and metal. Paper and plastic are destructive to recycle. That is why you can uhhhhh sell metal and glass for scrap and not paper or plastic. Literally all problems are the result of the state and the monopoly over violence that creates perverse market incentives.

>>21507159
So are you renouncing Randism and moving on to a philosophy of strength? Is Andrew Tate your new hero now as he is physically powerful?

>>21502328
>All three are the culprit
Or you know, the way less retarded position of austerity measures and anti- New Deal rhetoric of the Mcarthy era

The most interesting thing about Rand is that she found out and put to use the same trick that religious fundamentals have found centuries before. Restrict your followers from reading any other texts, dismiss academia and other intellectuals as fools. Those followers then grow up with a mind that has been conditioned to one ideology being obviously correct, since they have never been exposed to its fundamental opponents during their formative years, most of them refusing to engage with them even up until their death.

>>21507196
Whoa calm down bro don't call the teacher on me now you are mad about a comedy improv character? What are you going to be mad at John Cena or Undertaker next? Maybe Borat?

>>21507108
>it does make me less free
no it doesnt.
You literally said that you did it of your own will. freedom is the capability of enacting your own will. It would be less free if someone forced you to do it against your will. You are not arguing or giving an example against freedom for freedoms sake. you are literally vindicating it with your example.

>>21507208
>John Cena or Undertaker next? Maybe Borat?
All great men who are greater than you or Rand would ever be. Borat in particular exposes Randian dialectics very well.

>>21507185
>In the concentration camp there is also intense suffering, not just lack of liberty.
Well, the suffering is a byproduct to a lack of liberty. You're not there to enjoy the suffering, which is different from, say, BDSM consensual suffering.

>If you replace that intense suffering with intense joy and happiness
Then you get the Nozick experiment machine/pleasure machine. And people still see that as bad because you lack the ability to opt out if you want to do something else. Liberty is very hardwired to the point of being ontological because it's related to our volitional capacity to make choices and seek out values. Without that, we feel a sense of dread. Maybe less so with the pleasure machine but that's just a thought experiment. In a concentration camp, it's still makes its point that people want freedom. Even more so, consider the scenario of someone being kidnapped in a cell and are well-treated. Even if their basic needs are met, lacking that freedom will make them desire to escape.

>>21507193
>Anon what they give is a product or service for the lowest possible price. That has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of life.

yes it does. things shouldnt be as cheap as they are.
how do you get things so cheap? slave labor, or why do you think all of the west is importing from asia?
not because these countries are famous for their superior quality.

i dont mind paying more for things that arent made by slaves. the problem is though that since my money is getting worth less and less, i will have no choice but to buy products from other slaves. cool, eventually everyone will be a slave, except for a select few. but at least the products are cheap.

>>21507190
I never mentioned her metaphysics, retard. Are you going to keep seething or are you going to address my actual critcism of Randianism or confront the details I've given of how it's cultlike (since insulting the messiah is the part that really seems to have triggered you)?

>>21507197
You know less than nothing.

>>21507236
>I never mentioned her metaphysics, retard.
>>21506480
>i.e. A is A, Existence Exists

>>21500271
>there are poor people better than rich people in the book, like Taggart's wife
>most rich people are bad
>most poor people are good since they know deep down what the true virtue is and eventually start to disappear, but they have been brainwashed by intellectuals
bad bait

>>21507231
>i dont mind paying more for things that arent made by slaves. the problem is though that since my money is getting worth less and less, i will have no choice but to buy products from other slaves. cool, eventually everyone will be a slave, except for a select few. but at least the products are cheap.
You're getting closer to getting it now. We all are slaves in a quazi-fascist system in which they not only have us objectively enslaved via income tax but they give us monopoly money that they actively debase by printing more and giving it to bankers for free who then loan it to us and do absolutely nothing but collect interest. This causes us to have to have a two income household so they can indoctrinate our children in public schools to also be consumer slaves. Imagine if you will finitive money that you couldn't debase and essentially own the *legitimate* counterfeiting presses. Then investment would actually matter and when a company failed it would simply die. And when a company died because it didn't provide value the good ones who do provide value would survive. Wouldn't that be like so crazy?

>>21507226
>Well, the suffering is a byproduct to a lack of liberty.
I concede that point, but I think getting into experience machine territory is gonna be very confusing, so I'm trying to move this conversation in another less theoritical direction now:
>Liberty is very hardwired to the point of being ontological because it's related to our volitional capacity to make choices and seek out values. Without that, we feel a sense of dread
The problem I have with that is that the lack of liberty that objectivists usually attack is not a lack of liberty most of people are bothered by. I think most people are okay with taxation, welfare, and the state.
>Even if their basic needs are met, lacking that freedom will make them desire to escape.
I can agree with that point, the problem is that Objectivists would rather burn the world to the ground to achieve perfect liberty, in which case liberty just shatters anyway. There's gonna be a lot of liberty in an egalitarian world where people have various opportunities but also have to pay taxes, than in a world which categorially rejects any deontic violation of liberty and is thus only able to function in pure anarchy and chaos.

>>21507236
>you going to address my actual critcism of Randianism or confront the details I've given of how it's cultlike
I've already addressed them in previous posts which you didn't read. It's not my problem that you have only one argument which is repeating that objectivists are cultlike. What annoys me is that I don't mind hearing what parts you think are too simplistic about her philosophy but you just keep repeating that objectivists are cultists and I've already addressed that point with the open/closed system and that you need further elaboration on how being simplistic makes her wrong. All you're doing is U MAD BROOO? U MAAAAAD.

Ayn Rand wasn't right about everything and I also agree that many of her arguments could be fleshed out and made more complex to cover a lot more detail in an academic language, but if you don't want to address this, then you just have nothing to say beyond BRO, OBJECTIVISM IS A CULT, A CULT!

>>21507244
>I'm not going to address your actual criticism of Randianism or acknowledge the details you gave as to why it's cultlike
>I'm an ideologue so I'll take something you mentioned out of context and claim I'm right because slide
You're retarded but at least you learned the difference between "simplicity" and "simplistic." According to Rand, her ideas comprise a system and her claim was that everything supports everything else. Hence the example that Randtards will retreat to arguing tautologies instead of meeting criticism (i.e. the context in which "A is A" and "existence exists" was brought up)--I wasn't addressing her metaphysics you absolute retard. But yeah, slide into nonsense and keep proving you're filtered.

>>21506283
I’m >>21505571

Yes the housing market is incredibly complex and there are many parties involved in it, from the CCP to Grandma but i don’t have the time or energy to do an entire analysis on the market angering myself in the process.

Generally the land owning class has been a thorn in humanity’s side since forever (and I’m saying that as a libertarian mind you).

They caused the greatest disaster in human history (the Middle Ages) by implementing their utopia of feudalism and they want to do it again. You cannot purge them since like communists they always come back. They’re just a sad inevitability of humanity and there’s no way of stopping them. The entirety of human history will just be humanity going into century long feudal dark ages separated by short period of freedom.

>>21507268
>I've already addressed them in previous posts
No you didn't. You failed to understand the context of the conversation you jumped into and sperged about nonsense. Now you're responding to the same comment multiple times because you're a complete sperg. You've internalized Randianism and criticising it elicits an emotional response.

>>21507260
again, i still think it's a matter of how taxes are being used.
and i still do not believe that an objectivist society is free from corruption.
my main concern isnt how well corporations fare or dont. i care about how we treat all people.
even those with mental illnesses and addictions or people who do not want to work. i think society should provide that. it does make a difference how you treat these people, to give them a chance at improving their situation. i dont mind paying taxes for that kind of thing because when i am, or someone i know, is in a bad spot, it can be guaranteed that they will receive proper care/treatment/whatever. it's not that they are just taking away your money, if it's done right it will be very much re-invested in you. e.g. you have a normal life and all of a sudden you have a rare disease that is expensive to treat. you wouldnt be to normally afford it, but that's how health care works. they take a bit of your money and you have a guarantee that if you should ever need something it will be taken care of or at least it will be cheaper than through privately owned companies.

>>21507264
>I think most people are okay with taxation, welfare, and the state.
I think that liberty is a gradient and people resign to it. No one wants to pay taxes, etc., but what other choice is there? I don't know if people are okay with it or if it's only because the alternative doesn't exist. The meme that taxation is theft still encapsulates the point that if you don't pay your taxes, you're sent to jail, which is basically putting a gun to your head and demanding that you pay up. If we lived in a society where taxes were optional, I doubt a lot of people would willingly pay for it. Think of it as mandatory charity vs a private charity system. If you have no choice but to pay the charity, over time (since basically the beginning of civilization if we're honest), there were no other choice. But if we lived in a society where paying 'taxes' were optional, people would prefer to spend their money elsewhere unless they felt good giving it or believed in the cause, which is why people give to private charities.

>the problem is that Objectivists would rather burn the world to the ground to achieve perfect liberty, in which case liberty just shatters anyway.
Eh, I think the real problem is that objectivists don't have an answer on how to achieve perfect liberty and resigned to just let the world go to hell. All they know is that reducing the government is a good thing, and don't have any further ideas besides that. It's libertarian in principle by doing nothing. Objectivism, and its heroes, are politically reactive rather than pro-active. You let the world go to shit and then just leave going 'fuck it, this is too fucked up' and by doing nothing, the bad just naturally collapses. I see this as too simplistic to how civilizations operate and begin but meh.

For example, in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt *could* have become a dictator but when he suggests lowering taxes, the villains go 'oh no, you can't do that!' and rather than have the US lower taxes and turn the place into Singapore, he just fucks off. That's the political flaw of objectivism: it wants to win politically by doing nothing Nietzschean like conquering or being a political leader when those are necessary traits to create a civilization. This is also why I argue that Ayn Rand didn't have a satisfying political answer in Atlas Shrugged and why crypto-anarchism is the only political answer that is correct but falls in line with her political thought, even if only came into existences decade after her death.

Amazing how long a conversation about her can be despite almost nobody involved in it having any clue what she actually said.

>>21507308
>oh shit, I *did* mention it, uuuuuuuuh, never mind!
What criticisms do you have of her system and ideas besides calling objectivists cultists? What ideas are wrong?

>>21507339
enlighten us then

>>21507351
No.

>>21500271
damn, you sorry lots really read this crap.
i feel sorry for you, would hug you desu

>>21507098
Just sperging because you didn't understand the difference between "simplicity" and "simplistic." You didn't address the idea that Randianism is based on a false utopian assumption that mischaracterizes the reality of capitalist systems. You didn't address the examples given as to how Randianism operates like a cult.
>>21507147
You once again strawmanned the argument about Randianism's central premise being flawed because you confuse the terms "simplicity" and "simplistic." The argument isn't that something has to be complex in order to be correct (that's retarded).
>>21507190
You slid about metaphysics instead of addressing the central criticism of Rand again. You also sperged about characterizing it as a cult without directly addressing a single example I've given of how it is cultlike (or ideological).
>>21507244
You misunderstood the context in which "A is A" and "Existence exists" was brought up. You said nothing about the actual point (i.e. how Randians retreat to arguing tautologies, which are true by default, instead of meeting actual criticism).
>>21507268
Just read the rest of that post. You sperged about "open/closed system" again when that's besides the point (and I pointed out the laughable bullshit that happened over "The Logical Leap" which is linked to that). You started writing in ALL CAPS and crying about me linking Randianism to cultlike thinking without, once again, actually addressing the examples I've given of how it is cult like.
>>21507344
Now you're focusing on a slide you made about metaphysics while ignoring the fact I pointed out that I wasn't specifically talking about her metaphysics (albeit I did admit that Rand claims her system is interconnected and one aspect is directly linked and supports another)--but yeah, hold on to that one if it makes this experience less embaressing for you. Specifically, and I did say this in previous posts, I was giving an example of how Randtards argue tautologies (which are true by definition) instead of responding to criticism (which is what you're attempting to do now). A is A, existence does exist--Randians don't understand the complex realities of economic systems and subscribe to a simplistic ideology because it renders them blissfully unaware when they lose a debate.

There. Want to tell me you didn't read that? I was right when I didn't before--you were literally filtered and didn't address a single thing. Reading your posts was pointless--predictable nonsense. You're an ideologue. You're a retard.

>>21507336
>I think that liberty is a gradient and people resign to it. No one wants to pay taxes, etc., but what other choice is there? I don't know if people are okay with it or if it's only because the alternative doesn't exist.
No one is voting to libertarian presidental candidates in the states, that party is a joke. The position of stopping taxation is extremely niche. I think most people are okay with paying taxes when they know their taxes are doing good.
Also my problem with "taxation is theft" is that it begs the question. Taxation is only theft if it's immoral, if something is morally righteous and neccessary (I think taxation is, and is perhaps the best thing humanity ever came up with) it is not theft. Just like if a killing is morally righteous and neccessary it is not murder. Theft implies something is bad, murder implies something is bad. Taxation is good.

>>21507327
Anon read Rothbart and Mises not Rand. Taxation is slavery. It just is. You don't need to have somebody put a gun to your head to help people. That is what charity and tithing is for. Thay is the role of the church and community. A state is nothing more than the dominant criminal organization in a reigon.

Also health care is only expensive because the government has set up a cartel system with no free market. I bought lasik and it was cheap as fuck. The reason health care is fucked is because they mandate that companies have to provide group policies. This has made enormous whales of contracts and completely destroyed individual markets. Insurance companies fix the prices because they have no competition and the health care providers charge what they do because that incentivises you to get insurance and to not be an entrepreneur becuase you need to be on a massive group policy. The entire problem is due to state interference. In a free market there would be 400 health insurance companies not fucking 5.

>>21507430
>alternative doesn't exist.
>No one is voting to libertarian presidental candidates in the states, that party is a joke. The position of stopping taxation is extremely niche
This is the power of public education and state media.

>>21507430
>Taxation is only theft if it's immoral,
Ok then make taxation volentary like tithing. Make it volentary like tithing and see what happens. Putting a gun to your head to help lashawndas bastard son is not moral.

>>21507408
>You didn't address the idea that Randianism is based on a false utopian assumption that mischaracterizes the reality of capitalist systems.
I did? Numerous times.

>You didn't address the examples given as to how Randianism operates like a cult.
I did. I explained how objectivism offers superior answers to alternatives and that the open/closed system promotes orthodoxy within its members which appears cult-like, which you rejected for no reason. I keep asking if you have any points besides mentioning that objectivists operate like a cult, and what positions of Ayn Rand are wrong, and you still refuse to give any arguments on this basis. You gave examples on how it's cult-like, I explained why it was the case and agreed with you on its effects, and then you had nothing more to say beyond namecalling.
>Randians don't understand the complex realities of economic systems and subscribe to a simplistic ideology because it renders them blissfully unaware when they lose a debate.
You've yet to establish anything beyond arguments on how objectivists misunderstand the complex realities of economic system beyond citing the fact that objectivists resort to arguing that it's not true capitalism but a mixed economy. I also further explained in other posts with a different anon on the gradients of liberty and its relationship to such a system.

Ultimately, you're just second-handed because you focus on RANDIANS rather than objectivism as a system of ideas. What ideas were wrong? What do you disagree with? All you can do is repeat CULT CULT CULT RANDIANS ARE RETARDSSS RANDARRDSSS.

>>21507430
Indeed, voting for the libertarian party is a joke, and objectivists are partially correct for resigning to the position that any attempt to solve politics with politicians or voting is fruitless.

>Taxation is only theft if it's immoral
The argument is that it's immoral because it's done at the barrel of a gun. Pay me or go to jail. That's not a choice.

>Just like if a killing is morally righteous and necessary it is not murder.
Depends on your view of 'morally righteous.'

>>21507509
Voting after this event >>21502155 has been an obvious
joke.

>>21507451
Then go into those institutions and change it? Surely if objectivists ideas are so clear and intuitive to most people your ideas would prevail at least in one country, and you'd be able to prove the rest of us an objectivist society can work
>>21507461
Why would we make taxation voluntarily if it's a moral duty? We want people in my society to maintain their moral duties to others. We can also stop enforcing other moral violations and expect people would continue to abide by them out of the goodness of their hearts. But what we need in a society is a guarantee, a society needs to operate in spite of malicious actors, not to beg for their cooperation.
>>21507509
>The argument is that it's immoral because it's done at the barrel of a gun. Pay me or go to jail. That's not a choice.
The choice is not meaningful, but since I think that by asking you to pay them the government is doing something just (unless you live in AN EXTREMELY backwards country), the government is making a fair request of you, and makes the best attempt possible at maximizing liberty.
>Depends on your view of 'morally righteous.'
Yes, I'm quite aware this has a lot to do with us just having different moral intuitions.

>>21507543
>Why would we make taxation voluntarily if it's a moral duty? We want people in my society to maintain their moral duties to others. We can also stop enforcing other moral violations and expect people would continue to abide by them out of the goodness of their hearts. But what we need in a society is a guarantee, a society needs to operate in spite of malicious actors, not to beg for their cooperation.
Idk it seems to work for charities and churches without them pointing guns at people or throwing them in cages. Maybe if they had to beg instead of threaten people with violence they could show, I don't know, transparency maybe, possibly some results. If taxation is popular as you say then why would it not work if it were volentary? So is it not popular to give things you earn to your slave masters for nothing in return?

>>21507543
>doing something just
Using the money it collects inefficiently isn't just. It's honestly insane how much money ALL governments waste on bullshit. And I wouldn't classify it as fair since the choice is forced upon me with the threat of prison.

>makes the best attempt possible at maximizing liberty.
The best possible method is to not pay any taxes while living under a highly taxed society where everyone else pays taxes, thereby becoming a financial burden and accelerating the reduction of government spending in said society.

>>21507543
>Then go into those institutions and change it? Surely if objectivists ideas are so clear and intuitive to most people your ideas would prevail at least in one country, and you'd be able to prove the rest of us an objectivist society can work
Anon it is about who has all the guns. All a government is is guns. Only when they stop threatening to murder you as in the end of the USSR does it crumble.

>>21507571
>The best possible method is to not pay any taxes while living under a highly taxed society where everyone else pays taxes, thereby becoming a financial burden and accelerating the reduction of government spending in said society
Unfathomably based. Friendly protip: do not legally marry your wife so she can file as a single mother, write off your child support plus collect welfare on each kid. Work for cash under the table only by doing freelance work. Another few protips: do not build a foundation and you can reduce property taxes. A steel barn is only about $15k and does not count as house square footage.

>>21507578
you can convince people who have the guns to be objectivists, that's literally what lenin did with communism.
>>21507569
Because by making it voluntary you present to people a dichotomy, like you present to them the choice to be immoral people. I think the greatest thing about taxation is that it can help us fix the blindspots in our morality, mostly by fixing distance bias. If people hold certain values but don't donate voluntarily because of distance bias, they are just wrong on their own values.
Also in terms of efficency private charity will never ever get close to the efficency of social democratic wealth redistribution
>>21507571
> It's honestly insane how much money ALL governments waste on bullshit
That's true, but thankfully through the process of democracy, through gathering academic research and embracing secularism, we can make sure more and more money is spent on valuable stuff
>And I wouldn't classify it as fair since the choice is forced upon me with the threat of prison.
The moment you understand that not paying taxes is immoral to society it's really understandable that it forces you.
In regards to your second point:
>>21507571
>>21507604
Your objectivist utopia will never happen, as it's impossible to coordinate a large society without taxation. so that's why maximizing liberty through wealth redistribution is the best realistic choice. If you want to work towards objectivism anyway, go to a state school and become a philosophy prof there, the irony itself is gonna make people listen to you. If instead you advocate for larping, you admit that you do not care for liberty at all, but for your own personal liberty. In that case I have 0 regrets in taxing you, as you do not even believe in the solution you yourself propose

>>21507647
>Because by making it voluntary you present to people a dichotomy, like you present to them the choice to be immoral people. I think the greatest thing about taxation is that it can help us fix the blindspots in our morality, mostly by fixing distance bias. If people hold certain values but don't donate voluntarily because of distance bias, they are just wrong on their own values.
>Also in terms of efficency private charity will never ever get close to the efficency of social democratic wealth redistribution
This is wrong on literally every single assertion. First of all pointing a gun at somebody and taking their money from them is not moral. Giving your money to somebody pointing a gun at you does not make you more moral. There is nothing more inefficient than government with capital because it is supported by slavery and stealing at gunpoint instead of people choosing the most return for the money paid. I cannot believe a human being could be this stupid.

>>21507665
>First of all pointing a gun at somebody and taking their money from them is not moral.
>their money from them
it is not "their money" as they have no philosophical ownership of that money under my ideology, that money belongs to the state for the sake of maximizing liberty and happiness. And the state demanding its own money and you not willing to give it, it's very justifiable for the state to exercise force.
>Giving your money to somebody pointing a gun at you does not make you more moral.
Yes it does, just because someone is making a threat of punishment does not mean that a moral chocie is not present there.
>There is nothing more inefficient than government with capital because it is supported by slavery and stealing at gunpoint instead of people choosing the most return for the money paid.
That's a false empirical claim. I was about to send studies but obectivists unilaterly dismiss academia, if you are willing to renounce that objectivist position I'm willing to do it.
>I cannot believe a human being could be this stupid.
We went through different paths in life, I was exposed to superior utilitarian philosophies purely by chance. I pray for you to have the luck to change in the future.

>>21507489
>I did?
No you didn't. Again, you confused the idea of saying something is overly simplisitic with the idea that something has to be complex in order to be correct. Obviously not the claim I was making and totally astride the point regarding the flawed nature of Randianism's central thesis.
>I explained how objectivism offers superior answers to alternatives
No you didn't and that's beside the point if the central premise is flawed. I never claimed Randianism doesn't have any explainitory power either--the points I was discussing when you jumped into the conversation was in regard to: 1) Why/How Randianism is flawed and 2) How it encourages cult like thinking (and is pretty much a cult of ideology--I'll go there).
>open/closed system promotes orthodoxy within its members which appears cult-like
It doesn't appear cult-like. It is cult like. Also, the open/closed system is just one aspect of the prior examples I gave (and it wasn't even a main aspect, I gave the other anon an anecdote relating to "The Logical Leap" fiasco which is directly related to it--Harriman, might have the names wrong, had to attribute the main thesis of the book to Randianism and McCulsky). So no, you didn't explain anything and just made an excuse as to why it "seems" like it without challenging any of the arguments or characterizations I gave as to how it functions.
>You've yet to establish anything beyond
You have yet to refute that. That was the main point of the conversation you jumped into. I also gave examples of it's cultish aspects.
>other posts with a different anon on the gradients of liberty
Different anon. Different conversation.
>spergs in all caps again
No, I gave direct criticism which you haven't addressed and referenced the cultishness of Randianism with specific examples you deflected and ignored. You also proved you were filtered when you confused the idea of "simplicity" with "simplistic."

>>21507730
>and McCulsky
was excommunicated because of his mild criticism. (Sorry, didn't finish that thought).

>>21507647
>immoral to society
More like immoral to the state. It's unfair to those who pay taxes while I get the benefit without paying. It's a free rider problem. Circumventing the system which * I * see as immoral is not immoral at all but a moral good as I am helping others eventually become free from taxation that they shouldn't have to pay.

>impossible to coordinate a large society without taxation
Why do you need to coordinate society rather than just let people do what they want and freely cooperate or work with others under contract? You're not making an anti- 'objectivist utopia' but arguing against anarchism itself, which all forms of anarchism will disagree with you on their own ideological grounds.

>If instead you advocate for larping, you admit that you do not care for liberty at all
I have no clue what you're trying to say. I care a great deal for freedom and liberty which is why I am financing a crypto-anarchist tools and technology that will eventually lead to a crypto-anarchist society.

>as you do not even believe in the solution you yourself propose
I'm not sure what you're implying. If you're arguing that I don't believe in the objectivist minarchist politics, then yes, absolutely, I agree, it's not a solution. The only solutions are:
1- write essays to convince the government to limit/reduce itself/be more hands off the economy (the libertarian position)
2- create a secluded anarchist society (see paris communes and other places that were all taken over by the state)
3- vote libertarian or other political parties that promise to enact positions held in argument 1.
4- revolution and become the government to enact positions in 3
5- create a decentralized internet on a decentralized storage network where websites cannot be taken down by the state where you create an online agorist and counter-economy market which eventually erodes the state as more people use this counter-economy market to avoid paying taxes.
--
Objectivism argues for 1-3. I argue that 5 is compatible with objectivist doctrine and is the only proper path that leads to an objectivist utopia of proper laissez-faire capitalism that is anarchist in nature rather than minarchist, although it could be crypto-anarchism with limited government, who knows. I already solved politics and the objectivist utopia will happen, hopefully within our lifetime.

>>21507780
>I already solved politics and the objectivist utopia will happen, hopefully within our lifetime.
Before responding to anything else I'm just wondering if you're being hyperbolic or serious here.

>>21507715
People like me will eat people like you in the global economic collapse when the fiat house of cards blows down.

>>21507821
I like it that you intuitively understand that it's people like me and you, not me and you. You yourself do not believe in any chance of it happening in our lifetimes, it is nothing but a fantasy you indulge in. Marx thought global collapse is just around the corner when he wrote over a hundred years ago, still hasn't happened. Rand was not even bold enough to make such predictions. It turns out that liberalism is way stronger than both left wing and right wing anarchism.

>>21507730
>I was making and totally astride the point regarding the flawed nature of Randianism's central thesis.
I disagree. I argue that this is TOTALLY the point you were making. Do emphasize why it is not the point you were making without mentioning cult-like behavior. Give examples beyond handwaving A is A and Existence exists.

>the open/closed system is just one aspect
Which is where I disagree. I argue that it's the core problem. Ayn Rand named her philosophy which meant that it had to be closed according to an authoritative body (those who knew Ayn Rand when she was alive), which makes it cult-like because it's about maintaining the purity according to the orthodox doctrine which doesn't allow for interpretation. Rather than allow for individuals to interpret her philosophy from essays and books, like every other philosopher, giving it a name fixed the system into an open/closed system. You merely point out the surface level of its cult-like elements and fail to see the reason why it became that way. I argue that this cultish element is incidental to the philosophy. If Ayn Rand did not name her philosophy objectivism, it wouldn't have happened.

The logical Leap fiasco happened because of some minor philosophical disagreements, which occurred because Peikoff is the head priest/interpretor who has the greatest direct connection to Ayn Rand and the orthodox interpretation of what she stood for. And the reason it happens is because of this damn error by Ayn Rand which demands that you either adhere to everything she said to be an objectivist, or if you criticize Ayn Rand's interpretation on the tenants of objectivism, then you're not an ojectivist.

The core issue is that there are two objectivism. You can call it Randism, which is Ayn Rand's interpretation of objectivism according to the pillars of objectivism
Existence Exists, Reason, Rational Egoism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Romantic Realism (you don't have to be the last part) where disagreeing with Ayn Rand on the particulars of it means that you are against objectivism when in fact you are against Ayn Rand's interpretation of that system. That's the core issue that leads to the cult-like elements within the philosophy and objectivism movement.

But there are also further issues such as thinking that Ayn Rand had all the answers which the closed/open system further makes it difficult to address. It leads to objectivists repeating what Ayn Rand said rather than see whether what she said was wrong. I see this less as cultish but rationalism. Ayn Rand even argued that you are only a proper objectivist if you think independently. David Kelley formulated this well when he broke off with Peikoff when he said that to be an objectivist, you have to let go of objectivism. I'm trying to make you aware of how objectivism is cultish but you're more interested in just poisoning the well by repeating that objectivists are cultish because you can't address any ideas of the philosophy directly.

>>21507812
Serious. Although I am being intentionally hyperbolic because it's fun to say 'I solved politics.' If you want to image the future, imagine Silk Road but that the government can't shut down that is as big as Amazon and sells literally everything. And there are no taxes. If you create this system, capitalism wins. That's the objectivist utopia. You don't run away in Galt's ranch or w/e, you exist within the sphere of the state and break its law without the government having the means to identify you shut anything down.

The issue with anarchists (specifically anarcho-capitalists) is that they don't have a method for achieving an anarchist society. They have ideas of how it'll operate (syndicate think it'll be mutual trade, anarcho-capitalists think that it will be a system on arbitrators and private police, anarcho-communists think it'll be like the garden of eden or w/e) but none have a direct means of creating their society. Ayn Rand was critical of anarchism on this front and saw that, at its bare level, without a system, you just end up in gang warfare. Basically, you need a slow revolution to transition into an anarchist society. And my argument is that crypto-anarchism allows individuals to hide in plain sight and create this society with the internet. Over time, you convert more and more people, governments become unable to collect taxes, and states collapse. By that point, you achieve the objectivist utopia. This is how Timothy C. May, the person who thought of crypto-anarchism, saw it, and I agree with him, although with some modification on how it'll happen. When that process happens, it's an objectivist utopia, even though it's not the minarchist state Ayn Rand envisioned in her essays.

I'm pretty sure this is the future of the world within the next hundred years or so unless AI kills us all.

>>21506319
>poor people have no agency
they obviously have less agency than rich people. A poor guy going to college to study art is economic suicide. A rich guy doing the same is whatever. Same goes for politics, archeology, and other careers with not a lot of jobs. A poor guy will have to go to community college most of the time. A rich guy can afford the best of education to allow him to get into the best college, and if that doesnt work the parents can donate to the school. This is just one example

>>21507715
>belongs to the state for the sake of maximizing liberty and happiness.
Do you seriously believe any state actually does this?

>>21505308
that's why you need to choose the best way to help poor people. Giving handouts is retarded unless the person cant work. Making money have actual, intrinsic value like gold and silver coins should for example would allow people to not rely on shitty banks to keep your money from being stolen.

>>21507887
Have you tried emailing political science professors to see what they think and what criticisms they have of your views? I find your confidence pretty fascinating to be honest, especially as it pertains to something which is deeply theoretical.
>>21507904
yes, I think welfare and public healthcare maximize liberty and happiness. Obviously there is a lot of things we need to optimize with our usage of tax money, but I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater

>>21507851
>I argue that this is TOTALLY the point you were making.
So you admit you ignore what my actual argument was and are being selective with regard to the discussion you jumped into. Cool, already knew that though.
>cult-like behavior
Holy shit, pointing it out really broke you. It's not the main point but yeah, I fully stand behind the arguments I've made and the details I've given in those prior posts as well as in my conversation with you so far. You have yet to refute them. Randianism is a cult of ideology and isn't a real philosophy. It developed in the context of the Cold War and is a reactive pop-culture level response to it. Randianism can't accept granularity and asserts itself as a TOE. It's primary appeal is that it oversimplifies the world and lets midwits feel like they have a take on everything without realizing they're actually filtering themselves from a wider context of understanding.
>Give examples
Already did. You can go back and reread the posts (as I did when you claimed you responded to them--you were lying) or fuck off.
>Which is where I disagree. I argue that it's the core problem
You're deflecting. It's exactly how the her work existed while she was alive and Peikoff/ARI are the official heirs to which Rand bequeathed her "intellectual" work.
>I argue that this cultish element is incidental to the philosophy.
You assert that but it's untrue and you've done nothing to refute what I've pointed out in prior posts (you just ignore). Again, I'm not saying Randianism has no explainatory power--cults do and you can look at NXIVM which still operates based on prior teachings. You can be selective about what you take from something but denying the genisis of those ideas and the official doctrine is just a cope of convenience. Basically, Randianism makes midwits feel like they understand the world through prepackaged criticism alongside having the appeal of self-help (e.g. identify with John Galt--Objectivist hero, the world is flawed).
>sperg sperg sperg
All that and you don't have the respect to address my main points. Fuck you, retard.
>it leads to objectivists repeating what Ayn Rand said rather than see whether what she said was wrong. I see this less as cultish but rationalism.
Because you're a fellow travellor, retard.

Fuck, you Randtards are such idiots. You don't even realize you're deflecting criticism and disingenuously recontextualizing it according to the ideology of the cult.

Seriously, actually address what I've said in previous posts or we're done here. You're a retard and I'm done speaking to a wall.

>>21504727
It's poetry.

>>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?

>>21507949
>I find your confidence pretty fascinating to be honest
Ideologues are like that, anon.

>>21508057
Opressive governments are still gonna find a way to track you and destroy free speech. Also by by speech restricted to a niche part of the online world, free speech is intrinsicly hurt
>>21508063
Yeah I think you're right, perhaps that's the difference betweeen being idelogical and being an ideologue. You'd never see a political science professor say he has solved his subject. It's not just about being humble, it's recognizing the insane probability it would take for your biases and limits to allow you, out of all people, to be the person who nonetheless gets it all right.

>>21508150
How much do you want to bet the guy has never cracked an economics textbook and has 0 knowledge of linear algebra/basic calculus?

>>21508150
>by speech restricted to a niche part of the online world, free speech is intrinsicly hurt
I don't understand what you mean.

>You'd never see a political science professor say he has solved his subject.
I don't need a political science professor to approve of this system, I just need to keep financing the people who will build it. I'm open to the possibility of being proven wrong, but I don't really care much to seek out people for them to just go 'um, have you considered that it is impossible because we don't think it's possible.' The only benefit of doing this is to have this idea circulate among political science papers or w/e. What matters is that the technology works which is of a greater value than people thinking about it. I'm only sharing it here because the thread will eventually die and no one will remember.

>>21508175
How much do you want to bet that you're unable to point out anything wrong with what I've said. You can't challenge anything on the basis of ideas because you're second-handed. What does calling me an ideologue do besides poisoning the well? Don't listen to him, he's ideologically committed and confident in himself; these people can't be right about anything because they refuse to listen to ideas!
I'm open to arguments and further elaboration, but you don't care for such things because your arguments just come down to namecalling.

>>21508202
>I have never studied economics and lack even a cursory understanding of the mathematics needed for such
Kek, holy shit you're a sperg.

>>21508210
>haha more namecalling!

>>21508187
>I don't understand what you mean.
I'm saying that if a certain kind of speech is limited to the darkest corners of the internet, you can't say that free speech exists.
>I don't need a political science professor to approve of this system, I just need to keep financing the people who will build it. I'm open to the possibility of being proven wrong, but I don't really care much to seek out people for them to just go 'um, have you considered that it is impossible because we don't think it's possible.' The only benefit of doing this is to have this idea circulate among political science papers or w/e.
I feel that the very obvious benefit of this is refining your system. There are questions about this that you perhaps have not thought about. For example are you not concerned that this kind of untrackable system would be used by malicious actors for stuff like murder for hire, human trafficking and another crimes?
>>21508175
It's possible, I do find it worrying that he rejects a possible confrontation of his ideas with an expert. If he purely dismisses economics and thinks he has solved anything then that's completely absurd.

>>21508217
>stop pointing out I'm a pseud!
>n-n-namecalling!!!
You have never studied economics. You have no knowledge of even the most basic mathematics needed for a first year economics course. You are a pseud.

>>21508238
I think he's the same guy who got really triggered that I pointed out Randianism is structured like a cult of ideology (it wasn't even the main point--the guy jumped into a convo I was having with an anon about one of his Randtard friends). He became obsessed with that, failed to address the examples I gave, and went on a sperg about the open/closed system schism ("it only seems like a cult, bro...ARC totally isn't like ARI"). Basically, he made a non-argument that you can buy into a cult's belief system without technically being a member (note that he neglected to address the genisis of Randianism, the Cold War historical context in which it developed, Rand's cult of personality, the fact it retreats to tautological assertions instead of dealing with criticism, that it disingenuously deflects criticism via preloaded concepts while attempting to monopolize the perameters for debate, and the basic point that it's core is an over-simplified/utopian idealization of free market economics that can't stand under scrutiny of human behaviour or acknowledgement of the complex inputs involved in an economic system). He's a retard.

>>21508299
>Rand's cult of personality
oh my god it's so cringe, imagine if there was a commie here who just posted images of marx with every single post. Is that a real ideology or the next level of the /a/ waifu shit

>>21508314
It's even worse than that, anon. There's a self-help aspect to it as well.

>>21508238
>I'm saying that if a certain kind of speech is limited to the darkest corners of the internet, you can't say that free speech exists.
Ah, I see. And yes, that's a fair point. I didn't mention it but the standard for such a system is that it must operate on the clear-net, basically it must be accessible as easily as one would with any other website. Establishing this is a different matter entirely, but I nonetheless agree. It's not a victory if you're forced to argue on TOR rather than on a normal accessible website. But that goes into further tools that don't currently exist, and it would be speculative to mention it. Basically, I agree, and I am directly financing someone to help build internet language protocols to shift web 2 websites to operate on a web3 architecture which will ensure that these all websites are censorship-resistant and accessible to all, not just a hidden website that no one can access. I put the emphasis of storage because even with TOR Darknet websites, governments can still shut them down. So the important part is to first have the bedrock with decentralized storage and then have tools to make them accessible to all.

>For example are you not concerned that this kind of untrackable system would be used by malicious actors for stuff like murder for hire, human trafficking and another crimes?
That's the price to pay to have such a system. The same arguments were made to shut down Silk Road and other Darknet markets. Explicitly, you have no choice but to accept that individuals may use the system for immoral means. There's unfortunately no real answer to this beyond shrugging. If you allow governments to be able to monitor people to stop human traffickers etc., it can be used for anything else that is less extreme that the government deems unacceptable, so it has to be absolutist. The system has to be impossible for any governments to monitor its citizens to ensure free trade, no matter how taboo. If it's not absolutists, it is open to exploitation.

>dismisses economics
I don't dismiss economics. There are different factors relating to economics, such as network effects, the economic rating system (every marketplace website uses this so it hardly matters; it's the reputation system. Silk Road showed how it operates: people can set their price below market price to incentivize people into risk trying their product to boost acquire a reputation), and the independent decentralized storage market between host and renters which is its own independent ecosystem within the network. As I was talking about capitalism in a political context, not an economic context, I didn't see the need to mention it. I also have limited characters per post.

>>21505955
so you just steal more from other people instead?

>>21508420
>Ah, I see. And yes, that's a fair point.
>Establishing this is a different matter entirely, but I nonetheless agree.
>The system has to be impossible for any governments to monitor its citizens to ensure free trade, no matter how taboo.
>I don't dismiss economics. There are different factors relating to economics, such as
>I didn't see the need to mention it. I also have limited characters per post.
What level of autism is this? What level of autism does it take to be this pretentious without any sef-awareness?

>>21508443
I write as I speak.

>>21508455
>I'm also a pseud irl
So pretty autistic then?

>>21508459
Do you fear being seen as pretentious when you're honest? Do you care that much about how others perceive you?

>>21508468
No. But you should.

>>21508509
Then it sounds like a you problem.

>>21508420
>That's the price to pay to have such a system
Is it a worthy price to pay? You basically give criminals a place where they can commit crime and teach others how to be criminals with zero chance for being caught. Requested murder, human trafficking, child pornography, organ harvesting, terrorist recruitment, identity theft, coercion, blackmail, the list goes on. You're linking all criminal minds around the world without possibility of monitoring. How is this a worth price to pay but paying taxes isn't?

>>21508540
It depends on whether you agree on how much flourishing humanity would achieve with an unregulated capitalism; the utilitarian benefit arguably outweigh the small number of criminal usage on such a system. I'm not denying that all these things aren't terrible either. The issue is that if you take a half measure to prevent these criminal activities, you lose on the potential of having a pure laissez-faire capitalistic system. Either you have pure anarcho-capitalism with criminals using the system with possibly no way to stop them or you have a political system of governance that has been shit for thousands of years due to human meddling. If you fully buy into the view that, fully implemented, without any states, wars would end and unbound capitalism would create untold productivity and wealth, it's hard to say that paying taxes is a better alternative to this possible future world.

>>21508513
>narcissistic retard thinks other people are the problem
Color me surprised!

>>21508577
>source: trust me bros, I can't understand basic math and have never studied economics in any capacity but...I've read Ayn Rand!
Fucking kek. Unbelievable.

>>21500276
>>21500271
I am a capitalist that believes in a regulated welfare taxe capitalist society similar to Bismarck and Disraeli.

That being said, I would gladly died for Rand, and Rand only.

https://ari.aynrand.org/

https://aynrand.org/

https://estore.aynrand.org/

https://university.aynrand.org/

https://www.atlassociety.org/

https://shop.atlassociety.org/

https://aynrand.no/english/

https://objectivestandard.org/

https://aynrandsociety.org/

https://newideal.aynrand.org/

https://newideal.aynrand.org/objectivism-and-austrian-economics-the-connections/

https://linden2015.com/austrian-economics.html

https://objectivismindepth.com/

https://objectivismindepth.com/economics/

https://peikoff.com/

https://www.barbarabranden.com/

https://nathanielbranden.com/

https://www.hbletter.com/

https://www.objectivistliving.com/

https://forum.objectivismonline.com/

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/

https://freecapitalists.org/

https://www.stephenhicks.org/

https://aynrandcentre.co.uk/

http://aynrandlexicon.com/

https://frankoconnor.ucc.ie/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2014/01/24/sorry-libertarian-anarchists-capitalism-requires-government-2/?sh=38dcc79b7d89

Also try finding more. Leonard Peikoff is a good start.

>>21508577
I thought objectivism believes in deontic rights to non agression. If someone owns a cybercrime forum they are a cyberterrorist. How would that be moral under objectivism? You can't start talking about utilitarian benefit because that's not what objectivism talks about.
Also the liberal world has been rapidly improving, the more scandinavian countries we get the better the quality of life in the world is going to be. I'm also not willing to start doing IRL larping in a world where a nuclear threat isn't exactly fictional.

>>21500326
Hot

>>21508593
literal violation of the non agression principle

>>21508601
Fuck the nap. Kill all the ancaps and minarchist capitalists and lolbert right. THEY HAVE RUINED CAPITIALISM FOREVER!

>>21501677
Capitalism can work if regulated, welfare programs, 100% tax rate on the top class, and much more. the lol shit ruined it all.

Bismarck and disraeli saved their countries with welfare

>>21506262
It's de-regulated capitalism, once again. there are different forms of capitalism. same with communism and socialism.

>>21507187
All of the lolberts are.

However Rand died on social security

>>21508638
She actually never used social security. It's meme without any basis in reality.

>>21508680
Liar. One of her lawyers said she received it in an interview for a book about her, Cynthia Peikoff confirmed it, and a reported got documents that proved it via FOIA. ARI had published an article that it was a form of welfare but backtracked and rewrote Randianism to comply with the idea of accepting it (that's why Randtards always fall back on the idea that it doesn't conflict with her "philosophy").

>>21508591
I talk about utilitarian benefit because it's regarding a context where objective morality doesn't apply since it operates under the threat of violence. In such a situation, your life is at risk and a code of values is impossible to enact. It becomes a cost-utility evaluation because there are no good alternatives between the two. This utilitarian basis is not outside the parameters of how objectivism examines morality. Ayn Rand has a saying that morality ends where a gun begins; it means that when there are no good alternatives in one's choices to be moral, any choice, whether nihilism or utilitarianism (people usually act under utilitarian principles in a crisis situation) apply. To use a cliché, it's the trolley problem: is better forcefully paying taxes or creating a system where you don't pay taxes but someone might abuse the system. Objectivist morality doesn't need to consider these life-or-death scenarios since it is about finding the proper method to be productive and coexist with reality to be happy. However, I argue that, in a political context, when your life is at risk, it becomes a utilitarian series of option.

Although, this is my own formulation of how utilitarianism and other objectivists would disagree. I argue that it falls in life with other aspects of how Ayn Rand formulated her philosophy. For example, she argues that one should be honest and never lie because you have to maintain your coexistence with reality and avoid people from exploiting your lies. But she told Peikoff to lie when he was learning his philosophy doctorate as though he were in a concentration camp. Essentially, when you are in a crisis mode, morality allows you to be superseded until you escape this crisis. And I argue that creating a crypto-anarchist system where people could be sold into slavery but achieves the destruction of all states and ensures human freedom to all is a necessary position to accomplish to escape this crisis mode.

>>21508591
I talk about utilitarian benefit because it's regarding a context where objective morality doesn't apply since it operates under the threat of violence, namely avoiding paying taxes. In such a situation, a code of value is impossible to enact when your life is at risk. It becomes a cost-utility evaluation because there are no good alternatives between the two. This utilitarian basis is not outside the parameters of how objectivism examines morality. Ayn Rand has a saying that morality ends where a gun begins; it means that when there are no good alternatives in one's choices to be moral, any choice, whether nihilism or utilitarianism (people usually act under utilitarian principles in a crisis situation) applies. To use a cliché, it's the trolley problem: is it better to forcefully pay taxes or create a system where you don't pay taxes, but someone might abuse it? Objectivist morality doesn't need to consider these life-or-death scenarios since it is about finding the proper method to be productive and coexist with reality to be happy. However, I argue that, in a political context, when your life is at risk, and you want to escape a toxic political climate, it becomes a utilitarian series of options. And I argue that escaping the entire governance system requires it.

Although this is my formulation that it is rational to be utilitarian in a crisis situation, other objectivists would disagree. I see this as coherent and solves the idiocy of Kant's axe murderer scenario, where acting utilitarianly in a crisis situation is the correct moral action rather than shrugging and doing nothing. I argue it falls in life with other aspects of how Ayn Rand formulated her philosophy. For example, she argues that one should be honest and never lie because you have to maintain your coexistence with reality and avoid people from exploiting your lies. But she told Peikoff to lie while learning his philosophy doctorate as though he were in a concentration camp. When you are in a crisis mode, morality allows you to be superseded until you escape this crisis. And I argue that creating a crypto-anarchist system where people could be sold into slavery but achieve the destruction of all states and ensures human freedom to all is a necessary position to accomplish to escape this political crisis climate that we've had since the beginning of civilization.

>>21508752
>a reported got documents that proved it via FOIA
Huh, I guess she did get it.

>>21508823
Can't I say the entire world operates under the threat of violence at all time? We have to utilitze our society effectively so we don't get fucking nuked. Until we solve the nuke thing I don't think you can get to a one world government.
Also why not just go pure utilitarian if you have a utilitarian intuition anyway? Randians have just an absurd scenario as Kant's axe murderer: Say that billions of people are starving and a billionaire could pay 1% and feed them all. Under utilitarianism it is his moral duty, and we can coerce him to do it. Objectivism takes an absurd nihilistic approach to the same question.

>>21508833
>https://web.archive.org/web/20120127034945/https://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare
The funny part is that ARI was sitting on the interview that pointed toward the info and published an article that denied it and said social security was against her "philosophy." Then after the info came out they published another article that retconned the position and made the claim that since she paid in it wasn't hypocritical.

>>21508857
>Can't I say the entire world operates under the threat of violence at all time?
It's a gradient but I would say it does as governments have the monopoly of force and all countries have contradictory laws which everyone violates every day. The threat is not always immediate but it is always present. People merely have different threshold for when a crisis becomes impossible to ignore and the threat is immediate.

>We have to utilitze our society effectively so we don't get fucking nuked. Until we solve the nuke thing I don't think you can get to a one world government.
Nukes changes the dynamic. Before nukes, fucking over country to ensure protection and enrich yourself was the standard for this reason. Nukes just make it so that wars became impossible between those that have nukes.

>Also why not just go pure utilitarian if you have a utilitarian intuition anyway
Because I argue that it only applies in the context where one's life is threatened. Value morality or rational egoism has proper application on how to be productive, coexist with reality and find happiness. When one acts properly and productively, it also becomes beneficial for everyone, so there is no need to be utilitarian or operate under utilitarianism outside a crisis situation where your life is at risk.

>Under utilitarianism it is his moral duty, and we can coerce him to do it.
Sure, but that's not a crisis situation. The billionaire is not literally putting a gun at the head of these people starving, so it doesn't apply. If the billionaire were spending his money to genocide millions of people, then absolutely, these people would be under threat and operate under utilitarian principles, but only to escape this crisis. Utilitarianism is the maximization of utility/happiness towards the greatest amount of people but it fails to consider the context that it has no reason to apply outside a crisis situation. The fact that 'if you agree with X then it is your duty to do Y' is the reason why utilitarianism doesn't apply outside of a crisis situation where your life is under threat.

Basically, utilitarianism only applies when your life is under threat of violence, not just w/e whenever just because, when there are alternatives.

>>21508943
Your system of morality is just absolutely abhorrent. Under it, billions and people could suffer, and a billionaire would be under absolutely no moral obligation to help them. Coercing a billionaire to help them would be a moral violation. I've never heard of something so absolutely destructive to the ideas of liberty and wellbeing. You are just obssesed with the deontic right to property, a right which I personally think doesn't exist. What I care about is wellbeing, and If you want to maximize wellbeing, taxing the billionaire is the only choice.

>>21509048
My moral system is abhorrent because... I don't advocate coercion when you are not under physical threat? You're rationalizing theft and declare it justice while positioning yourself as morally righteous. Indeed, a billionaire would be under absolutely no moral obligation to help them, and why would he? Who are you to say that he should? My value system is to be productive and act rationally and egoistically for my own benefit in the long term, and only act under utilitarian principles if my life is at thread. I don't see anything morally inconsistent or contradictory that would make anyone see it as abhorrent.

>if you want to maximize wellbeing
I don't. I'm not a utilitarian lmao. I literally said that utilitarianism is only applicable during a crisis situation where your life is under physical thread, and you go 'uh but what about outside of those threats?' Enacting utilitarian principles to escape a the crisis situation of governments always having the monopoly of power is different from upholding a utilitarian moral system. I'm not sure why you think that they're comparable when I emphasize the context for where it would apply.

>>21509048
Nice fantasy scenario you pulled out of your ass just to find an excuse for robbery.
The whole idea of morality we've been developing for tens of thousands of years is that "being poor" in NOT the fucking excuse to steal shit.
Greed and envy isn't either obviously and that's why it's of paramount importance to us that wealth must be _earned_ - and not stolen

>>21509356
>The whole idea of morality we've been developing for tens of thousands of years is that "being poor" in NOT the fucking excuse to steal shit.
what? poverty and duress as reducing or even annihilating culpability for theft is a feature of most ethical systems. also, the marxist would assert that property itself (in the sense of monopolising land or productive power) is a form of theft with no genuine moral validity, given it proceeds from no particular merit on the part of the owner. it was not earned, and the power imbalance it imposes is not justifiable. i don't know if i agree with that perspective, but it is a powerful criticism.

>schizos in the thread that deny chromosomes and yall are hung up on rand

>>21506416
>WELFARE IS BAD!

tell that to Bismarck and Disraeli

>>21506944
>>21506969
Any form of anarchism is retarded and doomed to fail.

Minarchistic capitalism is not too bad. however the top class needs to be regulated, have a 100% tax rate, and must obey the state. If they do not obey, I rather put them on the firing squad. The lower and middle class should be de-regulated and have no taxes at all. Also the walfare state and all of these government programs and healthcare programs and more should be abolish for all classes. Unions too. the wage should be 20 dollars and work hour should be 2 hours. A shame really, Neo-liberalism isn't the problem. It's the top class.

>>21509574
>Any form of anarchism is retarded and doomed to fail.

no necessarily, no. why would you think that?

how would you regulate the top class?
and wouldnt that regulation entail some form of anarchism?