/lit/ - Literature

>>23648518
I would have to say the time she got cucked and then spazzed the fuck out over it provides some pretty strong evidence that her """rationalist""" philosophy is full of shit. Her entire worldview crumbled when she was faced with an actual emotional challenge- it seems that the murky forces of the soul are too strong for one little Russian woman....

>>23648518
The fact her self-help cult failed and she had to take welfare thus proving the effectiveness and necessity of a social safety net.

>>23648609
Damn, her philosophy failed her in both the emotional and material realms. Pathetic. still would tho

Atheist her whole life who begged for God’s mercy on her deathbed like all atheists do in the end.

>>23648620
Source for this claim, faggot?

>>23648620
I hate to agree with this nigger (>>23648635) but yeah, source you fag

>>23648518
>woman
>russian
>jewish
Pick from of the above, according to taste.

>>23648606
>>23648609
>>23648617
>>23648620
>>23648657
Literally not an argument. Why doesn't anyone have any proper scholarly refutations against her? It's all adhom and personal smears.

>>23648635
>>23648639
Peikoff her estate owner

>>23648660
>scholarly refutations
>NOOOOO CONSEQUENTIALISM DOESN'T COUNT
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE HYPOCRISY
>NOOOOO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO NOTICE BEHAVIOURAL PATTERNS IN POPULATIONS EITHER
Yawn

>>23648667
What are you blabbing about? Being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're wrong. That's why we have two separate terms for two separate concepts.

>>23648661
I can’t find a public statement from him suggesting this, nor any evidence that he was present at her death. If this appeared in print somewhere, it’s not being discussed at all by Objectivists or Christians online.

If Peikoff did hear such a conversion, it’s strange he didn’t follow suit, given how closely he apes everything else Rand ever said or believed. He remains a professed atheist.

You’re going to need to do better than a name drop. Reminder: thou shalt not bear false witness, retard

>>23648518
Your gonna get allot of marxists troons seething in this thread because they literally cannot refute her in any way. The best takedown from ayn rand is that the individual provides more than the collective and always have in all of human history.

>>23648660
One does not need scholarly refutations when the creator of the philosophy herself provides all the refutation needed in the form of her own actions. We don't don't need a 300 page slab to see that she and her cult failed. The first three posts on this thread show, in sequence, that she
-betrayed her philosophy in the emotional realm
-betrayed her philosophy in the material realm
-betrayed her philosophy in the spiritual realm.
These posts are true- she did these things, and she did them whilst believing wholeheartedly in her Rationalist way of life. Her actions. in this case, truly speak louder than words.

>>23648690
>Ayn Rand is irrefutable
>provides refutation in the next sentence

>>23648691
Literally none of that refutes her philosophy you fag.

>>23648700
how?

>>23648696
>>Ayn Rand is irrefutable
The faggot from r*ddit doesnt know how to read. Where did i say she was irrefutable? I said people like you are simply too stupid and ignorant to refute her because that would mean going against your very own beliefs and ideology. Get a job nigger.

>>23648706
Prove to us all here in this thread that you are not of these marxist, reddit faggots by refuting her philosophy. You have named terms and criteria and now you have to stand by them. You won't.

>>23648717
Because her philosophy falls into the same trap as Marx, denying basic human nature. And no i wont elaborate if you cant figure it out from that alone you are simply too stupid for me to waste my time on.

>her philosophy falls into the same trap as Marx, denying basic human nature
kek imagine misreading rand this poorly

She lived off welfare.

>>23648726
So did Melville. Are you planning to engage with her ideas at all?

>>23648673
>seething because your circlejerk thread didn't go as planned
Feel free to provide your super special definition of "wrong" that can ignore failure in both principles and outcomes.

>>23648724
so what information would one get out of a good reading? please let us all know.

>>23648609
she paid into welfare with her taxes you fucking idiot, it was her money. she gave the Gubb an interest-free loan

>>23648734
You're the one making the claim that hypocrite = wrong. The logical conclusion of this absurdity is that everyone is wrong about everything. What a wonderful world you've built for yourself.

>>23648726
No she didnt. Stop fucking lying. You're misquoting an internet image that states she lived off social security at the end of her life, which is another lie. She had an assistant convinced her to enroll despite her being in ideological opposition, because she was entitled to it and it was free money. Rand died with a respectable estate for an author.

>>23648816
>pretending to be illiterate

>>23648518
She's a woman.

Atlas Shrugged is a book about a wealthy heiress who is better at everything than everybody. She meets a man who creates a magic metal and together they search for a man who built a magical friction-less motor. Standing in their way are parodies of socialist thought and the rest of the stupid unwashed masses. Eventually they find the motor man living in a hidden valley that can only be seen by smart people. In the valley, all of the smart live in a utopia where they've cured numerous medical maladies and refuse to share this with humanity. Also the residents believe society will collapse without their greatness, but just to be sure they've cut-off vital supply lines to the greater public. Eventually magic motor man is captured by evil stupid people at which point he launches into a 100 page tirade laying out in autistic detail his personal philosophy, destroying any subtlety encountered thus far. Super heiress and metal man, along with Beast and Jubilee, take the blackbird to rescue motor man just as he's being electrocuted by stupid people. After they successfully extract him using the powers of objectivism, a magical sound weapon built by stupid people explodes and the country is reduced to covered wagons within hours.

>>23648518
"rules for thee not for me"

>>23648518
Living life in general refutes this bitch. What anthropological precedent is there for "live as selfishly as possible"? Only a jew could come up with something so banal and mind numbingly anti human

>>23649951
nobody said libertarians are selfish, they can use their wealth to help anyone they want, just without paying jizya to the goverment first

>>23648620

Not the painter Francis Bacon. Bacon had a sudden illness and was taken to a hospice full of nuns. They tried to extract a deathbed conversion from him, but he told them, in as many words, to go fly a kite. Good man, died in the truth. Very few do, unfortunately.

The prevalence of religious feelings is not a proof of their "truth"; the truth is exactly the other way around. What human will to god shows, is the fallibility of human reason and judgment. Only an elect few, it seems, can really stand the idea of a godless world. Which is a deeply unfortunate state of affairs, and contrary to reality. One almost wants China to succeed on the global stage if only it will spread irreligion, which is happily making deep inroads throughout the west. But these gains will all be lost if the moslem hordes manage to better install their false and childishly simple cult, itself centered on a false prophet and a false god, as opposed to a false christ. One thing to China's credit: they put their own moslems down, and they do not put up with moslem's shit.

>>23649319
Truly, a modern philosophy for the modern man!

>>23648518
Getting sick and needing others to take care of you

>>23650052
Not everyone will grow old and sick, but everyone starts life completely helpless. Raising children is not the selfish joy of all parents, so what becomes of abandoned or neglected infants? Are they to be left to rise or fall on their own merits?

>>23648691
>One does not need scholarly refutations when the creator of the philosophy herself provides all the refutation needed in the form of her own actions.

It doesn't at all, who the person was is irrelevant to the theory they found out

Do you think Karl Marx being a bankrupt, awful person who lived from rich people donations refuted his ideas? No, he was refuted by how everything he said simply not making sense in neither economy or history. That being said yes Rand theories were mostly bullshit.

>>23650129
>Rand lived off welfare
>Marx lived off Rich guys charity
It's like pottery

>>23650155
Source?

>>23648518
1) Her books are sloppy, meandering, full of thin characters and bad dialog, and riddled with plot holes
2) She is the only "philosopher" to never coherently, concisely present her "philosophy" as a whole. Instead there are dribs and drabs of dialog from fictional characters, badly-presented and fragmented lectures, and various little speeches so it is hard to so her work for her
3) She fails the is-ought test. Badly.
4) She makes incredibly blatant core errors, such as her declaration that there is only joy or suffering, or that the Law of Identity demands things cannot change
5) Her argument for Ethical Selfishness ("The Virtue of Selfishness") is a tautology. A blatant one. And she didn't notice.
6) She creates a false dichotomy of wither Capitalism (the most extreme kind) of Communism. That's like saying your eyes are either yellow or silver.
As a writer Rand was a mediocre novelist/
As a philosopher Rand was a mediocre novelist.

>>23650219
*or Communism, my typo

>>23650219
What an embarrassing post. Why are you incapable of engaging with her objectivist arguments?

>>23650229
>You are totally correct
FTFY
OK, Randroid, tell me in order the steps for Rand's argument for the Virtue of Selfishness/Ethical Selfishness.
Go on.

>>23648518
never read her so I'd rather not judge her right now. That said, her books are heavily pushed where I live whereas, say, Marx, is never published anywhere.

>>23650219
>directly mentions 4 of rand's main points
>>23650229
>"Why are you incapable of engaging with her objectivist arguments?"
why are Objectivists so dishonest?

>>23650219
>2) She is the only "philosopher" to never coherently, concisely present her "philosophy" as a whole
Karl Marx

>>23648518
She ugly

>>23650219
>2) She is the only "philosopher" to never coherently, concisely present her "philosophy" as a whole.
Pretty sure she does that in her non-fiction books, but she's just known for her fiction books.

>>23650381
>Pretty sure she does that
That’s not very promising
>in her non-fiction books
Which? Do you have a notion of any particular book where she might do this?

Why are you LARPing as someone who’s read Ayn Rand? Pathetic

>>23648518
Whittaker Chamber's essay in National Review. Brutal.

“Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber–go!’

https://lithub.com/read-a-1957-review-of-ayn-rands-excruciatingly-awful-atlas-shrugged/

>>23650412
>Why are you LARPing as someone who’s read Ayn Rand?
I read her fiction, not her non-fiction. Do you want me to suffer through that? But still, from 2010 /lit/, I heard her non-fiction was much clearer.

>>23648518
Balls deep mating press, of course.

>>23650341
It's impressive how that's true to his entire work, even his most hardcore followers agree we just can't know exactly what he meant on even the most basic ideas including his definitions on socialism and communism.

>>23648518
She's both a woman and a jew.

>>23648660
>REEEEEEE
She started a self-esteem cult during the Self Help Movement and it failed. She made poor life decisions and developed lung cancer (i.e. her bullshit about how smoking represents freedom, lol). Her husband became sick at the same time and she had to be talked into taking medicare and social security.

If you want to get into the cult bullshit I'm happy to but odds are you'll just get angry and frustrated because you've linked Rand to your sense of self-worth. Here's an exercise for you: look up what a "thought terminating cliche" is and see if you can spot the ones Rand uses. It's not that hard.

>>23648740
No. That's the bullshit ARI tried to use as cope after initially denying she had taken the welfare. The truth is she did it out of necessity and had to be talked into it over time (meaning she knew it was against her "philosophy"). She even did it under the alias of Anne Connor to hide it.

>>23650677
>No. That's the bullshit ARI tried to use as cope after initially denying she had taken the welfare. The truth is she did it out of necessity and had to be talked into it over time (meaning she knew it was against her "philosophy"). She even did it under the alias of Anne Connor to hide it.
Ill repeat myself for a third time. Social security is not welfare, and she died with a respectable estate.

>>23650691
>cope
She took social security and medicare (i.e. social safety net welfare) out of necessity. She knew it was damning to her so she had to be talked into it and eventually did so under an alias. ARI denied she had received welfare and tried to bury the interview of the woman who arranged it for her but a reporter went out and got the records that proved Rand had taken welfare. When this happened ARI deleted previous articles denying the fact she received welfare and took up the line that she was owed it for having paid her taxes; this is what deeply invested Randtards now usually parrot. However, the fact remains that she specifically took the money out of FINANCIAL NECESSITY due to the fact her and her husband's medical bills had the potential to bankrupt her estate.

>>23650691
>>23650956
I think anarcho capitalism makes no sense at all, but that's not hypocrital at all if she paid her taxes, she didn't had the option to stop paying to no longer having those rights.

In several countries you pay 1/3 of your wage, giving up it only means you gave you money. And you will not even be able to claim that you didn't benefit from it because you are FORCED to use several public services anyway. So by her own logic she had the right to take those services.

>>23648518
Here it is:
She's a woman

>>23650956
>pay into social security your whole life
>haha guess you can't have any if you think it's bullshit
You're a clown and nobody cares. Ayn Rand is easily unattractive enough on her own terms without these stupid GOTCHA tidbits fat old women subscribed to occupydemocrats updoot on Facebook

I believe a philosophy fails if it's creator doesn't abide by it and is led to destruction (relative to the philosophy) following it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is big headed over intellectualized untermensch.

>>23648518
Reading her work.

>>23650539
Or dictadorship of the proletarietat, or the proletarietat, or the state, or if there would be some kind of hierarchy or cohesion or division in a full communist world

>>23650381
>Pretty sure she does that in her non-fiction books
Famously she doesn't.
She repeats close versions of her author tracts in her speeches, but when you want to try to analyze her work you have to do all the work yourself.

>>23652108
Ayn Rand
>All forms of charity are EVIL! Participating in them is EVIL! To receive them is EVIL!
Her followers
>Dude, she was owed charity

>>23648691
Like any one person who is a Christian failed to live as a totally devout Christian person from their birth to their death must mean that Christianity as a belief system is entirely hogwash and we should totally toss the baby with the bathwater because obviously no part of that philosophy is worth even a grain of dust to any person at any moment of their life. Ayn rand dying is any rand at any moment and Socrates asleep is the same person as Socrates awake. Go fuck your insistence on weak reasoning and answer the question

>>23648518
Rand's ideology supposes that we live in a meritocracy where hard work is always rewarded. We dont, and it isnt. This creates a really funny situation where most people who defend Rand and love Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are either lottery winners or nepobabies who inherited their wealth, because Rand tells them they deserve their wealth for being smarter and better than everyone else.

>>23650219
Point 2 is remarkably untrue. Plato, first and foremost, never wrote out his belief system comprehensively, and many many after him are the same. Try reading Wittgenstein's investigations and tell me how coherent and concise his philosophy of language is.

I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that by coherent and concise you mean comprehensive description of a belief system, something like Hegel's philosophy, or Ill grant Descartes to be included in that sort of philosophy. But even philosophers after these sort of paradigmatic enlightenment philosophers there are "philosophers" who don't fit the comprehensive treatise style. Nietzsche. Camus.

And if you then sill say one must have a comprehensive philosophical theory in manuscript or treatise form in order to be considered a "philosopher" then I'd say fuck you go read wittgensteins PI like I said earlier.

>>23653200
That's the opposite of what she said, she believed that charity was essential but taxes aren't charity, advocating for more taxes to solve whatever issue does not make you an altruistic person specially when your solution is increasing taxes over a group you dont belong to it's not your money, it's not your sacrifice.
I can't believe you forced me to defend that crazy woman god fucking damnit

>>23651848
>she paid her taxes
Anon. She didn't want to take the money. She had to do it out of financial necessity and did it under an alias to hide it.

>>23652108
The self-help cult is a joke and pretending you're not a member of it while twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend Rand is embarrassing.

>>23653326
>She didn't want to take the money.
Yes and that was stupid since again, a huge part of her wealth already went to the state.
She thought giving up a service she already pay for it would prove her point but it didn't. By her philosophy she still had the right for it even if for a compensation for the money she believed was stolen from her. I have no idea why people think they need to attack Rand or Marx morality, they already lost decades ago when tens of thousands of economists proved that their models can't possibly work over and over and over again.

Free Market produce money to taxes for public services, that's how it always worked for thousands of years and that's it will always be.

>>23653349
>Free Market
>produce money to taxes
>for public services
>that’s how it always worked
>for thousands of years

What the fuck are you smoking? Also, ESL

>>23653349
>still coping
Rand was saved by the social safety net which she accessed out of necessity.
>I have no idea why people think they need to attack Rand or Marx morality
Probably because retards like you jump to defend her because you were roped in by her self-esteem cult.

>>23653352
>>for thousands of years
Yes? Markets are not something new, farmers and craftstmen produced goods and sold them to other citizens or to merchants that hired several workers to buy and sell those items somewhere else, plus many other services, private banks already existed 4000 years ago giving all the services you associate modern banks with, security companies etc etc etc, large complex companies with several workers that were highly important for the local goverments.

>>23653353
>Rand was saved by the social safety net which she accessed out of necessity
No she wasnt and no she didn't. At the time of her death her estate was worth between five hundred thousand and one million dollars. She was never in danger of bankruptcy as a result of expenses of any variety, medical or otherwise. Stop repeating BULLSHIT.

>>23653370
Also the stock market is 1000 years old

>>23653370
>>23653392
Alright retard, supposing the institutions of the free market have remained static since time immemorial and are impossible to fundamentally change, then why do they need to be defended by Ayn Rand?

>>23648675
OMG!!! a christcuck lied about a deathbed conversion!? Say it isn't so.

>>23648518
She claims to hate government handouts, while receiving welfare

>>23653371
>uh oh
Do you want to ignore everything the social worker who had power of attorney says here except the part about Rand having a right to welfare because she paid taxes? That's what you're probably going to do here, lol.

Your self-help cult leader knew taking welfare was against her "philosophy" and had to be talked into it. She did so out of financial necessity after making poor decisions that lead to poor health and precarious finances, she obscured the fact she did by doing it under an alias, and Randtards ignore everything in this sentence in order to pretend the sole rationale isn't the fact she was saved by a social safety net but rather her taking money that she was owed.

Keep seething and protecting your Dear Leader.

Has anyone mentioned the fact that she took welfare payments? What a hypocrite

>>23655438
Kek how does her taking welfare somehow invalidate her philosophy?

It's funny how marxists having property never invalidates THEIR philosophy.

>>23649951
Check this out. In the long run, Egoists gain from cooperation under a prisoner dilemma situation so long as there is a possibility the two agents will meet again. Hobbes was btfo

>>23655467
By validating the necessity of the social safety net.

>Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person.
I think its just very sad to believe love is so transactional. It leads me to believe she never, even for a brief moment, felt "true" love, or maybe even worse she never received it.

Randianism is a self-help cult of ideology, not unlike Scientology, and it's formal body, ARI, underscores such. I challenge a Randtard to find even just a single incidence of ARI being critical towards Rand herself or any particular stance she took in her writing. You will not be able to do so because ARI maintains a cult of personality surrounding Rand and treats her writing as if it were scripture.

Aside, it should be noted that the fact other thinkers are referenced by ARI does not indicate criticality towards Rand and her work. I do not deny that they do such and will offer no comment on it other than the above. If you wish to refute the claim I have made provide examples of ARI taking a critical stance toward Rand and her work. I am confident you will not be able to put forward even a single meaningful example of such and sliding away from this point underscores an attempt at being disingenuous.

I can also refer to incidents surrounding the publication of The Logical Leap. David Harriman claimed that Rand herself had solved the problem of induction because ARI holds that Rand's philosophy is closed and complete (notice how this indicates Rand's pronouncements being treated as scripture). Upon publishing his book a member of ARI pointed out that the problem of induction had not been solved but the book was still a good overview. For this lukewarm review (i.e. heresy) he was attacked publically, had funding from ARI revoked, had any lectures associated with ARI cancelled, and was excommunicated by ARI.

There's also the matter of ARI's treatment of the fact Rand received welfare. This fact was initially denied by ARI and when irrefutable documentation of her doing so was uncovered by a journalist they erased former denials from their website and said that Rand had been owed the welfare based on an excerpt they dug up from something she had published in the 1960s. They ignored the fact that Rand took the money out of necessity, ignored the fact she had not wanted to do so, ignored the fact she did so under a fake name, erased the fact they had tried to hide it, and rewrote history. This is the behavior of a cult.

If any Randtards wish to cry about informal fallacies you're free to do so. However, I warn you that such is a quite obvious attempt at distraction on your part so as to avoid discussion of what has been laid out above. You may also wish to label me a "collectivist" in much the same way as Scientologists label their critics as "suppressive persons." Otherizing critics into preformed boxes is one of the many cultish behaviors "Objectivism" shares with Scientology.

Randianism is a cult that arose out of the Self Help Movement of the 50s and has many parallels to Scientology. The main difference is that instead of Positive/Personality Psychology wrapped up in SciFi it's politicized Self-Esteem Psychology. Nathaniel Brandon even went on to become a big figure in self-esteem psychology and Rand even tried to sue him over it.

>>23655519
Kek it doesn't validate it at all.
>Jesus preaches love
>gets merked by jews
Welp, christianity invalidated! Seriously, whenever Rand comes up its like /lit/ collectively loses 40 IQ points and can no longer discern if two subjects are connected.

>>23655568
Again: it establishes the necessity and effectiveness a social safety net. It also underscores the fact that Randianism is a self-help cult.

Sure, you can say "Scientology has some good ideas" but the reality is Scientology didn't actually come up with them and merely appropriated them. Just like Objectivism, Scientology generalized existing ideas in order to establish a self-help cult.

>>23655587
>because things exist they are a necessity
smooth brained retard, not gonna read the rest of your insipid scientology ramblings

>>23655595
I accept your concession. Stay mad.

>>23655603
You didn't challenge any of her points, so there's nothing to concede

>>23655617
>t. staying mad
I pointed out why your attempt at a counterargument was pathetic and failed to address the arguments you were presented with (and angered by).

Is Randianism a self-help cult rooted in the politicization of self-esteem? Yes, and I gave examples and evidence as to why this is so. Was Rand treated as an infallible figure by its adherents? Yes, and I again gave examples and evidence as to why this is so. Did she hide the fact she accepted welfare because it was against the tenants of her cult and would damage her standing? Yes, and this exemplifies the cult nature of "Objectivism".

Your counterargument was that just because Rand was a failure doesn't mean her ideas are invalidated. However, the point of my argument is not necessarily that all of "her" ideas are invalidated but rather that "Objectivism" is a self-help cult. Your counterargument falls flat in that it's overly generic and I can point out that Rand's cult appropriated ideas and simplified them in order to serve the purpose of the leader's beliefs.

All you can do here is generalize my argument in order to find an excuse to dismiss it without adequate diligence. You will likely do the same thing ideologues such as saying dumb shit like "not real capitalism" and present thought terminating cliches that protect Randianism from criticism.

You lost, anon. You're low IQ and were dupped into adopting the mantras of a failed Cold War era self-esteem cult. Cope.

>>23655664
>"Objectivism" is a self-help cult
source: my ass

>>23653404
>then why do they need to be defended by Ayn Rand
They don't. Nothing will ever change, populist leaders always rise up, try to abolish the market to bring equality leading to the colapse of their society, 5k years of this shit

>>23655678
I gave you a rationale for why Randianism is a cult alongside multiple sub-arguments toward this effect complete with examples, anon. I understand you can't address them without being disingenuous but attempting to continue the conversation by asserting an unjustified dismissal demonstrates the fact you're low IQ.

You were duped into adopting the mantras and thought terminating cliches of a Cold War era self-esteem cult, retard. Cope.

>>23655691
>I gave you a rationale
the rationale:
>I said so!

>>23655691
Obsessively calling it a self help cult is just an ad hominem attack so you don’t have to engage with her ideas.

>>23655703
Yes, unlike yourself I take in information and criticize it while incorporating it into new contexts as I'm presented with them. You're asserting I'm wrong without providing a single counterargument to any one of the multiple examples I gave you, anon.

Are you going to continue the conversation in good faith or are you going to continue to flail around like an autistic child who just found out Sonic the Hedgehog doesn't exist?

>>23655708
>Obsessively calling it a self help cult is just an ad hominem attack
I gave reasons as to why it's a self-help cult while appealing to examples of it's cult-like behavior alongside its historical genesis. Can you address them like a thinking adult or do you want to give up without admitting defeat in order to protect your self-esteem? Lol.

There are no children in her books.

She doesn’t know how the next generation factors into her philosophy

>>23655726
>There are no children in her books.
If we're being honest there are a couple kids in the scene where the train tunnel collapses and Rand lists the passengers one-by-one while preaching to the reader why they deserved to die, kek.

>>23648723
Her books are not for low iq browns or mentally ill self hating whites. Her books are smart white men who want a family away from black crime and leftist mental illness. Thats why they hate her.

>>23650068
This is a retarded strawman because rand wasn't against charity.

Doesn't matter the people who hate her never read her stuff.

>>23650219
>She is the only "philosopher" to never coherently, concisely present her "philosophy" as a whole

Fucking idiot.

>>23655726
>There are no children in her books.

>>23655822
>i have not read the book: the post

>>23655816
it’s not about charity, but the state ensuring the lives and welfare of children

charity leaves it up wildly to chance, to the whims of benefactors

So many pseuds could have skipped over the embaressment of their Ayn Rand phase if only their parents had read this to them.

>>23655831
Kill yourself scum.

>>23655844
Uh huh, your childrens book certainly debooonked Objectivism.

>>23655853
>debooonked
Research before you comment, pseud. If your parents had read you that Rand's self-help cult wouldn't have been able to take advantage of your resentment.

>Rand's self-help cult
kek this sperg is still going, don't think he realizes self help is explicitly rejected in objectivist thought but it's amusing to see him flail around nonetheless

>>23655945
>The cult says it's not a cult therefore it's not a cult
Should have read about the mouse.

Imagine seeing shit like this and failing to make the connection between Objectivism and Scientology.

>>23655964
Lol

>>23648518
"Cocksucker." Yes, a tremendous sucker of cocks.

>>23648518
I’m just about finished with The Fountainhead. Nothing really disagreeable there. Tbf I had read Ride The Tiger by Julius Evola a few weeks ago. Evola’s rugged individualism feels like straight crack compared to Ayn. But regardless, Howard Roark seems to embody Ebola’s ideas for the ideal man quite nicely. Living true to oneself, never compromising, defiant against unhappiness. It’s all there. This incessant liberal, capitalistic, Marxist, “Enlightenment” idea that we should all strive for collective thinking/feeling/acting is just a lie we tell ourselves. Society clings to these ideals, gaslighting itself into thinking it will lead to a better tomorrow. When in reality we have never been more detached, feeble, and lonely as a species.

>>23648518
None, she is irrefutable.

>>23650677
>She even did it under the alias of Anne Connor to hide it.
Anon, her husband was Frank Connor.

>>23648690
An idea spread about by wealthy industrialists only in the past 100 years, when before for 60 thousand years of human history the opposite was considered common sense. You make a temple of your selfishness, sociopath.

>>23648518
She simped for a serial killer because she too was an evil retard.

>>23648620
Billions of people have died without ever begging for God's mercy. Why do you single out atheists?

>>23648518
Wow these responses are terrible and mostly ad hominem attacks that aren't even facing the philosophy itself. I will actually give OP the courtesy of a criticism of her philosophy so here goes.

In regards to objectivist metaphysics, it is reliant on axioms that are "self-evident", however her epistemology is knowledge derived through reason. Two problems, firstly, knowledge gained by the means of reason derived from axiomatic metaphysics becomes a circular argument, and per Godel's theorem, every axiomatic theory has problems of provability. To suggest, A is A, is logically circular and is an invalid argument, thus failing at reason, which is her source of knowledge! (at a fundamental level, she must acknowledge that circular-self evident axioms are irrational). Secondly, I believe she does not reach certainty of corporeal things in nature, due to her belief in objective reality separate from a body and that due to her objective reality with the basis on causes and effects in nature, her philosophy is met with the problem of induction, which she does not adequately solve.

These are very brief comments barely scratching the surface, however I would say something actually regarding the literature and not be these neckbeard keyboard warriors copy and pasting the same reddit responses they see online. I really wish Ayn Rand would've been open to academia however her dismissal seriously destroyed her legacy, she had some interesting concepts, but an open mind would've gone a long way.

>>23657449
No shit. Was her name Anne?

tl dr: this thread. Centrism is a fact, you need private companies and a bit of welfare in a balanced way to ensure economic growth, Marx and Rand are objectivelly wrong unless you ignore economics and history

>>23653353
If the state hadn't forcefully appropriated her earnings her entire working life to pay for the social safety net, she might not have needed said safety net later in life, because she'd have been able to keep more of her money.

>>23650691
>Social security is not welfare, and she died with a respectable estate.
Let's see what Ayn had to say about that:
>In fact, Social Security is not insurance. It merely seizes income from working Americans and dispenses it to retirees, with a vague (but legally unenforceable) assurance that younger Americans will someday get to reach into the pockets of their kids and grandkids. We shouldn’t hide that fact with euphemisms. “Contributions” should be called “taxes.” “Benefits” should be called “handouts.” Social Security shouldn’t be described as “social insurance” but as welfare.
Uhoh...
>>23659363
Nice cope but by her own actions she knew what she was doing was supposedly against her beliefs.

>>23659363
>>23659525
Read the thread she died a millionaire

>>23659755
Read the quote from the person who had power of attorney to oversee her finances you maximum cope retard: >>23655438.

Rand overleveraged her finances and the collapse of the Nathaniel Brandon Institute wrecked her. Rand even tried to sue Brandon over the books he wrote on self-esteem claiming he stole her ideas (because she created a self-esteem cult lol).

>>23659973
>maybe you'll get hit with bullshit medical expenses so collect what you've paid into to be safe
Changes nothing, bro. Are you stupid? The rest of your post is fantasy

>>23660079
>Changes nothing
Sure it does, retard. Sorry your little faggy self-help cult was lead by a hypocritical welfare queen. Try Scientology maybe? Seems to work well for manlets.

>>23660437
>I-it changes everything because i say so
I dont even like rand because her philosopgy is spook ridden, but you're a pathetic dipshit.

>>23660477
>because i say so
It changes your assertion to invalid because the person who was literally in charge of overseeing her finances said she needed to take the money out of necessity and that Rand didn't want to because it was against her beliefs, retard.

>>23660483
Literally not what he said. There's no financial advisor in the world who would tell someone to leave money on the table. Especially when it's money they paid for.

The money you get from social security is a lot less than if you'd have saved the same amount and invested it in something average, anyway. So she was still screwed in the end, like everyone who has to pay for that ponzi.

If you continue to refuse the truth at this point, it reflects poorest on you.

>>23660540
>Literally not what he said.
Pryor is a woman and she specifically said "[Rand] could be wiped out by medical bills".
>There's no financial advisor
Pryor had a background in social work and was working for the law firm that oversaw Rand. After leaving the firm she went on to become a social worker.
>tell someone to leave money on the table
Rand didn't want to take the money because she saw it as welfare. Pryor specifically said she NEEDED to take the money due to the precarious nature of her finances and the medical bills Rand had coming in (i.e. Ayn had lung cancer from smoking like a chimney and Frank had dementia).
>The money you get from social security is a lot less than if you'd have saved the same amount
This is just cope, retard. It's been clearly established that Rand took the money out of necessity and that she didn't want to take it.
>If you continue to refuse the truth
Holy shit you're stupid. Did Rand take the money out of financial necessity? Yes, as per the person who oversaw her finances. Was Rand against taking the money because it was against her supposed beliefs? Yes, as per the person who was arranged by Rand's law firm to look after her.
>it reflects poorest on you.
Cool projection, moron. You sound like a mouth breathing idiot who's triggered his self-esteem came from buying into a cult.

Kek, like I said. There's always Scientology and it seems to work out pretty well for closeted fags/manlets.

>>23648609
>>23648726

>she had to take welfare thus proving the effectiveness and necessity of a social safety net

Here's my counterpoint:

>>23660811
The comic doesn't fit, retard. Did any of the characters in it start a cult based on a rigid ideology to which they failed to live up? Did they devote their entire lives to writing about how social safety nets always constitute welfare, which is always immoral to accept, only to be begrudgingly saved by one functioning as welfare? Did any of them have the remnants of their cult try to hide the fact they did something blatantly hypocritical only to memoryhole the articles they wrote denying it and change their angle once hard evidence was uncovered?

It's more like the character in the first panel tweeting about how she's boycotting Apple products using an iPhone or the guy in the third panel travelling in a private jet to give a lecture about mitigating climate change by way of utilizing public transportation.

>>23648730
>>23648868
>>23660811

Not a deep comment and it's been a while since I read Atlas Shrugged. That said, I think that human society requires a level of altruism, or whatever you choose to call actions that help others but have no foreseeable material benefit, often through the framework of morality.

I semi-remember that she was very against the idea of acts of kindness in Atlas Shrugged as that was a way to hold a burden over someone.

>>23660574
>"[Rand] could be wiped out by medical bills".
Anyone could be wiped out by med bills
>not fin adv
You would describe someone giving financial advise as anything other than a financial advisor?
>Pryor said NEEDED
Where? In your little pic she's only talking about the common possibility of needing money due to medical expenses. If you're Rand and have work that needs to continue after your death, you dont want medical expenses eating into that if you can avoid it. And if you can buffer that with SS, which can't be collected at will, i.e. when you really need it, but needs to be enrolled in, which is YOUR money anyway, and is in fact even less than you deserve, then OF COURSE you take the money.

She had a million dollar estate at death, that's a FACT so tell me where are these medical expenses that bankrupted her? They never happened.
>Scientology
Yes you said that half a dozen times already and no one cares. As Ive already said, i dont particularly card for Rand, and honestly I doubt almost every one in the thread has any real allegience to her either. You're just an insufferable moron posting fake GOTCHAS like a fat old demented facebook boomer. Take the L already

>>23662176
>Anyone could be
Cool goalpost shift. Rand had to take what she labeled as welfare out of financial necessity due to poor decisions she made (i.e. being a cigarette advocate (lol) and overleveraging her finances).
>You would describe someone giving financial advise as anything other than a financial advisor?
Cool semantic slide to deflect from the point. A financial advisor is a specific career whereas Pryor had a background in social work and was assigned to Rand because she was in trouble. It wasn't a financial advisor not wanting to "leave money on the table" but the fact Rand was in trouble and the person with a deep knowledge of her finances clearly states she 1) needed to access the social safety net and, 2) did not want to do it because it was against her ideology. This makes it quite clear that she was 1) not financially stable and, 2) did not access welfare merely to get back what she was owed.
>Where?
"[Rand] could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn't watch it".
>In your little pic she's only talking about the common possibility of needing money due to medical expenses.
Cool bias reading of the quote. She's specifically saying that Rand's finances are precarious in relation to her medical expenses. She goes on to say:

>After several meetings and arguments, she gave me her power of attorney to deal with all matters having to do with health and Social Security. Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the necessity for both her and Frank.

Case in point.
>YOUR money anyway
>She had a million dollar estate at death
These are your only arguments and they've been repeatedly refuted. For the former Rand did not see accepting welfare as warranted hence why she needed to be talked into it via multiple arguments which occured over several meetings. For the latter we see that the person with a deep knowledge of her finances held that they were precarious and it was this which lead to Rand accepting she NEEDED welfare. On top of this we have your poorfag ignorance of how finances work (the collapse of NBI hurt Rand financially and she was over-leveraged) while conveniently ignoring the fact that the welfare Rand received is what secured her future estate (the cult was reorganized by Leonard Piekoff).
>Yes you said that half a dozen times already
Because there are clear parallels between Objectivism and Scientology which I've gone into multiple times. You have yet to address them and can only handb wave.

You're an idiot.

>>23648726
Does anyone who think that believe that Marx was proven wrong the moment Engels started to pay all his bills with his company profit?

>>23648518
So libertarianism is right, but Ayn Rand is not right about everything, just most things:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/rand.htm

>>23662354
The fact Marx maintained the pretense of speaking for the working class while being a failed to launch boujee is a huge red flag, yes. Being aware of the autobiographical details of someone behind a belief system is enriches your understanding when it comes to ideologues like Marx and self-help gurus like Rand. Bonus points if certain life events betray the myopic nature of their perspective or the hypocrisy embedded within their hagiography.

>>23662354
Why wouldn't they?

Also Hitler was saved by a Jew, so he also sucks

>>23662262
>goalpost shift
Do you even know what that means? I'm trying to explain your own quote to you because you're too stupid, when i say anyone, not just Rand

>Rand had to
For the fiftieth time, evidently not, because of the size of the estate she left

>semantic slide
Not at all. Someone is giving financial advice, that's the only relevant fact to my point. Her actual career means nothing.

>Biased reading if the quote
Your reading of the quote is the biased one. Again, million dollar estate

As if the testimony of her social worker means a shit to begin with.
>She saw the necessity
Says the social worker. Who cares. Million dollar estate. Million dollar estate. Where are the medical bills? Million dollar estate.

>your arguments have been refuted
Ignoring an argument does not refute them. The word choice of some third party does not refute the financial reality, which is the only hard fact present in the thread.
>She was over leveraged
>Reorganization earned her a million bucks overnight
Then prove it

>T-there are parallels
Ok. Nobody cares.

>>23648518
piledriver

not reading this thread because rand is a hack
reading rand is the best takedown of rand

Her philosophy is autistic. It forces unnatural human behavior over the natural tribalistic characteristics of humanity. That's why her written works have this forced rambling quality where you are being forcefed the philosophy. The majority of humanity is hardwired towards tribalism. Finding an in-group, a tribe that looks like them and will accept them. Objectivism unnaturally says that there are principles that will trump human tribalism. Ofcourse, this is a great contribution to moral decay in a society. To teach a society with an already rotting communal fabric that only the individual matters.
The high achieving individual with intellect suffers the most in a society he detests or is indifferent to. Only in a nurturing society with a strong common tribalisitic nature does an individual feel motivated to contribute. Humans are social by nature and without social cohesion first not a lot can stand long term.

How is this thread still going? Has anyone brought up the fact that she took welfare?

Wasn't there a rule back in the day that Ayn Rand threads were forbidden?

>>23663252
0/10 bait

>>23663075
>Do you even know what that means?
Yes. The specifics of Rand's particular case were clearly laid out multiple times. This indicated that Rand was in financial danger (due to a poor health decisions and bad financial planning). Shifting the goalposts is to assert a generalization about the dangers of unexpected medical costs while ignoring the specific details given regarding this incident. You're a retard.
>For the fiftieth time, evidently not, because of the size of the estate she left
For the whateverith time: THE PERSON WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE OF RAND'S FINANCIAL SITUATION SAD SHE WAS IN DANGER AND THIS IS THE REASON SHE TOOK WELFARE. I also pointed out you're a poorfag when it comes to finances because: THE COLLAPSE OF THE NBI HURT HER INCOME AND LEONARD PIEKOFF REBUILT THE CULT IN THE 80s
>Someone is giving financial advice, that's the only relevant fact to my point.
It's a semantic argument because you said Pryor was a "financial advisor" when the fact is she was a consultant for the legal firm that represented Rand who had a background in social work. She wasn't a financial advisor, moron. She was given power of attorney over Rand in order to sign her up for welfare.
>Your reading of the quote is the biased one.
No you. You're making shit up about it in order to avoid the fact Pryor specifically says, here we go again: RAND DID NOT WANT TO TAKE WELFARE BUT HAD TO DUE TO FINANCIAL NECESSITY.
>As if the testimony of her social worker means a shit
Sure, retard. The person with power of attorney over Rand and her finances, who became a friend of hers, doesn't know what the state of said finances were and can't comment on how Rand reacted while being signed up for welfare. Fuck you're stupid.
>Says the social worker. Who cares. Million dollar estate. Million dollar estate. Where are the medical bills? Million dollar estate.
Can you prove that the estate was in good standing during the relevant time period? Can you refute the fact that the NBI collapsed and hurt Rand's income? Can your poorfag retarded ass understand what liquidity is and how over-leveraging finances can lead to the immediate danger of bankruptcy? Also, again, Peikoff took over Rand's cult and rebuilt it in the 80s, retard; can you not understand how accessing the welfare could logically save Rand from ruin?
>Ignoring an argument does not refute them
I've specifically addressed you're points you low IQ retard. All you can do is assert them over and over without acknowledging the fact RAND'S FINANCIAL SITUATION WAS PRECARIOUS AND SHE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE WELFARE.
>The word choice of some third party
The person who literally had power of attorney over Rand's finances you absolute retard.


1/2

>>23663075
>>23663693
>Reorganization earned her a million bucks overnight
It wasn't overnight, moron.
>prove it
NBI crashing and burning (look it up). Rand/Frank's medical situation shortly thereafter. Rand living for a decade after all of this happened and naming a new "intellectual heir" who created ARI (which is the new iteration of the self-help cult still going strong today).
>Nobody cares.
You sure seemed triggered by the Objectivism and Scientology are related to one another, kek.

Fuck you're retarded.

2/2

>>23663693
>>23663698
Million. Dollar. Estate.

>>23648518
all of her ideas are plagiarized bastardizations of max stirner except retarded, she glorifies the "inventor" of unobtanium and paints entrepreneurs as some heroes to the nation, her critique tries to be against government control which would imply that she's anarcho-capitalist but once again it doesn't add up with what she's trying to shill
the big conclusion is that the nation loses the entrepreneurs while the only thing the nation ever wanted from her protagonist was literally the guys unobtanium recipe

so basically what we end up with is an anarcho-capitalist that doesn't want government to interfere with profits and the only time even in her fictional setting they did was when a guy tried to patent and withhold unobtanium and just profiteer off of it
so i guess her message in atlas shrugged was "let us keep our patents and hike up the prices on it or else we'll leave" while in reality in US the biggest pests to capitalism are the ones that hold monopoly and patents which collude with the state
the state isn't her enemy or the enemy of her protagonist it is their own stupidity, if she just researched a little bit on how the biggest fish make it in US she would have realized that her fabled entrepreneur heroes are all sucking on uncle sams tit and their biggest achievement is getting funding from the state that comes from tax money
so unless she's proposing a free market utopia to uplift the savvy entrepreneur heroes i don't know what her point is, and those savvy entrepreneurs don't make it in free market because then the competition can just undercut them with more affordable products since unobtanium is a joke story device

her dream of scalping with patents only exists under the current form of back rub system US has

in truth i have no idea what the fuck she was trying to say because i don't think she knew how the system works, she for 100% sure didn't want true free market because even the patent guy was sucking on the market already there and just got pissy when he had to share his recipe after refusing to deal with the state as customer

in conclusion ayn rand is a moron who thought that stirners idea of state being oppressive was cool and then went on her own anarcho-capitalist rant where she didn't do her homework and tried to make the piece match entrepreneurs and the only way she could do that was to have an autistic inventor entrepreneur of unobtanium for whatever fucking reason refusing to take money from the state to the point they had to take him to court to get their hands on it
if taiwan would start to refuse to make the latest chips and just profiteered off of it for either just the west or the east both of them would curb stomp taiwan or threaten to at least

without unobtanium her story falls flat and becomes a story of some autistic rich person not wanting money because he wants money but doesn't like the state

if anyone has the actual point she tried to make written down somewhere feel free to share because to me her whole premise sounded retarded and her attempt at anarcho-capitalism didn't really hold water since it was leeching off of a dystopian state's market

>>23663739
>I have no arguments
I accept your concession you manlet poorfag, lol.

>selfishness and individuality good
>collectivism and morality bad
she would love detroit and new york

even in vanilla anarchy there is a supposed to be a sense of voluntary co-operation of communities, the only reason they hate state is because state overreaches and tries to coerce people to participate and feeds wasteful and corrupt bureaucracy

personally i think anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are both retarded ideas
anarcho-communism is just an oxymoron because the entire point of communism is that state knows best and distributes which is retarded
for anarcho-capitalism it's literally just black market with extra steps

>>23663850
Her estate: million dollars. Financial insecurities: none. Her social security checks: paid for. Her social worker: retarded nobody. Your reading comprehension: subpar. Your posts: cope.

literally just Jewish propaganda that wealthy capitalists happen to use to alleviate themselves of guilt and brainwash idiots into accepting less compensation and harsher working conditions

pretty much, the funniest part is that her grand revelation and solution of their "strike" is that jeff bezos and bill gates leaves the country, good riddance the moron didn't realize that no one needs a fat parasite sitting on top of the pile and that unobtanium isn't real

>Wealth industrialists and capitalists spread Ayn Rand
Engels was a Marxist though
Hell, Marx himself was from a rich jewish family and married into nobility
Not sure why commies act like they speak for the poor when they primarily come from rich lineages

>>23648518
I can’t hate Rand. She’s a based retard and her books are unironically kino.
>nooooooo objectivism is LE BAD you can’t enjoy the based art deco autism erotica
Shut up, parasite.

>>23650219
> She is the only "philosopher" to never coherently, concisely present her "philosophy" as a whole Instead there are dribs and drabs of dialog from fictional characters, badly-presented and fragmented lectures, and various little speeches so it is hard to so her work for her
Camus
In fact I’d argue Ayn Rand is far superior to Camus as a philosopher because it’s easy to explain what objectivism even is and how it is novel compared to similar philosophies while what, if anything, absurdism offers that does not precede Camus by a century is a much harder case to make.

>>23653216
> Rand's ideology supposes that we live in a meritocracy
It literally doesn’t though. All of Ayn Rands fiction depicts heroic protags struggling heroically against a completely unmeritocratic, unjust society and that society being foiled in the end by its very reliance on the unique genius of the heroes who escape into the sunset away from the reach of parasites that want to steal their innovations. The only meritocratic society in any of them is Gault’s Gulch which is an apocalyptic commune within an otherwise kleptocratic dystopia.
This is particularly true of The Fountainhead where, as much as people talk about Rand’s works as being about heroic CEOs vs villainous governments, is actually about a middle-class intelligentsia hero struggling against the elites of academia, the press and most importantly the world of business. The novel points out the unmeritocratic nature of the world it inhabits on every second page, Roark just gets a happy ending because he’s the hero and it’s a story.

>>23663913
>Her estate: million dollars
Refuted by the fact her estate was secured by accepting welfare. Refuted by the fact Leonard Peikoff rebuilt her cult in the 80s.
>Financial insecurities: none.
Refuted by the fact the person who oversaw her finances said differently during the relevant period. Refuted by the fact we know NBI severely hurt her financially a couple years before she accepted welfare.
>social security checks: paid for.
Refuted by the fact Rand did not want to accept welfare. Refuted by the fact ARI initially denied it.
>Her social worker: retarded nobody.
Refuted by the fact she was in control of Rand's finances and knew her financial standing. Refuted by the fact she developed a personal relationship with Rand and they considered on another friends.
>Your reading comprehension: subpar
Says the retard who didn't know the difference between a financial planner and a consultant sent by a legal firm to inventory their standing.
>Your posts: cope.
Says the guy who can't respond to any of the above other than to assert the same two non-arguments without rationale as to why they should be accepted.

You're a retard.

>>23664261
>All of Ayn Rands fiction
Is cartoonish and it's a huge discredit to her "philosophy" that she says you can fully understand Scientology, er sorry, Objectivism by reading Atlas Shrugged.

>>23648518
Ayn Rand developed her philosophy specifically because she was so ugly that even in the shitstorm of the Russian Revolution neither her kike daddy nor the inbred alcoholic Bolsheviks were interested in raping her. She coped by convincing herself that this is due to socialism repressing the healthy and natural instincts (to rape Ayn Rand) in men, and men should act as selfish as possible (i.e. finally rape her). In her books, tall selfish men with big arms are constantly raping her self-insert character. She completely misunderstood men, as it always happens with women.

A real man is a living antithesis to Objectivism. As a human male, I cannot act in my own personal interests since I naturally have none, so instead I rape women out of selfless kindness, as all men do.

If Ayn Rand ever met me, I would rape the Objectivism out of her to absolutely no benefit of my own (there can be no personal gain or profit from raping Ayn Rand desu), and that would collapse her world-view on a metaphysical level. It would become indisputably self-evident to her that she kept writing books because despite all of her efforts she never got a good rape. She never got a good rape because the only men she interacted with were Objectivists who fell for her books - books written by a women dreaming of being raped, about a woman dreaming of being raped. The only men who can enjoy her books are women in male bodies, inherently incapable of raping her, and instead hoping that she would rape them, that she would incarnate as a the man she dreams of, the Messiah hiding under the skin of the Prophet. She would see why all of her relationships with men were such disasters, both of them eagerly waiting for the other to rape, waiting to no outcome. She would love me and my kind dick selflessly in return despite all her will, leaving her with absolutely nothing to ground her ideas anymore, finally feeling true freedom - freedom as an absence, as a flight with no land holding your feet, as hers would be dangling high above. The dreams of an Atlantean man of self-interests would evaporate from her head with the moisture of my cum drying in her scruffy hair. She would sing praises to Lenin whenever her mouth is not taken by selfless work on my cock and balls.

All would be better, and more free in the world.

>>23648518
Just read Rand. You won't need an expert to point out the problems to you.

>>23664454
Everything you "refuted" is refuted by the fact she had ONE (wait for it) MILLION DOLLARS when she died.

Go get some cream for your ass. Itll feel better.

>>23665729
>Everything you "refuted" is refuted by the fact she had ONE (wait for it) MILLION DOLLARS when she died.
It's not for the reasons I've laid out. Besides, her estate was only worth 550K (and this is a decade after NBI shit down, The Objectivist collapsed, and Rand/Frank had their medical shit happen). Do you want to fall back on the idea of inflation meaning 550K is more while not addressing the cost of lung cancer treatments and surgery in the 70s? We both know you can't address the arguments that were given, you're just presenting cope, and you have no idea what you're talking about, retard.

>>23666055
>muh 550k besides
Now THATS what a goalpost shift looks like.

And oh no no no no sweatie. The estate was estimated between 500,000 AND as high as 2,000,000. That means one million is a perfectly reasonble little number. And you know what had no effect on that FINAL number of approx 1 milly? All the hypothetical, imaginary, half-imaginary, whatever bullshit medical expenses you keep pushing that apparently didn't dent the fortune, yet also "NECESSITATED" SS (??) which she paid into anyway, and would recieve less than she deserved, etc etc. Also Scientology, haha lmao. How many times are you going to make me repeat myself over a woman I dont even particularly like because you're a clown who deals in falsehoods and bullshit. Even IF she were bankrupt and on welfare, the point made in comic related >>23660811 still blows you the fuck out. Instead of discussing the philosophy you chose to shit up half the thread with NOT ONLY ad hom, but ad hom that's NOT EVEN TRUE TO BEGIN WITH. God will give you lung cancer as revenge for your misdeeds, I'm positive.

>>23666133
>Now THATS what a goalpost shift looks like
No it isn't. You're asserting her estate was worth "millions" when it was valued at around $550K as per the probate documents filed after her death (pic-related).

The goalpost shift is doing exactly what I predicted you would do: handwaving the cost of cancer treatments (including surgery which is the most expensive part), disregarding the closure of NBI, ignoring the fact The Objectivist collapsed due to insolvency, and pretending the financial situation in the early 80s (which isn't even as solid as you're claiming) is the same as when the period in question took place.

Again:
>Her estate: million dollars
Refuted by the fact her estate was secured by accepting welfare. Refuted by the fact Leonard Peikoff rebuilt her cult in the 80s.
>Financial insecurities: none.
Refuted by the fact the person who oversaw her finances said differently during the relevant period. Refuted by the fact we know NBI severely hurt her financially a couple years before she accepted welfare.
>social security checks: paid for.
Refuted by the fact Rand did not want to accept welfare. Refuted by the fact ARI initially denied it.
>Her social worker: retarded nobody.
Refuted by the fact she was in control of Rand's finances and knew her financial standing. Refuted by the fact she developed a personal relationship with Rand and they considered on another friends.

You have no actual retorts to the above other than to assert we should ignore evidence that doesn't fall into line with your biased interpretation and disregard any well-established facts that are inconvenient to your entirely uneducated opinion.

>>23666133
P.S.
>the point made in comic related >>23660811
Was addressed and refuted by >>23660920.

Good to know that 4 panel webcomics from 10 years ago are the basis of your worldview though, kek.

>>23666218
Yes, that's one "estimation." Do you know what an estimation is? Other estimates from around the internet seem also to commonly cite 800,000, and up to 2 million. Again, a sizeable estate. The lowest estimation is 550k per the jew york times, and even that is sizeable.

>>23666254
You keep saying "refuted" and again, it's not. I don't think you know what it means. Pulling weak irrelevant bullshit out of your ass does not constitute a refutation.

If Rand had collected benefits after having "outlawed" them hypothetically, it would be hypocrisy. Being forced to pay into benefits and then collecting them despite advocating against the practice is not hypocrisy. It doesn't meet the qualifications.

And after a little more research, do you know how much she even collected in bennies? A paltry 12k over the course of her life. LMAO what a joke. Just like you.

>>23666297
>Yes, that's one "estimation."
It's the estimation as per the official probate documents. Do you have another estimation based on documentation that is as reputable as the official documents that were used to transfer the estate to her heir?
>Do you know what an estimation is?
The reason probate documents are estimations is that not all of a given subject's assets and liabilities have a fixed cash value. However, this doesn't mean that you can obscure the facts on the ground by hiding behind the idea of it's "just an estimation." If anything it underscores the fact that such assets aren't freely accessed for any given purpose moreso than it presents the idea we don't have a clue what the subject was worth.

Aside, you're asserting we must disregard established facts that are contrary to your characterizations without you having provided any alternative evidence that supports your side of the argument. This is why I've brought up handwaving multiple times now (it's all you have).
> Again, a sizeable estate.
You have yet to provide a retort as to the fact this is the estate as it stood almost a decade after the events in question. You continue to ignore the collapse of NBI, the insolvency of The Objectivist, and the well-established fact that the person with power of attorney over Rand's finances specifically said the situation was precarious. You also continue to ignore questions of liquidity and, even if we pretend the $550K is all money that could be freely accessed as would a poorfag with no understanding of personal finance such as yourself, the cost of cancer treatments relative even to that gross value.
>If Rand had collected benefits after having "outlawed" them hypothetically, it would be hypocrisy.
Again, Rand firmly declared that social security did not constitute "insurance" and was simply a form of "welfare." Rand did not want to access the social safety net specifically because she was doing so in order to secure her finances which were in danger due to her own personal choices. In short, the social safety net functioned as such and saved Rand from insolvency and bankruptcy--she was not merely trying to get money which was owed to her.
>And after a little more research, do you know how much she even collected in bennies? A paltry 12k over the course of her life.
That's the social security payouts. Medicare, which paid for the medical costs related to her lung cancer and Frank's dementia, is what saved Rand.

Do you actually have any retorts to any of this or are you just going to continue to assert things while ignoring well-established counterclaims that run contrary to your arguments? I've been kind enough to argue in good faith throughout our conversation and meet each one of your arguments with direct response supported by documentation and evidence. I know you're upset you just found out you were duped by a self-esteem cult but you could at least demonstrate some character by not being such a pathetic faggot.

>>23666391
Dont care million dollar estate. Dont care ad hom.

For any additional turds that slither out of your mouth, please refer to either of the former sentences for a refutation, because they handle completely anything you've said thus far, and no doubt anything you'll work up in the future by way of indigestion.

She is le bad.

>>23666464
>Dont care million dollar estate.
Refuted.
>Dont care ad hom
Refuted.

I accept your concession.

>>23666391
All those words saying absolutely nothing, and then calling anon a f*ggot because he knows he lost.

>>23666539
>can't refute
Kek. Nothing will change the fact you were duped by a self-esteem cult from the Cold War era and acted like a crying faggot when such was clearly.laid out.

>>23648518
pic related is
>society is better when we all act according to self interest
>ACK!

>>23664465
Okay, but my argument is not that her fiction is good or even that objectivism makes sense. Just that at no point are the societies in them depicted as being meritocratic.

>>23666623
Isn't that just being autistically peevish about what constitutes a representation of meritocracy when it's fair to say Rand treats with such ideas in her work? One of the pillars of her cult is teaching people to externalize their failures onto a cartoonish representation of le society in order to brace their self-esteem by idolizing themselves as one of her heroes.

>>23648606
This doesn't amount to a refutation of her thought, but a chastisement of her character, which, yes, was shit.
I read a biography of her written by some woman and the number of instances in which Rand behaved really poorly go way beyond what even someone who’s insensitive as fuck can stomach.

The reason why I don't think she's a total nutter and a menace is because her philosophy and doctrinaire way of conducting her private life were okay with people telling her to piss off, an attitude adopted by a great deal of people. A lot can also be said about those who revered her and bore her for years and years and years.
Upsetting presumptions can be made about how her female characters behave regarding “good” men.

Come on, even merry, amiable Rothbard found Rand excruciatingly intolerable.
I find objectivism to be as anti-human nature as any philosophy which seeks to collectivise an individual's existence.
I do thank her for Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and particularly for, in AS, that awesome, gargantuan in length speech Galt articulated towards the end of the book. That was some distinctly compelling stuff, albeit having gone on for an outrageous number of pages - enough to have it printed and sold separately as some big-ass anti-socialist tract.

>>23666717
Exactly, possibly the most core theme of Randslop is that society ISN’T meritocratic and that’s exactly why Randian heroes are heroic, because they are big brain alpha males that manage to buck the system. What objectivism actually is however, is social Darwinist, by its logic unmeritocratic societies are simply doomed to fail in the long run and creative heroes will be the architects of the next. She even said herself that the only moral (read: Meritocratic) society in history is the United States, at least before welfare.

>>23666822
>Exactly, possibly the most core theme of Randslop is that society ISN’T meritocratic and that’s exactly why Randian heroes are heroic
I think it's more that her characters are 2D and she needs a simple plot because her "philosophy" is simplistic.
>they are big brain alpha males that manage to buck the system
She needs a source of conflict in her work and this comes from shallow social commentary. Her heroes are all still successful people but their greatness potential is obstructed by the "collective" social order that subverts the will of the individual. I wouldn't say that meritocracy doesn't exist in her work but the idea that the idea collective interests are cartoonishly evil is necessary for her worldview. The point is for her readers to adopt her simplistic view of the world and self-identify as someone great who is merely being held back by others. It's an invitation to maintain self-esteem even when it hasn't been socially validated (and if you're unsuccessful it's because you're up against those evil collectivists).
>What objectivism actually is however, is social Darwinist
I wouldn't give it that much credit as it isn't thought out with an appeal to science but its own internal ethics. They do stuff like appropriate terms and have their followers redefine them in their own esoteric way (this is standard for cults by the way).

For example, an outsider sees "selfishness" as having negative connotations which when defined as it is normally it does. If you don't buy into the way a Randtard has loaded the word, which is basically a gestalt shift that locks you in to a particular way of thinking (another cult tactic), you're tagged as unenlightened and/or incapable of understanding the idea.

She took welfare

>>23666740
Everything about Rand’s personality, what objectivism is about, why her books are written the way they are, was demystified by the discovery of Asperger’s. It’s literally all just Asperger’s: the philosophy, as written by some Aspie woman before anyone even knew what it was.
A society with 100% of the population having Aspergers would be some kind of Rapture dystopia with John Gault monologues happening on a daily basis.

>>23660811
Am I retarded? I don't see how the "bad guy" is wrong

>>23667106
come on, man, that's an argument I used to be confronted with when those I had political arguments with were as thick as the secretions Chairman Mao's gums used to ooze (pestilential and green in colour, usually - this did not deter, however, him from sexually asaulting loads of women).

____

the most glaring fault in Atlas Shrugged is the vagueness of the society built by the good men who fled. I remember reading those scenes and dithering during the process because my brain kept bombarding me with questions about that society's workings. She gives us the impression, which defies belief so much that it is insulting even to those like myself who is a passionate backer of the market economy, that this fantastic, productive, free and economic multifaceted society can operate based upon the doings of, what?, 50 people?
Every moment in that huge novel is a lecture. And this is why the book is either loved or detested.

>>23648518
Not the biggest fan, but I hate even more when people claiming to respect philosophical inquiry, and then reducing her works to being too mean-spirited, shortsighted, and selfish. They don't entertain or engage with it, most likely because everyone these days are raised to be bleeding-heart idealists, who can't have realistic boundaries for their conscientiousness and virtue. People should be just a little more like Ayn Rand, it would kill toxic positivity, and victim worship in modern day societies.

>>23668286
>the only problem with Rand's work is that she doesn't give me step-by-step instructions on how to build my own Galt's Gulch utopia
Fucking kek. Never change, Randtards.

no one gives a shit about ayn rands nonfiction so theres nothing to refute.
most people will engage with her fiction if anything and her fiction is fucking boring.
does she do anything that wasn't done better by other libertarians like mises et al.?
also these threads are not /lit/.

>>23668905
What a truly awful post. I think twitter or leftypol is more your speed chump.

>>23668917
what do you find commendable about rands fiction other than "makes trannies seethe" or "i like her ideas"?
rands fiction really just reads like trying to convey political philosophy for retarded americans by wrapping it in fiction.
same thing with orwell. people only praise the ideas but the fiction itself is garbage.

>>23668930
Yeah bro, everything should be spelled out in an autistic logic manual authored by Godel and Hegel rather than conveyed through fictional medium. Ironically, it's you that is not /lit/. Now begone retard, I already wasted enough time on someone that called Mises an Objectivist.

>>23668939
what do you find commendable about rands fiction other than "makes trannies seethe" or "i like her ideas"?

>>23668941
You don't have to like someone's ideas to appreciate their work. I'm not a Nazi, but I love Hitler.

>>23666464
You lost

>>23668949
great botlike bugman response
are you mentally capable of explaining why you like her fiction beyond "im a dysgenic greedy faggot" and "it makes commies mad"
even randtards can't find a reason why they like her work beyond sheepish agreeing with any crap related to libertarianism.

>>23668956
On what grounds? Is it because the "official" documents that retard was yapping about (which is really just two sentences from an old NYT article) give a low estimate of ONLY half a million dollars instead of a million dollars proper. That's nothing but quibbling. The crux of my argument was always that the estate was SIZEABLE. Discrepancy between 5,6,7,8 hundred thousand dollars is an irrelevancy when she only even withdrew 12k from social security. A measly 12k which in all likelihood is less than she was entitled to given SS is a shitty ponzi scheme

>b-but medicaid
Show me the reciepts.

>b-but her social worker
Make no mistake her social worker WAS under a fiduciary duty to enroll Rand in ANY programs she was eligible for (and into which she had paid decades tax dollars)

>b-but hypocrisy
It's not. If she hadn't paid tax dollars, it would be. But she did, so it isn't. People don't have a real choice about the society in which they participate (under duress I might add, with respect to paying taxes). Because they are forced to participate, by his asinine logic, anyone who has anything negative to say about their society is a hypocrite. Even being born on a society AND THEN leaving would be enough for these dumbfucks to shout "hypocrite." It's stupid, the comic posted covers it, and in fact it's basically an ad hom which is an n-thousand year old fallacy. It's bullshit. Engage with her ideas (which are meh) or fuck off, retard.

>>23668286
Galt's Gulch was as much of a McGuffin as the perpetual motion machine. It wasn't meant to represent a permanent utopia. Most of the residents only spend part of their time there and they spend the rest of their time living anonymously out in the world, and they bring in a lot of supplies from the outside world. All the shit with them making a mini steel foundry or pumping oil were basically just hobby projects while they waited for the world to collapse. I'm convinced at least 90% of people who love or hate the book have never actually read it, or have no reading comprehension.

>>23669141
NTA but you lost because you aren't smart enough to debate properly. A smart person might be able to get around facts but the other anon was obviously smarter than you. He was able to meet your counter claims and it reduced you to insisting on your perspective without justification after it had been thoroughly and systematically destroyed. On top of that you aren't good at writing persuasively and your posts weren't as entertaining or interesting as his.

You lost.

>>23669320
There was never a debate. You don't know what the definition of a debate even is. You were illogical from the beginning, and produced paragraph after paragraph of quibbling line by line irrelevancy (i'm phoneposting and therefore cannot line by line reply. I have to actually synthesize my thoughts). I will repeat myself for the twentieth time: The facts I introduced in the very first post were never refuted, and were all I ever needed, viz. Ayn Rand died with a lot of money, she was never on welfare, she paid for the paltry SS benefits she did recieve, and there is no available data on what her Medical expenditures were like or what Medicaid covered---given her million dollar estate, we can conclude her "medical problems" didnt make much of a difference, despite how you twist words of her former social worker, as if her opinion matters at all, least of all to Rands philosophy itself.

You can try and airbrush our conversation now, but you're intellectually incapable of dealing with hard facts. For example, when a valuation is given on a "OFFICIAL" document, the officiality thereof makes the valuation no less variable. An estimate can only ever be an estimate. Going on about the officiality of the number as offhandedly reported by the NYT is irrelevant. If you're unable to understand that, I can't help you. When you make plainly retarded statements like that, I just ignore them, because they don't merit response. If you dont have the IQ to follow that, it's not my problem. You can think whatever you like, you're a stinky baby who needs a nap, and your conclusions about big boy topics on which big boys speak are wholly inconsequential.

>>23669381
>sperg
You lost bro. Move on.

>>23669390

>>23669395
>he's also into anime porn
You're just making it more embarrassing for yourself.

She was a welfare queen

>>23650677
>thought terminating cliche
That describes the average American perfectly, lol.

>>23669390
You are that anon, and you're a fag.

>>23669991
Nope. Want me to post screenshots of the (You)s?

>>23670388
Keep it to yourself

>>23670405
You lost and myself and at least 2 others are laughing at you.

>>23670423
NTA which means there's at least three of us laughing at you. It's been days and I can't believe you're still seething. Keep doing it.

>>23670429
>y-you're s-seething
Lol. You lost.

>>23670450
Hahaha, again! Say the line again!

>>23648660
She was never really "scholarly" herself; her ideas only exist in the form of glorified softcore erotica novels ffs

>>23670457
Lol.

>>23670464
No, that's not it bro. Say "You Lost." again and make sure to put a dramatic full stop so we all know you're saying something serious and authoritative, like you have been all thread. That's the best lmao

>>23670473
>MY SELF ESTEEM IS UNFETTERED
Lol

>>23670478
No come on bro don't start neglecting the full stops on my account. We're all waiting for one head to say
>Refuted.
And another to say
>You lost.
And then the third says
>Lol.

>>23670497
>Ayn writes two successful pieces of fiction
>Ayn creates a "collective" with herself as a figurehead
>meets Nate and they tell their partners rational self interest dictates they start fucking
>they invest a bunch of money into seminars and newsletters
>it's moderately successful and they sign a long term lease for a floor in the Empire State Building
>time passes
>Nate decides he doesn't want to keep fucking Ayn because she's like 70 now
>BIG MAD
>Nate starts his own self esteem grift
>Ayn tries to sue Nate over it
>Ayn ends up on welfare until another fuckboi, named "Leonard" lol, picks up the pieces and starts ARI
Lol

>23670510

>>23670520
>BIG MAD
Lol

>23670524
pre-emptively Refuted. by >>23670405

>>23670549
Preemptively refuted by the fact you lost.

>23670549
This will be my last post because it's obvious you're severely mentally ill, are deriving undue parasocial gratification from this, and I'm getting bored.

Do you really think it's not obvious that you're OP who created this bait thread, and that you've been posting ITT since >>23648609 repeating the same things in the same language? Do you really think we can't all tell? Do you really think you've convinced anyone of anything?

You need professional mental help, full stop.

>>23670573
>This will be my last post
No one cares, anon. You lost.

When I die, I will be glad about how much time I spent on this Papuan stock tips forum arguing about stuff

>>23670589
Bearing witness to the fact that people get angry over losing a largely pointless argument in front of anonymous strangers on the internet, 99.9% of which aren't even paying attention, is an important life lesson.

>>23670603
Amen brother. Think I’ll go read a book

>>23670609
You lost.

>>23670609
Not sure who this >>23670615 is but I'm wondering if pic-related is worth reading. I found it while looking at the various self-esteem grift books Brandon wrote.

For all the retards Ayn Rand inspired she's still an interesting person.

>>23670615
I haven’t been arguing, I just came in a few times to say she took welfare.

>>23670624
>>23670623
You lost

>>23670624
>>23670623
Refuted. It's over.

>>23670634
>>23670636
It's ok, bro. No one cares you lost an argument about your idol taking welfare. Do with the information about cults what you will. Move on and enjoy your life. This anon >>23670624 has the right idea. Go enjoy a book before bed. You can even read pic-related and fall asleep to Going Clear.

Good luck.

What she took from the State did not amount to more that what she "gave" to it.
She was a living God, even though she was too shy to admit that He exists: he touches upon thing, be it living or not, be it tangible or not, be it reasonable or unreasonable.
The vastness of ther intellect was as boundless as the cosmos.
Her kindness met no obstacles that could foil its manifestations. On many individuals this woman showered praise, affection, guidance, money...love.
Those who besmirched her were hired by statist backscratchers. I end this by quoting her: "any person who does not have the courage to treat a path made by himself ought to read what I've written". Lovely quote.

Can't the world grasp this truth?
U mad?
Not one person who's read her doesn't love her
Transmit the truth, anons, and the truth shall emancipate those of you who are blind and deaf to the truth.

>>23672318
Why would you bump this horrible shit man it was page 10. This fucking samefag freak is gonna go on and on now

>>23672329
>everyone who disagrees with me is samefagging
meds

>>23672354
Keep going. It's almost like having real friends, I bet

Ayn Rand was rescued by welfare after her cult collapsed.

https://youtu.be/tuSodwE4q6s

>>23670603
Yes, that people are irrational, that people are driven by their emotions and then use their brain to rationalise those emotions rather than using their brain to make rational choices. We are animals who deluded ourselves with our relatively large intellect.

>>23648518
Ad hom

Ayn Rand + Other's Collecting Welfare= :(
Ayn Rand + Collecting Welfare = :)

>>23672329
Randtards got so lit up ITT they're telling one another to stop bumping it to make it go away.

>>23669381
>died with money
She died with less money than you claimed and this is after she had received social security and medicaid. This is also many years after the financial dangers of the relevant period. Even giving you the benefit of saying the 550k is all liquidity cash, which it wasn't, a significant chunk of this would be swallowed by high cost medical bills. It was noted that NBI collapsed, Rand claimed they had taken financial advantage of her, and The Objectivist went insolvent. Her finances were insecure and she would have had to sell off assets, like the rights to her 2 main books which weren't selling as they had especially without the NBI book clubs shilling them, and be left with very little of her life's work intact. On top of this Pryor, who had power of attorney and knew the state of Rand's finances at the time, clearly states Rand/Frank's medical bills had the potential to "wipe them out".
>she was never on welfare
Rand herself defined social security as welfare in a quote offered earlier in this thread.
>she paid for benefits
This argument means nothing given her characterization of social security and we have confirmation from Pryor that it took multiple meetings and arguments to convince Rand she needed it.
>no available data on what her Medical expenditures
We know she received medicare because signing up for social security pay outs and Medicare together is automatic. We know that monthly treatments for lung cancer are in the 10s of thousands and surgeries can run close to 100k. Again, liquidity of Rand's assets is a factor here as well. Was she willing to sell off rights to her books in order to raise the needed money? Where would her income come from after that?
>given her million dollar estate, we can conclude her "medical problems" didnt make much of a difference
Her estate was 550k and Medicaid was covering her expenses. Given the cost of the treatments she needed and the fact her estate is only 550k...do the math.
>An estimate can only ever be an estimate
You've been told that such an estimate due to the fact that not all assets and liabilities have a fixed cash value. It doesn't mean they're guessing, it's more like "Rand can expect to get around x amount for the rights to Atlas Shrugged in 1982" and "Rand could sell this property for between x and x amount". So again, it's not a ballpark, it's an official probate, and It's not how much money she had in the bank.
>NYT is irrelevant
The probate records are the official transfer of wealth to her heir whereas you cannot name a more reliable source nor answer to the fact this is 7 years after Rand received the welfare and Medicare.

The about are just a few of the retorts I've offered over and over to your objections. All you've been able to do is ignore them while failing to provide any justification for why they're invalid let alone why we should believe your interpretation which is based on absolutely nothing. Hand waving is all you have.