/lit/ - Literature

>orders Atlas Shrugged
>complains about how many pages it is

What a Randian you are

Asking /lit/ about Ayn Rand is like asking /pol/ about Jews.

Search elsewhere for accurate information.

>>3880806
Who's complaining? I'm just commenting on how big it is. I love reading so a big book isn't a turn off.

weren't ayn rand posts bannable?

>>3880827
Why's that?

>>3880797
It's good if you like politics so shitty they were successfully satirized by a video game jammed down your throat

>>3880832
Because every god damn day someone posts Ayn and no one likes her. She's awful. The worst. There is nothing worse than Rand.

>>3880837
Can you tell me why she is the worst?

>>3880842
She believes that the ultimate act of evil is charity

>>3880817
>>3880827
>>3880836
>>3880837
>>3880850
>>3880806

http://gyazo.com/77b799f4944f6ab646a9264304500f36.png

>>3880842
just start reading it, i liked it but i was a rational egoist already, if your serious about philosophy its a must read, no ones worse than they guy ripping on a book hes never read

>>3880858
Alright I am a big philosophy guy so I hope I enjoy it!

>>3880850
because charity, specifically forced charity violates every ration principle we have, she had no problem with you giving a homeless person money, as long as you didnt feel you "had" to.

>>3880842
Her books, pic related, are used by fedora libertarians to justify their shallow view of the world as a place of aggressive self-interest while sitting behind their computers complacently and willfully ignoring the fact that their entire livelihood would probably be in jeopardy if her system actually manifested.

The prose is genre-fiction tier but with no redeeming story or interesting ideas.

>>3880869
How does it violate any rational principle at all? If we want a nice society to live in, we have to start by making it.

>>3880882
then do it, just dont tell me i have to under threat of law, she was all about individual choice

>>3880879
for an example of said neckbeard, see
>>3880869

>>3880864
This asshole >>3880858 has no idea.
None. It's a fact that only neoconservative morons like the book. I know that SOUNDS like hyperbole but you can't find a single person that both likes it on any level and isn't severely deficient in higher cognitive functioning.

>>3880897
really, no one sees the error of the classic all X is/are Y argument? you know your making rand look better with this shit right?

>>3880892
Like how she chose to plague our plane of existence with her trite

>>3880906
lol so edgy, you must be really smart to denounce something like that

>>3880892
In her argument, taxes are a form of charity, thus don't pay if you don't want, but also don't use my roads or any transportation infrastructure, don't use my schools, don't use my communications infrastructure, and what's more, if you intended to start a small business (because you're very independent) don't look to hire any persons who benefited from a charity/tax-based education or any other charity-based infrastructure, because their development was undoubtedly shaped by the charity society they came from. everyone should only directly and formally enter into agreements with each other.

even more, all children should be under the complete control of their parents, and if the parents want to let them die, or educate them in absolutely any way they wish or if we really want to dive in, they should be given immediate legal right of individual choice from birth.

sounds great

>>3880892
But if it's not forced then rich are going to waste their money on trivial shit while exploiting the starving poor. That happens well enough WITH the "forced charity" we have, never mind without it.

>>3880914
lol wow, what book did you read?

>>3880916
I know this is a crazy thought, but maybe most rich people got that way by creating essential goods or services that many people enjoyed and wanted to make use of. Why do people always imply that rich people don't deserve to be rich?

>>3880938
>this is what this guy actually believes

>>3880837
Well that seems like a bit of an overstatement.

>>3880955
>this guy believes that partiers who waste their time consuming alcohol and drugs should be allocated the same resources as intelligent hard-workers who create things useful to their fellow man

To each according to their need, comrade!

>>3880955
>being this retarded

>>3880964
I hope you get rich from creating false dichotomies, you're very good at it.

>>3880938
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.

>>3880916
Agreed, the evidence is all around us.
People become rich by exploiting the less privileged hard workers only to selfishly hoard all of their money. And the only way to make them pay their fair share is to tax the fuck out of them. Capital flight is a myth propagated by neckbeard libertarians.

Also all libertarians worship Ayn Rand so it's best to just avoid all of her work if you aren't a libertarian because it's 1k pages of ego-stroking objectivist wanking.

>>3880938
No. Even ignoring the obvious exceptions (inheritance, manipulating currency, etc.), we live in a world that rewards people for being ruthless. To get ahead in business you have to work hard, sure, you have to be smart, ok, but as much as either of those you have to be prepared to exploit your staff, your customers, the system, the starving third world kids that grow your cocoa beans or make your Xboxes without a second thought. Because if you're not prepared to do that, the world of business is so competitive that you're never going to succeed.

So go look up that price fixing diamond cartel (forgot their name) and tell me why they deserve to be so rich.

>>3880981
>Capital flight is a myth propagated by neckbeard libertarians

Uh, are you serious?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22631

How can anyone believe something so retarded?

>>3880986
meant for>>3880974

>>3880981
Surely it is the fault of capitalism that these people are exploited and not the fact that they are basically held as slaves by force (as in, people who will shoot them or their family if they step out of line).

De Beers never cuts deal with local authoritarian regimes.

>>3880974
>dragon dildo replaces reddit doll

I love 4chan

>>3880986
>NCPA

>While the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius and carbon dioxide (CO2), has increased more than 30 percent over the last 150 years, scientists still debate the extent to which human activity is the cause of global warming. NCPA scholars believe that while the causes and consequences of the earth’s current warming trend is still unknown, the cost of actions to substantially reduce CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline, accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing to prevent global warming regardless of its cause

>>3880981
>To get ahead in business you have to work hard, sure, you have to be smart, ok, but as much as either of those you have to be prepared to exploit your staff, your customers, the system, the starving third world kids

Yeah, because none of that happened in the USSR, PRC, or any other communist regime, right? You should be a transhumanist not an anti-capitalist, since what you hate is human nature and not a specific economic system.

>>3881001
Hilarious part is that I actually grabbed that pic from facebook. It had A TON of likes at one point. I would have screencapped it if I had initially noticed that dragon dildo and furry painting.

>>3880994
why do you think they're held as slaves? for the love of God? what benefit do you think these slavers get? who pays that benefit?

>>3880994
capitalism encourages it. It's because of capitalism that De Beers (and nestle, Microsoft, Apple, Starbucks, etc) get rich for doing what they do (and if those companies weren't prepared to be so exploitative, free market capitalism would have given their place to a company that was)

>>3880981
childish world view.

we live in a world that rewards people for being loyal/magnanimous/considerate. To get ahead in business you have to work hard, sure, you have to be smart, ok, but as much as either of those you have to be prepared to make sacrifices for/ go beyond what is expected from/do what is best for your staff, your customers, the system, the starving third world kids that grow your cocoa beans or make your Xboxes in an attempt to survive. Because if you're not prepared to do that, the world of business is so competitive that you're never going to succeed.

>>3881004
We're not talking about global warming, dipshit. Respond to the article. I just showed you that capital flight is not a myth. Would you now like to admit your error/lie?

>>3881011
> who pays that benefit?
De Beers, Coca Cola, Walmart, etc.

>>3881018
Right because no one was exploited before capitalism.

>>3881021
I really feel like you missed the satire in that post. As a hint, I posted Bill Gates with it for a reason. And ignore the retard.

>>3881020
That's why CEOs make such great sacrifices like giving themselves bonuses in the middle of a recession, obviously. I mean, they're clearly worth hundreds of times more as human beings than their custodial staff, right?

The computer you're typing your psalm to the human race has components made from resources mined by slave labor btw

>>3881018
Get real. Without that "exploitation" we wouldn't have any of the services or products so essential to our way of life. Should we all go back to hunting wild animals and living in caves because of the poor starving African children? How exactly would the African situation improve, by the way, if capitalist exploitation stopped? Would they suddenly have any fewer violent warlords, roving bands of thugs, and corrupt politicians? It's not like that shithole (apart from Arab) North Africa was doing particularly well before colonisation.

>>3881007
I'm not saying that communism is better, I'm saying that capitalism is bad and Rand's extreme-o-capitalism is worse.

>>3881020
What? How are they ever rewarded for being considerate? They're rewarded for APPEARING to be considerate, sure, but the fact that everyone knows how much companies exploit the third world and continue to buy from them suggests people care more about the price and quality of the product (and if you want to sell the best quality product for the lowest price you can and still make a good profit, you have to cut costs wherever possible)

>>3881029
>How exactly would the African situation improve, by the way, if capitalist exploitation stopped?
The IMF might not extort them for aid and wealthy people might not support slave labor so they can buy more diamond-encrusted dildos.

Please tell me more about how the Congo was improved by colonization, though

>>3881028
>The computer you're typing your psalm to the human race has components made from resources mined by slave labor btw

Everyone knows that, dummy. I'd still rather have a computer than some abstract moral approbation. It's not like that slave labour wouldn't still exist or be exploited if Western corporations left. Their masters would just put them to work doing something else. The Westerners aren't the ones holding the guns.

Well, I guess I understand why Ayn Rand threads aren't encouraged now.

no taxes! no charity! up with the rich, who are of course the job creators and saviors of our society! they all got to where they are by providing for our society and they didn't use anything except their own grit and tenacity!

>>3881039
>The Westerners aren't the ones holding the guns.
this is worse than people who say you shouldn't throw the switch for the trolley problem

I don't really get what you're saying, though. Do you think that Africans are naturally barbarous, brutal people? It wouldn't surprise me if a colonialist were racist too.

>>3881028
>they're clearly worth hundreds of times more as human beings than their custodial staff
No.

>their labor is clearly worth hundreds of times more than their custodial staff
Yes.

I know it frightens you because you live in some fantasy land where everyone's labor generates an equal amount of wealth to an entity trying to make a profit but shockingly this is how reality works. If a massive company like Apple can lay off their current CEO and replace him with one that generates a 1% increase in profit margin, raising his salary by a few hundred thousand is no problem at all. Don't you realize what's at stake for a CEO?

>>3881039
Nah, the west don't hold the guns. We pay people to do that for us. What do you think we are, savages?

>>3881037
>The IMF might not extort them for aid

lol. Extort? IMF loans are solicited by African governments, not forced on them. Most of them are desperate to get their hands on IMF cash. There is no extortion.

>>3881050
I'm the saying the continent is a hellhole ruled by violent warlords, and that wouldn't change if Westerners left. Complaining about "capitalist exploitation" is unproductive. Look what happened to Zimbabwe after they violently kicked out the Westerners--the former breadbasket of Africa became a basketcase. Western exploitation is not the root problem.

>>3881054
Just because it doesn't cause all the problems in the world single handedly doesn't mean it isn't a problem

>>3881049
>Most of them are desperate to get their hands on IMF cash
yeah, so the IMF can deny or reduce funding if they don't support Western concerns
these concerns generally aren't the same as those that actually reduce poverty, don't ya know

>>3881050
>Do you think that Africans are naturally barbarous, brutal people?

There are areas completely untouched by the West where Africans still live in tribes with warlords and fight over territory, all the while never progressing close to Roman era technology. Are we to blame for that too?

>>3881052
Even though these mega-corporations come in and exploit the people and their tyrannical government for profit, they still often see their wages double or triple in real value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo

>>3881059
>yeah, so the IMF can deny or reduce funding if they don't support Western concerns

They choose to ask for the loans knowing full well that's the case. Don't try to pin this on the evil extortionate Westerners. No one is forcing those people to take loans.

>>3881051
This is also the logic that makes football coaches the highest paid public employees in almost every US state. What exactly would be the problem with laws certain European countries have that put a cap at how much members of a company make in relation to one another? Why couldn't it be enforced by the UN?
The US could just kill everyone who disagrees, in any event; they appear to be very good at that.

>>3881062
Oh, you're just a pol fag. Could have told me sooner, saved us the trouble of trying to argue with you.

>>3881066
That wasn't me. I'm >>3881054 and the preceding chain, but not >>3881062.

>>3881065
>This is also the logic that makes football coaches the highest paid public employees in almost every US state.

I don't think actors deserve their money either!! They get paid millions just to be filmed??? I would be filmed 4 free just to get on TV. thumbs up if u agree

>>3881066
Convenient aye?
You have no argument kiddo.

>>3881063
>No one is forcing those people to take loans.
but for all practical purposes they are, and in reality these loans are hardly given (or rather not withheld) for charitable purposes at all. That seems to suggest there's something wrong with the way these quangos operate

>>3881065
>What exactly would be the problem with laws certain European countries have that put a cap at how much members of a company make in relation to one another

Because private groups should have the right to pay their employees however much they want (an issue of basic personal freedom), because if salaries aren't competitive then the best talent will simply go elsewhere (we're already seeing this in Europe), and because the position of CEO is an enormously demanding one. Do you honestly believe that CEOs are just drinking champagne in their offices all day, cackling evilly over their piles of money?

>>3881079
This is why I mentioned the UN, but killing all the CEOs would be good too; we need to reduce the population (both of the uprising peasants and their bourgeois victims) anyway.
I'm not denying that CEOs work hard, but how does giving them more money solve that? You can't possibly be naive enough to imagine that wealth is directly proportional to happiness.

>>3881077
>but for all practical purposes they are

Evidence, please.

> these loans are hardly given (or rather not withheld) for charitable purposes
>That seems to suggest there's something wrong with the way these quangos operate

Blame the Jews. They're the original usurers. Otherwise, no shit, loans aren't given for charitable purposes. Doesn't change the fact that no one is forcing anyone to participate in the system. The new Egyptian government was ecstatic to receive financial aid from the IMF, as I recall. Didn't seem like they were being forced into it.

>>3881073
>I don't think actors deserve their money either!! They get paid millions just to be filmed??? I would be filmed 4 free just to get on TV. thumbs up if u agree
an argument would be nice
please tell me you're shitposting and not all /pol/ users are so incredibly retarded

>>3880974
>the only way to make them pay their fair share is to tax the fuck out of them
That's where you're wrong, liberal. The proletarians of all nations are fed up with the Capitalists' bullshit. Time and time again, experience shows that no matter how many restrictions are put on the Bourgeoisie, as long as they still exist as a class, they will still find a way to exploit and cause misery.
No, the solution is not anything done by a government. The solution will come from the proletarians themselves as they forcefully and violently expropriate everything the Bourgeoisie have stolen from them.

>>3881028
Your perspective is limited. If a CEO works diligently to keep his company a float and maintain the status quo mid-recession, he deserves a bonus. Think about all the jobs that would be lost if the business sank.

>>3881034
exploitation is mutual dependency. The difference between appearing to be and actually being isn't as easily distinguishable as you make it out to be.

The alternative to giving the appearance of being considerate and exploiting the 3rd world, is what exactly? Being considerate enough to let them starve? Never mind how unfeasible that makes most industry as well.

>>3881082
>but how does giving them more money solve that

Compensation for their work. It's also not up to you to decide what makes people happy, or how the people with the most demanding jobs should be compensated. Private groups should be able to conduct their business in any way they see fit. The state should exist to serve individuals, not the other way around, I don't this fascist bullshit about the state being the natural extension of the people's will. It's their to facilitate collaboration and communication, and that's all.

>>3881088
David Graeber's Debt: the First 5,000 Years is a good resource but I can't quote from it directly right now. It would also educate you beyond your silly blaming of the Jews, who were allowed to be usurers by eager Christians in any event.
>inb4 wiki scholarship tells you this book might say things you don't like

>>3881082
>but killing all the CEOs would be good too
edgy

>we need to reduce the population
You believe that conspiracy bullshit? We have WAY more room than we need. The problem with the massive population is how many of them live in poverty-- it's economic and killing a bunch of rich people who innovate won't help any.

>but how does giving them more money solve that?

Solve what lol? What don't you understand about their labor being more valuable on the market? They are paid fair compensation for their incredibly important role. If you don't believe it to be fair then too god damn bad. I think it's ridiculous that billions are generated from shitty blockbusters but I don't go around bitching about it or calling for the death of directors. You are like a child.

>wealth is directly proportional to happiness
irrelevant once again

>>3881089
This is my explanation.

>>3881092
It's like you've stepped right out of the 19th century.

>>3881062
Read a fucking anthropological journal, any recent one, and get back to me.
Haha, Bye /pol/ scum.

>>3881102
>David Graeber's Debt: the First 5,000 Years
Jesus Christ, pop economics books? Please. Next you'll be telling me to read Freakonomics.

>your silly blaming of the Jews,
I was being facetious.

>>3881089
nah, dude, pol really is that bad.
just went there
most intelligent thread is about psychedelics

>>3881111
Graeber's book is actually on anthropology, which is a far more reputable field than whatever economics is these days.

>>3881088
>MUH USUFRUCT

ezra pls

>>3881109
>I don't have anything to say
>"GO READ SOMETHING FUCKING DOUCHE SCUM LEL"
>wow told that guy

>>3881109
>>3881112
btw I don't go to /pol/ but continue scapegoating I know how much fun that is

>>3881096
>deserves a bonus
people unemployed because of excess, whether or not that excess is capitalist or natural or whatever, deserve to have more choices than shitty processed food that contains high fructose corn syrup which is only inexpensive because of meaningless breaks given to the corn industry. What did they do to deserve subsidies?

>>3881099
>>3881103
You people talk a lot about "fairness" for believers in the free market. Why should the state be fair?

>>3881122
You got destroyed. Pls go

>>3881122
>hurr I was only pretending to be an antisemite
>scapegoating is really bad you guys!!!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>3881122
see basically what they do is rage bait with the all caps
threaten people with violence
and troll /b/ occasionally to try and recruit teenagers
its pretty disgusting actually
>btw I don't go to /pol/ but continue scapegoating I know how much fun that is
obviously, you have no political ideas beyond that.

>>3881128
>What did they do to deserve subsidies?
They threw money at politicians.

>>3881134
That wasn't me at all.
I'll use a name since there is obviously some confusion (and the left camp seems rather persistent on character-attacking in lieu of genuine discourse)

>>3881140
Right, I'm the one who gets off topic. K

>>3881143
/lit/internet defence force (from /pol/)
sorry, continue with yr weird Rand fetish
im out

>>3881148
I mean, I'd tap that.

>>3881148
Rand wrote shitty books and was generally pretty wrong in politics, but at least she wasn't delusional enough to call for the death of CEOs or think eliminating capitalism was a good call.

I came to defend private property; I don't give a fuck about Ayn Rand.

>>3881128
First off, What I meant by deserved is that without or without recession,CEOs get a bonus for the same thing. It is a motivation system that works for people who don't know the name or face of most of the people they are responsible for. Just the nature of giant companies,required for them to function.

They deserve subsidies because somewhere along the line it was decided that people deserved to be fed. They don't deserve more choices. The choice they have is what puts the least amount of strain on the system.

>>3881173
If people deserve to be fed, it doesn't make much sense that we're subsidizing the most unhealthy food while giving comparatively little to producers of more healthy food. This isn't an issue of putting a strain on the system at all, unless you're talking about the currently corrupt system.

>Just the nature of giant companies, required for them to function.
What's the equivalent motivation for the President to look after the country? Should we go back to monarchies? I've heard some far-rightists argue as such.

11/10 though it was easy prey

this might be the best troll thread ever

>>3881230
>>3881217

>lyl u gog twol xDDD

A troll is insincere. There's no troll in this thread.

>>3881237
>implying

>>3881237
yeah so

I've never read Ayn Rand, but I saw several threads on /pol/ where most people called it the definitive work of the 20th century and a complete masterpiece.

I knew from them I should not touch this book with a 100ft pole, lest I be infected with more /pol/ stupid.

>>3881252
know thy enemy

>>3881062
Guy who's father works for the UN in labour rights.

Sweat shops are complete and utter evil. They do not pay enough to workers to barely eat, let alone contribute to their local economy.
People are tricked to go into them because they promise good work for good pay. Once inside, you never leave because if you try, welcome to thugs beating you to an inch of your life and raping your family. If you try unionize, welcome to your body being found floating down the local river.

Sweat shop propaganda is one of the most disgusting things out there. It's painting a "moral" veneer on one of the most evil practices out there.

>>3881247
Ugly dress but I'd fuck her brains out

>>3881252
You just said it better than anyone. This pretty much sums up everything you need to know about the book and Randians in general. /pol/

>>3881247
I WANT TO FUCK

>>3881271
capsguy control yourself

>>3881271
Dear god

>>3880850
No she doesn't.
She says that disinterest in giving money for the pleasure of another is evil, whatever the fuck standard she considers.
If you feel good by giving to the poor, all the more to you, it's your money you've earned, you decide what you do with it.

It's being pressured by others to give to charity for the sake of another or to make someone feel good when you don't care about the cause of the charity that she considers evil.

At least, that's what I got from her message.

>>3881316
someone already said that

>>3881316
>It's being pressured by others to give to charity for the sake of another or to make someone feel good when you don't care about the cause of the charity that she considers evil.

What a classy lady she was

>>3881196
People don't actually deserve to be fed. It is just impossible to maintain civil society if you don't.

It makes perfect sense for multiple reasons. The companies that dominate make processed food. Processed food takes less input to produce more and longer lasting food. The Gov promotes corn, which promotes a cheap and stable food supply AND benefits the companies providing this food. If the situation was reversed, processed food becomes more expensive and healthy food becomes a more stable industry,options increase,price remains relatively constant. It doesn't make healthy food a more viable alternative for the poor, it makes processed food less viable.

>What's the equivalent motivation for the President to look after the country? Should we go back to monarchies

Well,first off, it isn't equivalent. If a country was purely about efficiency, a monarch would be the best leader. Thousands of years of political theory agree on that. The president is a representative,though. His job is to work towards the nation people want, not necessarily the best.

>>3881316
i like you, anon.
first indication i've seen in years of messing with /lit/ that i've glimpsed someone who actually seems to have also read this novel join the conversation.
(usually it is 'should i read atlas lit?'
'OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS OP, RAND IS SATAN, SHRUGGED IS PLEBEIAN, CAPITALIST SCUM' 'dear god ok i will not touch this shit with a ten foot poll thanks lit you have prevented a catastrophe'
or, well. something.) right, then

>>3881323
I never know which is worst, people who don't misinterpret her step by step pseudo-philosophy or those who see it as the gospel.

It's like people go out of their way to shit on it and try to make it sound retarded.

>>3881326
I personally think she has a point about the whole giving to charity.
There's a reason nearly no one goes out of their way to give money to the children of Africa or somewhere else unless directly reminded or forced on the spot to give money.

Though in her perfect world, everyone would be ''investing'' in everything, so whatever.

>>3881339
>There's a reason nearly no one goes out of their way to give money to the children of Africa or somewhere else unless directly reminded or forced on the spot to give money.
Maybe where you live. In my country pretty much everyone I know donates to something for some reason, it's virtually expected. We also pay high taxes and have an excellent social welfare system and the highest standard of living in the world.

Very glad Ayn Rand is treated as a joke here.

>>3881338 here. seeing:
>>3881335 :
nevermind. i am very probably unobservant or this might be a lit movement in a nicer, thinking direction. thanks other anon.

>>3881335
Damn it, I can't have a thread with pragmatists and people who say that rich people deserve to make more money at the same time
but actually I can

I understand the case with processed food, but I'm not sure if it make sense with corn. Why not beans? Or rice, for that matter. My understanding of the matter is that it has a lot to do with corn farmers having an excess after WWII and collaborating with ranchers to promote meat which turned both into a powerful lobby, but I'm certainly not familiar with agricultural history.

I see your point in talking about presidents, though; it was mostly to expose an incongruity between freedom and efficiency

>>3881360
>Damn it, I can't have a thread with pragmatists and people who say that rich people deserve to make more money at the same time

I'm not really sure where I fit into that.

The incongruity between freedom and efficiency is what I've actually been addressing. Why corn? It was the most efficient option that presented itself when an option had to be chosen. The companies probably use corn for a similar reason. There is no real why.

>>3881349
Thanks I guess? I rarely find myself on /lit/

>>3880817
But /pol/ is right about jews

>>3881387
but how can you be /lit/erate and still accept Ayn's philosophy??
Right there is proof enough that contradictions do in fact exist, no?

>>3881387
and no they aren't
/pol/ is politically incorrect
meaning they are /lit/erally wrong about everything.

>>3881392
Socialism is Society AS the government
take your McCarthyism elsewhere

>>3881387
>using two en dashes instead of one em dash

/lit/ really should just be renamed /revleft/.

This board is a Marxist circlekjerk where any dissenting opinions are deleted or shitposted.

Atleast on /pol/ everyone has a fair and equal voice.

>>3881392
not even true by the way
Socialists object to government actions all of the time

>>3881344
She's suppose to be a damn joke. Because she is one.

She makes good point within her own context and ignores basic human rights at the detriment of nearly everyone else.

She's only good for teens to self-motivate themselves and nothing more.
She even falls to her own emotional bullshit and turned against everyone in the end.

>>3881395
everyone except [pic-related]

Do any of your marxists actually do anything in reality instead of circlejerk on the internet and read your shit tier philosophy books?

> people saying "exploitation" and "sweat shops" are bad

Automatic industry that this person jas no idea how the world works.

People work in sweatshops because it is the best opportunity available to them. 99% of the world lives in the 3rd world. The only way these economies and countries can develop and grow is through these "exploitive" methods. Look at China, more and more agrarian people are moving into cities and working I'm factories because they have more opportunities there, and the wages might sound low but are often much better than other occupations

>>3881403
no, like the libertarians are any different?
besides Zizek and that kid with the assault rifle look pretty boss in that pic and I'm not sure how you're making a convincing argument against left-wing ideology by stating that we read a lot of books..?

>>3881393
Socialism is capitalism of the lower class

>>3881408
you say that like its a bad thing?

>>3881404
Except sweat shops don't actually give people enough money to contribute to their local economies. The reason the Rural areas are shutting down is because there is no infrastructure out there anymore after Deng Xiopengs reforms destroyed the Peoples Communes.

Once you are in a Sweatshop, you will essentially be killed for trying to escape.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/in-china-a-place-where-maoism-still-reigns.html?_r=0

This is what life in the Communes is like. Far, far better than fucking cities or in other rural areas.

But Rand was right. Pursuing your self interest, starting a business and hiring workers and expanding yourself is a hell of a lot more productive and gelpful to society than any handout or public welfare policy will ever be.

>>3881413
Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

>>3881414
That's not really Rand's point (at least it's nowhere near the totality of Rand's point, although she would definitely agree with it), nor something that advocates of welfare systems would necessarily disagree with, so well done there on being a complete fucking idiot.

>>3881384
Oh, well, I was talking about pragmatists as people who talk about material relations rather than about why capitalism is morally proper or whatever

I don't know, but it's also the case with ethanol, isn't it? Corn isn't particularly efficient, but it's precisely because of this inefficiency that growers are able to make a lot of money when they bully the government into favoring it above better sources.
speaking of bad sources, I don't usually like citing wikipedia but regarding the above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States#Environmental_and_social_impacts

>>3881412
>2013
>still supporting the creation science of economics

>>3881417
It's wrong.

Again, Sweat shops don't pay enough money for them to eat let alone contribute to their local economy.

They are tricked to go work in them, once they are there, they are killed if they try leave or unionize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3m5lq9FHDo

I like Rands quote about how before men had to sacrifice their wants for God, and today its for "the common good of society".

>>3881420
Stay Marxist /lit/,
otherwise you're on the road to fascism

>>3881419
Oh,well,capitalism was never morally proper. I've read my Locke, it has always been thinly veiled slavery. It was never meant to be as exploitative as it is though. Problem is, Marx's inversion is equally as bad. It isn't a proper solution,so all it does is damage. I don't have any better options,so logically examining it is the only option.

I'm not familiar with the facts surrounding ethanol,but probably. Corn production is already being promoted,so they aren't bullying the government. Better sources are only better if the system doesn't have to be retooled for them. In order for change to occur it has to be more than just better in one thing. Bad things happen otherwise.

>>3880797

> will it be worth it
> not "The Republic"

kek

communist manifesto/10

>>3881054
Uhh...Zimbabwe is the prime example of how exploitation can ruin a country. Their major problem was that all the fertile land was owned by white people, and the terms of their independence dictated that they could only buy it from a willing seller. The British,being their former colonial masters, promised to help pay for this redistribution of land. Except they decided half way through that it wasn't their problem anymore,and left Zimbabwe to rot.

>>3880914
>don't look to hire any persons who benefited from a charity/tax-based education or any other charity-based infrastructure, because their development was undoubtedly shaped by the charity society they came from. everyone should only directly and formally enter into agreements with each other.
The transaction for pub. ed. was completed when the parents of the child pay the taxes. The business owner who is employing the now adult children has not incurred any cost by necessity. Furthermore if a publically educated person wants to work for a small business, you're an authoritarian shithead if you want to stop them.

>>3880916
In a representative democracy the poor are amply taking care off, so in a consumer democracy where people vote with their wallets instead of their ballots the poor will also be amply cared for.

>>3880973
>I hope you get rich from creating false dichotomies, you're very good at it.
The guy was just saying that people who contribute nothing to society should not be allocated as much resources as those who contribute greatly. Never did he say that all poor people contributed nothing. Stop twisting his words, but of course if you don't do that you don't have a rebuttal.

>>3880974
>all libertarians worship Ayn Rand

>>3882124
could you go a little more in depth on this? all i ever here is western propaganda on how mugabe is brutish and stupid

>>3881065
>This is also the logic that makes football coaches the highest paid public employees in almost every US state.
Libertarians don't endorse public sports teams, you're argument is based on a misrepresentation of your opponents views, and is therefore invalid.

>>3882222
Why don't libertarians support private sports teams? It's a problem of capitalism more than public funding, I suppose, since the lion's share of funding comes from alumni. Public or private has nothing to do with it; my point was about universities in general.

>>3881128
>What did they do to deserve subsidies?
Ayn Randians libertarians or whatever don't support corporate welfare.
Strawman.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

>>3882177
What's happening on the front page of /pol/ this fine day? Let's take a look...

>TIME TO CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE
>Goyim, why do you swindle us so?
>Confederate feels
>read Mein Kampf; holy shit he was right; always do the contrary of what the Jew tell
>Dorner thread
>Fascism for all nations
>Femen are really this dumb
>another femen thread about the same thing
>who does /pol/ hate most
then two Zimmerman threads, an affirmative action thread, a thread about historical Jesus, a Snowden thread, and a thread about... small houses

>>3880858

>egoism
>rational

pick uno

I see that many people are angry about particular things that she has said in her book. Dont be like those people OP. Accept every new point of view and every information given to you with fresh and open mind. Pick out only the things that might be useful for you, ignore the others (instead of creating furious arguments about it on the internet)

Dont make the mistake like i did and put down the book for a month after first 100 pages. If you continue reading it it will truly change your life like only a few books will. Just remember, dont make everything written in the book your new life motto. Learn to filter.

>>3882288
ignore this stupid nigger, not everything is profound and useful because its words on a page, the only people who urge you to be "open-minded" are people espousing ideologies that defy all common sense, like neoliberalism

>>3882295
You need to understand that everyone is different. People seek and thrive other things than you do, maybe this book will help him as much as it helped me.
The reason why i picked this book was that i needed some kind of motivation, and it totally gave me what i wanted from it. I am not going to type my life story here but my profession is doing what i love doing and despite this, i probably earn more money than anyone currently on this board.

And for the last part of your post, youve totally missed the spot mate.

>>3882321
>>3882295
Why did you delete it?

>>3882196
Yeah,sure. Zimbabwe gains its independence on the condition that they only buy land from willing sellers for the price the sellers asking. After 15 years, Zimbabwe will be allowed to set the price and make other small changes to the deal. Mugabe initially does wonders for Zimbabwe, creating equal opportunity, sustainable economic growth, and develops a respectable infrastructure.

The inequality of land is the remaining source of inequality. The agreement he made with the British limits his ability to fix things,and makes what he can do very expensive. After 15 years, with minor changes to the agreement and a renewed promise of economic support from the British, SIR Mugabe,the epitome of how the 3rd world should deal with the west, goes and buys up a bunch of land(Mainly infertile land to build infrastructure on),with the intention of buying more later. British then hold an election, and with a change of government,they back out. This left Zimbabwe with no money and no means of redistributing the land. Having played by their rules for over 15 years, Mugabe gets increasingly desperate to fulfill the wishes of his people(to stay in power), and resorts to more and more brutal tactics. The west intentionally sinks what little economy remains through the IMF and sanctions,and Zimbabwe officially becomes the stereotypical African shithole.

"how good it is"

it is awful. on the upside the bluntness with which Rand writes about her secual phantasies can be trainwreck-funny, on the downside the characters are flat, the story is almost entirely predictable and the style is horrible.

"will the read be worth it"

might very well be worth it (to you) from a philosophical pov, but from a literary pov Rand's books are imho massively overrated trainwrecks.

(disclaimer: when I read Atlas Shrugged the first time I was in my teens and so caught up in the idea of objectivism that I thought it was a great book. When I wanted to reread it 5-6 years later and saw it for its literary value I was just ashamed at my former self. I remembered a book about visionary ideas and all I read were the clumsily written fantasies of a sexually deprived woman. Couldn't get myself to finish it.)

ITT: 'The 99%' gets mad

>>3882553
Wow, what a load of horseshit. Mugabe brutally murdered all the White farmers who were actually producing food, and then turned the land over to his Black supporters who couldn't or wouldn't continue working the land. Surprise, surprise, the country goes to hell. And what was this predicated on? His ideology of racial supremacy, whereby Whites were inherently alien and evil, and the country couldn't be "free" until everything they had was redistributed to the Blacks. If he had been willing to accept Whites as fellow citizens of the nation, like, might I add, Whites accepted other races as citizens of THEIR nations, all the calamity and catastrophe he brought on his people would have been avoided.

Mugabe fucked everyone he was supposed to look after with his pig-headed racist bullshit, so ditch the fucking apologetics already.

>>3883277
Nonsense. The white farmers owned practically all of the fertile land,and used the desperate African farmers plantation style to farm it.

He turned the land over to his supporters well after the 15 years was up. He did so by paying off all the military pensions and telling people to just go live on the land.The police were told not to get involved.

If he had the racist ideology you claim, he wouldn't have waited over 15 years.In fact, you're the one coming off as either uninformed or racist. The 1st official statement from the pre-independence white ruling party explained the relationship between white and black Zimbabweans to that of horse and rider.

>>3883309
>white ruling party explained the relationship between white and black Zimbabweans to that of horse and rider.

Herp Derp, the whites were racist so that makes it OK for the other guys to be racist pricks as well.

Mugabe waited the 15 years because the British still had the military might to protect their citizens if he didn't abide by the agreement. He was still a racial supremacist faggot whose moronic ideology bears primary responsibility for turning his country into another failed African state.

>>3883338
It isn't racism it is land reform. The fertile land is all int he hands of whites because of colonialism. During the first 15 years of his Presidency Zimbabwe was the second most industrialized African Nation. Don't forget during those 1st 15 years he legitimately bought the land as well.

Your claim is that after years of guerrilla war for independence he played along with the west for 15 years out of fear. Then after 15 years,with the agreement still in place,only modified, the British back out from their half of the deal ,and Mugabe magically becomes ruled by his hidden racism,forgetting the decent nation he had already built.

I hope you realize how stupid that sounds.

>>3882154
>Furthermore if a publically educated person wants to work for a small business, you're an authoritarian shithead if you want to stop them.

ayn rand is my favorite author. i am a successful white business owner. i am the 1% and i laugh at all you silly plebs.

It's not that good. The point could be made with lesser pages, I think. The Fountainhead was Rand's best book, and I liked that one quite a bit, for more than a few nice examples she illustrates.

>>3882177
Add straw to the long list of things /pol/ victimizes irrationally.