Immanuel Kant is the evilest person to have ever lived

[Anonymous No.11125705]

Those are Ayn Rands words.

What are your thoughts?

[Anonymous No.11125708]

That a hell of a lot more people have said that about Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.11125710]

>>11125705
Halt die Klappe, du hässliche Jüdin.

[Anonymous No.11125719]

>>11125705
Ayn Rand is the evilest person to have ever lived.

[Anonymous No.11125724]

>>11125705
>evil existing

[Anonymous No.11125728]

Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of philosophy, and isn't much of an authority

[Anonymous No.11125740]

I think she confused the word "evil" with "boring."

[Anonymous No.11125745]

rebelious person evah. Eva. Eve. Lucid beam for magnetic fields. Some one who wants it. Mood awrkward chocochaos.

[Anonymous No.11125746]

stop brainlet larping - it's not funny

[Anonymous No.11125911]

Ayd Rand is basically a faggy Chopper Read.

[Anonymous No.11125919]

>>11125705
How does she justify this bullshit of a statement ?

[Anonymous No.11125922]

>>11125705
tbf, she did elaborate a lot more than that, whether you agree with her or not.
shitpost/slide/sage thread detected
sage

[Anonymous No.11125927]

Really don’t get libertarians obsession with idealism. I remember some libertarian think tank used to spam lovecraft book reviews about plato being evil.

[Anonymous No.11125972]

Kant
>Creates transcendental idealism
>Cretes a new era of epistomology
>Creates new insight into all of philosophy
>Creates objective morality based on pure reason alone, transcending the is/ought gap
>Creates mastworks of philosophy
>Proves the existence of god and free will
>One of the greats

Ayn Rand
>Writes decent books
>Fails the is ought gap
>Calls her philosophy "objectivism" while the morality is based on a subjective choice
>Can't understamd solipsism, fails to refute it
>Establishes rational self intrests as the basis of morality, yet can't explain rights in a satisfactionary way
>Claims that the basis of morality is human flourishing, smokes a shitton
>Rememberd as a wackjob

Tldr: Ayn rand was retarded.

[Anonymous No.11125986]

>morality is objective t. Kant
>my philosophy is caled objectivism t. Ayn Rand
What's the deal here? Why did she hate Kant so much?

[Anonymous No.11125999]

>>11125705
I recently found out that he basically invented racial ideology regarding blacks and whites that stuck for the remaining few centuries, so in addition to secularism then yeah sounds about right even, if it's the pot calling the kettle black.

[Anonymous No.11126002]

I don't get why she would call him that, because her absolutist morality is quite similar to his.

[Anonymous No.11126006]

>>11125986
Because Objectivism boils down to absolute subjectivity. Kant wanted duty she wanted greed.

[Anonymous No.11126021]

>>11126006
I suppose so
Rand's philosophy is pretty childish, refusing to cooperate with things like duty or obligation is the peak sign of a child

[Anonymous No.11126044]

>>11126002
Because she never read him. She thought she knew what he was talking about, but didn't.

[Anonymous No.11126046]

>>11125705
disclaimer: this is what kant actually looked like

[Anonymous No.11126053]

>>11126006
>Because Objectivism boils down to absolute subjectivity
then why not call it Subjectivism?

[Anonymous No.11126055]

>>11126021
>refusing to cooperate with things like duty or obligation is the peak sign of a child
Aren't children essentially evil according to her logic?

[Anonymous No.11126063]

>>11126053
I dunno, brainlet things I guess

[Anonymous No.11126085]

>>11126044
>>11126002
Objectivism and the Categorical Imperative are nothing like each other. The only similarity is that both thinkers have a hard on for reason. Objectivism says the only objective reality is the ego, and that every person should act in a self-interested way to maximize person interests. Kant says that everyone must follow objective moral laws which are implicitly apparent to any rational being. Saying each person has their own personal set of rules based on contingency is the exact type of poisonous morality that Kant couldn't stand.

[Anonymous No.11126092]

>>11126053
Because she thought she was being objective by conceding to the most immediate reality we experience (i.e. the subjective experience)

[Anonymous No.11126094]

>>11126092
So she was a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.11126095]

>>11125999
Racists were far more influenced by gobineau than Kant. Aside from kant haters, no one even knows about his race writings.

[Anonymous No.11126143]

>>11126092
what about p-zombies like Dennett?

[Anonymous No.11126180]

>>11126143
I have no idea if she has any comment on that; she was writing before Dennett proved the existence of p-zombies through an extensive lecture series where he literally cannot comprehend the importance of phenomenological experience.

[Anonymous No.11126199]

>>11126085
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" sounds a lot like the "Taxation is theft" people, to me.

[Anonymous No.11126225]

>>11126199
I have no idea how you got to that position but you might want to actually read Kant one day because he is pretty fucking far from anything resembling a libertarian (no matter what libertarians might try and do with him).
>On this originally acquired ownership of land rests, again, the right of the supreme commander, as supreme proprietor (lord of the land), to tax private owners of land, that is, to require payment of taxes on land, excise taxes and import duties, or to require the performance of services (such as providing troops for military service)

[Anonymous No.11126228]

>>11126199
According to Kant though we also have an incomplete duty (I think) to assist others in their pursuits, though

[Anonymous No.11126247]

>>11126225
Sure, but we aren't talking about Kant the person, we are talking about the actual consequences of holding to his ethical system.

It's quite clear that acting on maxims that can only be universal laws, means that all theft is immoral for every single person at the same time, including the state.

[Anonymous No.11126259]

>>11126247
>I pay sufficient taxes to maintain a civilized society
>I wish everybody to pay sufficient taxes to maintain a civilized society

[Anonymous No.11126338]

>>11125705
is kinda confusing what she tried to say, but for anyone that wants to know what she said:

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

[Anonymous No.11126340]

>>11125705
She didn't read him and if you read her writings she never attacks Kant's arguments

[Anonymous No.11126374]

>>11126247
No, this is such a bad misreading of Kant; you can;t just take one formulation of the categorical imperative out of context and run around beating ideas over the head with it, you actually have to get into Kantian philosophy to understand what he means. Kant is for a sovereign at the head of a state who has a monopoly over things like legitimate violence. If you were to say to Kant "The state can't be coersive because everyone can't be coersive" he would tell you to read Groundwork because that's not what he was writing about.

[Anonymous No.11126375]

>>11126247
An ethical system is an ethical system. It doesn't have to conform to physical reality. Why is everyone being so autistic about that?

[Anonymous No.11126496]

>>11126046
lookit the size o' that noggin, no wonderin he was such a smarty.

BIG
BRAIN
BOYZ

[Anonymous No.11127214]

>>11126085
Objectivism is for universal morality, since people have common nature and must coexist peacfully to achieve happiness.

[Anonymous No.11127338]

>>11125972
wish I could write a mastwork of philosophy

[Anonymous No.11127351]

>>11126046
>the chinaman of koenigsberg

[Anonymous No.11127367]

>>11125972
>>Proves the existence of god and free will
t. didn't read the First Critique

[Anonymous No.11127564]

>>11125705
what's evil?

[Anonymous No.11127575]

>>11125927
libertarians are the commies of the right, a bunch of idealists faggots.

[Anonymous No.11127674]

hurr muh objectivism
hurr muh justification for basic, unrepentant immorality

[Anonymous No.11127727]

>>11126085
>Ayn Rand has a hard on for reason
Stop talking about reason like that, it doesn't deserve this.

[Anonymous No.11127735]

>>11127727
Sorry, reason, I didn't want to do this to you...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjVhya-A2Y0

[Anonymous No.11128803]

>>11127575
underrated post

[Anonymous No.11128807]

>>11127575
>commie
>idealists
you only had to read

[Anonymous No.11128809]

>>11127575
>libertarians are the commies of the right
Without the bodycount in the hundreds of millions

[Anonymous No.11129200]

>>11125728
t. Cracked

[Anonymous No.11129202]

>>11125972
>Fails the is ought gap
But that's wrong

[Anonymous No.11129210]

>>11127674
>conflates her iconoclastic morality with immorality
If you weren't so easily conditioned by the absurd notions on morality you've been taught all your life you might deign to check their premises

[Anonymous No.11129218]

>>11127575
reminder that libertarianism=/=objectivsm
Former is essentially incomplete latter. Libertarian is valid ONLY as a technical classifier

[Anonymous No.11129381]

>>11126259
you do know that there would be someone that will use the taxes to 'maintain' this society? taxes can't be a universal rule.

[Anonymous No.11129429]

>argue with libertarians
>push them a little bit on anything
>watch them reinvent the government while avoiding the magic words
every. single. time.

[Anonymous No.11129456]

why so many people hating on libertarians? its not like the the idea is complicated or something.
Why do you need to make up some spiritual realm or some shit when the only life you have is the one you are living right now.

[Anonymous No.11129468]

>>11129381
>you do know that there would be someone that will use the taxes to 'maintain' this society? taxes can't be a universal rule.
Government employees pay tax on their salaries like anyone else anon. Tax can be and is a universal rule.

[Anonymous No.11129483]

>>11129468
where do gov employees get paid? from the taxpayers.

[Anonymous No.11129494]

>>11129483
Yes they take a salary, and pay some of it back in tax like everybody else. If you sense a contradiction, check your premises.

[Anonymous No.11129508]

>>11129494
by definition, in order for gov employees to have a salary, the value they provide would be lower than the taxes paid by non-gov employees. Why would you want to give $1000 to get back $100?
if this universal tax is supposedly voluntary, then it wouldn't be called a tax. Also your wish of everyone paying taxes would include a use of force to achieve that wish.

[Anonymous No.11129524]

>>11129508
>the value they provide would be lower than the taxes paid by non-gov employees. Why would you want to give $1000 to get back $100?
I don't care about that. Check your premises.
>I pay tax on my earnings
>I want everyone to pay tax on their earnings
Me and Kant are satisfied if everyone pays taxes on their earnings. I didn't mention value for money or fairness. Children take a lot out of the system, and they don't have any taxable income. I don't care.

[Anonymous No.11129553]

>>11129524
so if im understanding you correctly, you are saying that as long as people are paying taxes, it's fine. No matter how you achieved that, no matter if the results are good or not.
Ends > means? and the ends won't even necessarily be beneficial.
if that's the case, then we won't have much to discuss since i value individuals liberty and rights greater.

[Anonymous No.11129567]

>>11129553
I'm just explaining how
>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
Is perfectly compatible with taxation.

[Anonymous No.11129574]

I like them both :)

[Anonymous No.11129602]

>>11125705
Kant and Rand go hand in hand
>If I don't pay taxes or support/contribute to society, I shouldn't have a voice in society
Categorical imperative makes it a moral truth for that to be reality

[Anonymous No.11129639]

>>11129602
But you'd want a voice in society if you lost your job right?
Kant and Marxism go hand in hand too:
>I share everything I have with my fellow man
>everyone should share everything they have with their fellow man

[Anonymous No.11129647]

>>11127338

[Anonymous No.11129652]

>>11129639
Losing one's job isn't eternal, and I would highly doubt that a person would suddenly lose their job and then society would shift so much to inconvenience you.
Kant and Marx can't go hand in hand because of base human desires to own private property, the effect of sharing everything would eventually lead to a regression into tribalism and then war.

[Anonymous No.11129659]

>>11129652
>base human desires to own private property
Oh anon, you were doing so well. Not the human nature argument.

[Anonymous No.11129877]

>>11129574
#metoo anon

[Anonymous No.11129972]

>>11129429
The problem with ancaps is that they dislike the government as a word but don't dislike the concept of a government
They hate the government as is but don't care about people remaking their own governments for some reason

[Anonymous No.11129998]

>>11129659
Nice argument
Humans are naturally ego centric beings, you cannot refute this
Each person's attempt to live within the world is dictated by their person and their scope of existance, a person cannot exist without carving a piece of existance for themselves to exist - aesthetics has value here
Regardless of what a thing is, each person creates desire for that thing to be special to them, this can be ethereal like religion or actual like a nice painting or a different cup to their neighbor, the natural exists of humans differentiates them from others and from the herd, reducing this will as I said create a more aggressive resurgence of negative effects. Why deny it instead of accepting a biological reality of human consciousness?

[Anonymous No.11130008]

>>11129972
It's weird people hate rape but love sex? Same action but different definition
All things are conditional

[Anonymous No.11130022]

>>11130008
but then at that point it's just like leftists using the word "fascist" to mean "bad", to the point that even their own systems turn into "fascism" as soon as they turn "bad"

[Anonymous No.11130046]

>>11130022
but there is a difference between rape and sex, one is consensual while the other is by force. Just like charity and stealing are two different things, one is giving away your money voluntarily, while the other is done by force.
Government as an institution is a monopoly of legalised coercion. Coercion is the fundamental issue libertarians, ancaps, objectivists etc are focused on. individualists would by reason and logic come to the conclusion that coercion is the evil.

[Anonymous No.11130058]

>>11130046
>but there is a difference between rape and sex, one is consensual while the other is by force.
No, not really. Otherwise "marital rape" wouldn't be a thing. (In case you don't know -- you gave your explicit consent when you signed those marriage license papers.)

[Anonymous No.11130065]

>>11130046
when i say they reinvent the government i mean they reinvent the actual government, with coercion and everything, as in they will say something like "we" wouldn't tolerate those people or "we" would stop them

[Anonymous No.11130302]

>>11130058
ah but the marriage licence papers are a creation of the state. Just like how nowadays people are trying to get same sex marriage going. If we go by individualist thought, a marriage does not mean the wife forfeits her fundamental rights to the husband. The reason we are against coercion is because there no justification for a violation of property rights. Just as a murder will be violation of property rights since your body is your property, so too will a coerced sexual intercourse be the same.

>>11130065
i'm not sure who would simply change the word government. As i have said before, the fundamental issue is the factor of coercion. If we accept the non-aggression principle, then it follows that each individual are able to have weapons or anything as long as they are not violating other people.
This is the same thought behind the founding fathers of america, that each individual have certain inalienable rights, and the right to bear arms is a constraint against a tyrannical government.
Now it is arguable that such safeguards, the constitution and the declaration, have not in fact been effective in constraining government expansion, but that is only placing a greater support for the idea that government will always seek to expand, since they are a monopoly of judicial, legislative and coercive force.

of course i might be wasting time here, but i hope someone reading this would be able to see past all the bad arguments and misrepresentations, and in fact read the works by individualists such as ayn rand, murray rothbard etc, and form their own judgments.

[Anonymous No.11130337]

>>11130058
and another point, i did not mention anything about marriage in my post about rape and sex. by your argument, a marriage licence shows consent, does that mean an unmarried couple would not be consenting? or does consent only come from a piece of declaration?
Using the formulation of coercion, the only time a sexual intercourse is a rape would be when force is involved, all others would not constitute rape. one might regret the act later, but that later regret does not mean the earlier consent is withdrawn.

[Anonymous No.11130352]

>>11130302
>ah but the marriage licence papers are a creation of the state
So is the concept of "consent".

[Anonymous No.11130374]

>>11130352
...are you that dense?
how is the concept of consent a product of the state? when you have sex with your gf/bf, do you get a consent licence from the state? when you buy a product from someone, do you get consent from the state? in your everyday actions, do you get consent from the state? or do you give consent? understand what voluntary means first.

[Anonymous No.11130526]

>>11125911
>Hahden the fack up, pinkos

[Anonymous No.11130998]

>>11129998
>Humans are naturally ego centric beings, you cannot refute this
Humans are naturally a social animal, you cannot refute this. We aren't sharks or bears who genuinely are solitary, we live in groups and cooperate.

[Anonymous No.11131062]

>>11125972
Kant
>wrote a bunch of books
>did nothing with his life
>died
Wow

[Anonymous No.11131064]

>>11126055
No, she considers children tabula rasa and unable to form conscious thought until they are older and understand their sense of self to learn morals.

[Anonymous No.11131090]

>>11130998
You're using 'social animal' as a way to argue for collectivism, that the self does not exist. That the individual does not exist simply because we live with other people. We live in a state but it does not mean citizens do not exist. We cooperate but not without compensation.

The only justification for collectivism, groups, tribes, etc is when civilization is unable to protect us from other groups or nature. When civilization is stable enough and nature is of no threat, individuals can live in solidarity without fear of death under the law which judges all equally and objectively.

There is no more need to advocate being a part of a tribe in our current era unless civilization were to crumble. And even then, as Ayn Rand argues, people would still come together to form new civilizations because it is preferable to living in a tribe where other tribes will seek to destroy for their own tribe.

[Anonymous No.11131356]

>>11129200
t. Ayntologist

[anon No.11131462]

>>11126259
you do know that there would be someone that will use the taxes to 'maintain' this society? taxes can't be a universal rule.

Are you retarded or evil?

My bet is evil.

The human filth in the government that gets to use the stolen tax money can and does us it to gain massive influence and kick backs of every kind imaginable.

The problem with communist parasites like you is that you think others are as stupid as you are. Your genetic betters see through your simpleton's arguments and see you for what you are: a parasite that dreams of BEING THE GUY IN THE GOV that gets to control the stolen tax money and leverage it for all the power he can.

Get out of here with that sophist "Taxation is a universal rule". It is asymmetric theft by scum like you from good men like us.

[anon No.11131470]

my original reply was for this fool:

Anonymous 05/10/18(Thu)06:38:32 No.11129468▶>>11129483
>>11129381
>you do know that there would be someone that will use the taxes to 'maintain' this society? taxes can't be a universal rule.
Government employees pay tax on their salaries like anyone else anon. Tax can be and is a universal rule.


And not this good, nobel, upstanding anon:

>>11126259
you do know that there would be someone that will use the taxes to 'maintain' this society? taxes can't be a universal rule.

[anon No.11131477]

Pol/'s reply function is pure shit.

the last couple of posts were for the commie anon that pretended that taxation is a universal good. Not for the good guy that was also setting him in his place.

[Anonymous No.11131483]

>>11129553
>Ends > means?
There is more than one formulation of the categorical imperative you fucking mental deficient. It explicitly says that each human MUST BE TREATED AS AN END IT ITSELF AND NEVER AS A MEANS. Holy fucking shit every Kant thread you retards run out the woodwork memeing one specific (and explicitly incorrect) reading of the CI like you know anything at all about Kantian morality. Just read Kant ffs the Groundwork is short and understandable.

[Anonymous No.11131521]

>>11131462
>>11131470
He already btfo one Randroid on this, as you'd know if you read the thread

[anon No.11131540]

I am impressed by the profound level of communist shilling on this board in support of Kant and and the irrational vitriol for the Greatest Philosopher of our time and since Aristotle: Ayn Rand.

Kant was a low IQ fool who spoke in the highest order of babble know to man up to his time, i.e., a constant word salad that served to confuse his low IQ target audience of men impressed by apparent knowledge conveyed through a string of rarely used vocabulary words. Improperly used vocabulary words to be precise.

The Greeks had a name for deceitful cretins of his kind: Sophists. And they were properly hated in their time, as Kant is today and will be as mankind wakes up to reason.

[Anonymous No.11131545]

>>11131540
Low quality bait man, not your best showing.

[Anonymous No.11131551]

>>11125972
>objective morality
No he didnt

[Anonymous No.11131731]

>>11129210
Not him but I've never understood how Randroids could run with something as subjective and nebulous as "Rational Self-interest" and still throw around concepts like "Morals" as though that could mean anything at all under such a maxim

[Anonymous No.11131855]

>>11131731
Maybe learn what morals are instead of just going 'lol spooks'.

[Anonymous No.11131944]

>>11131062
Hi friend, you must be lost. www.reddit.com is where you belong.
Farewell. R/books is your place.

[Anonymous No.11131954]

>>11131855
How can you possibly tell me anything is moral or immoral in the same breath you suggest that everyone ought to be behaving in their own self-interest?
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to notice that one of the easiest ways for one forward their interests is at the expense of others.

[Anonymous No.11131974]

>>11131954
Dude you need to read Rand. It's hard to choose a favorite among so many great works, but "Atlas Shrugged" is one of the best, most powerful novels ever written about self-preservation, dignity. Its universal message crosses all boundaries and instills one with the hope that it's not too late to better ourselves. Since, anon, it's impossible in this world we live in to empathize with others, we can always empathize with ourselves. It's an important message, crucial really. And it's beautifully stated in the book.

[Anonymous No.11132003]

>>11131954
Because your life is your standard of value and to live in your own self interest is how to be moral by virtue of knowing how to best live in your own self interest. Hence why the 'rational' part exists in front of the 'rational self-interest'.

Just because something is easier doesn't mean it is rational. To use other is to rely on others as the source of your power rather than relying on yourself. If you are unable to use other and you have nothing to rely on, you die. This is why calls people that exploit others parasites. You cannot live on your own strength. Being independent and achieving your own happiness without using others is what it means to live rationally for your self-interest.

For example, if you murder others and steal, it isn't rational because it will come at the cost of your livelihood if you are caught or killed for doing crime.

Again, learn what morals are before going 'lol who needs morality, I'm going to just exploit others for my own self interest lololol'.

Ayn Rand on morality:
>What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.
>The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?
>The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
>Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.

[Anonymous No.11132019]

>>11131974
>You'll only ever really connect with yourself, so you should do whatever you want
Yeah that's cool and all, but how can you get to morality from there?
Like it's moral for you to invest all your money in yourself because that's in your self interest.
If I kill you in your sleep and make off with all the money, that's moral too because it's my self interest?
If not, aren't you just insisting that everybody just follow the rules and get along?

[Anonymous No.11132045]

>>11132003
>if you murder others and steal, it isn't rational because it will come at the cost of your livelihood if you are caught or killed for doing crime.
So what you're telling me is that anything goes as long as I don't get caught?
Or is this just petty legalism

[Anonymous No.11132064]

>>11132019
>If I kill you in your sleep and make off with all the money, that's moral too because it's my self interest?
The question you're asking is whether or not it's moral to murder. What do you think Ayn Rand was advocating when she said ''I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.'' ?
It's moral to live for yourself without exploiting others because no one wants to be exploited and want to live their life for yourself.

>>11132045
Anything goes if you don't care to get caught or destroyed by your actions. Because all you would be doing is obtaining materialistic gains with nothing to show for it. No amount of philosophy can stop you from being nihilistic and committing crime. But it is still your choice and your responsibility.

[Anonymous No.11132133]

>>11126374
>Kant is for
Did you even read the post you were responding to?

[Anonymous No.11132187]

philosophy discord

https://discord.gg/wPb9SEx

[Anonymous No.11132255]

>>11132064
It's against my self interest to care about what other people think. If they are unable or unwilling to retaliate against me i will obviously consider that

[Anonymous No.11132279]

>>11126095
Not even Kant haters, I hate him and didn't even knew about those. I also hate Schoppenhauer but not because of his writings on women and shit, people who do that are retarded.

[Anonymous No.11132289]

>>11129456
Nigger libertarianism is literally calvinist atheism

[Anonymous No.11132305]

>>11125705
While I know most people on /lit/ hate Ayn Rand you have to understand the situation she was coming from fleeing the communist revolution.

In her situation I would probably hate philosophers too.

[Anonymous No.11132310]

>>11130374
the very notions of rape an consent as we deal with them are ingrained on the western / roman legal system. think about societies in which if you rape a woman you have to pay her dad and how ludicrous this sounds to us, while still being, materially, the same situation.
libertarianism is literally sociopathy coupled with a complete ignorance of how the capitalist west came to be in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11132352]

>>11125740
>implying boredom isn't one of life's greatest evils

[Anonymous No.11132384]

>>11132289
Based

[Anonymous No.11132436]

>>11130058
>you gave your explicit consent when you signed those marriage license papers

I'd like to see you prove something like that in court

[Anonymous No.11132541]

>>11129998
How do you explain people sacrificing themselves to raise children? A man's ego-centrism doesn't get him anywhere, and reality can't be carved up and divided between individuals. Nobody is going to forbid a man's enjoyment of his child's first drawing, but there is no reason to place ownership of objects under sacred law. Do you think Karl Marx forbade men to keep hold of books for their own pleasure?

>>11129652
>base human desires to own private property
Men have a desire to possess something, but absolute ownership is not a concept that exists in nature. A man's life is finite, and his property won't extend any farther than that, and we have proof of living men's influence on society lasting for thousands of years.
Do men also have a natural desire to own land, or is it that a consequence of social reality?

[Anonymous No.11132681]

>>11132541
>How do you explain people sacrificing themselves to raise children?
There's nothing against valuing someone to the point of defending it. I argue that children are you living legacy so it is placed high in your hierarchy of values. In an antinatalism view, if you decide to have children to leave a legacy, you're essentially dooming it to a life of suffering. So keeping said child alive is more important than your life unless you don't care about the child, like for example an unexpected child or one from rape.
The notion of sacrifice for children is not irrational.

[Anonymous No.11132700]

>>11125705
>evilest

[Anonymous No.11132714]

>>11132133
Kant uses his ethical system to justify his beliefs, if you couldn't guess. There's plenty of writing out there where he lays out all these arguments if you want to take the time to actually read something. Separating things he says that you agree with into "objective morality" and things you don't into "Kant the person" is simply being intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.11132753]

>>11125999
Where did he advocate that?

[Anonymous No.11132763]

>>11129998
What a load sophistry. You're just redifining egocentrism as something that it isn't in order to avoid the problem.
>Humans are naturally ego centric beings
First, this is blatantly flase. People sacrificed themselves all time during history, be it for their children, their country, their family, their city or whatever else. The individual is a recent invention. Second, it's an appeal to nature.
Your argument is also self defeating. You try afferming egoism and attacking by positing that everything is a function of of egoism, while at the same time you say that your opponent are denying egoism, but how could they deny egoism if everything is just a function of egoism? By your own standards, they are egoists just as much as you. Your standards say that the evaluation of actions is tautological which leaves you unable to form evaluation of actions. Not a Marxist btw.

[Anonymous No.11132774]

>>11132541
Animals piss where they mark their territory, birds swoop on predators invading their space, and you want to say it is an unnatural reality that man would want to own his own domain? All animals protect their property albeit to a lower degree than humans, because they are not as intelligent as humans. It is a natural progression for humans to have a space which is there's, this is as equally a mental distinction for an evolved brain as it is for a physical natural act like an animal protecting its nest. As I said earlier, this is part of aesthetics in the sense that people will always find value in something abstract that appeases them, ego centric thinking is always prominent

[Anonymous No.11132784]

>>11132763
See >>11132681
Ayn Rand didn't say that because people sacrificed themselves that you had to be 100% selfish and not care about others. You can sacrifice yourself to something that you deem valuable.

[Anonymous No.11132785]

>>11132763
People who sacrifice their lives for countries are selfish, they decide to give up their life in order to promote the future and dream that they wish. "if I lay down my life here, and we win, then our future will be as great as I desire"
People don't go to war selflessly and I hope that you don't think that is the case

[Anonymous No.11132806]

>>11132785
>>11132784
Again, you're just playing sophistry and redifining egoism as something that it isn't. Facile semantic gymnastics that don't say anything actually meaningful about altruism or egoism. As I've already said in the second part of my post , if everything is a function of egoism then the commies are egoists just as much as anybody else which renders the whole discussion pointless.
Am I talking to teenagers?

[Anonymous No.11132822]

>>11132806
You're acrually retarded and clearly know nothing about egoism
The entire point of the original comment was that Marx is not compatible with the categorical imperative, this is due to the fact that communists and Marxists are applying their egotistical beliefs universally, whereas it was mentioned that as people have their own egotistical beliefs that counteract that claim. Marxists are free to believe and do what they want, but to universally imply all people must have the same belief and naturally follow that belief is illogical
You're attempts to label others as sophists just show how insecure you are about your own arguments

[Anonymous No.11132827]

>>11125705
That title belongs to Hegel.

[Anonymous No.11132841]

>>11132774
Animals do not own territory, they are competing for resources and will fight others threatening their existence. Marking territory is a signal to friendly creatures as much as it is to competitors. Sharing can often be done without loss, or with benefit, regardless of consent. Ruling over territory is much more important to the group than the individual, because it enables cooperation and child-rearing. Is there a bird that aims to live alone in a nest?

Ownership of vast tracts of land, or an apartment building, is not about personal territory, it's about resources in the game of society. I'm not a Marxist either, but in many cases, it's just the degeneracy of the current systems exposing itself, not human nature. It's not reasonable to expect a creature to respect another's property over territory above its own survival, and since they are capable of fighting, absolute property is untenable, and I don't see any justification for it either way.

[Anonymous No.11132844]

>>11132806
Says the idiot saying nothing. Not everything is egotistical. Selflessness is not egotistical.

[Anonymous No.11132847]

>>11132841
But you're implying that ownership is directly related to only apartment blocks or big fields of land. A person can be quite content owning a small farm somewhere where he lives by himself. The attempt make ownership into a corporate capitalistic evil instead of just a natural desire is illogical and over the top

[Anonymous No.11132853]

>>11125708
underrated

Kant is based, fuck Rand

[Anonymous No.11132877]

>>11132822
>The entire point of the original comment was that Marx is not compatible with the categorical imperative
I wasn't attacking that you moron, I'm attacking the "humans are naturally egocentric" part which you used to imply that everything is a function of one's egoism. I won't get into the part where you conflate Marxist with communists because it isn't the point of what I was originally saying and it's irrelevant about this particular discussion but it shows that you probably haven't read Marx or Kant and that I am, in fact, talking to a teenager.

[Anonymous No.11132884]

>>11132847
I'm not, I just think that ownership is ultimately socially determined, and that protection of property even in the current system is causing as much harm as it benefits society, and the individuals in it. If there is a group of people that fail to cooperate by sharing the exploits of valuable land, their neighbors aren't going to starve in quiet contemplation of the sanctity of personal property. We obviously should protect the individual's right of a homestead, but there are other rights, including basic needs, that compete with property. Capitalism and lobbying together allow the abuse of natural resources, for the gain of individual entities.

There is nothing about Rand's philosophy that appeals to me.

[Anonymous No.11132893]

>>11132884
>and that protection of property even in the current system is causing as much harm as it benefits society
what harm?

[Anonymous No.11132908]

>>11132877
Jesus christ are you actually retarded?
You're implying humans aren't egotistical, which means it is ethically correct to apply Marx to Kant
Humans are egotistical, so therefore it is unethical to apply Marx to kant
I've never seen someone so intensely trying to force others to believe they're not a child

[Anonymous No.11132940]

>>11132908
Hello retard, I wasn't the guy arguing for applying Marx to Kant or Kant to Marx, you're reading things that aren't there.
>You're implying humans aren't egotistical
They aren't, in fact. But I already showed you that positing every human action as a function of one's egoism leads to an evaluative impasse.
>I've never seen someone so intensely trying to force others to believe they're not a child
Look in the mirror.

[Anonymous No.11132950]

>>11132893
Monopolies? Also because the entities collecting power don't just want more cash, they often want to impose their will on others, and they don't tend to value the personal ownership of others as much as they do theirs. That includes governments as well as corporations.

[Anonymous No.11132978]

>>11132950
Sounds very vague. What would you change?

[Anonymous No.11133017]

>>11132978
I think there is a lack of democracy. As in the rule of the people, which had many form throughout history. I also think that it will have it's comeback, as the massive companies and invasive governments are not going to last forever, and they will lose their power over time.

I don't think I can change much, I'm driven by the same principles as everybody else, but I believe voicing your opinion has always been one of the most important influences men had.

[Anonymous No.11133045]

>>11125986
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html

[Anonymous No.11133063]

>>11132950
Monopolies come from regulations and high barrier to entry though, which is caused by factors outside of capitalist systems (gov)

[Anonymous No.11133066]

>>11133045
Thank you for reminding us that Rand hated Kant because she was a gibbering retard who disguised shallow personal vindictiveness as philosophy by draping it in the word "reason."

[Anonymous No.11133113]

>>11132785
>>11132763
Fucking hell. It's like you both think the vast majority of soldiers in human history who died for their kings and their countries did so because they DECIDED TO, and not because they were forcibly drafted.

Let's be clear here. They did not sacrifice themselves. They were sacrificed. That is the place of the individual in a collectivist society.

[Anonymous No.11133117]

>>11133063
I'm not an expert on this, but capitalism is not exclusive of government. Some probably do, but I think that monopolies occur in many systems, and don't see how Objectivism is going to make them disappear. I think they also come about from the protection of property, if a man has a monopoly on the only well in town, the reasonable thing to do is judge his property as irrelevant, if he is being exploitative.

[Anonymous No.11133125]

>>11133113
Retard the implication wasn't about all cases of soldiers, if anything it was about modem military considering people freely join up nowadays

[Anonymous No.11133134]

>>11125705
hegel is. probably fucked up more shit by proxy than hitler directly.

[Anonymous No.11133135]

>>11132310
is there a difference between rape in our culture and rape in other cultures? Rape is rape because of force. How the society deals with this problem is that society's culture.
In fact, i would say the society you have given is a backwards society, but that's another problem.
how is libertarianism sociopathy? it is dedicating to the idea of individualism, that men has natural rights that cannot be alienated or infringed.
are you gonna say that capitalism is bad? when it is the system that has brought prosperity to the world. the formation of capitalism also follows from individualism, it is the system where each person can do what he wants as long as he is not violating the non-aggression principle.
if you want to argue, then provide your thoughts and arguments. Stop misrepresenting.

[Anonymous No.11133139]

>>11133117
Why use such a ridiculous example? Do you live in Africa? We have moved past the point of someone exploiting a single well in town

[Anonymous No.11133150]

>>11133117
Objectivism argues that monopolies only occur when there is government intervention helping companies. If they have no help, then competition arises and no sole monopoly is formed. Personally I don't agree with this view since you need a proper government to ensure property rights. Regarding the 'one well' Ayn Rand argues that it's not a monopoly if you live in a small town and own a single shop since the size of the population is low. A competitor wouldn't gain anything fighting with you for superiority if there's like a hundred people or so.

[Anonymous No.11133152]

>>11133139
It might have actually happened since the beginning of time. Should we allow a conglomeration of corporations the ownership of data on us that they currently have?

[Anonymous No.11133155]

>>11133135
Libertarian is sociopathic to brain dead collectivist who are too weak to actually ever succeed in life, so they have to view other people successes through a bitter jaded lense of a system out to get them.
These people posting are probably sitting at home unemployed living off mommy and daddy's money

[Anonymous No.11133166]

>>11133152
I would say no as a person has a right to privacy and to own their own data, but I suppose if I was a Marxist I could argue its important for it to be shared

[Anonymous No.11133177]

>>11133166
It's not their data, it's data on them. Do you think I can't record the people that come into my store for planning purposes? What if I put a sign that says, your activities will be recorded?

[Anonymous No.11133193]

>>11133117
then you should read more, i would recommend austrian economics. how can a monopoly form in a capitalist system? understand that capitalism is a destructive advancement, just like how the creation of cars killed the industry of horses and wagons.

>>11132763
so many people here love misrepresenting.
ayn rand specifically said "the issue is not whether you should help other people", the issue is whether your choice of not helping makes you an immoral person, that you should not live because you don't help.
Rand is not against kindness, but against altruism, meaning that you place yourself beneath others. she is against a kindness forced by coercion.
would you save your children before others? if you do, then rand says there's nothing wrong with that, in fact it is the moral thing to do.
and DON'T try to misrepresent this as rand saying that you should steal or kill or w/e violation of the non-aggression principle to achieve your interest.

[Anonymous No.11133201]

>>11133193
What books do you recommend?

>how can a monopoly form in a capitalist system?
"For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

[Anonymous No.11133207]

>>11133177
Data and Metadata are different though, recording purchasing habits is different to recording Anon comes into store at 11:54 Tuesday, then 3:45 Wednesday
But male enters store and buys X on Tuesday and Y one Wednesday is a different set of data
You could have every right to record someone coming into private property and put the sign up, people would no voluntarily come in anymore if they didn't want it to be recorded

[Anonymous No.11133220]

>>11133201
That quote is pure sophistry in regard to economics

[Anonymous No.11133228]

>>11133207
None of the tracking has been done illegally, as far as I know.

The original point was that there was a monopoly on massively valuable data, which can also be abused in many ways. It's not clear to me what the solution is.

[Anonymous No.11133236]

>>11133063
Government is not "outside" of the capitalist system you dumbfaggot. And while bad regulations may create monopolies other ones are necessary for preventing them as well.

[Anonymous No.11133251]

>>11133201
i would recommend books by ludwig von mises for economics, he basically destroys communism via his analysis of money.
for ancap, i would recommend rothbard's ethics of liberty.
for objectivism, read books by rand, watch interviews of rand. if you want non-fiction, get objectivism: the philosophy of ayn rand.

and regarding the quote you gave, is that from marx?
to the one who has, more will be given? from where does this 'more' come from? if it's from voluntary trade, then is there something wrong with that? Just like how bill gates got rich because of windows, but he has also made the world better with windows.
there's a saying, 'from rags to riches to rags', the current system we have is not even capitalist. the 'money' we have is just paper currency, controlled by the government. Corporations are formed as a result of government, limited liability is a product of government. intellectual property is a product of government.
i wonder why people still blame the current situation on capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11133290]

>>11133251
>if it's from voluntary trade, then is there something wrong with that?
Arguably, it means that power breeds power, and monopolies occur. Power can breed through apparently voluntary as well as violent interactions.

>i wonder why people still blame the current situation on capitalism.
Because they see societies as capitalistic. I don't know what definition of capitalism you're working with, is there a society that implements it, or a reason to care about it?

>just paper currency
How does this matter if we're voluntarily trading with it? You can use bitcoin if you want to, it's viable.

[Anonymous No.11133323]

Evil has nothing to do with your track record, only your intentions. The pure hearted idiot who accidentally kills all of humanity is not even slightly evil. The sadist who dreams about torturing children to death but is too incompetent to do it is pure evil.

The chances are good that your political enemies aren't any more evil than you. All political participants are somewhat evil because politics is inherently evil.

[Anonymous No.11133345]

>>11133290
the society we have now is not capitalistic, it is mixed with capitalism and socialism, statism.
>paper currency
just because people trade with fiat currency doesn't mean it's voluntary. the government specifically makes a law that says the only legal tender is this fiat currency we print.
>power
ah the always present power from marxism. don't think i can change your opinion.
there is no power in a capitalist society, the only relevant factor is the value you provide.

i shouldn't even be using capitalist as if it's just another system like socialism or communism. Capitalism means freedom and liberty.

[Anonymous No.11133356]

>>11133290
Please go and read those books before trying to refute what he said, because you're responses make no sense within the actual reality of economics

[Anonymous No.11133441]

>>11133345
where i live, it's also legal to trade with bitcoin

power just means influence, people with no money don't have the power to feed themselves. i don't know what power means to you.

>Capitalism means freedom and liberty.
yeah, you think it's a panacea, apparently

i really don't want to argue about economics with you guys, i might read something about it, but i have other shit to do as well. w/e.

[Anonymous No.11134611]

>>11131974
Underrated

[Anonymous No.11136026]

bump

[Anonymous No.11136081]

>>11136026
why would you bump this shit thread?

[Anonymous No.11136323]

>>11133135
>Rape is rape because of force.
Not quite. Rape is non-consensual touching, but so is a surprise hug. But you don't see people persecuting surprise huggers, do you?

Rape is rape because of psychological damage.

[Anonymous No.11136331]

>>11133323
What's the point of defining it like that?

[Anonymous No.11138025]

how is the thinker behind human rights the evilest person to ever live

[Anonymous No.11139388]

>>11131356
What even?

[Anonymous No.11139392]

>>11138025
Human rights were a mistake.

[Anonymous No.11139396]

>>11138025
Because we aren't human.

We're animals.

[Anonymous No.11139455]

>>11126228
The common English translation is perfect (vollkommene) and imperfect (unvollkommene) duties (Pflichten), although yours makes sense too.

[Anonymous No.11139484]

>>11139396
woah...

[Anonymous No.11140585]

>>11133323
I don't know, Ayn Rand's definition of evil is pretty on point.
>"Not blindness; but the refusal to see. Not ignorance; but the refusal to know."

[Anonymous No.11140595]

>>11140585
so she's evil by her own standards

[Anonymous No.11142100]

>>11125705
the only healthy way of government is aristocracy combined with meritocracy based on nicomachean ethics.

[Anonymous No.11142924]

>>11125705
Ayn Rand was right.

[Anonymous No.11142976]

>>11127575
>There is nothing idealist about communism, at least not Marxist communism. Also, typing the words 'idealists faggots' tends to suggest that you haven't read many books and/or struggle with reading and writing.

[Anonymous No.11143002]

>>11128807
Marx wasn’t, but modern day commies and anarchists definitely are.

[Anonymous No.11143927]

>>11127735
>Dude, emotions aren't reliable lmao
>Claims man can achieve knowledge of reality
Ayn Rand was a brainlet