/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18882663]

There's literally no decent arguments against it beyond resentment or insulting the reader

[Anonymous No.18882668]

>>18882663
What if it's in my self-interest to seize property by force not participate in the market.

[Anonymous No.18882677]

>>18882668
That's fine but you have to contend with every other person who believes in property and the right to defend said property with firearms. Hence why property rights have been so successful

[Anonymous No.18882685]

>>18882663
/thread

[Anonymous No.18882690]

>>18882677
It seems that the vast majority of egoists would not be capitalists, however. This is why Stirner and Nietzsche are superior, because they do not try to trick you into committing to any particular social programme or movement. Rand is a moralist and a dogmatist, imo.

[Anonymous No.18882711]

>>18882677
This would only work if property was more or less evenly distributed. With the current state of things, the poor would gladly start redistributing possessions of the rich, and not only doing it right now due to implicit threat of violence.

[Anonymous No.18882732]

>>18882711
What a surprise, the only criticism is based on sheer larping. The proles are gonna rise up any moment now, right? Right...?

[Anonymous No.18882740]

>>18882690
The vast majority of egoists are capitalists. The ones who aren't are slothful losers with no discernible skills who convince themselves they're egoists.

[Anonymous No.18882756]

>>18882663
>yes daddy Bezos let me suck that cock hhnghh mmmnmm mmmnghh mm

[Anonymous No.18882770]

>>18882663
It's extremelly drawn out and preachy. Doesn't have the panache of Nietzsche to keep you reading. By the end of it don't feel that pumped, I feel bored instead.

[Anonymous No.18882780]

>>18882756
>There's literally no decent arguments against it beyond insulting the reader
Like clockwork

[Anonymous No.18882783]

>>18882756
Those are the good parts.

[Anonymous No.18882792]

>>18882685
>a cartoon for an argument
Many such cases

[Anonymous No.18882803]

>>18882663
yeah, yeah, the entrepreneur as god's gitft to the world, if they would stop giving their divine creativity to the masses, everything would come to an screetching halt
come on, buddy, nobody could believe in this childish fantasy even the romans 2500 years ago had a more believable social myth (story of the hand and stomach)

[Anonymous No.18882809]

>>18882663

Even if you're sympathetic to the ideas, The Fountainhead is the better novel.

[Anonymous No.18882812]

>>18882803
A very basic understanding. The main message is that of Reason, that A=A, and that to rely on others to do reasoning for you leads to all evils in the world. Rand was escaping Soviet Russia and saw the evils of surrendering reason to the group or to figureheads.

[OP No.18882819]

>>18882663
Nature shows that collectivism is better than egoism in practically every aspect. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive to be an elite in society

[Anonymous No.18882822]

>>18882803
Half of society has an IQ of 80 or below. The message is 100% true. A creative minority propels the world, and the unremarkable mediocre masses reap the rewards

[OP No.18882829]

>>18882792
it's more worth than one hundred words. Ignore my name

[Anonymous No.18882915]

>>18882822
I didn't read the book because it's not scientifically-sound but the relation intelligent minority-masses is mutualisti. if not the mediocre individuals would have been wiped out long ago and they would not constitute the masses. the intelligent ones exploit the labour of the masses and they provide their creations in exchange. the result is an overall increase of fitness for everyone.

[Anonymous No.18882957]

>>18882668
Why are you asking others a question for yourself?

[Anonymous No.18882988]

>>18882711
Attempts at forceful redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor are not in the best interest of the poor.

Wealth can not be redistributed.

[Anonymous No.18883017]

>>18882822
Late-stage capitalism does not promote creativity or innovation.
Megacorps buy up a bunch of patents and sit on them, releasing them piecemeal an de slowing down innovation and stunting creativity.

[OP No.18883031]

>>18883017
You cannot empirically prove this claim.

[Anonymous No.18883033]

>>18882663
I wouldn't know, I've never made it more than a few pages through Rand's god awful writing.

[Anonymous No.18883035]

>>18882819
>Nature shows
Nature isn't sentient. It can't show anything.

>that collectivism is better than egoism in practically every aspect.
Name one aspect.

[Anonymous No.18883036]

>>18882792

[Anonymous No.18883043]

>>18883017
>Late-stage capitalism
helloreddit

[Anonymous No.18883045]

>>18882819
collectivism also makes individuals highly expendable

[Anonymous No.18883048]

>>18883035
>Name one aspect.
5 people can easily kill 1 person

[Anonymous No.18883066]

>>18882819
>Nature shows that collectivism is better than egoism in practically every aspect
That's due to the fact that it increases your chances of survival.
In other words, you are taking part of a collective group because it benefits you so you are still essentially an egoist.

[Anonymous No.18883077]

>>18883017
These "mega-corps" are goverment affiliated. They can only exist within the shell of regulations that protect them.

Patent law is part of that shell.

[Anonymous No.18883087]

>>18883048
That is certainly a good argument for why 5 people are better than 1 person. What does it have to do with egoism though?

[Anonymous No.18883102]

>>18883087
Egoists have to be beholden to the majority to some degree if they don't want to ripped apart.

[Anonymous No.18883124]

>>18883102
Collectivists have to be beholden to the majority to a greater degree if they don't want to ripped apart.

A win for egoists.

[Anonymous No.18883142]

>>18882677
>you have to contend with every other person who believes in property and the right to defend said property with firearms
If that was the only deterrant there would be no property anymore. The thing you really have to contend is with modern government bureaucracy and it's nationalistic rhetoric, that makes it possible to have huge armies and police forces.

[Anonymous No.18883173]

>>18883035
>It can't show anything.
it can. it is called empirical evidence. but I was referring to a sort of differential "hierarchical" collectivism, not an egalitarian one.
Cells and tissues which cooperate together form a man, cells who mutate and become "egoistical" trying to proliferate at the expence of the whole body get killed by leukocytes and in case they escape they form tumors, eventually killing themselves and the whole body. the body without "egoistical" cells instead survives and takes all the resources.
I think the body is always a good metaphor for society because everything that exists follows natural selection.

[Anonymous No.18883198]

>>18883124
egoists usually get incarcerated or killed. everyone has to conform to society.

[Anonymous No.18883213]

>>18883173
No it can't. What you meant was that you infered something after observing nature. Nature did not show you anything.

I know what you were referring too and it makes no sense.

If mutated cells get killed by leukocytes, then obviously mutating was not in the cells best interest, therefore not egoist.

[Anonymous No.18883216]

>>18883173
If everyone in the history of humanity acted according to a pure collectivist spirit, mankind would've have advanced an inch in any way. Collectivism only works if it allows a few individuals to stand out and excel, but that is a contradiction to its universal worth. All-encompassing, total collectivism destroys the spirit of man.

[Anonymous No.18883220]

>>18883216
wouldn't, I don't see that well anymore.

[Anonymous No.18883230]

>>18883198
If everyone has to conform then that at most makes everyone equal. It does not show that collectivism is superior to egoism in any aspect.

Also, everyone dies. Again, equal.

Why can't you show one aspect?

[Anonymous No.18883366]

Jesus said you should sell everything you own and give the money to the poor. This seems to contradict that, so it can't be correct

[Anonymous No.18883443]

>>18883366
Trading some money for an eternity in paradise doesn't seem to be against self-interest. There is no contradiction. Dumb, but not contradictory.

[Anonymous No.18883483]

>>18883443
Its not a trade off for paradise, that's absolutely not what Jesus is offering. Its the objectively correct way to live your life right here on earth. It may very well go against your self interest, that's the whole point

[Anonymous No.18883561]

>>18882756
he also didn't mention the part where a factory worker knocked the teeth out of a little girl's mouth, which was justified, according to the author, because the girl got braces insured by the company while the employee couldn't afford vinyl records

[Anonymous No.18883568]

>>18883483
It is tradeoff.

If it's the correct way to live then it can't be against self-interest. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.18883600]

>>18883561
But that isn't what happens at all, and Ayn nowhere says "the little girl deserves it". Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the story?

[Anonymous No.18883611]

>>18883213
yes, jackass, it's what a metaphor is. nature shows means "we observe from nature". don't try hard to be smart.

[Anonymous No.18883640]

>>18883230
>Why can't you show one aspect?
I just did several times. but you're misusing the language to escape from getting btfoed. humans formed a society and developed empathy and altruism because it was best for their fitness. aggressive individualistic species who cannot live in harmony with their ecosystem either get whiped out or destroy everything.
about the tumor examples, you're probably too stupid to understand but I'll explain better. yes, it is best for the cell to not mutate just like it is in the interest of the individual to conform to collective norms.

[Anonymous No.18883654]

>>18883611
It's not a metaphor.

The difference between "nature shows x" and "I inferred x after observing nature" is huge.

Arguing against the first is tantamount to arguing against nature. Arguing against the second is just arguing against a man.

Also, why did you use "we" to describe your own observations? Again you are trying to misrepresent your thoughts as something more than they are.

[Anonymous No.18883664]

>>18882663
Not even her best book.

[Anonymous No.18883708]

>>18883654
it's called empirical observation, jackass. and so far it's the only worthy scientifical approach, an hypothesis supported by facts (like mine) is more valid than an unsupported hypothesis like yours.
this is called inductive reasoning, jackass. and until you falsify my hypothesis (that altruism is better than egoism) I'm to be considered right.
this is, you may be shocked, the scientific method

[Anonymous No.18883731]

>>18882792
but it just works

[Anonymous No.18883737]

>>18883640
That's why you are stupid. You equate egoism as being anti co-operation rather than being as a guide to successfully cooperation.

Your understanding of collectivism vs egoism is 5 people vs 1 person. This is unbelievably dumb.

My understanding of collectivism vs egoism is 5 people working together for the good of the other 4 people vs 5 people working together because they know it's in their best interests to work together.

That should show how shallow your understanding of the subject is.

[Anonymous No.18883761]

>>18883708
You have presented no facts.

[Anonymous No.18883763]

>>18882690
Stirner was a fan of capitalism, and Nietzsche hated socialism

[Anonymous No.18883766]

>>18883017
Late stage socialism means you just die from starvation because nobody wants to actually work for food

[Anonymous No.18883767]

>>18883737
>5 people working together for the good of the other 4 people vs 5 people working together because they know it's in their best interests to work together
this is literally the same thing, stupid moron. it's called mutual cooperation and it's how human behaviours evolved.

[Anonymous No.18883780]

>>18883124
>>18883102
Collectivists are egoists; just for the mob. Their egoism is called "altruism." Commies complain about the egotistic inclinations of those who've done better than them i.g. the rich. The greatest trick commies, collectivists, and other idiots like them have played is to paint you as the selfish one when all of our actions are self interested. The conscious egoist is the one who point out the hypocrisy, and isn't willing to be guilt-ed by the mob to change course by the altruists.

[Anonymous No.18883790]

>>18882663
>free will exist because... uh
>IT JUST DOES OKAY
>I'M THE MOST OBJECTIVE PHILOOPHER SINCE ARISTOTLE

[Anonymous No.18883792]

>>18883035
>>18883654
>the guy who likes ayn rand is a pedant
like poetry
mad about turns of phrase because there is no good evidence that collectivism is bad.
by means of evidence, please explain how society came to where it is? prehistorically, were proto-humans capitalistic?

[Anonymous No.18883793]

>>18883767
Not the same thing at all. Just shows your limited understanding.

If you are working FOR the other 4 people you can sacrifice yourself for them logically. If you are working WITH the other 4 people then sacrificing yourself is unthinkable.

How is this "literally the same thing"?

[Anonymous No.18883796]

>>18882663
>There's literally no decent arguments against it beyond resentment or insulting the reader
It was written by a woman

[Anonymous No.18883799]

>>18883780
Marxist communists don't care about selfishness since the whole point is to awaken the proletariat to their self-interest, not to bring about commie utopia by eradicating vice

[Anonymous No.18883800]

>>18882819
Nature shows that egoism is the default state of humanity - we live in an endless war of all against all. Man is a wolf upon man. You can join groups out of self interest, and you can also betray groups, exploit groups as many individuals have, out of self interest.

[Anonymous No.18883808]

>>18883800
war of man against man was barely a thing before the agricultural revolution.

[Anonymous No.18883813]

>>18883808
lol

[Anonymous No.18883821]

>>18883799
Communists are self interested; they are selfishn for power and for prosperity. They paint their goals as "altruistic", but they never have those goals in mind. They want the status, the wealth, and the respect that comes with economic power in society.They want to become the new bourgeois. Instead of being content with what they have, since many of them could simply live a simple life, they crave more than they are capability of. Their frustration, and failures, to achieve such ends just snowballs into the resentment and calls for revenge against those who were hard working or lucky enough to get the things they wish they had.

[Anonymous No.18883825]

>>18882663
It's interesting how Rand's movement literally turned into a collectivist cult and while Rand was anti-war the modern Institute is a bunch of literal neocons. Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.18883827]

>>18883568
christfags can't respond to this

[Anonymous No.18883828]

>>18883800
>Nature shows that egoism is the default state of humanity - we live in an endless war of all against all. Man is a wolf upon man. You can join groups out of self interest, and you can also betray groups, exploit groups as many individuals have, out of self interest.
This is not the case. Humans have always existed in packs and tribes. The thought experiments usedby Hobbes et. al for understanding political systems are not accurate anthropological pictures of early humanity.

[Anonymous No.18883829]

>>18883792
>the guy who likes ayn rand is a pedant
Complaining about someone being pedantic is just complaint that they are right.

You have no argument so you complain that I am too right and then ask me to explain random stuff until I get tired of being right. I'll pass.

[Anonymous No.18883831]

>>18883821
An American wrote this post

[Anonymous No.18883839]

>>18883829
imagine being this delusional
>explain random stuff
its pretty clear cut that primitive communism existed; it was needed to develop society

[Anonymous No.18883845]

>>18883761
>>18883230
>Why can't you show one aspect?
I just did. but here's a list of what comes to my mind. multiple genetic loops merged together to form chromosomes, bacterial colonies, evolution of multicellularity, cooperation between cell types to tissues, then functional organs and then a whole functional body. then we have the evolution of eusociality from insects to mammals. the mere existance of family and society for humans should be enough of an evidence but the more clear example is altruistic suicide in animals (see autothysis). after all this observations, using inductive reasoning, we can say that in terms of fitness and natural selection, altruism is more fit than egoism to survive.
but this has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth or collectivism in the marxist sense, it's about cooperation vs egoistical approach. but in a sense you can say that individuals understood that it was better for their own fitness to become altruistical, and in some cases (insects) they formed a society where individual members are so dependent on each other that the whole society can be considered an organism.

[Anonymous No.18883850]

>>18883808
lmao retard.
Anyways, communists are really stupid. The fact of the matter is human life intrinsically has no value. You have projected value onto it via your superstitious moral systems. You fetishize the worker when work is simply energy over time - a means of existence. Every living organism works; there's nothing special or sacred about it. There's no need to hold it high regard. You don't have to care about them. Some people are simply destined to be slaves out of the sheer fate of their genetics and environment. Your life is already predetermined. Nature is simply you accepting your fate, your inevitable death, and learning how to make the most of it while you're here. Fighting against it is unnatural, and is the source of your problems in life. That's why you'll never achieve endaemonia, and why you'll always be a bickering bitchy anon on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.18883856]

>>18883800
>Nature shows that egoism is the default state of humanity - we live in an endless war of all against all. Man is a wolf upon man. You can join groups out of self interest, and you can also betray groups, exploit groups as many individuals have, out of self interest.
it shows the exact opposite

[Anonymous No.18883858]

>>18883850
very eloquent long-winded say to admit you accept being a cuck, anon

[Anonymous No.18883865]

>>18883828
>This is not the case. Humans have always existed in packs and tribes.
Absolutely false, in certain cases, many humans were independent nomads who did not work in groups. More so, working in a group isn't contradictory to egoism. Selfish people often create groups to their own advantage, and discard them, when they are no longer feasible. Even in tribes, there is competition between brothers, sisters, spouses for selfish passions. Ironically, your argument doesn't make sense if you disregard egoism existing in groups; you wouldn't be complaining about it existing society. Society is a group, but yet, selfish people exist within it. Think before you post.
>>18883831
Nigger

[Anonymous No.18883868]

>>18883856
>>18883858
You will never live to see socialism., and you will never be a woman.

[Anonymous No.18883870]

>>18883850
you are the retard, think about it for a second, why would people go at war if there is no ressource to be gained. Hunter gatherers lived in small tribes and would have no interest in randomnly going at war with another one, sure there were murder but very little conflicts at any large scale

[Anonymous No.18883883]

>>18883865
Anon, what I meant is that the idea that humans are naturally, aboriginally atomistic and at odds with each other is obviously not correct. We see this both with great apes and uncontacted tribes. Humans do not grow off trees. They are from the moment they are born social beings, part of communities, etc. Also I am an egoist, I have no problem with egoism. It's just that the "war of all against all" idea is false anthropology. Find a better way to justify your political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18883886]

>>18883868
>You will never live to see socialism., and you will never be a woman.
I'm not a socialist because socialism is metaphysical rubbish, I consider myself a scientist and I just stated that empirical evidence shows the exact contrary. humans have developed eusociality and altruism under evolutionary pressure.
eusociality doesn't mean egalitarianism and absence of hierarchy though

[Anonymous No.18883890]

>>18883870
>you are the retard, think about it for a second, why would people go at war if there is no ressource to be gained.
Because they don't need economic reasons to fight, you fucking retard. You Marxists are so retarded you think that humans can be reduced to purely economic, rational creatures when history shows their passions, their emotions, and their ability to be irrational are what drive them in most cases.

[Anonymous No.18883891]

>>18882663
Fun book if you ignore the speeches. An underappreciated sci fi epic.

[Anonymous No.18883893]

>>18883870
if this was correct it would mean that chimps wouldn't go to war. chimps do go to war, therefore you are incorrect

[Anonymous No.18883898]

>>18883883
Your argument is wrong because there are cases where humans can be atomistic, and were atomistic, like nomads, foragers, and hermits who do not rely on groups. You just push goalposts even though you're just wrong. You're not intelligent enough to have this discussion; so don't continue with me.

[Anonymous No.18883905]

>>18883886
You haven't cited "empirical evidence" - you cited anecdotes and your feelings.
>altruism
Which is simply another form of egoism. Again, you just don't know what you're talking about. Groups can be formed out of self interest, and they certainly can be exploited out of self interest. You just don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.18883911]

>>18883898
Anon, you said that the ORIGINAL state of humanity is one of atomistic adversarial competition. Some humans *becoming* hermits is irrelevant. The point is not whether humans CAN exist on their own, it's whether they do by DEFAULT. Which they do not.

[Anonymous No.18883914]

>>18883890
They simply didn't have the population density for it idiot, keep thinking I'm your marxist boogyman because I base my understanding on what archeology and ethnologist say rather than some nonsensical metaphysic

[Anonymous No.18883922]

>>18883780
>>18883905
>altruism is egoism
this is your brain on rand

[Anonymous No.18883923]

>>18883911
>Anon, you said that the ORIGINAL state of humanity is one of atomistic adversarial competition.
It is though because humans compete even in groups as individuals for their own interests (how do you think hierarchies develop you fucking retard?), and naturally they can be found as nomads and atomistic. You're just wrong and retarded.

[Anonymous No.18883924]

>>18883793
>if you work for some people isexactly like being prepared to die for them
no. it isn't logical, it is a strawman logical fallacy. again, you're misusing the faulty human language to attack my arguments. and the separation between working for/working with makes no sense. you cannot collaborate with someone without doing nothing in return (that would be called parasitism). but in some groups like families there are indeed examples where one member sacrifices himself for the others.

[Anonymous No.18883930]

>>18883914
>They didn't have the population density
>People didn't kill each other because there wasn't the population density for it
You are completely fucking retarded and a dumbass. Stop wasting my time, commie.

[Anonymous No.18883935]

>>18883924
>collaborate with someone without doing nothing in return (that would be called parasitism)
he wont understand this, hes a capitalist

[Anonymous No.18883936]

>>18883930
>"This period of Paleolithic warlessness, grounded in low population density, an appreciation of the benefits of positive relations with neighbors, and a healthy respect for their defensive capabilities, lasted until the cultural development of segmental forms of organization engendered the origin of war"
>Kelly, Raymond (October 2005).

[Anonymous No.18883937]

>>18883923
Lmao. I don't think small rivalries within tribes and families counts as "war of all against all". The context is still essentially one of mutual cooperation with a safety net and shared goals. This is the "original" state. The anthoprological view you're talking about is one where originally separate individuals voluntarily come together to form associations. But this is just not how groups emerged in reality. The first human (whoever that was) was born into a community. He or she did not create it. Also what the fuck do you mean "naturally" they can be found as nomads and atomistic? Feral children or some shit.

[Anonymous No.18883953]

>>18883936
>>18883937
You're doing solipsism. You're making the claim "war" and "selfishness" don't exist because they don't share your definition. You're not making a coherent argument anymore - you're just being retarded.

[Anonymous No.18883960]

>>18882756
None of those happen in the book.

[Anonymous No.18883962]

>>18882663
Encouraging people to do whatever they want with no sense of virtue is a terrible idea. Healthy societies have a sense of noblesse oblige among the upper classes. Wealthy people who embraced Ayn Rand's ideas have destroyed their own societies for personal gain.

[Anonymous No.18883965]

>>18883953
What the fuck are you on about? I'm not that other guy. I never said war and selfishness don't exist you stupid faggot. Stop strawmanning. I'm disputing the very specific claim that humans are originally individualistic and then voluntarily form groups. Christ, I think your IQ might be a bit on the low end anon. No chance of success in the market!

[Anonymous No.18883967]

>>18883962
>whatever they want
It's not /whatever/ they want. They can do anything as long as it doesn't harm others.

[Anonymous No.18883974]

>>18883967
>as long as it doesn't harm others.
cuck. why does this restraint exist? libertarian ethics literally exists simply to prop up bug market behaviour.

[Anonymous No.18883975]

>>18883953
I'm not arguing that selfishness didn't exist, simply that logically speaking, small groups of hunter gatherer would have less reason to go to war, and therefore wouldn't go to war as often, which is supported by anthropological data.
Not making any metaphysical claim about the nature of man.

[Anonymous No.18883985]

>>18883962
>ealthy societies have a sense of noblesse oblige among the upper classes. Wealthy people who embraced Ayn Rand's ideas have destroyed their own societies for personal gain.
You're making a normative statement. You can easily make the case you can you could sacrifice society for personal gain. The society wants to use you for its "health" at the expense of your freedom. I see no issue using society, the way it uses you for its goals, for your own since it already has done for you.

[Anonymous No.18884005]

>>18883975
No, you're doing solipsism anon.
>"I don't think small rivalries within tribes and families counts as "war of all against all"."
Stop dodging your original argument and being dishonest. Are you really going to argue that there isn't selfishness in groups - that individuals don't compete for favor, status, or hierarchies within groups for self reasons such as personal gain? Defend that argument before you gish-gallops.Make your next post addressing this stupidity, or I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore.

[Anonymous No.18884007]

>rand was a big voice for libertarianism
>collected social security later in life
typical

>>18883965
people like him love the ideas in rand and with egoism until they realize that they wouldnt get a spot with the people rand described lel

[Anonymous No.18884032]

>>18884005
I'm not the one who made that post. Hiearchies, selfishness, status may have all existed in prominant ways during the paleolithic and if that's what you mean by "war of all against all" than fine. I'm just saying that warfare as it's usually defined was less common than in later periods because of environemental factors.

[Anonymous No.18884033]

>>18883905
again, you don't know the language you are misusing. an anecdote is a personal experience or an isolated case to dismiss statistics. My examples are multiple and impersonal, every science can observe them and makes the same conclusions.
I actually stole some of them from several scientific articles which are very important for the development of the concept of fitness and evolution.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC393409/
>https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Trivers-EvolutionReciprocalAltruism.pdf
these are free but on libgen you will surely find the works of Hamilton, the pioneer of the subject. but read "the Selfish Gene" of Dawkins to read another very influential position, I don't agree with the gene-centered view of evolution though.

[Anonymous No.18884035]

>>18883924
>you cannot collaborate with someone without doing nothing in return

What?

[Anonymous No.18884036]

>>18882663
.

[Anonymous No.18884041]

>>18883142
That's where private security forces come in.

[Anonymous No.18884043]

>>18884007
objectivism isn't against taking the government's money especially if it's money they took from you

[Anonymous No.18884047]

>>18883965
You are fucking dishonest solipsist. Raymond defines war in a way that excludes fighting between groups that are not above a certain size. Clearly, fighting, violence, and battles on a smaller happened for selfish reasons. Even Raymond, the idiotic sociology major you quoted, admits this in his own work.

>"Of the many cave paintings of the Upper Paleolithic, none depicts people attacking other people explicitly,[7][8] but there are depictions of human beings pierced with arrows both of the Aurignacian-Périgordian (roughly 30,000 years old) and the early Magdalenian (c. 17,000 years old), possibly representing "spontaneous confrontations over game resources" in which hostile trespassers were killed; however, other interpretations, including capital punishment, human sacrifice, assassination or systemic warfare cannot be ruled out.[9] "

Instead, you just do solipsism, and ignore that. Also, this is quite hilarious - anthropological records, even if true, are not authorities on human history simply because the data is not reproducible , and we simply do not have a complete data set - we have fragments of data we interpret based on our own methodologies. These can draw drastically different conclusions, and even that wikipedia article you cited doesn't even say Raymond's work is settled science. Its nice to see you can use google though, psued, but that doesn't prove anything to me but the fact that you are a lazy college freshmen bump who knows how to use a laptop.

[Anonymous No.18884055]

>>18884035
yes, I meant without doin anything. But you get the meaning. In my native language negatives don't nullify each other.

[Anonymous No.18884063]

But all of our John Galts (Bezos, Gates, Musk) only got rich thanks to government contracts. They are welfare queens. Glad to know libertarians are still dumb enough to do damage control for them. Rand was an idiot, and all of her followers are too.

[Anonymous No.18884067]

>>18884047
What the fuck are you talking about? I have never once while we were talking denied the existence of war at any point. Are you confused by my use of the phrase "war of all against all"? You're illiterate. Just fuck off.

[Anonymous No.18884071]

>>18884055
Ok, then you are wrong. You can cooperate with someone by avoiding them.

[Anonymous No.18884081]

Motherfucker claims he's a scientist, miscites his own work, and then he has the audacity to treat anthropology as an authoritative science. You can't run humanity through a laboratory you fucking retard. There are no independent variables - claims are not testable in this field. Are you really a scientist, or did you get your degree from a fucking kellog's cereal box?

[Anonymous No.18884095]

>>18884063
was this before or after amazon made billions of dollars?

[Anonymous No.18884117]

>>18884063
Lol yeah. It's funny reading about Fred Trump and his entire business relying on subsidies.

[Anonymous No.18884126]

>>18882803
>if they would stop giving their divine creativity to the masses, everything would come to an screetching halt
If you were remotely accomplished you're quickly realise that this is exactly the case. Most people are just marking time to keep things ticking over

[Anonymous No.18884143]

>>18882668
Then you do it, no need for an afterthought about it.

[Anonymous No.18884156]

>>18884081
you can make other ad hominen attacks, falsify my hypothesis or admit you're wrong.
I don't know what you mean by authoritative science, but every science needs empirical evidence to be considered a science (that's why marxism and pshychoanalysis are not a science). I'm only familiar with the realm of biology and medicine (and some basic chemistry and physics) as I find myself in med school, so I'm not acquainted with your definition of anthropology but the hypothesis of inclusive fitness has been proven by people more experienced than myself and has yet to be falsified, therefore it is to be considered true.
but I doubt their work will satisfy you because you are emotionally involved in a metaphysical theory.

[Anonymous No.18884165]

>>18884095
Amazon never turned a profit, dolt. The company only became more than high stock option when they started hosting government cloud data on AWS. Same with Musk when he was awarded government contracts. Sorry to tell you, but there are not any self made rich people anymore.

[Anonymous No.18884177]

>>18884081
and I never claimed to be a scientist,as I am still a student. I instead said that I consider myself a scientist because I consider experience and inductive reasoning (aided by heuristics) the only source of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.18884184]

>>18884041
As I said, if property depended on private security forces, there would be no property since the beginning of the last century at least.

[Anonymous No.18884218]

Anyway, even if I stated that altruism and resource sharing are advantageous in evolutionary terms, I never stated that social differences are to be abolished and that resources are to be equally shared. that society would survive only in a very isolated environment and would be "primal", it would be a paradox, because it would be against the Pareto's Principle.
It seems completely natural that the top quintile possesses 80% of wealth/assets. If the 80/20 equilibrium is disrupted, in my opinion it will readjust itself in one way or another. but unlike my first claim, I cannot prove the second, because sociology is so far not a science.

[Anonymous No.18884253]

>>18884165
google says amazon made their first quarterly profit in 2001 and first annual profit in 2003. AWS launched in 2006, so what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.18884275]

ITT socialist failures try to argue it don't really be the way it do

[Anonymous No.18884326]

>>18884275

More distressing than the socialist failures are the socialist successes.

[Anonymous No.18884350]

>>18884253
>This profit margin, though extremely modest, proved to skeptics that Bezos' unconventional business model could succeed.

Wow, he really is a John Galt. There was always debate about whether Amazon would last. This debate only stopped when AWS arrived. I understand you are young or stupid so this might go over your head.

[Anonymous No.18884416]

>>18884350
it looks like aws govcloud was launched in 2011 and their first big government contract was awarded in 2013. Do you know if the government contracts are awarded based off lobbying or a bidding war, if it's the ladder what would be the problem with that?

[Anonymous No.18884738]

>>18884326
>success
>a podcast
Lmao

[Anonymous No.18884850]

>>18883077
do you really think there is a way to differentiate megacorps from the government?

>>18883031
ok then, have fun with your decaying culture and decaying society

[Anonymous No.18884861]

Ayn Rand makes me hate women

[Anonymous No.18885284]

>>18882663
My fav book despite the fact it’s not that well written

[Anonymous No.18885340]

>>18885284
very rarelly do I see somebody that just likes Ayn Rand, it's almost always either the basis of their personal philosophy or worthless drivel

[Anonymous No.18885356]

Holy shit the lack of genuine arguments itt. Most lie about the content of the book to create stawmen. Very disappointing from this board.

[Anonymous No.18885370]

>>18885340
I dunno about liking her. This book is brilliant though and it’s controversy is a reflection of average human intellect. I do not subscribe to her ideas but agree with a lot of her ideas (they’re not new).

[Anonymous No.18885402]

>>18882677
Is this a cope? When the bourgeoisie defend themselves, it turns out poorly. Just look what Lenin did to them in the USSR. Even outside of class struggle, they're weak people insulated by wealth. All it takes is a gigachad to come up and take everything by force.

[Anonymous No.18885914]

>>18882819
>every aspect
You mean mass starvation?

[Anonymous No.18885925]

>>18883017
A pure Capitalist doesn't believe in intellectual property.

[OP No.18886148]

>>18885914
It's annoying discussing with metaphysical morons, but collectivism doesn't mean necessarily marxism. Society is necessarily collectivistic by definition. Anyway in the previous posts I provided extensive demonstration of why altruism is more advantageous than egoism, hence the birth of society. But that doesn't imply the sharing of resources should be egalitarian, it should follow the Pareto's Law.

[Anonymous No.18886198]

>>18883890
We should only talk about productivity and wealth distribution (generation) because that's the only thing that matters is public policy. We shouldn't let the social contract be unilaterally modified, least of all for a failed social theory.

[Anonymous No.18886531]

>>18883443
But this book isn't pro-self interest. It's pro-suck-the-dick-of-the-wealthy-ubermensch. So yes, it contradicts what it means to be an objectively good person.

Cope.

[Anonymous No.18886989]

>>18882663
boring and poorly written aren’t legit arguments? huh?

[Anonymous No.18887245]

>>18886531
>objectively good person.
Ok retard.

[Anonymous No.18887499]

>>18882663
So long as you understand that cooperation and maintaining trust and community with other human beings is beneficial to your own self interestuntil it isn't so you shake things around for a bit till it starts benefiting you again, and be vigilante as humanity is a constantly changing thing and nothing is perfect and that for your own self interest paying attention to the long run a consequences is important than yeah.
like there's nothing inherently wrong with it, it's just some retards take it to retarded conclusions to justify being an asshole, tho that literally every single way of thinking with people using whatever they have available to justify stupid shit

[Anonymous No.18887557]

>>18883366
technically altruism is kinda self serving, because the ultimate goal is improving things for your fellow man and that usually results in better everything which is pretty great, it's a neccesity to maintain society and the individuals safety and happiness, plus humans are genetically wired to feel good about helping their fellow humans as we are social creatures, there's literally no reason to not be a good person, however the whens and hows to be a good person are a bit complicated tho I think Jesus Had it pretty right as he didn't do anything fucked up and knew pacifism didn't always work even approving of self defense for the common man or on societal scale with defensive war

[Anonymous No.18887577]

>>18882663
don't care, she writes like shit.

[Anonymous No.18887633]

>>18883173
>lets put these outstanding individuals in gulags because.... the human body!
do commies really?

[Anonymous No.18887653]

>>18883767
the stupidity of /lit/ never ceases to amaze me

[Anonymous No.18887677]

OH SHIT GUYS ITS AN AYN RAND THREAD ON /lit/!!!!!!!!!!!!!!¡!!!!!!!!!!!

>just finished reading fountain head
>research online bring me to ayn rand foundation.
>thdy offer prize money to anyone who can defeat ayn rand argument
>ayn rands understanding of ego as a system is very childlike.
>not aware that the ego is more dependant on the system
>egoism is then a question of scope
>i am so frustrated
>pray to all the gods,demons,aliens,planets,minerals,saints,and ancestors
>they tell me its all going according to plan
>now i realize i cant actually claim the money as that would be a self defeating egoist move.
>with this the monk was enlightened

[Anonymous No.18887691]

>>18887677
>figure i will just try to get other anons banned for bumping an ayn rand thread of /lit/

[Anonymous No.18887717]

>>18883845
as if cells are somehow conscious of working with other cells? they're just fucking proteins reacting to stuff.
>family
the one you want to eradicate?
>the whole society can be considered an organism
literal middle-school argument

[Anonymous No.18888223]

>>18883017
>Disney made a mouse character now i can't be fucked to be creative and make a better one.

The only thing late stage capitalism is guilty of is making people too lazy to be creative or innovative.

[Anonymous No.18888252]

>>18883960
The train part definitely happens. I recall it very well because it was incredibly hackneyed. The whole book is like the most over the top, hit you over the head allegory possible. The prose is ok, nothing great. No idea how this is considered a classic. It isn't particularly deep or creative in content, is almost children's fiction in how it has to spell everything out without nuance, and is 500 pages too long.

[Anonymous No.18888261]

The ending reads like Marvel Avengers movie team-up ending. It’s not good at all

[Anonymous No.18888805]

>>18888252
It’s considered a classic because it’s written by a woman and it’s about self responsibility, if you don’t understand how that makes it unusual, then it’s a reflection on you.

[Anonymous No.18889035]

>>18886531
>But this book isn't pro-self interest. It's pro-suck-the-dick-of-the-wealthy-ubermensch.

That's only a bad thing if you identify more with the untermensch than you do with the ubermensch...

Please tell me you didn't read Rand and self insert as one of the leaches. That's fucking hilarious if so.

[Anonymous No.18889117]

>>18887717
you can only do ad hominem and strawmen, to which I will reply in the same fashion. You're a Dunning-kruger who doesn't know what he's talking about, not about cells, not about darwinism you claim to know, not about society.
Society as an organism is an evolution of the theory of memes set up by Dawkins and it is pretty convincing. About cells being conscious, they are not more conscious than we are. Our nervous system is a huge conglomerate of cells working together, until they lost their individuality.
It's a good comparison for society, even if sociology is not scientific.
About family, your strawman makes no fucking sense. Family is being wiped out as a social structure because it is advantageous anymore for natural selection. This is how we perceive the world to work with our senses.

[Anonymous No.18889323]

>>18889035
The wealthy are the leeches. They're (objectively) the biggest welfare queens.

[Anonymous No.18889533]

>>18889323
You obviously didn't even read the book...

Yes, many of the leaches are wealthy. Dagnys brother, James Taggart, is the main antagonist of the story and the biggest leech - and he is rich.

[Anonymous No.18889553]

>>18883975
No it isn't. Post source for that claim. Both forensic archeology and observations of modern hunter gatherers show homicide rates far higher than Europe from 1914-1945. That is, the world wars kill less of the population than normal situations for hunter gatherers. 1:5 adult men will die in combat, sometimes more like half. This also falls in line to a degree with chimp behavior. From the jungles of the Amazon to the Innuit, predating other villages to cannibalize them, take their stuff, and rape their women is just something that happens. The Noble Savage is a dangerous myth that makes people cavalier about how shit things will be if order breaks down.

[Anonymous No.18889596]

>>18882677
>Hence why property rights have been so successful
>not a single functioning nation on earth where the government doesn't take anywhere between 20-60% of your "private property"
The fear of guillotines is already priced in faggot.

[Anonymous No.18889768]

>>18882690
More like Rand uses "egoism" in a different way than those authors do. For her, selfishness means acting according to your self-interest, which, to her, is something objective. Some thug who acts in whatever way because "it's what I want" for her is not selfish if what he wants is contrary to his objective self-interest: he's just a suicidal idiot who's damaging himself in smaller or greater ways.

[Anonymous No.18889794]

The reader is a retard and their only value is polishing my shoes or tilling fields

[Anonymous No.18889797]

>>18885340
I actually like Rand as a writer, both in fiction and in her polemics. She loses me as soon as she leaves metaethics, and my politics are pretty far from laissez-faire capitalism, but I just think her rhetorical style is engaging.

[Anonymous No.18889906]

>>18889768
From what I understand objectivism is the moral philosophy where your own life is assumed to be then most valuable thing. Without life nothing else can be had, so life is more valuable than anything else. From this assumption the rest of the philosophy follows.

Preserving life is moral and sacrificing life is immoral.

When she refers to self interest, what she is talking about is preserving your own life.

[Anonymous No.18889975]

>>18889906
Yes, but she also believes that since "reason is man's means to survival", only a life that's lived according to reason is moral. And life lived according to reason, to her, entails free market capitalism.

[Anonymous No.18890020]

>>18882663
People who have acted on Rand's philosophy turn out to be psychopaths. Keith Raniere, Alan Greenspan, some republicans et cetera... These people all have short term gains but have terrible track records and leave a legacy as failures. It's literally a psychopaths ideology.

[Anonymous No.18890096]

>>18883850
>whoa dude nihilism is cool people are just matter and energy bro

just because nobody in your life cares about you and never will because you have a repulsive personality doesn't mean the rest of us have to damn ourselves to your dystopian fanfiction novel.

the reality is, people like you will always be jealous of people like me with compassion and a warm heart. because you wallow in your hatred, alone and desperately trying to block out the pain with baubles and trinkets. Whilst I live a fulfilling and happy life. When you are on your death bed, I am willing to wager you will truly understand what a wretched existence you served and you will spend your final moments in regret.

[Anonymous No.18890105]

>>18882663
It was over the top to a comical level

[Anonymous No.18890178]

>>18890096
>When you are on your death bed, I am willing to wager you will truly understand what a wretched existence you served and you will spend your final moments in regret.

That's some top level compassion you got there. Very warm hearted. And I'm sure the guy who spends his days bragging on 4chan has a very happy and fulfilling life.

[Anonymous No.18890300]

>>18890105
Yeah it sure was, but so was the holdomor and great famine. If you read it from a modern perspective it seems impossible that characters can be so stupidly evil, yet Lysenko was a real man. It’s as dramatically stupid as Stalinism, a reactionary work that serves as a warning for how unthinkably wrong the consequences of a backwards philosophy can be. Her depiction of great men are cartoonish too, but idealism always is. It’s fun to see what different people admire in mankind when brought to an ultimate conclusion: go ahead and try to write your perfect vision of man and see if he doesn’t seem cartoonish. If he doesn’t then you’re a sad milquetoast looser, who’s ultimate expression of self is some character like Nick in the Great Gatsby. Jesus is used by the west as a model for man at his best, and he walks on water, performs miracles, comes back to life, then has dramatic soliloquies with his most loyal followers as a ghost. the romans that crucify him and Judas are as motivationally complex as a good anime villain. In conclusion her book is cartoonish, but that is part of what makes it a good work. If that isn’t for you then so be it, but this trait is not some accident and it doesn’t detract from the quality of her message.

[Anonymous No.18890310]

>>18890096
You really don't sound brimming with compassion lmao, you're fantasizing about someone suffering their last moments in pain and isolation because they made a rude post to you on 4chan

[Anonymous No.18890350]

>>18890300
Well said. I thought the same, but couldn't be bothered writing it all out.

[Anonymous No.18890361]

>>18882792
right, that's what the OP did

[Anonymous No.18890382]

>president of my country never fails to bring up that he has the support of “the people”
>there’s been accidents of 10+ death on infrastructure, public transportation and other government projects
>president always attacking and mocking the middle to upper class for wanting to get ahead economically and in education
>The general political narrative promotes austerity, in a way i’m thinking this is to prepare us for inevitable shortages of all essential needs
While I think Rand is an inhuman psycho, the situation in my country reads like just another chapter of Atlas Shrugged

[Anonymous No.18890389]

>>18890382
What country?

[Anonymous No.18890491]

>>18883960

[Anonymous No.18890501]

>>18890491

[Anonymous No.18890506]

>>18890501

[Anonymous No.18890545]

>>18890491
Can't believe this shit is real

[Anonymous No.18890581]

>>18890491
>>18890501
>>18890506
Those don't contain what was said in
>>18882756

[Anonymous No.18890587]

>>18890581
theyre there for everyone to read :)

[Anonymous No.18890600]

>>18883173
What a stupid argument when Unicellular organisms exist

[Anonymous No.18890626]

>>18884156
Learn what a positive claim is, retard. The anthropological evidence cited, by Raymond, is contested - he is not an authority on human history. Nor is any "anthropologist" scrapping together fragments of history to make a unified theory. Get that Marxist solipsism out of your head

[Anonymous No.18890633]

>>18890600
can you name a unicellular organism that doesn't co-operate with other organisms of the same species in order to propagate itself

[Anonymous No.18890659]

>>18890491
>>18890501
>>18890506
For me it's the scene in The Fountainhead where she sneers at retarded children.

[Anonymous No.18890666]

>>18890389
Mexico

[Anonymous No.18890667]

>>18890633
The fact that organisms don't have to co-operate for life to exist, like unicellar organisms that use photosynthesis, completely demolishes your claim. Organisms can certainly choose to cooperate, but nature shows they don't have to. You're moving goalposts even though your original claim is completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.18890670]

>>18890587
No they are not.

[Anonymous No.18890672]

>>18890633
>He doesn't know what Mitosis is
Holy shit, anon. Just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.18890701]

I thought "communists don't understand human nature" was a meme, but they really don't even understand human biology. Imagine coming to 4chan, and then trying to argue that tissue was necessary on life on Earth, to exist, when biological theories of life, on Earth, all have the hypothesis that life on Earth existed for billions of years as single cellular organisms. Its generally understood multi-ceullar organisms are mutation that came much after. You even don't even realize these organisms still exist too. You really are fucking dumb. Its incredible.

[Anonymous No.18890705]

>>18890672
since humans cant do that i dont really know what your point is in terms of egoism versus collectivism

[Anonymous No.18890713]

>>18890667
but single celled organisms do have to co operate with other single celled organisms in order to continue existing

[Anonymous No.18890738]

Why do.you guys keep talking about co-operation? It's basically irelivent. Co-operation is possible from both an egoists and a collectivist perspective, so proving that it is good or bad or possible or impossible or anything else is compleatly irelivent.

[Anonymous No.18890748]

>>18890705
You're making the claim that life can't exist without being alone, and nature shows it can and has. How stupid are you, anon? You're gonna argue now tissue isn't made of cells, or that that cells aren't a part of life?
>Humans
That was already addressed, read the thread, humans have existed alone as nomads and hermits. Like, again, you're just wrong on very basics facts.
>>18890713
Again, you're moving goalposts. Biologically speaking, it is entirely possible, for life to exist without other cells. Prokaryotic cell theory shows this. Co-operation is a choice, not a necessity, for life. You're just repeating your same stupid argument ad naesum. Please, read a fucking biology textbook before you even act as an authority on anything human.

[Anonymous No.18890754]

>>18890738
Read the thread >>18890748 already pointed that out. I'm pointing out too, however, that even collectivism is not the default state of life using empirical evidence. Commies just don't even understand basic biology.

[Anonymous No.18890771]

>>18883766
The food industry is highly automated.

[Anonymous No.18890776]

Its gonna blow the mind of some idiots here that Parthenogenesis exists too. Which also cuts into that theory life needs co-operation to exist. Human Parthenogenesis may even be possible in the future with genetic engineering.

[Anonymous No.18890791]

>>18890754
you're the idiot desu

[Anonymous No.18890799]

People have the wrong idea about altruism.

Altruism exists in apathy: it is without motivation.

Egoism exists with the motivator of self-serving: it could be financial, it could be emotional [which it largely is], etc.

Mutually-beneficial acts are inherently egoistic. You are helped, as is another. There is benefit for the individual by acting as such. There is nothing inherently wrong with this; the foundation of societies rest on mutually-beneficial transaction [quid pro quo, The Golden Rule, you scratch my back, etc. etc.]

Altruism does exist; however, it is rare and begs the question: why act with no motivation?

[Anonymous No.18890815]

>>18890799
>Why act with no motivation?
Why act?

[Anonymous No.18890864]

>>18890815
>Why act?
Motivation.

[Anonymous No.18890877]

>>18890799
>why act with no motivation?
Aesthetics

[Anonymous No.18890950]

>>18882663
best argument against atlas shrugged is actually reading the book

[Anonymous No.18890965]

>>18890950

[Anonymous No.18891008]

>>18882756
kek

[Anonymous No.18891568]

>>18890748
>Biologically speaking, it is entirely possible, for life to exist without other cells
no, across any meaningful timescale it isn't. it is possible for a unicellar organism to exist, but not possible for it to propagate without collaborating with other unicellar organisms.

[Anonymous No.18891651]

>>18883142
>The thing you really have to contend is with modern government bureaucracy and it's nationalistic rhetoric
yes, because in non modern government society property, or psuedoproperty did not exist. warlords did and do not pop up in balkanization processes or otherwise people staking claims to material.

[Anonymous No.18892161]

>>18882663
Nobody cares about the ideology.

[Anonymous No.18892192]

>>18882792
Y'know exactly like what OP did.
seethe.

[Anonymous No.18892227]

>>18882663
>Rand: taxes bad
>Rand: *applies to tax-funded healthcare*
Like pottery

[Anonymous No.18892249]

>>18883366
/thread

[Anonymous No.18892340]

Objectivism is a cult of Apollo and completely denies the Dionysian. Which is why most objectivists and their heroes are total autists or psychopaths. What Rand attempted is noteworthy and even sympathetic; since the death of God, western man has lost his soul and is trying to find another. She, being the radical Atheist she was, attempted to construct a philosophy to encourage the Nietzschean Ubermensch, but reason alone will not save us. Apollo may give us command over the Earth, but Dionysius reminds us of what it is to be Human. And her philosophy is correspondingly inhuman.

>>18883664
I found it way more agreeable, at least. At its core. it's a story about an artist who refuses to compromise and sell out, and the relationship between a creator and their work. Now, I don't think it needed 727 pages to put that across, but I don't regret reading it. Indeed, the parts about the themes are some of the better parts of the book, you really don't get such an optimistic view of Man and his creative potential these days, probably showing how Nihilistic we've really become.

Howard Roark is an autist and not very interesting; he's more an ideal than a person. I honestly found Gail Wynand more interesting BECAUSE of his flaw. The idea is: He's very nearly Howard Roark; He's intelligent, capable and doesn't give a damn about what people around him think, he has Nietzschean Will To Power and is probably also an expy for an Ubermensch. But his one flaw is that he believed he had power over the masses, when it was always the other way round. His one big flaw, which makes him Foil to Roark, is that he believed in nothing until he met Roark, thus, he only became a mirror to reflect the worst aspects of the masses, which bought his paper, to see themselves reflected back at them. It's why, when he fought for Roark in the papers, after he blew the housing projects him, the masses deserted him, since, A mirror what doesn't reflect is quickly discarded.

Whereas Howard believed in his vision and built his life off it, Wynand is doomed to forever be a mirror to the cruel and indifferent masses, Which is why he 'dynamites' his very own creation at the end of the Novel, echoing the man he admires.

[Anonymous No.18892470]

My politics are deeper than poor people bad rich people good.

[Anonymous No.18892732]

>>18892340
>total autists
true
>>18890581

[Anonymous No.18892954]

>>18882663
It only works if there’s a teeming throng of people who do all the shitty work you don’t want to do. Without that group and their their mindless groupthink propping up society you’d be too busy hunting, building a rudimentary shelter, farming, making clothes, digging wells for water and pits to crap in, maintaining all those things against the ravages of nature, and fighting back against wolves or whatever other prey animals are constantly circling you because you’re an easy lunch, in order to become a super capitalist John Galt. You’d never get out of the Stone Age, let alone become a Randian Ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.18892967]

Unfortunately the Soviets didn't finish the job with this filthy kikess

[Anonymous No.18892973]

>>18882663
If the reader is so ignorant and arrogant that they think anything by Rand is good or contains worthy ideas they should be resented and insulted.

[Anonymous No.18893025]

>>18882663
Decent argument against what, the book or the ideology? The book is a woman's fantasies about getting to fuck the most powerful men in society, not much to criticize and the ideology is fine I guess just used constantly to distract from real social issues.

[Anonymous No.18893059]

>>18882812
A=A cannot be a foundation for morals or ethics. Ayn never attempts to resolve the is/ought problem. She just assumes that her idea of is implies her idea of ought. She's philosophy for stupid people who want to feel smart about being exploited.

[Anonymous No.18893067]

>>18882988
All economic activity is wealth redistribution. For the past 40+ years, it has all been redistributed upwards.

[Anonymous No.18893243]

>>18892340
Gail Wynand and Peter Keating are pretty great characters.

[Anonymous No.18893381]

>>18893243

I agree with Keating, actually, good point. His thing, of course, is that he was the purely social animal. He sweet-talked and intrigued his way to the top, was used by Toohey until he wasn't useful, and then became yesterday's news, since he never forged his own unique identity from the others.

His tragedy is toward the end, it implies if he rejected Dominique and followed his heart with Catherine, he could have been happy, and if he rebelled against his Devouring Mother and chased his passion for painting, he could have been pretty good at it. A person who chases esteem among men will quickly find it not worth the price paid. As written in the court scene, by the end, he was barely even a man. Rand doesn't even write what happens to him after. I think suicide.

[Anonymous No.18893461]

>>18892954
Sure, but in exchange for doing those shitty jobs, the bottom 99% or whatever get to live in an industrial civilization, safe and prosperous. Pretty damn good deal for both sides, I think.

[Anonymous No.18893496]

Keep insulting me. Your words are powerless against my achievements and thirst for success. I will never lose sight of my ultimate goal or let your petty insults tear me down. This is dog eat dog world and you're a dog trying to take my slice of the meat. Once you get that meat, you do everything you can to protect it from the thieves and bums. That's the commies and leftist faggots full of resentment itt.

[Anonymous No.18893527]

>>18882668
It's not, Max.

[Anonymous No.18893534]

>>18882756
TL;DR: Based.

[Anonymous No.18893587]

>>18893461
>safe and prosperous
If you're lucky

[Anonymous No.18893628]

>>18893496
queer

[Anonymous No.18894317]

>>18893067
Incorrect. And... Just plain stupid. Anytime someones rate of productive output exceeds their rate of consumption, wealth is created.

The majority of economic activity is concerned with increasing productivity to create wealth.

[Anonymous No.18894344]

>>18893587
Luck has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.18894397]

>>18893628
Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.18894401]

>>18894344
You did well in choosing your parents and time and place of birth, and your basic health and intelligence level.

[Anonymous No.18894463]

>>18894401
And you did poorly in choosing to be an uneducated, drug addicted criminal.

[Anonymous No.18894491]

>>18894463
We both chose better than almost everyone who has ever lived. Imagine being such a loser that you chose to live before most people were even literate. Or choosing to be one of those kids who had to work mines from age 10. What morons! They need to get on our level.

I like to go to children's hospitals and talk to kids born with severe intellectual disabilities, and encourage them to make better choices.

[Anonymous No.18894501]

The objectivist argument; I have defined a moral system within which my view is irrefutable by design, I will disregard all arguments that question the validity of that system because they are necessarily outside of it. Why can't anyone present an argument against me?

If you cannot accept that human suffering is bad then there is no point talking to you, and you cannot be a Randian objectivist without utterly ignoring the suffering of others out of pigheaded arrogance. God will forgive you, but your fellows and those who sacrifices upon which you live, and which you deny, will not.

[Anonymous No.18894511]

>>18894501
Objectvists don't deny human suffering is bad. I'm not human? Do I not solve human suffering when benefit myself?
>God will forgive you, but your fellows and those who sacrifices upon which you live, and which you deny,
Oh no, the horror. My feelings.

[Anonymous No.18894531]

>>18891568
>no, across any meaningful timescale it isn't. it is possible for a unicellar organism to exist, but not possible for it to propagate without collaborating with other unicellar organisms.
Wrong. What is asexual reproduction - what is photosynthesis? Holy fuck, we have some stupid on this planet - did your mother give you fetal alcohol syndrome by any chance?

[Anonymous No.18894542]

>>18894491
I'm sure those kids with severe intellectual disabilities would be much better off in a pre industrial society!

[Anonymous No.18894544]

>>18893587
Over 98% of people in the United States are not homeless. What does luck have to do with it?

[Anonymous No.18894575]

>>18894501
Any moral philosophy that reasons from a point if view of minimising human suffering can only come to one ultimate conclusion.

KILL ALL HUMANS.

No humans = no human suffering.

Objectivism = your life is best
Collectivism = death is best

Go die for someone else faget.

[Anonymous No.18895557]

>>18894531
i'm not talking about reproduction which is why i used 'propagate' in every single post. just name a unicellular organism that doesn't depend upon others to continue existing (beyond just 'existing' in some sort of abstract present moment). all you have to do is name one organism.

[Anonymous No.18895898]

>>18882663
no the book is just tedious and boring as fuck, I couldn't care less about what political agenda it's trying to force onto the reader

[Anonymous No.18895910]

>>18882756
>the right's wet dream

[Anonymous No.18895940]

>>18882756
Why should Rearden keep his brother and mother when they openly despise how he lives?

Why should the surgeon be coerced to use the life saving technique in any way except on his exact terms, when the procedure would never have been discovered without him?

[Anonymous No.18895949]

>>18890799
>Altruism does exist
spoken like a true bugmen
but I guess if you stretch your definition of egoism as wide as Stirner did then even altruism is something that would please your ego, in which case Ayn Rand's entire philosophy collapses on its head.
Ayn Rand presupposes very strict rules in which egoism is confined so as to stop you from questioning the basis of her premise in the first place, because if you were to actually take egoism to its logical conclusions then you'd obviously not want to be limited by the shackles of "markets" and "private property", her egoism is nothing more than conformism to the status quo and I really wish the soviets spared us this cunt's ramblings.

[Anonymous No.18895961]

>>18895940
>Why should Rearden keep his brother and mother when they openly despise how he lives?
because they're his family, but then again I don't expect a subhuman who sees nothing wrong with kicking his family over tax policy disagreements to understand why family is important.
>Why should the surgeon be coerced to use the life saving technique in any way except on his exact terms, when the procedure would never have been discovered without him?
Because society's interests come ahead of whatever greed you operate on, good luck being a surgeon when you're effectively ostracized from society for putting profits ahead of people's lives, unfortunately that is still the case today but hopefully someday every single faggot like that surgeon will get the rope.

[Anonymous No.18896009]

>>18895961
>because they're his family
So? They were an abusive family. It's shown in the book that the brother Rearden kicked would openly belittle Rearden to his face and would use the money Rearden gives him to fund anti-business organizations that passed laws that made Rearden's business difficult. They have nothing to offer Rearden and they had no role to play in how Rearden got wealthy. The only thing they have on him is blood.

>Because society's interests come ahead of whatever greed you operate on
Why? Only individuals have interests, not "society", so what you're saying is "other people's interests come ahead of the surgeon's interests". For no reason. You just want him to sacrifice while others collect the sacrificial offerings, and you probably imagine yourself being one of the collectors too.

In fact, society has no means of coercing the surgeon to put out the medical technique he's developed if he's intent on keeping it secret. It's entirely at his mercy. You can't loot man's mind.

[Anonymous No.18896888]

>>18882822
I don’t care about the ‘creative minority’. I give a shit about myself and wish to perform fellatio on myself for the rest of my life. Your ‘creative minority’ does nothing for that desire so they may all kindly kill themselves.

Does that hurt? Too bad. The ‘creative minority’ only gains recognition as a result of the ‘uncreative majority’. Their success, their value, their rewards are all built on the very people they are supposedly meant to despise. How foolish. Even if we suppose the majority are cattle, the cattle must be taken care of to reap the benefits for the minority. Denying this is simply childish of you.

In short, you are all slaves to my will. Dance for my amusement. If your works are not of quality, o shall dismiss you and your life shall lose all meaning. If you are irrelevant to me then pray you have some audience for your ridiculously niche ‘creative’ interests. Perhaps children?