/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22833609]

The whole "rich people are oppressed" shtick is pretty bad but other than that I think the ideas of the book are solid and true.

[Anonymous No.22833640]

>>22833609
Bootlicker

[Anonymous No.22833643]

>>22833640
>why can't these freedom loving bootlickers realize that submitting to the government and being a slave is the only way forward, UGH my rich bitch mental health diagnoses are acting up

[Anonymous No.22833664]

>>22833643
You don't take issue with getting raped in your asshole as long as it's McDonalds that's doing the raping you're absolutely A-OK with it.

[Anonymous No.22833669]

>>22833664
You are fucking retarded nigger.

[Anonymous No.22833804]

stop posting trash written by zionist kikes, k? thanks

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYqWRDiE No.22833917]

>>22833640
>>22833643
>>22833664
>>22833669
>>22833804


EITHER NEVER READ ANYTHING BY RAND, OR, HAVE READ, BUT DID NOT UNDERSTAND.

TYPICAL.

[Anonymous No.22834898]

>>22833609
>ZOMG LETS PUT A STOP TO THE WORLD LE HECKIN JOHN GALT HALTED THE GEARS TURNING LE SOCIETY WHOLESOME LMFAO
You’re a retarded faggot

[Anonymous No.22834967]

>>22833609
the whole purpose of having a society is that people are more productive working together. it's not some arena for competition. the fact that it's been corrupted as such, is why the system is totally dysfunctional and may last for a while yet, but not last forever.

[Anonymous No.22835311]

Fun book but half because it's so flat it reads like self-parody - any time Philip Rearden is sulking is a joy to read - literally the literary equivalent of a basedjack meme. Longest book you can read in a week without being a shut in. If you want a smart classical lib/libertarian read someone who was born in Austria-Hungary.

[Anonymous No.22835318]

>>22833609
>The whole "rich people are oppressed" shtick
it's not a shtick. ever heard of the holocaust?

[Anonymous No.22835367]

>>22833640
>>22833643
>>22835318
Ayn Rand applied for and accepted money from welfare programs (Social Security and Medicaid) because she mismanaged her finances and made poor lifestyle choices that damaged her health. Randtards will frequently try to retort that she was owed the money because she paid taxes while ignoring the fact she was saved by a social safety net.

[Anonymous No.22835369]

>>22835318
No never

[Anonymous No.22835535]

>>22835367
She had at least a half a million dollars cash in the bank when she died and her agent and friends had to talk her into taking social security. I’m not really a fan of Rand, but this line of attack is just as boring as the attacking Lovecraft for the name of his cat when he didn’t name the cat that, and almost every black animal was named some version of Nigger back then. Attack Rand for other things, like how she treated Brandon and other members of The Collective— do some research instead of burping up memes.

[Anonymous No.22835568]

>>22835535
>She had at least a half a million dollars cash in the bank when she died
So why didn't she use it?

[Anonymous No.22835675]

>>22835535
It was a social worker associated with her agent who assisted her (and her husband) in applying for and accepting welfare. However, it's interesting to point out the fact she accepted social assistance begrudgingly (i.e. she knew it flew in the face of her "philosophy").

Again, the bottom line is that Rand didn't plan adequately for her financial future and made life decisions that lead to her need of accepting Medicare. Rand was saved by a social safety net. Period.

[Anonymous No.22835687]

>>22835675
Who gives a shit? If you say that it’s healthy to be in shape but you die fat, that doesn’t mean you’re wrong about it being healthy to be in shape. That’s some fucking mongoloid logic.

[Anonymous No.22836122]

>>22835367
This is the political-spectrum-reversed equivalent of this comic.

[Anonymous No.22836207]

>>22833609
Is Atlas Shrugged better than The Fountainhead?

[Anonymous No.22836599]

Not rich people...capable people. You've completely missed the point.

[Anonymous No.22837223]

>>22835687
Shit analogy. This is spending your life ralling against something as evil only to be saved by it (and this demonstrating not only it's utility but implicitly endorsing it as a moral good). The other aspect is Rand's personal failure to live up to the responsibility of her ideals--Rantards tend to focus on this part because Randianism is a cult of ideology and there remains a cult of personality surrounding her. It was basically a self-help cult disguised as philosophy not unlike Scientology.

[Anonymous No.22837280]

>>22833917
https://nintil.com/why-ayn-rand-is-not-and-ought-not-be-taken-seriously

>I have never read a piece of work from Ayn Rand, beyond some paragraphs and extracts here and there on the internet. I never gave Objectivism, her system of thought, much importance.

>But there are people -Objectivists- who think she is one of the greatest, or the greatest, philosopher ever (along with Aristotle, they'll add). Sometimes, Objectivists tell people who have not read Rand to read her, so that they can become rational, and abandon their "non-Objectivist, mystical beliefs".

>I haven't read anything from Rand because I consider that the effort won't be worth it, as every time I've read something from Objectivists, I have not been persuaded that there is much to be learned from Rand. And also, there exists a critique available on the net that demolishes Objectivism. I will give reasons later why I believe the critique succeeds.

>This conclusion, however, has to be qualified. Should we reject views just because others with good qualifications say they ought to be rejected, and there are no critiques of their arguments for the rejections? Usually, yes. Such combination of factors is a very good reason to reject something without reading about it. This is how we generally go about in our life: rarely we go to the depths of Physics' journals to believe or disbelieve claims that physicists make. If a lot of people who have studied a subject for a long time agree on something, that is evidence for that something. It is not ultimate evidence, but the burden of proof is on you is you want to go against the consensus.

>So defenders of ideas that are out of the consensus of relevant experts should take the best critiques that have been made against them, and refute them. It would also be nice for them to provide a brief introduction to their ideas, to reduce the cost for others of acquiring information about those ideas.

[Anonymous No.22837283]

>>22835318
>Jews living in Eastern European shtetls are rich

[Anonymous No.22837296]

>>22833609
The supreme irony is that if capitalists fled to their own little society, they would cease to have any workers to exploit and thus those precious trains would have no track laid for them to run on lol

[Anonymous No.22837561]

>>22837283
hitler hated the jews because they represented international finance, he specifically took all of their belongings because they were "hoarding" too much money. no different from what your lefty friends are saying today

[Anonymous No.22837624]

>>22837296
(You)

[Anonymous No.22837670]

>>22837624
>(You)

[Anonymous No.22837673]

>>22836207
I don’t think so but I thoroughly enjoyed both

[Anonymous No.22837675]

>>22837670
t. Sees themselves as mom to toddlers

[Anonymous No.22838592]

>>22833609
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ifI remember from reading it years ago, there is no "rich people are oppressed" but it is "productive people are oppressed"

[Anonymous No.22839085]

>>22837670
lol so you view the government as a mom that should take care of you. Nice self own.

[Anonymous No.22839551]

poors just dont like it
who cares what poors think
their thoughts dont matter

[Anonymous No.22839557]

>>22833609
Aaaahhh so this is why American conservatives simp so much for millionaires? This is the where that idea comes from?

[Anonymous No.22839580]

>>22837296
>exploit
workers flock to the west willingly to escape poverty. their own anticapitalist shitholes give them absolutely nothing. they benefit from the capitalist system while opposing it in their speech

[Anonymous No.22839589]

>>22839580
That's another topic, immigration. The vast majority of immigrants to Western countries come from poor capitalist countries.

[Anonymous No.22839600]

>>22839589
people like money. capitalism creates so much value that when left to their own devices, people naturally come work for capitalists in pursuit of wealth.

[Anonymous No.22839632]

>>22837223
But if Rand, while being a shit, was saved by welfare, then welfare is evil.
And don't even try to pin me with Randtards, I'd never follow a woman's ideals, I just think yours are even shittier.

[Anonymous No.22839804]

>>22839580
Which countries are they fleeing? The ones bombed into oblivion or overrun with sweat shops, both the result of Western Capitalist nations?

[Anonymous No.22839809]

>>22839580
>"Your country is a shithole"
>"Also we've worked for decades to sabotage democracy and keep it a shithole"

[Anonymous No.22839816]

>>22839809
democracy is a shit form of government

[Anonymous No.22839895]

>>22839809
>"My country was sabotaged into becoming a shithole"
>"Denouncing capitalism is probably the answer, that CIA fella seemed so sure it would work"
The people who criticize capitalism, and say Rand is a hypocrite for taking welfare, are always the kind of people that wouldn't last a day in non-capitalist countries.
The moment your fancy phone gets lifted in Copacabana you're calling daddy and being improper on twitter.

[Anonymous No.22839963]

>>22839809
keep blaming whitey for all of the world's ills, these shitholes had more than enough time to develop at the same rate as white countries but didn't. now that the west is more developped, they claim it's all the capitalist's fault and definitely has nothing to do with their shit governments and shit economic policies.

[Anonymous No.22840041]

>>22833609
>don't like the way the factory you work for is being run
>decide to destroy the world
>also the factory fails on its own long before your plan takes effect
Why was Galt like this?

[Anonymous No.22840066]

>>22836207
No, The Fountainhead is much better. The characters are more distinct, whereas in Atlas Shrugged most of the heroes and villains are pretty samey. The Fountainhead also spends less time preaching. There are only two long philosophical monologues, one by the protagonist and one by the bad guy, meanwhile the John Galt speech in Atlas Shrugged dwarfs both of those put together and there are several more speeches besides. It becomes a real drag if you're actually interested in the story.

[Anonymous No.22840349]

I started reading The Fountainhead recently. I've always assumed that Rand's "selfishness" was overblown, but I didn't anticipate the degree to which this was the case. Her writing makes Soviet utopians look cynical by comparison.

[Anonymous No.22840354]

>>22840349
>I've always assumed that Rand's "selfishness" was overblown, but I didn't anticipate the degree to which this was the case. Her writing makes Soviet utopians look cynical by comparison.
what?

[Anonymous No.22840512]

>>22839963
Tell that to Vietnam where birth defects are still common due to all the chemical warfare the US inflicted on them

[Anonymous No.22840564]

Holy mother of autism

[Anonymous No.22840572]

>>22839632
>But if Rand, while being a shit, was saved by welfare, then welfare is evil.
Rand made irresponsible choices with her health in that she chose to smoke and it lead to cancer. Rand tried to run a brand off of her books (i.e. self help cult) and it slumped right when her and her husband became ill. However, the social safety net she had become famous for denigrating saved her from financial ruin and she was able to access healthcare that saved her life.

The argument isn't that she's an evil person who didn't deserve assistance. The argument isn't that she paid taxes and did what she did in order to get it back. The fact is that a social safety net functioned in the way it was supposed to and Rand was saved from financial ruin and possibly death (as far as the lung cancer treatments went).

I don't care what her moral standing is as a person. I'm not arguing people never take advantage of welfare nor that "free" money doesn't represent a moral hazard. The point is that the social safety net functioned as such and was therefore a good investment as far as Rand's taxes were concerned.

Now, you can try to argue she would have invested the money she paid in taxes somewhere and not have been in need of social security and medicaid...but the thing is she didn't manage the finances she did have well enough so it's not a very well-thought retort. Also, the social safety net exists because you can plan well and responsibly and still get fucked financially.

The problem with Randtards (and their lolbertarian cousins) is that they don't have any nuance in how they understand the financial system and most of the time they're just looking at a way to justify their resentment towards those more/less successful than themselves.