Ayn rand

[Anonymous No.2912117]

What is /Lit/'s thoughts on Ayn Rand? Both as an author and as a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.2912121]

i think her books are total ass but i saw an interview with her where she was like "one should never have to be ashamed for being smarter or more talented than others" and as someone who grew up around working class people and always had to pretend to be stupid to get along with them and not be called a fag, etc. i could relate, also i like that she's a militant atheist, i can always respect a public atheist, that's not easy in america. but her books, they suck.

[Anonymous No.2912132]

I found her novels to be incredibly shallow and pretty hammy.

Her philosophy was close minded and hypocritical.

"The only moral purpose is to pursue one's own happiness, except when that involved loving someone of the same sex because gays are icky."

[Anonymous No.2912136]

highschool tier philosophy

[Anonymous No.2912138]

JUDEN RAUS

[Anonymous No.2912140]

god, enough with the fucking ayn rand threads

[Anonymous No.2912145]

I thought she was spot on. There are plenty of misguided liberal teenagers, just leaving their 'communist phase' who will hate her. But in reality the truth often stings, and Rand shovels truth like an American shovels Cheeseburgers.

[Anonymous No.2912148]

Terrible philosophy, decent writer. I think the worst part about her books is that they always shove her beliefs right down your throat non stop through weird dialogue and 50 page long speeches. If she cut most of her stories in half they would all be much better.

[Anonymous No.2912153]

Juden. Raus.

[Anonymous No.2912162]

>>2912121

Haha, so friendless.

[Anonymous No.2912170]

>>2912132

"Also, it's immoral to use force to attain one's own happiness. Because, you know. I don't have a lot of that so it wouldn't be fair."

[Anonymous No.2912175]

She wasn't a philosopher. Getting your fan club to invent an institute for you to lecture at is for cult leaders, not philosophers. Her novels sucked ass. She was a psycho. The prohibition on discussing her shouldn't have been removed from the rules.

[Anonymous No.2912195]

What is this sudden resurgence of Ayn Rand threads.

[Anonymous No.2912199]

>>2912195

Probably Paul Ryan reminding them of those books without pictures they used to look at.

[Anonymous No.2912203]

>>2912132

do you have any quotes back up that ayn rand had a problem with gays? she looks like a major lesbo to me

[Anonymous No.2912213]

is it just me or do her novels totally contradict themselves? the "individualist producers" get mad at being exploited so run away and form a utopian commune..wtf? then she everyone should do whatever is in their own self-interest but when the government offers john galt endless riches and power to implement his ideas he refuse on idealist grounds, i thought ideals where for chumps and you should do whatever makes the most money? wtf?

[Anonymous No.2912308]

She seems to appeal to highschoolers and a certain kind of male undergraduate. I've never heard anyone over the age of 22 mention anything about her.

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912317]

>>2912213

Yeah, she was dumb.

[Anonymous No.2912369]

From what I've read *about* her I don't like her.

She called the poor lice and parasites.
She admired a man who raped and mutilated a 12 year old girl
She urged her followers to take up smoking because she claimed studies that showed its harmful effects were Communist propoganda (she later suffered from lung cancer)

[Anonymous No.2912372]

>>2912308
She's hugely popular among American right-wing politicians

Alan Greenspan loved her, and I think they did some poll of Republican politicians' favourite book. I'm prety sure Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhed topped the poll

[Anonymous No.2912374]

>>2912369

I don't know anything about her, but who was this rapist?

[Anonymous No.2912378]

>>2912374
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman

[Anonymous No.2912380]

I don't know anything about her.

But I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now and it's decent enough, maybe a bit slow (I'm only 50 pages in).

[Anonymous No.2912399]

>>2912380
Skip the speeches. You'll know why when you see them.

[Anonymous No.2912402]

Wish I had written this because it nails my feelings on Rand. An awful awful person and a dreadful writer.

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

[Anonymous No.2912404]

>>2912372
it's funny though because Rand was an atheist jew and all the republicans are bible thumpers, it's like did they even understand what they read? probably not.

[Anonymous No.2912405]

>>2912404

like every "bible thumper" they ignore the things they don't, like they never existed.

[Anonymous No.2912410]

What's up with that hat, anyway?

[Anonymous No.2912412]

the proletariat: thanks to this system of private property that the government thrust upon us, we have no access to the means of production necessary for our survival!
the bourgeoisie: you can use ours. we'll be taking a huge cut of course.
the proletariat: that's a pretty shitty deal, but since the alternative is starving to death, we'll take it.
the bourgeoisie: man this system of private property is pretty sweet. it allows us to get filthy rich off of other people's labor.
the government: we'll be taking a small cut of course.
the bourgeoisie: boo hoo! men with guns are coming to steal our money!

[Nicolas Cage !!4L3ydrPrJqa No.2912420]

>>2912399
There aren't that many of them, man. They're pretty bearable.

[Anonymous No.2912429]

>>2912420

Nothing Rand wrote is bearable. Terrible as literature, terrible as philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2912595]

So, Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged for the collective betterment of humanity, right? That goes against her philosophy of the virtue of selfishness. I suppose it makes her a prophet/matyr then. Whatevs.

Throw her in the bin with L Ron Hubbard, Ron Paul, and whoever the fuck else has "nice" sounding ideas that have no collective practical application.

[Anonymous No.2912603]

The Fountainhead is so vastly superior to Atlas Shrugged, but remains the underdog. It does a better job of pointing out the evils of collectivism.

[Anonymous No.2912607]

>>2912603
Would writing and publishing a book for the good of man, be an example of collectivism?

[Anonymous No.2912610]

>>2912595

I assume she wrote in the hopes of bringing about the kind of society she herself would like to live in.

[Anonymous No.2912611]

>>2912610
In that way, we would all collectively agree with her.

[Anonymous No.2912612]

>>2912607

She wrote the book as a means of income and to solidify her own philosophy, not to preach. By your logic, anyone who has a job or follows the law is a collectivist.

[Anonymous No.2912613]

>>2912612

My point is she wrote the book on her own terms, because she wanted to, not because she felt other people needed to read it.

Howard Roark created superior buildings for other people, but did so becuase HE believed it was just, not because its what the other people wanted.

[Anonymous No.2912620]

>>2912613
>She wrote the book to amuse herself.

[Anonymous No.2912621]

She's not against helping other people, shes against helping them for any other reason than your own selfish gain.

[Anonymous No.2912623]

>>2912620

Is there another reason to write? If your writing for the sake of others, you are not an artist.

[Anonymous No.2912625]

the thing about any rand isn't whether her philosophy is great, or fucking nuts, but how she communicates it. for whatever she had to say she said it in the most effective way she could. any rand took literature seriously and worked hard to crystallize her prose. she deserves mad respect for that

also has anyone read "we the living"? christ that novel was awful. makes you appreciate how much her writing improved with foutainhead and atlas shrugged

[Anonymous No.2912626]

Objectivism and masturbation - both work for the sake of work itself.

[Anonymous No.2912628]

>>2912623
>Everyone wants to be an "artist."

[Anonymous No.2912629]

>>2912623
Why even write if you "write for yourself"?

[Anonymous No.2912634]

As an author, her prose is protracted unnecessarily. Her writing exists to extend her philosophies; if you attempt to read any of her novels and ignore those messages, then they become works in desperate need of an editor with a machete.

As a philosopher, if we can even call her that, are naive at best and malignant at worst. It's comforting to think that people should be valued for their contributions to a society, and given their rightful inheritances, but that isn't possible. Ironically, the value sets she put forth led to a profound sense of self importance and self entitlement, and in many ways, contributed to the current world economic crisis. The notion that if businesses do what is best for themselves and their profit margins also being good for society is laughable.

tl;dr She took the polar opposite view of communist Russia, and rarely are extremist views ever tenable.

[Anonymous No.2912636]

>>2912625

Thank you. Her dedication is phenomenal. Plebs without an understanding of the seemingly backwards 'virtue' of selfishness deride her.

[Anonymous No.2912637]

>>2912634
maybe she suffered from PTSD

[Anonymous No.2912641]

>>2912636
There is a virtue, some idealize, of working yourself to the bone. However, it doesn't always result in gold. Sometimes talent is lacking...

[Anonymous No.2912643]

>>2912629
>Why even write if you "write for yourself"?

There's two types of artist. The one with integrity who creates to better himself, and the one who panders to the audience.

[Anonymous No.2912646]

>>2912643
>better yourself
>nebulous
You mean bettering your skill within your talent at your craft.

Not going up a mythological spiritual level.

[Anonymous No.2912655]

Why did she not object to the resulting fan collectivism surrounding her books?

Hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.2912666]

>>2912655

Wrong. Your understanding of her philosophy is black and white. 1.Fans = Profit. 2. The fans did not alter her philosophy or work in anyway. So, from the fans she gained monetart profit and her ideals WERE NOT compromised. Were she to CARE about the fans, then she would be engaging in collectivism.

[Anonymous No.2912672]

>>2912646

Implying there isn't anything more to art than craft.

[Anonymous No.2912705]

>>2912704
>she praised a serial killer who killed children for being a true individual following his own moral code.
Who?

[Anonymous No.2912706]

she praised a serial killer who killed children for being a true individual following his own moral code.

she despised arabs and called palestinians savage, racists who are backwards and primitive and israel is the only beacon of hope in that region because it is technologically advanced

she thought the idea of a woman being president was absurd

her philosophy is extremely naive and myopic, she doesn't understand epistemology or ethics or economics or anything she writes about

[Anonymous No.2912717]

>>2912705
>>2912706

>who (serial killler)

William Edward Hickman.

She was writing a novel (The Little Street) where the protagonist was modeled after hickman, a hickman style hero but without the savage murders (a serial killing protagonist just wouldn't sell I guess)

[Anonymous No.2912722]

>>2912704
>she praised a serial killer who killed children for being a true individual following his own moral code.

There is nothing wrong with that. It just conflicts with the moral code that you have adopted. The point is that in an existential universe the individual is 'God'. It is the individual that perceives the world for a limited time, views everything in a unique subjective way, and imposes a biased idealism concerning politics and ethics. As soon as the individual dies, the universe may as well be gone too.

The person who realises this is 'free' to some extent. And the individual who does whatever the fuck he wants, should be commended for not conforming to irrelevant conventions out of fear. In my particular worldview, I wouldn't gain any pleasure from killing people, but I respect the person who kills for pleasure, because he hasn't compromised himself. Also I am a coward; I would be to scared of prison to fully act out my impulses.

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912725]

>>2912722

> There is nothing wrong with that.

lel

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912727]

Seriously, Ayn Rand thinks like a kid of twelve who's taken Nine Inch Nails lyrics too much to heart. It's extraordinary such a charmless person was able to start a cult, but there you go, land of opportunity.

[Anonymous No.2912729]

>>2912725
What a fantastically insightful rebuke, sir. You have me stumped.

[Anonymous No.2912734]

>>2912722

Wow. You legitimately are a psychopath. Go see a doctor, you're a danger to the world around you.

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912736]

>>2912729

Thank you, sir. Some shit is just 'lel', you know? Saying there's nothing wrong with being a murderer if it's part of your journey away from the sheeple... it's just so ridiculous. So 'lel' it is.

[Anonymous No.2912739]

>>2912722

>There is nothing wrong with that. It just conflicts with the moral code that you have adopted

that's exactly what is wrong with it, it's is disgusting and ignorant to me, and most rational well adjusted people

the fact that murder means nothing "objectively" is irrelevant, we dont have access to the objective world and what it means, all that matters is what we value and think--and her values are contrary to mine, she is shit-tier

[Anonymous No.2912740]

>>2912666
She is a saint. I get it.

Pity she wasn't a good writer.

[Anonymous No.2912743]

>>2912672
how nebulous

describe it and try not to sound like you're beating off

[Anonymous No.2912745]

>>2912722
yeah, this is what she says it's like instead of putting god above yourself the socialist puts his neighbor above himself, when really you should never put anyone above yourself.

[Anonymous No.2912748]

>>2912734
>Wow. You legitimately are a psychopath. Go see a doctor, you're a danger to the world around you.
I said that's not my worldview. I like people, most social concepts, and don't want to murder people.

All I was saying is she was trying to view things outside of social programming, and concluded that one persons ethics is no more correct than another's. Try and view how a meat eater is viewed from a hardcore PETA activist perspective. That is how you view the murderer; with the same disgust and contempt. But really the Murderer and meat eater are more liberated from social conventions, while the activist is shackled by adopting someone elses ideology.

[Anonymous No.2912749]

Common among philosophical guru quacks is lack of education in what they are worshiped for.

Why is Ayn Rand treated so reverently? That is the reason for the backlash, to balance you nuts out.

Same for Scientology and Libertarianism. The social patterns are very similar.

cult followings

[Anonymous No.2912751]

>>2912745

Ridiculous. You've literally lost all sense of compassion if you're not trolling. Like, seriously, if I was your friend I would take you to get mentally evaluated and probably put into a loony bin. You could very well be dangerous.

[Anonymous No.2912753]

>>2912748

No, you don't understand. You're totally disconnected from the world if you think this is just ethics. Go get help.

[Anonymous No.2912756]

>>2912751

sorry you obviously still have a lot of ingrained slave morality from christianity stuck in your head, get back to me when you clear it out

[Franz !!8ZELb56UWUx No.2912758]

I only read We the Living and I actually liked it quite a bit. I didn't like how in the introduction she later added, how she tried to look at it through an objectivist lens.

I did read some excerpts of Atlas Shrugged and Anthem though, and didn't care for either. Though of course, I've yet to actually read either of them.

[Anonymous No.2912761]

Author: meh. Her writing style isn't horrendous, but it's nothing I enjoy.

Philosospher: meh. Many of the ideas she presented were valid, but the ways in which she presented them were largely elementary and overly aggressive. I think that Stirner is superior in his philosophical contributions to Egoism and Individualism.

[Anonymous No.2912765]

>>2912756

Well now not only do I have to defer you to a doctor but I also have to defer you to reddit.

[Anonymous No.2912766]

>>2912753
>Ethics.

Both Aristotle and Plato supported slavery. In our modern culture we view that as wrong. It doesn't mean that it is wrong, just that we are programmed to think like that. Ethics do not exist independent of individual subjectivity, so the person who discards the notion is the most free... Albeit most susceptible to the ethical ideals of whoever he pisses off.

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912768]

>>2912761

> Many of the ideas she presented were valid,


Here we have what's known as pretended disinterest. In fact, none of the ideas she presented were valid - she wasn't a thinker. This is like those cheerleaders who turn up claiming to be 'skeptical' on Amway discussions.

[Anonymous No.2912775]

>>2912766

Precisely. Morality is an evolutionary survival mechanism very akin to pain. I could, for example, sit down and reason through all of the negative biological implications of putting my hand in a fire, or I could simply realize that putting my hand in a fire hurts like hell. In much the same way, I could sit down and reason through all of the negative societal consequences that would be brought upon me if I stole property or murdered or what-have-you, OR I could simply refer to emotions such as empathy and guilt that intuitively repel me from this behavior.

Where pain is the evolutionary mechanism by which we intuitively judge our actions in respect to our physical environment, morality is the evolutionary mechanism by which we intuitively judge our actions in respect to our social environment.

[Anonymous No.2912777]

>>2912768
check your male privilege dickhead, ayn rand is one of the few women to break into the philosophy boys club through sheer willpower and talent so it's no surprise male chauvinists like you would feel threatened and try to assassinate her character and remove her from the history books

[Anonymous No.2912781]

>>2912768

>none of the ideas she presented were valid

Sure they were. She recognized selfishness as the hidden motivator behind all actions. I mean, her economic and political ideals were largely shit, but she is right in her individualist rhetoric. I just think that Stirner put it much more eloquently and made it much more approachable rather than coming off as a derisive bitch.

[Anonymous No.2912784]

>>2912775
dude please, america kills people every day to maintain it's global empire and you certainly are happy to reap the rewards of it aren't you?

[Anonymous No.2912785]

>>2912775
But due to social programming people will respond to the same situation in a different way, we are not clones. Some people actually get pleasure from killing people, and have no regard for other individuals. Yes, that conflicts with the majority opinion, which is why they are locked up. But from the individuals (murderer/rapist) perspective it isn't wrong.

[Anonymous No.2912788]

>>2912784

I'm not sure how that is at all relevant to what I said.

>>2912785

Most certainly. Social institutions and psychopathy can certainly shape one's sense of morality, of right and wrong. Objectively, might is the only inherent right. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with murder or intrinsically wrong with theft. They're consequentially wrong and we recognize this intuitively through morality. We're just lucky enough that morality is firmly rooted in evolutionary biology and, in the absence of extraneous circumstances, is largely held in common.

[Anonymous No.2912793]

>>2912788
you directly benefit from "might is right" everyday you live your cushy lifestyle. those striking miners in south africa that got shot down last week? hey, gotta get that platinum for our self phones right? american moralists are like a person who protests about animals rights and then goes home and eats a steak.

[Anonymous No.2912795]

Her philosophy itself wouldn't survive an intro philosophy 101 class.

>Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception

"Reality exists independent of consciousness"
Then she has no access to it since she is a conscious being who interprets the world from her own perspective via her own mind. So this tenet is baseless.


>human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception

This is naive realism at its worst. If reality exists independent of consciousness, according to her, then once again we have no access to it.

So a color blind person and myself see the same reality?
If my nose indicates smoke then there is smoke? No.

Her babby philosophy is shit tier. And her ethical stances are inconsistent.

[Anonymous No.2912796]

>>2912777

She didn't break into anything. No one takes her seriously as a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.2912809]

>>2912793

>you directly benefit from "might is right" everyday you live your cushy lifestyle.

I'm sure I do. I'm sure you do, as well.

>those striking miners in south africa that got shot down last week?

As a Socialist, I'm vehemently in favor of the right of workers to organize against Capital. I don't know of the situation intimately, but I'm sure the people who shot the strikers were, in all, assholes.

>american moralists are like a person who protests about animals rights and then goes home and eats a steak.

Oh cool it. I was born into a middle class family in suburban America. Should I have to repent for that? Hell no. Should I try to help those who don't have the same luck as me? Probably. Ultimately, apart from removing myself from the economy entirely, I would necessarily be living on someone else's exploitation, in the current state of things. Ultimately, you shouldn't be mad at me, you should be mad at the people and the institutions that allow this exploitation, even encourage it, to continue - namely States and their cronies.

[Anonymous No.2912817]

>>2912795
wait but ... don't buddhists say the same thing about an objective reality? also don't buddhists have the same kind of morality? i.e. you should do what ever results in the least suffering for yourself? face it ayn rand is in the schopenhauer school of right-wing buddhism.

[Anonymous No.2912823]

>>2912795

>So a color blind person and myself see the same reality?

Of course not, and that's the point. Reality exists OUTSIDE, that is, INDEPENDENT, of your consciousness. If somebody has flawed sensory perception, they're going to have a flawed sense of the reality that actually exists. Even people with perfect sensory perception can't claim perfect knowledge of reality, although the scientific method allows us to speak to the objective truth of things, such as gravity or matter, with relative certainty.

[Anonymous No.2912828]

>>2912809
see, you don't want to give up your privilege but you still feel bad about it because of your christian morality. the people on wall street say the same thing as you. it's not their fault they got legacy admissions to yale and work at goldman sachs. mitt romney's dad was a weathly governor of an american state, should he have to repent that?

[Anonymous No.2912835]

>>2912823

>If somebody has flawed sensory perception

who is to judge a flawed sensory perception from a true one? seems like we're appealing to subjective experiences again... she claims humans have direct access to reality via senses, clearly this isn't true.

>although the scientific method allows us to speak to the objective truth of things, such as gravity or matter, with relative certainty.

no it doesn't, and never claims it, it only speaks about what is perceivable and demonstrable

"objective reality" is something philosophers argue about, and its connected with capital "T" Truth; and it's obvious no one has access to it

>>2912817
>don't buddhists say the same thing about an objective reality?

no
buddhists have a totally different ethical program and metaphysics than she does. can't even begin to compare them

[Anonymous No.2912840]

>>2912828

>see, you don't want to give up your privilege but you still feel bad about it because of your christian morality

I don't really feel bad about it, and I'm not a Christian. In fact, the ideas of morality that I proposed earlier in the thread are absolutely antithetical to Christian morality, at least, in their derivation.

>it's not their fault they got legacy admissions to yale and work at goldman sachs.

Well, actually, it kind of is in that case, but more than those on Wall Street, we should be criticizing those who give them the power to be such manipulative bastards in the first place - namely, the State. Yeah, get pissed at Wall Street all you want, but until you get rid of the institution that allows them to have so much power, it's going to continue to exist.

>mitt romney's dad was a weathly governor of an american state, should he have to repent that?

He shouldn't have to repent it, no. I think that he should be socially ostracized as a repeatedly aggressive actor, as any politician is.

Ultimately, you're here on the internet and you're here with the same "privilege" as me. Instead of bitching about who's benefiting off of what and who isn't, how about we actually do something to change the institutions that allow this privilege to exist in the first place- namely the State.

[Anonymous No.2912841]

>>2912758
Really? We the Living was my first and Kira just felt like a self-insert Mary Sue. Didn't even finish it, entered a writing contest in high school for it and won $25

[Anonymous No.2912842]

>>2912835
what's different about buddhism metaphysics and morality then? they pretty similar if you look at them, shale we say... objectively.

[Anonymous No.2912843]

>>2912203
Most people that are anti-gay are closet homosexuals. See the Republican Party.

[Anonymous No.2912851]

>>2912840
yeah but see i never claimed that the current economic system is immoral so i don't need to change anything. that's your belief system not mine. and now you're criticizing the state, see you and ayn rand do have something in common after all! if the state would just get out of the way everything would be harmonious as human nature will order society from weakest to strongest!

[Anonymous No.2912858]

>>2912843
Y'know I've never actually seen this claim substantiated with anything more than movies/TV and anecdotal evidence.

To my knowledge, Ayn Rand may have been personally averse to homosexuality but she did not let it permeate her philosophy. The instance a lot of people point to is how she was against protecting gays from discrimination and such in the private sector, which really has nothing to do with homosexuality.

For example, if a man does not wish to hire a gay man solely because of the fact that he is gay, the government should not intervene. Employment is a private agreement with the employer and the employee, and the employer should not be forced into a business relationship with someone if he does not want to. His reasons may be awful, but they're irrelevant really. If I hate black people, I have every right to not hire black people.

[Anonymous No.2912861]

>>2912835

>who is to judge a flawed sensory perception from a true one?

You could simply use the scientific method for that one. We know that light, at a certain wavelength, will produce a chemical reaction in the brain after interacting with the phostoreceptors in your eyes that you ultimately perceive as color. If your eyes cannot detect a certain frequency of light that most other people's eyes can, you have a flawed sensory perception.

I'm not Ayn Rand fan, though, and I'll certainly concede that sensory perception can give us nothing more than an indirect look into reality, but when you repeat it over and over through a falsifiable method, you can say with relative certainty what is and isn't true in reality.

>no it doesn't, and never claims it, it only speaks about what is perceivable and demonstrable

That's what I'm getting at. If we can demonstrate that, in every test so far, a ball, in a vacuum, fallsl towards earth at 9.8m/s^2, then we can say, with relative certainty, that our perception that the ball will fall towards earth at 9.8m/s^2 in a vacuum is consistent with an objective reality with which our senses interact.

[Anonymous No.2912869]

> Rand asserted that "the essence of femininity is hero worship — the desire to look up to man" and that "an ideal woman is a man-worshipper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind."[7] In other words, Rand felt that it was part of human nature for a psychologically healthy woman to want to be ruled in sexual matters by a man worthy of ruling her.

see now in the past i would have said she was a conservative wacko but ... 50 shades of grey is such a huge success because it taps into this natural need of women. sure, women can be all feminist in class or on the internet but it ain't dudes buying millions of copies of 50 shades of grey ok.

[Anonymous No.2912873]

>>2912851

Rand was a Minarchist. I'm an Anarchist. She was a Capitalist. I'm a Socialist. Ultimately, our economic ideologies are very dissimilar.

[Anonymous No.2912876]

>>2912858
and by laws of the free market if gays are actually productive and intelligent employees then your competitor will hire them instead and give you a good trouncing in innovation. or if you think blacks are productive workers with bright intellects the guy who hires them for his business instead will reap the rewards!

[Anonymous No.2912881]

>>2912873


so, uh, how do you plan on stamping out the free market without using some kind of state power? anarchism is by far one of the most retarded ideologies, even sharia law works better

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912886]

>>2912869

No, it taps into a existing mindset created by centuries of the patriarchy.

[Anonymous No.2912889]

>>2912881

I love free markets. I'm a free market anti-Capitalist, which is to say, in ideological terms, a Mutualist.

You should probably learn an iota of information about an economic and political philosophy before you criticize.

[Anonymous No.2912896]

>>2912889
> a free market anti-capitalist

oh i see you're 16, well carry on, kid.

[Anonymous No.2912899]

>>2912896

>ad hominem

Isn't this a lively discussion.

[Anonymous No.2912902]

>>2912899
ok well suppose someone is willing to sell their labor power to someone else instead of working on their own means of production? are you going to pass a law banning that? or will you get all the people in your collective to stone them to death?

[Anonymous No.2912904]

>>2912899
anybody older than a teen can see these kind of anarchist schemes don't work

[Anonymous No.2912906]

>>2912881

he didn't say anything about stamping out free markets.

from wikipedia: "Free-market anarchism (sometimes called simply market anarchism, and occasionally libertarian anarchism or propertarian anarchism) can refer to the economic features of certain forms of libertarian socialism, individualist anarchism or anarcho-capitalism."

you are obviously clueless when it comes to the diversity of anarchist thought. don't let that stop you from simply dismissing the whole thing as retarded though!

[Anonymous No.2912908]

>>2912906
dude, i'm aware of all the anarchist thought and it's all about as relevant to reality as a teenage fantasy

[Nicolas Cage !!4L3ydrPrJqa No.2912910]

>>2912886
>patriarchy
You're not wrong, but do you just hate being respected?

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912912]

>>2912910

No man, I'd just rather be respected on my own merits rather than because papa spank.

[Anonymous No.2912913]

>>2912886
what about gays who are into BDSM relationships? are you saying they're bad people and wrong to want that lifestyle? that they've been "brainwashed" into it and need to be "cured"?

[Anonymous No.2912915]

>>2912902

>ok well suppose someone is willing to sell their labor power to someone else instead of working on their own means of production?

That's fine and dandy, if the market would support a firm operating on a wage hierarchy. There's many efficiency factors to consider, though, when proposing the existence of a wage hierarchy in a free market. When those who internalize the costs (i.e. the Capitalists, managers, what-have-you) and are coordinating production don't have the necesarry information about production (i.e. the information that only the workers can have directly due to the fact that they're the ones doing the work, and are even incentivized to impact information to use against their employer later on as a form of leverage), then an optimal efficiency can't be achieved.

>are you going to pass a law banning that?

Umm...Anarchism, do you get it?

>will you get all the people in your collective to stone them to death?

Seeing as how I'm opposed to aggressive force, of course I wouldn't stone anyone to death. If you want to be wage laborer, so be it. I'm just pointing out that the State is the main institution that allows this mode of production to exist.

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912919]

>>2912913

I'm not even saying that about women who are into BDSM. Those books have nothing to do with consensual BDSM,

[Anonymous No.2912922]

>>2912915
> the state allows this mode of production to exist

umm, no actually. there's nothing stopping you from starting an independent consulting business right now and "owning your own means of production" and the only reason this is possible and you can't be kidnapped and enslaves if because the states says that is illegal. these ridiculous utopian fantasies from the 1800s are about as realistic as sky gods and other bronze age bullshit was.

[Anonymous No.2912924]

>>2912919
but they do. she could just leave at any time but she loves the guy and enjoys it. it's about a consensual bdsm relationship.

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912927]

>>2912924

No, it's about an unhealthy, abusive relationship. A woman 'letting' a man do stuff because she's scared of being single is not a healthy basis for a relationship.

[Anonymous No.2912928]

>>2912915
it's funny how kids think anarchism is progressive but what they don't get is that it's actually regressive because it was a movement against the rise of state power. the anarchists wanted to keep living an agrarian feudal lifestyle. they claimed to be forward thinking about it was really a reactionary movement against the rise of the bourgeoisie and decline of agrarian feudalism.

[Anonymous No.2912930]

>>2912922

>umm, no actually. there's nothing stopping you from starting an independent consulting business right now and "owning your own means of production" and the only reason this is possible and you can't be kidnapped and enslaves if because the states says that is illegal.

Bullshit.

The money monopoly, the patent monopoly, the shipping monopoly, zoning laws, licensing laws, minimum overhead laws, direct taxpayer subsidies, erected barriers to market entry, forced market expansion, abuse of eminent domain, and the resulting regulatory capture, all result in Capital being insulated from competition.

For example, I was not long ago reading an article about an insurance company that was shut down in New Hampshire due to the fact that it didn't cover ALL medical expenses. It was a small firm that charged a very small amount of money for basic coverage. In this, it allowed people who couldn't afford full fledged healthcare to, at the very least, have their basic needs covered, and, as the company grew and was able to provide more insurance options, it would. Unfortunately, a Federal law mandating that all insurance companies must cover a minimum number of conditions to remain in legal operation allowed the State to shut it down. THAT is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2912931]

>>2912927
but that's her lifestyle choice, to her being single is worse, why are you judging her? don't force your morality down her throat, scumbag.

[Anonymous No.2912935]

>>2912930
so you're against government regulation then? i see, you are actually in favor of laissez-faire capitalism! why didn't you just say that instead of beating around the bush with the childish anarchist crap.

[Anonymous No.2912939]

>>2912930
so basically you're a loser republican whining that your business failed because of "big government".

[Anonymous No.2912943]

>>2912939
And the state apologists have entered the building.

[Ahab !!kNaamJVNbDP No.2912945]

>>2912931

Sophistry. She's in an abusive relationship - the book is an advert for and a tribute to abusive, controlling male psychology.

[Anonymous No.2912946]

>>2912928

Blech. From a simply pragmatic standpoint, the State itself is an incredibly regressive institution. It's proven time and again to be inefficient, wasteful, and ultimately a shitty way of doing anything.

Take, for example, the State quote on fixing a road that was washed out by a flood. The State said it would cost 4 million dollars and take about two years. Local business owners, realizing this was absolute bollocks, ended up fixing the road themselves for free in eight days. When the effects of problems aren't immediately felt by those addressing them (like the State with this washed out road) inefficiency abounds. Only when those who are internalizing the costs are the same as those who are making the decisions does any iota of efficiency come into a system.

[Anonymous No.2912948]

>>2912943
i know get those assholes out of our Ayn Rand thread! this thread is to celebrate a great thinker and her fight against oppressive state collectivism!

[Anonymous No.2912950]

>>2912935
>>2912939
>in after wild assumptions about a person we know nothing about

it's like I'm witnessing idiocy in real time

[Anonymous No.2912953]

>>2912935

>i see, you are actually in favor of laissez-faire capitalism!

Words have definitions. I suggest you look them up.

I am not a laissez-faire Capitalist as I am opposed to ALL government regulation, not just MOST government regulation. I'm not even an Anarcho-Capitalist as I contest their proposition of what a free market might look like. I'm a free market advocate in the Tuckerite and Carsonian tradition.

[Anonymous No.2912955]

>>2912928

see my post above about the diversity of anarchist thought. how many anarchist today wants an agrarian feudal lifestyle?

[Anonymous No.2912956]

>>2912946
i agree, that's why i hate the state, it's the only thing holding great men back from achieving their true potential. the state is the tool the weak and ignorant use to hold superior men down.

[Anonymous No.2912959]

>>2912939

>implying Republicans are at all for "small government."

I mean, Paul Ryan himself, the supposed harbinger of freedom and prosperity for the main body of the Republican party, voted for an indefinite extension of the Patriot Act. That's NOT small government.

[Anonymous No.2912960]

>>2912953
dude, the thing is none of these anarchists ideologies are worth a piss because they are all just fantasies that will never happen. just because there's a wikipedia page for it doesn't mean it's a viable system.

[Anonymous No.2912962]

>>2912959
gotta keep america free from collectivist terror

[Anonymous No.2912966]

>>2912960

>dude, the thing is none of these anarchists ideologies are worth a piss because they are all just fantasies that will never happen

I like your dedication to fruitful discussion about the topics themselves. I mean, don't you just hate it when people make vague, sweeping assertions and then don't try to substantiate their claims whatsoever? I'm so glad you're not one of those people.

[Anonymous No.2912968]

Whoops. I forgot the article on the road.

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/private-citizens-perform-4-million-road-repair-job-for-free-in-8-days
/

[Anonymous No.2912972]

>>2912966
dude, i'm not a teenager, i'm not interested in wasting away summer vacation imaging which kind anarchist commune would be more conducive to receiving the most blowjobs. why don't you have a thread on what would be better a colony on mars or a colony on venus while you're at it?

[Anonymous No.2912977]

>>2912960
Any political system will encroach upon civil liberties in some way. It's just a question of either:
a) finding one that will benefit the greatest number of people. Or
b) finding one that will most benefit yourself.

I choose to benefit myself, because people are horrible little turds that stuff their faces with Big Macs and watch reality TV. I am able to get these useless sacks of shit to work for me and increase my personal wealth, which makes me happy.

[Anonymous No.2912979]

>>2912972

If you're not interested in discussion then why are you here at all? Don't make baseless criticisms against a system and then say, "oh but, you know man, I don't have time to actually get into a discussion, or anything, I'm just trying to shit up the thread with my shitty rhetoric."

[Anonymous No.2912981]

>>2912977
but we already have that now you fucking assclown. it's not my fault you can't seem to run a business successful and it's not the states fault either.

[Anonymous No.2912983]

>>2912972

dude, why don't you, dude, stay out of the discussion, dude, if it doesn't interest you. dude.

[Anonymous No.2912984]

>>2912979
well i'm interesting in discussing reality not fantasy stuff, you won't see me in any sci-fi threads speculating about time travel either or fantasy threads debating about wizards and druids.

[Anonymous No.2912986]

>>2912623
>write for yourself

That's the cousin of the phrase "don't care what other people think." If people didn't care about how other people responded to what they did or made, there would be no morals, no ethics, there would be complete chaos. The only thing keeping people in check are the reactions of their tribe.

You are not the entire universe.

[Anonymous No.2912989]

>>2912984

>Anarchism is a fantasy
>but I won't tell you why it's a fantasy

Statist logic.

[Anonymous No.2912992]

>>2912986
dudes write in order to get pussy, women write to make money, there's no such thing as an "artist".

[Anonymous No.2912994]

>>2912989
it's your job to prove it's not a fantasy, it's not my burden to prove god doesn't exist, it's your burden to prove he does.

[Anonymous No.2913000]

>>2912994

Oh, of course. I'll retire to the neutral position, though. Treat me as an outside observer. What is so ludicrous about Anarchism? Maybe you'll get me to come from the neutral position to your side.

[Anonymous No.2913001]

>>2912968
this isn't really a comparable situation to the average road-user, though. These are Hawaiian land-owners who rely on tourism for business - they're making loadsamoney and they can whip up enough manpower and heavy equipment to fix what needs fixing, not only because they have money but because the roads are vital to their business.

Take a less densely populated area, Montana or Idaho or Iowa or Canada. Nobody's going to pay for roads leading to small villages of a few hundred people because nobody can afford it. Road spending is very efficient in densely populated areas (like Hawaii), but it's always going to be a loss in rural areas. Same goes for water, electricity, and most other services.

No business is going to spend money on roads to a podunk town in the midwest.

[Anonymous No.2913003]

>>2912994

how the fuck will anyone know how to convince you that anarchism can work if you're not willing to say why you don't think i will work?

[Anonymous No.2913010]

>>2913001

>this isn't really a comparable situation to the average road-user, though.

Oh I agree with you entirely. I wasn't making that as a claim for roads in a Stateless society whatsoever. I just used it to demonstrate the fact that when those who are making the decisions are so far removed from the consequences of those decisions, then inefficiency abounds. You can only achieve optimal efficiency when those who are making the decisions are internalizing the costs of those decisions.

>No business is going to spend money on roads to a podunk town in the midwest.

This is where consumers' cooperatives come in. Consumers' cooperatives reign supreme in the territory of natural monopoly because they're not only able, but blatantly incentivized, to provide goods and services at cost rather than for monopolistic prices.

[Anonymous No.2913021]

>>2913003
i already told you why it wouldn't work and all you could say was "but but THE STATE" it's like ok well i can see i'm arguing with a religious

[Anonymous No.2913024]

>>2913021
>i already told you why it wouldn't work
No you didn't. Please link that post.

[Anonymous No.2913025]

>>2912722
So if a serial killer managed to kill someone you care about you would 'respect' him?

[Anonymous No.2913026]

>>2913021

I must have missed it. I only recall you saying, "but it won't work." If you could kindly point me to your post, I'd be happy to address it.

[Anonymous No.2913029]

>>2913010
but this denies economies of scale which is retarded. those guys were able to fix it because on them owned paving equipment. do you really think it would be optimal for everybody to buy their own paving machinery in case the road in front of their house gets fucked up?

[Anonymous No.2913036]

>>2913021

i have no idea what you are talking about. would you kindly point out the post where you told us why it won't work?

[Anonymous No.2913037]

>>2913029
Jesus Christ.

No, but everybody can hire people who own their own machinery to do the job in a more cost-effective and efficient manner than the government.

[Anonymous No.2913040]

>>2913026
you keep changing your flavor of anarchism, any time someone makes an argument you dig up some long dead branch of anarchist that had 23 follows once in the 1860s and say like "yeah, sure that's a flaw in mainstream anachism but i'm a follower of McDicks Magical Anarchism that you probably never heard of, so there, nya!"

[Anonymous No.2913042]

>>2913029

>but this denies economies of scale which is retarded. those guys were able to fix it because on them owned paving equipment. do you really think it would be optimal for everybody to buy their own paving machinery in case the road in front of their house gets fucked up?

I think you misunderstand what exactly a Consumers' Cooperative entails. It wouldn't be everybody having their own paver to fix the road in front of their house. It would be a cooperative, in this case aimed at providing roads, in which those who purchase the product are also the owners. So the consumers' cooperative could coordinate the building and maintenance of roads by hiring independent road construction companies, and the cooperative would necessarily want to provide this service at the lowest cost as those who are operating the cooperative are the same as those who are buying the product. It's a form of Mutual Aid society in which production is done out of necessity rather than out of a motivation for profit.

[Anonymous No.2913047]

>>2913042
we already have this, it's called the government, you fucking retard. ok i think i'm done, this is stupid.

[Anonymous No.2913052]

>>2913040

you are so full of shit. point out a post where he said anything remotely like that.

[Anonymous No.2913055]

Why is everyone on the internet so fascinated with her? Did a load of teens play Bioshock and then suddenly considered themselves experts on the matter?

[Anonymous No.2913059]

>>2913040

>you keep changing your flavor of anarchism

I'll be more explicit if you like.

Proudhon was the first to call himself an Anarchist. He proposed a system of free markets in reaction to the blatant crony Capitalism that dominated his time. He saw the law of value, that is, the trend of the price of goods to equal cost, as ultimate in a free market, and saw the scarcity rents imposed by the State as the main body preventing this. He's famous for his statement, "property is theft," (in that legal privilege to property granted by the State is theft," but also his statement, "property is freedom," (in that legitimately acquired property allows one to rely on oneself without having to subject oneself to the will of another).

After Proudhon came Benjamin Tucker, the early American Individualist Anarchist. He's well known for publishing the periodical "Liberty," which espoused his ideals. He saw competition as the supreme leveler, saying that, while competition was largely free in the labor sector of the market, it was ultimately restricted in the Capital sector of the market due to the State's "big four monopolies." He saw extending competition to the Capital sector of the market as the way to achieving a Socialist mode of production, that is, a mode of production in which each worker keeps the full product of his labor. One of his most famous quotes is, "The most perfect socialism is possible only on the condition of the most perfect individualism."

cont...

[Anonymous No.2913063]

>>2913059

From here the ideology lay largely dormant until the likes of Kevin Carson came around. He's done work to reconcile the classical Labor Theory of Value with the Subjective Theory of Value, and has done research into the efficiency of Capitalist firms in a free market. He's also noted for advocating peer production in industry just as it is prevalent in software, and emphasizes the reduction of the market sphere in his book, "The Homebrew Industrial Revolution."

I am a Mutualist. I love free markets. I love Socialism. I don't like States.

[Anonymous No.2913070]

>>2913047

>we already have this, it's called the government

Ah! But a government is not a voluntary institution. As Tucker said, "aggression is simply another name for government."

Aside from a consumers' cooperative being voluntary, I already mentioned the gains in efficiency that internalizing the costs of your own decisions sees.

[Anonymous No.2913074]

>>2913059
yes i know dude i know the history of anarchism and communism, are you taking a summer class on it or something? you seem to think knowing all this minutiae is worth a piss.

[Anonymous No.2913080]

>>2913074

>gets mad at me for "changing my flavor of Anarchism"
>gets even madder when I explicitly state my "flavor of Anarchism"

Statist logic.

[Anonymous No.2913081]

>>2913070
if a government isn't mandatory then criminals will just not bother to recognize it when you try to arrest them for stealing your shit. sorry, you can't arrest me, i don't believe in your government.

[Anonymous No.2913082]

>>2913055
Elitist astroturfing. Atlas Shrugged is the Bible of liberty, but not in a good way.

>Over the years, Atlas Shrugged has attracted an energetic and committed fan base. Each year the Ayn Rand Institute donates 400,000 copies of works by Ayn Rand, including Atlas Shrugged, to high school students.[10] According to a 1991 survey done for the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, Atlas Shrugged was situated between the Bible and M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled as the book that made the most difference in the lives of 5,000 Book-of-the-Month club members surveyed, with a "large gap existing between the #1 book and the rest of the list".[52] Modern Library's 1998 nonscientific online poll of the 100 best novels of the 20th century[53][54] found Atlas rated #1 although it was not included on the list chosen by the Modern Library board of authors and scholars.[55]

>In 1997, the libertarian Cato Institute held a joint conference with The Atlas Society, an Objectivist organization, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged.[56] At this event, Howard Dickman of Reader's Digest stated that the novel had "turned millions of readers on to the ideas of liberty" and said that the book had the important message of the readers' "profound right to be happy".[56]

>The C-SPAN television series American Writers listed Rand as one of twenty-two surveyed figures of American literature, though primarily mentioning The Fountainhead rather than Atlas Shrugged.[57]

etc etc. This is all from the Atlas Shrugged wiki article. It's a real laugh to see how constructed the ideology is.

[Anonymous No.2913085]

>>2913080
check your teen privilege asshole. adults in the real world don't have your luxuries.

[Anonymous No.2913089]

>>2913081

>if a government isn't mandatory then criminals will just not bother to recognize it when you try to arrest them for stealing your shit. sorry, you can't arrest me, i don't believe in your government.

Aha! Anarchist DO recognize, though, the right to defend yourself against aggression. If somebody tries to steal your shit, you have the right to use force to stop them, the right to use force by proxy to stop them, and the right to use subsequent social ostracism and economic pressure to stop them from continuing their actions.

Ultimately, there's nothing from stopping a private law society from forming (i.e. a Voluntaryist society) in which people contract to agree that, say, "stealing shit will result in your arrest and execution." You're on their property, you play by their rules.

[Anonymous No.2913092]

>>2913085

>gets mad at me for specifically making my position more clear in response to his assertion that I'm being vague
>says that my "teen privilege" is why he's coming across as an idiot

Statist logic.

[Anonymous No.2913096]

>>2913089
>voluntary courts
>voluntary road builders
>voluntary prison management
>voluntary water management
>voluntary customs enforcement

no, please no.

[Anonymous No.2913102]

>>2913096

Hey, if you want to throw the morality question out the window and argue purely from a pragmatic standpoint, voluntary institutions should be your bro. Voluntary institutions are necessarily more efficient than forced ones, and as I've mentioned, efficiency abounds when those who are making the decisions internalize the costs of those decisions (which almost never happens in government). Shit, there's a bunch of studies linking subordination to depression and other efficiency crippling mindsets.

[Anonymous No.2913103]

>>2913037
But what's to stop the people owning that equipment to charge extreme prices for their services? Or to fuck up roads if business is slow? Or to go into a partnership with the manufacturers of said machinery, so that no-one else can buy equipment to challenge them? Or to break the legs of anyone trying to break their monopoly?

After all, there would be no state to stop them. No police force. No military.

Removing the state would not create a more efficient society. Some things SHOULD be centralized, and some things should be localized. It's equally retarded to say "NO STATE" as to say "ALL STATE".

[Anonymous No.2913110]

>>2913070
Just how "voluntary" would it be, if it's more or less required to obtain the same services now managed by a state? Why would such a cooperative NOT morph into a state-like entity after sufficient time?

Do you even peer pressure?

[Anonymous No.2913116]

>>2913102
>Voluntary institutions are necessarily more efficient than forced ones

Except when you can't pay for them.

At least all the poor people will be dead.

[Anonymous No.2913117]

>>2913089
>you have the right to use force to stop them
Who would enforce your rights? You yourself, I assume, l since state=BAD? Which means that the person with the most firepower would have the most rights.

Sounds progressive.

[Anonymous No.2913120]

>>2913103

>But what's to stop the people owning that equipment to charge extreme prices for their services? Or to fuck up roads if business is slow? Or to go into a partnership with the manufacturers of said machinery, so that no-one else can buy equipment to challenge them? Or to break the legs of anyone trying to break their monopoly?

I'm not sure you understand the monopoly crippling powers of the free market. I mean, this is BASIC economics. The State is what creates monopolies in the first place. Do you really think that medical costs are so high because of market competition? Hell no! It's because of intellectual property laws and the monopoly the State has given to the American Medical Association to artificially restrict the number of institutions allowed to train people in medicine so as to drive up the premiums and *gasp* turn a huge profit in the process.

The top 10 contributors to The Alliance For A Stronger FDA are Kraft and pharmaceutical companies, ffs.

[Anonymous No.2913122]

>>2913102
>Voluntary institutions are necessarily more efficient than forced ones
Please provide proof of this. And I mean logical proof, not anecdotal, since you said "necessarily." I trust you have irrefutable proof that everyone else has missed.

[Anonymous No.2913123]

>>2913120
no more patents, you heard it here first folks!

[Anonymous No.2913131]

>>2913120
>I'm not sure you understand the monopoly crippling powers of the free market

Please explain the power of the free market to break monopolies. tia

>The top 10 contributors to The Alliance For A Stronger FDA are Kraft and pharmaceutical companies, ffs.

certainly, corporations are able to co-opt regulatory bodies and governmental agencies to their own advantage. that doesn't mean that those are their only means for maintaining their monopoly. it means we should ensure that companies can't co-opt regulatory bodies and pass strong regulation that works.

[Anonymous No.2913132]

>>2913120
You're not really answering my question. If there is a free market, someone would sooner or later obtain more resources than others. In order to keep the lead, they would allocate some resources to the end of hindering others.

Why would this not happen? What mysterious force would stop people being assholes to one another? Would they look at the free market and go "Oh! How wonderful! Best not abuse my power, because if I do, no one will be here to stop me!"

[Anonymous No.2913134]

>>2913110

>Do you even peer pressure?

Social pressure is simply a group of people exercising their right to not interact with another. There's nothing aggressive about it.

>>2913116

>At least all the poor people will be dead.

Except, like, the State is one of the main causes of poverty. Pic related.

>>2913117

>Who would enforce your rights?

As I mentioned, you could defend your property yourself or via proxy.

[Anonymous No.2913136]

>>2913134
>There's nothing aggressive about it.
You've never interacted with other people, I see.

>As I mentioned, you could defend your property yourself or via proxy.
You keep avoiding to answer. How could I defend my property and my rights if other people have more guns than me?

[Anonymous No.2913137]

>>2913134
that's the worst chart i've ever seen, and if you are going to ignore a little thing called "the entirety of historical context" in favor of "THE STATE DID IT", you're mad.

>Social pressure is simply a group of people exercising their right to not interact with another. There's nothing aggressive about it.

lol

>As I mentioned, you could defend your property yourself or via proxy.

lol

hilariously unrealistic understandings of the way human beings work, fucking of course

[Anonymous No.2913141]

>>2913134
for the record, the "War on Poverty" has NOTHING to do with poverty. Distribution of wealth and overall economic growth (that means getting a job) does.

>hurr government programs make people unpoor

No. That's not how welfare works.

[Anonymous No.2913144]

>>2913134
>all states are the American state

[Anonymous No.2913145]

>>2912213
You missed the point; by accepting such support, you are now entitled to be part of altruist community. Enjoy being a sacrificial being

[Anonymous No.2913156]

see this is what is stupid about anarchy, when you finally pin them down and make them explain how it's actually going to really work it starts to sound exactly like a western democracy... colossal waste of time man.

well, we'd defend ourselves by forming a defense force and everyone would pitch in to support it if you're to old or young to fight, umm, we'd make laws and stop trade with rogue collectives to punish them if they didn't trade fairly, and then we'd have a big vote on what do and ... yeah, cool man you just described america and the WTO.

[Anonymous No.2913160]

>>2913156
Yeah, they don't really understand that what came before the formation of states was anarchy.

So... yeah.

[via Mark Ames No.2913163]

> So what, and who, was Ayn Rand for and against? The best way to get to the bottom of it is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten by Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation — Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street — on him.

[Anonymous No.2913166]

>>2913122

>Please provide proof of this.

(I'll cite everything at the end).

Oh, well....there's lots. One factor you have to take into account is that humans are the most productive when they're working relatively autonomously and "for a cause." In a forced relationship, this is obviously not the case. You also have to take into account the fact that, in a forced institution, those laboring and those directing labor are not the same people. You have a slave owner directing labor, and you have the slave doing the labor. This power structure is antithetical to efficiency. The people who have the power to change things don't have the information, and the people that have the information don't have the power to change things. Those doing the labor themselves are ultimately the only ones intimately familiar with their process. Say, for example, that a laborer came into the knowledge that a machine could replace him and do his job 10 times faster. Would he have any motivation to go tell that to his boss? Of course not! That's information that becomes impacted, and the efficiency of your firm suffers GREATLY. It doesn't even have to be that extreme. Whenever a laborer receives information that he can later use against his employer as a form of leverage (not sharing important knowledge, for instance), they will want to impact that information which decreases efficiency. Hierarchy in and of itself, which is necessary for any forced institution, creates wild inefficiencies because, again, the people that CAN change things don't have the information, and the people that have the information CAN'T change things.

cont....

[Anonymous No.2913169]

>>2913166

Aside from that, there's also the studies I've mentioned linking subordination to depression and other mental conditions that are completely and utterly crippling to efficiency. A happy worker is better than a suicidal worker by far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/otkc11.pdf

http://www.brown.uk.com/depression/gilbert.pdf

http://news.yorku.ca/2008/08/22/feelings-of-inferiority-cause-recurring-depression-york-u-study/

[Anonymous No.2913174]

>>2913166
I was talking about proof, not rambling guesswork. You said "necessarily", that means it must happen and cannot happen any other way.

So why has it before?

[via Mark Ames No.2913176]

> What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”
>
> This echoes almost word for word Rand’s later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”

[Anonymous No.2913177]

>>2913174
*hasn't

[Anonymous No.2913185]

>>2913131

>Please explain the power of the free market to break monopolies

That's a LOT of theory, so I'll just point you to this video which does a wonderful job of condensing and explaining the information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO8ZU7TeKPw&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLNqqDp439te1jg9xfMc
9ePA

>it means we should ensure that companies can't co-opt regulatory bodies and pass strong regulation that works.

Every time we pass strong regulation the monopolies and their consequences increase. Hell, even "pro-worker" regulation such as the Wagner act absolutely crippled the powers of unions.

[via Mark Ames No.2913186]

> Rand fell for William Edward Hickman in the late 1920s, as the shocking story of Hickman’s crime started to grip the nation. His crime, trial and case was a non-stop headline grabber for months; the OJ Simpson of his day. Ayn Rand joined the herd of Hickman groupies, and there were lots of them at the time—much like metalhead serial killer groupies today, the types who write letters to imprisoned serial killers. That’s Ayn Rand. Here, for example, is an old newspaper clipping showing how common it was for the growing legions of reactionary waffendweebs of the late 1920′s to sign up for the William Edward Hickman Fan Club

[via Mark Ames No.2913190]

> Hickman, who was only 19 when he was arrested for murder, was the son of a paranoid-schizophrenic mother and grandmother. His schoolmates said that as a kid Hickman liked to strangle cats and snap the necks of chickens for fun — most of the kids thought he was a budding maniac, though the adults gave him good marks for behavior, a typical sign of sociopathic cunning. He enrolled in college but quickly dropped out, and quickly turned to violent crime largely driven by the thrill and arrogance typical of sociopaths: in a brief and wild crime spree that grew increasingly violent, Hickman knocked over dozens of gas stations and drug stores across the Midwest and west to California. Along the way it’s believed he strangled a girl in Milwaukee, and killed his crime partner’s grandfather in Pasadena, tossing his body over a bridge after taking his money. Hickman’s partner later told police that Hickman told him how much he’d like to kill and dismember a victim someday — and that day did come for Hickman.

[Anonymous No.2913193]

>>2913166
hmm, yeah, this is stupid. do you really think that some workers digging a ditch could've invented a bulldozer but decided not to out of spite for their boss? yeah, you basically have no clue how technical innovation happens.

[Anonymous No.2913195]

>>2913166
>Hierarchy in and of itself, [...] creates wild inefficiencies because

Yes, yes, but how would you stop other people from enforcing hierarchies? You know, with force and with guns? You have still to explain why someone could not just amass an army and rape your happy little flatlander communes to shreds.

Because there would be no state to stop them. Dismissing any form of government will create several groups which will try to take on the role of government, because being in that role would be highly prosperous for them personally. These groups would fight until one or a few would remain. They would be dictatorships.

This is the problem; a free market won't magically stop people from killing other people over resources. We won't have post-scarcity just because the state disappears.

[Anonymous No.2913196]

>>2913136

>You've never interacted with other people, I see.

Choosing to not interact with somebody, which is to say, social ostracism, is not aggressive as it does not impede on another's negative liberties. It's you exercising your right to not interact with other people.

>How could I defend my property and my rights if other people have more guns than me?

Given a scenario in which somebody has more guns than you AND has the willingness to invade your property, you probably wouldn't be able to defend it, in the short term. That's not to say that, through such aggressive action, they wouldn't have totally removed themselves from the market and any chance at interaction with the rest of society without hostile responses.

[Anonymous No.2913198]

>>2913163

[Anonymous No.2913199]

>>2913186
do you actually have a source for this i've been hearing rumors about it but i figured it was some unsupported smear like how lenin was a zionist jew who worked for the rothschields etc.

[Anonymous No.2913201]

>>2913196
>in the short term
And in that short term, I would likely be dead.

How the fuck is this a utopia again?

[via Mark Ames No.2913204]

> One afternoon, Hickman drove up to Mount Vernon Junior High school in Los Angeles, and told administrators that he’d come to pick up “the Parker girl” — her father, Perry Parker, was a prominent banker. No one suspected his motive; Marion obediently followed Hickman to his car as she was told, where he promptly kidnapped her. He wrote a ransom note to Marion’s father, demanding $1,500 for her return, promising that the girl would be left unharmed. Hickman’s extreme narcissism comes through in his ransom letters, as he refers to himself as a “master mind [sic]” and “not a common crook.” Hickman signed his letters “The Fox” because he admired his own cunning: “Fox is my name, very sly you know.” And then he threatened: “Get this straight. Your daughter’s life hangs by a thread.”

[Anonymous No.2913209]

>>2913196
yeah, I'm sure those mothers and children who the bands of gun-wielding maniacs target will definitely choose to fight instead of to become tributaries of some kind (sex, child soldiers, slaves).

[Anonymous No.2913213]

>>2913195

>Yes, yes, but how would you stop other people from enforcing hierarchies? You know, with force and with guns? You have still to explain why someone could not just amass an army and rape your happy little flatlander communes to shreds.

Let me provide you with the classic example of the rogue private defense force along with my other notes on the re-emergence of a State from an Anarchist society. It's kind of long, so it will be multiple posts....

cont...

[Anonymous No.2913215]

>>2913213

First, to acquire the funds and weapons needed to combat the other, let's say, three or four competing defense firms in the market, the company in question would need to participate in the market in the first place, as you can't really start outside of the market and raid villages with baseball bats. So let's say this company has a pretty good consumer base and is now at the top of the market. They could now, theoretically, challenge the other defense forces and actually win. Not only do the leaders of this company have to decide to forego a steady income, they also have to convince all of the employees that a life of banditry is superior to a steady income and a life with friends and family. So let's say this happens, and everyone in the company unilaterally decides that they'll do it for the lulz. Now they have the question of funding. Nobody is going to buy your service if you're going around pillaging, so you'll have to rely on your own superior force to acquire food, ammunition, and all of the other necessities of your continued success. Now take into account the fact that the other defense firms (who have now gained your previous consumer base), DO have a steady income. The employees DO have easy access to food and water and healthcare and shelter and what-have-you. The odds of your venture succeeding are incredibly slim. Ultimately, war is a HUGE cost impediment. It really only works out when you have an already established State with the incentive and motivation to wage it.

cont...

[Anonymous No.2913217]

>>2913196
but now you have the john galt problem, what if the person you are ostracizing just happens to be the most productive and intelligent member of your collective? he's just say "fine, i'll pack up my shit and be off then, later" and likely some of your collective will follow him and split the group. this happens all the time in open source projects when they kick someone out and he forks the project. (see openbsd and freebsd)

[Anonymous No.2913220]

>>2913213
Oh fuck, why long posts? If it's simple and obvious, you shouldn't need walls of text.

[Anonymous No.2913222]

>>2913215

Apart from the monopoly smashing power of the free market that would serve as a massive deterrent to any aggressive organization of power, you also have to consider the social changes that would necessarily need to happen to achieve a State of Anarchism in the first place. Assuming a gradual revolutionary approach, people across the country would have been shifting away from State institutions to voluntary ones because they see that the State is fucking evil, or for the pragmatists out there, that the State is REALLY inefficient. These people are going to be so ridiculously superstitious of any attempt to aggressively obtain power that I don't see them tolerating anything like that. Anarchism happens because people want it to happen, and I doubt they'll revert right back to their previous mindsets. Foucault seems to express similar sentiments in some of his works in which he explores the power dynamics instituted by the State to keep people largely subject to its will. He even went so far as to argue, in a debate with Chomsky, that we can't make ANY plans for a future Anarchist society other than achieving it, because our views are so distorted by our very existence under the State.

cont...

[via Mark Ames No.2913224]

> Hickman and the girl’s father exchanged letters over the next few days as they arranged the terms of the ransom, while Marion obediently followed her captor’s demands. She never tried to escape the hotel where he kept her; Hickman even took her to a movie, and she never screamed for help. She remained quiet and still as told when Hickman tied her to the chair — he didn’t even bother gagging her because there was no need to, right up to the gruesome end.
>
>Hickman’s last ransom note to Marion’s father is where this story reaches its disturbing apex: Hickman fills the letter with hurt anger over her father’s suggestion that Hickman might deceive him, and “ask you for your $1500 for a lifeless mass of flesh I am base and low but won’t stoop to that depth.” What Hickman didn’t say was that as he wrote the letter, Marion was already several chopped-up lifeless masses of flesh.

>>2913199
lrn to google. because of the nature of human language any fifteen sequential words will be a unique string. take a sentence here and put it in quotes. the click [I Feel Lucky]

[Anonymous No.2913225]

>>2913222

Ultimately, humans are very opposed to the centralization of power. For example, a Greek "nation" never really came to form among the Greek polei. One's own allegiances were owed to his kin and community. When the State, as we know it, started to form through both military and economic violence, it was met with a HUGE amount of resistance. I think that, when it comes down to it, the disability to organize in any meaningful way was the only thing that allowed the State to reach its modern nation-state implementation. With modern technologies which ultimately decentralize things like production and the dissemination of information while, at the same time, allowing us to organize quickly and effectively, whistle blowing against any attempt to reinstate a State would be much more effective.

cont...

[Anonymous No.2913227]

>>2913220
he's cunt and pasting shit from some anarchy-kook website, it's all tl;dr to me, fuck that shit.

[Anonymous No.2913228]

>>2913225

Apart from that, it's not like everyone would be forced to be an "Anarchist" in the sense of radical opposition to the centralization of power. If Bob over here absolutely LOVED the way things are currently run, for instance, he could live in a society that is almost EXACTLY THE SAME as it is now. The only difference between his society under Anarchism and our current society is that he couldn't force others into it. If Bob and his friends wanted to contract with each other to form a private law society that resembled our current one, he would be totally free to do it. He COULD try to force others into it, but I'll bet you he'd meet a lot of opposition, especially considering the ultimate edge that decentralized military forces have against centralized ones.

[Anonymous No.2913234]

>>2913217
if a defense firm brings in spoils, what's to stop them from raiding distant towns?

[via Mark Ames No.2913235]

> Hickman packed her body, limbs and entrails into a car, and drove to the drop-off point to pick up his ransom; along his way he tossed out wrapped-up limbs and innards scattering them around Los Angeles. When he arrived at the meeting point, Hickman pulled Marion’s head and torso out of a suitcase and propped her up, her torso wrapped tightly, to look like she was alive–he sewed wires into her eyelids to keep them open, so that she’d appear to be awake and alive. When Marion’s father arrived, Hickman pointed a sawed-off shotgun at him, showed Marion’s head with the eyes sewn open (it would have been hard to see for certain that she was dead), and then took the ransom money and sped away. As he sped away, he threw Marion’s head and torso out of the car, and that’s when the father ran up and saw his daughter–and screamed.

[Anonymous No.2913237]

>>2913228

To speak on that last point for a moment, simply look to the wars in the Middle East, or more historically, to Vietnam or the Ukrainian Free Territory. These are all examples of decentralized, horizontal fighting forces doing INCREDIBLY well against centralized opponents. If I recall correctly, the United States defense budget is greater than the defense budgets of all other nations combined, and we're still having trouble with insurgents in the Middle East. This disadvantage arises from how information flows through different structures and how these structures respond to external threats. Every time a bit of information hits a different level of hierarchy, it slows down. When centralized bodies, such as the US Army, respond to external threats, they tend to simply reinforce their hierarchy, which only cripples them more. Decentralized guerrilla units, on the other hand, are more amorphous, becoming more decentralized and more able to effectively respond to changing conditions.

[Anonymous No.2913240]

>>2913215
>>2913222
It's funny because you talk about the free market and yet your whole argument here fundamentally assumes specific forms of economic organization.

[Anonymous No.2913243]

>>2913227

I'm copying and pasting from Facebook, where I originally posted this in response to a similar question asked by one of my Minarchist friends.

[Anonymous No.2913247]

>>2913199

have you read ayn rand? all her male heroes, her ideal men, come across ass sociopathic aspies.

[Anonymous No.2913248]

>>2913185
Okay so I just watched your video and it's "completely shit". And like all libertarian arguments it relies on a lot of really shitty assumptions about economic reality and human nature.

[Anonymous No.2913250]

>>2913217

That can ultimately be a problem, but it's in no way aggressive.

[Anonymous No.2913252]

>>2913213
>>2913215
>>2913222
>>2913225
>>2913228
Things I will assume you are aware of:

* Sticks and stones can be weapons
* Sticks and stones need not be bought
* Before the concept of the state emerged, we were all living in anarchy
* From anarchy in the past arose the state paradigm of today

So... explain again why history would magically take a different route?

[Anonymous No.2913254]

>>2913237
this is a wrong though. the vietnamese forces were being direct by Giap though, they weren't just roving bands of random dudes, the whole thing was centralized. and as far as decentralized fighters in iraq, well, they lost didn't they, so much for that.

[Anonymous No.2913257]

>>2913225
The only difference between a "community" and a "state" is the scale.

[via Mark Ames No.2913260]

> This is the “amazing picture” Ayn Rand — guru to the Republican/Tea Party right-wing — admired when she wrote in her notebook that Hickman represented “the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.”

> Other people don’t exist for Ayn, either. Part of her ideas are nothing more than a ditzy dilettante’s bastardized Nietzsche — but even this was plagiarized from the same pulp newspaper accounts of the time. According to an LA Times article in late December 1927, headlined “Behavioralism Gets The Blame,” a pastor and others close to the Hickman case denounce the cheap trendy Nietzschean ideas that Hickman and others latch onto as a defense:

> “Behavioristic philosophic teachings of eminent philosophers such as Nietzsche and Schopenhauer have built the foundation for William Edward Hickman’s original rebellion against society…” the article begins.

>>2913227
> /lit/
> it's all tl;dr to me, fuck that shit.
Why are you even here?

[Anonymous No.2913261]

>>2913252

The problem being that sticks and stones rarely win out against assault rifles and body armor.

[Anonymous No.2913266]

>>2913261

did you even read his fucking post you tard? maybe instead of spamming us with lame essays from some anarchist homepage you should try some reading yourself

[Anonymous No.2913268]

>>2913228
>he couldn't force others into it
Why not? If he had the army to back it up, why couldn't he? Because other groups would band together suddenly to defeat this evil? Why would they? Why would they care that their neighbour was killed? It's not their tribe! Fuck them! Fuck all other people! All bow to the community!

[Anonymous No.2913270]

>>2913261
Yes, but according to your long-winded logic, they would have to participate in the free market to obtain those goods.

[Anonymous No.2913271]

>>2913254

The point being that their method of implementation was incredibly decentralized in Vietnam, even if they were part of a larger central body. As far as the terrorists in the Middle East, you don't think it should have taken the US military, with a defense budget larger than every other country in the world, to fight off some terrorist groups, and you'd think that we shouldn't still be having problems with them.

[Anonymous No.2913273]

>>2913260
> why am i here?

to have a discussion not read cut and pasted essays from anarchy-kook websites

[Anonymous No.2913274]

>>2913261
>they take my kid and ransom her for my guns

uh oh.

[Anonymous No.2913279]

>>2913271
You are so fucking ignorant it's unbelievable.

>we didn't beat 'em, they must be doing something right!

holy goddamn I just caught autism

[Anonymous No.2913284]

>>2913271
the reason the vietnamese won is because they were getting backing from the USSR, the iraqis didnt have any support.

this is why america is losing in afghanistan, because pakistan is supporting the rebels.

[via Mark Ames No.2913285]

> The fear that some felt at the time was that these philosophers’ dangerous, yet nuanced ideas would fall into the hands of lesser minds, who would bastardize Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and poison the rest of us. Which aptly fits the description of Ayn Rand, whose philosophy developed out of her admiration for “Supermen” like Hickman. Rand’s philosophy can be summed up by the title of one of her best-known books:The Virtue of Selfishness. She argues that all selfishness is a moral good, and all altruism is a moral evil, even “moral cannibalism” to use her words. To her, those who aren’t like-minded sociopaths are “parasites” and “lice” and “looters.”

> But with Rand, there’s something more pathological at work. She’s out to make the world more sociopath-friendly so that people like Ayn and her hero William Hickman can reach their full potential, not held back by the morality of the “weak,” whom Rand despised.

> Rand denounced the hanging as, “The mob’s murderous desire to revenge its hurt vanity against the man who dared to be alone.”

[Anonymous No.2913286]

>>2913252

>So... explain again why history would magically take a different route?

Something I wrote on a very related issue, which is to say, the rise of the State in the first place and the conditions of its success. I explained in the paragraphs I posted why a modern transition to Anarchism would be able to see a much higher fortitude against an emergence of a State.

http://anarchistanteater.tumblr.com/post/24802880136/the-conception-of-the-state-a-wholly-inorganic

Sorry if I didn't get to answer anybody else's questions, but I've got an eye doctor appointment. It's been fun.

[Anonymous No.2913292]

>>2913286
what a loser, spams us with shitty and flawed essays and then runs off because he knows it's a bunch of bullshit

[Anonymous No.2913293]

>>2913286
>eye doctor appointment for the kid who can't see clearly
Too on the nose, 2/10, would not bestsell.

[Anonymous No.2913299]

what a thread. I laughed. I cried. I looted.

[Anonymous No.2913305]

>>2913299
Finally, the statists getting what they deserve: a complete trouncing.

[Anonymous No.2913307]

>>2913305
the twist is that we were living in a state all along!

[via Mark Ames No.2913314]

> That’s what makes it so creepy how Rand and her followers clearly get off on hating and bashing those they perceived as weak–Rand and her followers have a kind of fetish for classifying weaker, poorer people as “parasites” and “lice” who need to swept away. This is exactly the sort of sadism, bashing the helpless for kicks, that Rand’s hero Hickman would have appreciated. What’s really unsettling is that even former Central Bank chief Alan Greenspan, whose relationship with Rand dated back to the 1950s, did some parasite-bashing of his own. In response to a 1957New York Times book review slamming Atlas Shrugged, Greenspan, defending his mentor, published a letter to the editor that ends: "Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should."

[Anonymous No.2913317]

>>2913292

maybe if you fuckers had actually bothered to educate yourselves on anarchism before throwing yourselves into a debate about it with you ignorant questions, links to essays and long answers (i mean, several paragraphs, each containing over a hundred words, who's ever gonna bother reading that much text?) would not be necessary.

[Anonymous No.2913320]

dude, i have decided that language is oppressive, i mean look at how people talk to each other? rude people go around calling others faggots and niggers and being hurtful like that. i think if we could just go back to a time before language no one would be able to hurt other peoples feelings by calling them rude names. what we need to do is smash language! burn all the books, anyone who speaks, shoot em, until no one is left who can read or speak! then we will have a harmony where everyone is happy and feels good about themselves! join me comrades, let's SMASH LANGUAGE!

[Anonymous No.2913337]

>>2913320
dudette, i have decided that men are oppressive, i mean look at how they talk to us? rude men go around calling us whores and sluts and being hurtful like that. i think if we could just go back to a time before men no man would be able to hurt a woman's feelings by calling them rude names. what we need to do is smash men! burn all the briefs, any man who speaks, shoot em, until no one is left who can penetrate or speak! then we will have a harmony where everyone is happy and feels good about themselves! join me comrades, let's SMASH MEN!

[Anonymous No.2913362]

>>2913337
one time i saw this guy piss standing up while i was waiting in line for the bathroom, made me so mad, i fuckin' hate men bro, with their giant cocks and dangling balls just sticking out of their crotch waiting to be gently nibbled on and then sucked vigorously and sloppily until warm sperm shoots all over my face and into my mouth, god men, fucking assholes!

[via Mark Ames No.2913370]

>>2913320

[Anonymous No.2913375]

>>2913362
>>/hm/

[Anonymous No.2913504]

This about sums everything up

[Anonymous No.2914441]

>>2912748
Except even this argument is biased. In what a vegetarian would be more "following someone else's idea" than someone who eats meat ? The vegetarian at least chose an uncommon way for himself, while the meat eater, most of the time, is just doing what he is used to without thinking more about it. If someone ethics is never worse than anyone else's, then despicing someone for murder is in nothing less admirable than murdering someone out of some sort of very personal ethic. But then again, there is a bias in thinking the rapist commited his crime out of personal choice. You have no idea wether the murderer was a Nietzschean ubermensch or simply a sick man pandering to his own lust, his own inability to control his impulses. In this sense the murderer would not be really different from someone who can't leave his room because he is can't prevent himself from masturbating all the time. Except if you consider that any reason you may have to do something, even basic instincts or peer pressure is valuable in itself. In this case everyone is always admirable and the world admirable hasn't really a meaning anymore. So by admiring this murder, Ayn Rand was somewhat reckless even by her own standards, except if she knew more about the murderer than simply "he's a guy who raped and murdered a child".

[Anonymous No.2914463]

>>2914441
way to bring up old shit faggot thats from like 10 hours ago

[Anonymous No.2914467]

>>2914463
It's OK, I'm shitposting in other old threads too.