/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3366684]

Is there a single argument against Objectivism that isn't "it hurts my feelings"?

[Anonymous No.3366689]

Yes. It creates a society that is fundamentally unstable.

[Anonymous No.3366692]

>>3366689
There's no such thing as society, there are only individuals.

[Anonymous No.3366695]

>>3366692
And an individual can't stop an invading army.

[Anonymous No.3366696]

>>3366695
Armies don't attack individuals, they attack governments.

[Anonymous No.3366705]

>>3366692

That's bullshit and you know it somewhere inside of you when you type it. Society is made up of individuals and their interdependent relationships between each other.

[Anonymous No.3366706]

>>3366696
but you'll agree that both are collectives

[Anonymous No.3366713]

>>3366705
"Society" isn't a single conscious entity that can make decisions, it's a collection of individuals that you have decided to call a "society". What justification do you have to elevate the needs of this abstraction over the needs of individuals?

[Anonymous No.3366715]

>>3366696
tell that to someone in Uganda or Sudan bruh

[Anonymous No.3366718]

The major problem with objectivism is that population size needs to be small. So small that everyone is directly accountable to everyone else. These problems are the same problems that communism is faced with.

[Anonymous No.3366720]

>>3366713
because the interests of the individuals generally lie in the formation of a collective

[Anonymous No.3366721]

I remember playing Bioshock and not seeing anything wrong with Rapture, all of my leftist friends were pretty butthurt.

[Anonymous No.3366722]

It's not really up to date with the latest discoveries in neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.3366724]

>>3366713

So what that I or we've decided to call this group a "society", it really doesn't matter. And this "abstraction" is exactly the kind of thing that gives the maximum benefit to every single individual among the said society WITH protection from violence and WITH a certain degree of autonomy. (considering this society is a constitutional republic)

[Anonymous No.3366727]

>>3366721
so you didn't see the inherent collapse caused by the unrealistic nature of the ideals espoused within?
I don't think anyone's arguing that individualism is a bad thing, the point is that an entire society based on it simply wouldn't work and lead to awful things like people abusing others without reprimand

[Anonymous No.3366729]

>>3366720
[citation needed]

What right to you have to steal from me and call it "taxation"?

>>3366724
So theft is okay if the money is used to "help" other people who are "poor"?

[Anonymous No.3366730]

rand was a butthurt ugly woman. Enough said.

[Anonymous No.3366732]

>>3366729
because you use the opportunities provided by a society that wouldn't exist without them?
are you seriously just advocating full blown individualistic anarchy? That is awfully binary

[Anonymous No.3366733]

>>3366729

For the most part yes, it absolutely is. Having 2% of your income taken away from you to uphold social services is "okay"

[Anonymous No.3366736]

>>3366722
In what way? Objectivism is based on the theory that people act in their perceived self-interests.

>>3366732
Name something that the government does that couldn't be provided by the private sector.

>>3366733
So violence is okay if it helps other people? Is it alright to kill you and give your food to some starving people? That would certainly maximize utility, seeing as how you don't care about individuals rights.

[Anonymous No.3366737]

>>3366692

Those individuals would likely form a communist government and would purge any individuals who protested.

[Anonymous No.3366742]

>>3366736
Some things are more valued than others. Just as a car is more valued than a bike, life is more valued than money.

[Anonymous No.3366744]

>>3366736

>So violence is okay if it helps other people? Is it alright to kill you and give your food to some starving people? That would certainly maximize utility, seeing as how you don't care about individuals rights.

People only starve because of capitalist property relations. It would be perfectly moral to kill capitalists, seize the means of production and produce food in such a way that it is distributed to everyone.

[Anonymous No.3366746]

>>3366736
unified law and order

[Anonymous No.3366749]

>>3366742
I don't value your life and me and my friends need your car, it would be in the interest of our utilitarian collective to kill you and take it.

>>3366744
That's why capitalist countries have significantly lower rates of starvation when compared to "non-capitalist" countries, right? Provide a concrete counter-example or you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.3366752]

>>3366736

Capitalism ("the private sector") is actually reliant on government intervention. It needs force in order to uphold private property, imperialism, etc etc. Without the government capitalism would likely collapse very quickly.

[Anonymous No.3366754]

Wow, /lit/ has honestly no idea why they despise Rand. And there I was, thinking I was in good company.

[Anonymous No.3366755]

>>3366749
you're doing that black and white thing again
stop
stop that

[Anonymous No.3366756]

>>3366754
I know why I do
she's a terrible fucking writer

[Anonymous No.3366761]

>>3366749

Sure, Mao's China greatly improved life expectancy. The problem with capitalists is that they assume that 'capitalism' is always the capitalism found in the USA. USA has relatively low starvation rates precisely because it has aggressive government intervention (imperialism)

Compare starvation rates in 1950s USSR compared to modern day India, for example. Any rational person would much prefer to live in the USSR.

[Anonymous No.3366762]

>>3366755
As soon as you put the needs of the collective ahead of individuals, it's quite easy to justify tyranny.

>>3366752
>private property

Could be enforced by a private court system.

> imperialism

I'll need to see the evidence that imperialism is necessary for the survival of every single capitalist economy in the world.

[Anonymous No.3366766]

She's really ugly.

[Anonymous No.3366769]

>>3366761
Shall we compare the starvation rates in capitalist South Korea to North Korea?

>inb4 excuses

[Anonymous No.3366770]

>>3366762
no but I mean you're saying it has to be ahead of it in every regard, not just the ones that create order
you're making logical leaps like 'If someone can take my money for helping people then I'm equally justified in murdering their ass if it'll mean it's one less mouth to feed'

[Anonymous No.3366771]

>>3366762

>Could be enforced by a private court system

Not likely. To enforce private property you need a /monopoly/ on legitimate force, which is exactly what a government provides. Without said monopoly, private property "rights" would not be enforceable.

Imperialism is necessary for capitalists because growth is ESSENTIAL for capitalist survival. AT some point this implies geographical growth, which is why you have a whole history of capitalist governments invading other territories.

[Anonymous No.3366773]

>>3366756
Oh, yeah, there's that. muh architecture

[Anonymous No.3366774]

>>3366736
The thing is people often consider a strong community and social welfare in their self interest. Not to mention people have different needs and interests to begin with. People don't just desire freedom, they want freedom, safety, family, a sense of community and beauty altogether. And the community is a way of balancing it out. Altruism is just a part of that.

[Anonymous No.3366775]

>>3366749
> utilitarian collective
That's your problem right there.

[Anonymous No.3366776]

>>3366769

If North Korea ever becomes part of liberal capitalism I suspect its starvation rates would grow even higher. Just look what happened to Russia after the fall of the USSR, life expectancy plummeted, 10+ million people died.

[Anonymous No.3366782]

>>3366771
>To enforce private property you need a /monopoly/ on legitimate force, which is exactly what a government provides. Without said monopoly, private property "rights" would not be enforceable.

5:12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

>>3366774
So it is justified in your mind to extract money from certain individuals by gunpoint?

>>3366776
>If North Korea ever becomes part of liberal capitalism I suspect its starvation rates would grow even higher.

Only on /lit/ would someone suggest that North Korea's government was actually doing its people a favor by not going the same path as South Korea. Your delusions really know no bounds.

[Anonymous No.3366788]

>>3366762
>As soon as you put the needs of the collective ahead of individuals, it's quite easy to justify tyranny
As soon as you put the needs of the individual ahead of the collective, it's quite easy to justify despotism.

>>3366749
>I don't value your life and me and my friends need your car, it would be in the interest of our utilitarian collective to kill you and take it.
I don't value your life and I need your car, it would be in my own interest to kill you and take it.

>>3366729
>What right to you have to steal from me and call it "taxation"?
What right have you to drive on roads and demand that they be fixed?
What right have you to go to school and tell them that they are thieves?
What right have you to expect vengance for 9/11 and then expect volunteers to buy their own ticket and gun to chase osama?

>>3366713
>"Society" isn't a single conscious entity that can make decisions
I agree. It is a collection of individuals that can't be fucked making decisions, and go where ever their erratic emotions take them.

[Anonymous No.3366791]

>>3366782
>So it is justified in your mind to extract money from certain individuals by gunpoint?

Taxes don't really happen at gunpoint. And nobody considers them to be at gunpoint anyway. Regardless, I do consider resource redistribution acceptable. If your going to make this a moral argument I'm afraid you're just going to run into the is/ought problem. It does not matter what the moral action ought to be. The fact is that for humans altruism is moral.

[Anonymous No.3366792]

>>3366791
>If your going to make this a moral argument I'm afraid you're just going to run into the is/ought problem.
>The fact is that for humans altruism is moral.

[Anonymous No.3366793]

>>3366782
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

I said enforceable. This is merely a fetishisation of bourgeois legal systems. The things that back up these legal systems _in the first place_ is of course monopoly of violence. I (in this society) agree with a judge purely because I know that if I disobey him my sentence is likely to get longer and longer. I submit myself to the state (which is of course run in capitalist interests).

Without this state-capitalist intervention, there is no monopoly over violence, therefore I am free to start a communist rebellion and start enforcing my own conception of 'property'.

There really is no getting around this, and its why smart capitalists actually realise they need a state for certain functions.

I love "anarcho"-capitalists/"libertarians"/objectivists because they actually play right into the hands of communists.

[Anonymous No.3366798]

>>3366782
>5:12
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
>arbitration
All well and good so long as transaction costs are negligible. Which is never in that case.

[Anonymous No.3366799]

Without a society who would you object to?

[Anonymous No.3366800]

Objectivism as a personal philosophy has a lot to recommend it. I myself find it pointlessly fixed on meritocratic principles, but it does encourage self-reliance and responsibility for ones own actions.

It seems to work best, sort of like the Amish, and really a lot of other philosophies, in association with a more loose and flexible dominant political structure. It makes a better "angry young man" than it does a guiding influence. The same of course can be said (and seen) of Marxism. As it is now, creating a tension in one direction in a complex politico-economic gestalt, and creating a nexus around which vague ideas of economic justice and fairness can condense, it has a valuable role.

tl:dr; Good as one of several competing systems or as a personal philosophy, bad as the dominant one.

[Anonymous No.3366801]

>>3366792
Are you really suggesting that humans don't consider altruism a moral good? It's not that human beings don't have their own selfish interests, it's just that altruism and the community are also part of the human interest.
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/28/scan.nsq083.full
http://interactive.acer.edu.au/index.php/2012/10/altruism-sociability-and-neuroscience/

[Anonymous No.3366803]

>>3366800

wow look at this little baby liberal lmao

[Anonymous No.3366805]

Because anarcho-capitalism (that isn't what Rand tries to teach us, but since OP doesn't know that I'll simply counter-argue his ideas, not hers) based in contracts wouldn't lead us to total freedom, it would just eventually evolve into something that looks like our modern government. You see, as much as a contract is signed by only a limited amount of people, its existence will affect everyone around it. If we destroyed every form of government today, we would still need to have some conventions that would be freely chosen by the population of our times, but its effects would pass down to the next generation.

Locke's social contract isn't something imaginary, I really do believe that it actually existed, perhaps not in the terms he put it, and I doubt that he gave an accurate description of our nature state. But it doesn't matter, in a past time, someone freely chose to either create or accept a form of government and the effects of this ancient decision still affects us.

If you read The Ancient City by Foustel de Coulanges, it will really become clear that even when the government didn't exist in ancient roman, greek and indian times, they still found a way to centralize power in the hands of the patriarch. They didn't have a government, but someone along the way chose to organize the power structure withing the family, and it affected all of this person's descendants, even if they didn't like it.

[Anonymous No.3366812]

>>3366801
the gif was a thumbs up nigga

[Anonymous No.3366813]

yes, there is: if you are a deluded egoist exploiting others - they will kill you, regardless of socio-political fluff

that's basically it

people often don't like to be fucked in the ass and then forced to thank for it

The argument against being an objectivist is the law of physics governing a bullet that will revenge-kill you

[Anonymous No.3366816]

>>3366812
The girl is obviously doing a dismissive/sarcastic thumbs up

[Anonymous No.3366819]

>>3366782

>Only on /lit/ would someone suggest that North Korea's government was actually doing its people a favor by not going the same path as South Korea. Your delusions really know no bounds.

Well since people act in their own perceived self-interests, and there's no mass rebellion over there, it seems that the majority of North Koreans agree with me. Good job swallowing the propaganda of the US government though, lol

[Anonymous No.3366820]

This thread has converted me back to objectivism. To think I respected you people...

[Anonymous No.3366822]

>>3366800
I'm a Goldwater conservative. Where do you find anything liberal in this statement?

[Anonymous No.3366823]

>>3366822

conservatives these days fall under the umbrella of liberalism.

[Anonymous No.3366829]

>>3366823
You're right! Conservatives are liberals. That probably explains why objectivists are so subjective.

But seriously, if you really hold that conservatism is liberal, doesn't that imply that objectivism is conservative, and therefore liberal? Thus you seem to imply that the more liberal you become, the more you'd come into line with conservative principles, which as you say, are liberal, so....you think pretty much everybody in america is, objectivist already, and just won't admit it. Sorta makes sense

[Anonymous No.3366835]

>>3366829

well i find that objectivists are also usually liberals (Rand was, so obviously her followers mostly are), but objectivism as a philosophy is so loosely defined that im sure you could twist it around to serve, say, communist ideals if you really wanted to (but why would you want to really?)

[Anonymous No.3366836]

Being an objectivist is like being a soviet/us leader during Cold War and initiating a nuclear launch. And then expecting there won't be consequences. With this sociopathic decision there is only M.A.D. There can't be winners and the world (society) collapses. Typical libtardian "FUCKYOU!" mentality. Objectivism in most parts of the Earth is known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Only pathologically mentally deficient person with delusions of grandeur would think that his egoistic self-centred adoption of philosophy of self-aggrandizement by disregarding externalities and well-being of others wouldn't bear consequences and similar changes in actions of ther people. It's game theory.

[Anonymous No.3366840]

>>3366836
(cont.) it's like prisoner dilemma with prisoners having full real-time view of decisions of each other

[Anonymous No.3366841]

>>3366829

conservatism is liberal in this day and age because we've been living in a conservative world for so very long. if you want to 'conserve' that (by say, going back to the world of the 1960's) then yes you are a liberal.

if you were a 'conservative' in say 1790, then you would not be a liberal.

[Anonymous No.3366842]

>>3366841

sorry i meant to say

>"we've been living in a LIBERAL world for so very long"

[Anonymous No.3366853]

It's a movement by and for ugly people, objectively.

[Anonymous No.3366861]

Is there a single argument against eugenics that isn't "it hurts my feelings"?

Is there a single argument against fascism that isn't "it hurts my feelings"?

Is there a single argument against genocide that isn't "it hurts my feelings"?

Is there a single argument against human extinction that isn't "it hurts my feelings"?

[Anonymous No.3366864]

>>3366861
chill your asscheeks, buddy
OP obviously trolls for attention

[Anonymous No.3366903]

>>3366853
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdClxnct0mA
>ugly
nuh-uh

[Anonymous No.3366930]

>>3366841
Thats where you're wrong. Most conservatives in the late seventeen hundreds were liberal: it was the reactionaries they were against. Conservatives supported the way things were going, which was a pretty liberal direction, comapred to the Tory position, which was reactionary in the extreme. Check out the members of Johnson's circle to se what I mean: these men would have disliked the WORD liberal, but they espoused any liberal Ideal that didn't contradict their moral primciples.

[Anonymous No.3366944]

>>3366903
Pick 2?`

[Anonymous No.3366968]

>>3366684

By living in a society and interacting with other humans you inherently limit your freedom of action if you wish to continue functioning within that society.

Ethics are objective or demonstratable or derivable from any axioms.

Not all situations are black and white. Not being a consequentialist when it comes to policies are ideas covering the whole of society pretty much makes you a lunatic.

[Anonymous No.3366972]

>>3366968

Ethics are not***

Sorry

[Anonymous No.3366978]

>>3366729

Rights are priviliges granted by those in power, nothing more. Framing the argument by calling taxation theft won't fly on /lit/, I'd wager most of us are at least familiar with critical reasoning.

Welfare is designed to keep consumerism flowing by taking it from people who have the ability to save and giving it to those who need to spend it pretty much immediately or provide services that competing firms have previously failed to adequtly ptovide (National health service in most countries, road building etc). It's just more convenient for that state to handle such matters.

[Anonymous No.3367032]

Ayn Rand was a fucking moron, and an a lonely, money-grubbing opportunist.

Her philosophy was designed to make as much money for her as possible, which I have no problem with (God knows we all like money) but to try and say it has any value at as a philosophy is simply ludicrous..

[Anonymous No.3367101]

>>3367032

Lots of things have great value as a personal philosophy that would make horrible politics. Most if not all religions fit that statement. Ayn Rand's concepts could lead an individual to work hard, save money, contribute to the good of society (so the state won't have to), and not be a drain on the economy.

Remember though, that as rand would certainly agree, this is an individual's choice. And the individual may be at odds with the state, society, or other individuals. As long as the maximum of individual liberty is maintained in society, the Marxist and the Objectivist can be equally disgruntlled and unsatisfied with the world while pursuing their own individual philosophies to the limits of their abilities within the (hopefully broad and malleable) constraints of social compromise.

[Anonymous No.3367137]

>>3367032
she was simultaneously an idealist and a hypocrite, most of us are the latter only some are the former

[Anonymous No.3367141]

Reported.

[Anonymous No.3367149]

I would also submit that Ayn Rand looks like Harlan Ellison, and Harlan Ellison is always wrong, therefore Objectivism is always wrong.

Case closed.

[Anonymous No.3367155]

>>3366684
Call it an argument or not, but I find the whole perception of morality coming down ( in the end ) to "my property" and "your property", and you-can't-ever-touch-my-stuff because then you're a baddie to be a somewhat flawed premise.
No man is an island. No human society ever consisted of hermits who only ventured out to partake in mutually beneficial trade-agreements.
Life, and life with others, is very much about sensible compromise.

So; I don't find it philosophically flawed, perhaps, but I find it incredibly impractical.

[Anonymous No.3367158]

>>3367149

When you first see the picture you think: "Wow! Harlan Ellison has been working out!"

[Anonymous No.3367269]

Rand dismissed that there could be conflict between rational individuals. If I have water, and it is my right to have it, and you need water in order to not die, we approach a paradox. Either the person without water denies his own self interest, and lets the other person keep the water, or he violates the other persons rights and takes the water.

[Anonymous No.3367282]

>>3366684

It's irrelevant. Not true or untrue but of no use and/or relevance.

[Anonymous No.3367293]

>>3367269
Confirmed for getting your entire opinion of Objectivism from blogs and never actually reading the source material.

[Anonymous No.3367301]

>>3367293
OP asked for arguments against objectivism and I provided one, freely after my memory. If anyone is interested in reading the whole text it can be found here: http://www.oocities .org/athens/olympus/2178/rational .html

[Anonymous No.3367302]

>a single argument [...] that isn't "it hurts my feelings"?
It's funny how people always assume that's the argument. It's like your disregard for the argument itself is a way to stop one from hurting your feelings instead.

[Anonymous No.3367332]

>>3367269
That's just plain wrong, what right does the thirsty person have to the water of someone else's labor?

The man with the water could also give it to the thirsty man without violating his own self interest. This is achieved if the man with the water thinks the thirsty man is a pretty good guy and that he would benefit from that man continuing to live.

[Anonymous No.3367351]

>>3367332
The point is that it is in the self interest of the person without water to obtain it. This evidently conflicts with the other person's right to keep the water. As for the second part of your argument, the thirsty man could just as easily be a ruthless idiot who can in no way offer value to the owner of the water.

[Anonymous No.3367354]

Moral relativism.

Objectivism is based on a form of moral reallism, which is ridiculous.

Also, Rawls bro. Rawls it up.

Source: former Rand-bot turned socialist.

[Anonymous No.3367383]

>>3367351
It is in everyone's self interest to have millions of dollars, but for everyone to have that would wreck the economy and leave everyone worse off. Objectivism is not based off of everybody getting what is in their self interest, it is simply pursuing it. Objectivism is applying the capitalistic on a grand scale, therefore any conflicts in self interest are settled by competition. If the man who needs the water is better at theft than the man who has the water is at protecting it then the man satisfies his self interest at the expense of the other just like what happens currently. Of course Rand proposes to somehow raise an objective police force and judicial system without taxes or tariffs in order to place incentive against theft and murder, but this competition will continue, as it continues in todays society. The game of Capitalism, and thus the game of Objectivism, is one of winners and losers not mutual cooperation so people not being able to satisfy their self interests is a matter of course.

[Anonymous No.3367391]

>>3367269
>>3367332
>>3367351

Guys, it's not really a question of rights at that point: it's a market transaction.

You have the water, and you see it as in your interest to keep it, since your labor acquired it and you might want to use it in a commercial transaction or for your own needs.

I need water, and I have various resources i might expend to get it, assuming I have nothing of value to offer you for it. I might wait until you sleep and steal it (expending my resource of time, and risking the resource of your goodwill if you catch me). I might knock you on the head and take it, again investing effort and taking risk, or i might threaten you with some disincentive: (I'll beat you up, rape you, and then take your water unless you give me what i need.)

In all these cases it's not a true trade system, since i'm coercing the deal, and also to be a "true trade" both parties must benefit materially from it, even if it's unwilling. However, since I'm investing my time and energy to acquire it, and forcing you to invest your time and energy to defend it, it's a valid economic transaction, in the same way that a bear robbing a beehive, or a gangster extorting protection money is. And as the danegeld system illustrates, it's an ordinary use of diplomacy in economic matters, and around a long time.

[Anonymous No.3367392]

>>3366684
It´s plebeian.

The objectivist idea of human greatness boils down to "fuck bitches, get money".

[Anonymous No.3367649]

the whole idea of the bourgeois state never interfering in the economy is pure fantasy, and a bad one at that, simply because it is not in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous No.3367658]

1. Quantum mechanics
2. Our knowledge of the brain
3. Naturalistic Fallacy

[Anonymous No.3367680]

>>3366722

[Anonymous No.3367691]

>>3366819
That's because they're robots. You know, there are some genuine atrocities in the world, after a certain point it is easier just to firebomb elementary schools rather than have this disseminated via some labyrinthine propaganda machine.

[Anonymous No.3367727]

>not being an individualist anarchist like a smart people

And what about individuals who commit in volutary and mutual cooperation and solidarity?

[Anonymous No.3367732]

>>3367727
*person
fuck

[Anonymous No.3367748]

The move from "A is A" to "men are naturally selfish" to "men should be selfish" is fallacious.

[Anonymous No.3367837]

Objectivism disregards randomness and non-determinism in everyday life, it spits on the idea of equal opportunity for everyone and justice (a social construct in itself, yet still necessary for societal cohesion). It is not based on reality which is why she had to create fiction to support her ideas rather than do a case study.

[Anonymous No.3367865]

>Randians get told in pretty much every thread about objectivism on /lit/
>"oh man those liberal only care about their hurt feelings, I saw no arguments at all, I bet they wanted to call me a racist"

I don't know why /lit/ still waste time with these people.

[Anonymous No.3367878]

>>3367837


I've said it like three times in this thread already, but again, objectivism is a fine philosphy for an individual, it has a positive effect on discourse as one of several minoaity viewpoints as well. The Green Party, The Natural Law Party, The Libertarian Party, The TEA Party all have a role in the shaping of policy. And very few people would want any of them in charge of the country, or unilaterally seting policy. They'te all much better in the loyal opposition position, and as a voluntary lifestyle choice, it's hard to say anything against them. Different strokes.

[Anonymous No.3367879]

>>3367649
nah
substitute bourgeoisie with human and you got it right

your delusional grand narrative will fuck you up, there are no bad guys, there are only humans

[Anonymous No.3367888]

MUH FEUDALISM

[Anonymous No.3367904]

Objectivism's main texts aren't essays but works of fiction, and as such the philosophy is generally criticized as having a tenuous connection with reality. By using invented characters and situations to "prove" her points, Rand is able to ignore inconvenient realities of human nature that go against her philosophy. She constructs a fictional type of society, and then constructs an ethical philosophy suited to that fictional society. That's perfectly fine, unless you are looking for an ethics suited to real life.

[Anonymous No.3367949]

>>3367904
Some of her works are non-fiction. Regardless, she doesn't really argue anything, she simply puts forward for consideration her personal value system and masks this power-tripping attempt as enlightened moralizing. Personally when I see someone even mention morals I autmatically dismiss them as manipulative sonsofbitches

[Anonymous No.3368115]

>>3367879
>there are only humans
True. Some own the means of production, some don't. Those who do have power. Those who don't, do not.

[Anonymous No.3368485]

>>3366684
the only problem with Rand is that she doesn't go far enough. She provides valid arguments as to why government action is bad both morally and in a utilitarian sense... and then she still says that we need a night-watchman-like state. Why? Why can't the free market provide arbitration, defense, and other needs just as it can provide for everything else? She contradicts herself.

[Anonymous No.3368504]

The argument that it is detached from reality and caught up in its own strange mythology and ideologies about how there is a secret pure, efficient free market within struggling to break free and being held back by bloodthirsty socialists. This is just pure ideology with no substance.

It also displays a complete lack of apparently willful understanding of how the state functions under capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3368560]

>>3366684
>Is there a single argument against Objectivism that isn't "it hurts my feelings"?
>Let's debate why objectivism is right but not bring up it's largest most inherent flaw
>let's debate morality of the Bible while but don't bring up the question of god's existence
>let's debate marxism but not bring up it's real world failures
Sounds fun.

[Anonymous No.3368600]

a moral calculus custom-built for daytraders and sociopaths ??? you know i just GOTS to get in on this

[Anonymous No.3369114]

her aim was to be liberal bolshevik much like the fascists did their best to become conservative bolsheviks; this is vaguely stated in the "for the new intellectual"; the baroque writers were not outdated but out of fashion.

[Anonymous No.3369160]

>>3367332
>what right does a human have to water
>mfw
This is the problem with objectivism. It's selfish to the point of being inhuman.
Selfishness is NOT a virtue.

[Anonymous No.3369177]

The more pressing issue is that there are no good arguments FOR objectivism and so the view isn't worth arguing against.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102657523/On-the-Randian-Argument-Nozick

[Anonymous No.3369192]

>>3366756

I finished fountainhead last week and was kind of wondering if anyone had fan theory'd that it's a joke upon the reader? With all the shit poking at how much bullshit popular literature is, the book seemed awfully fluffy and not really a great work artistically.

I enjoyed it and to be honest it made me feel good after reading, but in the same way after I go to church. It feels good, but I can't keep that feeling with me when I know it's implausible

[Anonymous No.3369203]

>>3366800

Dat compromise. I think this is probably, and hopefully, what most people ultimately get out of reading her books

[Anonymous No.3369217]

1. There are objective moral duties that require us to take into consideration the interests of others.
2. If objectivism is true, then there are no objective moral duties that require us to take into consideration the interests of others.
3. Therefore, objectivism is false (from 1 and 2 by modus tollens).

QED

[Cellis !eTB.HcnPbU No.3369293]

Why is it called, 'Objectivism', when inherits no objective qualities?