[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 134 KB, 640x432, 1272290421046.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
599846 No.599846 [Reply] [Original]

Can someone tell me what Objectivists/ Ayn Rand lovers actually believe?

>> No.599854

Why should I waste my time telling you when you can go find out for yourself?

>> No.599859

>>599854

summarize it in 2 sentences plz

>> No.599874

i can't say it, because it's not coherent.

>> No.599873

Objectivist - "Fuck, we're awesome, fuck everyone else; haters gonna hate."

Randists (added on) - "But only because we can be awesome whilst upholding a strict sense of honor with each other."

>> No.599879
File: 7 KB, 273x537, 1265517879963.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
599879

>> No.599887 [DELETED] 

EÀT a Nì553r loLOIoI0LóLÓl0|óLOL0|Ol h++P;//Wvw,ÁNON+aLk.$E/ 3át a n|gG3r lÒLòI0|0l0Iò|ÒL0IòI0|òl hTTp://VvW:áñÒnTÁ|k.se/ €Àt a ñ|5ger |oIò|o|óIÒLOlÒIÓlÓIÓLÒL H+tP.//VvV,ÀnÓN+@LK:$3/ e@T á NíGgEr IòIÓ|ÒlÒLÒ|ÓLólòLÒ|OlÓl HtTp://wWV..Ánoñt@lK.$E/ €@+ Á NìGG€r lòl0Io|Ò|óL0|o|O|óI0LÒl h++p,//VVw,àñOñ+@LK;SE/ EÀ+ á ñiggEr IOlòlòlòLÓLÓlÓLolololó| HttP;//wWv.ÀNònTÁLK:$3/ eÁT @ ñigg3R |Ò|ÓIòlÓ|óIólóLÓIÒ|olò| Ht+p://WWv.@NòNTálk.$E/

>> No.599895

>>599854
this has objectivist written all over it

>> No.599915

I am my own person. It is my responsibility to make my own path in life, and the rewards or setbacks I reap from my choices are mine and mine alone to bear. No one else should gain from me what I do not offer up of my own free will.

>> No.599922
File: 41 KB, 722x671, 1270570182379.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
599922

>>599915

>> No.599936

>>599915
Is it okay for people to suffer from your actions either directly or indirectly if you do not recognize that your actions caused their suffering?

>> No.599950

Like most modern philosophies, it seems to me that it's a frankenstein monster of vague principles centered around being manly, constructive and being obsessed over "doing what you want to do" like a raging 17 years old.

>> No.599954

>>599950
Right, the same with how people see Camus. Even though his message wasn't that you do what you want to do, the fact that it is perceived to be that is why his work is so popular.

>> No.599959

>>599936

If my actions cause true hardship, I should suffer the consequences equal to the hardship I caused.

>> No.599963

>>599915
Randoid detected

>> No.599967

Step one: Be a greedy, selfish dick.

Step two: Be uncomfortable with the knowledge that you are a greedy, selfish dick.

Step three: Refuse to give credit where credit is due for your own well-being; claim full responsibility for all good things in your life that have happened to you, ignoring the social conditions you were born into or the wealth of your parents or your country

Step four: Look down everyone else because they weren't born to the same conditions you were, tell them to get a job and work harder if they aren't happy

Step five: Declare that helping other people is for idiots and that everyone should be selfish like you. If no one cared about anyone but themselves the world would be a better place.

Step six: Congratulations, you've rationalized your own disgusting nature! You can now go on to use the term "welfare state" without knowing what it means and try to convince people that a regressive tax is a "fair" tax.

>> No.599971
File: 42 KB, 300x275, rand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
599971

Mo' Money, Less Problems.

>> No.599973

>>599959

>I am a neckbearded internet libertarian and have no concept of how human society functions.

Sage for Rand.

>> No.599975

>>599959
Okay so you agree that all people who acquire wealth should be executed?

>> No.599983

>>599975

How does that cause hardship on others?

>> No.599985

>>599983
Wealth is a zero-sum equation. If you obtain and maintain wealth, there are many others who are impoverished. Poverty is an incredible hardship and on such a wide-scale is about equal to the beheading of one wealthy person.

>> No.599988

>>599983

See:
>>599936 either directly or indirectly

>> No.599996

>>599985

Your statement is only true if all resources are controlled. Such as they are not, your analogy does not hold.

>> No.599993

>>599989
Michael Parenti, is that you?

>> No.599989

>>599983

The only reason you are able to live the way you do, and enjoy the commodities you enjoy is because of the systematic exploitation and oppression of people who lacked the good fortune of being born white.

>> No.599991

Rand: You know what's cool? Men doing exactly what they want to do, not giving a shit about what others want!
>>hum, okay.
Rand: You know what's cool? When guys are constructive in their work. Not like those filthy social parasites.
>>Aren't social parasites the kind of people doing whatever they want? People who work for the better of society, isn't it they who work for the behalf of others and not themselve?
Rand: Look, bitch. I just want a manly guy. You know, a guy who's respected and his work is cool and he makes women swoon over him? Like, he takes out his shirt and you're like woah? And then, there are people who are mean and they are mean to him, because they are not as cool as him, because he's abused and misunderstood in his extreme manliness.
>>This isn't philosophy, Rand. This is a middle-aged woman's fantasy.
Rand: Busy masturbating, can't hear you.

>> No.600004

>>599989

So any person who is not white and becomes successful is an anomaly?

>> No.600009

>>599989
that's fucking retarded

>> No.600012

>>599993
>Checks wikipedia
>imokaywiththis.jpg

>> No.600018

>>599991
You forgot the part where it's the woman's fault if she's raped.

>> No.600019
File: 99 KB, 400x400, jesus-thumps-up1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
600019

Alright.
See this guy in my picture? That Jesus guy? Yeah, Objectivism is basically the opposite of everything that he tried to encourage.

>> No.600027

>>600004
>>600009

>missing the point

White, Western, whatever the fuck you want to call it the principle is the same.

As people who live in a Western consumer society, we profit every day from mass exploitation.

>> No.600034

>>600027

Give me an example of Western exploitation.

>> No.600035
File: 86 KB, 797x705, arynrand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
600035

>> No.600037

>>599996
Actually, A free market invites control through a gradual Hegemonization. The most successful would become increasingly dominant. It would not have to be taken to its extreme for the group to exert controlling measures on the market. It would not come from a ''state'' so in objectivist dogma it would still be considered ''free'', even though it would be tightly control out of the dominant groups best interest which is perfectly in line with the objectivists' ideals. This is already a quality of capitalism as it exists in the west today. The wealth and contingent power is a zero-sum equation.

>> No.600050

>>600034
Look at the clothes you're wearing.

>> No.600056

>>600034

The low working conditions and pay of non-unionised, exploited factory workers in South East Asia that made all the clothes in your wardrobe.

I'm not being a moralfag here, I'm fully aware that I'm as much a part of the problem as anyone, but the least you can do if acknowledge that the problem exists.

>> No.600058

>>600019

Fine by me. Not like he said anything new to the world that someone else hadn't already said a thousand years before.

He's like the Stephenie Meyers of religion; ripped off idea with lots of marketing and cliquey drones behind it.

>> No.600059

600k get

>> No.600060
File: 417 KB, 604x921, arflowchart2copy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
600060

>> No.600061

>>600034

90% of everything you own.

>> No.600063

>>600061
>>600056
>>600050
Clothesmind!

>> No.600069

>>600050
>>600056

If I offer you $1000 dollars for your car, which is worth $20,000, and you accept it, who is the moron?

If those people make the clothes at a price offered, they are doing it of their own free will. If they are coerced, then they should do something about the coercers.

Revolutions are not fiction.

>> No.600074

>>600069
>implying they have a choice between making clothes and starving

God damn you're one massive fucking randoid cunt aren't you?

>> No.600076

>>600069
YOU ARE THE COERCER BY PURCHASING THE CLOTHES YOU FUCKING DICK

>> No.600082

goddamn you guys, i hate to say it, but we niggaz are postin in a ayn rand troll thread. Not only are we being massively trolled but we are breaking rule 4. I'm going to go read.

>> No.600084

>>600069
They have no say in how much they get payed for their labour, workforces are almost invariably non-unionised at the demand of whatever TNC is running the show.

>> No.600088
File: 49 KB, 441x408, 1271122620735.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
600088

Moral of the story:
Rand breaks /lit/.

Let's gtfo and make a Page 15 nigger thread.

>> No.600089

>>600074

>implying that making clothes is the only way to put food on a table.

People are creatures of convenience. They do whatever gives the greatest reward at the lowest risk. It is exactly this attitude that kills human innovation.

>> No.600094

Ayn Rand believed that race and gender were irrelevant (love of rape notwithstanding) and that as long as you sought to create rather than "loot" (read: admit to using public utilities) you were a fine example of a human being--which was the only worthwhile moral in the world.

She also found homosexuality "immoral and disgusting."

tl;dr she was a stupid bint full of contradictions and about as bright as the average 4channer.

>> No.600102

>>600082
What are you reading, bro?

>> No.600103

>>600089
I would argue that forcing people to live in disgusting hovels with a minimum of food and no education rather than providing them a society in which to be educated and create is what kills human innovation.

But I'm not an asshole, so what do I know?

>> No.600107

I don't know about objectivism but emotions are a crappy basis for formulating a set of ethics. You shouldn't be nice and do what others want. You also shouldn't do what you want. What you should do, is what you believe in.

Unfortunately, people have no such beliefs these days. Everyone is a pathetic hedonist.

>> No.600111

>>600089
>implying they can afford to go to university
>implying their country has schooling beyond the age of 12
>implying they ever learned to read
>implying they have anywhere near the same opportunities Westerners do.

They can either work in manufacturing, work on a farm, or die.

That's pretty much it.

>> No.600114

>>600102
Poet in New York by Gabriel Garcia Lorca. It's a bilingual edition and I'm brushing up on my Spanish skills while I read. It's not his finest book but it is still beautifully written.

>> No.600120

>>600084

And you wonder why people cry about being oppressed, yet do nothing about it, and remain oppressed.

Men died to end the oppression of the US from Britain. Maybe that's why the US is the wealthiest country in the world...because it knows everyone else is too fucking stupid to follow its example.

>> No.600127

>>600103
>>600111

>implying that no one has ever escaped those conditions to a better life.

>> No.600129

>>600120
>implying the American Revolution was a grass-roots working class revolution and not entirely orchestrated and instigated by the upper classes and elite.

>> No.600137

>>600127
>implying one person miraculously escaping their circumstances is the same as a fundamental change is the structure of a society.

>> No.600145

>>600120
Why couldn't you have said that in the first place so that we'd have realized how ignorant you are of the entire world and its history and ignored you? I'm out, have fun with him guys.

>> No.600147

>>600137

>Implying that one person cannot instigate a chance in society

>Implying that escaping ones condition must always be miraculous

>> No.600152
File: 4 KB, 181x154, implying.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
600152

this thread sucks

>> No.600154

>>600127
You mean abandon their hard working life to leech off the Western welfare state? You're a horrible objectivist.

>> No.600165

i love the clothes arguments. let's stop buying clothes from third world countries. that'll make them better off for sure!

>> No.600169

>>600147
>implying making something of your life when 99% of people from your social background spend their whole lives as slave labour isn't miraculous

>implying social change doesn't require massive effort from huge numbers of people

>> No.600171
File: 22 KB, 215x176, 1268006295542.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
600171

>michael schooley

>> No.600173

>>600152
second. i don't know how to sage who will tell me

>> No.600178

>>600169

>implying that 99% try

>implying that one person cannot be the catalyst for those other people to seek change

>> No.600179

>>600165
Only idiots ever propose that, it's impractical.

But the least you can do is be mindful of the fact that you are profiting from exploitation.

>> No.600182

>>600179
It's not impractical.

>> No.600187

>>600178
>Hey guys, I've got an idea! lets refuse to work 20 hour shifts and demand extra pay and toilet breaks! That'll show 'em!
>Company just fires all your asses because you're not allowed to have a union
>You all starve

Yeah, lot of potential for change there.

>> No.600186

>>600165
Actually, it does. If a company stops using workers from a country, it's because the minimum wage in that country has risen too high for the exploitation to be profitable.

>> No.600207

>>600186

If no one is buying, the wage will not go up.

On one hand, you can stop buying because you dislike the conditions of workers, thus removing a source of revenue for those people.

On the other hand, they can raise the wage, and you buy from someone else, maybe within your own country, and those people are still out of a job.

>> No.600211

>>600186

Eventually all production will probably move out of Asia and into Africa as standards of living increase and Africa becomes more stable.

No idea where it could go from there.

>> No.600221

>>600211
the moon

>> No.600223

>>600207
...the companies don't set the wage laws, you idiot. They WANT to be able to pay people in pennies for a level of work that would get people at least six dollars an hour in America. If they didn't, they wouldn't use foreign labor in the first place.

>> No.600232

This thread is why discussing Rand isn't allowed on this forum...

>> No.600236
File: 27 KB, 400x400, 4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
600236

>>600211
Robots!

>> No.600245

>>600207
Refusing to buy a company's product can lead to them improving the working conditions of their factory workers.

On the other hand, buying can pour money into the host country's economy, meaning living standards improve, and eventually the workers will make a decent wage, in theory.

Of course by that point the corporation in question has already bailed out to find poorer people.

>> No.600246

>>600223

And if you implement a minimum wage law in a country, and the costs go beyond what a company finds profitable to purchase from businesses in that country, it will go elsewhere, and those workers will be out of a job.

So, tell me, if the minimum wage is raised to an amount where every industry finds the most profitable scenario to be production in its own country, will those people who were "exploited" be better or worse off?

>> No.600258

>>600246

If that were the case, then it'd be us being used as slave labour by East Asian countries.

Do you actually have any understanding of how international socio-economics works?

>> No.600276
File: 44 KB, 525x155, i041211apt3g.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
600276

>>600258
He's trying to defend sweat shops as fantastic job opportunities for foreigners. Do you really need to ask?

>> No.600290

>>600258

I do, but obviously you don't because you are assuming a minimum wage law only does good.

Basic economics is how society deals with its finite resources. When you require resources to be distributed to one party at a greater amount, another party must suffer the burden.

Do you think when the US raised minimum wage laws that every business simply smiled and took it? No, some people were laid off.

The transfer of finite resources to another will always place a burden on someone until the net result is the same.

>> No.600293

>>600246
For fuck's sake can you at least be consistent in your idiocy? First you criticize sweat shop workers for being too lazy to reform their country's economy, now you say that their country can't raise its standard of living because those people will have to find better paying work. If this is an attempt at trolling, it's a damned pitiful one.

>> No.600294

>>600276
Under out current system, they're probably the best people are likely to get.

Unless there's some kind of collective worldwide socialist revolution, which will never ever happen.

>> No.600317

Basically Objectivists/Randroids are the people asking stupid questions about why poor negroid welfare bums don't one day go off to found a Fortune 500 company out of nothing.

Objectivists and rand fans are people who believe that the rules "rags to riches" apply to everyone. As a result most of them are frustrated and an hero when they realize the truth.

>> No.600329

>>600290
>>600290

There are far more balanced ways of doing things than looking for maximum return for minimum cost, and throwing all concern for how it affect human beings out the window.

>> No.600332

>>600294

In a perfect world, where altruism actually existed, socialism would be the way to go. However, we don't live in that world. The main motivation is profit and greed. Ugly as that may seem, it has led to some of the greatest innovations the world has even seen.

>> No.600343

>>600332
Wouldn't libertarian pseudo-anarchism be the way to go if that were the case? Effective socialism only requires that the altruistic people somehow manage to always be in charge of government.

>> No.600349

>>600332
I don't doubt that, I'm fully aware that the driving force behind innovation has been competition.

The problem is that while that's lead to great innovation, it's also lead equally shameful exploitation and oppression. It's a horrible system that appeals to the worst qualities people have, but at the same time lets me enjoy the highest standard of living in the world.

>> No.600354

>>600343
>Effective socialism only requires that the altruistic people somehow manage to always be in charge of government.

Liberal dictatorship? that sounds fucking awesome.

>> No.600366

>>600343

Perfect world scenario again, because you would need to assume that the leaders always had the best intentions, and those intentions must apply to everyone equally. Not going to happen. In our current system, Capitalism with a manner of small wealth redistribution would be the way to go. Said redistribution should probably go toward education and job training.

Marx did have it right when he spoke of capitalism in one way. In a purely capitalist system, eventually all means of production will converge to a single person. Limited wealth redistribution would prevent that.