Why is it that I've never seen a good argument against Objectivism? All I ever really see is schizos chimping out over Ayn Rand being a woman and/or a jew (not an argument) or a lelddit meltdown, this being the most common.

The sort of over socialized left-liberal who's really into "being a decent human being" and thinks everything they like is a human right. These people seem to have a mental meltdown over Rand, specifically over her arguments against empathy, which they dont understand.

Either way, I've only ever seen sub 100 IQ people have emotional outburst over Objectivism. Or in the off chance they do argue a point, its a strawman bc they have no clue what Objectivism is. Rand wasnt an anarchist for example, shes said the state is necessary, and I see a lot of people try to get her on this for some reason.

>Why is it that I've never seen a good argument against Objectivism?
Because you're too retarded to recognize a good argument.

>>17905819
>a good argument.
such as?

>>17905825
>"There is one word that is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.'"
>lives exclusively to worship multinationales that thrive solely because of government gibs
All of it is pure unfiltered 17-year-old ancap retardation.

>>17905810 (OP)
Easy. Merely see the fruits of what objectivism has wrought and its self refuting. It’s an excuse to be a sociopath who hates humanity.
Objectivism is the kind of modernist anti-human garbage that

>>17905840
>ancap
>objectivist

Ayn Rand was opposed to all types of Anarchisms.

>>17905845
Objectivism is the kind of modernist anti-human garbage that is the direct consequence of enlightenment liberalism losing the plot and replacing worship of god with worship of self*

>>17905846
>im not a Communist, im a Marxist Leninist Maoist with dengist characteristics
Same shit different toilet. One clearly influence the other

>>17905840
>ancap
see
>>17905810 (OP)
>Or in the off chance they do argue a point, its a strawman bc they have no clue what Objectivism is. Rand wasnt an anarchist for example

>>17905850
Milton was influenced by Rand, but actually Objectivists toss aside his ideas while AnCaps incorporate some of Rand’s arguments, along with a variety of Libertarian theory from the Libertarian Left to Libertarian Right.

>>17905847
>God exists

>>17905845
>>17905847
>points out the fruits of the modern left-liberal nanny state chimera
>"look at what objectivism has done!"
>>17905850
No, you're just a retard. Rand always bitched about how much she hated "libertarians" and constantly said the state is necessary. She wasnt some boomer retard who wanted to abolish the state because she was pissed about paying taxes.

>>17905865
Spinoza proves God exists at the very least as a force

>>17905845
Objectivism is a post-modern new-age religious cult reaction to Marxism-Leninism

>>17905847
>direct consequence of enlightenment liberalism losing the plot
What we have now in the western world is liberalism losing the plot. Liberalism historically is mainly focused on the idea of private property.

https://youtu.be/X4ZwIFOQbqk?si=7os4Men0IFvaPknl

>>17905868
>write about how selfishness is moral and empathy is actually evil, how you aren’t bound to the will of the mob
>the elites read your writings and like what they read, discarding Christian ideals of helping the less fortunate
>the elites proceed to do what they like, from fucking kids to importing cheap labor to undercut workers to setting up surveillance states to make sure the cattle don’t get any ideas
>certain very influential people like Thiel and Yarvin take thought a step further and propose abandoning democracy altogether for a techno-monarchy where CEO-kings rule those under them.
>”nooooo objectivism had nothing to do with that!”
Please spare me

>>17905883
>just describing things you dont like in the modern world and attributing this to Rand
The Catholic churchs rapes kids and imports the third world while the pope waged his finger at Drumpf for deporting them btw.

>>17905879
Liberalism was about discarding past medieval traditions and ideals in favor of “modernist” thinking. It advocated for private property rights in context of a changing legal system where small holders were no longer bound to the will of the king. This necessitated land reform and the discarding of old social norms and noble privileges. To create new property rights it literally had to undermine old ones. It’s always been a contradiction.

>>17905895
The post I replied to claimed that Objectivism was "liberalism losing the plot" anon. I correctly called this out as wrong and if anything, its liberalism taken back to its roots.

Liberalism now is just machoistic anti-white agitation, third worldism, never ending gibsmedats, and deranged anti-normal sexual displays...and even veering into flirting with the abolition of private property.

>>17905894
Rands writings and ideals are very influential among the Elite, particularly the financial elite/tech elite. To deny her influence is to be disingenuous

>>17905899
> Liberalism now is just machoistic anti-white agitation
You’re not going to believe this bro…

>>17905810 (OP)
Objectivism fails because it never manages to articulate a coherent explanation for why some consequences of a person's actions are recognized as a non-consensual harm against others (and thus appropriate subject for government action), and why others are permitted to occur without the intervention of the state.

For example, objectivists assert a near-absolute right to develop your property in whatever way you please, and oppose almost all forms of environmental or zoning rules. And yet, if my neighbor built a factory on his land, particles of soot from his smokestacks will inevitable cross the property line and settle on my land, negatively impacting its value without my permission. How is that any different from any other form of harmful trespass that objectivists would say must be constrained? And yet, the only ways to remedy this would either be an ex-ante restriction on my neighbor's ability to build a factory (which objectivists oppose), or a forced confiscation of some portion of my neighbor's profits to compensate me for the smoke entering my property (effectively a redistributive tax, which objectivists also oppose)?

>>17905899
> Liberalism now is just machoistic anti-white agitation, third worldism, never ending gibsmedats, and deranged anti-normal sexual displays
All of which is the natural consequence of undermining Christian morality that liberal objectivists despise.

>>17905871
Thank you for conceding worship of God is 100% unnecessary.

>>17905913
Worship him or not, he rules this world and he made it the way it is for a reason. :)

>ummmm yeah we objectivists are totally against all these degenerate things! How could we let society get to this point?
>but also fuck god and fuck Christian’s with their slave morality and emphasis on charity! How does the wellbeing of society affect me in anyway?
Never take conservative libertarians of any variety seriously.

>>17905877
Both cults replace the worship of God with the worship of self/the party. It degrades the soul. Thats why you never see an attractive objectivist/marxist they’re spiritually corrupted.

>>17905912
You're assuming that this is the case, but the reality is that Christianity is the harbenger of this stuff. Its a cocoon for the new life form of modern liberalism. You might point out that modern left-liberals hate Christians, which is true, but the reason for this is because Chrisitans are still clining onto the cocoon waste. Its very much how Judaism was the cocoon for Christ and then after, Christians began to hate Jews for clinging onto the old by product of their new religion instead of embracing it.

>>17905914
Thanks for doubling down in conceding that >>17905861 was dead wrong. :)

>>17905929
I swear you wiggers couldn't describe communism/marxism/socialism with any coherence even if you had a gun to your head

>>17905942
leftist cant describe fascism/corporatism or communism for that matter either.

Almost all e-commies are just burnout hyper liberal losers who want more gibsmedats because they cant get a well paying job. They LARP Soviet iconography as a power fantasy/to be edgy.

>>17905883
Not empathy, empathy is a human value that you can choose to live by, and others will likely appreciate you for it. What she hated was altruism, the idea that your value as a human is only measured by what you give away without anything in return. They are very different and the first derivative argument any brainlet gives against Rand boils down to "You just don't want to be nice to people!" to which the answer is "No, I want to be nice to people on my terms, not by force". To love without standard is to hate the self.

>>17905910
Initiating force also entails blowing harmful smoke onto someone's living space. You would have a case.

>>17905977
> What she hated was altruism, the idea that your value as a human is only measured by what you give away without anything in return
Than she’s retarded because altruism is a behavior, something that’s practiced willingly not enforced. Christ is an altruistic figure. She intentionally misunderstands the very thing she’s criticizing to justify cruelty as a response.

>>17905935
Christianity is in theory only “the harbinger” for any of this in the sense that good is corrupted to evil ends. Like saying that you’re at fault for saving a child’s life if they grow up to be a murderer. It’s nonsense.

>>17906003
Is it? Seems like you are automatically taxed the moment you make a dollar with no choice in the matter. Part of the money is just handed to people for consumption. Most of those hate whitey. There's no choice, ergo it's forced on you.
Jesus is the exact example she talks about, he lets himself get tortured to death for the crimes of others and we love him for it instead of seeing him rightfully as the victim he was. It's the difference between seeing Aaron Bushnell as a hero for merely destroying a human life and villifying Bill Gates because he made a buck by making it possible for millions of wheelchair bound people to have a job and an independent life which undeniably brings more good to the world than setting yourself on fire for a vague moral statement.

>>17906003
Her argument is that altruism is usually used to exploit and manipulate people into doing horrible things and its the basis for "its for the greater good" excuse.

Her personal experiences in Bolshevik Russia and later the Nazis really cemented this idea into her head. She was saying that these regimes only came to be because the mass of people helped them along and they did this to their own detriment. They did this, she argues, because they were willing to make those sacrifices to their own well being "for the greater good" and that if everyone had acted on this idea of rational self interest, these regimes could have never happened.

>>17906003
>altruism is a behavior
No, altruism is a principle coined by Auguste Comte and defined as a moral obligation to live for others
On his own words
>The social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This "to live for others", the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. Man must serve Humanity, whose we are entirely.

>Christ is an altruistic figure
eyes, and that is one of the reasons he is a bad role model

>>17905810 (OP)
What do you mean an argument "against"?
It's just subjective preference, if you want to commit to acting a certain way and call that behavior 'objectivism', Sure! Go for it!
Meanwhile I just may have a preference to exploit people's freedom and use force - if it achieves my goals and desires, aligns with my values, etc. You can complain about it- but it's not like you are right, and I am wrong. We just want different things.

I don't understand why you think I would have make an argument against objectivism
Ayn Rand was bad at philosophy, and did not bother to figure out how language in metaethics were used, so she caused confusion in people who read her books.

> a preference to exploit people's freedom and use force - if it achieves my goals and desires
By which I mean, forcing you to pay for constructing sidewalks against your will. Stuff like that.

>>17906282
>privately owned police cruiser
You have no clue what objectivism is.

>>17906286
Right, so the picture is obviously more targeted towards ANCAP

>>17906282
Once again, Rand wasnt an ancap. She constantly shat on them as retards and always said that the state is necessary to secure private property

>>17905883
>rich elites weren't evil and greedy before Ayn Rand told them to

>>17906286
I kinda regret posting the joke picture
But seriously, I'dd much rather have engagement with this serious post >>17906248

>>17906248
This is passive aggressive faggotry. If you think Ran was "bad at philsophy" explain why then, thats the whole point of this thread. That all these people get triggered by the mere mention of her or her ideas, but none of you can articulate why.

>>17906349
Ayn Rand caused a bunch of poor losers do literal free apologetics for them.

>>17906339
Which is off topic.

>>17906363
>Objectivism is when you make a lot of money!
You're retarded. In The Fountainhead, the hero of the story is an architect who refuses a bunch of money because he doesnt want to compromise his vision. Why do you think Rand this?

>>17906362
Again: What am I supposed to argue against?
Rand just called her subjective preference the word 'objectivism', it's not like she's a moral realist that believe there are objective facts about what we should, and shouldn't, do. That exist independent of people's subjective values.

It's just gonna bottom out in wanting different things

>>17906365
Gosh, I'm so sorry
Hey, at least you get to whine about people not knowing what objectivism is. Which is PEAK objectivism-enjoyer pastime

>>17906370
Look, it's not my fault everyone keep misunderstanding Rand. Take it up with them.
But are we seriously pretending people who simp for billionaires don't also read and enjoy Ayn Rand's books?

>>17906381
Consent is king, after all, like Rand wanted.

>>17906376
>Again: What am I supposed to argue against?
Objectivism. This smarmy passive aggressive thing you're trying to pull isnt clever.
>>17906387
This is a non sequitur

>>17905865
God doesn't have to exist to worship Him dummy

>>17906408
Trust me, we know.

>>17906402
>non sequitur
Why are writing this? What do you even mean
Did I somehow imply my post is a logical entailment of my previous post? I did not mean to imply that.
Or you mean as I didn't reply adequately to what you said/asked
Total nonsense.

I'm making an empirical claim (yes, I'm pulling it out of my ass) that people who simp for billionaires were influenced by Rand. Yes, I have no data to back this up.
But do you even disagree?


How is this a " non sequitur" ??? Jesus
I'm not giving you a bunch of premises and a conclusion that doesn't follow - I'm just throwing shade at Rand

>>17906417
> I'm just throwing shade at Rand
OP predicted you would have to stoop to that. You add nothing of note.

>>17906417
>I'm just throwing shade at Rand
meaning you cant argue against her point. Thank you

>>17906422
Isn't that exactly what a criticism of Rand would look like?
I'm specifically telling you there's a causal link between Rand's works and people who behaves in way we both disvalue (simps for billionairs).

Do we even disagree?

>>17906429
Yeah, I agree. I said so in my first post.
Rand has her preferences, and I have mine

It's not anything to argue against. We just want different things

>>17905810 (OP)
We generally think that people have the right to defend themselves against people who try to destroy society because they're feeling under-appreciated.

>>17905819
/thread

>>17906422
>>17906429
I still would like some explanation of what was going on with the use of the term "non sequitur"

>>17905810 (OP)
>Marxism thinks that man is entitled to the sweat of his brow
>Objectivism thinks man is entitled to the sweat of his brow
>both want to destroy society
I may not be a cowboy, but I do know what a horse shoe looks like.

>>17905810 (OP)
I've never seen a lolbert who wasn't either a psychotic criminal at the highest rung of power or the ugliest, goofiest autismo pseud loser in a 50 mile radius. you aren't the former

>>17905810 (OP)
fascism is better tho

>>17906627
another

>>17906629
moar

>>17905819
this is genuinely fpbp, sadly

objectivism is more cult than philosophy

>>17906627
Yeah, I don't get it
Why shouldn't I use force to impose my values on others, provided I have the opportunity

>>17906660
>why
all gubbmits are force

She might not have claimed to have been one, but her views were definitely in support of at least some form of anarchism, as apposed to minarchism.

>>17906681
Right. That's another way I can't make sense of Rand's objectivism
Isn't using force supposed to be bad on objectivism? I don't understand how it goes about figuring out when force is okay, and when it's not

Objectivism being against the use of force on philosophical grounds, but pro-force when it's the state doing in. It just seems very ad hoc
Like, I get it. There's glaring plot holes that needs patching up for practical reasons. But the whole thing seems unprincipled

>>17906705
False.
You don't know what objectivism is.

>>17906652
>cult
You don't know what objectivism is.

>>17905845
We could look at the fruits of Collectivism in the 20th century
What did Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or Mao's China bring? It's an excuse to be a sociopath who kills your own people through starvation or incompetence

>>17906018
> Her personal experiences in Bolshevik Russia and later the Nazis really cemented this idea into her head. She was saying that these regimes only came to be because the mass of people helped them along and they did this to their own detriment.
This isn’t true though. She’s just a retarded Jew who can’t see how the behavior of her peers causes people to resent them. She indeed justifies and moralizes this behavior. She’s a true rootless cosmopolitan.
> They did this, she argues, because they were willing to make those sacrifices to their own well being "for the greater good"
You mean their kin and their country whom they actually care about because they have blood ties to it? Leave it to Rand to not understand concepts like honor and duty.
> that if everyone had acted on this idea of rational self interest, these regimes could have never happened.
“Rational self interest” is about as vague a concept as you can get. What if it is in my self interest to support the regime? What if I’m not actually thrilled with the idea of my nation dying out and being conquered by my enemies? Rand cannot answer this. To her collectivism is the ultimate evil even when it’s the only logical option.

>>17906627
This infographic will not expand your understanding of Fascism.

>>17906009
Rand isn’t opposed to taxes as we’ve establish with her not being an anarchist so this point is moot. The “rationalist elites” that were inspired by her could care less about white people. He criticism of altruism falls apart when her alternative is to leave a moral void in its place where Gods selfless sacrifice of his only son once was.

>>17905810 (OP)
I wish Ayn Rand had stayed as a fiction writer. Atlas Shrugged is mid, but The Fountainhead and her play are good.

>>17906882
Couldn’t care less*

>>17906349
The rich elites were actually heavily encouraged to build things like public libraries, hospitals, and the like in the past before the later half of the 20th century turned them into self interested rationalists (who as a result became the globalist elite, because it’s in their self interest to breakdown borders as much as possible).

Can someone please tell us what Objectivism is?
What claims does it make, what are we supposed to argue against

>>17905810 (OP)

>>17906906
>Can someone please tell us what Objectivism is?
I think the best way to describe it is rational self interest.

Philosophically, Rand rejected most philosophers throughout history and went all the way back to Aristotle. She basically ignored everyone else that may have been built on him and liked to describe Objectivism as the continuation of his ideals.

>>17906906
It’s very long winded and contrived argument for Satanism and the worship of the self. Hell, the first Satanists like LeVay even identified as objectivist.

>>17905810 (OP)
>objectivism
looking for a rule set to follow because you can't imagine what else to do. waiting for orders

>>17906877
see
>>17905810 (OP)
>All I ever really see is schizos chimping out over Ayn Rand being a woman and/or a jew

>>17906919
Her being a Jew matters because it explains why she sees no value in things like duty or loyalty because Jewish culture is perfectly fine with jumping ship to the winning side of a conflict

>>17906913
All those words yet you failed to explain what Objectivism is.

>>17906923
I gave you a very basic outline of the core belief and the philosophical underpinnings of that belief. You're clearly just an idiot if you think thats confusing. This threads been up all day and the OP point still holds true.
>>17906921
>schizoslop
boring

Oh right, I forgot Rand made some weird presuppositional move against miracles
Like, they are just not a thing on Objectivism. Peak philosophy.
I don't believe in ghosts either

>>17906927
>>schizoslop
>boring

>>17906913
How the fuck did Rand figure out what Aristotle's ideals were?
Why should we value them, rather than our own

>>17906937
>How the fuck did Rand figure out what Aristotle's ideals were?
What are you talking about? She read Aristotle.

>>17906939
Guess everyone else that read Aristotle the past 2000 years got him wrong
I'm not even clear if this is supposed to be in the context of ethics, science, logic or politics

>>17906795
>We could look at the fruits of Collectivism in the 20th century
All those countries became superpowers though.

>>17906946
Germany was never a great power under Hitler, had an unsustainable economy and was raised through the ground after their ideology propel them into an unwinnable was
China under Mao was a shit hole, economically insignificant and starving. It only start to develop after Mao died, his successor ditched his model and started opening their economy and allow private property
The Soviet Union collapse under it's own weigh and the post morten analysis revealed how weak and far of being a true power the were
In all of those places life was shit for the majority of people

>>17905810 (OP)
If we synthetize Rand's conclusions one would come up with the following :
>man lives for himself
>society benefits from men living from themselves

The problem with the first argument is that it fails the is/ought distinction. I may be only living for myself, but that doesn't explain why I should only do that. It also fails to account for reciprocal recognition/altruism (in essence, a system which enforces altruism to everyone could be beneficial to everyone too, thus selfishly accomplishing altruism since it would be in everyone's interests). The second argument also doesn't really have much of an explanation and is fundamentally contingent on history to prove its veracity.
That's the major problem with Ayn Rand, she doesn't actually explain things and simply makes up fictional scenarios in which she is right. That's why she's not considered seriously in philosophy and why it becomes evidently apparent to anyone who's read her works that her mediocre writings stem from her personal trauma with bolshevik russia.

>>17906772
no she really did have sectarian tendencies anon

>>17906937
She apparently had a an encounter with a thomist priest who gave her a thomist interpretation of aristotle. She didn't agree with Aristotle metaphysically but more saw him as a good figure of great men accomplishing great things (and of starting philosophy).

>>17906945
Most of people in this 2000 were trying to force it to agree with Plato or with their religion
Also Rand didn't tried to make a copy Aristotle but use his philosophy as a model

>>17906957
>If we synthetize Rand's conclusions one would come up with the following
>If we ignore all of she wrote and only look at my interpretation of her conclusions one would come up with the following
>reciprocal recognition/altruism
those are not the same thing

Hmm, she probably disagreed with Aristotle about there beings gods and all that

>>17906969
>If we ignore all of she wrote and only look at my interpretation of her conclusions one would come up with the following
then tell me, what were her arguments anon ?

>reciprocal recognition/altruism
yeah but it allows for effectively a social democracy while staying true to her axiom

>>17906981
Aristotle was a deist who rejected the Greek pantheon. That was his whole thing, he based everything on rationality compared to "the world of forms" Hes like the origin of reals over feels. This is the basis Rand drew from.

>>17906957
>That's the major problem with Ayn Rand, she doesn't actually explain things and simply makes up fictional scenarios in which she is right.
This is what ancient philosophers did. Its what dialogues were.

It think the hyperfocus on selfishness is so dumb. Like she figured out that people are motivated by reasons - duh. Then calls it selfish because it's THEIR reason, and not someone else's
People *should* act in a way that achieves their goals and desires. But she didn't quite get there. There's no contradiction in donating money to the poor, because *I* want to do it. That's perfectly consistent with acting on MY values.
We of course can use words like selfishness and altruism to taxonomize those desires, but that's not important. It's equivocation, and not what we're talking about in regards to what we should, and shouldn't do


IMO, this selfishness talk should stay in the realm of politics. Like if we're trying to figure out a specific policy to implement. And even then, it would be on a case by case basis.
Why the fuck would selfishness be some fundamental brick that underpins everything else? yeah, lots of equivocation

>>17907002
I'm referring to Aristotle arguing for 47 or 55 gods in his prime mover argument
Stuff like that is highly incompatible with objectivism

>>17907012
The difference is that dialogues served as a way to epistemologically find truth by providing contradicting points of views. In the case of objectivism, Ayn Rand only asserts "le altruism bad for individual for society and individual" but doesn't provide any reason why barring her fictional world(tm).

>>17906882
She was very clear that taxes are voluntary, stop misrepresenting her.

>>17907019
>There's no contradiction in donating money to the poor, because *I* want to do it. That's perfectly consistent with acting on MY values.
Yeah, she actually did factor in this exact thing dude. If you're value system includes donating to the poor then that is still compatible with her ideals. The only thing she would argue against is if you tried to push for some sort of law that everyone should be forced to donate a portion of their money to the poor.

Objectivism is a nihilistic and atheistic ideology that calls for people to find their own value systems and work towards it. I think people get too distracted by money to understand this. Again, the hero of The Fountainhead is an architect that gives up riches because he doesnt want to compromise his vision. He holds true to his value system and doesnt let money distract him, thats why Howard Roark was her first literary hero.

>>17907012
It's a shit method

>>17907030
>Ayn Rand only asserts "le altruism bad for individual for society and individual" but doesn't provide any reason why barring her fictional world(tm).
Wrong, she constantly made the argument that altruism is wrong because its a tool used by nefarious characters to get people to act against their own self interest, usually in the name of some horrible and evil plot.

If you want to argue against that point then go ahead, but she never didnt provide a reason.

>>17907032
>taxes are voluntary
By definition taxes are mandatory. Her ideal state is just an opt-out commune and not an actual state without the ability to collect revenue. without a monopoly on violence there’s no country or government. So what’s the point?

>>17905810 (OP)
Most people that viscerally hate Rand have never read anything she’s written.

>>17907040
>that altruism is wrong because its a tool used by nefarious characters to get people to act against their own self interest, usually in the name of some horrible and evil plot.
So she said it was bad because ... mean people used it in her fictional scenarios ? Doesn't that seem oddly similar to what I said previously ?

Besides, that doesn't adress the fundamental issue, which is that most of philosophy is built upon the idea of selfishness as implicit to the rational individual, which only leads objectivism being a meta-ethical system in which *any* ideology is possible.

>>17907042
I would gladly pay for law enforcement in my county + national defence if voluntarily asked of me. I do not get that choice and I resent that because I am not able to use my mind to come to my own conclusions.

>>17907049
>So she said it was bad because ... mean people used it in her fictional scenarios ?
No, in real life scenarios too. Like The Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, two totalitarian states she constantly pointed to to argue this point.

Again, she did have a reason behind her argument. Argue against that if you disagree with it, but stop pretending that its not there.

>>17907052
>I would gladly pay for law enforcement in my county + national defence if voluntarily asked of me.
Ok, enjoy being the one guy paying for expensive new shit while everyone else freeloads off of the government providing defense. This idea falls apart almost instantly. You don’t have a country than, you have a subscription service disguised as a government.

>>17907035
>she actually did factor in this exact thing dude
I find the whole thing so shallow and dumb

It just seems like literally anything we do would trivially fall under that definition of selfishness
People do things, because they want to do them - duh (Nice insight, Rand)

Unless they are making some kind of mistake. Acting randomly for no reason. Being irrational and confused.
People will be acting because of their reasons , not someone else's reasons

>>17907057
There is nothing to freeload off, you don't pay for police, there ain't any police in your street. Enjoy being culturally enriched.

>>17907054
>No, in real life scenarios too. Like The Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, two totalitarian states she constantly pointed to to argue this point.
So she argued her point through her personal trauma and through fictional scenarios ? You're just circling back to what I said.
Besides, just saying "le evil stalin did it" isn't a good enough means to justify your ideology because it's not adding any substance to your argument. It's at most an indirect claim about a historical scenario. If altruism wasn't used by evil people, would it still be bad ?

>dude what if taxes were like all le voluntary and we all paid a fee to a different defense contractor to guard our homes from our neighbors down the street
Do people really think this shit is profound and revolutionary? Jesus

>>17907058
>It just seems like literally anything we do would trivially fall under that definition of selfishness
>People do things, because they want to do them - duh
The point is that people do a lot of things out of a sense of obligation or force "for the greater good" and this was antithetical to her core belief.

You should give to the poor out of selfishness. Poor people ruin a community because they get desperate and sell drugs and rob others so by donating, you can reduce this and make your town safer. That would be Objectivist logic.

Again, its all about crafting your own value system for your own self interest for whatever you find important. Its not anarchism, its not "never interact with others in a pleasant way"

>>17907035
>push for some sort of law that everyone should be forced to donate a portion of their money to the poor.

But what would she even have to say?
I want to do this thing. Implement this law. Why shouldn't I do that?

Rand may disagree, and want something else.
But, I don't care about what Rand want. I care about what I want. I am selfish!

Even on Rand's view I'm doing what I should
Just seems like an agree to disagree case. People have conflicting desires, and that's a fact. It's not like Rand solved this.

>>17907062
This is the second time you moved the goalpost. Youre retarded, fuck you.

>>17907061
>yeah, cartels invaded my neighbors house, killed him, and turned it into a crack den to distribute fentanyl from. His fault for not paying an extra 200$ a month for PolicePrime.
>Oh shit, why is my city run by criminals?!

>>17907073
>That's the major problem with Ayn Rand, she doesn't actually explain things and simply makes up fictional scenarios in which she is right. That's why she's not considered seriously in philosophy and why it becomes evidently apparent to anyone who's read her works that her mediocre writings stem from her personal trauma with bolshevik russia.
>she constantly made the argument that altruism is wrong because its a tool used by nefarious characters to get people to act against their own self interest, usually in the name of some horrible and evil plot.
>she constantly made the argument that altruism is wrong because its a tool used by nefarious characters to get people to act against their own self interest, usually in the name of some horrible and evil plot.

Are you retarded or are you really incapable of seeing the similarities between what I said and what you said ? You're the one moving away from my arguments

>>17907076
to be fair, this is how the world works now. Ghettos are basically no go zones run by drug gangs while the police mostly just patrol safer neighborhoods.

>>17907082
>She doesnt explain it!
>yes she does
>Ok...b-but she only uses fictional scenarios
>no, she uses real life scenarios too
>Ok..b-but those real life scenarios are just personal trauma so they dont count for some bullshit reason!
Like I said, youre retarded. Fuck you.

>>17907083
>To be fair
The idea is dumb. Voluntaryism is about as realistic as a society made of socialist communes in that it only takes a couple people not pulling their weight for the entire system to collapse. Turns out you actually need some level of coercion to get anything done.

>>17907085
So she explains it through fictional scenarios and her own trauma. So you agree with

>That's the major problem with Ayn Rand, she doesn't actually explain things and simply makes up fictional scenarios in which she is right. That's why she's not considered seriously in philosophy and why it becomes evidently apparent to anyone who's read her works that her mediocre writings stem from her personal trauma with bolshevik russia.

ESL perhaps ? Anyways, I accept your concession, feel free to argue against other my other points (more interesting desu)

>>17907068
At this point we're telling just-so stories about the motivation behind people's behavior, that's not something that's important to me
Don't get why it matters so much to Rand

Don't even know if it makes sense. Hmm, it doesn't
Like, I could tell a story about the last time I gave money to charity and the reasoning behind it being because it made me feel good
would that be entirely true? I don't know... maybe
Or maybe it was because of a sense of obligation. Maybe it was just to shut the guy up and get him to go away from my door.

It's probably a bit of all of them, and more reasons that I can't even put words to
People don't work like Rand seem to think. It's not that simple and clear-cut

Which would be fine if we're just talking about heuristics and trying to generalize. But is super dumb when it's a fundamental part of the metaphysics

One more thing I don't get

Rand's telling me that I should not act because of a sense of obligation
Why not? Suppose I want to act because my sense of obligation. Why shouldn't I do that?

>>17907130
You can do that if you voluntarily choose that for yourself, it nourishes your spirit so you should be free to as long as you don't force others to too. That's completely fine.

>>17907253
Suppose I want to force others. Why shouldn't I do that?

>>17905825
The Bible doesn't teach Objectivism.
>>17905840
Ad hominem. Your brain is worthless.

>>17907253
Why can't you force others? My selfish desire demands it, and that is the only thing worth listening to according to Ayn Rand. Don't give me that garbage about non-aggression pacts.

Like Nietzsche advised, she constructed her own morality. Unfortunately it is a pile of shit and gets laughed at by everyone who isn't an "Objectivist" and lacks any objective good except greed.

Game theory is tangentially related, how do we go from a world of Ayn Rands who betray everyone else to a world of people who cooperate? One approach is external, promising punishment for those who do not cooperate. Others push for an internal change of heart among the players of the "game."

For a laugh, check out the Ayn Rand Centre UK (ARCUK) YouTube channel: after October 7th, literally every video is just them covering the state of Israel.

>>17905810 (OP)
The social contract is real and necessary

>>17906720
Force is never okay to initiate on a human, it then becomes a self-defense situation.

>>17907035
Nihilism rejects any human values, you just listed what the values of objectivism are.

>>17907691
You are strawmanning. The reason you don't force others is because the human mind is your primary tool of survival, like wings are to a bird. To initiate force on a human is therefore akin to cutting the wings off of a bird and expecting it to survive, it is simple cruelty. This is the entire argument Rand bases her philosophy on. You would understand this if you actually knew what you were arguing with. Embarassing.

>>17908168
He's right though, if you swap the heroes of atlas shrugged with some evil mad scientist who wants to kill people, her system disentigrates while using the same methodology as hers.

>>17905877
that implies Marxism isn't a religion of its own

>>17908241
No, the whole point of individual freedom is that is applies to everyone. That means that they have the freedom to say "no" to you. You already understand this, because you know the difference between euthanasia and murder, sex and rape, receiving a gift and stealing. The difference is consent.

>>17908256
Yes and to uphold that system you need an external authority which hinders individuals' desires and ambitions.

>>17908263
You haven't read the thread, Rand is not ancap.

>>17906795
Wait until Peter Thiel finally sends his AI driven death robots to kill everyone based on their Palantir score and it'll make all of those peoples kill counts and tyranny look minor in comparison.

>>17907885
Libertarianism is a jewish ideology by nature. I find it funny people will bring up communism being jewish but never acknowledge objectivism and libertarianism/ancapism are both jewish as well. Ancaps even had Murray Rothbard who was a massive paedophile who wanted to legalise child trafficking under the guise it would "reduce child abuse", which he obviously knew was bullshit, as well as the right to starve your own child to death.

>>17905810 (OP)
>is there a good argument against x?
>all I ever see is *pigeonholes anyone who argued against them as some boogeyman*
Embarrassing thread. Can't believe it got this many (You)s.
>>17905819
Fpbp.