What does biz think of Ann rand?

>>1210513
I don't know an Ann Rand.

Shrug

>>1210515
Shrugs my head*

>>1210513
Doesn't ring any bells.

nothing springs to mind

>>1210513
She is someone that teenagers discover for the first time and become libertarian because it caters to the white male privilege

Then they grow out of it when their mind matures, they see everyone around them is not so privileged. The system is unfair. They become socialists.

Then their savings grow and they see how many losers there are, they become republican.

By the end of their life they become religious because theyre about to die and afraid of possible judgement

>>1210547

I think the socialist indoctrination comes first and then the libertarianism is a reaction to that

>>1210547
That was a past generation, teenagers don't give a shit about Ayn Rand anymore.

>>1210547
more like

She is someone teenagers like until they grow up and find out who von Mises, Hayek and Friedman are.

>>1210513
It's Ayn you fukcing idoit!!

File: 1461247235518.jpg (47KB, 720x439px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 720x439px

is it so much to ask to have a sane libertarian candidate run in the republican party?
>no pro-choice is here to stay Rand Paul pls go
>no we're not going to audit Fort Knox again, Ron you crazy fuck
mfw a fucking reality tv star is about to get the gop nom

>>1210513
Hypocrite that seduces idiots.

>>1210513
I don't read books that are over a thousand pages long so I don't really have much of an opinion.

Ann lmao

>>1211195
I know about Von Mises a bit, but could use a greentext/redpill on him.
As for the other two, first names help with common surnames, anon...

>>1211195

>Friedman
Eliminating the Minimum wage would help workers :^)

t. Jew

>>1210513

If she's anything like her writing, she's an autist.

>>1211408
kek

File: look-at-all-the-feels-feel-that-i-know.jpg (37KB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x377px

>>1211211
Well, compared to the pothead, the autist, and the literal fucking crazy person running in the actual Libertarian party the Pauls look plenty sane.

Who is John Galt?

>>1211211
the Libertarian position on abortion is prolife. Are you high? The entire libertarian premise is a person's rights end where they infringe upon another.
>right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happines
It's right there in the bill of rights

File: 1358298081749.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>1211784
>right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happines
>It's right there in the bill of rights
If this is an attempt at bait or humor it is not funny and it is not working. If this is serious then please get help for your retardation.

>>1210513
ugly as fuck

>>1211799
thats not how you rebuttal

>>1210513
Would

>>1211425
If raising the minimum wage helped workers why not just raise it indefinitely? If raising the minimum wage to $15 would improve the living standard of workers with no negative impact on the job market why not raise it to $20, or $30, or $50?

>>1211831
of course there's a negative impact on net employment. That's neither here nor there. The question is what price is worth the impact.

>>1211784
No. Most Libertarians are pro-choice bc government gtfo of our lives. Your religious bullshit has no place in a libertarian government

>>1211842
Nobody knows the right level. What's the right value of the s&p should a government agent set that each minute? That would be fucking retarded so instead we let the market drive it ....
just like what Freidman said about creating a min wage in the 50s

>>1210513
she's a sexy author who wrote like one of the best books ever.

she probably could lead a conversation, and tell you things you didn't even think possible..

>>1211864
le free market fixes everything

le invisible hand :^)

>>1211860
no, the official libertarian position is prolife, look it up. It has nothing to do with religion. It literally is about the right to life, and abortion infringes on that inalienable right

>>1211864
then why does the NYSE have a $1 sp minimum? >milton BTFO

>>1210513
Her ideas are good in theory, however they don't always work out in the real world.

>>1211864
>Nobody knows the right level.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Republicans are such a disaster for education and science. Herp derp, nobody (in authority or that we approve of) knows right now so don't try anything or seek out additional information. Let's all believe in magic that what is always has worked best and always will work best. And fuck you if you're on the losing end. But pull yourself up by your bootstraps anyway. Got to make those quarterly numbers.

Staying undetected by the Nazis for as long as she did is truly remarkable desu senpai

Why is this thread on /biz/ anyway?

>>1212163
Should've said conservatives. Walking oxymorons. Freedom to do what I say and everything should change without changing because I say so.

>>1212163
Hiring signs all over where I live.

Fat niggers cart full if shit food for free/EBT at grocery in front of me every time I go.

People just need a little help you know?

>projecting and strawmen, the thread

I like her because she triggers liberals.
Bonus points because shes the only relevant female author the US ever had.

>>1212163
triggered

>>1212198
>I have no idea who Harper Lee is

>>1211814
Okay, here's how you rebuttal: The bill of rights never mentions life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. That's the declaration of independence you troglodyte.

She by far has had the biggest influence on my life.

She laid the frame work of objectivism and Ive lived my life by it since.

I swear by my life and my love of it, I will never live for the sake of another man nor should another man live for me

She's way more vanilla than people think.
Objectivism in a nutshell says "Don't be a hypocrite, treat other people the way you want to be treated. Also define your own self-worth."

>>1210513
Shes a dumb bitch. Her books are for edgy faglords.

>>1210547
>white male privilege...

Get outta here, commie.

>>1212385
ok I stand corrected. The overall point still stands

File: 72248-.jpg (211KB, 700x700px)

211KB, 700x700px

>>1211199
>mfw anon gets the author's name right and then misspells " fucking idiot"

>>1211424
Fuck off. If you google Hayek or Friedman they're the first results. They're goddamned legends in economics.

>>1212393
>Being unironically objectivist
Poor form desu.

>>1212413
While those may be parts of it, its underlying premise rests on assumptions of human behavior and the market that simply aren't true. The market isn't 100% efficient and there are, in fact, many times when the government must solve inefficiencies.

Fucking Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, knew that. Hayek knew that. Friedman knew that. Ayn Rand, the only one mentioned that wasn't an actual economist, just a fiction writer, did not.

>>1210513
she made my mind free of guilty, mercy and compassion.

I love her.

>>1210513
rape fetishist freeloading jew hypocrite

>>1210513
Well, I like her, I dont really know about market stuff but in human behaviour it's not like what she says is incorrect. I only read the Fountainhead and it was better than I expected, with its selfish theories and that sutile stuff about maybe we are not really equals at all.
Also is a fiction book, and she build (one) good character, but I admit I don't really think on reading Atlas.

>>1211940
The right to life? No, it's the removal of a choice (abortion or not). There's no waffling on this, Libertarians are NOT Republicans, they're 100% pro choice, retard.

>>1210513
She's ugly as sin and a hypocrite.

>Gets a boyfriend half her age that eventually leaves her for someone hot, the boyfriend ("market ") chooses someone with more value (" looks","youth "), living for himself and not some ugly bitch, and she's so depressed she almost kills herself.

>>1212183
Niggers gonna nig. I live in a white area where actual unemployment/underemployment is a problem.

>>1212657
No it doesn't because an aborted fetus is an unsustainable life outside the womb. If it isn't physically developed enough to survive without medical intervention, it's not a human life, and in cases of health concerns, the mothers life takes precedence over the limited viability of the fetus.

>>1212238
>triggered
Yeah, well, I'm pretty tired of lazy inbred hicks making their lack of knowledge and insight everybody else's handicap too. Concepts that you don't understand are not the Devil. Nor is your inability or unwillingness to think for yourself an excuse to surrender all decisions to a gatekeeper. Fucking kill yourself if you're such a frightened child.

>>1211195
nobody gives a fuck about ugly coping philosophytards

>>1210513
ugly female cope

>>1212930

Give me an example of how the market cannot be 'efficient'.

>>1210513

I actually like the philosophy and personally consider myself an objectivist... But fuck I dont like other objectivists... Have you ever met them? Jesus they are not the people you can hang out with or drink around.

Also I love the non fiction but find the fiction books to be a little... forced down my throat ish.

>Kind of a shame really

If Objectivists would relax and chill they would be worth being around - because really the philosophy is solid

>>1213940
not true at all. 4 months old fetuses have survived many times and are aborted all the time

>>1213920
by your logic, murder and theft are legal too to Libertarians, because it's "just a choice." You're thinking of anarchy, bro. Libertarians believe in laws to protect inalienable rights, primarily the right to life.

>>1210513
>Ann rand
>Ann

It's Ayn Rand, friendo

>>1214010
1. Common goods like fish and game which can and have been wiped out and no longer usable as a resource.

2. Negative externalities like pollution where the government must prevent businesses from making rivers flammable.

3. Any and all instances of asymmetric information in a market transaction where one party knows more about the product than the other. This intrinsically prevents market clearance and efficient equilibrium considering one of the main assumptions of the neoclassical models you jerk off to is that perfect information is known.

4. Positive externality goods that the market does not provide enough of given the benefit they have to the economy such as public education (which Adam Smith advocated for)

5. Natural monopoly of inelastic good where capital costs are so high to enter a market only the first firm can ever be in control (such as natural gas, electric, etc) and require government to prevent firms from price-gouging and artificially preventing market equilibrium.

Just the ones off the top of my head.

>>1215390
>primarily the right to life.
What defines life in that instance is subjective, is the crux of the abortion argument. If you two insist on having a retarded abortion debate on /biz/, I suggest you actually debate what defines a human being, because anything else is like two ships passing and shouting at each other.

>>1210547
Is that why teenagers are overwhelmingly liberal?

>>1215390
>by your logic, murder and theft are legal too to Libertarians, because it's "just a choice."
>being this fucking stupid
Infringing upon a pregnant woman´s right to decide over her own body is not libertarianism, dumbass.

PS. "Life" doesn't begin at conception, since the "person" isn't even self-conscious in the early stages of development. If you pro-life nutjobs want to be consistent, you should lobby for the rest of the animal kingdom to be treated as humans - they are, after all, living beings with mental capabilities (usually) far surpassing those of a fetus in early stages of development.

>>1210513

hopped up meth addict

>>1211462
This. Literally autistic.

>>1216159

>"life" doesn't begin at conception, since the "person" isn't even self-conscious in the early stages of development.

infants are not self-conscious. Are you suggesting that they can be euthanized whenever convenient? Not that anon but pro-life is not contradictory of libertarianism. It ain't even about religion either as I am an atheist and believes that life begins at conception.

>>1210513
ugly ass puta

>>1215664
fucking btfo efficient market fags

>>1210513
shit currency
saffers are gay

>>1212393
no man is an island, gaylord

>>1216351
Wow. Seriously? How is that even possible? Life doesn't begin at conception. Life needs to be self-sustaining in at least some regard, and that's not possible for any fetus before approximately 6 months of development.

>>1216563

actually we are, we all have our own reasoning mind. Collectivism kills individualism, just like how you spout memes without thinking. gud job dood!

>>1211784
u wot m8
let me explain this for you, forcing someone to have a child that they don't want is infringing on their rights, and a fetus, not yet being a person, not yet being conscious has no rights.
stupid fucks like you are whats dragging down the republican and libertarian movements, all for "muh freedom" as long as "muh freedom" isnt something that your youth pastor told you was wrong while he was giving you the reach around

>>1216569
>life (n): the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

Keep making up defintions like a good librul. A human fetus is a human life since it is both alive by defintion and is made up of human DNA.

By your logic, it should be legal to murder those on life-support, since they are not "self sustaining"

>>1216599
>forcing someone to have a child
Outside of rape, your argument doesnt hold weight.

an edgy snaggletoothed jewess

>>1215664
Lol this is straight from my high school econ book which was keynesian as fuck

Have u googled responses to those u bitch

>>1210513
**anne rand

>>1211211
>>1211756
McAfee is Love, McAfee is life.

>>1213924
That doesn't make this person a hypocrite.

If she asked for the state to mandate his return to her, it might. But mostly it's just not relevant.

File: zizek space.png (110KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 256x256px

>>1210513
The 1949 Fountainhead movie is good

https://vimeo.com/129783975

>>1210513
LOL - laughing out loud

>>1215664
Most of those depend on a belief that some particular state is "good". e.g. wiping out wild fish and game would result in simple farming, which is more efficient. We don't want that, because muh environment muh animal welfare. But it's not efficient.

The market is efficient, but might result us living off nutrients grown in vats.

>>1215664
> 1. Common goods like fish and game which can and have been wiped out and no longer usable as a resource.
Proof?

> 2. Negative externalities like pollution where the government must prevent businesses from making rivers flammable.
NAP and property rights. Your actions cause loss to the value of my property ergo I have grounds for suing you.

> 3. Any and all instances of asymmetric information in a market transaction where one party knows more about the product than the other. This intrinsically prevents market clearance and efficient equilibrium considering one of the main assumptions of the neoclassical models you jerk off to is that perfect information is known.
In that instance information becomes another commodity to be sold. People hire contractors/geographers (whatever) to assess the value/structural integrity of a house/building, people hire a mechanic before purchasing a car to evaluate it.

How does the government resolve this? Government inspection? What about private inspection agencies. Therefore people will refuse to buy cars that aren't inspect from popular trustworthy inspection agencies.

> 4. Positive externality goods that the market does not provide enough of given the benefit they have to the economy such as public education (which Adam Smith advocated for)
What do you mean? In a country like Australia, private tutoring is done for 2 hours for $30. My son has benefited more from it than he has from school. He also does English and French LOTE. When did teachers become social workers that need a lot of funding to run their diversity programs? The guy who tutors my kid hires a room (probably $150 for 2 hours) and uses it.

Add in competition and there you go. Plus the other issues with public education which has now become a social welfare program for lazy teachers who are part of unions.

You sounds Australian? This country is dying because of entitled cucks like you

1/2

>>1217789
>>1215664
> 5. Natural monopoly of inelastic good where capital costs are so high to enter a market only the first firm can ever be in control (such as natural gas, electric, etc) and require government to prevent firms from price-gouging and artificially preventing market equilibrium.

https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0
Read up.

Monopolies happen because gov't regulates an industry so that the bigger business survive even if overhead increases however the smaller competing businesses die out.

I see a lot of post like these. Then I realize redditors browse here and that these posters are Australian.

>>1217789
How does the guy pay $150 for 2 room hours when you pay $30 for 2 tutor hours?

>>1217789
Most of these, especially #3 are just you explaining away a point by saying "the market will solve it because of this specious mechanism" when there's no technological ability to actually do solve such problems. It's basically like the roadway argument that ancaps often present, that even the most basic utilities can be completely and utterly privatized because as long as there is a way to make a buck, people will do it. The problem is the assumption that the capital to provide one of these services isn't so high that it would even be worth it, which of course ties in with your refusal to believe that natural monopoly exists. Firstly, I will not read that article, because it's quite long, and I would expect if you're going to engage with someone online you should be able to synthesize your body of knowledge yourself. I could post textbooks, academic papers, etc that support my claims as well and hten you could reply with more that support your claims and there would really be no point to it because it would require hours upon hours of reading that neither of us want to engage in. Your statement that
>Monopolies happen because gov't regulates an industry so that the bigger business survive even if overhead increases however the smaller competing businesses die out.
Doesn't actually have anything to do with what the article is stating (presumably) as it's literally a basic and well-understood concept called capture theory that's taught universally. The difference is that people like you believe that there are no instances where government can successfully regulate a business to the consumer's benefit, whereas neoclassical theory and mainstream economists (including most "Austrians", whether your "Austrian" website believes it or not) all support the notion that in cases of extremely high capital entry to a market, the first firm to enter has a monopoly and in order to reach what would be a more socially optimal outcome, the government should regulate it.

File: look how efficient my market is senpai.jpg (40KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 620x388px

>>1214010
Seriously?

>>1217789
>>1217826
it often does so by simply reducing the profits the firm is allowed to extract from the consumer. Other regulation may, in fact, be subject to the types of regulatory capture you're referring to. I am not speaking of those types of regulation. I'm sure the website you linked has great and valid arguments to refute my points, and I would be happy to hear them from you, but posting a great long article and expecting your opponent to read it and "see the light" is absurd.

And I'm not sure why you think I'm Australian. I'm American and have a degree in economics. This by no means makes me an expert, but it means that I understand the basics of the theories behind these sorts of statements. I am not close-minded in my views and am always open to new ideas that challenge them. I am, however, suspicious of any set of ideals that challenges anything is an absolute good, and so when someone argues that the invisible hand is absolutely efficient, alarms begin to go off. This is especially true when the goddamned father of capitalism didn't even believe this was the case, nor the father of Austrian economics, nor the father of Chicago economics. In fact, the only people i've encountered are Randroids, and i find it amusing when they advocate their views under the name of Hayek, a man who advocated strongly for a fucking reverse income tax at low levels of income.

Moreover, you move the goalposts on #3 saying "How does the government resolve this?" when the post I replied to literally just said "give me an example of how the market cannot be 'efficient'. I do not argue the government has all the answers. And it certainly can and often does do more harm than good. As with all things economics, each policy has good and bad. Blindly believing that the market is 100% good is more religion than economics.

>>1217838
Okay, as my posts show I clearly don't agree with him, but Alan Greenspan, despite his personal views, was the single most interventionist chairman we've had. He never let the market be efficient. By consistently preventing any and all halts in growth over a 20-year period he helped set up the biggest bubble in US history. He practiced the opposite of what he preached.


>>1217492
They are incredibly basic examples, which is why I used them. And they're found in ANY textbook regardless of how "Keynesian" (nice buzzword btw) the authors are.

>>1217847
oops. should be "recent US history"

>>1217847
>He practiced the opposite of what he preached.

That's my point. I'm agreeing with you.

>>1217853
Oh, my bad. I still think it's not a great example because he fucked up way more than he probably would have if he really did just practice monetarist policy. Monetary policy is an area i tend to actually agree with Friedman.

>>1217855
I think it's a fine example considering he was a champion of Rand's bullshit philosophies while pulling levers and hitting switches behind the curtain more than any chairman has before or since.

>>1217858
No, I get that, and I agree with you wholeheartedly, I just mean that Randroids can simply use that as a counterexample and turn that around, replying with "And if he didn't forsake his beliefs and pull those levers he would have actually been a good chairman".

And in that instance, they'd probably be right.

>>1215667
>I suggest you actually debate what defines a human being, because anything else is like two ships passing and shouting at each other.
I want to yell this shit.
Every. Fucking. Time.

>>1219115
How is that even a debate?

A human being is a living organism made of human DNA. That would be a pretty short argument. Pro- baby killers have to drag things on and create illogical positions to justify their feelings about how "unfair" life is. Really the worst SJWs. We're trying to have a society here for fucksake

>>1219242
>I suggest you actually debate
>How is that even a debate?
The other ship can't hear you, dude.

>>1219284
I'm not gonna debate what color the sky is. A human being is an organism with human DNA. The sky is blue.

>>1219242
>made of DNA
like, read a book or something before talking with big boys

>>1219314
>nitpicking technicalities makes me a big boy

>>1219608
>technicalities
It's a good thing the subject at issue doesn't involve these.

>>1210513
I really like her stuff. The action in Bioshock was kinda meh but the writing was top notch.

>>1217325

Kek, so if you have cancer, should it be illegal to remove it because it's "alive" and made of DNA? Better not jack off since you'd be killing sperm which are alive hue. Better not clip your fingernails either.

>>1217789
Well take for example Tuna and swordfish. Huge declines in population as rest of the world came online for sushi.
Various animals all over the world have rough reproductive periods that can be extrapolated fairly precisely.
For the same reason we often make open season calls on pests.

2
Highest and best use is often opinion but civil cases and tort are pretty well handled by the system.

3.
The price is the price. Its a huge moral hazard to the public securities business if insiders all can dump before the public.
This can go bad too. Its easy to set up a racket, where you are the "authority" and people have to work for your blessing.

4. The market demands what the market demands in education. Like Buffett says you need to sit the fuck down with a thick dense text and understand it. Read several thousand pages per day, and you'll succeed. Most people would rather fap to memes than use an education.
Frankly though public education is a joke. IME The people who get teaching certificates are often broken inept and sad. The good teachers are forced out of public education rather quickly. Low barrier to entry is suppressing wages accross the board. creating an extremely distorted market.

>>1211784
Mate it ll comes down to your definition of life. If you believe a fetus counts as a life than it is perfectly libertarian to defend their right to 'live'.

>>1221381
fingernails and hair are actually dead cells

>>1219298
>A human being is an organism with human DNA
According to your beliefs. And according to the definition of "organism", it has to be self-regulating. A cluster of cells stuck to the womb is not self-regulating. It cannot survive on its own.

>The sky is blue.
Except when it's red, or pink, or orange, or grey. "The sky" is just a layer of invisible gas and water, neither of which are blue. It doesn't look blue when you look at it from space downward. It is quite literally a matter of perspective.

>>1221417
>suppressing wages
Maybe it's because I grew up working class and my parents make only 50 after tax combined, but i've never understood the complaint of teachers that they get paid too little. They have a cushiony job with 3 months off where they can pick up a summer job and supplement their income. I feel like the only teachers who think they are underpaid are those who come from upper-middle-class families and feel they're entitled to making more.

>>1222126
So someone on life support isn't a human either?

>>1222968
If that person does not have a functioning brain, you bet your sweet ass they're not.

Though I suppose you're trying to trip me up with the whole "self-regulating" part, but the definition of "organism" implies that it's self-regulating in a default state, not in a state of impairment by either the degradation of old age or illness/injury. I think the difference between a zygote and a person with a working brain in a coma are fairly apparent.

>>1217804
He tutors classes of 30

>>1217826
> Most of these, especially #3 are just you explaining away a point by saying "the market will solve it because of this specious mechanism" when there's no technological ability to actually do solve such problems.
Quote me where I do that and explain how.

> Firstly, I will not read that article, because it's quite long
Not even skim it?

See pic related. It's the pdf from the article.

> all support the notion that in cases of extremely high capital entry to a market, the first firm to enter has a monopoly and in order to reach what would be a more socially optimal outcome, the government should regulate it.
Of course government can do that, and it happens but I am more pragmatic with my minarchism. Understanding people are vulnerable to corruption and given that the state has a de facto monopoly on violence giving the state the ability to "regulate" can actually work to impede competition.

> it often does so by simply reducing the profits the firm is allowed to extract from the consumer. Other regulation may, in fact, be subject to the types of regulatory capture you're referring to. I am not speaking of those types of regulation. I'm sure the website you linked has great and valid arguments to refute my points, and I would be happy to hear them from you, but posting a great long article and expecting your opponent to read it and "see the light" is absurd.
By setting prices? Ergo not allowing prices to reflect the economic reality of that good or service?

> . This is especially true when the goddamned father of capitalism
Capitalism has been with us since the beginning. People traded stuff for profit since the start.

> Blindly believing that the market is 100% good is more religion than economics.
It's not a matter off faith in the free market more so greater distrust in government

> And I'm not sure why you think I'm Australian
I'm an Ausfag and that's standard Keynesian propaganda in most books

>>1210513
retarded

>>1217792

> Monopolies happen because gov't regulates an industry so that the bigger business survive even if overhead increases however the smaller competing businesses die out.

Congrats, it's 7 am and I've already read the stupidest thing I'll read today.

>>1222968
No, someone completeky brain dead (like yourself) is not "human". Thats why they are routinely killed
> I.e. pull the plug
And none of you stupid assholes bitch and moan about that.

The whole abortion debate can litteraly be settled by teaching these religious nutjobs a basic biology class.

>>1223160
This

Why do people say the gov't "supports" monopolies. They are natural in any industry that is high tech/high barrier to entry. I learned this in fucking HS economics.

Govt's are needed to break up monopolies

Bell was broken up for this reason. AMD/Intel exists for this reason.

File: 1337880306235.png (204KB, 509x380px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 509x380px

>>1210547
>fuck, a philosophy that seems to kinda-maybe go against muh mainstream half-baked ideals
>i'll just pretend only idiots agree with it
>feels good being so smart man

>>1216351
Yes, being 'pro-life' isn't against libertarianism. Wanting to force that ideal on to everyone around you most certainly is.

>>1217325
You don't even know how abortions are made. Top kek. 4chan is sinking to new levels of uncultured plebiness.

>>1223283
>>1223160
While I obviously don't agree that all monopolies are government-created like Randroids do considering I'm the initial anon who argued that they must be broken up by the government, it is pretty well-known that government regulation of non-natural monopolies does raise the barrier to entry, and is lobbied for BY corporations. All of those "excessive" regulations Tea Party types complain about are actually supported by the industry they're regulating in order to raise barriers to entry for smaller firms hoping to compete.

The vast majority of business regulation these days is due to regulatory capture and not due to the government looking out for the consumer.

>>1223046
>By setting prices? Ergo not allowing prices to reflect the economic reality of that good or service?
You do know how the model for monopoly works, right? Monopolies set prices far above equilibrium at a smaller quantity than equilibrium. This is not efficient by any economic definition of the word. As long as the government then sets price at a point that is closer to the natural equilibrium, it is more efficient and closer to what free-market folks advocate.

>Capitalism has been with us since the beginning. People traded stuff for profit since the start.
Start of what? I can assure you capitalism didn't start during early nomadic tribalism. Perhaps since the beginning agriculture, but regardless, nobody had formulated the concept before Adam Smith. The predominant form of economics before him was mercantilism and it was retarded. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, because if it's trying to dismiss Smith's relevance to the discussion of capitalism, it's not a very good attempt.

>Keynesian propaganda
So you just dismiss all that you disagree with as propaganda?

It seems that you don't really have anything to argue against the actual economics of market inefficiencies, you just believe that the government is incapable of solving them because its inherently corrupt and bad. You can't claim that's pragmatism. Your entire argument is idealism. "Government" as a concept is no better or worse than "corporations" are. It kills me when people like you and Berniefags run around calling one evil and the other good. That's simply not the case. Of course government is prone to corruption. That doesnt' negate its ability to do good, and in the same way corporations will do all in their power to make a profit, and while that's not bad, it definitely means that they'll do a lot of things that aren't necessarily good for society if they're allowed to.

There is a balance. Ayn Rand saw no balance. This is why she was wrong.

>>1223715
>Wanting to force that ideal on to everyone around you most certainly is.
Again, and on the opposite side, your ship is just sailing right past. If those people really believe that life begins at conception, then why the fuck wouldn't they impose their beliefs? It's no more imposing than saying you can't kill children to a group who says they like to kill children, y'know?

The debaters need to stop going on about womens' rights, privacy, etc. If you want to argue effectively against pro-lifers, convince them that a zygote isn't a human being. That's what it comes down to. Because under that idea, you would also believe it was wrong.

>>1223776
>It's no more imposing than saying you can't kill children to a group who says they like to kill children, y'know?

I get what you're saying but that analogy is incorrect. For one the fetus is not independent of the mother, also summarizing abortion as "killing the fetus" is highly misleading. An abortion (at least until the 12 weeks mark) is basically just blocking the pregnancy hormone, naturally this results in the fetus dying, but nothing is done directly to it, the female body merely stops hosting it.

Better analogies:

If some sort of mutant kid had it's teeth sunk into your back in order to survive, sucking your blood and seriously impacting your health and lifestyle, it would be imposing as fuck for some group of strangers to say you can't push it off your back because they personally didn't agree with it.

Or imagine you lived in a country where life is tough and the streets are dangerous, and some kid broke into your property, started eating your food and peeing in your pool... again it would be unreasonable imposing for other people to say you couldn't kick the kid off because he would die out in the streets and they didn't agree with that. Get off my lawn, you'd say.

>>1223957
No. Because you are still missing the point. You're still counting the fact that a zygote isn't a human being as granted. But that's the entire argument. Your opponents simply take the idea that a zygote IS a human life for granted. But that's the entire argument.

You people need to stop arguing about the other shit and just argue the point where you actually disagree, because I can't imagine if you agreed with the other side about that aspect, you wouldn't be pro-life, and I can't imagine if they agreed with you on that aspect, they wouldn't be pro-choice.

Whether or not life being at conception IS the abortion argument. All other arguments are secondary and distract from the real one.

>>1210513

> Doctors saying smoking is unhealthy is a communist plot!
> Gets smoking-related disease

> Socialism is of the Devil!
> Turns to medicare for smoking-related disease

There is nothing more unserious than a hypocritical philosopher

>>1224012
Re-read my analogies. And if you say they're not very good, and they're not, that's because the thing we abort has nothing in common with a child. So yes you're right, we should argue that.

>>1224027
>be against socialism
>refuse to play ball
>get prison
>pay up and accept the system
>get heckled

Fair logic you got there.

>>1224077
I think you're for some reason assuming i'm pro-life. I frankly don't give a shit. I just get annoyed when perfectly fine threads get derailed because two different factions have decided to argue at each other without just arguing the point they should really be arguing.

As for your point that the mechanism of abortion changes its morality, I honestly don't think that's really a good argument. It very much is illegal to let your child starve on the streets--it's called negligence, and that's what the abortion is talking about, your child, not a stranger's. And so then again we come back to teh actual crux, whether or no the cells are a CHILD or not. And flippantly taking it for granted that it isn't is fine if you want to be smug, but not if you ever actually want to debate the merits of abortion.

I've just bought Atlas Shrugged and its fucking massive

File: alrighty.jpg (18KB, 291x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 291x400px

>>1224091
>and that's what the abortion is talking about, your child
No, it's about an embryo. And I don't have to explain to anyone the difference between an embryo and a baby or a child. Me and the gf know our biology, we know what an embryo is and from that understanding our morals were drafted, that's all that matters.

If anyone outside the relationship wants to dictate that it is immoral to get rid of an embryo, it's their burden to prove it. If they can't, their opinion is irrelevant.

People need to get over this idea that they're entitled to control other people's personal lives without justification.

>>1224091
This guy gets it.
Abortion is such a divisive issue because one group believes a human fetus with a heartbeat and independent brain activity is a life, and the other group believes it is a nothing.

Here is my reasoning behind prolife and I will end the derail:

>It is illegal and immoral to kill a child who is 3 days old. It is also illegal and immoral to kill a child who is 2 days old. Also 1 day old. What about a child who will be born tomorrow? What about the day before that? At each day back, the human is essentially just as developed as the day after and with unrecognizable differences. Using this logic there is no single day at which the human "becomes human," since we are continuously growing beings who are indistinguishably different from the person we will be tomorrow. This is the logic behind life at conception.

>>1224195
Fine. Continue a futile argument that bypasses the actual point of contention every time you see someone say they're pro-life. I suppose it doesn't really bother me if you waste your time forever.

>>1224200
But that's wrong. I'm feeling good so I'll give you a simple laydown:

Simple reflexes only begin around the 14th week. Proper brain function only starts later (20th I think?). But most abortions are done well before that anyway, during the embryo stage, that is up to the 10th week. Honestly you'd have to be blind, ignorant or fairly irresponsible to take longer than that to figure out there's a pregnancy and take care of it.

Now, since
1. Death is medically defined as the cessation of circulatory, respiratory and brain function.
2. Birth/conception is categorically defined as the opposite of death.

The conclusion is: Human conception does not happen until well into the second trimester.

QED

With that said, it doesn't matter.

>>1224201
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact: You can't legitimately force your subjective opinion on someone's personal freedom. It's not libertarian and also it's a major dick move.

>>1224297
Brain functions are present 6 weeks after conception.

My point was more there is no definitive day at which one "becomes a human" since we are constantly developing and changing beings. Any two days laid side by side, the differences are negligible. Thus, there is only the moment we are conceived and the moment we die as the start and end of our time on Earth. Anything inbetween is human life.

Also, subjective opinions are forced on us all the time. They are called laws. Even murder is subjectively immoral

>>1224306
>Brain functions are present 6 weeks after conception.

Science disagrees. Basic motor reflexes are the first to come and only much later than that.

>>1224335
>citation needed

>>1224346
>doesn't cite
>demands citation

fair

>>1210513
a selfish cunt.

>>1224297
>It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact
If people are debating it, it's an argument cucklefuck. You believing that a zygote isn't life and thinking it's self-evident and scientific "fact" is just as bullshit as unfounded as the other side's argument that it is a human being. The simple fact of hte matter is that any point where you define it as a human being is arbitrary, so there's very much a debate to be had as where that point is. And since this is law, that point has to be EXACT, not just general.

>>1224579
>You believing that a zygote isn't life
You're talking about a microscopic, single celled organism. You're not going to fucking hurt its feelings or something.

>>1224585
So then argue this--and only this--when discussing abortion with pro-lifers. Because it's the ACTUAL argument. Because you would agree, as a person who values human rights, that if the zygote is a person, then they have rights as a person like anyone else. The rights of hte mother's privacy are irrelevant as long as that is the case.

This is what people on your side so frequently do: You take the fact that zygotes aren't human beings for granted and immediately proceed to argue about the privacy rights of the mother.

Do you see the issue? You can't simply skip over that first part because it seems self-evident to you. The other side doesn't believe it's self-evident. In fact, tehy believe the opposite is self-evident.

Who else was jealous of Rearden when he got to fuck Dagny?

>>1210513
>this thread has been going on for a week

>>1224590
Do you swat flies? That's killing an organism that's vastly more cognitively developed than a human embryo. Don't even get me started about mousetraps.

>>1222131
I'm not saying they're underpaid, I'm saying they're getting exactly what they deserve for their qualifications.
You went to school for two years and got a teaching certificate. Congrats

Vs say like a Walter White who was a top tier chemist who fucking loved the stuff.

You couldn't get more qualified.

Taught Chemistry and made it look easy.

>>1224594
this

>>1224611
So what?

A dog that has been around for a few years is more cognitively developed than a human baby. That doesnt make it ok to kill babies.

The other guy has it right, the argument lies in whether or not there is a specific day in the development of an unborn human baby where it becomes no longer ok to chop off his/her legs and stick a needle in his/her brain and suck him/her out with a vacuum cleaner.

Most law has that day specifically set at 20 weeks, where the day after 20 weeks the baby is a baby, and the day before 20 weeks the baby is a nothing that can be legally subject to the above stated treatment.

>>1216599
>forcing someone to have a child
>I can't take responsibility for my actions and just wanted my bagina to feel good :DDDD also I'm too stupid to take proper precautions before I get creampied

I'm glad you're pro-choice. I wouldn't want you to become a parent anyways.

>>1224852
Nice strawman m8. We're talking about early stage embryos and fetuses without significant nervous tissue. You can make-believe whatever you want, though.

>>1224611
I'm convinced you guys are simply too dumb to realize that I'm not fucking arguing for the pro-life platform. There's no other reason why people would continue to reply.

>>1224641
Aside from all that evidence of one character on a TV show, I had plenty of fucking fantastic teachers in my public schooling, and all of them were extremely intelligent and qualified. My English teacher had a median passing rate of the AP English Lit test 25% over the national average, and my history teacher had similar results his very first year of teaching AP. The former was simply an alum who wanted to stay in the school system and the latter was just a dude who worked in a steel mill for 15 years and decided to do something different.

The two teachers I had who were hyper qualified were my chemistry teacher who worked as a Chemist for 20 years before teaching. She was a fat lazy fuck who sat behind her desk all class and made us watch mythbusters. The other was my economics, government, and psych teacher who had 2 masters' degrees and was so incompetent I didn't realize anything in that class I didn't read from the textbook.

All of these are anecdotal, but the point is that I'm just not sure that paper qualifications are actually correlated with teaching ability, rather they're just a way the school can brag about their teachers' qualifications. It seems that passion for teaching is important, and not to mention the role of the high school teacher is not purely academic.

>>1210515
underrated

>>1221194
>fucking kek

>>1225156

Are you a babyboomer or just from a rich white neighbourhood?

>>1225333
I'm 21 and from a hick neighborhood that has a median income exactly the same as the nation as a whole.

Watered down Nietzsche with a hardon for romanticizing capitalism. Everything she bitched about concerning 'parasites' perfectly encapsulate the mentality of SJW. Which, honestly, isn't really surprising since Rand disliked the feminist movement for being collectivist in nature.

Something I always find hilarious is how she accurately assets what sort of person would work best with capitalism in her journal. She once read a newspaper article about some insane guy who killed a dozen people or so. Rand basically went ''YES! This is the sort of mentality I'm looking for; someone who doesn't give a shit about anyone else and goes about their own self-interest''. Obviously that man was a psychopath and that specific part is always used against Objectivism.
>pfffttt, how can you agree with Ayn Rand, she loved a psychopath who killed people
And yet, psychopaths make for good CEO and people in management. So, in a sense, she was absolutely correct.

I find her interesting but her writing is so basic and boring. You really have to read within the lines, both in her fiction and non-fiction to find something interesting.

>>1217792
>Monopolies happen because gov't regulates an industry so that the bigger business survive even if overhead increases however the smaller competing businesses die out.
Rand even talks about this basically word for word on what you just said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE9NGOgdrIo

>>1225799
>Watered down Nietzsche
Yes, yes, hell yes motherfucker. I am amazed how few people notice this.

File: Ryan.jpg (6KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 320x320px

>>1225815
I personally find Nietzsche's Übermensch and Rand's hero to be very similar in many ways. Hell, in the Fountainhead, both Gail and Roark seem to be good together, and Rand seemed to like Nietzsche but hated his determinism outlook on life. Rand always wanted to consider herself an optimist. I would argue that Rand's hero is more about how to work best within the capitalism system whereas Nietzsche's Übermensch is about not being confined to any system. There's a part in Spake where the main hero sees a bunch of people sell apples or whatever in the market place. Rather than interact with them, he just runs away. I like to think that it's Nietzsche's way of saying not to get bogged down in capitalism.

>>1211836
>so edgy

>>1211211
>implying being pro-life matters
Its literally a non-issue, it will never be illegal again in the united states to get an abortion. So once you realize that its a moot point, you now realize that we didnt even successfully nominate the GOAT

>>1225025
Nope. We are only discussing 2 days in the pregnancy. The first day, in which it is legal to kill the unborn child (19 weeks and 6 days), and the next day (20 weeks), at which point the unborn child becomes "human" in the eyes of the law. If that isnt some arbitrary made up shit, I dont know what is.

The truth of the matter is obvious, the thing with 2 legs, 2 arms, 10 fingers, 10 toes, a heartbeat, and a brain all containing unique human dna has in factvbeen a human all along

>>1225869
Rand considered herself pro-choice and said that women should decide whatever happens to them but should accept any sort of consequence that happens if they decide on that choice.
>you can chose to not have kids but don't bitch if you later want some and can't anymore