What are some objectivist comics?

>>83641661
Check out a torrent of Ditko's self-published work. Besides meme potential which I'm sure you're actually looking for there's some of the best layouts and designs around even at his age.

The storytime here about five years ago was a blast.

Ditko. Miller.

/thread

>>83641661
I'm not going to give you any recommendations as I gain nothing from doing so.

>>83641790
>Miller
Kill yourself

>>83641661
Find them yourself you filthy parasite. Do the world a favor and kill some orphans, non-fabulously wealthy scum, and sick people while you're at it.

>>83641661
Slott's Spider-man is an objectionable comic
Close enough?

>>83641967
Is that why it's so shit?

>>83641661
Ditko's Mr.A

>>83641811
>>83641918
Nice strawmen.

In X-men: Apocalypse the main villain is AnCap, does that count?

>>83641861
What's wrong with Miller?

>>83641661
Not a comic but Zack Synder is a huge Rand fanboy who identifies heavily with Galt so his movies. He's planning to make a film based on one of her books too, can't remember which one.

>>83642193
I wouldn't mind seeing a fountainhead adaptation

>>83642019

That is exactly what Objectivism is. Never help anyone unless they pay you. Anyone who asks for help and doesn't promise money for it is a parasite.

>>83642193

Another reason to hate Snyder.

>>83642382
>That is exactly what Objectivism is
Prove it, tough guy.

>>83642157
Nothing, he's no objectivist

Not a comic but Incredibles is literally objectivist propaganda.

>>83642409
Like Galt he is a misunderstood supergenius and Christlike superman held down by the retarded masses who just don't unconditionally worship at his feet and throw money at him as they should.

>>83642416
Not for free

>>83641790
Mr.A, Old earth 4 Question, not the pos-crisis Zen hippie.

Early SpiderMan.

>>83642482
Have you read his Martha Washington books? He loves Rand. I'm not using that as an insult. I'm fucking serious.

>>83642382

>assuming payment can only be monetary

Idiot.

>>83642498
It's really not though, the creators have gone into this in some depth. Although there are some stupid things about the movie (being born with some random possibly dangerous super power makes you special and worthwhile but being a super genius inventor who is a self-made millionaire does not), it's not Objectivist.

>>83642498
First time I've heard someone claim this. Care to explain?

Paul Pope is a libertarian

>>83642551
It's the only payment that matters. Let the market decide.

>>83642562
>being born with some random possibly dangerous super power makes you special and worthwhile but being a super genius inventor who is a self-made millionaire does not
That's more Syndrome's hangup, isn't it? If he wasn't so obsessed with Mr Incredible he could easily have been far more successful than him, even without superpowers. It's not a message the movie is sending rather than the central mistake in the villain's neurosis.

>>83642382
No it isn't. It's about value of the work. It can be things other than money, that's the point of dagny and hank.

>>83642416
Read The Virtue of Selfishness it pretty much goes into it there. Misfortune is not an acceptable excuse for needing help to Ayn.

File: MysteriousSuspense1_25.jpg (94KB, 400x396px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 400x396px

Superhero Stories

I can't understand this objectivism meme.
Explain please.

>>83643821
It's a philosophy about how being evil is a good thing.

File: 1465006149258.gif (2MB, 270x276px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 270x276px

>>83642562
>"When everybody is special then nobody will be!"
>read: we should deny society at large the revolutionary wonders of ubiquitous super-technology because it would make some people feel not special

great message, movie

File: 1265438761067.jpg (59KB, 335x347px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 335x347px

>>83641661

As an actual Objectivist I can only say anything by Ditko. I don't know anyone else's philosophy enough to confidently call them Objectivist. It's a label you put on yourself, it doesn't get put on to you.

>>83641918
>>83642382

>mfw

And this is why we can't have threads about Objectivism on this board and I'd rather not even have them. There are too many trolls on /co/ willing to just flat out lie and it confuses any actual sane discussion on the issue.

It's sad seeing someone's dishonest and gross misunderstanding of Rand try convince others of who she was or what she believed.

>>83641751
On the one hand, Ditko would probably call you a leech for torrenting his work. On the other hand, he appears to genuinely give no fucks about things after they've left his desk.

>>83642551
OP isn't offering anything of objective worth. We can't live on gratitude.

>>83643946
Do you want to live in the world of My Hero Academia?

>>83643821

It's a philosophy about rational self-interest and reality being real, that rejects mysticism.

>>83643891

This is a filthy fucking liar.

>>83643977
>>83641661
None of them because Ayn Rand was disgusted by the idea of objectivism becoming a movement.

If you meant "what are some comics that display objectivist principles" well... quite a lot, actually. Usually the villains.

File: 1394911904740.gif (767KB, 298x298px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 298x298px

>>83644042
yes

what kind of question is this

>>83644045
>rational self-interest
In other words, being a greedy hoarder of wealth. An heartless societal parasite.

>>83644045
>liar

explain riding around in a rape train built out of pure self-satisfaction while the entire universe crumbles to dust, then

actually OP I guess when you put it like that Hellboy's super-arc is pretty Objectivist

>>83641661
>>/lit/
Now GTFO fag

>>83644085
Massive property damage happening daily, people whose powers don't do anything except making them disfigured and ugly, one civil war away from world apocalypse... Why would you want to live in such a world?

>>83644064

Hence "it's a label you wear yourself." That's what that was directly referring too. Rand wanted her philosophy to live on without her, so she didn't name it after herself. Yet, so you still get people calling her a cultist and shit. It just goes to show how little of her actual words they listened to.

I can't understand how people can put up with Rand's inability to write and childish philosophy.

File: 1462446268461.jpg (520KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 900x1200px

>>83644206

>>83644045
Nobody outside of Objectivists treat it like a real philosophy. It's really just reverse communism from a Russian girl who was disillusioned after seeing that America wasn't what she thought it'd be when she was growing up.

>>83644094

>In other words, being a greedy hoarder of wealth. An heartless societal parasite.

Do you expect payment for your work, yes or no?

>>83644110

>explain riding around in a rape train built out of pure self-satisfaction while the entire universe crumbles to dust, then

I don't have to "explain" shit you just made up.

>>83644297

Well luckily I don't take their "reality isn't real and you can only be a good person if a magic sky fairy and the majority of humans both tell you to!" as a real philosophy either so I guess it goes both ways.

>>83644268
I want to put my penis inside her.

>>83643821
Google it. It's pretty interesting and entertaining. Some fucked up logic working there in that philosophy? even if some of the points could be valid in certain circumstances. Apparently, Internet says that there're a ton of people in the animation and comic industries that love the bitch that was Ayn Rand.

I honestly think this is start to becoming a paranoid conspiracy, but it gives some though nevertheless.

I like Bioshock mocking on objectivism. Didn't know it was a thing until I played that. I guess I live in the most far and disconnected side of the Yuropoor world.

File: 1462456364722.png (2MB, 1566x2691px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1566x2691px

>>83644399

>>83644317
>Do you expect payment for your work, yes or no?
There's a huge difference between expecting payment for work and refusing to help anyone unless there's a direct benefit to yourself.

File: 1456722907224.png (584KB, 1400x2700px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1400x2700px

>>83644395
>reality isn't real
Are you referring to gnosticism now all of sudden, mate?

>>83644395
Religion isn't philosophy either, it's theology, but nice try.

>>83644525
Religion is proto-philosophy, just like philosophy is proto-science.

>>83644453

Way to not answer the question and make up a false equivalency .

Do. You. Expect. Payment. For. Your. Work?

Yes?

No?

>>83644525

Religion is philosophy plus mysticism. But nice try!

>>83644453
Basically. The appeal of objectivism to a lot of people is:
-it gives you an excuse for being a selfish dick
-it lets you think that you're special and amazing and the only reason you're not a multi-millionaire is because dumb people just don't appreciate your genius and won't let you succeed

Most of the people you're going to find online defending objectivism are going to fit squarely into that second bullet point.

>>83644548
I think that Philosophy implies that there's a well built, logical and reasoned, leveled, completed system about how the world works. Religion isn't logical at all, and isn't leveled.

I wish my English was richer, I cannot engage in this kind of discussions. Where is my fairy godmother when I need her?

>>83644548
None of that is right.

>>83644589
Yes? What part of my answer implies I don't? And you just ignored the second part of my answer.

>>83644589
> false equivalency
That's the entire point, though. Objectivism means not doing anything unless it's in your rationale self-interest. Rand literally believed helping anyone without gaining something was the most evil thing in the world. That doing something for someone just to be nice was stupid.

>>83641661
There's a comic out there of the Girl Who Owned a City, aka the first (only?) intentionally objectivist children's book.

>>83644206
Sounds no fucking different than most cape worlds, m8.

>>83644589
Not that anon, but If I'm volunteering myself, no. I don't. Unless you count expecting to make things better as a payment.

Does that count?

>>83644395
>reality isn't real and you can only be a good person if a magic sky fairy and the majority of humans both tell you to

Please tell me this isn't how you view being good.

>>83644645
Except all of that is right. Religion is what we used to explain why the world worked the way it did. Philosophy was a more rationalistic approach to explaining the world once civilization became more developed, until from philosophy was developed the scientific method which completely took over as our way of understanding everything.

File: Disdain.jpg (68KB, 950x960px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 950x960px

>>83644823
>the scientific method has taken over from philosophy

>>83641861
How is he wrong? Miller is a legit psycho

>>83644642
>Philosophy implies that there's a well built, logical and reasoned, leveled, completed system about how the world works
Maybe if you're only familiar with Aristotelianism. Try reading that famous mystic Plato. Or if you dare, try reading any of the postmodern tripe that infests modern philosophy like a cancer.

>>83644933
As a method for understanding the world, yes it has. Philosophy today is mostly used as a method of self-improvement and dealing with living in the world, such as stoicism.

>>83644961
Well, I liked Plato, but I think I see why you think he doesn't fit my mold of philosophy. I still think his system is way more articulated that any religion. And I don't know enough of postmodern philosophy, but if they're anything like the historians, they're probably not philosophers.

I know a bit about philosophy, but I'll be honest here: I'm not a scholar, not even a student. But it was kinda fun too read all kinds of stuff until late 19th century.

>>83644241
National economic policy shouldn't be based on fucking philosophy. It should be based on economics. This is why Randroids have ruined the right in America. Back in the day, Dems would be the idealists. They took their philosophy and governed with it. Republicans were pragmatists. After a Democrat, the Republicans would tone down what hte Democrat had done too much of while keeping what worked. It was an ebb and flow that worked. Fast forward to a 90s world where Ancaps and Randroids run the GOP and you have two parties based completely on ideology and not pragmatism playing tug of war over the nation.

So I hope Rand is proud.

File: 1251852365298.jpg (20KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 640x480px

>>83644679

>Yes?

Congratulations. You've used rational self-interest.

>What part of my answer implies I don't?

The part where you're triggered by "rational self-interest" like expecting something in return is automatically a bad thing. Funny how people like to say that and yet don't apply to themselves when it comes to work.


>>83644732

>Rand literally believed helping anyone without gaining something was the most evil thing in the world.

And you're leaving of WHY which is dishonest and just trying to make her look bad because that's the typical response you'll get from people. She said that or thought that to prevent someone from being used or taken advantage of. It's the evil fuck who tells you to do things for them, out of kindness and then turns around and doesn't help you out or offer anything in return. You offer something in return to show appreciation, like you ask for something to be shown you are appreciated.

It's a two way street, you do realize this right? I don't expect anyone to do thing for me unless I have something to offer them in return as well. That "something" can be anything you want. If you just like helping people, that's a value to you, then you got "something in return" for it.

You're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors helping people who hurt or harm you, when you don't want too. That's not noble or just, that's enabling the ignoble and unjust.

>>83644770

If *I* believed that, then why did I put that in quotation marks exactly? Did you read the whole post? That's what how I think everyone else sees it. The idea of being a good person for your own sake is very foreign to them.

>>83645257
>blaming rand for americans being retards

>>83644933
Philosophy is a logical approach to understanding questions of morality, justice, etc. It's certainly not how we understand the world.

>>83645367
I don't *blame* her, but her beliefs have lived on and somehow turned into economic policies, so she's the source at least.

>>83645257

>There is some sort of connection between the Republicans and Rand because they cherry pick Rand like they cherry pick the Bible.

Not even going to take that one seriously. Objectivism isn't a republican or democract thing, despite what people make it out to be.

>>83644395
So much edge, so little time.

>>83645464
The belief that the government has an intrinsically adversarial and destructive role in the economy is absolutely Randian and those beliefs are prominent in many influential GOP leaders. Just because you've chosen to make the GOP monolothic doesn't mean the reality is that people like Paul Ryan keep a copy of Atlas Shrugged on his desk.

>>83645455

No they haven't. The Republicans cherry picked the shit out of her words if anything. They liked the capitalism part but they didn't like the rational atheist part that LEAD to the capitalism part so they pulled the same shit they always pull when they talk a capitalist game but played like socialists and created corporate welfare for their donors.

Rand hated the Republicans.

>>83645530

>The belief that the government has an intrinsically adversarial and destructive role in the economy is absolutely Randian and those beliefs are prominent in many influential GOP leaders.

Rand's not the only person where this idea came from. She was borrowing heavily from Smith and classical economists. Lazzie-faire was never her original idea and she said as much.

>Just because you've chosen to make the GOP monolothic doesn't mean the reality is that people like Paul Ryan keep a copy of Atlas Shrugged on his desk.

And he still plays "MUH JESUS" bullshit politics? Then that copy means nothing more than any other book politicians don't read but love to quote from if it makes them look better.

>>83645628
>She was borrowing heavily from Smith and classical economists.
Except her "borrowing" involved taking what Smith said and taking it to an extreme and dangerous level. Smith believed the government had a role, and if you'd actually read Wealth of Nations you'd know that. Hayek, who I'm sure you'd quote next, fucking believed in a basic income.

Believing in government capture is one thing. It's undoubtedly true. The vast majority of regulation exists so that companies can be more monopolistic. The problem is that the dogma of Objectivism requires you to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It undervalues the importance of government's role in the economy, and then goes on to blame ALL monopolies on the government.

>>83645318
>If *I* believed that, then why did I put that in quotation marks exactly? Did you read the whole post? That's what how I think everyone else sees it. The idea of being a good person for your own sake is very foreign to them.

That was my question. Do you really think that's how everyone else views being good? Because that's how I know you're a bad person.

>>83645410
Are you not aware that morality and justice are both immoral and unjust? They're all nothing but techniques used by the powerless to collectivize their energies to chain the powerful few, and to use the efforts of the productive minority of our society to fulfill their own sick hedonistic desires. The masses are ingrates, a race of born parasites who steal from the virtuous few who have made this miserable shit ball of a planet worth living on. They constructed inefficient socialist systems of oppression to further enslave the powerful, and further steal from their superior strengths of innovation and creativity. And now what do we see? The eventual collapse of these socialist pyramid schemes seem to soon be upon us, and governments across the west are importing unintelligent savages to continue this dysgenic process that has led our species spiraling towards oblivion. Why should the masses be allowed any sort of power over the state when those dishonorable rats will always do nothing but use the power of the state to extort wealth from the noble few? No, I say it is the masses who should rightfully be oppressed, and it is the powerful minority who should be uplifted, as they are the only ones who drive the progression of the human animal. Any dissenter can enjoy getting killed, while the rest of us can enjoy having yet more worthlessness being cleansed from our collective genepool. We should rid ourselves of this mind decease called Democracy, and strive towards are Fascistic line of governmental thought. Force. That is what we need to create a world of worthiness. Ruthless and unfeeling force.

>>83646050
tl;dr

>>83644641
This.

>>83646050
wow stop posting

>>83645318
>The part where you're triggered by "rational self-interest" like expecting something in return is automatically a bad thing.
Except I never said that?

File: 1450430135564.gif (1MB, 260x195px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 260x195px

>>83641811

>>83645769

>Smith believed the government had a role, and if you'd actually read Wealth of Nations you'd know that.

Rand believed taking it to the same level Smith did.

>>83645318
>. It's the evil fuck who tells you to do things for them, out of kindness and then turns around and doesn't help you out or offer anything in return.
So you're saying that Ayn Rand's entire fucking philosophy is based off of one possible way to solve the free rider problem? Did she know that's not the only moral hazard out there?

>>83644641

The people who act like those two bullet points are also the same people who "grow out of it" and then tell other people that's what it's about.

Because, gasp, SUPRISE! Shock! Awe! The philosophy isn't about "being an asshole" at all and people got the wrong idea. So they end up leaving Objectivism anyway when they find that's not what it is about.

>>83646432
So she believed in a publicly funded education system?

>>83642577
no.

File: 1394493378008.jpg (48KB, 494x433px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 494x433px

>>83646568
>The philosophy isn't about "being an asshole" at all

>>83643891
Basically. Selfishness and callousness are somehow the only moral way to live.

I'm atheist and cynical as they come and I think be a fucking asshole all you want just don't act like a pretentious moralfag about it.

I'm also a Libertarian but most Objectivists as opposed to Libertarians are 11 year old retarded trust fund babies in my experience.

Also Jesus Ayn was one ugly bitch.

>>83642365

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041386/

>>83646432

Their opinions of human nature were very different. Smith didn't simply believe everyone was selfish. He found people to be sympathetic and respectful. That's the largest misconception about him.

>>83646802
>Jesus Ayn was one ugly bitch
She was Jewish.

>>83642586
Paul Pope literally did a Batman comic in which they save von Mises' writings from Nazi Berlin

https://mises.org/library/holy-praxeology-batman

>>83646609
I hope not. As someone who went through a publicly funded school, I'm convinced the only people who support such institutions are genuinely cruel and malicious.

>>83644732
One gigantic fucking problem here is the assumption that humans are largely rational when an absolute mountain of empirical objective scientific evidence collected over the last century supports the hypothesis that people are not rational. Because brains weren't designed and the evolutionary process that led to them is extremely messy and flawed, leading to everything from optical illusions to confirmation bias.

From an objective, scientific standpoint, Rand is simply wrong.

This is the problem with basing all of your belief in your personal feelings and not on empirical evidence, as Rand did.

>>83646952
As a society, we really need to get over the whole "Nazis were bad guys" meme.

>>83647150
But Rand did base her beliefs on empirical evidence, she was a fucking objectivist for God's sake.

>>83647263
Her entire system is literally "if Marx said X, I'll say Y"

>>83646227
>>83646278
No refutation, as expected of lesser beings.

I wish sometimes that Nietzsche wasn't compared to Rand because honestly he was fsr more nuanced. That said, I look somewhat askance at philosophy, at least taken without question these days, because it is usually one person's personal internal logic that is not subject to repeated data gathering and testing. This has led to many so-called "self evident truths" that are patently incorrect.

>>83647303
Who?

>>83647263
Please, pleasr show me the repeated experiments and meta studies proving her assertions that she conducted before positing them re-tested by unbiased peers as we would expect for any scientific theory, then.

>>83647464
No. I don't have to. You have to prove me wrong first.

>>83647500
Not that guy but why would he need to prove you wrong if you haven't proven yourself right. You need some evidence for your own assertion first fampai.

Literally anything by Jay Naylor.
Fucker doesn't shut the hell up about Rand.

>>83647500
I assume you are trolling since the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.

So instead I'll just observe that I feel public policy should be based on what has been demonstrated to practically work as opposed to the unfounded emotion-drive personal beliefs of an individual.

>>83643821
Objectivism is the idea of a completely objective universe (i.e. it can't exist unless it can be seen, touched, heard, felt, or tasted) created by Ayn Rand. It emphasizes the individual as opposed to the group (a direct antithesis to Rand's communist upbringing). However, the part of it that people tend to focus on the most is the idea of rational self interest which is essentially the opposite of altruism.
Imagine you're a caveman. You have fur and meat because you know how to hunt and are very successful at it. One day, you come upon a caveman who wants you meat and fur. He can't hunt for himself, but he figured out how to make his own shelter and how to grow vegetables, so you agree to give him meat and fur in exchange for a place to stay and fresh veggies. This is an ideal relationship according to rational self interest. If another caveman came along wanting meat, fur, vegetables, and shelter but had nothing to offer, you'd kick his ass to the caveman curb. People don't deserve something for nothing. To offer the means by which you sustain yourself to another for nothing in return is immoral because it's denies the self who is most important above all.
I could go on an on, but pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and you'll get the picture (just be aware that it's basically the objectivist bible, so it WILL get preachy).

>>83647628
>the self is most important above all
Why?

>>83647628
What about your cavekids, who have no means to hunt or gather for themselves or find their own shelter and rely on you to provide for them until they are old enough to do so themselves?

>>83647628
We all get that feeding moochers is bad. Nobody likes doing that. The problem is, Rand doesn't think you should help anyone for any reason unless it directly benefits you.

>>83647394
Mind explaining the differences?
Honest question.

>>83647628

everybody agrees that helping freeloaders is bad. That doesn't mean that being altruistic and trying to make the world better for others is "evil".

The part you missed on your little parable is that the caveman that has fur and meat got the means to take everything for himself through deception, lies and fraud.

The part where the one that gets the fur and meat makes non-equivalent exchanges, like giving 1 kg of meat for 30 kg of vegetables. Or the part where he uses his own resources to force the one with the fur and vegetables to give him everything for almost free

>>83644589
You phrase your question as if it is binary. It isn't.

I've done some work that I've fully expected to be paid. But I've also done work for free.

Shall I expect payment for cleaning up my own house and doing my own dishes?

File: people-will-believe-anything.1461814505669.png (2MB, 1364x1488px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1364x1488px

>>83642382
Dunno if that's true, but 4chan could use some more of whatever that's called. People use it in lieu of google. It's disgusting.

>>83647628

let's not forget the coalitions between some of the meat and shelter cavemans, where they agree to support one of them for leadership and then confine the means for people to start their own meat and shelter companies by extortion and shitty taxes.

You make it sound as these "caveman" are human beings when they're actually corporations, both political and non-political.

>>83647674
Because Rand hated the idea of living for the group (see. Anthem)

>>83647728
You would instill in them your values and in turn they help you as you do them once they are capable.

>>83647856
Exactly.

>>83647959
I'm not here to defend objectivism, just explain it. I didn't account for those factors because I just wanted to explain the basic premise of objectivism in simple, concise way. Obviously objectivism - like any ideology - is by no means perfect, especially in the real world.

oh yeah, let's also not forget that Ayn Rand never criticized the use of underhanded tactics in order to help the individual.

You objectivists try to make your shitty philosophy as it was actually good when it isn't. You can justify anything with that shitty "rational self-interest" bullshit.

I guess that since it's for my happiness and self-interest, I can start to rape, kill and steal.

The worst part is that this last sentence isn't even a goddamn joke, that's how objectivists see the world. Like a playground where right makes might.

>>83647628
Most evidence indicates early hominids shared everything they gathered equally and did not possess petsonal property.

For nomadic band socities this manner of cooperation was the best and only successful survival strategy and analysis of fossils indicates egalitarianism and hominids caring for members who wetr disabled and could not care for themselves, including those born deformed, as early as H. Eretus 1 Million years ago.

That strategy you described based on current evidence was not an evolutionary success in the environment you described and if it did dissapeared.

Now with the very tecent emergence of tribal societies after bamd societies something like comes into play, albeit at the same time warfare appears in the archaeological record indicating that coercion through violence began to serve as a successful strategy along with enslavement of others, etc.

>>83648176

might makes right*

File: pantsu.jpg (623KB, 1515x1005px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 1515x1005px

>>83646568
Almost no one really practices a philosophy. Especially people who profess to. They're basically useless.

>>83648160
>You would instill in them your values
How do I benefit from that?

>they help you as you do them once they are capable.
So I can take a rest and let them do the hunting for me? How often do children actually do that, assuming I'm still of sound enough age and health that I'm capable of hunting but am choosing not to in order to let my children hunt for me?

Furthermore, what incentive do they have to continue hunting for me? What do they gain from it?

>>83647728
I've read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and while I liked both (the former more so), she only writes about kids in one instance that I can remember. Of note, is that none of her protagonists or even antagonists have children.

>>83648160
>Because Rand hated the idea of living for the group
But why though. For a philosophy supposedly based in rationality there must be some attempt at "objective" reasoning that puts the self ahead of everything

>>83648206
Sorry for the typos but having studied this subject in graduate school I become frustrated when assertions are made based on suppositions and parables rather than examination of the evidence. My apologizes.

>>83648160
I like how the question "why is the self the most important thing above all else" is answered with "because Rand said so."

>>83648176
>I guess that since it's for my happiness and self-interest, I can start to rape, kill and steal.
Rand advocated for police and order. People are needed to enforce morals and such. What you're describing is closer to anarchy which is the furthest extreme in libertarianism which was based off of objectivism, but cherry picked, which is why Rand hated it. That's not to say that objectivism still doesn't have it's problems (for example, in an objectivist society, monopolies would be a-okay) but it's not COMPLETELY shit.

>>83648334

Yeah, she advocated for police and order because otherwise her entire philosophy falls. Unfortunately her philosophy doesn't admonish criminals picking up weaker targets and being careful enough to not get discovered.

Since the criminal was successful enough on picking up a weaker target and play by the rules of society at least apparently, he has the right to make as he/she wants with his/her victim.

>>83647595
I agree with you 100%, but the problem lies in that empirical research in economics almost always relies on econometric regressions which are subject to extreme biases. One of my professors was essentially a hard-science economist and he was unwilling to say anything about how any governmental policy should be because literally no issue has been "concluded" to be scientifically good or bad.

So basically, you can't practically govern without basing your economic policy on what sounds right because the body of literature is almost never in agreement.

>>83648271
You ultimately have to look out for yourself, but you still need other people to help you. You have meat and fur, but no shelter. However, you shouldn't get that shelter for nothing, nor should someone get your meat for nothing. I think "the self is important above all" is a bad way to phrase it. A better way to describe it would be "altruism sucks ass".

and just to make it more clear that I'm just trying to EXPLAIN objectivism and not ADVOCATE it, here's a fun fact: Ayn Rand spent the last few years of her life living off of public assistance, so she basically died a hypocrite.

>>83648334
The issue is coercion. From a market perspective, slavery can be a very successful system. Monopolies and corporations can be as coercive as "the State" in practice, as we see via warlords in the parts of the world where the State has fallen apart. One issue is in reality humans are irrational and very often do things that are very bad for themselves, never mind others. This is why both anarchy AND communism have aways failef to create functional societies on anything but the smallest scale. Idealogies frequently do not function in the real world, as you implied.

>>83642532
That's just Martha Washington goes to war specifically, Give me Liberty is quite blatantly left-wing, even if it pokes fun at its own excesses.

Goes to War, by the way, though obviously based around Atlas Shrugged's plot structure, has very little to do with the political content of the book itself, especially since the world Martha occupied is very different from the one in Atlas Shrugged, as a lefty myself, it really just demonstrated to me what a crying shame it is for American culture that the only normally permissible narrative about a strike that actually results in a better world is about one perpetrated by the rich.
This, alongside the modern American definition of "libertarian," is part of a larger historical trend of the right pilfering from the left to sustain itself, even stuff as simple as fascists using red and black because they were Anarcho-Syndicalist colors up 'til that point.

>>83648402
Who said anything about economics?

>>83648334
There's a lot of "no true Scotsman" stuff at work in this thread about Rand. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT very different from objectivism. The Koch brothers, for instance, largely identify with both.

The conclusion would simply be that the police could be a private service that people paid for.

File: batman.1445998482746.4627289-2920657774-14339.jpg (320KB, 1000x1537px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1000x1537px

>>83646050
You're just rationalizing the status quo. You could come up with a much less wordy way to say working to change your world isn't worth your effort.

>>83648507
>Monopolies and corporations can be as coercive as "the State" in practice
Randroids are convinced the only reason any monopoly ever exists is because of the state. I've literally had one of them tell me natural monopolies are a lie.

>>83648531
What field of study do you intend to base your economic policy on other than economics, anon?

>>83648402
I would say currently some blend of capitalism and socialism is the only model we've gotten to work, which doesn't mean it's the only possibility but simply that it at least has evidence of a track record. I also think far more research should be done than is.

>>83648494

No, altruism is a successful evolutionary strategy that has existed for millions of years, which is why it exists and psychopaths are the minority, and also why the vast bulk of psychopaths in real life are deeply dysfunctional. Even among animals like chimpanzees who murdet and eat each other, altruism is extremely common and no large brained animals or social animals we are currently aware of completely lack it.

>>83648565
Let me put it like this: objectivism is great on paper, but then again, so is communism and getting your dick sucked for 24 hours straight.

File: 1389161334338.jpg (99KB, 560x683px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 560x683px

>>83648293
>I like how the question "why is the self the most important thing above all else" is answered with "because Rand said so."

I don't think that's true. I'm not expert on the subject, but I'd imagine the answer is 'because it's the only real way to happiness'. Denying your own self-interests for the sake of a group is to deny yourself being a person.

If I could boil down her entire philosophy into a simple premise as I understand it, it would be this: True altruism doesn't exist. If you help people, it is because YOU want to do so, because YOU like how it makes YOU feel. By doing so, YOU are actually being _selfish_. Helping people because it is what OTHERS want or expect of you actually makes you _selfless_ in a literal sense, as in having no self.

>>83648254
Sauce?

File: gigantic-faggot.1190191366447.gif (137KB, 180x135px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 180x135px

>>83645455
You're a *faggot*.

>>83648655
>some blend of capitalism and socialism is the only model we've gotten to work
Policy isn't holistic like that. What you said is essentially a given, and governments have known that for a century. It's been the last century figuring out the specifics.

> I also think far more research should be done than is.
Sure, but again, that's a pretty blank statement. Fact is that there's no shortage of research on contentious issues like, say, minimum wage increases, and if you pick which ones you agree with, you can suddenly have a great idea of its impacts. Unfortunately, the body of evidence is completely inconclusive as a whole and for every study that says increases in minimum wage are overall good for the economy, there's another that says they're bad. And this is the same for every major economic issue. Throwing more money at universities to research won't change that. It'll just make the body of conflicting data larger. There's a systemic issue in economics that needs to be addressed before you can even start to make decisions based on real, reducible evidence.

>>83648842
>You can't blame Marx for Marxism! All he did was formulate and publish the ideas!

>>83648750
This valuing of personal happiness is in and of itself just as baseless and subjective a valuation as the happiness and well-being of those around you.

File: religion.20060625b.jpg (248KB, 510x1325px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 510x1325px

>>83646919
So was Jesus.

>>83648885
What's funny is in some ways I don't blame either Marx or Rand for subsequent fuckups but rather people who put their personal musings (which ate fine on their face) into practice like...well, like fools.

>>83648954
>Jesus wouldn't care which god you worship!
>Literally said nobody can get to heaven except through Him

Sure, Jesus wasn't nearly as conservative as modern American Evangelicals pretend, but he wasn't half as Liberal as millennials think. He was a radical for his society. not a radical for ours.

>>83649008
I've admittedly not read Rand so I can't say, but I have read the Communist Manifesto, and it's legitimately retarded. All Marx ever did was try to break capitalism down in Das Kapital, and he has some decent critiques of capitalism at that time, but he provided ZERO explanations for why communism would work, and was basically like "just trust me guys. it will work", so I don't know how anyone can misconstrue that with their own "personal musings".

If anything, later communists actually turned Marx's bullshit ideas into something legitimate.

>>83641661
The Unfunnies.

File: bacon.jpg (67KB, 288x461px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 288x461px

>>83647959
>everybody agrees that helping freeloaders is bad.
I see people handing out sauce all the time. Makes me sick.

>>83648279
You put in a lot of effort to spend the rest of your life disgusted with most of your fellow man. Hope you make good money from it.

>>83648596
>What field of study do you intend to base your economic policy on other than economics
Voodoo.

File: jesus-penis.20050814.jpg (196KB, 510x1325px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 510x1325px

>>83649076
Yeah yeah. Everyone gets their own personal Jesus.

>>83648930

In the Randian-context, people who only take from others ("second-handers") are just as selfless and miserable as those who give with no regard for their own selfish desires. Eventually, the parasites become dependent on the providers/creators to survive. If the providers, who actually posses personal happiness, were to disappear then humanity itself, having come to be comprised mostly of second-handers who lack not only happiness but any sense of self, would follow suit. So then, is the survival of the human species a subjective matter?

>>83649891
Obligatory post reminding you that Rand died taking public handouts

She was also a jew.

>>83643977
>sane discussion
>on an insane philosophy

lol

>>83643946
The creator of the movie is literally an objectivist. He did the same shit in Tomorrowland.

>>83649434
Reagan pls

>>83649960
>Rand died taking public handouts

Flawed argument. She made use of public healthcare because her taxes paid for it.

>She was also a jew.
N-no comment.

>>83649891
That's a lot of baseless assertions with absolutely zero evidence to supprt them. The problem with philosophy. You'd need to demonstrate that would happen. Usually when say a CEO dissapears countless other are willing and able to immediately take their place instead and in a capitalist society many of the wealthiest are not innovators themselves but know how to profits from the innovations of others or the often destructive impulses and addictions of the masses. But really that assertion as any of yours and Rand's demands actual empirical evidence.

As for the survival of the human species likely made possible by altruism, well, the current human driven extinction event seems to indicate this single species is damaging to countless others, so yes, thinking it should stick around is a subjective value judgment especially considering the death and suffering of other sentient life it causes.

>>83650193
She also encouraged friends who had paid no taxes to move to America to take advantage of the system. And screwing over hardworking taxpayers was consistent with her idealization of self serving, well, selfishness.

>>83644317
I don't always expect payment for my work

>>83649960
>She was also a jew.
How is this relevant? Why did you feel the need to point this out?

>>83645257
Ideally, philosophy is absolutely pragmatic

>>83650328
>race literally raised with an imperative towards greed
>not relevant regarding a "philosophy" defending greed and selfishness

keep drinking that kool-aid

File: philosophy-blahblahblah.Logicomix-215.jpg (396KB, 1005x1400px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1005x1400px

>>83650406
Every philosophy makes someone money, so that ideal is useless. It's like saying ideally, water is wet.

>>83646050
Why?

>>83650019
I'm going to admit the sheer number of liberal arts majors who support Objectivism when their tripe becomes popular is enough to make me question it alone because I don't feel many of them have job skills, ideas, or talent and I would take these ideas much more seriously coming from doctors, scientists, and inventors of momentous accomplishment. Bird is somewhat of an exception in that he does have talent, but he is still eminently replacable and expendable, luck and personal connections and talent working underneath you that you didn't even hire means the most in these "fields" by far.

>>83650289
>She also encouraged friends who had paid no taxes to move to America to take advantage of the system

[citation needed]

>The problem with philosophy
>empirical evidence

You said it, pal.

>>83650445
>greed is racial
Go to bed, Adolf.

File: 0.jpg (319KB, 854x1294px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 854x1294px

You guys asked for it

STORY TIME

What makes a Hero?

Skipped Numbers are Ad pages

>>83650551
In the Jews case it is. Jews are a weird race, in that Jews are also a really insular culture. So yeah, jews are raised from a young age to celebrate greed.

>>83641661
Are you going to OCON, anon?

I'll see you there if so.

>>83650562
No Logicomix?

>>83650618
How many Objectivists are there on 4chan? Are you the same guys on reddit?

t. Objectivist

>>83648271
Because she grew up in a communist country and disliked communism

File: 8.jpg (238KB, 766x1138px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 766x1138px

The best Question is actually in the last pages of DKSA who goes "She didn't take it far enough"

>>83650606
You don't have a single shred of evidence in support of this claim. Did you read some 19th century racialist propaganda recently? What convinced you to spout such nonsensical antisemitic babblings?

File: image.jpg (295KB, 600x877px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 600x877px

>Objectivist comics
>nobody knows who bosch fawstin is even thouh his comic was nominated for the eisner
>even though he almost got killed defending his work

>nobody knows about the thousands of Anthem comics because the book went public

retards.

>>83650649
And her works are entirely baseless and the fact that she was born in communism just invalidates everything. Am i right, guise?

What you're imolying is that you're touched by your experiences wiout your own consent, which means you're assuming that people can't think or deal with things.

>>83648750
This I understand.
But I think there is a difference between saying that true altruism is impossible and saying that working for the group is wrong

>>83650758
True altruism is impossible because, guess what, the greatest act of sacrifice is suicide for someone you don't know.

She didn't demean groups, she demeaned groups that were baseless. "Society" is not a collective somehting, it's just many individuals. If you're forming a group, you need to know who the individuals are and act accordingly.

>>83650613
>libertard gets buttmad and throws a tantrum because everyone is calling him a faggot

If you think you're too smart for /co/ then why are you here?

File: philosophy.1340240911363.png (87KB, 500x135px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x135px

>>83650828
If she rejects category theory, how does she resolve Russel's paradox?

>>83650692
So you don't know anything about Jews or jewish culture? Okay.

>>83650455
Water IS wet
I mean that if a philosophy isn't practical then it's literally useless.
Good philosophy can be applied to noticeable results.
That's why the only philosophies that are really worth anything are the ones that center around personal action rather than the fucking economy.
Today this mostly comes in the form of self-help books, which are scams, but not all philosophies were developed for a profit

So what is the difference between Rand's philosophy and Nietzsche's philosophy?

>>83650930
One was inspired by PMS, the other hard drugs.

File: 31.jpg (241KB, 769x1147px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 769x1147px

Are you a Hero?

>>83650828
Firefighters kill themselves for people they don't know

>>83650913
>Ayn Rand was jewish
when will this meme end? Her parents were not very religious and she became an atheist at a very young age. She never used or quoted any of the Jewish books because they have a mystic base. She was against judaism, not for it. She was an atheist

>inb4 lol many jews are atheists
and yet, she never was friends with someone just because he was a jew. Also, you can't be a jew and be an objectivist at the same time.

>inb4 lol both are capitalism
>lol both use shekels
strawman.

>>83650750
People can't have original thoughts, that's correct.
Objectivism is just a reaction to failed communism

>>83650995
>Judaism is just a religion

oy

vey

>>83650930
Neitzche was collectivist and didnot accept pogic and reason as methods to identify the world. He also was a little kantian.

>>83650958
kys

>>83650990
And they also sign a contract. They don't have to kill themselves, and I don't think they should. Just because some do doesn't mean it's correct. You can put out fires and save lives without putting yourself in danger.

>>83651021
>people can't have original thoughts
bet you also think free will is a meme

>>83651023
>this bs response
can you disprove what I wrote? If not, then don't post, faggot.

File: multiverse.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>83651046
Your thread is off-topic, and you use modern /b/ slang. An hero, tripfag.

File: Action Philosophers #227.jpg (210KB, 1024x1517px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x1517px

I guess this would have been a more appropriate comics selection

Lets get some knowledge.

>>83650995
She was avid sucker of the teats of social welfare and handouts.What a welfare queen, why didn't she get a job instead of fucking around in New York and cheating on his husband?

>muh bioshock btfo objectivists!!!!!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Objectivism/comments/18162w/bioshock_an_overly_detailed_objectivist_criticism/
>muh Ayn Rand collected social security!
She paid into the system.

>>83651121
>kys is not modern /b/ slang
this is an old-ass meme, more than a decade old.

>muh "this guy is a tripfag lol ban him"
kys

>>83651046
Nigga, not always.
Sometimes there is something more important than your personal benefit.
Sometimes there is no way to guarantee the safety of that thing than through some form of self-sacrifice which does not come around to your own personal benefit.
For instance, something as small as not littering. It may require some effort and probably won't improve your life. But you do it because you know it will benefit (in a small way) future generations and the world at large.

>>83651073
Free will is an illusion
There are pretty few philosophers who even disagree fully with that

>>83651160
She was forced to pay millions of dollars as taxes. She just took them back, retard.

>muh cheating
She never slept around, and the one time she was having an "affair" she had already decided to get a divorce and told her husband about it.

>>83651183
>muh littering
shit example

File: btard.1180543276601.jpg (318KB, 900x554px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 900x554px

>>83651180
It is not.

>>83651217
>muh statement
yes, go on...
Also, invalidate what Rand said on free will and also prove that humans can't have original thoughts, including you.

Oh wait, that last part is correct.

>>83651237
>abbreviation of "kill yourself" is new

>>83651183
And you're implying that because there is no short term benifit (iyo) objectivists won't see it as good. False. Not littering roads and your house is good becasue guess what? Roads and your house stay clean and free from germs. Also, a road is not a place to throw your garbage. Is doesn't mean you are being un-selfish. You're still being selfish.

>>83651046
>You can put out fires and save lives without putting yourself in danger.
You actually can't. That's what makes that job inherently dangerous.

>>83651218
This comic was pretty good, I should re-read it.

>>83650618
I'm a full fledged Objectivist but I don't go to reddit.

File: kill-yourself.1183709805714.gif (8KB, 290x175px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 290x175px

>>83651305

>>83651348
Because you are the reddit

>>83651309
Even then, how is it an argument?

>>83641661
meg mog and owl. also, what does objectivist mean?

>>83651375
>what does objectivist mean?

it means stupid

>>83651348
r/trueobjectivism
>missing out on so much discussion

Also, galtsgulchonline is a good forum but it's full of old people and christian objectivists(lol)

>>83651399
You surely have enlightened me, O shitposter.

>>83651375
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivism.html

>>83651305
It's an example.
Replace littering with any action that has a long term social benefit but no short-term personal benefit.
If everyone only acted for short-term returns, society would actually progress very slowly. There would be no reason to pursue a lot of time-consuming, expensive endeavors like space travel.

And I don't know what Rand said about free will, but she was wrong. It doesn't exist.

>>83651372
Because do you just let all those people burn in fires?
Seems fucking retarded

>>83651404
>r/trueobjectivism
>galtsgulchonline

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

>>83651372
Because it's an instance where someone is willing to risk their life for the benefit of someone they don't know? Something you claim is impossible.

>>83650890
>Russe
She didn't reject category theory. She only said that you should define properties of the sets very rigorously.

>>83651445
Are you fucking kidding me? Not littering does have a rational base. If you litter on others' streets, you're a fucking thief. Also, there is an incentive to not litter on your own street, or your house, or someone else's street. Because guess what? You don't want to live in shit, and if you make others live in shit without their consent, you're on the wrong side.

More examples, please.

>>83651548
I don't claim it's impossible I'm just saying it's horribly wrong.

>>83651493
letting people who you don't know burn in fires is not a concern. Because, guess what, they're strangers. There's no reason to help them. By waht standard do they expect a firefighter to sacrifice his life for them, even though they dn't know him?

Also, not every firefighter dies. Plus, it's getting much safer.

>>83651509
?

>>83651641
But they all know the risks and they still do the job because they know it's the right thing to do.
You're a bad person, dude.
That's what it boils down to.
Believing that the death of a stranger is not your concern merely because that person is a stranger is the thought process of a bad person.

File: the-dick.1374387065028.science-philosophy-horny-fucking-tree-jason.jpg (476KB, 974x1517px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 974x1517px

>>83651641
>categories = sets
False.

>>83651743
>Believing that the death of a stranger is not your concern merely because that person is a stranger is the thought process of a bad person.
lol fuck off, man. Justify why I should even care for a stranger.

Protip: You can't.

>inb4 names of some philoshopers who "proved it"
write an argument.

>>83651775
>implying
she just said that you need to define their properties rationally. Indivdual elemens, stes, groups, whatever.

Objectivism attracts sociopaths? What a shock!

>>83651871
entirely false.

>>83651871
I don't think this tripfag is even a sociopath, just an edgelord.

>>83651894
>I'm an edgelord

No. This is not how I talk irl.

There is literally nothing wrong with acting exclusively out of self interest.

>>83651843
Because everyone is a stranger to most other people.
You're capable of dying in a fire. If your house caught fire, you'd want to be saved.
Because you're capable of being visited by misfortune just like anyone else, and that's all it is: luck.
Randians like yourself are just smug, self-satisfied pricks. You think you're above the 'parasites' of society because you're small-minded and don't possess the ability to put yourself in another person's shoes.

>>83641811
>>83641918
kek

>>83652167
Of course, but Objectivism declares egoism the moral imperative, and that is wrong.
The evil of human nature must be tricked into working for the common good.

>>83650505
Well, you don't have to be the mind of person to benefit from an objectivist society to agree with objectivist philosophy. I find myself agreeing with quite a lot of it, yet I'm well aware that there'd be no place for someone like me in an ideal society.

>>83652387
>objectivism espouses self-interest.
No, RATIONAL self-interest. Mass murderers and bombers are not objectivist. Also, there's no "human nature". We're not animals.

>>83652195
>Because everyone is a stranger to most other people.
uh.... okay?
>You're capable of dying in a fire. If your house caught fire, you'd want to be saved.
Not at someone else's expense, and I'm sure as hell not going to force him to.

If you're dying of hunger, and somene has food, you don't snatch it out of their hands, otherwise you're a thief.

>Because you're capable of being visited by misfortune just like anyone else, and that's all it is: luck.
fuck no
>Randians like yourself are just smug, self-satisfied pricks. You think you're above the 'parasites' of society because you're small-minded and don't possess the ability to put yourself in another person's shoes.
>randians
It's Objectivists. And yes, I have empathy. And I'm not small minded. I'm rational. You're the guy who refuses to think for himself.

Guess what? No one will know that you're in a fire and the person you might have saved would most likely not be there. You espose some sort of trade where none is possible. "favors" are not a quantitative method of trade. Money is.

And yet, this argument does not prove why I should help someone even if it brings me nothing.

>>83652195
also,

>ad hom
>ever

>>83651980
>No. This is not how I talk irl.
Oh isn't that cute, he still thinks that matters. You need to be 18+ to post on 4chan, dear.

>>83644147

As someone who lurks on both /lit/ and /co/ the former takes just as kindly to objectivism as the latter.

Which is to say both (like, you know, sane people) think objectivism is retarded.

>>83652565
Auf society that doesn't have a place for flawed humans is a shit society not fit for such a flawed thing as humans

>>83644317
>Do you expect payment for your work, yes or no?

No, not all the time. In my job? Yes. When helping a friend, neighbour, or hell even a stranger I don't expect payment.

Like, I buy people birthday presents but don't necessarily expect them to give me presents on my birthday.

>>83644490

I've missed the sad Demiurge meme so much!

is moon over june objectivist

>>83644548
>just like philosophy is proto-science.

Fuck off! No it fucking isn't.

Were early Greek Philosophers scientists/mathematicians as well as philosophers? Yes.

Is Plato's Symposium in anyway scientific? Fuck NO!

>>83652999
>ad hom
yet again.

>>83653035
>Objectivism is retarded
lol

>>83653048
What "place"?

>>83653095
Enjoy your loss.

If you balue your money so less that you'd work for it and then go burn it on a stranger, then sure, go ahead. That's your standard of value (need) but it's wrong.

>>83653156
?

>>83645318

FYI you tool Batman is literally the polar-opposite of an objectivist.

His entire goal is based around helping those less fortunate than himself, and he doesn't expect ANYTHING in return.

>>83653215
>he just learned what "ad hominem" is but still doesn't know how to actually recognize it
Hint: if someone insults you but is otherwise not making an argument of any kind, it's not an ad hominem. It's just someone insulting you.

The fact that you can't tell the difference tells me you probably are underage.

>>83653215
>If you balue your money so less that you'd work for it and then go burn it on a stranger, then sure, go ahead. That's your standard of value (need) but it's wrong.

Helping fellow human beings in need is wrong! Straight from the fucking horse's mouth.

For all mental back flips you did to try and explain that being an objectivist isn't about being an asshole you just fucked up there.

Imagine this scenario. You're walking down the street and you see a person lying on the ground with a recently broken leg.

Now most normal people will call an ambulance at the very least, perhaps wait with the person until the ambulance arrives, if they have any first aid or medical knowledge they may even assist the stranger in whatever way they can.

When the objectivist comes along the wounded stranger the objectivist says: "Only helping if you pay me".

Asshole, douchebag, selfish philosophy.

>>83653310
>I don't know the difference
He says the only reason I'm an objectivist is because I'm underage (according to him).

That's ad hom.

To the mods : I'm not underage.

>>83653355
thanks, lol.

Also, that depends on the person and if waiting for that person means a sacrifice. If you're an objectivist and just have some free time on your hand and have nothing to do (very implausible scenario) then you can help that guy but only if it bring you no harm.

Also, I wasn't trying to dispel the "myth" that most people think Objectivists are selfish. They are. I am.

>>83648494
>Ayn Rand spent the last few years of her life living off of public assistance, so she basically died a hypocrite.


>paying into a system
>not getting your money's worth

File: image.jpg (22KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x320px

>>83653355
Also,

>ad hom
>ever

>>83652911
>Not at someone else's expense, and I'm sure as hell not going to force him to.

Another problem with objectivists here.

Cities literally need public (I.E. government) fire departments. Because otherwise huge swarthes of urban areas burn down. All it takes is one house fire going out of control (you know, the guy who doesn't "pay" for privatised fire fighters) for several more houses to catch fire creating a very dangerous inferno which is hard to stop.

Having a public fire department means that the first fire will be put out before it goes out of control. But objectivists would literally prefer their city burn down than having one person not pay for a private fire department.

>>83653424
>He says the only reason I'm an objectivist is because I'm underage (according to him).
I'm the guy that called you underage. That's not what I said, but thanks for playing.

>>83653459
You really don't actually know what an ad hom is, do you?

>>83653424

You don't know how much time it's going to be before the ambulance comes when you agree to wait with the guy. It could be minutes it could be hours. Are you saying if it went longer than fifteen minutes you'd abandon him?

Also, there's no such thing as "free time". In that time you can be doing something which is more fun than literally waiting with some stranger with a broken leg.

>Also, I wasn't trying to dispel the "myth" that most people think Objectivists are selfish. They are. I am.
Cool so you're a douche. You're literally a problem with society in that it doesn't actually care about trying to build a better society instead you only care about what everyone else can do for you.

Someone earlier called objectivists society parasites. It's a really, really apt description.

>people are actually arguing with the baiting /b/ edgelord
Really people?

>>83653428

>collect welfare as a result of paying something everybody pays

>still have the guts to call them "moochers"

Yes Timmy, that is hypocrisy.

>>83653459

Mine was used to spice up language on a fucking Mongolian finger painting board.

They weren't ad hominems because I wasn't saying:

>You're a trip fag
>Trip fags are the cancer killing 4chan

There's an actual ad hominem for you dumbass.

>>83653428
A system she hated because it meant having to pay for something that was benefiting others while not providing a direct benefit to her.

Until she needed it, of course. Then she pulled out the "w-well my tax dollars paid for it, so now it's okay!" bullshit.

>>83653428
>I was a contributing member of society and when I couldn't contribute no more society contributed to me
>but anyone on welfare is a mooch

>>83653463
Then if your neighbour's house burns, you can call the damn fire department ask them to extinguish his fire at your expense for the time being. Also, that guy would probably be liable to a trial.

Also, houses don't catch fire that often.

>>83653490
>he didn't read the note

>>83653505
>>83653574
I do. He was calling me a douchebag and asshole for not helping people, and that was his only justification against my views. That's ad hom.

>>83653538
>abandon him
call someone else and abandon him, sure.
Also, I don't expect something for nothing. I don't intend to cheat people and take all their money. If I want to make money, I deliver a service or product on the price I choose. Only the people who pay that price get the product/service. That's called trade.

>>83653553
>/b/
>edgelord
memes

>>83653573
>somethjng everybody pays
and she did, too. And she never got all the money she paid back. So guess what, she was on welfare on her own dime.

>>83653650
That's not the reason. She resented it because it wa theft. And when she was on welfare, she was just taking her biney back. Nothing else.

>>83653913
*was
*money

>>83653538
Look, you absolute retard. Ayn Rand wasn't against helping others, what she opposed was undue charity. That means beggers and people who expect shit for nothing. Now you'll continue being retarded and misconstrue this as saying you shouldn't help people who have fallen on hard times (economically). Wrong again fucko. You can help them, by loaning them money, then being paid back with interests. Now stop being an imbecile.

>>83653889
>Also, houses don't catch fire that often.
Because we have public fire departments.

>He was calling me a douchebag and asshole for not helping people
You are both a douchebag and an asshole for not helping people in need. That is considered the behavior of douchebags and assholes. I don't mean literal douchebags and assholes; I mean figurative ones.

Most people who found out a person walked past someone with a broken leg and refused to help them because they wouldn't get "paid" an asshole and/or a douchebag.

It's like someone having a problem with being called gay when they're a dude and exclusively suck dick. Like, I understand the word is often used in a prerogative manner but you're still gay.

Much like how you are a figurative douchebag and asshole.

But seriously I really want you to explain who urban centres can do without public fire departments I really do.

Also, why would the person who's house caught fire (who doesn't pay for private firefighters) be liable for a trial? It could have been arson, an accident, an act of god. Also, if it is found to be his fault should be pay more or less if he can afford the private fire fighters but didn't pay them because he's selfish, you know like true objectivists should be?

Also, what if the neighbours can't afford to pay for the private firefighters to put out their neighbour's property?

>>83653985
>That means beggers

So some person who lost their home because they had to pay medical bills because they got sick and couldn't work while they were sick should just starve on the street?

Or what about some gay kid whose parents just threw them out of home?

Or a refugee from a warzone? Or thousands of examples of people who live on the street and are hungry?

Fuck 'em. Let them starve.

Also, if you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged she is actually against helping others UNLESS you gain from it.

She mangles and perverts Nietzsche because she's a hack (and most people mangle and pervert Nietzsche).

>>83653913
How is that different from what I said? She changed her mind only when there was a benefit for her. It's textbook hypocrisy.

>>83653889
>I do. He was calling me a douchebag and asshole for not helping people, and that was his only justification against my views.
He had an entire post saying why he thought that. Rather than focus on the argument, you focused only on the part where he insulted you. You literally don't know what ad hom means.

>>83653985
Not that anon, but there're debs which are impossible to pay back and even so, there's humanitary and civical necessary to invest in them. And you even want to ask for interests? Nice. Interests that sone people would never be able yo paid. What are you going to do then? Make then contract their offspring in paying the deb? That's a dangerous thought, imho. Some peopke coyld fall in slavery. Even whole countries. I undestsand that giving without caeing for the outcone of tge gift can be irresponsible, but always expecting a repayment is just... dangerous.

>>83641661
>it's a /pol/ fumbles around trying to justify his shitty philosophy written by a hack hollywood screenwriter thread
Feels good

>>83653985
Usury is not helping someone, you absolute retard who is just a little more dumb than any other absolute retard.
Acting in self-interest as a lone motive is by definition not charity, kindness, decency, or for that matter: moral.
Rand was a sociopath who rationalized her inhumanity away as a false virtue.

>>83654297

You make a very good point. But an objectivist only understands the self not that as human beings we rely on the kindness of strangers to survive.

Like, I'm very indebted to whoever it was who came up with antibiotics. but I've never paid that dude or his estate a dime in my life.

>>83654187
yes
yes
yes
only if they're strangers and if giving them money is a sacrifice on my end.
>Ayn Rand was influenced by Neitzche
let this meme end

>>83654115
>because we have public fire departments
You retard, houses catching fire and putting out fires are two different things. Improve your language structure.


And yes, it is ad hom because your only defense against not helping people in need is that you'd be called an asshole and because "It just is the right thing to do". That's your only defense against my argument and you're , in effect, dismissing my argument because you think I'm a douchebag.

Protip: For ad hom, the conditions you mock need not be necessarily false. Racism is ad hom, for example.

>>83654115
>Also, why would the person who's house caught fire (who doesn't pay for private firefighters) be liable for a trial?

Only if it burned his neighbour's house down or damaged his property.

>It could have been arson, an accident, an act of god.

Trial=/= punishment. athere's always an investigation.
> Also, if it is found to be his fault should be pay more or less if he can afford the private fire fighters but didn't pay them because he's selfish, you know like true objectivists should be?
fuck no. Objectivism isn't about selfishness, it's about rational selfishness.
>Also, what if the neighbours can't afford to pay for the private firefighters to put out their neighbour's property?
Then their house will burn, too unless someone (a friend, relative) helps.

Also, words have a definite meaning.
>inb4 he greentexts me this

>>83654206
She didn't change her mind. (that is, she didn't change her views)

>>83654237
yet again
I've demonstrated how it was ad hom, and yes, I answered his question.

>>83654354
>Zack Snyder
>Objectivist

also,
>/pol/

>>>/reddit/

>>83654374
You haven't because he's dead. You kight be if he was alive, but his contribution gives you an incalculable benefit.

Does objectivism attract sociopaths? Has there been any studies on that? I know the current opinion in this thread might be colored due to the tripfag, but the whole philosophy seems to go against basic human survival tactics and appeal to the loner outsiders of society.

Rand has become the goto bogeyman for the left as much as Machiavelli and Marx have to the right. Not that she's a particularly coherent philosopher anyway.

The problem of True Altruism seems like one of semantics rather than substance. Saving your own children isn't True Altruism according to Rand because you yourself value your children's life but neither is saving anyone else's children as you're going to acquire satisfaction/ social debt/ reputation etc. for doing so.
True Altruism according to this definition would be doing something really crazy, like committing suicide for a stranger you have no information about. No freebies and the "stranger" might be a dog, a person who is clinically brain dead or a serial killer two minutes away from claiming their next victim. Anything else and you're not expressing true altruism but rather personal preference on who gets to live of die.

Knowing this any true altruist would immediately kill themselves as they are in fact draining resources like food simply by continuing to exist in the world and they have absolutely no preference for what happens in it. This is useful in the sense that it avoids appeal to authority fallacies that count altruism itself as the ultimate authority on whether something is good or bad.
Since communists were fond of sending people into gulags and exterminating indigenous cultures for the sake of future generations and the benefit of strangers elsewhere it's clear where she got the idea from.

>>83654500
I don't know if there's any studies on it, but it's very rare to run into an objectivist that isn't using it to excuse douchebag behavior. I think this >>83644641 kind of sums it up.

>>83654419
>You retard, houses catching fire and putting out fires are two different things. Improve your language structure.
Most people have the ability to call emergency services in case of a fire. And guess what, regardless of how much many they have fire fighters come. If you honestly think that public fire departments have not reduced the amount of fires in urban areas you're retarded.

>your only defense against not helping people in need is that you'd be called an asshole and because "It just is the right thing to do".
No it's called a mixture of both empathy and sympathy. Sympathy for the pain and struggle someone is going through and empathy because as a fellow human being I too could go through such pain or such a struggle.

Also dismissing something as irrelevant because it's the "right thing to do" is really stupid. Like when someone asks one what 2+2 is most people say 4 because it's not only the correct answer but also isn't deceptive. In short answering 4 to the question of 2+2 is the "right thing to do".

>Only if it burned his neighbour's house down or damaged his property.
Wow, so if someone can't afford to pay for private fire fighters and their home catches fire and that fire damages someone else's home then not only do they lose their home it's also their fault that someone else's home caught fire even though the fire could have in no way been their fault.

You're literally punishing people for being poor. Sounds like a really awesome society....

>Then their house will burn, too unless someone (a friend, relative) helps.
So now we have a raging inferno and the city block needs to be destroyed to stop the fire from spreading. Because a couple of people couldn't pay private fire fighters there's an urban disaster.

Wait, your ideal society sounds fucking terrible.

>Objectivism isn't about selfishness, it's about rational selfishness.
Adding "rational" before another word doesn't somehow alleviate the bad parts out of the word it proceeds.

>>83654419
>Ayn Rand was influenced by Neitzche
>let this meme end

I do agree with you on this point however.

Nietzsche was a genius trying to say that mankind needs to get better.

Rand was a douche who is literally trying devolve the species.

>>83654206
But it can't be hypocrisy if the thing you do is for your own selfish benefit, even if betraying the ideals you have set-up and have urged people to believe in? After all is that not the core tenet of the philosophy?

>>83654634
wow, cancer.

>punishing people for being poor
It's their fucking fault in most cases. And contrary to your bernie beliefs, Money is not supposed to be distributed equally. It's not supposed to be distributed at all. It's made.

>adding a word doesn't change
Only if words carry no meaning ,as is the case for you.

>muh math is equal to helping people
No, retard, I'm criticizing you because you call it the right thing to do without any reason. 2+2=4 is a standard and has a reason behind it. You fail to provide one for helping others in need.

>>83654634
>even though the fire was not their fault
Can you read? I literally said that there'd be an enquiry and an investigation. If someone else deliberately burnt it, it's not their fault.

>muh city will burn

Are you retarded? Fires are not that common. Where the fuck do you live? Also, yes, the burnt houses will be destroyed. By fire.

And there's a difference between a house on fire and getting rid of fire.
A house catches fire before the fire is put out. I'm saying houses don't catch fire that often, and you're saying that they are extinguished.
You're twisting my words.

I'm not debating with you anymore. Read a book.

>>83654683
>Rand was trying to devolve the species
what? Neitzche argued that the Ubermensch is better than others, hence he can show them the way to wherever. He espouses a tribal mentality whereas Rand espouses an inividualist mentality.

Tribalism is less advanced (more primitive) than individualism. Tribalism is a form of altruism.

>>83654907
Sure, because luck ins't a thing even before we came to this worl. What a delusional child you are, if you think you control your life, luck and given chances.

>>83654907
>Are you retarded? Fires are not that common. Where the fuck do you live? Also, yes, the burnt houses will be destroyed. By fire.
This is literally because of PUBLIC fire departments.

>It's their fucking fault in most cases.
Most wealth is inherited you fucking idiot. I, myself, am from a wealthy family. I "won" the fucking lottery at birth. I was sent to good schools, and university without having to pay a dime for it. I also had good medical care, and various other benefits which comes from being born into wealth.

Most people aren't as lucky as I am, and it isn't their fault that they happened to be born into poor families and they can't afford good schools, private tutors, and university.

>Neitzche argued that the Ubermensch is better than others, hence he can show them the way to wherever. He espouses a tribal mentality whereas Rand espouses an inividualist mentality.
You don't understand what the Ubermensch is. It isn't a "leader" to show mankind to the light. The Ubermensch comes with the arrival of the "last Man"; meaning it's the next stage of humanity (as far as thought is concerned; not biology).

Arguing about Nietzsche being tribal shows you have no understanding of Nietzsche. Which isn't surprising considering you're an objectivist.

>that last part was an actual ad hom you "rational douchebag"

>>83654982
Me not writing English properly. Classic.

Why is /pol/ posting threads on /co/?
Why are the rules not being enforced?
What the hell does any of this crap have to do with comics or cartoons?
This is all just endless shitposting to bait an entire board offtopic.

>>83655030
Call the mods.