Is she right? Is collectivism the problem?

>>1541071
Why was she such a fucking hypocrite?

>They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.

>Now, I don’t care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages.

>The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.

>If you mean whose side one should be on, Israel or the Arabs, I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation.

>>1541071
Daily reminder that she died claiming social security.

>>1541109
Do as I say, not as I do. Or are you one of those people who thinks Nietzsche thought he was the ubermensch?

>>1541109
Did she pay into social security before she claimed it?

>>1541127
>Do as I say, not as I do. Or are you one of those people who thinks Nietzsche thought he was the ubermensch?
The difference is you can fucking refuse social security, and accepting it makes you an enormous hypocrite when you've railed against it so much.

Are randroids even a thing anymore? It seems like all those people realized they don't like libertarian freedoms for people who aren't white christian males, and are actually totally fine with heavy socialism as long as only whites are benefiting from it, and so the alt-right has taken over that demographic.

>>1541109
>have your money taken away from you
>you don't have the right to reclaim your stolen money
While it does seem like a contradiction to her philosophy it's isn't really if you think about it

>>1541071
Collectivism doesn't exist.
"The common good" is shorthand for "Society is made of individuals. What is good for society is good for many individuals, where what is good for an individual may not be good for society, many individuals."

Anyone who argues against collectivism and isn't talking about the very specific examples of communist Russia/China or even Nazi fascism is arguing against a strawman.

File: 1470946857661.jpg (21KB, 480x347px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x347px

(((Alisa Rosenbaum)))

>>1541099
why has no one in this thread addressed this, Rand was a racist cunt, she wasn't right about anything

>>1541447
>why has no one in this thread addressed this, Rand was a walking Jew stereotype, she wasn't right about anything
FTFY

Rand is just Stirner for retards

>>1541155
You denied collectivism's existence then explained what it is. I'm not sure what your point is.

>>1542009

Pretty much.

>>1541099
>being an hypocrite invalidates your message
I've never understood that one. It's like those who bitch when someone describes a problematic situation without providing solutions.

>>1542040
It's too easy and disingenuous to rant against ""collectivism"" in the abstract and then support blatantly crushing people in the name of progress and civilization in the particular when your side (the US, Israel) is on the offensive.
In fact, thinking about "white man" and "Israel" in such idealized terms is already intellectually incoherent for a self-professed individualist.

When the concept (Israel for example, embodying civilization, intelligence, progress, industry and everything nice) is opposed to people (backward racist primitives who only want to be let alone to play in the dirt) then she supports the collective against the individuals. This is no different from every other collectivist and progressive who justified eliminating/assimilating ethnic minorities, independent farmers and other political targets in the name of their pet ideology.

File: 1468339309108.jpg (71KB, 607x504px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 607x504px

>>1542009
This.

>>1541071
Absolutely wrong.
I'd say there is far more oppurtunity for individuality in a collectivist society, as you live to make an impact on the world. You won't be forced into a meaningless role in the consumerisist niche, living your life to accumulate an imaginary resource. I'd say there is much more freedom to do what you want to do in a libertarian collectivist society, but it's still not as good as a resource based value system where there is freedom to trade and accumulate resources while avoiding scarcity driven consumption and forced equality.

>>1541142

>Are randroids even a thing anymore?

Yes. Libertarians and Glenn Beckites still view Atlas Shrugged as some kind of Bible. These are unfortunately also the same people who misuse Adam Smith to justify their love affair with big business

>>1542009

both are memes

>>1541099
>They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.

History is obviously not her strong point. Native Americans indeed shaped the enviornment they lived in as they saw fit. Hell much of the Amazon rainforest is an overgrown series of gardens and orchards.

"Rather than domesticate animals for meat, Indians retooled ecosystems to encourage elk, deer, and bear. Constant burning of undergrowth increased the numbers of herbivores, the predators that fed upon them, and the people who ate them both. Rather than the thick, unbroken monumental snarl of trees imagined by Thoreau, the great eastern forest was an ecological kaleidoscope of garden plots, blackberry rambles, pine barrens, and spacious groves of chestnut, hickory, and oak... Incredible to imagine today, bison occurred from New York to Georgia. A creature of the prairie, Bison bison was imported to the East by Native Americans along a path of indigenous fire, as they changed enough forest into fallows for it to survive far outside its original range. When the Haudenosaunee hunted these animals, the historian William Cronon observed, they

'were harvesting a foodstuff which they had consciously been instrumental in creating. Few English observers could have realized this. People accustomed to keeping domesticated animals lacked the conceptual tools to recognize that the Indians were practicing a more distant kind of husbandry of their own.'

>>1543481
... Carrying their flints and torches, Native Americans were living in balance with Nature---but they had their thumbs on the scale. Shaped for their comfort and convenience, the American landscape had come to fit their lives like comfortable clothing. It was a highly successful and stable system, if "stable" is the appropriate word for a regime that involves routinely enshrouding miles of countryside in smoke and ash..." - Charles Mann, "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus"

>Ayn "man is an island" Rand

File: image.jpg (89KB, 900x522px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 900x522px

>>1543481
And that's why I have always admired most Native American cultures. A resource based value system that considers civilization in an ecological context. Was this system by human design? Certainly not, it arose through evolution. It was intrinsically sustianible however and therefor far superior to any modern civilization.
We will move toward this way of living again soon enough, only this time we will work within the confines of the natural world as defined by science, and build a utopia as a functional ecosystem.

>>1541071
Grouping all of the individuals that support "collectivism" is just another form of collectivism.

:^]

>>1543491
>>We will move toward this way of living again soon enough,
lol no, not with 7 billion people on the planet.

>>only this time we will work within the confines of the natural world as defined by science, and build a utopia as a functional ecosystem.
Our "utopia" is a massive interstellar empire, not going back to hunting and gathering.

>>1541071
She effectively thought she was Sterner and that collectivism was the only spook philosophy there was without realizing individualism alone cannot make you an ubermensch.

File: 1454891737580.jpg (24KB, 301x267px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 301x267px

Whups I posted >>1543535 when >>1542009 was already here.

Much more concise thank you.

>>1541071
She had a point, but overcompensated due to the excesses she observed in the USSR.

She was a reactionary, and had a philosophy equally as unrealistic as hardcore Marxists.

>>1541071
Yes.

But where she went wrong is thinking that capitalism and private property are individualist.

>>1541071
This bitch wasn't right about anything

>>1541447
>being a racist automatically makes everything you say incorrect
lol

>>1541142
>I fucking hate white cis scum so much.