Great book. I feel so independant. I don't care for any

you need to be over 18 to post here

>>9354625

You didnt read it. I can tell.

The heros in atlas shrugged all genuinely cared for, helped, or even loved, lots of people. The villains pretended to care about everyone but actually loathed everyone.

The straw that broke henry reardens back was when a black lives matter protest shot a government assigned diversity overseer who had been slowly becoming redpilled while working in his foundry. He stumbled down a ditch in the dark to get him where he had fallen and carried him up the hill in the dark, while protestors looted shit and attacked people. The guy died in his arms and mr rearden died to the world. He no longer gave a fuck. He shut down his extremely successful businesses and he went to live in the woods.

>>9354675

"Not caring about others" was never part of Rand's ideology, I don't understand why everyone says that. It's more like "you should only care about the people you want to care about." That is, the care is voluntary. Of course you're going to care for your child, or your family. But you probably aren't going to care much about someone who lives five towns over and you shouldn't be forced to.

>>9354799

>I don't understand why everyone says that

it makes it easy to dismiss. and they want to dismiss it because they've received some impression that they will be well liked for doing so.

>>9354799
>It's more like "you should only care about the people you want to care about." That is, the care is voluntary. Of course you're going to care for your child, or your family. But you probably aren't going to care much about someone who lives five towns over and you shouldn't be forced to.

Seriously? Come on, you must understand the simple distinction between "caring", as in assisting in an altuistic fashion, and "caring", as in being personally invested. If not, then you're as retarded as Rand.

>>9355288

oh there's a distinction. 'altruism' as you describe it is the idea that you owe something to people for no re?son ?t ?ll. it can only be presented as a moral duty which justifies your existence.

hence, man becomes a means to an end, rather than an end his self. 'altruism' as you describe it, is the ultimate code of dehumanization - for if you ought to serve others for no reason, than others ought to serve you, right? and of course, who is there to serve (without any payment, not even in the form of friendship, and without any personal love, not even in the form of comradery) except those who are lesser than you?

it becomes a vicious cycle of greater people being sacrificed to lesser people. the ultimate insanity.

so the altruism you speak of isn't kindness. it isn't good will. it's not respect for others. altruism as you describe it renders those things worthless.

whether or not you should give a beggar five dollars is not the question. the question is, do you have the right to exist without giving him anything? and if you think that you do, then you must reject senseless altruism in favor of good will, kindness, respect, or love.

i'll quote ayn rand here:

The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortg?ge on your life ?nd the mor?l purpose of your existence. The issue is whether m?n is to be reg?rded ?s ? s?crifici?l ?nim?l. Any m?n of self-esteem will ?nswer: “No.” Altruism s?ys: “Yes.”

“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61

>>9355288

this guy considers it a lower goal to assist your mother, or someone who has done a great favor for you, 'because you're personally invested in her' than it is to give your money to niggers in africa who can do nothing for you and for whom you don't give a shit.

makes my skin crawl.

>>9354799
>Of course you're going to care for your child, or your family.
Nice coercion, statist scum

>>9355321
And of course, you see yourself as part of the "greater people", don't you? Because Rand encourages you to, because the whole trick is flattering the reader's ego so they buy what she's selling. But that doesn't make it so.

>>9355321

You're butchering Kant's principle. According to Kant "you must treat humanity both in yourself and in others never as means only but always also as an end in itself." This means that our relationship with other human beings ought to never be PURELY instrumental. The principle obviously does allow us to make use of others as long as we also include their interests into our moral calculus.

Furthermore, Kant’s principle not only means that one should refrain from thwarting people's permissible ends, but also that one should endeavor, so far as possible, to realize (or help them realize) those permissible ends. This of course does not comport well with the libertarian view that there should be no positive moral obligation for people.

When I buy a ticket from a ticket machine, I obviously treat the machine as a means to get a ticket. The same is true with regard to a ticket-seller. My purpose is to get a ticket and both the machine as well as the ticket-seller are treated by me as a means to this end. Let’s suppose that the machine breaks down. In this case, the only thing I am concerned about is that I do not get a ticket. This shows that I view the machine as a means only. To me, it is an instrument to get a ticket and nothing more. If my attitude towards the ticket-seller was the same as towards the machine, then my view of him would also be purely instrumental. Thus, when the ticket-seller falls unconscious and I fail to treat him any differently to the broken ticket-machine, I do not treat him as an end in his own right. This strongly suggests that treating people as ends in themselves requires more than merely refraining from thwarting their permissible ends. One must also assist them, i.e. be altruistic.

le spam xd

File: 1475042787307.jpg (81KB, 791x1024px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 791x1024px

>>9355597

there is no 'greater people.' that is a prejudice which YOU have just mentioned.

there ARE greater people than I, and there ARE lesser people than I, but where i stand in relation to anyone isn't that important, is it? the point is that the people greater than i do not owe me anything, and i do not owe the lesser people than i anything.

imagine voluntarily choosing who you value and care about.

you pulled the idea that rand encourages you to think highly of yourself out of your fucking ass. if anyone she'll make you feel worse, because she presents a higher standard and encourages one to strive to be a better person. she doesn't believe in looking down on people, simply because she doesn't believe in looking down at all.

>>9355565

what are you even attempting to communicate here?

>>9355624

shove it up your ass. kant was a jack-ass and i have no duty to help others pursue their goals. nor do others have a duty to help me pursue mine. practically, you should steer clear of anyone who pretends to selfless want to help you, because, in my and many others experience, they always wind up turning it into a debt for you. that's why they vocally endorse 'helping others selflessly'. eventually they want the same from you.

if i'm hiring you to chop a cord of wood, you can either take my money and chop the wood according to my specifications or you can go your merry fucking way. you are not an end for ME. is my child an end for me? very likely. i want the best for him because i love him, so i make sure he does well in school etc. are YOU an end for me? not whatsoever.

and yes, if you are unable to chop a cord of wood, insofar as chopping wood goes, you are simply a broken wood chopper. that doesn't mean i ignore you in the crosswalk and hit you. that doesn't mean i wouldn't call 911 if you were hurt and offer assistance. that doesn't mean i wouldn't give you a cigarette if you asked for one.

my good is no ones end for anyone but myself and those who love me. your good is not my end unless i love you. i don't love everyone. i only love certain people and for specific reasons.

what can I say, I hate literature now
I may never read a book again

>>9355658
>appeal to Kant's principle
>kant was a jack-ass

Ok then.

In any event, you have an implausibly abstract view of humans and their moral relations. The resources that are available to us, the state of our powers and even the development of our bodies are all the product (to varying degrees) of the many people who have played a role in our development, most notably the civil society that protected and to this day protects us. Yet, according Rand and her followers, the labor of others, their care and concern, their expenses and time spent in bringing us to a stage of development where we can exercise various individual rights leaves no trace or basis upon which they can assert any claims against us. You act like a godless Adam who suddenly appeared in Eden with a full complement of rights; a fully formed sovereign over a kingdom with no ties to anyone. The implication is that either we were not subject to any duties of gratitude, honor or support for those who have formed us, or these duties have been simply erased from our account. At the least, it would be interesting to be given an explanation of why the roles that others played in the development of one's body and powers leave no grounds for moral claims which they can make upon one.

>if i'm hiring you to chop a cord of wood, you can either take my money and chop the wood according to my specifications or you can go your merry fucking way.

It's always entertaining to see those who complain of rules and obligation being imposed on them doing exactly the same to others. Why exactly do I have to accept your conditions? Why do I have to honor your right claims and ownership claims? Because you will use violence if I don't. Oh the irony.

Lastly, you should perhaps consider that we are all connected through an environment. Literally everything we do (or refrain from doing) affects others. So don't pretend that you ask for nothing more than to be "left alone". The world doesn't work like that. People's need for land and resources draws them into contact with eac other, destroys almost all area for individual maneuver, and forces people to elbow each other in order to move forward. This is why we absolutely need to consider each other interests, rather than only our own.

>>9355713

>Why exactly do I have to accept your conditions?

because i'm not going to pay you unless you do.

>Why do I have to honor your right claims and ownership claims?

what are you going to do, rob me?

>Because you will use violence if I don't.

yes, if you try robbing me i will fight you.

>Oh the irony.

you'll have to point it out. i'm not seeing any irony.

>>appeal to Kant's principle

i did not and would not do any such thing.

i can't tell what you're getting at beyond demanding that people pretend to give a fuck about people and things that they actually don't give a fuck about because they have no reason to.

>In any event, you have an implausibly abstract view of humans and their moral relations. The resources that are available to us, the state of our powers and even the development of our bodies are all the product (to varying degrees) of the many people who have played a role in our development, most notably the civil society that protected and to this day protects us. Yet, according Rand and her followers, the labor of others, their care and concern, their expenses and time spent in bringing us to a stage of development where we can exercise various individual rights leaves no trace or basis upon which they can assert any claims against us. You act like a godless Adam who suddenly appeared in Eden with a full complement of rights; a fully formed sovereign over a kingdom with no ties to anyone. The implication is that either we were not subject to any duties of gratitude, honor or support for those who have formed us, or these duties have been simply erased from our account. At the least, it would be interesting to be given an explanation of why the roles that others played in the development of one's body and powers leave no grounds for moral claims which they can make upon one.

this just sounds like a really disorganized plea for me to send money to niggers in africa. you know feeding the wild animals is cruel, right?

>>9355787
>you'll have to point it out. i'm not seeing any irony.

You complain about others imposing obligation onto you. Yet, this is exactly what you're doing when you're asserting your ownership claims.

All economic rules, including rules that create private property ownership, contract laws, and so on, impose background constraints on the universe of choices individuals can make.

All forms of rights only have meaning insofar as they impose limits on the freedom of others. The point of a right, after all, is to restrain the actions of others so as to give the right-holder a specific realm of action.

As is often the case with people of your mindset, you will probably say that you "merely" impose negative obligations on others and that only positive obligations are bad (another notion I disagree with btw.)

However, even if we pretended that there is a morally relevant difference between positive and negative obligations, it ones again works both ways. Others could just as well say that they are asking nothing more of you than to refrain from interfering when they attempt to use the resources in question.

Not to mention that you're only able to own anything at all thanks to positive obligations that fulfil Locke's proviso. Otherwise, the entire globe would be fully owned by a handful of people, leaving nothing left for you.

>because they have no reason to.

They have a reason to. That's why politics exist, honey.

>i did not and would not do any such thing.

Well, the person I first responded to said "hence, man becomes a means to an end, rather than an end his self". Either that person was appealing to Kant's principle, or to somebody who plagiarized Kant.

>this just sounds like a really disorganized plea for me to send money to niggers in africa. you know feeding the wild animals is cruel, right?

Somebody should've told that to your mother when you were suckling on her tit.

File: 1477074545719.jpg (143KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x683px

>>9355886

>You complain about others imposing obligation onto you.Yet, this is exactly what you're doing when you're asserting your ownership claims.

i'm not 'imposing' anything on anyone by offering someone money to chop wood. they can take it or leave it.

look up 'imposition' in the dictionary.

>ownership """claims"""

there is no claim. you own something or you don't.

>All economic rules, including rules that create private property ownership, contract laws, and so on, impose background constraints on the universe of choices individuals can make.

'i'm being constrained because people aren't serving me for free and giving me what i want and i can't just rob people without consequences.'

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>All forms of rights only have meaning insofar as they impose limits on the freedom of others. The point of a right, after all, is to restrain the actions of others so as to give the right-holder a specific realm of action.

right's are negative. you're complaining that you're not free because you don't have the freedom to murder me without legal consequence.

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>As is often the case with people of your mindset, you will probably say that you "merely" impose negative obligations on others and that only positive obligations are bad (another notion I disagree with btw.)

you disagree with 'mere impositions' of 'not being allowed to steal and murder'?

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>However, even if we pretended that there is a morally relevant difference between positive and negative obligations, it ones again works both ways. Others could just as well say that they are asking nothing more of you than to refrain from interfering when they attempt to use the resources in question.

you ignore the fact that the money is mine, and pretend as though I'M imposing on YOU because i asked if you wanted some money in exchange for chopping wood, and you respond by 'why am i not free to murder you and take it?'

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>Not to mention that you're only able to own anything at all thanks to positive obligations that fulfil Locke's proviso. Otherwise, the entire globe would be fully owned by a handful of people, leaving nothing left for you.

ownership existed before (philosophy X). everyone knows what it means. again, you imply that i'm imposing on you by not letting you take my computer.

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>They have a reason to. That's why politics exist, honey.

are you implying that no one is without sufficient reasons to care about everything? are you implying that the awareness of politics is somehow in conflict with me not caring about a stranger in any way comparable with caring about my mother?

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>honey

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>>9355886

>Well, the person I first responded to said "hence, man becomes a means to an end, rather than an end his self". Either that person was appealing to Kant's principle, or to somebody who plagiarized Kant.

kant has nothing to fucking do with it. just because you've read kant and he's had something to say about man, means, and ends, doesn't give kant any sort of claim on those ideas, and it doesn't give you any actual reason to think that someone is mentioning kant when he discusses man, means, and ends. nor is it in any way plagiarizing to discuss those things because he discussed them.

this is a hamfisted rope-in.

do you expect to be taken seriously?

>Somebody should've told that to your mother when you were suckling on her tit.

my mother loved me. are you calling me a wild animal, or a nigger?

i don't take you seriously.