Can a objectivist Superman workshop /co/?
No, because philanthropic and altruistic humanitarianism is a core tenet of Superman, unless you're one of those faggots that just looks at his powers and doesn't give a shit about characterization so long as he's got the name and can punch good.
>>81509970
no, an objectivistic demi-god has no need for humanity.
>>81509970
I don't think an Objectivist hero can work, period. Hell, the Question more or less came across as a dick. I mean, he was cool, but he was a dick. I mean, I'm all about working for your own rational self-interest, but altruism is kind of the point of a Superhero.
>>81510101
Actually, an objectivist hero can work. If your goal is not to help others period, but to help others so the ideals of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights can continue to be upheld by them through inspiration by you, then you can still be a hero.
Wouldn't an objectivist care about being responsible for billions of dollars of property damage? Not paying that off would be akin to theft which is like their big mortal sin.
>>81510173
More than likely he'd try and rebuild it somehow. Since it's Superman it would be the equivalent of local DIY house repair.
>>81509970
I don't know. I still don't really understand how Objectivism works, despite many attempts to read up on it.
So a supervillain then?
>>81510273
I wouldn't consider myself a scholar, but I think I've got a decent enough handle on it when it comes to the individualistic parts of it. Economy is where I'm weakest, 'cause that shit puts me to sleep.
So what're the parts you don't understand?
>>81510129
That's not really what objectivism is, anon.
>>81510361
It's in your own rational self-interest that values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (bill of rights etc.) be upheld so that you are left alone and never forced by the government to do something that goes against your values. The right to free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. All those are important for an individual to be free, and you need them to be spread and upheld. So what better way than to act in accordance with them, as a consequence showing others how superior they are and having a society where you are free and everyone else is as a result.
You're literally working in your own interest, without trampling on the rights of others. That's one of the most important aspects of objectivism.
>>81510413
Supes doesn't really need a third party guaranteeing his freedoms for him. He has the right to do whatever the fuck he wants because he is able to and no one can stop him. Other people's problems are just that, and if they have a problem with the powerful oppressing them they can go galt.
>>81510570
If there's one thing we've learned across all the numerous comics it's that Supes isn't immortal or invulnerable, and that there exist people that can hurt him, they just choose not to because it would be detrimental to everyone's lives (theirs very much included).
>>81509970
I'm pretty sure Cavill didn't design costume for MoS.
>>81510609
He has even better options for going galt if that bothers him. It remains on him to take care of his shit rather than propping up some collectivist charity to do it for him.
>>81510325
Not him, but I don't even know what it means, and the wiki article is convoluting as fuck.
>>81509970
Fleischer and Jurgens best
>>81510676
Honestly... Superman could leave and the world would adjust easily. Not like countless people don't die every day in the DC universe. They already got numerous other heroes.
>>81510693
Okay, objectivism can basically be summed up in one sentence: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never leave for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for the sake of mine.
In essence it's just "leave me alone and respect my rights, and I'll do the same for you."
There's also details concerning economics, epistemology etc. But the summation gives a nice introduction.
If you need more details, you can always read Rand's books on the matter. Try her non-fiction. They're shorter than her novels (even though I had no problem with Fountainhead).
>>81510710
>Dan Jurgens
Stern father figure, ever watchful.
>Neal Adams
Gentle, but disciplined father figure. Speaks softly, but carries a big stick.
>>81510101
I'm a superhero for the fun of it
>>81510710
Missing John Byrne, Dean Cain and Brandon Routh.
>>81509970
>Superman leaves and never comes back, I mean other than to occasionally remind people that he's gone.
Basically.
Capitalist Superman works. Moral absolutist Superman works.
Objectivist Superman? Not so much.
>>81510101
Yeah, Mr A was asshole
>>81511659
>Capitalist Superman works
>Objectivist doesn't
But capitalism and objectivism are so damn similar they may as well be conjoined twins.
>>81511874
Objectivism is everything that makes capitalism flawed turned up to 11
>>81511929
What? Cronyism, government bailouts, nepotism, pollution? All that is the direct antithesis to objectivism because it's either collectivist or it infringes on individuals' rights.
Ayn Rand talks about helping people on a sinking ship is one thing
but
spending your time going around making sure every boat isn't sinking isn't in your own selfish best interest
(though I assume...if it was your actual job it would be okay)
Anyway it would be hard to come up with reasons to have every issue revolve around the characters best interest unless it was "alien emperor invades earth" seeing as the main objectivist character doesn't want that to happen.
Im pretty supre Superman can be an objectivist hero. He is a hero because he wants to, he is in no way forced or coerced. The fact that he is not Superman all the time accepts that though he does enjoy helping, he still has to live. Objectivism has a lot to do with living up to your full potential too, which he shows in a very physical way as Superman and as a thinker in Clark.
Also, I seem to remember a line in Atlas Shrugged about evil winning by default if good men do nothing. Again he is agood aspirational and inspirational character. We may not have his gifts, but if we all live up to our full potential we will all have our time in the sun.
Ratonal self interest another tenent of objectivism speaks volumes about his time as Clark, working, with family.
>>81511991
I'm a pretty shitty orator if given a little amount of time, so I thank you for expressing properly that which I couldn't.
>>81511929
Capitalism is an economic system. Objectivism is an attempt to moralize greed and selfishness by calling it 'rational self interest' and defin9ng altruism and collectivism as objectively immoral. Of course it's bullshit because basically it was: whatever makes ayn rand's cooter wet is objectively right and moral while anything she doesn't like is immoral.
Objectively Moral:
>Cucking her husband and having her lover cuck his wife
>Smoking
>People following her orders
>Killing/rapping people because you just feel like it
>Not contributing to society
>Taking joy out of her husbands life and dragging him out to New York
>Taking land away from the Indians (pic related, it's her justification)
>Living on the government dole while contributing nothing (this only applies to her)
Objectively Immoral:
>Cucking her
>Taking her family's home (pic related. It's the reason why she should have been ok with the red army taking her shit.)
>Following rules not set by her and social norms
>Living on the government dole and contributing nothing (every that's not her)
>Listening to doctors
>Caring about people's feelings
>Not listening to her
>>81512354
>>81511991
Altruism is specifically considered immoral in objectivism.'
Superman helps people because he feels obligated to do so due to his upbringing on the Kent farm. Considering how often he gets fucked up, it would not be objectively moral or right for him to stick his neck out for people that he never met and have no rational reason to care about.
>>81512448
Everything I said was true tho.
Actually...You could make a funny character be an objectivist superhero
He just has to be a BAD objectivist.
Imagine if they were haunted by nightmares of Ayn Rand whenever they were a particularly bad objectivist.
>>81509970
He'd work better as an early 20th c. American pacifist Christian socialist. Superman is altruism and philanthropy dialed up to 11.
>>81512469
When Rand opposes altruism she does not oppose benevolence.
The first thing one of the good guys in Atlas Shrugged does is give money to a bum so the bum can get a cup of joe or whatever he wants.
Altruism, in her vocab (this is a problem with her, she uses her own definition of shit, thus creating a problem in communication), is just using force on other people so they do things they normally wouldn't. Say, I don't want to give money to a bum, and you then force me to do so (whether through physical force, coercion, blackmail, etc.) because you think me not wanting to is evil. That's what Rand mean by altruism.
>>81512512
Son, did you even read anything she wrote? Because if you did, you'd know she, Frank, and the Brandon couple agreed to the relationship. And contribution to society is voluntary in her philosophy. You can't be forced to do something you don't want to, etc. If you're too lazy to read her writing, that's on you, son.
>>81512354
But Ayn Rand was right. Indians had no more right to the lands as any white settler. Most of the wars with the indians were instigated by them. The Whites wanted to have peaceful negotiations and in many times were willing to give consesions to the indians. But they always broke them and went to war with white settlers for primitive tribal reasons.
>>81511863
Only if you were one of the bad guys...
>>81512642
Hey anon I got a nice warm blanket I want to give you.
>>81510413
>It's in your own rational self-interest that values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (bill of rights etc.) be upheld so that you are left alone and never forced by the government to do something that goes against your values.
Here's the problem.
Objectivism is about not acknowledging abstract concepts.
Liberty, the "pursuit of happiness", the "bill of rights" are all artificial concepts, while the entire point of objectivism, is that the real world defies any such concepts put above it.
The universe defines itself, and you deciding that there is an effectively arbitrary set of rules at apply in addition, is just a bastardization of the concept.
And objectivist, a real one, endures societal rules, not enforces them. Infact, they don't enforce anything, because making a concious decision to uphold A or B already goes against the idea of what objectivism is.
>>81512354
Ayn Rand. What a grand human being.
Managed to discover in 20 000 words, what every kid knows at age 3 before deciding it's never going to get them anywhere.
>>81510014
All you'd have to do is call it a "modern reinvention" and you're good to go. Hell, add some Donut Steels that pay lipservice to the prevailing opinions of the day, and you've got a "subversive" work that "re-purposes" an icon to "teach some hard lessons" or some shit like that.
I don't know how you'd "workshop" an objectivist Superman, though. What is that, is that slang like "pitch"?
>>81510286
Why the fuck not?
>>81512642
>But Ayn Rand was right.
Not even once.
>Indians had no more right to the lands as any white settler.
Yes they did. They had the land first.
>Most of the wars with the indians were instigated by them.
Those poor poor white people attacked in their own homes across the atlantic ocean....
>The Whites wanted to have peaceful negotiations and in many times were willing to give consesions to the indians. But they always broke them and went to war with white settlers for primitive tribal reasons.
Columbus enslaved natives and fed them to dogs when they acted up.
Most tribes were preserved stone age societies that were violently displaced by an encroaching colonizing force.
You're knowingly obscuring the violent domineering colonialist attitude white invaders had. Let's not mince words about what actually happened.
>>81512956
well, you're certainly cynical enough to be a proper objectivist.
>>81512567
No, it's more like she announced that she was going to fuck the guy and her husband was like 'yes, dear'. Cucked.
>>81512642
Except they were already living there and the land was within their territorial borders while the white settlers weren't.
Most of the wars with the Indians were instigated by the Indians? Well damn, if you came into my yard and started shitting up the place I'd instigate my hand upside your head. You talk about giving concessions to the Indians with their own shit? That's like me stealing your wallet, giving you a concession in the form of handing you back some pocket change and expecting you to be ok with that.
Also none of that matters. She felt that taking the Indians land was right but had a big problem with the red army taking her family's home. That's my point. Government defines ownership. A person owns a house when they have a deed that's recognized by the government and backed up by the government's willingness, power and authority to enforce someone's rights to that property. If the government decides, for whatever reason, that you don't own that property--guess what? You don't own it anymore. You can try to fight it but your resources will likely not hold up and you'd likely be vastly outnumbered.
All I was doing is pointing out that she was a hypocrite. Taking the Indians land,M to her, was good because she gets to utilize it for her own enjoyment instead of them, but taking her stuff is bad because other people get to utilize it instead of her.
You can say that the us is entitled to the indian land because they defeated the Indians and took it, but the same can be said for her family home as well. Same fucking the]unt but one is bad in her mind because she lost and others gained while the other is good because others lost and our collective society gained, so she gained by proxy.
>>81509970
Even Ayn Rand wasn't able to write a good book about Objectivism.
>>81512469
Altruism is evil. But who said he is not doing it because he wants to rather than an obligation. Who said he doesnt do it because he is using his full abilities and living up to his full potential? His parents were not teaching him to go out and enslave himself to every person who would demand it. When Clark was a kid his parents instilled in him the fact that he should not put himself out there in danger. Ayn had a great essay on the morality of actions in an emergency, it boiled down to accidents happen and if we can help without causing yourself harm then you should ... because the highest value is life and we should all preserve it if we can. Evidenced in Kal's early saves. As he grew in power his acts grew more bold.
There is a difference between helping because you can and altruism's obligation to help all no matter what and with no intest in his own being.
In the fight with Doomsday when Superman does die defending people one could argue altruism. But I could say "when good men do nothing evil wins by default" or "the highest value is life." He puts himself in those situations because he wants to and he is the only one who can and he in fact defeats Doomsday. So in doing so he did meet his goal while being an example of living up to your potential.
Superman fights the ills of capitalism. The cronyism, the backroom dealers, the ones who would use another person's labor for their own needs, those who would cause physical or financial harm. Ayn always said the smallest minority is he individual, Superman is the ulimate champion of the little guy.
>>81510173
Superman just did them a favor by tearing down that socialist hell hole.
>>81513067
>Except they were already living there and the land was within their territorial borders while the white settlers weren't.
Yes, I'm sure the native population of 10 million or so was using up every inch of land in the U.S.
>>81513226
>the govt is gonna take all the money you're not actively spending
>no one will complain
>>81513092
He wants to because of his upbringing. His desire obligates him to essentially go out of his way and put himself at risk to help people that he doesn't know and are likely little benefit to him.
>>81513067
>Taking the Indians land,M to her, was good because she gets to utilize it for her own enjoyment instead of them, but taking her stuff is bad because other people get to utilize it instead of her.
that's actually pretty consistent when you think about it. Objectivism, as a philosophy of selfishness is very subjective by nature.
>>81513338
You can't own property without at least visibly declaring that it's yours ("mixing it with your labor" in Lockean terms). If I set up a house in an untouched field and later someone claims it's his and tries to shank me, I will rightfully believe him to be some kind of thief.
It is entirely different than your example, where the money is clearly and publicly mine.
>>81512956
>All you'd have to do is call it a "modern reinvention" and you're good to go.
The idea that being an uncomplicated good person is something that can go out of style is the figurative bastion of assholes. I have never seen the "modern superheroes should be dicks" argument used by someone that didn't come off as a petulant teenager that's convinced he's figured the entire world out and needs to get over himself.
>>81513226
1) the population was 100 million, not 10
2) I live on a little over an acre of land. My house takes up about 1/6th of my land, that doesn't entitle you to come build your own house in my yard because I'm not utilizing it. I have video game consoles in my room right now that I haven't even turned on in years. You're not entitled to them. I have a car in my driveway that I don't ever drive. You're not entitled to have it b]because I'm not using it. It is mine and if I want to have it sit there and not be used that is my prerogative and you licking your chops and imagining how you could use it doesn't justify you trying to take it from me,
>>81512567
>is just using force on other people so they do things they normally wouldn't
Like punching Atomic Skull so he doesn't irradiate people to death? By that definition, that's altruism and thus immoral?
>>81513565
>1) the population was 100 million, not 10
Every source in my 10 minute google search disagrees.
>2) I live on a little over an acre of land. My house takes up about 1/6th of my land, that doesn't entitle you to come build your own house in my yard because I'm not utilizing it.
No doubt you have a fence around said land, a sign saying it's yours, or at least _some_ visible sign that it's been worked by human hands. If your land was literal wilderness, then you could hardly blame someone if they came along and set up shop. You could later claim that land was yours, but why should they believe you?
>>81513734
>>81513565
Okay, I think I understand what you meant. I was referring to the population of North America, which was 10-20 million only. I'm not about to defend Cortez.
>>81513414
It's consistent with her personality. However the whole point of objectivism is that morality is objective. That certain things are always right and moral. But there's conflict there. It can't be moral to take the Indians land, yet immoral to take her family's home. It can't be moral to cuck her husband yet immoral to cuck her. It can't be objectively wrong to be a part of a collective yet a moral requirement to be a part of HER collective. Her entire philosophy was basically "everyone must do what pleases ME". It was a personality cult. Nothing more, nothing less.
http://activatecomix.com/162.comic
>>81510710
>not Neal Adams
>>81513734
I don't have a fence around my land. I don't need one. I know where my property line is. There's a plot of land next to mine and another behind mine that ate empty lots and I don't know who the owner is. You don't have a right to build anything on them either unless you own them. All you need to know is that you don't own the property to know that you don't have rights to it. I learned that when I was 4. If you want the land, offer to buy it, if the owner says no, then go away and get land elsewhere.
I don't care if it is wilderness or not. You know it's not yours. That's all that matters. If someone that obviously lived there before you shows up and claims it, then leave. You knew it wasn't yours to begin with when you set up camp.
>>81513782
The population of Canada is only 35 million. I guess that makes it ok for our 300 million population to annex their shit and put all Canadians on a little reservation somewhere.
>>81513987
>All you need to know is that you don't own the property to know that you don't have rights to it.
How would I know this, if it's not obvious that someone owns it?
> If someone that obviously lived there before you shows up and claims it, then leave.
You have a strange definition of "obvious". If I pitch tent in the middle of the wilderness, and everything around for miles is wilderness, how is it in any way obvious that the man with a gun claiming its his land was the rightful owner?
>>81513987
I mean are empty lots
>>81514050
I cited the population because it is unbelievable that the roughly 100,000 settlers had no uninhabited land to settle on with population densities that low.
>>81514160
>How would I know this, if it's not obvious that someone owns it?
Do you have a deed from the previous owner that says you own it? No? Then it's not yours. Simple.
>I pitch tent in the middle of the wilderness, and everything around for miles is wilderness, how is it in any way obvious that the man with a gun claiming its his land was the rightful owner?
It doesn't really matter. You know that it's not *YOUR* property. It's like, if you set up camp in my yard and I come walking home from work and tell you to get off my property. You don't need to know if I'm the rightful owner, you just need to know that it's not your property . If I'm lying then my dishonor has nothing to do with your honor meanwhile if you want to challenge my claim it doesn't magically make the property yours to use as you see fit.
>>81514281
Native Americans are hunters and gatherers which requires large territory and nobody is obligated to make space on their land for anyone, I could have 50 acres of land and live by myself. Thats a low population density. I'm not obligated to let you build a house on the corner of my land. Nor am I obligated to justify having the land.
By that logic, once people start to have way too much money, then they should be obligated to give it all to others that feel that they need it, but you'll never hear an objectivist or capitalist argue in favor of that. It's the same principal.
>>81514391
>Do you have a deed from the previous owner that says you own it? No? Then it's not yours. Simple.
So you agree that the natives did not own the land, so the settlers stole nothing? Actually, you are arguing that land ownership is impossible because you cannot write a deed for a plot of land without first owning it -- and you can't own it without having a deed for it!
You cannot simply claim you own land and call it a day -- you must provide some visual indicator that the land is owned. Otherwise, the first man to arrive on North America could have simply declared the whole thing to be his and gun down anyone who disagreed. You can only write a deed for a piece of land after it's first been claimed in this way, otherwise just as before I could draw up a piece of paper declaring the entire continent to be mine.
And why should it matter if I know it's not my property? That only makes sense in a world where unowned property doesn't exist. In modern times, maybe, you can assume most property is owned (I would argue that a lot of it is owned illegitimately but that's a different issue) but if I landed on a new continent with a handful of natives every one hundred miles then I'd be right in assuming most of the land was unowned.
>>81514554
Again, you are confusing money -- which is clearly owned by someone -- to land that has no indication of being owned. It's comparable to coming across some money on the ground, taking it, and later being accosted by someone claiming it's his. It might be his or it might not be, but either way he has no proof, and you'd be well within your rights telling him to sod off or defending yourself if he attacks you.
>>81513344
You said that, but it ignores his parents having him lay low, or Johnathan Kent saying he owes no one anything. He helps because he wants to, not because of an obligation.
>>81510413
It wouldn't be in Superman's rational self-interest because he's powerful enough to be immune to all that.
>>81512567
>When Rand opposes altruism she does not oppose benevolence.
Greed is not cartoon evil about being mean just because. It's still wholly self-interest.
>>81511966
It's in the self-interest of the people who perpetuate those things to do so.
>>81509970
How does an objectivist hero even work? Isn't doing anything that's not for personal gain flying in the face of the philosophy?
>>81514879
There's a bit of a loophole in that anything you do because you really want to is done of your own free will. It's kind of explained so that Objectivists can do things like raise children which typically require some self sacrifice and have pretty bad returns on investment.
I could see an objectivist superman if he had super empathy or something and had an orgasm every time he saved someone so he's always cruising around looking for the next hit of "Thanks for saving me"
>>81514602
The natives owned the land because they were the first people there.mi don't have a deed that says I own my body. I don't need one since I'm the first and only person to occupy my body. Same principal.
We know for a fact that the natives were here before the European settlers.
Simply being there first is the indication that they owned the land. Note that I said that you need a deed from the *previous owner*. If you're the *first* owner then naturally you'll not have a deed from a previous one because you're the first owner.
It matters that you know that it's not your property because every square inch of land in the US is owned by someone or something. Even public land is owned by the people and isn't your personal property to have exclusive rights to or do with as you please.
The only way that you can claim that land is unowned is when there's NOBODY living on that continent. Like I said, if I own 50macres of land and live by mu-myself, that's a very low population density. Now, let's say that you come from the city where 1 acre can hold hundreds of people. It would be false of you to assume that my land is unowned simply because there is so much of it in comparison to the cramped dense populsation of the city that you're used to. Let's say that I owned 100 miles of land. It's still my land. You know it isn't YOUR land, that's all that matters.
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
Knowing the Marvel method, and that Ditko was a huge objectivist, did Stan Lee intentionally write this ending blurb to piss him off?
>>81514751
Which superman are you talking about? Man of murder or the comics?
>>81515051
How do you know which parts of land have been claimed or not?
>>81511863
Hence 'Mr.A".
>>81515139
You only need to know that it's not *your* land.
>>81515263
But you said that if land had not been claimed, that it belongs to the first person who claims it.
So I can't know that land is not mine unless I know if someone else has claimed it.
>>81515091
Stan lee is the one that turned ditko on to ayn rand to begin with. I think that atlas shrugged was just something to read to him but ditko lost his fucking mind and unironically believed in it.
>>81515334
But you already know that people are there. Colonists already knew there were native Americans living on this continent.
>>81515104
I was using MOS asan example because it has good examppes of how Clark was raised. Not to take unneeded risk or go out of his way. In fact, make them die if the risk is too great to himself.
But the point stands that I cannot think of an example where it is made his obligation to save all no matter what. He is not meant to, thats why he maintains his Clark persona when he got his full powers.
>>81510710
You misspelled Timm.
