What went wrong?
inexplicably setting it in the present day
fox news caricature narrative device (feat. fox news contributors)
new cast every movie
black eddie willers
>>64394244
>inexplicably setting it in the present day
But how else would voters for the 2012 election know that Obama is horrible and if he's re-elected the economy will collapse and everything will be tyranny?
>black eddie willers
That's not really a problem.
I still can't believe that they changed every single actor in every movie.
>>64394486
eddie willers is a longstanding subject of debate amongst objectivists because he's a good guy who does the right thing but he's just not smart or capable enough to earn membership into the doomsday shelter and is just left to fend for himself as the elites withdraw and the world burns.
making him a nigger - explicitly so, since it's a different nigger in each iteration - adds unnecessary and unintended racist baggage to already beleaguered source material.
>I still can't believe that they changed every single actor in every movie
there was a callback to the original ellis wyatt actor, which was weird considering that everyone else changed
shit source material
Ayn Rand is terrible and probably a sociopath.
>>64395670
>>64395731
This. People who say that Atlas Shrugged is a good book have clearly never read it. All the Republican politicians and Fox News pundits that love it worry me. It's a horrible unrealistic piece of trash with unlikeable characters that don't care that billions of people are going to die because those people don't agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy 100%.
If you read Ayn Rand's biography, you'll find out she was a terrible person and a hypocrite.
>>64396571
I read it and liked it.
Ayn Rand was a pretty good person.
>>64394166
1) Adapting poor source material. All politics aside, Rand is not a good writer, does not write convincing characters, and - as a general rule of thumb - books that are thinly-veiled political diatribes ALWAYS come across as preachy and obnoxious.
2) Splitting it into three parts. It just dragged and dragged and dragged, and theoretically they could have made it more engaging than the novel by shortening it and cutting the fat but instead they chose to autistically cover everything, and as a result the film(s) has a morbidly obese running time.
3) Hiring poor actors, then firing them, then hiring newer, even poorer actors.
4) Setting a story about trains, that makes constant mention of the logistics of running a train company, in the modern day when trains are irrelevant, and not changing the plot to match the setting to be about planes or something.
>>64397166
>I read it and liked it.
Well, different strokes for-
>Ayn Rand was a pretty good person.
gr8 b8 m8
I have friends who are libertarians, and even they think Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged suck
>>64397509
I don't see why you have to characterize my opinions as bait, nor do I understand what your libertarian friends have to do with the price of tea in China.
>She sat listening to the music. It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were the rising itself, they were the essence and the form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive. It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open. It had the freedom of release and the tension of purpose. It swept space clean, and left nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort. Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of that from which the music had escaped, but spoke in laughing astonishment at the discovery that there was no ugliness or pain, and there never had to be. It was the song of an immense deliverance.
I think that this is great writing. Why does everyone say that Ayn Rand is not a good writer?
>>64397643
Not him, but I can understand someone liking Atlas Shrugged, but can't understand why anyone would think Ayn Rand was a good person.
>>64397700
She wrote some good parts, problem is most of the book was bad and boring parts. Like John Galt's infamous speech.
The book needed an editor who could get Rand to trim the fat.
>>64394166
Trailer for those who are curious
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
>>64397493
As >>64394486 said, this movie was blatant propaganda, trying to feed on the far right's fears about Obama. It failed, none of the Tea Party folks that claim to have read Atlas Shrugged went to see the movie.
Despite the movie being a commercial failure, the producers ignored the will of the free market and made 2 more movies and lost even more money, going completely against the ideology they suposedly follow.
Ayn Rand existed.
>>64399062
>Despite the movie being a commercial failure, the producers ignored the will of the free market and made 2 more movies and lost even more money, going completely against the ideology they suposedly follow.
I feel like anyone who regurgitates this meme, and it is a meme and not something you came up with as an original thought, has not actually grokked Ayn Rand's fiction. A recurring theme in her works, including Atlas Shrugged, are prime movers who become failures due to various societal factors.
Ayn Rand herself had The Fountainhead rejected by over 40 publishers before finally selling it.
>>64397643
Ayn Rand was a hypocritical, selfish bitch whose memory only lives on because of her stupid cult of nerds who desperately wanted to fuck that frumpy ho.
We get it, the Soviets were bad.
>>64394166
Ayn Ran wrote the book
Low budget
>>64399312
I like her.
>>64394166
Just the power of the free market rejecting something inferior.
>>64399465
Alan Greenspan plz go
>>64399297
Calling it a meme doesn't make it not true.
Atlas Shrugged was deemed a failure by the free market, even the people who bought her book (and probably didn't read it) didn't go see it, and those that did hated it. What possible justification was there to lose money by making 2 more by her philosophy?
Making money is all that matters to her.
>>64399571
kek
>>64396571
>>64395731
>Ayn Rand is terrible and probably a sociopath.
>If you read Ayn Rand's biography, you'll find out she was a terrible person
Why is the only argument her detractors can ever muster is a feeble ad hominem?
>>64399846
If there were a better argument available, the free market would have provided one.
>>64399297
But these are legitimate bad movies, "societal factors" have nothing to do with it
>>64399963
Please don't cavalierly misuse scare quotes. It looks shabby.
>>64399846
There are plenty of arguments as to why Atlas Shrugged sucks (terrible worldbuilding, unlikeable mary sue characters, Captain Planet-tier villains, unsubtle writing, unrealistic claims, lack of understanding of how industry works, hating poor people, etc etc).
Ayn Rand being a terrible person is just a bonus.
>>64400076
She was a decent person. Didn't commit any crimes, contributed to society.
>>64400180
>Didn't commit any crimes
So? You don't have to be a criminal to be a terrible person.
She was an unpleasant individual that alienated almost everyone around her for not agreeing with her 100%.
>>64400467
>an unpleasant individual that alienated almost everyone around her for not agreeing with her 100%
sounds like you desu senpai
Because it's hard to turn the source material of a person who writes on the level of an 11 year old into anything interesting to adults.
>>64400467
Why would you not agree with her 100%?
>>64400897
Because I like giving money to charity for one thing
>>64400989
According to her it's actually ok to give to charity if it's because you like doing so.
>>64400180
>decent person
Her hero and "ideal man" was a child killer.
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html
>>64400989
because it strokes your ego
>im such a great person, i like giving to charity, people
that charity of yours - there's a massive disparity between first world and third world countries. if people are so nice and altruistic, why is it there? im not saying we could make Africa exactly like California within a week, but the life standard could definitely be greatly improved if people really cared like they claim.
>>64401046
Nope. Ayn Rand hated altruism and thought people should never give stuff to others if they didn't get something in return. In Atlas Shrugged, Rearden's brother was portrayed as being someone worthy of contempt for giving money to charity
>“But that money is not for me. I am not collecting it for any personal motive. I have no selfish interest in the matter whatever.”
>…Rearden turned away. He felt a sudden loathing: not because the words were hypocrisy, but because they were true; Philip meant them. [p.47]
>>64401046
This. >>64401258 can't read for comprehension (and hasn't read Atlas Shrugged)
>>64401361
What comprehension do I lack?
Rearden loathed the fact that his brother wanted to give money to charity. What am I missing?
Anyone in this book that doesn't work only for himself is misguided at best and an evil plotting moocher at worst
I tried to read the book because "lol Bioshock" but it was so boring I couldn't finish it ;_;
>>64401258
>Ayn Rand hated altruism and thought people should never give stuff to others if they didn't get something in return.
Exactly. If charity makes you feel happy then it's a mutually beneficial transaction. Phillip did it when he had nothing to gain (no satisfaction/happiness/self-esteem) therefore he is acting altruistically
>>64401564
>unique poster counter didn't increment with this post
hm
Because Objectivism is for high-schoolers who played Bioshock and think they know how the world works. People who think they can solve the world's problems by acting in thier own selfish and immature nature.
>It's a /tv/ discusses political philosophy thread
Oh boy
>>64401589
I'm a mature adult. I like Objectivism.
>>64395731
That became clear to me the monent Ayn Rand described why everyone in that train deserved to die a horrible painful death. Including the mother and her child
>>64401448
>What comprehension do I lack?
Well for start, just because a fictional character in a book has an extreme stance, doesn't mean the author has the same stance.
>>64401650
Ayn Rand lived and died without killing anyone or breaking any laws, so what purpose does it serve to identify her, based on her fiction, as a sociopath?
>>64401448
The loathesome thing wasn't that he was giving to charity, it was that he claimed to have no personal motive or selfish interest.
>>64401649
Pick one. It's like saying you're mature and like My Little Pony.
Objectivism is a meme philosophy.
>>64401686
You clearly didn't grasp Atlas Shrugged very well then. You're suposed to agree with everything the "good guys" says and do. They're just mouthpieces for Ayn Rand's opinions and the moochers represent opinions she didn't like and were evil.
>>64401767
And why is that loathsome? Most people who give to charity don't have a personal motive or selfish interest. That's the definition of charity.
>>64401650
She never said they deserved anything. The point of that final page was to demonstrate how everyone's seemingly insignificant way of thinking can build up and produce the world that unnecessarily sends these people to their deaths
>>64399297
We are talking about Rand here not Heinlein, keep your Martian talk out.
>>64401777
Respectfully, I disagree.
>>64394166
I'm all for more artistic renderings of movie posters, but even with a cursory knowledge of Randism, this looks like an Asylum attempt at Clash Of The Titans.
That may have been a few of many problems - no discernible actors, characters or plot from the get-go.
Ayn Rand is a colossal piece of shit and never deserved any recognition.
>>64401842
charity
1.
an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
2.
the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
people volunteer and donate to charities to feel better about themselves and to validate their existence. Helping others makes people feel important.
>>64402045
another reason is that it improves the image of oneself in front of other people.
>>64401991
I like her.
>>64402131
It's because you're an edgy faggot imho
>>64402174
>being this annoyed
What's your problem with her. if you're really truly altruistic it shouldnt bother you that someone claims you're not.
>>64402248
I'm not annoyed, I just call them as I see them imho
>>64400034
shut up, idiot.
I literally couldn't think of a more pretentious and pointless sentence than what you just vomited out.
>>64401860
Not like it matters. In the end everyone but the couple dozen people worthy of being in Galt's Gulch die anyway.
>>64402285
capitalism or communism?
>>64394486
>>64394244
I thought it was in present day because of cost?
>>64402365
What doesn't matter? The point was that bad philosophy ruins nations and that the only people keeping it alive are those who ascribe to a different philosophy.
>>64402363
Thank you (sincerely) for your compliance.
>>64401842
>Most people who give to charity don't have a personal motive or selfish interest.
Indeed. That's why they shouldn't.
THIS is what Objectivism is about.
>>64401777
nice trips
>>64402045
Wow, you're such a sad individual. The fixation on altruistic motives is such a copout answer. Just because something someone does makes them feel good doesn't make it not altruistic.
People who give to others and feel good about it could just as easily masturbated to porn, the end result is altruistic, the motive doesn't really matter in that instance.
People like Rand just want to find any little reason to not give to anyone or help others. They need to find the smallest flaw in anything and then treat it like that is some kind of justifiable reason to do nothing themselves.
"I don't give to charity, people who do only do it to feel better about themselves."
"I wouldn't save someone who is drowning, they got themselves into it and people who do would only do it to make themselves seem important."
"I don't need to pay a fair wage to workers, I have all the power, what are they going to do about it?"
>>64402635
No. They do have personal motive or selfish interest, or they wouldn't be doing it.
>>64402635
Why shouldn't they? What's wrong with wanting to help people? I don't get what you're trying to say
>>64402729
That's basically what I just said, idiot.
>>64402749
Objectivism says that you should do things for selfish reasons.
If you're doing something for not selfish reasons, then according to Objectivism, you should stop doing it.
Do you understand it now? Or do I need to simplify even more?
It was straight to DVD garbage.
>>64402751
you said the opposite, you agreed that those people DONT have personal motives or selfish interests.
Unless the word "indeed" got a new meaning
>>64402854
Okay, I misunderstood then. I still disagree though. Most people don't do it for selfish reasons, they do it because they think it's somehow their moral duty to give to charity or otherwise they're selfish jerks.
>>64402797
And why should one only do things for selfish reasons? The human race wouldn't have lasted as long as it has if people were selfish all the time. Nobody would ever sacrifice themselves for others, parents wouldn't care for their children, friends wouldn't care for their friends.
That's why I can't stand objectivism, it ignores the fact that humans are social creatures capable of morality beyond pure self-preservation. Individuals matter, but individuals exist thanks to society.
>>64402701
this reads like some fuckin slate article
fuck off you commie faggot
>>64402934
>parents wouldn't care for their children, friends wouldn't care for their friends.
this isn't altruism you love your friends and your family
>>64402701
>Just because something someone does makes them feel good doesn't make it not altruistic.
altruism
1.
disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
2.
behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.
>>64402934
>Nobody would ever sacrifice themselves for others
This doesn't help humanity in any way.
>parents wouldn't care for their children, friends wouldn't care for their friends.
There are good selfish reasons to do these things. Being selfish =/= being anti-social.
>>64403024
Yep, that just proves me right. Not sure if you're on my side or not.
Benefiting other at your own expense... can still make one feel good.
You follow or do you have any other dictionary words you can copy and paste?
>>64402934
>parents wouldn't care for their children, friends wouldn't care for their friends.
People find pleasure in caring for their loved ones otherwise it would be an unpleasant chore to interact with them
>>64402965
And the true Ayn Rand fan shows their face.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE JEDI ARE EVIL.
>>64403043
>This doesn't help humanity in any way.
Tell that to all the soldiers that have died in war.
Tell that to all the firefighters, paramedics and first responders that died helping others.
Tell that to all the people who have risked their lives to bring medicine and resources to war-torn countries.
Tell that to anyone whose ever died saving and helping a complete stranger.
I can't believe you're insulting people who willingly gave their lives for the benefit of others.
>>64402934
I love the idea that the same people who buy into this garbage about never being selfless also talk about aspiring to be like Jesus every damn day.
>>64403134
If you're doing something because it makes you feel good, you aren't being disinterested and selfless.
>>64403134
If it makes you feel good then you are 1) not disinterested and 2) not benefitting someone at your own expense (you get something out of it), therefore to be truly altruistic you must not feel good doing it
>>64403266
>I can't believe you're insulting people who willingly gave their lives for the benefit of others.
I can - That's what I'm intentionally doing.
All of their sacrifices were for absolutely nothing. They were wrong.
>>64403267
It's quite a paradox. Republicans admire Ayn Rand even though she was an and outspoken atheist
>>64403279
You understand motives, interests and emotions are complicated things right?
The world doesn't work in a black and white way.
>>64403345
So do libertarians although Rand herself couldn't stand them.
>>64403291
Read the second definition moron.
>>64403335
Then you're an ungrateful piece of shit, just like Ayn Rand.
>>64399297
>producers ignored the will of the free market and made 2 more movies
That is the definition of free market. You are free to produce bad movies if you want and you'll go broke.
>>64403438
>behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.
k
>>64403425
Ayn Rand had an issue with the Libertarian Party, and the issue was that she felt they had co-opted her ideas without giving her due credit.
>>64403499
Why should I be grateful if they didn't expect anything in return?
>>64403499
Basically, another ad hominem.
What's wrong about being "ungrateful"? The whole concept implies I somehow owe something to these people. Even though they are all dead and I can't repay them in any meaningful way.
>>64401589
But you truly understand how the world works and all that's wrong is not enough government control.
>>64403611
>>64403655
You don't have to be grateful, but actively insulting them makes you an asshole
>>64403655
I would say being ungrateful to people who have sacrificed in the past so you could live your life the way you do is pretty much inherently wrong.
>>64403711
Can the dead be insulted? No, really - do they care what I say about them?
>>64403732
I never asked them to sacrifice anything for me.
>>64395731
What blows me away is how willfully oblivious evangelicals are to how she was an unrepentant godless social darwinist who would slit her throat before acknowledging Jesus
>>64403561
She called them "right-wing hippies"
>>64401725
Probably the fact that she, I dunno, started a cult
>>64403814
Evangelicals are pretty fucking stupid, anon. Most haven't even read the bible.
>>64403822
Hippies of the right, yeah. Have you ever watched a Libertarian Party convention on CNBC? She's right.
She was a huge fan of Goldwater, so small-l libertarians were definitely not her target - just the Libertarian Party and the movement associated with them (which does not encompass all of libertarianism).
>>64403780
Yup, you sound exactly like Ayn Rand, who refused to ever thank the relatives who helped her get into America and provided her with food, housing and connections, without which she never would have become succesful. She never recognized the fact that without them she wouldn't have made it far, instead claiming that "no one helped" her. She never repaid the loans given to her.
>>64403858
A destructive-cult? I've added a hyphen for ultimate clarity.
>>64403858
she invented a new form of philosophy not a cult.
>>64403968
Did she sign a contract with them stipulating those loans were to be repaid?
I didn't either.
This sums it up nicely:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
>>64394166
Ayn Rand had the emotional maturity of a child. Her entire philosophy is her justifying being a selfish prick all because she couldn't get over her father losing his business and property to the commies and not being man enough to fight back.
The ideal Atlas Shrugged for me
>Art Deco
>film noir
>animated
>set in 50s
>most speeches cut out
>cut half the characters
That would give you a good mystery movie.
The absolute best parts of the movie are Rearden's and Taggart's relationships with their family. Them getting shit on is actually entertaining so if you could pull that off in a way where everything looked stylistic/Bioshock like I think you would have a movie
Also I bet you could put together a god tier oldies soundtrack for it.
>>64404058
Explain to me how you are not a parasite?
>>64404134
I think you're wrong
there are some sweet moments in it (like Rearden giving Dagny the necklace his wife rejected), you just have to cut out all the autistic speeches.
>>64394166
>micro budget
>condensing one of the longest novels ever into a 3 movie runtime
>horribly miscast
>probably impossible to adapt
>modern time
>weird changes to the plot
>coopted by conservacucks who really don't share the values of Rand and would probably starve to death in a Randian world
They should have just tried to remake the Fountainhead.
>>64401258
Nigga, I read that book over 10 years ago and I still remember enough to know that you are omitting on an important detail - the part where Rearden's brother asked for money from Rearden but also insisted that Rearden's name should not be disclosed as the benefactor.
She was condemning the hypocrisy, not charity.
>>64404234
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGyJOX5wFFg
tell me who's in the wrong in this scene
>>64404234
A parasite is something that enters another living being's body and takes things without asking.
I'm being accused of taking things that have been given to me, without asking me.
>>64396571
t. Bernie Sanders
>>64404350
That's clearly not what Rearden is angry about in the excerpt you are responging to.
>not because the words were hypocrisy, but because they were true; Philip meant them
>>64399643
It's their money to waste.
You obviously have never read any Ayn Rand.
>>64404477
ok so yes, you are a parasite.
Good, I'm happy we're on the same page.
>>64404654
Yeah, he meant them in a sense that he was convinced it was completely OK to take from someone to benefit someone else and didn't think nothing of it.
>>64404735
>two totally different things
>suddenly they are the same thing
Thanks to your stellar reading comprehension.
>>64404753
I liked how Rearden's family hated him yet depended on him
That was a good dynamic
>>64401564
>vidya tard doesn't have the attention span to finish a 1000 page book
shocking!
>>64404210
did you watch that autistic review on Youtube?
ITT: I hate Ayn Rand and her works because I wouldn't benefit in her universe
>>64405160
nah
you got a link?
These people pick cotton for others with NO personal benefit! What a great world this is!
Is there ever going to come a point in this thread where we, despite ideological differences, gather together to sing Kumbaya?
>>64405250
The books have serious problems
But I think a good adaptation could fix all those things. What matters most though is they get the right tone and art style which is definitely where the movie failed horridly.
>>64405299
god speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3pqMDIqwIo
>>64404234
Here, let me blow my load in your mouth, complete stranger. No, you have no choice in the matter.
Thanks friend. Just remember that tomorrow you must give me your car as repayment for this favour, or you're some kind of an ingrateful parasite.
>>64405351
>almost 2 and half hours
jesus
>>64405435
I warned you it was autistic.
I just skimmed through it, but he mentioned things similar to: >>64404210
>>64397493
>Setting a story about trains, that makes constant mention of the logistics of running a train company, in the modern day when trains are irrelevant, and not changing the plot to match the setting to be about planes or something.
Uh, I agree with most of what you say, but in fact, in the US trains are extremely relevant. They carry the lions share of ground freight, even though dumbass trucker rednecks pretend that they "move america". Trains are just more discrete, because they're not so visible, while trucks run right there on the road next to you.
>>64406048
true, but a lot of the setting is still old-timey.
would be better off as an alternate 1960s Mad Men-esque setting
If all people on earth were Randians, civilization would crumble as we'd descend into a nightmarish Hobbesian dystopia where nobody could expect to trust his fellow man and only a select few especially sociopathic robber barons could ever hope to prosper.
>>64406243
What a great and original observation
too bad it's a complete strawman of a more nuanced (although still flawed) position.
>>64406243
>>64394166
Garbage source material. Can't fix retarded, overstated self-justifying horseshit written by a welfare queen who was pandering to rich assholes and wannabes.
>>64406243
I don't believe that's true.
>>64406243
Breaking someone's trust to stab them in the back is not what a Randian would do.
>>64406323
I liked the source material.
>>64406331
Most traffic jams are the result of everybody acting in their best interest.
>>64406187
I haven't actually seen the movie, I just read that comment about trains being irrelevant and got my jimmies rustled. It's a common misconception, since passenger rail in the US is indeed irrelevant, but rail freight is as relevant as ever, even more so since the intermodal container.
t. /n/ignog (trainfag, not bikefag)
>>64406377
You were adequately pandered to.
>>64406446
It isn't that "trains are irrelevant" in modern times. It's that "everything about the fucking plot is irrelevant."
>>64406404
While the unselfish support of public transit in the end gets you less commute time and better quality of life.
When there's too many individual interests, each interest gets reduced to so little that a common interest will yeild more for your personal interest, than your personal interest would have in the first place.
Simple, isn't it?
>>64397700
It's 100% politically motivated. Just take it for what it is (slander). Those same people probably thought V For Vendetta was plausable.
>>64406353
Sure they would if it benefits them.
>>64406353
>no true Scotsman
Oh god the pleb levels on this board some times
>>64406243
I dont really see a huge difference between your description and reality.
>>64401153
Wait we could turn Africa from a desolate shithole created by egalitarian regimes into a slightly better shithole caused by similar institutions?
>>64406625
Getting known for being a backstabbing traitor benefits them?
>>64406642
What? I didn't say "no true Randian..." - it quite literally is not what the philosophy is about. It's all about realising that not being a complete asshole to others is beneficial to yourself, therefore there are selfish reasons to be fair and honest in dealing with people.
>>64406645
That's because the reality is not Objectivist, and neither is his description.
>>64401448
Did you miss the part where those people only gave away other peoples money and never their own? This is why politicians hate to cut taxes.
>>64406593
If public transit achieves such demonstrably superior results, why does money have to be taken from citizens at gunpoint to fund it?
>>64406815
>Getting known for being a backstabbing traitor benefits them?
You can see for yourself where that leads you, right? The important part is the cost of being known as a traitor, not the nefarious deed itself. Remove the cost of bad reputation (e.g. Take care not to get caught) and suddenly there's nothing wrong with being a backstabbing traitor anymore for a Randian. If he's sure he can get away with murder and if it's in his selfish rational interest, then he should go for it according to his philosophy.
>>64407042
Technically yes, but you'd have to be monumentally dumb to think you can get away with crimes just like that.
>>64406243
>>64405890
he seems to be obsessed with the politics, I think Atlas Shrugged could be a good story regardless of the politics/Randian part
there are other themes going on in the story.
>>64403345
You seem to know nothing about the party then.
>>64407113
I'm sure a philosophy that encourages murder (but only for dumb people!) will have no practical ramifications, because there are no dumb people who overestimate their abilities.
>>64394166
>What went wrong?
Ayn Rand did. From a very a young age.
>>64407042
What? Not initiating physical force is the prime directive of Objectivism.
You don't sound like you know too much about what you're talking about and are just rambling based on conjecture based on a caricature.
>>64407230
Dumb people who overestimate their abilities and would murder people.
What exactly is holding them back in current society?
>>64394166
Rand means Edge, in German.
>>64407223
The Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, makes his interns read "Atlas Shrugged".
>>64394166
Shit story, shit movie.
>>64407431
Holy fuck, hope they don't murder anyone like Ayn Rand tells everyone to :(
>>64407400
I was under the impression unrestrained rational self-interest is the prime directive, and it certainly doesn't preclude initiating physical force.
>>64405323
There are more slaves today than ever before. They are also cheaper than ever.
>>64407431
literally no one likes Paul Ryan
>>64407477
You're flat wrong, and if you don't know what you're talking about you shouldn't engage in discourse under the appearance that you do. It's intellectual dishonesty.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/ - a primer. Read it, bro.
>The only thing that matters is me and my selfish desires
lol no wonder Ayn Rand appeals to teenagers, fucking joke "philosophy"
>>64407411
At least some dumb people are held back by having it hammered into their heads from an early age that murder is wrong full stop, no matter how much it'd benefit you and no matter how sure you are you won't get caught. Also, you are going to get caught by Jesus anyway so just don't try.
>>64407528
That fucking picture set always kills me. What the fuck was he thinking?
>>64399643
creating value is what matters to her.
>>64407477
Then you haven't read Ayn Rand.
I'm not sure if there is an actual "prime directive", though, other than "Reason is the only absolute". She actually said that - anything else can be argued. Throw away reason, though, and there's no point in arguing. Depressingly many people are like that and you should be depressed about it whether you're Randian or not.
>>64407585
Well that just sounds like an argument against atheism in general.
>>64405250
this desu
>>64407535
>>64407620
>Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues.
>The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action.
So how do we go from this to "Initiation of violence is forbidden"? Would you really argue reason would never guide you to murder someone, if serving your self-interest is your one and only goal in life? I can concoct a million scenarios where it'd be perfectly rational to initiate violence for my own benefit.
>>64407792
your self interest involves what you are personally interested in. Are you interested in murdering people to better yourself? If the answer is yes, that is a problem with you, not with Rand's philosophy.
>>64407792
Why not just read the lexicon entry on coercion and argue against what that says rather than what you have formulated based on what you haven't read?
Dogma destroys art. How ironic, given that the doctrines are intended to honor pure individual creative abilities.
>>64407876
So you don't deny Randian philosophy does in fact not prohibit me from murdering someone if it's what I'm personally interested in?
>>64407792
>I can concoct a million scenarios
I'm sure you can, but how many of those are realistic? How many of them have you encountered in real life?
Ayn Rand wasn't much of a proponent of the method of theorizing typical to philosophy of coming up with completely artificial and unlikely scenarios to test ideas - instead she would rather think about how to live in the real world.
>>64407906
The entry on physical violence seems just to state that use of force is "irrational" without anything backing that up. That's very unconvincing. If reason is supposed to be my only jugde of values, and if reason should happen to say "Murder that sucker right there and you're set for life," then on what grounds is Rand going to say "b-but you shouldn't act in your best self interest..."?
>>64408110
>"Murder that sucker right there and you're set for life,"
So, if you're honestly in a situation where this applies, why do you think there needs to be something to hold you back? Why not just do it then?
>>64408001
>instead she would rather think about how to live in the real world
There's murder and crime aplenty in the real world already. Some of it is commited on impulse, some criminals are irrational indeed. But some are cunning and careful and very rational. I don't see how following Rand's philosophy would change any of that. Impulsive crimes are going to happen either way and rationally prepared crimes might not be actually forbidden by her philosophy at all. If she thought about application in the real world that much, that shouldn't have escaped her attention.
>>64408373
I don't think she thought her philosophy would eliminate crime.
Otherwise she would have suggested a society without weapons, police or the military because they would be unneeded.
>>64408372
I prefer to live in a world where murder for fun and profit is discouraged even if that might hold me back personally at some point. Think of it as a prisoner's dilemma: We all could strictly follow our own rational self interest and suffer for it, or we could try to make empathy, trust and compassion the default in hopes of creating a society where everyone comes out better on avarage than they would've done by doing the short term rational thing. Whenever I hear Randians talk about their philosophy I can't help but get the impression they'd be utterly fucked if confronted with a dilemma of that sort.
>>64405160
I tried, I really did. I pushed on and made it to the third chapter because I don't like giving up on books. I don't mind the length, I've never read a 1000-page one but I've done something like 600, I think. :^)
>>64408685
>prisoner's dilemma
>completely artificial and unlikely scenarios
>short term rational thing
Rand was pretty big about making the distinction between the "short term rational thing", and a long term one which rarely (never?) would favour murdering someone or committing other serious crimes.
>>64403508
But Ayn Rand herself would still hate them for it. They are allowed to, and they somehow could afford to crash those films with no survivors, but she hated production for the sake of production only. She even hated altruism with a passion.
Making two more movies when the first failed was an irrational, stupid decision.
No matter how you twist and turn it, those who made 2 more of these trainwrecks *get it xDDD) did something that their favorite ideologist would absolutely hate them for. I find that to be kind of amusing.
The ignorant, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Randers ITT are making me consider voting Trump.
>>64408833
Well she would have hated the idea of someone doing an adaptation of her works without her involvement or consent in the first place.
Want to see Ayn Rand in movie form, watch The Fountainhead. (It was the better book, anyway)
>>64404058
In most countries, and as a capitalist principle, deals shall be upheld, including oral agreements. This principle is enforced within reason and with proportionate means, of course, but it's firmly established as law in most Western countries.
A loan deal, including a oral one, shall be upheld. People put it in writing for evidence, but you can be held accountable for oral promises as well. A private loan is definitely such a thing.
>>64408928
Is that supposed to be a threat? Being anti-Rand, I'd vote for Trump over Hillary any day of the week.
>>64408928
This is bait, right? Rand would absolutely hate Trump and see him for the corporate welfare crony capitalist he is.
>>64409207
She'd hate all the candidates except Rand Paul, but considering his chances of winning he might as well not run.
>>64409384
She'd hate Rand Paul too.
>>64409773
All the more because he's named after her. By another dude she would hate.
>>64409773
I think she would merely strongly dislike him. Burning hate ought to be reserved for the likes of Trump, Clinton, et al.
You're supposed to discuss the movie.
Go to /lit/ if you want to discuss book prose.
Go to /pol/ if you want to discuss the politics.
I know this is hard to understand.
>>64409909
The political content is part of the movie.
>>64409909
It's hard to ignore the politics when they are 100 % essential to the movie. The movie was meant as blatant propaganda.
>>64409773
I think she would adore Rand Paul. He's the closest thing to Goldwater there's ever been, including Ron Paul (whom she would have disliked).
>>64409909
>Movie based off a propaganda book for a political concept
>No books
>No politics
Don't be thick
