Why doesn't /pol/ like Ayn Rand?
Something to kick off the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2-DScLCNLw
I actually like Rand and Branded and Heinlein A LOT. All critisisms of her work are biblical tier strawman.
As a true fan, i'll do you a solid, though.
>Bashes on Buddhism and other assorted spiritual systems for being escapist.
>??????????
>First thing the "prime movers" do when the going gets tough is run away to form a literal hippie retreat commune.
Make up your mind, Alice.
>>56502911
She accepted welfare from the state once she was no longer able to support herself.
>>56502911
Plagarism.
>>56503110
Fuck, now I hate her even more.
>>56502911
She's alright all criticisms of her generally boil down to this:
>hurr durr being selfish is bad
>hurr durr she accepted welfare
>>56502911
As a writer - Rand was a mediocre novelist of trashy potboilers
As a philosopher - Rand was a mediocre novelist of trashy potboilers
Calling Rand a philosopher makes less sense than calling Heinlein a philosopher.
Her books are overly-long, low-end scifi pulps full of purple prose and their initial success was mainly for the sex/rape scenes.
Her 'philosophy' isn't - Rand - and her followers! - make the sort of knuckleheaded mistakes that a second-year undergrad philo major would sneer at.
Why don't I like her?
She, and Ayndroids, are that combination of under-educated + self-important I find most repellant
>>56503110
This is kind of a stupid reason to hate her and its a bit of a nit pick. I mean if you pay into a system your whole life and get sick and decide to use it... I dont see how this conflicts with her philosophy. It would be like bleeding to death but refusing an ambulance because it rides on government roads.
There are some things I dont like about Rand but when people bring this up it is kind of retarded.
>>56503602
Liberal faggot detected
>>56503602
So what specifically about her philosophy do you disagree with?
You went into a rant with no specifics.
She's a woman and therefore wrong about everything.
>>56503602
Nice ad-hominem faggot. Now explain what part of her philosophy is wrong.
I'll wait.
>>56503755
>You went into a rant with no specifics.
That's every critique of Rand ever. Literal emotional mind control.
>>56503672
>“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” -Ayn Rand
>"I'll accept welfare, even though I understand it is paid for by taxes on people who are actually working for a living" - also Ayn Rand
The real problem is that Rand, unmlike you (you fucking moron) BOTH
A) understood welfare does not work by you 'paying into the system, then getting your money back'. She stated *in speeches* that welfare was immoral because it was taking money from taxpayer A now to pay for someone else now. She stated she opposed it because it was 'forced charity'
B) Knowing that, she took it anyway - she violated her principles (go look up what she thinks of people who violate their principles) for convenience.
>>56503602
Your Bernie is showing...
>>56503858
>>56503858
If we accepted your welfare hypocrisy argument this no way invalidates her views. It just shows she was a hypocrite.
>>56503602
>make the sort of knucklehead mistakes that a second-year undergrad philo major would sneer at.
Hahaha. Go fuck yourself with that useless piece of paper you got from your liberal slave training facility, you pretentious cunt.
Roll it up, and just stick it right up your ass.
>>56503858
Also this is a weird thing to nit pick. I am guessing you are just as critical of communist philosophers taking advantage of free market industries also.
You can dig at a person and find small contradictions if you want to. I mean Aristotle most likely fucked little boys because of the time period... That doesnt invalidate his fucking philosophy.
Even though I am a capitalist - if I get stabbed in a communist country - I would take what ever medical care I could get. It doesnt mean I agree with the system or think it couldnt be better.
>sigh
>>56503708
>>56503833
>>56503814
>bo hoo hoo; I am going to call someone names because they called someone name
What is wrong with her "philosophy"?!
Have a few days?
Let's start simply, OK?
First - she never clearly stated her philosophy in a coherent form in one place; a bit here is a shrot story; a bit there in a fiction novel; a drab thither in a speech; a smidgen hither in an interview. We must rely upon her followers to attempt to make a coherent statement.
Second, nuts and bolts:
A) Rand assumes agent-relative value over absolute value but merely asserts this, never supports or defends it. This is a core failure
B) She asserts that value/goodness requires alternatives or choice, but only asserts this, never supports or defends this. This is a core failure
C) Rands assertion that 'non-living things face no alternatives and cannot be destroyed' is false in two manners: one, by her formulation she asserts that all living things, including plants, have Free Will; two, non-living things can be destroyed and their existence can be dependent upon positive action
D) Her use of the word 'value' alternates between the verb meaning and the noun meaning arbitrarily and without support or explanation, rendering her arguments about value nonsensical at best, false at worst. It also means that it is very easy for Rand to contradict herself
>In her speeches and books she argues that people strive for things of no value; in her lectures and non-fiction she argues that anything people strive for in of an inherent value because of their yearning for it, etc.
more
>>56503858
>supported by the son of a wealthy factory owner
According to you his whole philosophy is invalid now.
>>56504325
First of all
[citation needed]
Second of all she wrote plenty of non fiction books if you can learn to google. But just for raw philosophy the heir to her intellectual estate has a pretty cut and dry book on the subject.
>>56502911
Because her philosophy is the current destructive ideology of the west. Godlessness and the worship of wealth, own ego and the corporate overlords. Not to mention her prose is shit and she tries so hard to make everything except hardline capitalism seem retarded.
>>56504325
E) A core element of her arguments is self-contradictory, as she proposed, herself. A core conceptualization in her nascent philosophy is that all creatures act to maintain their lives for their own sake and that, thus, your own life and only your own life have inherent value to you, so only life has inherent value.
These are (no other way to put it) patently absurd and something she, herself, contradicts.
People will often sacrifice their own life for something of more value from religion to children. While the argument
>"Well, these people still value life highest!'
*might* work, it means that the lives of others can be paramount, making the conclusion that selfishness is best falsified.
.
Again, this is all Philo 230-250 stuff, understanding how logic works.
Rand did a good job of hiding her faults by never putting her entire argument in one place, but they still shine through.
>>56503708
>>56503755
>>56503814
>>56503859
>>56504193
>I love me some Ayn Rand! Philosophy s awesome!
>Wait, you actually have *training* in Logic and Philosophy! What a phagott
Never change, Ayndroids. never fucking change.
>>56503997
>We know that Rand accepted *some* forced charity in violation of her core principles, but not much, so that's OK
>>56504665
It means that the value is more important than their own life. So if someone dies to save their child for example - they value that child more than their own life. In the objectivist sense this is selfish and not a sacrifice.
Have you read OPAR? The book image I linked? All of these concerns you bring up are actually in there.
>>56504001
Isn't that like admiring a Vegan for their stance on how not eating meat helps the environment even though you know they eat cheeseburgers and drive an SUV?
>>56502911
John Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged is pretty good.
>You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
>>56504256
Did you ever tell people that violating the principles of Objectivism was evil?
Rand did.
Did you ever state that violating your core principles was akin to self-murder?
Rand did.
Did you ever write that those who accepted forced charity where the state strips money from others to pay welfare deserve death?
Rand did.
Besides, if SHE didn't/couldn't follow her own little cult, why should anyone else?
>>56502911
I enjoyed Atlas Shrugs, it has some interesting points to make, but unfortunately she was anti-racist and pro open borders, i.e. pro White genocide
>>56503110
this old talking point, why not pick something that is actually wrong with her philosophy instead of something you claim is hypocritical
it is still perfectly reasonable to draw social security that you have paid into, even if you wanted to abolish it
>>56504920
I am not doubting she said these... and even though I am arguing with you I am not a defender of Rand as a person. That said I appreciate her philosophy.
Also can you give me a source for anything? You are making a lot of claims on what she said but have no citations or anything for me to look up.
>>56504395
1) I am stating that Rand's philosophy is wrong BECAUSE OF THE LOGICAL ERRORS IN THE PHILOSOPHY.
The blatant hypocrisy is just funny.
I also think Marxism is wrong BECAUSE OF THE LOGICAL ERRORS IN THE PHILOSOPHY.
The blatant hypocrisy is just funny.
>>56503997
>>56504001
>>56504256
>>56504395
You randroids need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
Of course, if that wasn't true you wouldn't be randroids.
>>56504256
what invalidates Aristotle was his conviction that useless ideas were more noble than useful ones
>>56504920
also I need to head out for a while so I hope this thread is alive in an hour or so.
Plenty of time for you to dig up those citations and sources
>>56504538
1) Am am largely referencing The Objectivist Ethics, probably the cleanest presentation of her own ideas without a shit-ton of modifications
2) I have been referencing her non-fiction works throughout. Try to keep up
>>56504627
confirmed for not understanding her philosophy
she had many valid criticisms to make, but not all of her positions were valid, some were destructive
>>56503110
so if you're a socialist you should only accept healthcare services from unionized co-op hospitals or die?
this argument is retarded and doesn't belong in an intellectual debate. But then again, we're on /pol/ and you're retarded.
>>56504836
>admiring a Vegan
for fucks sake, does anyone admire vegans? are you high?
>>56503110
1. After she initially refused
2. And was told by her friends to do so, including Alan Greenspan
3. From a system she paid into
>>56505014
You havent pointed out any specific logical errors. You have given me your own interpretation on what she said - and then you are attacking that. You have not provided any citations or sources for any of it either.
Objectivism is a pretty basic philosophy if you were to read OPAR (the image I linked)... You could pull actual positions and line of thought from the philosopher to argue instead of your own watered down view of it. To be honest if you were more intelligent there would be good arguments to have, but you are just giving me rehashed positions that you are not well read on.
It's because she was an egalitarian. Without that red pill, you really don't have a legitimate philosophy.
Wealth is mostly not a product of hard work or ingenuity or drive or motivation. Most of it is a product of genetics.
>>56504815
Yes, I've read it, and it is a slipshod attempt to spackle the egregious errors in core Randian thought.
Indeed, all Peikoff does is starkly illustrate what is probably Rand's worst error.
Not the most obvious error, the worst error.
She does a poor job of doing it, but she argues that all values are based upon one's own life (most clearly shown in her clear statement 'life and nothing else is valuable for its own sake' which leads to the core statement of ethical egoism, 'therefore everyone should always do whatever promotes his own life'.
But this leads to a serious issue, to wit:
>if torturing 5 innocent people to that they experience maximum possible suffering gains me a net value of $1 or 1 more minute of life, it is acceptable?
Under a strict formulation of this theory, absolutely.
If i can live an excellent, long life by theft, should I?
So far, sure!
But Rand balked and went on to say that when she said "life" she mean "life of man qua man", meaning 'life proper to a rational being'.
This statement, *which is never logically supported*, is the foundation for saying
>Well, if you give up your life *the only thing of value to you* it is still selfish
In other words, she failed to even MENTION the is/ought issue, let alone address it!
Peikoff *ALSO* uses the assumption that 'life' means 'a life worth living' but never logically justifies it!
Sure, there is a fair amount of rhetoric, but no actual explication of how to bridge the is/ought problem with this statement.
>>56505096
Ofcourse it has its objective pros and cons, just like every other ideology. My problem with her is that she only inspects 1 side of 1 coin and throws rest of the wallet into garbage bin.
>>56504993
The Objectivist Ethics
The Speeches of Ayn Rand
Those are great places to start
>>56502911
hey i like her
OP we have similar flags <3 <3 <3
>>56505069
LOL!
try Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, Anthem, the Speeches of Ayn Rand, the Objectivist Ethics, and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal to begin with.
>>56505580
Yours is older tho. But again, I'm white, so...
>>56505133
The point--------------------->
Your head O
>consuming Jewish philosophy
>>56505598
You know, just because they're Jewish doesn't mean they've thrown in with the Zionist Jewish conspiracy.
Jews have very powerful brains, you'll find them all over the place in the top levels of academia, on all sides.
>>56505252
>You havent pointed out any specific logical errors.
Well, other than these two posts
>>56504325
>>56504665
ONE OF WHICH YOU LINKED
>>56505504
you said the worship of coroporate overlords is part of her philosophy. If you read Atlas Shrugs, you will find that she thought genuine productive company owners should be supported, but those that use lobbying and other dishonest tactics to get ahead are evil, not to mention how the reasons that they use to advance their causes, are based on an irrational need to give away other peoples money in order to get feelings of gratification
it's quite sensible and insightful
>>56505665
your point was silly
you are very low energy tonight
>>56505694
s m h t b h f a m
>>56503110
Her logic was that if you are forced to pay into it your whole life, then it is rational and reasonable to take back. Really you're just getting back what was stolen from you.
>>56504719
Sorry bro but if you've actually gone to school for this stuff your teachers did a really shit job.
Just a reminder: ad hominems aren't arguments! Wow! If you actually are interested in refuting her ideas, you must refute her actual fucking ideas. I can guarantee you don't know what Objectivism is about, if you really researched it you wouldn't be spewing this nonsense.
>>56505252
Ah, the usual Randroid counter of
>Well, no she never supported or defended her starting positions, she misunderstood and misused the word axiom, she never, ever bridged the is/ought problem, she equivocated the meaning of value to suit her purposes at the time, but you haven't shown any ERRORS and your points are REHASHED and you are STUPID.
I had a bet with my wife that the word 'rehashed' would be used by an Objectivist before the 100th post.
Tell you what - support agent-relative value and bridge the is/out on 'Man qua Man' and we'll talk, OK, sparky?
>>56505484
You are dropping the context. There would be no value in torturing 5 innocent people even if magically you were to gain time from it somehow. This also goes against how objectivists look at selfishness - which is basically being left alone to create their own value and life. There is value in trade and mutual consent as well - so there is no value in torturing 5 innocent people because it hinders *their* ability to create their own life. Selfishness in the objectivist sense is creating my own life for me - not taking someone elses life for me. There is a huge difference there and all of this is explained.
Also the is - ought problem has been addressed. Also I really need to leave for a bit I hope this thread is here in an hour.
http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/20869-is-ought-problem-actually-solved-problem-of-universals/
>>56505850
>I had a bet with my wif
confirmed for foreveralone faggot basement frog
that's not a criticism btw
>>56505814
First line:
>Sorry bro but if you've actually gone to school for this stuff your teachers did a really shit job.
Second line:
>Just a reminder: ad hominems aren't arguments!
BOOM! You can't make this shit up, folks!
WOOOOOO! I *LOVE* Objectivists in action!
Third line:
> If you actually are interested in refuting her ideas, you must refute her actual fucking ideas.
See
>>56504325
>>56504665
>>56505484
Those are
>wait for it
Direct refutations/issues with major elements of Rand's formulation of Objectivism.
>>56505882
>You are dropping the context. There would be no value in torturing 5 innocent people even if magically you were to gain time from it somehow.
No, I am not. I am pointing out that Rand can only avoid the conclusion that torture is acceptable if it give the torturer a gain by ignoring the is/ought problem inherent in her concept that one's own life is the core value.
>that link
Sparky, that thread is assuming a teleological and deontological basis to reality. Which is perfectly fine except
1) it isn't defended or supported
and
2) Those positions refute Objectivism by removing the source of value from one's own life.
Let me guess - you googled, found that, and don't really understand it, right?
All it is, in the end, is either hand-waving or self-refutation.
>>56506042
I'm on 4chan, right?
We all know that everyone on 4chan should really only post of /r9k/
>>56506065
Oh fuck me I didn't even notice that shit. Nobody ever writes out a real refutation, wasn't expecting that.
You win this round but I'll get you back one of these days anon, mark my words. I will argue your ass into the fucking ground with my immense wit.
>>56506322
when did r9k become for frogposters?
wasn't it designed to be an ordinary board with a special filter to prevent duplicate replies?
>>56503573
>Hard of thinking Abbo
I like Ayn Rand. But then again I'm not republican like most of this board, I'm Realistically a Libertarian and ideally an anarchist.
>>56503110
>They say socialism fails because it encourages to game the system; but look how they game the system !!
Yes. And it proves exactly what they are saying.
>>56506761
So - a Liberal
>>56503110
It was her own money that the state took through taxes. Taxation is stealing, accepting welfare later on is just taking back what is yours. And what people conveniently leave out is she wasn't going to accept welfare, her lawyer pushed her into it and the government was getting more money out of her from book sale while she was getting welfare.
>>56506761
You're worse than Hitler.
>>56506761
hope you support the right for closed borders?
>>56505074
Actually no, Rand herself endorsed Peikoff's book as the 'greatest representation' of her ideas. She even co-authored it.
>>56506848
No. Liberals believe in more government than the Republicans, high taxation and laws that limit freedom even if it means ignoring WHT the constitution says. I believe in making government as small as possible, anything that isn't physically hurting other people should not be illegal, constitution is the foundation of our country and must be followed and taxes are stealing.
>>56506902
What's wrong with Hitler? The Jews were a threat and had to go. Hitler gave other countries a chance to take them in, they said no. Every nation in history has despised the Jews and said they aren't allowed there. Even America at one point would not allow them. And for how he ran his country, national socialism worked out a lot better than every other system that has been implemented throughout the world.
>>56506965
I do. If countries want to close their borders, they can. People should stick with their own kind instead of forcing their way into other groups and countries.
America needs to kick the wetbacks out and say no to the Syrians. America needs to worry about America.
>>56507188
Ayn Rand made me a libertarian, so I'll always be grateful for that, and for exposing the reasons behind these idiots who want to help others with other peoples money, also for exposing crony capitalism
but her ideas about racism and open borders are absolutely nuts in my view
>Rand
>not superior Stirner
>>56507002
>liberal
>literally the same etymology as 'liberty', i.e. 'freedom'
>high taxation and laws that limit freedom
I'll never understand US politics.
>>56507123
He was a hack and his prose was way worse than Rand's.
>>56506858
>Not understanding how welfare systems work
No, pal, no.
What you pay in taxes now? That is paying the benefits for someone *now*. It isn't going into a lockbox, an account, or a storage vault - it is *spent*. It is *gone*.
When you get benefits? Someone else is paying them *RIGHT NOW*. It is forced charity; on-demand altruism; living off the labor of someone else.
>>56507544
>I'll never understand US politics.
subverted by the Jews, does it make any sense now?
>>56502911
she's a woman
>>56507500
>meine Spuke
>>56507599
Yep, makes perfect sense.
>>56507565
so it's immoral to claim from a program you were forced to participate in?
if they stole off you once to make you pay, aren't you letting them steal off you twice if you refuse to claim?
>>56507635
women are fucking dumb.
>>56505694
Pic related, very intelligent Jewish academic (that supports Sanderstein and loves refugees)
There is one detractor here who seems to be at least somewhat familiar with Rand's philosophy and has posed what he thinks are refutations. They're based on a misunderstanding of her arguments which I believe is fairly easy to reach in the modern intellectual climate so is likely not his fault.
If anyone is interested in seeing why all these statements are false I highly recommend listening to all of Peikoff's extended lecture series (such as Advanced Seminars on OPAR, Objectivism through Induction etc.). They address so much of this thought pattern. Once finished you'll see that actually short essays such as The Objectivist Ethics actually did make the complete argument but Rand was so economical in her writing that you can't miss a single word's meaning or you'll miss an important piece of the puzzle.
In time others will write much longer works where Rand only wrote a few pages. One recent example is Binswanger's How We Know which I think is the best explanation of Rand's theory of concepts so far.
>>56507544
Conservatives are the ones more for liberty. Well they used to be anyway, the conservative politicians now are literally the same as the liberals. Bought and owned by all the same corporations.
>>56502911
>Why doesn't /pol/ like Ayn Rand?
She's a meme.
>>56507002
>>56507544
I've lived in America for years and I am still just stunned by what they think 'Liberal' means.
Protip: 'Liberal = the ideology that the primary goal of a person or government is to maximize liberty and equality'
That's why Murray Rothbard, etc. call themselves Liberals.
That's why laissez-faire Capitalism is a Liberal position *by definition*. That is why the "Founding Fathers" and the American Constitution are Liberal *by definition*.
Now, sure, there are two main schools of Liberalism: those focused on equality first vs those focused on liberty first. This is true. But both are Liberal.
As a foreigner living in America I see, very clearly, that politics here and in Europe is largely about the two branches of Liberalism (equality v. liberty) arguing between themselves.
>>56507748
Rand is a woman, she shouldn't even be taught to read and write, let alone be published. Don't you have a bull to prep or a shed to build you fem-worshipping c.uck?
>>56507565
They spent it yes, but that does not mean they don't still owe it to you. If you are forced to put money into that system, you are owed that money back, spent or not. Period.
It is time we start holding government accountable for their crimes. Would you stand for me saying I'm going to come to your house, take money out of every paycheck you make and there is nothing you can do about. If you don't comply I'm locking you up in a cage. Because that's exactly what we are currently allowing the government to do.
>>56507648
According to Rand it is!
Read her long diatribe against the popular idea of Robin Hood and 'steal from the rich to give to the poor'. She explicitly states that forcing someone else to pay charity is wrong *and that participating in such a system is wrong*.
FURTHER, if you think YOU being forced to pay taxes is theft then you claiming benefits from that tax system means you are forcing others to be robbed - ever hear "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Again, my problems with Objectivism are its total dearth of a logical basis. My pointing to Rand's hypocrisy is just for chuckles, especially when Objectivists leap up and say
>"It is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE to participate in a system we claim is evil and if we do so *we* aren't evil even if we claim everyone else is!"
So much for Objectivity, eh?
>>56507813
Here in America Liberal does not refer to that philosophy, it's a tier of Democrats.
>>56507839
sup Ahmed
>>56508092
>he's not a feminist he must be a muslim
your shilling is obvious, back to tumblr.
>she accepted welfare
The fuck? I read "Capitalism: Unknown Ideal" and "Philosophy, Who Needs It?" Then, She became to a person who influenced me.
In the book, she always againsted the welfare.
Now I am influenced by Friedrich A. Hayek, Friedrich W. Nietzsche and Immanuel Kant. But man, even though I don't accept Rand as a philosopher but what the fuck is relation between Rand and welfare? Rand always rejected public welfare. Also the thing I know is Rand Paul is influenced by Ayn Rand.
She glorified the ideal Aryan man.
>>56507748
I've attended the seminars; I've heard the lectures, I have read the books.
The points aren't addressed.
>Rand was so economical in her writing
Do you expect anyone who has read her to believe this statement?
She simply omits to mention key elements, often because she doesn't seem to grasp she is missing something.
Listen, she was an auto-didact and that always leads to issues, like her complete misunderstanding of Kant (which seems to spring from her ignorance of Hume and her struggle to understand formal philosophical language), her misuse of the term 'axiom', etc. She did her best but the fact is she had no idea, really, what she was doing and her results are an incoherent mess.
>>56508058
Last time I checked words don't change meaning based on your passport
>>56508280
she justfied it by saying "well I payed for it". But the elephant in the room is how much she payed and how much she recieved, as if she payed x dollars and got x dollars out of government.
typical boomer justification that you can see even today.
>>56507943
>They spent it yes, but that does not mean they don't still owe it to you. If you are forced to put money into that system, you are owed that money back, spent or not. Period.
Says who?
>It is time we start holding government accountable for their crimes. Would you stand for me saying I'm going to come to your house, take money out of every paycheck you make and there is nothing you can do about. If you don't comply I'm locking you up in a cage. Because that's exactly what we are currently allowing the government to do.
1) When you accept social security, etc. you are, yes, actively participating in that system so YOU are asking the government to take money from others for YOU.
Second, you seem to have missed thhe difference between 'some guy' and 'the government'.
>One of the reasons I love Liberals, especially American Liberals that call themselves conservatives:
Do you support Democracy?
Yeah?
Then everything you whine about it
>steal, cages. etc.
is LEGAL and LEGITIMATE and you support it fully because you support Democracy.
only good goys like Ayn Rand
>>56508679
Yes they do. Liberal had a different definition before the pholosophy. Countries use different words to refer to different things. On paper in a dictionary it may have a set defition, but you go to another country and most words are used differently.
>>56502911
She's fucking amazing
>>56507748
dude, I just like Atlas Shrugged, and became a Liberrtarian
I don't care if she took welfare or not
I do care about her anti-racism and open borders
>>56507758
meme doesn't mean bad, you fucking idiot
>>56507996
the babblings of a fool, try being objective and not subjective
also, I don't really give a shit, certain of her ideas stand on their own
>>56508280
>Nietzsche
all jew funded, bet you didn't know that huh?
>>56508629
omg, this guy literally thinks famous philosophers are right just because they are authorities... argumentum ad authoritam up in dis
>>56508789
fuck off china
>>56508840
rarefag
>>56509074
I know.
>>56508827
Says me, and common sense.
And those people will later on take what is owed. It isn't the people that we attack, it is the system itself. We need to stand up and get rid of it.
There is no difference between the government or some guy. You are allowing them both to do the same thing, who does it to you is irrelevant.
So if you agree with democracy, you have to agree with every law? That's a stupid argument. And taxation has nothing to do with democracy anyway, look up the history on it before making claims. Taxation was illegally ratified into the costitution. The states never voted on it, it hasn't been around for that long and the founding fathers were against it. The system goes against democracy and against the constitution.
>>56503110
social Security is not a welfare program
/thread
>burning books
Le 2 edgy 4 my taste
internationalist and a jew
>>56509170
then I award you 3 points of truthful knowledgeness
>>56509170
>>56509652
use them wisely
>>56502911
She has some good points and ideas and some really bad ones as well.
/pol/ is not one person, but there are those that hate her for everything, love her for everything, hate her for some disagreeable statements and love her for some they agree with.
The people that hate her because she's not perfect are fucking idiots.
I personally like her somewhat, and feel objectivism for humans is the best way to go.
We need to cease dividing people based upon stupid shit like skin color and religion.
A violent man is a violent man despite his skin color. A fucking moron is a fucking moron despite their skin color. She's right that racism is barbaric, as we lump entire groups of people together and the outliers are brought down by their peers.
The minute we are all just seen as humans and viewed as just people, the world will improve 1000% fold.
Those that rise above their race and those that bring it down will be seperate me based on objective truth about themselves. Grasping at straws and looking at your forefathers (we wuz Kings) will not be listened to.
The African Americans then can enter society perfectly, while the dumb and violent niggers are completely left behind with the rest of the morons in society regardless of race.
The legitimately moderate Muslims will be seperated from the non moderates with extreme prejudice, the niggers and the African Americans will be seperated the same way, the Asians will slog off the gangsters and traditionalists who are just people who eat weird as fuck foods, and the white race will be able to slog off their faggotry and guilt due to race not existing and Faggots not getting attention.
The best part is the Jews can never say muh 6 million again and can no longer grasp at straws or fund racebaiting.
If the majority of the purged and forgotten populace is of dark skin, it would not matter and nobody would blink. It would solve every issue of the human race.
You have to love that shit.
>>56503030
I like you.
>>56507635
pls don't polute /pol/ with spookner, I don't even wanna find out what happens when /pol/ learns about him
>>56510746
Not believing in spooks is pure ideology. Go away demon!
>>56510426
>We need to cease dividing people based upon stupid shit like skin color and religion.
kuck detected
what a fucking moran
stopped reading there btw, hope you are trolling and not actually completely retarded
>>56510882
leave, Slavoj.
>>56502911
The problem with objectivism is the same problem with socialism: people are inherently and by nature altruistic and depriving them of the ability to do so (whether by an ideology that forbids it or a government that takes all your charity for its own use) always creates human misery.
>>56511230
>people are inherently and by nature altruistic
False. People are inherently and by nature selfish. They help other because it makes them feel better about themselves.
>>56511230
yeah, false
no one is saying no charity, just no ENFORCED charity
>>56509074
>omg, this guy literally thinks famous philosophers are right just because they are authorities... argumentum ad authoritam up in dis
Stop using terms you don't understand.
My point was Rand "objectively" doesn't understand Kant - if Kant is wrong, she is still wrong. She also still misuses the term 'axiom' and her "philosophy" fails to be coherent, self-supporting, or logical
>>56511697
>if Kant is wrong
Is Kant one of your religious high priests or something?
>>56509207
>Says me
Protip: if Libertarians get elected and abolish Social Security, etc. you'll get zero and if you try to collect, you'll be put in a cage.
>There is no difference between the government or some guy
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sovereignty
Read a fucking book
>So if you agree with democracy, you have to agree with every law? That's a stupid argument
Good thing I didn't make it then, huh, libertardian?
My point is, in a republican Democracy sovereignty derives from the will of the people as expressed through elected representatives who pass legislation that is affirmed by the judiciary to be within the bounds of overarching law and enforced by the executive.
That *is* the entirety of the US fucking constitution in one sentence.
Do you support republican Democracy?
Is the US a functional republican Democracy?
Yes
Therefore, those taxes aren't theft and the penalties for non-compliance with the law are legal.
>...taxation has nothing to do with democracy
Confirmed for not knowing shit about even American history
Typical libertardian, using emotion in place of arguments.
>>56511757
You are a poor troll.
Go back to trying to get your ASBO for begging lifted
>>56512164
no answer, just insults
think everyone watching is stupid or something? stop embarrasing yourself you idiot
>>56512024
I wish to abolish the tax system as well. So money won't be taken away to be put into a broken system in the first place.
Point completely went over your head.
No, I do not support a democratic republic. And no, the country is not doing fine with it. The fact that we are a democratic republic is what allows corruption and corporations to buy politicians. My personal opinion is there shouldn't be federal laws. This country is too big to have federal laws. Each individual state should vote on their own laws.
Democracy is everyone voting on something and the majority rules. What does taxation have to do with that? And way to ignore everything else I said along with it on how taxation was illegally pushed into law.
>>56512484
No, I think YOU are stupid
here's why, in simple words
>I point out that Rand completely understood Kant
>You spew "omg, this guy literally thinks famous philosophers are right just because they are authorities... argumentum ad authoritam up in dis" which, in addition to being sub-literate gibberish, is fundamentally incorrect AND a total flub on what argumentum ad authoritam means
>I point out that Rand is wrong about what Kant wrote even if Kant is, ultimately, incorrect in his conclusions
>You write "Is Kant one of your religious high priests or something?"
No, any reasonable person would conclude that you were trolling - after all, this is a clear line of discussion even for someone with a terrible education. But this!
>>56512484
This proves that you seem to think you actually *have a point*!
Man.
That is just *barely* more funny than it is frightening.
So, let me repeat:
Rand totally misinterpreted Kant which is true even if you disagree with Kant.
Can you follow that?
>>56513557
>any reasonable person would conclude that you were trolling
assuming much?
you literally based your argument on her disagreement with one of your idols
this IS argumentum ad authoritum
you are a fag
>Rand totally misinterpreted Kant which is true even if you disagree with Kant.
"wow, you gauys don't know who cunt is? wow, you gais are so uninformed, and therefore wrong, and I win"
you DO know what argumentum ad authoritum is right?
>>56512487
Then your statement
>>56509207
is self-admitted bullshit, like I said
>Democracy is everyone voting on something and the majority rules. What does taxation have to do with that?
If everyone votes for taxes, guess what, super-genius?
>taxation was illegally pushed into law.
The constitution of the United States, Art 1, Sec 2, para 3
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "
So - taxes are in the Constitution
States, Art 1, Sec 8, para 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
TAXES ARE EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the *unamended* constitution, as a power the Federal government has!
Guess what?
There are MORE places in the constitution where the power and right of the federal government to tax is delineated.
You might want to actually READ the constitution before you start making shit up about how 'hurr durr the founders didn't want me to pay none of them there taxes'
>I'm a foreigner, you should feel shame
>>56514023
nigger, we should create our own constitution
>>56513739
>you literally based your argument on her disagreement with one of your idols
Translation
>I don't know what the word 'literally' means
No, moron, my argument, listed well above, is about the total lack of coherency and logic in Objectivism. My point in that post was that
>wait for it
Rand was ignorant of philosophy in general and this is obvious because despite writing a great deal about Kant she blatantly didn't understand him.
I am not a big fan of Kantian philosophy, but I *understand* it (which is why I disagree).
This has nothing to do with *why* Objectivism is wrong, it have everything to do with the contention I made *in that post* that she was generally ignorant of Philosophy.
>this IS argumentum ad authoritum
BTW, I assume you meant
>argumentum ad verecundiam
Right?
And, if that is correct, no - it is not.
I didn't say
>Rand is wrong about Objectivism because Kant said so
I said
>We know Rand was ignorant of philosophy because she misunderstood Kant
I know, I know, you won't get it because of the damage from the forceps during your birth, but they are different.
Protp: the fallacy is "argument from FALSE authority".
Yes, really.
>>56514023
No one voted on taxes though. It was added to the Constitution illegally. Which I explained already. But whatever, just keep ignoring half of what I say so you can continue to strawman me.
>>56514354
>lack of coherency and logic in Objectivism. My point in that post was that
no, it wasn't
do you think we are stupid?
you said that rand disagreed with Kunt, and therefore she is wrong
I do believe she is wrong about some things, but I realize that just saying she disagreed with someone else isn't a rational argument
you make it sound like every word Kunt said was profound and completely true, and that to argue the contrary would be some kind of treason
>>56514023
>>56514403
Let me explain again. Pay attention this time.
You can have constitutional convention. You add amendments and change amendments. The founding fathers said we should have one about every 20 years. The income tax amendment was not originally there, it was added later on. Way way later on. For an emendment to get added, it must be ratified by the states, that's where democracy comes in so we don't just have the POTUS adding whatever crazy shit they want. The taxation amendment however was never ratified, it was snuck in and added illegally.
>>56502911
Autism: the woman.
>>56503110
She used them because she paid for it with her tax-paying money, as simple as that. There's really no hypocrisy whatsoever with that.
There are two things to be cautious of when seeking philosophers to give your time and attention to.
1. Women
2. Americans
Both groups have almost no presense in philosophy what so everytime someone shows up they want to say it's the second coming in order to make up for it. Both groups are so underexposed to philosophy that they don't even have the ability to judge what the hardcore philosophy even looks like.
So an American woman is the ultimate red-flag, the only way it could be worst is if she was black.
>>56514403
you
>taxes are illegal
>taxes are illegal!
>TAXES ARE ILLEGAL!!
me
>here is the proof they aren't
You
>I meant 'high taxes are BAD'
Listen, Cletus, so far you are self-admitted or proven wrong about 90% of the fucked up bullshit you have typed here. What other bullshit do you need to to prove is as fucktarded as everything else you've said?
>" Taxation is stealing"
Nope - perfectly legal, see your constituution
>"constitution is the foundation of our country and must be followed and taxes are stealing"
covered that - you were very, very wrong
>"What's wrong with Hitler? The Jews were a threat and had to go. "
Nothing like endorsing the mass murder of children to show that you are, yes, a Libertardian!
>"I love small government! Taxation is theft! No coercion! But Hitler did nothing wrong!"
Fucking hilarious.
>"They spent it yes, but that does not mean they don't still owe it to you."
You, yourself, admitted this is bullshit and false.
[one of my favorites, folks]
>"Here in America Liberal does not refer to that philosophy, it's a tier of Democrats."
right after you wrote
>" conservative politicians now are literally the same as the liberals. "
Yeah - like I said, branches of Liberalism.
Fuckwit
>"Liberal had a different definition before the pholosophy"
this is so retarded I can't even. 'Liberal' is a philosophical term, largely coined by the Physiocrats and Adam Smith.
>"On paper in a dictionary it may have a set defition, but ..."
Just mint, MINT 'I do not care what that teacher lady sez' level ignorance.
But my favorite so far
And I do hope you keep being this fucking hilarious!
is this gem
>" It was added to the Constitution illegally."
That's right, folks, the section of the constitution that gives the federal government the power to levy and collect taxes that was in THE ORIGINAL, UNAMENDED, constitution that was ratified by the states, is "illegal"!
>>56504325
You can always tell when someone has never read anything Ayn Rand wrote. They come up with some of the most bizarre criticisms.
>First - she never clearly stated her philosophy in a coherent form in one place; a bit here is a shrot story; a bit there in a fiction novel; a drab thither in a speech; a smidgen hither in an interview. We must rely upon her followers to attempt to make a coherent statement.
Pic related.
>A) Rand assumes agent-relative value over absolute value but merely asserts this, never supports or defends it. This is a core failure
Objectivists argue that there is no such thing as "absolute" value because value necessarily requires a specific valuer in a particular context. Of what "value" is anything with one to value it?
>B) She asserts that value/goodness requires alternatives or choice, but only asserts this, never supports or defends this. This is a core failure
I think you're confused. Objectivists wouldn't even think about things this way. In what context would a human being not have a choice?
>C) Rands assertion that 'non-living things face no alternatives and cannot be destroyed' is false in two manners: one, by her formulation she asserts that all living things, including plants, have Free Will; two, non-living things can be destroyed and their existence can be dependent upon positive action
Rand never argued that all life has free will; in fact, free will is a major distinction between conceptual and perceptual-level entities.
>D) Her use of the word 'value' alternates between the verb meaning and the noun meaning arbitrarily and without support or explanation, rendering her arguments about value nonsensical at best, false at worst. It also means that it is very easy for Rand to contradict herself
What? A "value" is something that a person acts to gain or keep. To "value" something is to hold it as a value. That seriously confused you?
>>56504325
>>56504665
>>56515270
>E) A core element of her arguments is self-contradictory, as she proposed, herself. A core conceptualization in her nascent philosophy is that all creatures act to maintain their lives for their own sake and that, thus, your own life and only your own life have inherent value to you, so only life has inherent value.
She literally never argued this. You just pulled that completely out of your ass.
Forgot pic in previous post.
>>56515197
I never said high taxes are bad. You're putting words in my mouth.
I see nothing but strawman arguments here. Shouldn't be surprised though, that's what you liberals do when your wrong.
And no, the original constitution was the bill of rights, which was only 12 amendments. The taxation amendment was the 16th. The founding fathers were very outspoken against taxes, taxes being added to the Constitution later long after they are gone has nothing to do with their stance on it. And yes, by law taxes are legal. But that law was illegally added. Why I have stated why, and you ignored. You could also find out yourself with only 10 minutes of research, but you'd rather spread ignorance.
http://fathersmanifesto.net/16th.htm
http://givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm
>>56514564
>confirmed fuckwit
Here is my argument against Objectivism
>>56504325
>>56504665
>>56505484
Boom!
Here is the post you are obsessed with *which I will quote for you*
>"She simply omits to mention key elements, often because she doesn't seem to grasp she is missing something."
I am referring back to my refutation of her logic and assumptions. Then I go on *to explain why she missed key elements*.
>"...she was an auto-didact and that always leads to issues, like her complete misunderstanding of Kant (which seems to spring from her ignorance of Hume and her struggle to understand formal philosophical language)..."
I am pointing out Kant and Hume as evidence of her ignorance of philosophy in general
>"...her misuse of the term 'axiom', etc."
Again, showing how she misused philosophical language as evidence of her ignorance of philosophy.
>"She did her best but the fact is she had no idea, really, what she was doing and her results are an incoherent mess."
This is a COMBINATION of both my refutations AND my evidence of her ignorance.
i.e., she sis wrong because of these logical faults and those faults were probably a result of her ignorance.
So far all you have done is IGNORED by logical statements
>well, other than "nuh-uh"
and used some sort of butchered "ignorant fuckwits think things that sound Latin are impressive" and 'pointing out she is wrong is an argument from false authority, maaaaan!' whining.
You were wrong about argumentum ad verecundiam, you were wrong about the nature of my reference to Kant, and Rand was wrong about Objectivism.
If If I was you, I'd go read a decent book.
I recommend Gorgias and the Discourses.
>>56515650
>I am pointing out Kant and Hume as evidence of her ignorance of philosophy in general
OH WILL YUOU NOT LISTEN TO THESE SAINTS AMONGST MEN?
>>56515137
>America doesn't have decent philosophers
There's that European elitism that reminds me of why I'm happy you're all being culturally enriched
>>56515627
>I never said high taxes are bad
See
>>56514403
>No one voted on taxes though. It was added to the Constitution illegally
>high taxes were added illegally
>high taxes = illegal
Now, unless you think 'illegal' isn't 'bad', you're a fucking liar.
>>56515731
I never once stated high taxes out bad. I have not deviated from my stance that are taxes are stealing.
>>56514644
1) The power of the government to tax is in the unamended Constitution, so you're backpedalling/moving the goal posts
2) 42 states ratified the 16th amendment, pal, all by the end of 1913. All well documented. Even if you take the crazy-ass rantings of Libertardians seriously and claim Ohio wasn't a state that is still 5 more states than the minimum required.
So, just like everything else you've said, this is total fucking bullshit.
She is an edgelord and most of her philosophy is based on free will so the trash container is her rightful place
>>56514403
The US has a representative democracy. A process for amending the Constitution was put in place by the Founders so that changes could be made with significant agreement among representatives. The representatives of at least 3/4 of the states agreed to the 16th Amendment, which was 36 out of 48 states at the time (another 6 agreed after the fact). The 3/4 requirement was agreed to by all original colonies, as required to replace the Articles of Confederation, and is consented to by every state which joins the union. Thus, 100% of the states agreed that if 75% of the states agree to something, it makes it into the Constitution, and 75% of the states agreed.
The details of how the proposed amendment came before the Congress or left the Congress is irrelevant as the Congress is not a required component to pass amendments. The Congress can only suggest amendments to the states, or the states can come together to pass their own amendments irrespective on Congress. The vote of the states is the only vote which matters.
The 16th Amendment was passed in accordance with the US Constitution. 46 of the 48 states had votes (in their state legislatures) and 42 of them ratified it.
>>56502911
any generally conservative person that hates on her obviously hasnt read her books and is just following the crowd. OPs pic is ironic because unread people see rand as alien and cruel
>>56516135
Stay ignorant.
>>56515137
hey fuck you man maybe if you were to talk shit on american composers you might have a point, but we have great philosophers. kripke for instance.
>>56516216
See links at end >>56515627
>>56515137
>says the german when german philosophers are responsible for the most destructive ideologies
>>56516154
>believing in free will is edgy
I knew things were backwards in Eastern Europe but this is ridiculous.
>>56502911
Hahaha woman author.
>>56516264
>people see rand as alien and cruel
and they are absolutely right. Just look at her satanic mug, the soulless eyes. Twisted fucking psychopath.
>>56516521
I don't buy into conspiracy theories, whether I want them to be true or not. Especially not when recorded facts prove them false.
Moreover, the Stanton v. Baltic Mining quote is used to intentionally mislead on the ruling of the court. Stanton made several arguments against the Congress's power to tax Baltic Mining. The Court rejected all of them and upheld the tax by unanimous decision.
Keep being delusional, I'm sure it will serve you well.
>>56515270
>Claims he has proof Rand presented her philosophy coherently in one place
>>56515360
>Picture is a book by another author
Guess what, super-genius Randroid - all you have done is
>wait for it
demonstrate that *someone else* had to compile and present her philosophy FOR HER
>bu-bu-but co-author!
No, fuckwit, he had to do it because even in the Objectivist Ethics *she never did*
In short - thank you for admitting I am correct.
>>A) Rand assumes agent-relative value over absolute value but merely asserts this, never supports or defends it.
>Objectivists argue that there is no such thing as "absolute" value because value necessarily requires a specific valuer in a particular context. Of what "value" is anything with one to value it?
in short - you admit I am correct
>>B) She asserts that value/goodness requires alternatives or choice, but only asserts this, never supports or defends this. This is a core failure
>I think you're confused. Objectivists wouldn't even think about things this way. In what context would a human being not have a choice?
1) The Objectivist Ethics page 15, Rand's second premise [you should know this]
2) You admit I am correct
>>C) Rands assertion that 'non-living things face no alternatives and cannot be destroyed' is false in two manners: one, by her formulation she asserts that all living things, including plants, have Free Will; two, non-living things can be destroyed and their existence can be dependent upon positive action
>Rand never argued that all life has free will; in fact, free will is a major distinction between conceptual and perceptual-level entities.
Please see same source, pages 15 and 16
cont
>>56517151
>>D) Her use of the word 'value' alternates between the verb meaning and the noun meaning arbitrarily and without support or explanation, rendering her arguments about value nonsensical at best, false at worst. It also means that it is very easy for Rand to contradict herself
>What? A "value" is something that a person acts to gain or keep. To "value" something is to hold it as a value. That seriously confused you?
No, I know the difference; the point is that Rand uses the word inconsistently to suit her argument.
>>56515360
She didn't want to argue this but, as I pointed out, the 'man qua man' presentation (I won't call it an argument) is to avoid the conclusions of her previous premises and statements. Without man qua man, an unsupported assertion, her premises and statement can just as easily support total amoral ruthlessness, and she knew it.
>>56515717
You still don't get it, do you?
You poor, stupid bastard.
I am not arguing that Hume and Kant are geniuses, saints, or even correct.
I am pointing out the fact that Rand was ignorant of their positions.
The end.
>>56516536
It's not edgy, just stupid. Human brain works by the same laws of physics as any other matter and thus is determined by them. That's obvious.
>>56515827>taxes are stealing and high taxes are illegal
>I never said high taxes are bad
Confirmed for being either a liar or too stupid to live without a wrangler
>>56502911
She influenced me a lot, specially with her novels.
The Fountainhead is the best book evah
>>56517151
you are making more of an effort than most anti-rand fags, well done you
>>56517363
so being ignorant of anothers positions makes you wrong?
still smells of authoritam fallacy to me
>>56517413
I didn't say high taxes are illegal. I said that the income tax amendment was added illegally.
>>56517151
Can you point to ideas in OPAR that contradict hers?
>in short - you admit I am correct
You said there was no defense or support for the concept of value when there clearly is an argument behind the assertion. Can you address it?
>2) You admit I am correct
You said that the objectivist argument is that "value/goodness requires alternatives or choice." Firstly, a value is not necessarily a good, yet you conflate the two; people can value things irrationally. Secondly, the argument is not that values require "alternatives or choice," it is that values require a volitional consciousness. Again, I think you're confused.
>Please see same source, pages 15 and 16
Direct quote: "Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism. Man has the choice to think or to evade—to maintain a state of full awareness or to drift from moment to moment, in a semi-conscious daze, at the mercy of whatever associational whims the unfocused mechanism of his consciousness produces."
>volition begins with the first syllogism.
Admit it. You haven't read Ayn Rand.
>the point is that Rand uses the word inconsistently to suit her argument.
You're just asserting that without supporting it.
>>56516454
>Public records prove 42 states ratified the 16th amendment
>some guy on the internet says it wasn't done right
Protip, Cletus
William J Benson was NOT an investigator for the Illinois department of revenue, he was a paid informant for them . he wasn't a crusading detective, he was a bartender that got paid for tipping off the local authroties if someone was trying to sell liquor or cigarettes without tax stamps. Oh, and he was working as a bartender while defrauding Bethlehem Steel and the State by claiming to be disabled.
He was fired for extortion of a state employee and later admitted to being guilty of fraud for 20 years against private agencies and businesses as well as the state government.
He is a convicted felon and an admitted con man.
Tell you what - I'll stick to the confirmed public record, not a book by a guy that swears if you give him $3,500 you can be legally tax-free, OK?
this might be interesting to some
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm
about admirality law and the gold fringe on the flag in courtrooms, and the original reasons for the declaration of indepndence
>>56517280
You said she argued:
>your own life and only your own life have inherent value to you, so only life has inherent value.
But as you pointed out earlier, Objectivists don't make the argument that anything has inherent value, not even life.
When she referenced "man qua man," she was presenting the argument for the standard of value, not whether life (or only life) had inherent value. I mean, it's very clearly and plainly-written; how can you misinterpret it so weirdly?
>>56517551
>so being ignorant of anothers positions makes you wrong?
NO, and I never claimed that.
I stated she was ignorant of philosophy in general and pointed to her specific ignorance of Kant (and Hume) as support.
I know, I know - the difference escapes you even though it is clear, right?
>>56502911
filthy zionist whore
>>56518181
it's not clear, you are saying she is wrong because someone else disagrees
>>56502911
quick /pol/ what would your perfect woman combination be?
mine is this:
>looks of Emma Watson
>mind of Ayn Rand
oh god, how perfect would she be...
>>56518181
this is classic authoritam argument
>>56518042
Is writing walls of text on 4chan the best use of your time?
>>56518176
>Objectivists don't make the argument that anything has inherent value, not even life.
False. Rand and Objectivists argue that life has inherent value. Indeed, that only life has inherent value.
>>56518280
For the umpteenth time I said that her ignorance of Kant and Hume are evidence of her general ignorance of philosophy. I have said, directly to you, this is independent of Hume or Kant even being correct. As a matter of fact, one of the funny things is Kant actually agreed with her on some points!
>>56518314
Horse faced and selfish?
>>56518322
>>56518675
dickhead
>>56518324
I am the only guy at work
I have to be here in case the phone rings
It is a holiday week - the phone never rings
I forgot my ereader on my end table
>>56518569
>horse faced
? you got some shit taste anon...
>selfish
more like
>not a marxist( which is rare in women)
>smart
>>56518540
you aren't even making sense
all I am getting from you is that she must be wrong because she disagrees with your authorities
>>56518723
No matter how many times I point out that I was not citing any authority, you keep talking about "autoritam"
It is only funny for sol long
>>56518796
>all I am getting from you is that she must be wrong because she disagrees with your authorities
that is because you are retarded
>>56518395
>>56517826
>False. Rand and Objectivists argue that life has inherent value. Indeed, that only life has inherent value.
Gonna need you to cite that. Objectivists argue that life is the *standard* of value, not that life has inherent value. In other words, life is a prerequisite of holding values.
Rand-haters always get btfo in these threads. I will never understand how someone that writes so plainly gets so ridiculously misinterpreted.
>>56516536
believing in free will is not edgy, it's just dumb since there's no reasonable arguments for free will.
Ayy Rand is edgy as hell and dumb for basing so much of her philosophy on such a flimsy concept
>>56522338
>i didn't choose to make this post
>>56502911
Rand blows the everloving fuck out of the modern status quo, and the Left hates her for it. If you've never read The Comprachicos, it's like Yuri Bezmenov on steroids; she points out how the American educational system was hijacked by Leftists and used to deliberately cripple children's ability to think properly so they could be warped into obedient useful idiots.
Here's a pdf of a collection of essays where The Comprachicos is included. The other ones are good too.
anonfiles /file/8a1b6c88e1d6e89c557c94d8ab31aecd
>>56522910
that's right, I didn't. I'm just a part of a long chain reaction. Sometimes I might live in the delusion of being free from the laws of the universe, but then I snap out of it and see that my will isn't free of anything. It's constantly affected by things that happen around me and inside my brain.
Do you have any real arguments for free will?
>>56523606
Free will isn't mutually exclusive from cause and effect. The concept of free will does not say that there is not a chain of events that led to your present state of mind; it means that you, as a conscious and rational entity, necessarily make choices in the pursuit of your own life. This is self-evident and axiomatic; in order to even question the concept of free will, you necessarily invoke it. (In other words, if free will did not exist, you could not present yourself with the options of believing or disbelieving it.)
Even if you were omniscient and could accurately predict everything a person would choose to do in the course of their lives, it would not change the fact that the person is *not* omniscient and relies upon a volitional consciousness. Nothing would change.
>>56522338
>There's no evidence for something
>It must be not real and dumb to believe in
There's no good arguments for no free will either. What's dumb is to speak in absolutes about it when there's no evidence either way.
>>56507813
>Protip: 'Liberal = the ideology that the primary goal of a person or government is to maximize liberty and equality'
That's a quality American education you have there, son.
Egalitarians believed that the purpose of government was to "maximize liberty and equality," and their definitions of liberty and equality were fundamentally different from the original liberals, who based their role of government on rights rather than outcomes.
To an egalitarian, "liberty" means the ability to act; to a liberal, "liberty" means freedom from the initiation of force. To an egalitarian, "equality" means literal, existential equality; to a liberal, "equality" means equal treatment before the law.
The Left hijacked the term liberal in the U.S. in the late 1800s, just like they hijacked the concepts of liberty and equality, and the term never regained its original meaning.
Objectivists, incidentally, are a species of classical liberal in politics and economics, but they have a much more consistent and thorough argument for the origin of individual rights than Locke or any of the proponents of individual liberty.
>>56524285
>This is self-evident and axiomatic; in order to even question the concept of free will, you necessarily invoke it.
just because you say something is axiomatic doesn't make it axiomatic. And how in the hell am I invoking my free will if I question free will? I am just a part of a chain reaction where I came across some things that made me realize I'm not the one in charge. Why would I need free will for this? Why do you have to throw free will around where it is not needed to explain the situation?
>>56524844
evidence =/= argument
>>56525168
There is no basis for an argument without evidence to back it up.
>>56525009
An axiom can't be questioned without invoking it. You necessarily invoke the concept of choice by choosing whether or not to believe in choice. It's axiomatic.
Your argument is not that you don't make choices; you concede that humans do this. Your argument is that the act of choosing is an "illusory" experience because of the existence of cause and effect.
I'm saying that regardless of cause and effect, you're still making choices. Unless you're omniscient, the fact that various causes led to your choice is completely irrelevant.
What does it change about your behavior, and how you must behave in order to pursue your life? Not a damned thing. Does it mean you stop choosing things? Nope.
>>56520922
In actuality, what happens in Randroids just repeat
>nuh-uh
>you didn't read her
>you're unintelligent
>Read X and it will answer your objection
>You're just mad
over and over again.
Want to BTFO ouf someone saying Rand is wrong?
-Demonstrate logically how Rand bridges the is/ought gap
_Demonstrate that Rand's remises and arguments in The Objectivist Ethics prior to Man Qua Man are valid if "life" means man qua man (protip: they they aren't) *OR* demonstrate that Rand's conclusions post Man Qua Man are valid if 'life' means 'existence' (protip: they aren't): since this will fail, logically justify the transition from life as existence to life as man qua man.
-Rand assumes realism and empiricism; using only Rand's work, prove both
Once you get those done we can move on to other serious problems
>>56525000
>That's a quality American education you have there, son.
You missed the part where I pointed out that I am not an American, I just live here.
Even better? I get the sense you are an American - the fact you don't recognize the definition of Liberal from the dictionary and think 'the Left' hijacked the word Liberal in the 1800's
probably, what?
Ex US military, B student in high school, you'll get to college someday?
>>56525700
>You missed the part where I pointed out that I am not an American, I just live here.
You also can't read. I called your education "American," not you. I was also describing the quality of your education, not its actual provenance.
You are a complete, fucking idiot.
>>56525480
You haven't addressed
>>56519378
>>56518176
>>56517826
>>56525700
Progressives and liberals mean different things when they talk about liberty/equality, regardless of dictionary definitions. And yes, the progressives started gaining ground in the US in the late 19th/early 20th c.
Ludwig von Mises even pointed it out.
>In the United States “liberal” means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.
>>56525288
What if I only point out the lack of logic in some things? Is it defined as providing evidence?
>>56525425
>You necessarily invoke the concept of choice by choosing whether or not to believe in choice. It's axiomatic.
on what basis am I the one making the choice? What is a choice? Our brains just collect information through senses and try to predict outcomes of different actions. No free will is needed to explain this. Humans are biological machines just like every other organisms.
>>56526791
>Our brains just collect information through senses and try to predict outcomes of different actions
...and select the actions.
*You* are making the selection, regardless of your attempt to disintegrate the notion that "you" exist as an identifiable entity that makes choices.
And you aren't actually addressing my argument--you're just re-stating your earlier position that cause and effect negate the fact that humans make choices.
This is what you sound like: "What is a human, anyway? At the atomic level there is little or no distinction between a human and its surrounding environment. And because humans interact with their environment and are constantly affected by it, it isn't even fair at all to say that humans exist." It's epistemic nihilism.
>>56502911
From Greg Johnson's "The Refutation of Libertarianism"
"I's interesting that the most important founder of modern lLibertarianism, of race and nation blind Libertarianism was Ayn Rand. She was born in Russia as Alyssa Rosenbaum she was ethnically Jewish and it just so happened that the intellectual movement that she created called Objectivism was overwhelmingly Jewish in it's leadership but of course the followers were piously blind to that uncomfortable fact. It was obviously just meritocracy right? They were all just rising because they were so good it wasn't because they were all first cousins from Winnipeg, which is actually the truth, and before that it was Minsk or something like that, it was just meritocracy at work. Colorblind meritocracy. If you're uncomfortable, you gotta close your eyes because the virtue of Objectivism is blindness not objectivity when it comes to race and ethnicity...
In that, Libertarianism is similar to the Frankfurt school which is another Jewish intellectual movement. The Frankfurt school basically teaches us that we have to be maximally open to the upward mobility of disadvantaged groups, previously excluded groups, and all of those groups, gays, blacks, other-kin, all these fake new identities, all these new groups are just proxies for Jews basically. The goal of the new left really is to create maximum upward mobility for Jews and all of these others are there for part of their coalition to help them move forward... and also blind us to the fact that they're working together and colluding together as a tribe and it's a very very effective tool. It's a very effective ideology.
What kind of people preach blindness as a virtue? People who are up to no good."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvUDVyySzQo
>>56525903
>I sopend the thread pointing out the holes in American political thinking
>You think I have an American education
>You think "the Left" 'hijacked' the word Liberal
Man, you are ignorant as fuck, aren't you?
Protip, sparky - the word 'Liberal' has *always* been associated with the Left. By definition. "Left" *MEANS* 'Liberal'.
The only buffoons who don't know this are the pig-ignorant 'Muricans who think the last 20 years of American politics = reality.
Of course, they are the sort of fuckwits that think Libertarians are Right wing.
Wait.
Hmmmm.
I bet you think that, don't you?
>>56527298
>rand
>founder of Libertarianism
You're thinking of Murray Rothbard. Ayn Rand explicitly rejected Libertarianism.
>da jooooz
Ayn Rand's harshest detractors are Jewish Leftists in academia and media.
Rand criticized Israel as a fascist state.
Rand opposed the U.S. entering WW2, and thought that Pearl Harbor would have been prevented by never having given aid to the Japanese in the first place.
Rand opposed the forced racial integration of public schools, and multiculturalism in general.
Rand opposed the "women's lib" movement (feminism).
Rand denounced tribalism for its own sake, arguing instead that humans should associate based on values and moral convictions.
Everything she argued was pretty much the opposite of stereotypical "Jewishness."
>>56527742
>You think I have an American education
You still can't read. Like I said in >>56525903, I was describing the quality of your education, not its actual provenance.
You are a complete. Fucking. Idiot.
>Protip, sparky - the word 'Liberal' has *always* been associated with the Left. By definition. "Left" *MEANS* 'Liberal'.
By Left, I meant collectivist. Liberal has not always been associated with collectivism; this happened when the collectivists hijacked the term.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-origin-of-liberalism/283780/
"It was especially after 1880 that the Smithian sense of “liberal” began to lose traction to other, often contrary, meanings. The principal presumption of today’s “liberalism” often lies with the status quo, or even with the idea that the government should “do something” to solve perceived problems."
Again, you are a complete. Fucking. Idiot.
>>56526047
>>56518176
The Objectivist ethics
also "t]he standard of value of the Objectivist ethics … is man's life"
“epistemologically, the concept of ‘value’ is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of ‘life’”
Top of my head. As I recall some of her lectures contain the same.
>>56517826
As I said - point to an actual defense of Rand's value claims.
As for choice
>"the choice “to think or not” is the choice “to focus or not.” Existentially, the choice “to focus or not” is the choice “to be conscious or not.” Metaphysically, the choice “to be conscious or not” is the choice of life or death... ...If [Man's] actions are not to be aimed at his own destruction, man has to choose his course... ...He can abandon his means of survival, his mind, he can turn himself into a subhuman creature and he can turn his life into a brief span of agony—just as his body can exist for a while in the process of disintegration by disease. But he cannot succeed, as a subhuman, in achieving anything but the subhuman—as the ugly horror of the antirational periods of mankind’s history can demonstrate. Man has to be man by choice—and it is the task of ethics to teach him how to live like man."
'Volitional consciousness" is no sop to the rather large rational error being played out
I have addressed her inconsistency of use of choice before
>>56528225
>By Left, I meant collectivist
So, in other words, you now only use the word "Liberal" incorrectly you use the word "Left" incorrectly?
Gosh, you know what?
I already knew that!
Lets see if we can follow a thread of conversation
You:
>"That's a quality American education you have there, son."
Me:
>"I am not an American"
You:
>" I called your education "American," not you."
Me:
>"I wasn't educated in America, either"
You:
>Well, when I said what i said I meant something else, like 'your education is *LIKE* an American education. Yeah, that's it'
You back peddle any faster you're going to fall on your ass, pal.
>>56526764
Does any of what you said change the definition of the word 'Liberal"
No.
It doesn't.
>>56527265
>and select the actions.
Why do you have to cram free will everywhere even though it is not needed to explain something? We just go by the path of least resistance automatically. How can will be free of something? It is constantly affected by things and there is no reason to believe we would somehow be free from the influence of our environment.
>*You* are making the selection
based on what?
>And you aren't actually addressing my argument--you're just re-stating your earlier position that cause and effect negate the fact that humans make choices.
If you're using vague concepts such as "choice" which you refuse to define, I can't really address anything.
>>56528225
>This article from a magazine about how Americans misuse the word Liberal proves I am right when I misuse the word Liberal
Want to keep going?
Maybe you can start guessing what country I am from and which country I was educated in so you can try to insult me without proving yourself a fool?
No - that won't be possible.
Maybe you could go to the topic of the thread rather than whining about how I posted a definition from a dictionary and you don't like it?
>That is my favorite part about Americans-the easiest way to get them mad is to cut and paste from a dictionary
>>56528907
"Left" is used synonymously with "collectivist." And it's pretty well documented that the Left hijacked the term liberal at the end of the 1800s... unless you can refute the article I posted.
I'm not saying the usage of the word in the U.S. is proper. I said it's improper because it was hijacked and twisted into its current usage. It's like you literally can't read.
And the thread of the conversation was:
>You also can't read. I called your education "American," not you. I was also describing the quality of your education, not its actual provenance.
Look, I understand that it's hard to go through life being illiterate, but that's no reason to keep insulting people that are improving your education.
>>56528591
Right, life is the -standard of value-, not "the only thing with inherent value," like you claimed. In other words, men must pursue values in order to sustain their lives. Objectivists do not believe that anything has inherent value. You're wrong on this point.
>values
You said that Objectivists offer no support for their conception of values. I pointed out that Objectivists argue that values do not exist independently of the individuals that hold them, and as such, nothing has "intrinsic" value; a thing can only have value to someone. You were wrong.
You argued that Ayn Rand said plants had free will. I pointed out that Rand did not regard non-sentient things as volitional. You were wrong.
So, if you actually want to address those points, feel free. But you should probably stop pretending that you know anything about Objectivist arguments, because you keep getting them completely and hilariously wrong.
>>56502911
But I do like Ayn Rand, even if I'm a nationalist and a fascist.
She has a unique perspective that is worth listening to
>>56503602
>She, and Ayndroids, are that combination of under-educated + self-important I find most repellant
I agree with self-important, but ayndroid tend to be rich people
>>56529444
>"Left" is used synonymously with "collectivist."
Yeah. I know.
That is why, waaaaaay back when I posted the dictionary definition as I was explaining how the word is used improperly by Americans.
Like you say, yourself.
See, back here
>>56507813
I was responding to someone wondering about how Americans misuse words and I agreed, posting the definition to emphasize how odd it is.
And here you are
>>56525000
Five hours later, jumping in and talking about how the word is misused in America *as if you were rebutting what I said*.
Now, that is pretty fucking funny in and of itself, I must admit.
Then we do the entire schtick where you miss I am not an American and try to lie about fucking up.
Then here
>>56528225
you go on to, yes, admit that you use the word Left improperly, too, which is fine; not that I care; and not a refutation of anything I said, at all.
Then you repeat and confirm the error AGAIN here
>>56529444
and *ONCE MORE* think that pointing our that Americans use the term 'Liberal' improperly is REFUTING me when, in fact, *it was my original point*.
The cherry on that ice cream? the entire time you were agreeing with me while thinking you were opposing me you were insulting.
You never did way - *where* were you educated?
American public high school in the Midwest, right?
C'mon, you're anonymous - tell the truth
>>56530324
You don't know that many, then.
Oh, sure, some CEOs have Atlas Shrugged on their desk but they don't follow the philosophy or they'd be broke.
There is an old joke - name one serious Objectivist who stayed/lived like an Objectivist that ended their lives rich and famous.
>>56530638
You still can't read. I can't decide whether you're trolling or you're seriously this mentally handicapped.
I was illustrating that *your usage* of the term liberal -- the maximization of "liberty and equality" -- is the wrong defnition. Leftists (collectivists) use this definition, and also twist the meaning of "liberty" and "equality."
The original liberals argued in terms of rights.
>>56530944
FFS - you are still arguing that the dictionary is wrong?
Seriously?
Listen, Pal, just because Americans get it wrong doesn't mean everyone else does.
Like I said earlier, the most hilarious thing is - I C&P from the dictionary and YOU are calling ME uneducated.
Tell you what - argue with the encyclopedia, the PoliSci department of that university you plan to attend some day, and everyone else while waving an article from a magazine, OK?
>>56530638
Here. Re-read these again, and then re-read your post, and see how terrible your reading comprehension is.
>>56525000
>>56528225
>>56530944
>I'm not saying the usage of the word in the U.S. is proper.
You keep admitting the US uses the word improperly and then insulting me for not using it improperly.
Now - who do you think is retarded?
>>56531431
>You keep admitting the US uses the word improperly and then insulting me for not using it improperly.
No, I'm saying that you are using the term just as improperly. I am saying that your definition is the twisted, corrupted definition. "Maximizing liberty and equality" is precisely what collectivists claim to be doing, and how they justify collectivist policies that are completely antithetical to the original liberals' ideas.
The original liberals argued in terms of rights, and stated that a just government upholds and defends those rights. "Maximizing freedom" implies that government can violate those rights if it means somehow "increasing freedom" at the collective scale.
It's a completely retarded way to define liberalism that in no way resembles the original meaning of the term. Again, read the article I linked about how it was corrupted.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-origin-of-liberalism/283780/
>>56531158
No - I get it.
I post the correct definition and you keep calling me stupid because I posted the correct definition instead of how Americans use it improperly.
I know this.
I keep telling you I understand this.
here's the thing - I am mocking you for it.
You are like the guy that knows the phrase is 'for all intents and purposes' but argues since so many Americans say 'for all intensive purposes' I am wrong, they are right.
No: I, and most other speakers of English, use the term 'Liberal' as it is defined in the dictionary instead of the rather narrower definition used in America that is not very useful outside of the narrow confines of American politics.
Let me repeat this for you, slooooowly
1) Yes, I *know* Americans use the word improperly - that is my point
2) No, other people don't use it that way, in general (that is why the Liberal Party of Australia is called the Liberal Party, after all!) - that is my point.
3) Repeating the way Americans improperly use the term over and over isn't necessary; I know they use it improperly - that is my point.
4) Continuing to argue that you know Americans misuse the term isn't necessary - that is my point
5) Tacitly admitting that the definition I posted in accurate but not used in America is not necessary - that was my point
The great part is - you are getting really, really mad and aggressive because you agree with me *and you don't get it*.
Where did you matriculate?
>>56531767
>Cut and paste from the dictionary
>"I am saying that your definition is the twisted, corrupted definition"
>Let me repeatedly post a link to a magazine article about how Americans use that word improperly
Did you write that article or do you just get a nickle every time they get a hit?
>>56502911
Because of the "going galt" meme. Everyone keeps saying these people will flee but rarely say where. When they do it's always some place where they can't keep making money only sit on it.
