>>382968
You stole my idea you twat

I can see it's that time of day where amerifag schoolchildren are let off school.

Is she a writer?

>>382975
>twat
wtf is wrong with you

HOLY FUCK I JUST HERNIATED A DISK FROM LAUGHING SO HARD

>>382977
It's barely 2pm on the east coast. Give it some time.

>>382977
You're an idiot dude.

troll better

By golly, she looks so retarded in that pic.

Inb4 b&

>>382978
thats a SHE?

>>382977
It's nine where I live, I think it must be you guys. What do you have to say for yourself Europe?

It's almost certainly Australians.

*hem humph humph...

*puts on glasses and takes out some papers*

Oh my God Ayn Rand sucks donkey balls she is aterrible writer and her objectivist philosophy is naive and omg hipsters and whatnot I am quite disgruntled by this good sit

>>383005

Remember to take a sip of the water in the glass standing next to you. Preferably after pouring it from the decanter that is also placed besides you.

personally i love rand, but then again i'm an individualist which is more than what the far left hivemind can say.

>>383082
>far left
>libertarian socialists
>anarchists
>hivemind

Oh wait, you're probably American and think Bill Clinton was far left. Nevermind.

>>383087
> implying anarchists and libertarians are left

i like how *you* think i'm the confused american. there is no "liberal" or "conservative" when it comes to libertarianism. it is on it's own political axis.

oh, and protip - not all libertarians are anarchists OR socialists much less associated with the collectivist left.

>>383118
>not all libertarians are anarchists OR socialists much less associated with the collectivist left.

This was said when?

>>383118

Libertarian socialists, genius. You know, the real libertarians, not the American fringe morons that no one takes seriously. Read up more when your balls drop and you stop sucking Ron Paul's cock.

>>382968
Reported.

>>383120
>far left
>libertarian socialists
>anarchists


my, how quickly we forget. don't try to pretend you didn't make a strawman. that was some goddamn bullshit and you know it. unless you think chomsky represents all libertarianism.

>>383124
see
>>383132

>>383124
>Libertarian socialists, genius. You know, the real libertarians
oh yeah, the "REAL" kind, now I get what you're talking about.

Just get your head out of your ass

>>383132
libertarian socialists are leftists. not libertarian capitalist. which is probably why it was wrote out "libertarian socialists." how is this confusing you?

>>383124
>implying anyone takes Friedman or von Mises seriously.
You might get to throw some shit at the American kiddies but don't kid yourself.

>>383124
>implying the other fringe libertarians are taken seriously

>>383145
Sure is samefag in this thread.

ayn rand was a narcissist, and her ideas are egocentric. i hate her, and all of her ideas. why do people put her on such a pedestal?

what does this make me /lit/?

>>383141

do you not understand that 1. not all libertarians are leftist and 2. bringing leftists up regardless was a blatant strawman.

Libertarian here, Libertarian socialist are losers.

>>383159
a typical collectivist. enjoy your nanny state asshole.

>>383164
>bringing leftists up regardless
>strawman

>>383082
>the far left hivemind

Which one of these posts came first?

>>383164
>do you not understand that 1. not all libertarians are leftist

It was never said they were. That's the strawman. You are quite the talented troll.

>>383174
most libertarians outside the fringe are anti statist which is the exact opposite of the far left. the fact that you brought up retarded socialist libertarians is a perfect example of a strawman implying that all libertarians are somehow leftist and not on a completely different tangent.

Libertarian socialist

>>383193
You made that implication yourself. Libertarian socialists are leftists, they are implicitly anti-statist. That doesn't mean all anti-statists are leftists, or all libertarians are leftists. You made that leap, not me.

>>383183
you brought up the worst examples of libertarians as your "argument." your original post was a clear troll. most of you have no idea what libertarianism even is.

>>383212
it's the very fact that you brought up libertarian socialists in the first place. what were you trying to prove exactly?

>>383214
They're no less an example as your run of the mill American "libertarian" just because you disagree.

>>382968
Ayn Rand threads are against /lit/'s rules.

Sage & reported.

>>382968
i came

>>383204
libertarian and socialist are opposites moron. libertarians are free market capitalists.

Bitch couldn't write a decent novel if her life depended on it

I don't want to live in a world where people like Ayn Rand's characters exist. All that rape and long speeches and making everything about politics and philosophy

Libertarian socialist party pics.

>>383222
the very fact that you brought it up when you see the context of my post is obvious enough to see that you were doing some blatant trolling.

>>383223

Stalinist detected.

>>383223
your sage and reports do nothing

>>383220
I see you haven't mentioned anarchists at all. There's very little difference between them and libertarian socialists, setting aside the myriad strands of anarchism. I think you know the point, I've repeated it five times. You just got butthurt that someone used your secret club word "libertarian" in a way you didn't like.

who's that ugly broad

>>383230

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

>>383223
The aren't

>>383223
> someone doesn't agree with me! o noes!

and you people rage when i bring up he self assuring hivemind...

>>383237
Your context was far left "hivemind." The opposite of libertarian socialist thought, hence "libertarian." How you're still confused, I can't understand.

>>383230
Hey look, a 15 year old thinks he knows about political ideology. Nice one.

>>383243
anarchists like libertarians are on a completely separate political spectrum. i don't know how many times i have to explain this to you rubes. left and right are different in the context of libertarianism.

>>383212

"Libertarian Socialism" is a fancy word for Anarcho-Collectivism goddamnit.

Good members of Libertarian socialism party pics.

>>383260
see
>>383274

>most libertarians outside the fringe are anti statist which is the exact opposite of the far left

Er... what?

Trolling hour on /lit/. See ya later fags.

>>383274
Anarchists are socialists. Anarchists and libertarian socialists have always been on the fringe left, and a chart you found online won't change that.

libertarian socialism is an extremely poor example of libertarianism. are you kidding me?

>>383288
lolbutthurt

YOU SHALL KNOW PAIN
BRING ME MY VIRGINAL SACRIFICES

>>383292
>implying there are good examples of libertarianism

Most people who describe themselves as 'libertarians' aren't really anti-statist - they just oppose anything which involves them giving up a bit of their cash, or sharing in general.

>>383287
the progressive agenda despite what you've been told has done nothing but enhance the state's power. socialism and communism will never become the lies they feed their sheep. just read history ffs. the real antistatists are the libertarians.

>>383295
Shh you'll anger them

>>383299

>Implying Moderate Libertarianism isn't better than Liberalism & it's failure on economics, Conservatism & it's stupidity & Statists and their Stalinist bullshit.

>>383313
>the progressive agenda
American spotted.

>>383299
>implying fringe branches are just as representative as the main/common ones.

>>383322
no actually, nice ad hominem though. you're a credit to your country!

>>383313
There's your problem. You think there's one "progressive agenda." You have quite a black and white view. If you want to think the libertarians are the "real anti-statists" in the face of two centuries of anarchist propaganda by deed of actively resisting the state right up to assassinating presidents, feel free. I'm not an anarchist nor a libertarian. But apart from some YouTube videos, I've seen nothing by American libertarians at all. Certainly nothing making them the "real anti-statists."

>>383324
Only in America is it common.

>>383289

By losing The state you can't inforce order.

Who's is going to stop anyone form punching you in the face and raping you?

Many people will work to together to protect the selfs and/or inforce their own law.

Thus Gangs.

>>383320

how does Libertarianism fail again?

>>383350
we prefer "communes" thankyouverymuch.

>>383364
No brah, worker's councils and shop committees!

>>383313
>the progressive agenda
Here we go...

>despite what you've been told
Let me guess, by the 'mainstream media'?

>just read history ffs
I recommend you research the history of political thought before you blatantly ignore the hundreds of left-wing, anti-statist movements and figures.

> the real antistatists are the libertarians.
Again, 'libertarians' are primarily just people who want to acquire as much material wealth as is possible. They only oppose the state when it begins to 'infringe' on this aim.

>>383364

You know the state is just a really big gang too?

the state provides the same thing those "Gangs" do just at a larger scale.

Why hate the state and love those "gangs"?

>>383389
You're a moron.

>>383389
Funny thing, although I am pretty sure you are indeed a moron, the historian and sociologist charles tilly once discribed the emergence of states as process of a "grand scale protection rackett" as does Michael Mann attribute in his Sources of Social Power that the exploding costs of warfare mad strong centralized government necessary to extract the necessary funds for raising and equiping adequate armies as well as pacifying a territorially enclosed area.
This is a debated but widely accepted theory.

As I said, you are still a moron, though.

>>383359

I was saying that libertarianism WINS...

>>383350

The state DOES do a good job enforcing laws and stopping people from punching me in the face indeed. But that is the only job it does right, though.

When the state tries to rule the market, or give certain goods and services ( notice i said "certain", not "all"), it fails horribly, merely because of how different it is from the market.

The market is composed of several corporations & mutual aid societies that COMPETE, are selected by customers, with wisdom of crowds applied & that does stuff voluntarialy.

The government is a centralized institution with a monopoly, whitout the wisdom of crowds, with very very few "selection" when compared to the market & that does things by force.

THIS is why the government CANNOT by definition help the market or BE the market. It can and SHOULD enforce laws, punish criminals, stop coercion & theft and such, but when it gets into the market it only causes problem.

>>383394

You mad?

>>383429

See>>383168

>>383450

>Thinks i'm a Libertarian Socialist.

Libertarian Socialists are just moderate Anarcho-Collectivists out of touch with reality. I am a Libertarian, but i'm not an extremist Anarcho-Capitalist with deep hatred towards any form of government, as you seem to be.

>>383473

I just agreed and argued that the state was needed to protect people and by removal the state will just be replaced by another state.

How does that make me Anarcho-Capitalist?

>>383473

Your fault you don't have a tripcode....

>>383500
>>383491

Oh god fucking dammit i'm getting senile and stupid at a young age, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I didn't see the post defending government being your & i saw your post comparing government to gangs and made big misunderstandings, sorry.

Well, it IS truth that if government was overthrown a new form of rule would install quickly.

Also, tripfags fail.

>>383530

Well the government is a "gang".

A government is the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects-wiki

A gang is a group of three or more people who, through the organization, formation, and establishment of an assemblage, share a common identity.-wiki

But, calling the government a gang doesn't mean it's bad or good or unnecessary.
but calling it a gang doesn't mean it's good or bad.

>>383578

>but calling it a gang doesn't mean it's good or bad.

I don't know why I didn't delete that...

>>383578
but you're equating "gang" with pretty much any kind or collective, which of course the government is.

Out of all our arbitrary moral/ethic/religious (you know, the ones that are cool to scoff at) exemptions, the state being the only administrator of socially acceptable coercion is the only one that really makes total sense to me.

Of course, by doing that were setting ourselves to all kinds of abuse, which again, coming from a single, supposedly tethered source, isn't hard to resolve, specially considering the alternative...

Which is pretty much gangs

>>383710

State can be evil and states can be good.

Gangs can be evil and gangs can be good.

Fighting over control of a sidewalk and fighting over control of a island is the much the same thing.

>>383742
>Fighting over control of a sidewalk and fighting over control of a island is the much the same thing.
even if on principle they appear to be the same, the sheer scale is enough to make them different.

>>383858

So what are you trying to say here?

I called the state a "gang" since by Definition it can be defined as one.

Are you saying it can't be?

>>384009
I'm saying that it's an overgeneralization to lump gangs and state in the same bag because they're both "collectives"

States are even more arbitrary than gangs when you think about it, considering the strict protection of imaginary territorial boundaries, institutionalization and whatnot. But it's still more legitimate than a mere gang, even if (again, by mere principle) their main difference is their level of sophistication

>>384039

I agree it's a overgeneralization.

Tho I was mainly using the term against libertarian socialist who want to remove the state but approve of collectives, communes, cooperatives, commons, or syndicates,


Who are just Aka-Gangs Who do the same things state does but to a smaller scale and given time, turn into the state.

Yay! Another one of these threads!

So ayn rand was born a man. Question is, did he have the surgery?

>>384104
fair enough.

>97 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>383377
>Again, 'libertarians' are primarily just people who want to acquire as much material wealth as is possible. They only oppose the state when it begins to 'infringe' on this aim.

>>385664
leftists consider any form of prosperity greed even though most of them are privileged white suburbanites.

fuck yea ayn rand <3

>>384383
>Le derp de la derp

>>383082
>>383087
this seems to be where the thread got derailed. just to try to clear things up for the noobs, just because you consider yourself libertarian doesn't necessarily mean you're a leftist even though many people in certain branches consider themselves leftists. this should've been obvious but then again i guess on 4chan the obvious must be spelled out.

>103 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>385780
i know, great thread huh?

Damn you guys are stupid

> /lit/ tries to discuss libertarianism
> fails hard

i lawld

>>385780
what the fuck, /lit/

what the fuck

>>385846
>implying that discussing libertarianism is not failing hard by default.

100+?

>>385889
cmon man, are you really surprised? really?

funny thing is if she was some token liberal the majority of you rubes would be praising her.

>>385923
I rather think that there are obnoxious people like you is the reason so many hate her

>>385945
not used to different opinions are you? and you people wonder why liberals are so trollable?

>>385953
not used to differing opinions? you are asking that on lit? differing in opinion is basically what people do here all day.... get yourself a thicker skin, bro

go ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu on /b/ and see how this ayn shit goes

>>385923
>>385945
>>385953
>>385958

>first guy says something disapproving of the forerunning posters.
> second guy makes fun of first guy.
> first guy says wow, you are so trollable while evidently being trolled by second guy.
> second guy responds in the same fasion, but is also trolled by first guy.

lit: a confederacy of trollable trolls

I call her Anne

>>386015
it would be just as inappropriate there as it is here

>>386020
>implying an author is inappropriate on a literature board
inb4 cause moot said

>>386020

"it would be just as inappropriate there as it is here"

Yea, but they could butt fuck themselves all to hell and back and it would not be disturbing the the real humans on this planet.

>>382968
>Report submitted! This window will close in 5 seconds...

>>386026

The problem with Ayn is that the shit she writes is dry and uninteresting in a literature sense but highly emotive in a political sense.

She adds nothing to /lit/ and gets /pol/ assholes all hot and bothered about her political philosophy. I think those people should go somewhere other then /lit/ and go fuck themselves silly with each other. Some where, any where that I am not pulled into their drivel conversations about nothing.

FUCKING PEDO MANGA KILLS BLACK BABIES

FEMALE CIRCUMCISION KILL ALL PALESTINIANS