>>560225
4) Government cronyism is total horseshit:
Bills like "Equality of Opportunity Act", which prevents capitalists from owning more than one business, are demonstrated to be the work of people who are serving their own interests at the expense of others. One of this bill's supporters is an author who wants to limit the sale of any one book to 10,000 copies purely because his own novels get no sale and wants to force people to buy them instead. One of the chief villains in the book is Wesley Mouch (pronounced "mooch"), a corrupt lobbyist working for the industrialists of the country. Rand makes a point of making heroes only of those who refuse government assistance for their business concern and prefer to make their own way.

5) Hard work is actually worth something:
Hank Rearden, the steel tycoon, hates giving up his work to go to stupid parties with his wife, and is sick of hearing his family bitch about his constant working. He doesn't simply sit on his money, he wants to work for it, and considers anything less to be treason to his own morality. He calls Francisco d'Anconia, a millionaire playboy squandering his inheritance, the "height of evil" for wasting the precious gift of wealth his family left him throwing extravagant parties instead of improving himself and the world around him.

6) Research and science are important:
Hank Rearden spends a full decade and millions in his own money developing "Rearden Metal", a form of improved stainless steel which he envisions making the world a better place for the poor (when others talk only about its capacity for building rail and trains, he loves to point out applications like saucepans which can be bought for pennies and handed down across generations). He isn't a short-term, low-risk investor; he genuinely wants to make the world a better place by creating a product which he thinks will be successful.

Objectivism is anti-Christian.

>>560230
You can argue that these ideals are not reality, true, but then that's true of any ideals. The point is, the book seems to enshrine the libfag ideal of capitalism: taking risks on bettering the world, overcoming prejudice, rejecting government handouts/bailouts, producing for one's own wealth rather than sitting pretty on family money, and the noble act of workers coming together and refusing to work for compensation and conditions they view as unjust.

So why do libfags hate it? Just because someone once told them it was about how the poor should be required to fellate the rich for their meager sustenance? Have any libfags actually READ the damn thing?

Because the overall concept isn't feasible in the real world.

It's Judaic nonsense. Reads straight like a page out of the Talmud. Ayn Rands kike ass is rotting in hell with the rest of the Christ killers.

>>560248
What concept is that?

They hate it for the same reason that Conservatives and Libertarians hate The Communist Manifesto. It goes against their political philosophy.

>>560243
who are these "libfags" you speak of? Other children at your school? People on this board?
Or is there is some large group of people that you can correctly pinpoint their political leanings to correctly label them AND you are able to corectly state their opinions without ever having met them?

Can you do this trick in other situations?

Did YOU read it?

1. The Rich are your gods

2. If you aren't rich, you are human garbage

3. If you ever need any help in life, then you're worthless scum

4. Hurr durr freedom

>>560272
>They hate it for the same reason that Conservatives and Libertarians hate The Communist Manifesto. It goes against their political philosophy.

But that's what I'm saying; it DOESN'T. The philosophy it espouses includes so many things that liberals love to support, which I've listed above: labor unions, nondiscrimination, the end of corporate bailouts and washington palm-greasing, ending monopolistic corporate cartels, focus on research and development for the betterment of humanity as a whole rather than "safe" current technologies.

If Rand said "oh and we should maybe give the poor just a little bit of tax money" the damn thing would be EXACTLY the liberal philosophy. Is that one thing enough to destroy the rest and make it utterly cringe-worthy?

>>560320
Confirmed for not having read it.

>>560272
Ironically a lot of what Marx said would happen to developed nations in the future actually did happen are staples of our nation, like income tax.

I will forever hate this book because I was subjected to the audio version of it on a 10 hour car ride to South Carolina.

>>560320
Baby's first troll.

>>560332
>>560272

and are*

>>560330
No, that's just pretty much the message of the book.

The whole metaphor of "Atlas shrugging" comes from the idea that the "exceptional people" bear the weight of the "lazy masses".

Rand accuses anybody who isn't a pioneering innovator of being a leech on society. It's anti-Marxism. It glorifies the bourgeoisie and demonizes the proletariat.

> It's anti-Marxism.

This is pretty much the reason why people hate the book, OP.

>>560272

objectivists principals are founded on metaphysical/epistemological axioms (causality,identity,existence,etc)

marx's principals and notions of alienation and class division are founded on nothing but whimsical hegelianism and an implicit critique smith's capitalism.

individuals are self-evident and to ignore them as the fundamental unit of society is completely fucking absurd.

>>560230

Ayn Rand?

Isn't that the woman who promoted "logical self interested", divorced her husband for a younger man, and then got butthurt that using her exact same logic, the younger man left her for someone younger?

If that's true, then if she gets mad at people for following her own philosophical ideals to their logical conclusions, it's a shit philosophy.

>>560413
Don't forget that she classified charity as a "moral weakness" in her lovely work, "The Virtue of Selfishness".

>>560413

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

So I guess the fact that OWS uses Iphones made by corporations totally discredits everything they have to say!

>>560355
Absolute mistake.
Characters such as Eddie Willers, and that one hobo on the train, are not pioneers or titans of industry, but are definitely portrayed in a positive light.

>>560431

Did Apple commit massive financial fraud?

>>560421

No she didn't, you idiot. Have you even read that book? She doesn't take a position on charity.

>>560438

Some of the companies that provided it with venture capital did.

>>560441
Well, she did, it was one of moral neutrality.
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

>>560454

>it was one of moral neutrality.

Yeah, that's what I said.

>>560432
No, Willers represents Rand's favorite type of person: the sheepish corporate apologist who doesn't question what his "betters" do and sticks with the corporation through thick and thin.

He's the kind of citizen Rand wants: basically he's the modern Republican voter who is currently rejecting a tax cut for himself because it raises taxes on the rich.

>>560445

But Apple did not defraud investors out of money.

I don't see how your (lack of a) point has anything to do with the fact that Ayn Rand is herself proof that her own philosophies don't work.

>>560413

you should try putting principal before person; if hitler had said "you need to eat to live" would you chastise the notion and never eat again?

>>560421

objectivism is against indiscriminate charity, it is simply foolish to give to whoever when ever, if you disagree I suggest you find the nearest thug and take him on shopping spree at the mall on your credit.

It was written by a JEW

JEWS
JEWWWWWWWWWWWWWS

>>560479

A more accurate example is if Hitler said, "You don't need to eat to live", and we watch as Hitler starves to death and dies, following his own example.

Similarly, we watched Ayn Rand cry and scream when someone decides to live by her philosophies, and she finds herself on the losing end of them.

>>560511

how about if hitler said "don't take poison it will kill you"

>>560472

Apple was provided with venture capital by Wall Street. OWS is protesting Wall Street, and yet they are using inventions that Wall Street made possible.

Apple is just the tip of the iceberg. Pic related.

If personal failings mean we can ignore ideas, then OWS is immediately discredited, as are innumerable other writers and thinkers.

The fact that you can't argue except through ad hominem just shows how intellectually bankrupt leftists are. Have fun being mentally retarded.

it's completely unfounded in reality?

http://sites.google.com/site/atlassucked/part-1

you can find a lot of the more valid liberal criticisms in this essay such as the anti tax message coming out of nowhere and a complete failure to understand contemporary industrialism.

>Why do libfags hate this book?
Because conservatives like it.

/thread

>>560536

People aren't protesting the fact that companies make products, or that technology and pants are bad things. I'm not exactly sure where you're seeing the hypocrisy.

>>560536
There's nothing wrong with using the results of production in order to acquire the means

>>560586
>>560588

I was responding to >>560413. Try reading the thread.

Ayn Rand was born rich and spent her entire life prancing about as an intellectual writing fantasy novels and essays about how important it is for everyone to be proactive and work hard.

>>560355
>Rand accuses anybody who isn't a pioneering innovator of being a leech on society

Not at all. The first character you meet in the novel is Eddie Willers; he's not a pioneering anything, he's just an assistant. And he's one of the good guys. In fact the book is full of characters (a newspaper vendor in a Taggart station, "the Fishwife" who sells fish for a living in the Gulch and writes on the side) who are not great pioneers or captains of industry, but are just hard workers who contribute what they are able to contribute and ask for nothing more than what they earn.

These characters get far more sympathy from Rand than from the wealthy industrialists who ill-got their gains like Oren Boyle; they may not be "Atlas" but when they ride on his shoulders they demand nothing from him and at least appreciate the ride.

Rand isn't taking a stand against workers or the poor in the novel; it's really more about the villainy of those who would achieve their own selfish ends by holding them up on a pedestal. In fact many of the first Strikers aren't CEOs or owners, but are managers and workers who are the best at their jobs and are tired of doing all the work for none of the credit. Dagny's first encounter with such is a man who she wants to promote to run a line (replacing an inept recipient of the position via James' nepotism) after a successful stint in a lower-management position. He refuses the offer despite being told he can "write his own ticket" (name his price and his terms) and it disturbs her. He may not have her skill or intelligence but he's a "good man" and that's what she's afraid of losing; competent workers refusing to accept compensation and credit for their skill baffles and vaguely scares her.

>>560600

>implying we didn't know that, and implying your point isn't still completely wrong for the reasons just mentioned.

>>560614
In fact, even though many of the captains of industry are members of elite families, a point is made to develop their careers from nothing. Both d'Anconia and Dagny get started at a young age working menial labor jobs at their own families' companies and demonstrate skill to "prove themselves". Dagny rises through the ranks because at first nobody thinks a woman capable. The whole point of her story is that to truly deserve your wealth you must prove you deserve it, and nobody should be handed anything for free (James Taggart is handed the railroad for free and is painted as a corrupt and awful leader of Taggart Transcontinental).

>>560635
>>560614

feminist detected

only a feminist would buy into this bullshit.

>>560586

You moron. Read what he said.

>Apple was provided with venture capital by Wall Street. OWS is protesting Wall Street, and yet they are using inventions that Wall Street made possible.

Can anyone be this fucking retarded? If we can dismiss Ayn Rand because of her hypocrisy, then we can also dismiss OWS because of its hypocrisy. God, libtards are so fucking stupid.

>>560645
Not a feminist. How is that feminist? I guess because the idea is that what matters is one's ability to do a job and do it well, not the flavor of their genitals?

>>560675
The genitals of feminists are extremely fishy

>>560665
>liberals
>you are either on the bus or off the bus
>your either on the boat or off the boat
>special prepossessions; special consciousness

>>560413
>In 1964 Nathaniel Branden began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand. When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended,[73] Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens, which led to the closure of NBI.[74] Rand published an article in The Objectivist repudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty

She didn't get butthurt because he left, she got butthurt because he didn't have the balls to be honest about it.

How is that hypocritical?

>>560691

What the hell are you talking about? Ad hominem fallacy is still a fallacy, no matter whether it's applied to the left or the right.

>>560665

I would accept your argument if they were protesting iPhones.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

If Ayn Rand couldn't stand the results of her own philosophy, why would anyone else buy into it?

>>560740

>I would accept your argument if they were protesting iPhones.

They are protesting Wall Street. IPhones and a whole bunch of other products would not exist without Wall Street. Hence, they are hypocrites and by your logic we shouldn't listen to them. I will repeat this as many times as is necessary for you to comprehend it.

I don't care whether you "accept" my argument. Ad hominem is a fallacy whether you like it or not, and whether it's applied to people you disagree with or not.

If OWS can't protest without contradicting their own message, why would anyone else buy into it?

>>560740
see
>>560708

She was only mad because he was dishonest, intellectually and personally. That's not against her philosophy. Show me where Ayn Rand was crying about "HOW COULD HE EVER LEAVE ME BOO HOO" and you'll have a point. So far all I've seen is that they already weren't romantically involved and, years later, she found out he was having an affair when they WERE together, and called him a douche for lying about it.

>>560774

That's not ad-hominem. That's observing the results of a philosophy in action.

By that logic, Soviet Russia provides no evidence of communism being an inferior system, because "it's just an ad-hominem attack against Stalin."

>>560851
>That's observing the results of a philosophy in action.

If that's the case, why does Rand's point of view matter? If Rand gets mad when people adhere to her philosophy, why does that invalidate the philosophy out of necessity?

>>560774

>IPhones and a whole bunch of other products would not exist without Wall Street.

False. What you stated there is complete idiocy.

>>560875
hahaha what?

Because the $1.4 billion in annual Research and Development costs Apple incurs for designing new products come wholly out of company profit margins and have NEVER been borrowed from lenders. Ever.

>>560851

>That's observing the results of a philosophy in action.

Oh boy. Let me guide you through this very slowly. You said the following:

>Isn't that the woman who promoted "logical self interested", divorced her husband for a younger man, and then got butthurt that using her exact same logic, the younger man left her for someone younger?

>If that's true, then if she gets mad at people for following her own philosophical ideals to their logical conclusions, it's a shit philosophy.

Let's leave aside the factual inaccuracy of your stupid remark, which >>560708 already pointed out to you. Let's take this as true. For one thing, I'm not sure where Rand actually said that everyone should divorce their husbands. Rand praised love as an important part of the human experience. However, she did say that no action should be undertaken without accepting responsibility for it.

According to you, because Rand failed to practise her philosophy consistently, her philosophy is thereby invalidated. That is a fallacious non-argument.

>Soviet Russia provides no evidence of communism being an inferior system, because "it's just an ad-hominem attack against Stalin."

Soviet Russia is evidence of Stalinism being inferior, because Stalinism is what was actually practised. Your analogy fails. Try again.

Ayn Rand is a lightning rod for Ad hominem and once again this thread proves it.

Anytime her or Objectivism comes up the only criticisms you see are "Ayn Rand was a mean stupid bitch"

OP,

"In ethics, Rand argued for rational egoism (rational self-interest), as the guiding moral principle. She said the individual should "exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."[93] She referred to egoism as "the virtue of selfishness" in her book of that title,[94] in which she presented her solution to the is-ought problem by describing a meta-ethical theory that based morality in the needs of "man's survival qua man".[95] She condemned ethical altruism as incompatible with the requirements of human life and happiness,[96] and held that the initiation of force was evil and irrational, writing in Atlas Shrugged that "Force and mind are opposites".[97]"

This is probably why only sociopathic assholes like this book. It's neither a libfag or conservafag issue.

>>560907
get the fuck out of here with your basic analytical skills nigger, i'm having a tantrum and i'm going to take this whole society down if i want to

>>560907

>implying that fraud and corruption are necessary to make a product

>>561078

The name of the movement is "Occupy Wall Street." They are calling themselves "the 99%" and protesting the 1%. Yet they are using products that wouldn't exist without either,. That is the point being made, you stupid dumbfuck.

>>561099
They are protesting the corruption of a class of people who are unbelievably rich for no discernible reason.

>>561099

I, too, learn about current events soley from Fox News.

High five!

>>561114

Without whom the products they use to protest wouldn't exist.

>>561163

>once again, implying that it is impossible to have phones without financially defrauding investors, or lobbyists, or government corruption, or any of the other -actual- reasons people are taking to the streets.

>>561163
By a very skewed kind of logic.

They did not invent the products, they did not manufacture, or assemble it, they do not distribute it, nor do they even oversee or manage these things.

>>561177

That's not being implied. What's being pointed out to you is that the IPhone would not exist without the venture capital provided by the very companies OWS is protesting. Go ahead, keep dodging the point.

>>561178

>They did not invent the products, they did not manufacture, or assemble it, they do not distribute it, nor do they even oversee or manage these things.

So I guess the IPhone just came out of thin air, huh?

>>561198
No.
But Jobs, or the CEO, and board members of Apple were sure as shit not inventing it.

>>561211

There's more to entrepreneurship than just invention.

>>561211
In fact I'll go as far as to say that NONE of those things were performed by anyone who classifies as "The 1%"

>>560240
The secular humanists of Bavarian Illuminati don't give a fuck about Christian sensitivities.

>>560225
We the Living is a pretty good film. I'd recommend it to anyone, regardless of political stripe.

>>561232

See>>561223

>>561223
Yes, there's more to entrepreneurship than inventing, building, assembling, and overseeing.
There's...
No, tell me.

>>561044
I wonder how she would take to Batman...

It's too long for them to read. And, they have a small working memory.

>>561198

The point is that one can own a phone, while still being against corporate fraud. I don't see why you think these things are mutually exclusive.

>>561252

distribution, sponsorship/partnership, accounting, operations, marketing, strategy, financing, creation of company culture, human resources, hiring, firing, compliance with safety regulations, sales, PR

>>561303

I love how you pretend that OWS is just a bunch of concerned citizens against fraud. Everyone is against fraud.

Let me repeat the claim being made one more time so you can't dishonestly evade it:
>What's being pointed out to you is that the IPhone would not exist without the venture capital provided by the very companies OWS is protesting.

>>561198
>>What's being pointed out to you is that the IPhone would not exist without the venture capital provided by the very companies OWS is protesting.

Please see >>560588

You might hypothetically hate how Toyota cheapened out on their brakes a little while ago, doesn't mean you're going to stop using that Corolla you own. Why would you stop using *your* iPhone because of that?

>>561358

Yes. And given our economic system, those loans companies have a place. The services are utilized by many people.

That does not mean that the only way these financial companies are able to stay afloat is by committing $400,000,000,000 in fraud damages every year (look it up).

That is the aspect that people tend to be protesting.

It is quite possible to produce a product without fraud or corruption. I don't know if I can simply this concept any further for you.

>>561390

You need to read >>560665.

I am not saying OWS should be dismissed because the protestors use IPhones. I was arguing with somebody else, who was making the same kind of argument against Ayn Rand. My point was that ad hominem is fallacious no matter who is the target of it.

>>561404

>It is quite possible to produce a product without fraud or corruption.

Except that wasn't the argument I was making. Why don't you try learning to read?

>>561323
>Distribution
Not handled by them. Carried out by low-wage employees overseen by medium-wage managers, again overseen by their own managers.
None of whom are in the 1%
> sponsorship/partnership
This one is entirely meaningless unless you elaborate.
> accounting
Done, hilariously enough, by accountants.
Who are not the 1%
> marketing
Those cunts can suck a cock, but they're still not the 1%
> financing
THERE YOU HAVE IT.
THAT'S THE ONE THING THEY DO.
They have money, so they can put money into things and make more money.
>, human resources, hiring, firing, compliance with safety regulations,
And...
And you honestly think Jobs and the Boardsmembers got together to make sure safety regulations were being kept?
AHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>561420

In that case, what would you like to change your argument to, in an attempt to sound less retarded?

>>561427

Bunch of assertions made with no evidence. You didn't address most of the points made, in any event. Your ridiculous point that the 1% had no role in the creation of the IPhone has still been refuted, and you're to childish to admit it.

>you honestly think Jobs and the Boardsmembers got together to make sure safety regulations were being kept?

Generally, yeah I do.

>>561447

Go back and read what I said. I'm sick of repeating myself.

>>561463
No, because Jobs had no hand in the iPhone.
None.

Nothing
Zip
Zilch
Nada

and you can't tell me anything they did except "Have money".

>>561482

You're dodging the point. The 1% had a role in creating the IPhone. Without the venture capital they provided, OWS wouldn't even be able to organize. You're still wrong.

>>561471

I did.

>What's being pointed out to you is that the IPhone would not exist without the venture capital provided by the very companies OWS is protesting.

People aren't protesting the idea of companies providing capital. They're protesting the fact that companies defraud investors out of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and in response, are often fined even less money than they profited from the fraud.

That's like saying that if a politician rapes a woman, and you are against that politician raping the woman, then you an anarchist.

>>561412
Yeah I've been reading the past posts though, and I'd hardly call the initial post an ad hominem. Her way of living life must reflect that of her philosophy. An ad hominem would imply a logical and objective argument or idea is being dismissed through a direct insult to the person or other means (tu quoque[sp?], guilt by association, etc.), but when her philosophy is being acted on personally and it backfires, well...

If anything it's ironic.

>>561515

>They're protesting the fact that companies defraud investors out of hundreds of billions of dollars a year,

You're a liar. You can't possibly know what exactly they're protesting because they have no official demands.

I am judging them by their name. I am assuming wall street is what they are mad at.

>>561532

>Her way of living life must reflect that of her philosophy.

That's where you're wrong, and that's why your argument is an ad hominem fallacy.

God, the disgusting hypocrisy of leftists is unbelievable. They continually get on right-winger's backs and pretend like they are the embodiment of reason and principle, when in reality they are just as disingenuous and dishonest as the right.

Rand didn't realize that major corporations actually were in bed with the government.

Read some fucking Rothbard. Or anyone who isn't Rand.

Or the news.

>>561539

Well, that explains a lot.

You could have started your first post with, "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about" and saved us both some time.

>>561573

>Well, that explains a lot.

Yeah, it explains how much of a lying scumbag you are.

>>561556
never read rand

atlas shrugged is all about business messing with politics fueled by looters.

>>561552

Err, yes, her own life is a stellar example of why "rational self interest" doesn't work well.

This isn't, "Ayn Rand is wrong because she's a stupid doody-head". This is "Ayn Rand is wrong by looking at the results of her own philosophy."

>>561582

Why are you so mad, though?

It's okay that you're wrong about Ayn Rand and OWS. The latter is forgivable because, by your own admission, you know nothing about it.

Just make sure to become more educated before trying to argue these subjects in the future. :)

Her ideology contains some interesting ideas, but it's a demonstration of what happens when an amateur philosopher attempts serious philosophical work.
For instance,
>Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it."
>"A is A"

You can't deduce the independence of reality from perception from "A is A" (A=A).
A=A is an uncontroversial tautology.
It's very easy to think up an aspect of reality that necessarily involves perceiving something: if an agent is in pain, it must be true that they are conscious of the pain (this is why the pain-reflexes that occur under anesthesia arn't painful). A fact about the world, that an agent's pain exists, does depend on his perception of that pain. [This doesn't even touch on the real issue: is that pain physically identical to something, or is it merely caused by something physical without being physical in itself]

I'm probably being too charitable to Rand. She really seems to think that given, for some x, x=x, it follows that: for some x, x=x, therefore, at least one object (o) exists. That's a formal fallacy. In an argument, you would need a premise stating that o exists. Then you can use "x=x," and assign o to the variable x. Subsequently, x=o, thus also o=x, thus o=o.

So. Yeah. The entire metaphysical edifice she founds her ideology on is faulty from the get go.

>>561552
How am I wrong exactly? You're dismissing:
>>If that's true, then if she gets mad at people for following her own philosophical ideals to their logical conclusions, it's a shit philosophy.

If what he says is true, which apparently is considering you quoted even Wikipedia having her close down her business, and if she indeed get huttburt, which she did, and if she did embody the philosophy she created, which she did, then the logical conclusion is that her form of Objectivism is inferior. It's not like disregarding a 16 year old's idea on income tax simply because he doesn't pay any, that's a clear ad hominem. But you can't have your personal actions and personal philosophies be mutually exclusive, especially for Ayn Rand who *created* it. Your actions are pre-determined by your philosophies.

>>561631

>oh god i look like such a faggot now
>nevermind, i'll just play it off as trolling!
>HURR DURR U MAD?

You fail, faggot.

>>561604

>"Ayn Rand is wrong by looking at the results of her own philosophy."

And OWS is wrong by looking at the results of their own philosophy (they wouldn't be able to protest). Have fun being retarded :)

>>561644

Then I guess OWS is wrong because they use IPhones. Marx was wrong because he leeched off rich capitalists like Engels and hated Jews.

I can go down a rabbit's hole with you and your immature, disgusting ad hominem double standard. A person's ideas can't be judged by their personal failings. Go back to kindergarten.

>>561677

This guy's getting so worked up over being wrong, it's cute. :)

Rand desired strong, powerful men.

She married a gay man who demanded to let his gay lover share their bed.

>>561694

What's that? I can't hear you over all your fail.

>>561496
No, I'm perfectly willing to admit that the Apple company had a lot of money to make things with.

The iphone was not some kind of pipedream conceived in the basement of a hopeful inventer, who then got called up by a noble 1 percenter offering him capital.
It was designed by an already rich company.
The personal wealth of those with the largest salaries never entered into the equation.

>>560390
>objectivists principals are founded on metaphysical/epistemological axioms (causality,identity,existence,etc)
Nope.
>>561633


pic related. it's an actual philosopher of ethics

>>561677

Like I said, please see >>560588
Also, a person's idea can be judged by said person's failings if said person's failings were of their ideas. Many people criticize Marx because he wrote heavily about revolution and the paradise after the bourgeoisie but lacked any and all details on how government would function thereafter. Many of the Communist countries that have existed started off with Marxist ideals, and then deviate from said ideals because there's nothing to guide them afterwards. It's why there has never been a true Marxist state. His failures on paper became the failures of his ideal nations. Why should Ayn Rand be exempt from such judgement in her own life?

>>561762

The 1% played a crucial role in creating the IPhone. You're still dancing around this obvious fact.

>>561850

Karl Marx isn't wrong because actual implementations of his ideals failed, you shitbag.

No, Karl Marx is wrong because he leeched off of rich capitalists like Engels.

That proves every word he said false. If you disagree, you can go suck cocks. Oh, and I'm not committing a fallacy, I'm being perfectly reasonable.

>>561850
>>561871
Oh god my sides! I can't stop laughing. Good job sir

>>561871
No.
You are.
You refuse to admit that all the work in the creation of the iPhone was carried out by people who are not the 1%, and you also refuse to state what exactly the 1% did.
You say "Venture capital", which is not applicable as the thing was made for company money, for company purposes.

>>561917

The fact that you don't know what venture capital is isn't my problem.

>>561910

I lol'd at these back to back.

>>561935
It's ok. I remember when half of my high school English class became Randtards after reading Fountainhead, I understand if she still gives you wet dreams.

>>561850

This.

>>561957

I think you misunderstand.

I agree with>>561850

and was laughing at the response>>561871

>>561983
Dang it... aight my bad.
I'll save said post for later I guess.

>>561983

Confirmed for retard.

>>561556
That was the fucking plot of the fucking book, retard. Rearden hates his lobbyist, and Taggart and all the other corrupt businessmen in bed with the government end up failing hard at the end. Rand wanted a separation of economy and state.

Ayn Rand is a jew.

it's also pretty badly written

>>561850

>Why should Ayn Rand be exempt from such judgement in her own life?

>>561871 is right. Karl Marx often said himself that the bourgeois needed to disappear. And yet he wouldn't have been able to make a living without living parasitically off of the rich.

If personal failings are the judge of a person's ideas, then we should dismiss Marx for the same reason that you are dismissing Rand.

Or we can grow up and start making mature arguments.

>>561998

I know what you're saying though... people who read Ayn Rand, read about "Rational Self Interest", and then go through a stage where they think they've found a moral loophole for acting like an absolute dick.

I consider myself left leaning, how far, I'm not sure. Definitely on social issues.

Anyways. I love the work of Ayn Rand. Her work always makes me think. One of my favorite parts is the slow growing friendship between Henry Rearden and Francisco d'Anconia. The part where Hank is in awe of Francisco's brilliant plan to destroy his own company before it got nationalized was one of my favorite pre John Galt climax's

I can hold a decidely different political view and still enjoy a good story, regardless of ideology. Going to read it for the third time tonight, thanks for the reminder.

>>561163
Did Paris Hilton invent the iPhone or the iPod?

>>562047

Of course. Why do you think she's so rich? Obviously worked hard for it.

>>562031

You're a rare species.

>>562026
When did I ever mention that we should dismiss their ideas entirely? When did I ever dismiss any of Rand's arguments? The worst I've ever said is that Ayn Rand's ideas were inferior through her implementation in life.

>>562016
No it isn't. It's not as rich with imagery as some novels, true... But any criticism of Atlas Shrugged could be levelled 10x as hard at books like 1984, Animal Farm, or Brave New World... Why is "badly written" exclusively dumped on Atlas Shrugged, as if every other piece of dystopian political writing was Shakespeare?

>>562142

>When did I ever dismiss any of Rand's arguments?

>The worst I've ever said is that Ayn Rand's ideas were inferior

These two statements are equivalent.

Actually, she was against modern-unions. She was all for free markets, without regulations that are there as favors to certain people.

Please stop comparing the iPhone creation to the 1% argument. The point is that taxing companies and people too much basically kills innovation and the business spirit! Would you work hard if you knew that most of what you make would go to the government to be wasted away, given to lazy people or some other waste?

Not saying all taxes go to waste, but mostly they do.

>Half of this thread sucking Ayn's metaphorical dick are probably Paultards
>They don't know Alan Greenspan was one of Ayn Rand's biggest followers
>mfw

>>562191

Greenspan contributed an essay to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." He was a part of Ayn Rand's inner circle during the sixties, as well, but that's the extent of his involvement. In practise, he was just a typical conservative Keynesian. In a Randian world, there would be no central bank setting interest rates.

>>562171
It would be if I said "they're inferior, therefore we should disregard what she says." I clearly did not.

>atlas shrugged
>not an incredibly poorly written piece of blathering about the exact same topic over and over again far past the interest of any nonmasochistic reader, regardless of whether or not he agrees with the idea behind it

>>561928
The capital was not the property of the 1%, it was the property of the company that is Apple.

Now shut the fuck up or come up with an actual argument.

No, you know what?
I've given you enough chances.

I win by de-fucking-fault.

>>561762
>It was designed by an already rich company.

Which, at one point, was an asshole in his basement who collected venture capital to get started.

He then properly applied that capital, made some capital of his own, and reinvested in new ideas. That's how a company grows.

Shit, look at Google. They're pretty much the definition of "self made" but even THEY have billions in corporate bond offers. All companies need money to get ideas off the ground; the bigger and more radical the idea, the more money is necessary.

That's sort of the fundamental IDEA of capitalism, isn't it? I have the shovels, you can dig holes, so I'll give you the shovels in exchange for a cut of the money you make digging holes. Neither of us is getting anything without the help of the other.

>>562143
among other issues
fucking monologues
MONOLOGUES EVERYWHERE

it's like she just forgets she's writing a novel sometimes and starts spewing pointless, inane quantities of objectivist diatribe

the novel would be VASLTY improved if she had just cut those down and let the story speak for itself

>>562220

Your whole argument is based on a faulty premise, that Ayn Rand's philosophy can be judged by how she lived her personal life.

I.e. Ayn Rand said X, but did Y, therefore X is false. This is what has traditionally been called the "tu quoquo" fallacy, or the appeal to hypocrisy.

>>562191

Don't compare us Paultards with the bullshit Ayn Rand was spewing.

Even Paultards know Ayn Rand was retarded.

>>562255

Wrong.

The argument is,

Ayn Rand believed X. Ayn Rand did X. Someone else did X. Ayn Rand got butthurt when someone else did X.

>>562250
>fucking monologues
>MONOLOGUES EVERYWHERE
Most of the monologues make sense in context.

It's not as though she sets scenes up like
"Evening Miss Taggart, care for a newspaper?"
"THE SUBVERSION OF RATIONAL SELF INTEREST HAS DESTROYED THE SPIRIT OF THIS NATION AND WE SHOULD ABOLISH THE INCOME TAX!"

Most monologuing occurs at appropriate moments, like parties or as part of conversations. These seem like natural places for it.

Ironically most of the "monologuing" seems to be IN the narrative, with Rand's descriptions of moods or scenarioa devolving into huge objectivist train-of-thought descriptions.

>>562255

Her moral philosophy turned out to be, "Being a dick is cool... but only when I do it."

>>562300

What is X?

And in any case, that argument wouldn't prove X was false.

>>562313

X is pretty much anything arises from her "Rational Self Interest" bullshit, but if you want to be specific, dumping your spouse for someone younger and hotter.

>>562317

Supposing that was true, it would only prove that Ayn Rand was inconsistent. (In other words, that she was a fallible human being.) It wouldn't disprove anything she said. This is still tu quoque.

Captcha related: capitalismo rtsrsd

>>562325

to this post, rather

>>562331

>dumping your spouse for someone younger and hotter.

Could you provide a passage from Ayn Rand's writings where she claims everyone should divorce their spouses for someone younger and hotter?

>>562300
>Ayn Rand believed X. Ayn Rand did X. Someone else did X. Ayn Rand got butthurt when someone else did X.

How does that invalidate the idea? Even if Rand said "fuck me, I was wrong about X all along!" it wouldn't invalidate it.

Pretend those rumors of Darwin's deathbed repentance of evolution were true... His denunciation of his own idea STILL wouldn't make it any less valid an idea. The idea isn't limited to its originator. They release it into the world; whether or not they change their mind about it ceases to matter, the idea is to be judged on its own merits.

>>562353

It's simply an application of her "rational self interest" form of ethics that she advocated.

>>562398

But that doesn't answer my question. "Rational self-interest" is a term that Ayn Rand gave a specific meaning in "The Objectivist Ethics." I'm not aware of any book where she says everyone should divorce for the hell of it. If you know of such a book, please cite it. Otherwise, you are simply talking out of your rear.

>>562255
No, the initial comment you, or I assume is you, argued with said:
>>If that's true, then if she gets mad at people for following her own philosophical ideals to their logical conclusions, it's a shit philosophy.
Your example, according to what he says and you quoted from Wikipedia, should be Ayn Rand said X, did/does Y in regards to X, had others do X, then did Z in regards to X, where Z is opposite of Y.

If you lead your life by the example you set and it backfires on you through your own implementation, then anyone should be able to criticize your idea without it being an ad hominem simply because you had it implemented; your idea/product was inferior when put into practice. It's inferior in the way you might have set it up, yes, but to disregard it would mean to throw it away without making any changes, which is apparently what you think I'm arguing. That is not what I'm doing.

>>562371

You're right that it doesn't necessarily "disprove" her bullshit ideas on ethics, but it's fairly damning evidence.

Watching someone eat a certain type of berry, and then falling over and dying, is not proof that the berry killed them... but watching the results of their actions, it becomes fairly apparent that eating those berries is a pretty bad idea.

Similarly, watching Ayn Rand get butthurt by being on the receiving end of her own asshole philosophy probably means that it's not a very good system.

People hate it because The Fountainhead is an infinitely better piece of literature.

In almost every way.

>>562432

>Ayn Rand said X
>did/does Y in regards to X
>had others do X
>then did Z in regards to X, where Z is opposite of Y.

How does this disprove X? No one is answering this question.

>your idea/product was inferior when put into practice.

But according to you X was not put into practise. Y was put into practise, and Rand's reaction to Y was Z.

All this proves is that Ayn Rand was a fallible human being. It doesn't prove that X is false.

>>561633

you can't prove something exist a priori of perceiving it yes but when rand is asserting A=A what she is doing is elaborating on the principal of identity, and in here methodology existence comes before identity and existence is self-evident, you don't prove existence by identifying it because it is a priori to the law of identity. you don't have to prove that something exists because the alternative is that nothing exists and if nothing existed then it would be nothing, and nothing is not just another something to be proven it is nothing. there would be no you or me or internet, you would not be conscious, you would not perceive, there would be nothing to argue about, you wouldn't be reading this right now if there was nothing. if you are truly a metaphysical nihilist then you have nothing to stand on you have no means or base of knowledge to assert your position. knowledge is not an infinite regress of proofs that need to be proven something has to start somewhere and it starts at acknowledging the axiom of existence. asserting that existence needs to be proven beyond perception, beyond your sensory organs is simply begging the question; descartes and kant were simply begging the question that is all there is to it, and it is simply absurd.

now if existence exists, then there is very little to argue about the validity of law of identity. unless you wish to identity the invalidity of identity, and prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

>>561779
>pic relate it's a real philosopher

>>562432
>If you lead your life by the example you set and it backfires on you through your own implementation, then anyone should be able to criticize your idea without it being an ad hominem simply because you had it implemented

How did it backfire on her, though? The man didn't leave her because of HER rational self-interest. He left her because of HIS. For it to backfire, acting in her own rational self-interest would have to make her life worse. It didn't. Other people acting in THEIR rational self-interest made her life worse, which is an expected result of the philosophy. The IDEA is that nobody owes you happiness; they only owe happiness to themselves. You make your OWN happiness.

>>562446

>watching Ayn Rand get butthurt by being on the receiving end of her own asshole philosophy probably means that it's not a very good system.

That's a non-sequitur.

In fact, Rand often said herself that those who violate the rules of morality will be punished by reality. If anything, the fact that she ended up "butthurt" proves her right!

Sorry if I'm being an annoying Randroid, but I just don't think this argument holds up.

>>562473
I would give the same response that >>562446
gave for that if he hadn't already said it, although not as vulgar.

>>562520

Well, I already responded to that anon.

>>562460
this. fountainhead was sooooooo much better and captured a lot of the same themes, without being so goddamn preachy.

>2011
>still believe in Randian ethics

>>562554
>2011
>postmodernism/post-structuralism/altruism

>>562473

This implies that her decision to leave her husband and hook up with a younger man has nothing to do with her philosophy of "rational self interest", which couldn't be further from the truth.

>>562624
Objectivism- The philosophy of cheating whores everywhere.

>>562622

>implying anyone uses postmodernism
>implying no glorious utilitarianism.

For the greatest good to the greatest number; get off his fucking neck!

>>562624

I would issue to you the same challenge I issued here >>562423. Namely, cite for me a passage in which Ayn Rand says that everyone should divorce their spouse for someone younger and hotter.

Rand said many times that resentment and envy is not proper for a rational person. She also said no cause should ever be enacted without taking responsibility for its effect. All that's been proven so far is that Rand failed to live up to her own ideals. The fact that she didn't practise her principles consistently doesn't prove her principles were false.

>>562622

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLUZYnlN6Vo


The battle between left and right.

>>562668

Do you expect that Ayn Rand had written out a "moral" decision for every specific situation that might arise in everyone's life?

Or is it fair to say that her idea of ethics was summed up with her idea of "Rational Self Interest", which dictates how one should act in a specific situation, including her situation with her husband?

>>562721

In other words, you don't actually have any proof that Ayn Rand was implementing the principles of Objectivism when she complained about the Branden affair.

You are just relying on your own self-serving interpretation of the word "rational self-interest." I don't think you've actually ever read anything Ayn Rand wrote.

She often made specific moral recommendations. She despised racism and parasitism. She also explicitly condemned hedonism in "The Objectivist Ethics."

You are saying Rand ended up hurt because of her hedonism. In other words, she was punished for doing something she had said herself not to do. How does this prove her ideals were false?

>>562668

Except, she did practice her principles.

Unless you're talking about the part where you claim Rand claims "envy" and "resentment" have no place in rational decision making, which was also shown to be false by her own actions, since clearly they did play a part in her process.

>>562771
So essentially you're arguing "do as I say, not as I do?"

>>562771

All of this sounds fine and dandy on paper; my evidence that her system of ethics is bullshit is by looking at how she reacted when others followed her ethical model.

Where is your evidence that this is decent ethical system to adhere to?

Objectivism

>>562802

>Rand claims "envy" and "resentment" have no place in rational decision making

You are playing with words. Define "rational decision making." Rand had her own definition of that term, and it explicitly didn't include being envious or resentful. Again, the fact that she failed to live by her own principles doesn't prove her principles false.

>>562825

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

>>562852

>my evidence that her system of ethics is bullshit is by looking at how she reacted when others followed her ethical model

That isn't evidence of anything, as I've pointed out several times.

>Where is your evidence that this is decent ethical system to adhere to?

Now you're changing the subject. If you'd like to have a debate about moral philosophy, I'd be happy to have it and you can start a separate thread.

>>562913

Sigh.

The whole debacle with her being a whore is highly telling of rational self interest. The decision arose from the philosophy of rational self interest that both people adhered to.

If you're saying, "Oh, well the creator of the "rational self interest" system of ethics wasn't REALLY following her own system of ethics", then you're saying that she's unable to adhere to the basic tenants of her own moral philosophy.

In which case, she really shouldn't be talking about about ethics to begin with.

As again, I stated, even if things look good on paper, if they don't match up with reality, then they are shit.

If you have no evidence that "rational self interest" is a good system of ethics to adhere to, then this conversation is over, since all given evidence points to it being bullshit, even if you personally don't consider the effects of rational self interest to be evidence.

>>562675

strawmen fallacy, that is not what objectivism advocates in the slightest. you only get an infinite regress of people 'stabbing each other in the back' in an altruistic society where everyone is the sacrificial lamb to everyone and everyone is plundering everyone for the greater good and there is no discrimination no value nothing to account for but the whole of the collective.

>>562478
>knowledge is not an infinite regress of proofs that need to be proven something has to start somewhere and it starts at acknowledging the axiom of existence. asserting that existence needs to be proven beyond perception, beyond your sensory organs is simply begging the question
Knowledge isn't an infinite regress, it's an unproven assumption? I wouldn't have a problem with Rand saying "If you'll grant me these few assumptions, then this follows.." (it doesn't really follow because she's no Spinoza) but instead she does something weird. She acts as if her 'axiom' holds some sort of unassailable status. We can revise and reject so-called "axioms" (lots of people reject Tarski's "Axiom of Choice" in logic).

This is also worth a mention: Objectivists reject the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics because it violates their notion that deterministic causality must be true and because it implies truth gaps (no fact of the matter, a cat neither being alive or dead). They accuse scientists of "stealing concepts" from philosophers..lol

>>563103

Except that completely ignores the idea of empathy that almost always accompanies altruistic individuals.

>>563028

You can "sigh" all you want. All you've proven so far is that you have not bothered to read a single word Ayn Rand ever wrote. You are also throwing cheap insults and calling Rand a whore in order to try to distract me from what is obvious, but it is not working.

I will repeat my challenge, which you haven't had the honesty or integrity to answer. *Cite me one passage where Ayn Rand advocated frivolous divorce.* Until you can do so, then you haven't proven anything other than the self-evident fact that you are a disingenuous moron.

>If you have no evidence that "rational self interest" is a good system of ethics to adhere to

The burden of proof is not on me here. That's beyond obvious. You've made a specific claim, saying Rand implemented her own ethical philosophy and it backfired. It's up to you to prove that claim, not me.

Because it's a shitty overrated book, that's why. The politics are okay, it's just really fucking boring.

>>563132

a "stolen concept" is when someone uses implicitly uses a concept to support their argument when they are trying to refute that exact concept.

for example if I said, 'it is a fact that there are no facts' the absurdity here is explicit and anyone can see it's blatant contradiction.

now the axioms of existence is not something rand asks you to just accept without proof, it something everyone has to accept implicitly when trying to prove anything ever. you run into the same kind of problem when you try to refute the law of identity, if you can't identify your thoughts and notions then you have no way of proving them let alone even communicating them. these things can't be refuted because they are necessitated in the processes of trying to prove or refute anything.

>>563260
>now the axioms of existence is not something rand asks you to just accept without proof, it something everyone has to accept implicitly when trying to prove anything ever.
You mean she uses transcendental deduction?

But I thought Kant was a "monster"?

>>563132

himself described the thought experiment as an example of the absurdness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. His intentions were that the mathematics had to have been flawed and gave an example of how it contradicts reality. However, many people have seemed to have taken his thought experiment to mean the exact opposite; if your calculations lead to bizarre conclusion that contradict reality then your math must be correct and its reality that must be wrong.
Schrodinger was trying to demonstrate that if your conclusions lead to an obvious contradiction then your premise must be incorrect.

also, Objective collapse; if we where to assume all the premises valid, interactions with other existents form the boundary conditions of any particular existent. There is nothing special about human consciousness that collapses wavefunctions, the cat itself or the interior surface of the box do so as well.

by the way Schrödinger's cat was a though experiment not an actual experiment, In fact, it could never be performed. Determining the truth of the claim requires one to obtain knowledge without obtaining knowledge. That's why it's not science

>>563581
Schrödinger himself***

>>563581
When physicists say "observe" they're saying "detected via some kind of physical change."
Is this why Objs reject QM? Because they don't understand the terminology that physicists use?

>>563763
there is no confusion and objectivism doesn't reject QM only certain interpretations/theories

One of the underlying premises of the book is that Altruism as an ethic is corrupting, and destuctive and that only ethical egoism is a rational and healthy system of ethics. Rand uses is/ought deductions to come to this conclusion but her philosophy was completely formed without any consideration for the role that altruism has in our species survival, innate ethical algorithms, or psychology. Her entire philosophy is amoral. That's my problem with it.

>>563916

so you think mercy is more valuable than justice right? well at first glance there is nothing wrong with that, there is nothing wrong with feeling for others or having empathy that is not what objectivism disputes against.

lets define what these two notions mean. an action is just when a person can provide evidence/reason for it; an action is merciful when person commits it despite evidence/reasons for not doing it. if a young man steals something and is a first offender, and has a justified circumstances for doing so, say stealing food and facing jail time to abstain from starvation. and the judge has the option to either give the young man a full 5 year jail sentence or the minimum fine and hours of community service, then the judge would only be morally just in giving the young man the minimum sentence, this isn't to say that I am saying the opposite would be mercy, giving him the 5 years wouldn't be considered mercy, I am not saying that. but what would be mercy is when a convicted felon who is a repeat offender of several crimes steals food from a grocer, and the judge has the same option to give him 5 years or the minimum fine and hours of community service. then it would be just for the judge to give the criminal 5 years, and it would be merciful to give the thug the minimum fine and hours of community service despite the evidence and reason to do otherwise.

are you starting to see the intrinsic absurdity of altruism? if good people who have virtues and values are in need of help from their fellow men then by all means you are justified to help them, but to help your fellow man beyond any discrimination whatsoever is absolutely absurd and that is what altruism advocates.

altruism doesn't simply state that you should simply be empathetic and compassionate, it states that you should SACRIFICE yourself to your fellowman WITHOUT discretion and sparing NO expense.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s

>>564168
"In Tibet we say that many illness can be cured by the one medicine of love and compassion. These qualities are the ultimate source of human happiness, and need for them lies at the very core of our being. Unfortunately, love and compassion have been omitted from too many spheres of social interaction for too long. Usually confined to family and home, their practice in public life is considered impractical, even naive. This is tragic. In my view point, the practice of compassion is not just a symptom of unrealistic idealism but the most effective way to pursue the best interest of others as well as our own. The more we- as a nation, a group or as individuals - depend upon others, the more it is in our own best interests to ensure their well-being."

All of that, plus the fact that it reads like it was written by an autistic 8th grader. Look, under her philosophy ruling America we'd be back to a worse version of the Dark Ages (because back then Christianity at least KIND OF tempered the wickedness of lords and nobles).

Your conclusion that it endorses unions is novel, but fundamentally incorrect. The relationship between labor and capital is incredibly unbalanced and would be much, MUCH more so in an Objectivist utopia. Under her brand of union where employees had the option of joining, it would be that much easier for management to hire scabs, or just move the entire operation overseas, and since there would be no more tariffs on third world imports, and no laws against selling goods in the US made in overseas sweatshops by children, it would become damn near impossible to manufacture anything in the US. Non-outsourceable positions like locomotive drivers could be replaced by masses of workers from elsewhere who would work for far less. Basically you'd have labor so busy racing to the bottom competing with people sending their cheques back to their ramshackle slum in Veracruz or Rio, that they'd have no time to organize better, try to sell the idea of a union to new employees reluctant to pay union dues, etc. Moreover, yes it is the government's fault for enabling corporations to be such dicks, but if there was no government they'd find a way. As you alluded to, CEO's could form a union of sorts, and agree to never pay labor above a certain wage ever.

>>564260

I find it iteresting that he would default on the criticism that love and compassion are always impractical, like I said it is only impractical when it is indiscriminate, in the objectivist view that is.

anyways I stand by what I say.

>>564297

I'm really not in the mood for switching hats, take this to a rothbard thread socialist scum. I am too tired for the discussions on the ad nauseums of free market economics.

I don't like the book because it's bad.

i read the first third of this shit bag thread and im not reading anymore but i will say this. anyone trying to say that OWS protesters are hypocritical because they use iPhones and through some ridiculous logic wall street = iphones is completely retarded. thats like saying the revolutionary war soliders were being hypocritical cause they shot the british with british made guns. the tools have no fucking bearing on the message

>>564793

you are right, and ayn rand's personal relationship's have no bearing on the philosophy of objectivism.

that is what those two were arguing about earlier.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVfEiFz-4XI

>Why do libfags hate this book?

Why do conservatives love wealthy people so much? Why do they always bend over backwards to suck their cock?


Do you trace the dollar sign in the air before you go to bed, OP?

It's poorly paced. Ayn Rand obviously tried to do so many things and none of them ended up being very good in the final product. It's reads as unemotional and forced as the Bible and somehow with less believability.

To expand on your point, could the fountainhead be seen as a criticism of wage slavery?
The entire point of the book is a person who chooses to remain poor rather then sacrifice his creativity and ideals and gain a 9-5 soulless work life.

He triumphs over the collective [which, is just as easily a corporation as it is the state], and remains an individual.

It seems like this should be required reading of the left, not an evil book written by an "evil doo-doo head".

this is ron prauls 2nd favorite book.

the first? the bible

how sad.

>>566111
That's book isn't on Ron Paul's recommended reading list. Cite a source or STFU.

http://www.ronpaul.com/books/

>>566146
>b/c his list doesn't change or anything from 2008

derp.

he probably got a lot of flack for that.

>>566108

exactly, good post. her books aren't about corporations vs the middle class vs the state, they are about the individuals against the coercion of collectivism.

>>565918
>implying hating libfags makes you a bible thumping conservative that watched glen beck

I bet you're American

>>566170
you realize a liberal in most of the western world is a right winger, right, dumbass?

>>566152
You're lying.

>>566180
>you realize an american liberal

>>565918
Why do liberals love welfare cheating niggers so much? Why do they always bend over backwards to suck their cock?


Do you trace the peace sign in the air before you go to bed?

>>566186
You sound butthurt. He's just another run-of-the-mill Republican when it comes to domestic policy, bro. And they all jump on the Ayn Rand bandwagon.

And you do realize he's a right-wing Christian looney, right? Which makes it even more laughable.

>>566193

you've been on /pol/ too long I think, your last few posts have just been shit slinging derogations, if you can't form a constructive criticism or cohesive argument against objectivism then maybe you should just go to bed. if you are /pol/ for too long it can get to you, and then all of a sudden everything you post is just insult or fallacious assertion.

>>566223
you haven't rebutted anything i've posted... why should i spend my time shoveling shit for you?

>>566193
>insults and conjecture

You're lying about Ron Paul's second favorite book being Atlas Shrugged. You people are so terrified of him winning you'll say anything to make him look bad.

>>566229

>you haven't rebutted anything I've posted

you haven't posted anything to rebut

>>566230
>You people are so terrified of him winning

ooo man, thx for the laugh.

>>566242
He will win and none of your silly lies will stop him. Laugh while you can, fed lover.