Objectivism

If you're a worker it's in your self-interest to overthrow the state.

Shitty meme then why not use a egoist quote if you put Sterner there

to be honest I've never looked at it seriously because its followers are always so bad. see this thread for example

Equality in serfdom. Nice.

...

retarded quote at the end, but this is the answer. ayn rand is "selfish" in a really superficial and narrow way that means something more like 'greedy' and has nothing to do with a person's actual self interest

Capitalism sucks and so does class society. Besides that being a capitalist is only as good as how much money you make, which is dependent on market circumstances outside of your control, not nearly as bad as being a worker, but it isn't inherently a good situation either.

Capitalism is better for poor people though

capitalism requires poverty to perpetuate itself due to the falling rate of profit

>overthrow the state
>lol have fun under the rule of the state
right

Objectivism is more a conductivist self-therapy than an actual philosophical movement.

>falling rate of profit
Do you still believe in Santa Claus too?

No. Poverty is the base line and capitalism alleviates this. There is a reason the majority of people would only subsist before you people traded on a grand scale.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt

Capitalism only alleviates poverty until it isn't profitable anymore, look at deindustrialization or the concept of creative destruction. Record profits have only been possible due to hyper exploitation of unorganized labor in places like Vietnam and Bangladesh.

Maybe try using consistently capitalist countries kemosabe

>In my own study, I developed a world rate of profit that includes all the G7 economies plus the four economies of the BRIC acronym. So this includes 11 top economies which constitute a significant major share of global GDP. I use the extended World Penn Tables that David Zachariah used in his individual country study (see his paper, Dave Zachariah, Determinants of the average profit rate and the trajectory of capitalist economies, 4 February 2010, zacha10) I weighted the national rates for the size of GDP, although the crude mean average rate does not seem to diverge significantly from the weighted average. A proper measure of the world rate of profit would have to add up all the constant and variable capital in the world and estimated the total surplus value appropriated by global capital. This is really an impossible task. So weighted national profit rates are the only feasible way of getting a figure.
>I found that there was a fall in the world rate of profit from the starting point of the data in 1963 and the world rate has never recovered to the 1963 level in the last 50 years. The world rate of profit reached a low in 1975 and then rose to a peak in the mid-1990s. Since then, the world rate of profit has been static or slightly falling and has not returned to its peak of the 1990s. And there was a divergence between the G7 rate of profit and the world rate of profit after the early 1990s. This indicates that non-G7 economies played increasing role in sustaining the world rate of profit. The G7 capitalist economies have been suffering a profitability crisis since the late 1980s and certainly since the mid-1990s.
>Now I have gone over all this again because there has been a brand new estimate of the world rate of profit in a new paper by Esteban Maito of Argentina (Maito, Esteban – The historical transience of capital. The downward tren in the rate of profit since XIX century). His paper presents estimates of the rate of profit on 14 countries in the long run going back to 1870. And Maito uses national historical data for each country not the Extended Penn Tables that I used. His results show a clear downward trend in the world rate of profit, although there are periods of partial recovery in both core and peripheral countries. So the behaviour of the profit rate confirms the predictions made by Marx about the historical trend of the mode of production. There is a secular tendency for the rate of profit to fall under capitalism and Marx’s law operates. Here is Maito’s world rate of profit back to 1869 (simple mean version).
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/a-world-rate-of-profit-revisited-with-maito-and-piketty/

>Countries that nationalize industry, institute corporate tax rates, greatly expand welfare programs, and regulate market forces specifically to mitigate profit and redistribute wealth have seen a drop in profit
>Countries that have allowed for freer markets have not seen a drop in profit
Wow, it's almost like you're proving my point. Try again.

Rand trolls get out

K /pol/

I don't trust the intelligence of someone who's prose is that bad.

I'm not asking for anything flowery, just clear and to-the-point.

Don't count Paul Ryan among our number, he gave light lip service to Rand because he was advised to reference her defense of Capitalism but then the faggot dropped her the second he got pressure from Catholics for her atheism.

Capitalism is the only moral system ever devised. And the best. And even the kindest. The only reason there is ever any doubt about the wonders of Capitalism is because it lacked a defensible moral base at it's outset. Historically conservative Republicans have tried to justify it on the basis of Altruism. To which it is incompatible and, make no mistake, rest assured that Altruism is the great primordial evil of the world. Ayn Rand's arguments for why this is so are adamantine-clad and unassailable.
Honestly people get butthurt of Objectivism because it is the great irrefutable defense of Capitalism. "Academic" philosophers moreso because Objectivism "eats" everything it comes into contact with. I call it the first ever formulated "Metaphilosophy".

can you imagine being so stupid you really believe this

Not seeing a coherent argument in that skipper.

Show where he's wrong

How so? You don't have to agree with it to know that it is a pretty complete philosophic system.

Explain this completeness thing

>college freshmen time of year

please tell me again about your neo anglo must reads

*meme

As far as I understand it Objectivism is a closed-system that has it's own original axioms and epistemology

irrefutable philosophers guys

Bangladeshi here. We had nothing before those foreign sweatshops started opening up. Disney and Nestle saved our lives.

Bait.

>Neoanglo
Lel what what the fuck does that even mean

she was a good writer. but god was treating rothbard like trash a complete mistake, not to mention believing in minarchy, copyright and the cult of personality (completely contradicting anthem)

Huh? Didn't he require his staff to read Atlas Shrugged? He dropped her publicly because he's a politician, not because he stopped believing in it.

Her support of Minarchy was completely defensible though. What are your criticisms of it? Open to having my mind changed here.

>Copyright
Copyright as it exists is shit but a minimalist kind of copyright is still mandatory in a world of objective legality.
>cult of personality
Her's was more akin to hero worship don't you think? Tomato Tomahto I suppose.

>she was a good writer. but god was treating rothbard like trash a complete mistake
Agreed. Lel she was in-your-face at all times.
She even gave Ludvig von Mises shit for having weak epistemology-derived ethics at a dinner party. They parted irritated but still allies.
youtube.com/watch?v=xtDM7VF3_Rc
If Rand and Mises fucked they would have birthed John Galt in the flesh.

Didn't he require his staff to read Atlas Shrugged?
I cannot say if that is true, but it does sound like a gimmick a politician would employ.

Paul Ryan was no Ayn Rand disciple: He’s a Fiscal Moderate who admires and has *purported* to have been significantly influenced by Ayn Rand.
Ryan later said: "I reject her philosophy. . . . it is antithetical to my world view. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. . . . Don't give me Ayn Rand."
I think at first Atlas was all he ever read of her then backtracked onced he discovered her far more anti-theist nonfiction. Or else one of his handlers told him about it.
And no one who is secretly an Objectivist would have been involved with such a monstrosity as the TPP.

>not recognizing that "soul" in this context means compassion and morality