Why is Objectivism wrong?

Why is Objectivism wrong?

Objectivism can't be wrong because if it was objectively wrong it would mean objectivism was right

Because its objectionable

It's subjectivist.

For one, it isn't actually objective.

Rights aren't real and absolute respect for individual rights is retarded. What if you want to build a highway through the middle of nowhere and someone refuses to sell their land which is right in the middle of where it needs to go? Do you eminent domain their ass, giving them fair compensation for the land, or do you make the highway go around it and waste the time of everyone who will ever drive on it for decades because of this one stubbornass guy. How does the latter option make sense from the egoistic perspective of anyone except (possibly) the landowner?

This is the WORST anti-Objectivist argument I've ever heard. If anything, you make Rand look correct.

It's the same as for any libertarian-y garbage:
In what way is the universe not always an expression of an ultimate `freedom' of people and whatever else acting as it wishes?

it's selfish

whoa

I'm not seeing any counterargument, numbnuts.

well its basically just teh ardent assertion that "my sensory apparatus is infallible" over and over...

not sure if thats really "wrong", but it is a little tiresome

Because a woman came up with it.
Next.

Because rich people inherited their money. If not they wouldn't be forcing their GOP lackeys to ditch the estate tax.

I find the fountainhead to be, if not politically successful, then at least a good philosophy about approaching the arts and creative work in general.

It's jewish

You can't enforce universal rights without force. Government is state monopoly on force. This monopoly requires employees. So, if you enforce universal rights, even if its only property rights, which rand is all about, then you need taxes. And rand doesn't want taxes. She wants magic police.

All of these arguments are shit.

>be egoist
>but respect private property rights and your boss
unless you are one of the top 1%, objectivism isnt really for you

Maximization of your own interest will at some point involve deceit (i.e: feigning altruism). What we think of as morally reprehensible might not matter for the Objectivist, but it does matter for us. It's not clear that we should favor a system that goes contrary to values like justice and comradery or really any value that we intuitively think of as moral.

t.commie
Respecting private property and being an egoist are not mutually exclusive, how can you claim to be an egoist when you adhere to collectivism

>collectivism/individualism false dichotomy
when will this meme end already?

She's imposing a paradigm then proving things that are objective within it, ignoring the fact that the framework she's operating within is chosen subjectively itself. It's like when English majors use the word "logic" in essay writing, it's just retarded.

also what said

That's because you're a boring sheltered cunt.

only correct response

...

Zizek goes even further in his analysis and proclaims that capitalism isnt at all egoistic as it treats money like a lacanian other, Rand's so called egoism is only materialist egoism, which prompt the person to leave other parts of their ego unexpressed in their one sided pursuit of capital

...

Zizek reminds me of my uncle

Your uncle talks shit too???

Not that guy but, how is this particular part shit? It seems quite clear capital propagates itself through people in general, IN SPITE of themselves as whole, not necessarily aligned with all of their interests (only the ones aligned with economic value).

>Not that guy but
Please use xuy, now that we got that covered: I was talking of Zizek in general. It was also tongue in cheek.
As for this particular part if I understood it correctly he argues against the "humans are selfish and greedy" trope. He instead points to ideology and capital.
Understand that I have a different background and so I see things through a different - if you like - ideological lens. I can agree with Zizek, or Badiou, that the system rewards bad behaviour i.e. "a call to subordinate egotism to the self-reproduction of the capital". I disagree it is a call, I think it is more systematic and forces (in the worst case) or nudges (in the other case) people to make certain decisions.
To me "capital" and "ideology" here have almost supernatural properties. I think Zizek gives ideology too much importance and to me capital and ideology can be reduced to the word "system" or "environment". The environment and human character interact and cause the mess, which is what Zizek seems to imply but he places most of the blame on capital and ideology. Perhaps the use of terms like "capital" and "ideology" are better to grasp than the vague term "environment" or "system".

I didn't understand what the paradox refers to. I think Zizek doesn't necessary talk shit but his word use, which he does with skill, makes it all more profound than it really is.
Feel free to call me a brainlet if you feel that is necessary because of what I now wrote - or if it satisfies you.

It's Kantian ethics disguised as egoism.

(((woman)))*

God fucking damn it Veeky Forums

How can objectivism be real if objects aren't real?

Hi, Jaden.

What the fuck kind of ungodly format is this?

Tell us how you really feel, user.

Was going to post what said. Either go full Striner or go home

Kek

>Making everyone drive an extra minute or two at most around a persons property (how fucking big is this theoretical property supposed to be anyway?) is somehow worse than forcibly taking somebodys possessions

I can't be bothered going to work tomorrow so I'm gonna steal your computer and sell it online instead

Because all Nietzschean-Randian shitters take full advantage of any and all benefits granted to them by the Government and would be killed and eaten if their utopia was ever implemented.

You leave Nietzsche out of this

>1 person inconvenienced vs. potentially millions inconvenienced
I wonder which is worse. Property is a spook btw.