What does biz think of Ann rand?

It's Ayn you fukcing idoit!!

is it so much to ask to have a sane libertarian candidate run in the republican party?
>no pro-choice is here to stay Rand Paul pls go
>no we're not going to audit Fort Knox again, Ron you crazy fuck
mfw a fucking reality tv star is about to get the gop nom

Hypocrite that seduces idiots.

I don't read books that are over a thousand pages long so I don't really have much of an opinion.

Ann lmao

I know about Von Mises a bit, but could use a greentext/redpill on him.
As for the other two, first names help with common surnames, user...

>Friedman
Eliminating the Minimum wage would help workers :^)

t. Jew

If she's anything like her writing, she's an autist.

kek

Well, compared to the pothead, the autist, and the literal fucking crazy person running in the actual Libertarian party the Pauls look plenty sane.

Who is John Galt?

the Libertarian position on abortion is prolife. Are you high? The entire libertarian premise is a person's rights end where they infringe upon another.
>right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happines
It's right there in the bill of rights

>right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happines
>It's right there in the bill of rights
If this is an attempt at bait or humor it is not funny and it is not working. If this is serious then please get help for your retardation.

ugly as fuck

thats not how you rebuttal

Would

If raising the minimum wage helped workers why not just raise it indefinitely? If raising the minimum wage to $15 would improve the living standard of workers with no negative impact on the job market why not raise it to $20, or $30, or $50?

...

of course there's a negative impact on net employment. That's neither here nor there. The question is what price is worth the impact.

No. Most Libertarians are pro-choice bc government gtfo of our lives. Your religious bullshit has no place in a libertarian government

Nobody knows the right level. What's the right value of the s&p should a government agent set that each minute? That would be fucking retarded so instead we let the market drive it ....
just like what Freidman said about creating a min wage in the 50s

she's a sexy author who wrote like one of the best books ever.

she probably could lead a conversation, and tell you things you didn't even think possible..

le free market fixes everything

le invisible hand :^)

no, the official libertarian position is prolife, look it up. It has nothing to do with religion. It literally is about the right to life, and abortion infringes on that inalienable right

then why does the NYSE have a $1 sp minimum? >milton BTFO

Her ideas are good in theory, however they don't always work out in the real world.

>Nobody knows the right level.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Republicans are such a disaster for education and science. Herp derp, nobody (in authority or that we approve of) knows right now so don't try anything or seek out additional information. Let's all believe in magic that what is always has worked best and always will work best. And fuck you if you're on the losing end. But pull yourself up by your bootstraps anyway. Got to make those quarterly numbers.

Staying undetected by the Nazis for as long as she did is truly remarkable desu senpai

Why is this thread on Veeky Forums anyway?

Should've said conservatives. Walking oxymorons. Freedom to do what I say and everything should change without changing because I say so.

Hiring signs all over where I live.

Fat niggers cart full if shit food for free/EBT at grocery in front of me every time I go.

People just need a little help you know?

>projecting and strawmen, the thread

I like her because she triggers liberals.
Bonus points because shes the only relevant female author the US ever had.

triggered

>I have no idea who Harper Lee is

Okay, here's how you rebuttal: The bill of rights never mentions life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. That's the declaration of independence you troglodyte.

She by far has had the biggest influence on my life.

She laid the frame work of objectivism and Ive lived my life by it since.

I swear by my life and my love of it, I will never live for the sake of another man nor should another man live for me

She's way more vanilla than people think.
Objectivism in a nutshell says "Don't be a hypocrite, treat other people the way you want to be treated. Also define your own self-worth."

Shes a dumb bitch. Her books are for edgy faglords.

>white male privilege...

Get outta here, commie.

ok I stand corrected. The overall point still stands

>mfw user gets the author's name right and then misspells " fucking idiot"

Fuck off. If you google Hayek or Friedman they're the first results. They're goddamned legends in economics.

>Being unironically objectivist
Poor form desu.

While those may be parts of it, its underlying premise rests on assumptions of human behavior and the market that simply aren't true. The market isn't 100% efficient and there are, in fact, many times when the government must solve inefficiencies.

Fucking Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, knew that. Hayek knew that. Friedman knew that. Ayn Rand, the only one mentioned that wasn't an actual economist, just a fiction writer, did not.

she made my mind free of guilty, mercy and compassion.

I love her.

rape fetishist freeloading jew hypocrite

Well, I like her, I dont really know about market stuff but in human behaviour it's not like what she says is incorrect. I only read the Fountainhead and it was better than I expected, with its selfish theories and that sutile stuff about maybe we are not really equals at all.
Also is a fiction book, and she build (one) good character, but I admit I don't really think on reading Atlas.

is she was alive, she would be a keen supporter of wisdomrace.com project
thank you Veeky Forums for your support! i made this for you

The right to life? No, it's the removal of a choice (abortion or not). There's no waffling on this, Libertarians are NOT Republicans, they're 100% pro choice, retard.

She's ugly as sin and a hypocrite.

>Gets a boyfriend half her age that eventually leaves her for someone hot, the boyfriend ("market ") chooses someone with more value (" looks","youth "), living for himself and not some ugly bitch, and she's so depressed she almost kills herself.

Niggers gonna nig. I live in a white area where actual unemployment/underemployment is a problem.

No it doesn't because an aborted fetus is an unsustainable life outside the womb. If it isn't physically developed enough to survive without medical intervention, it's not a human life, and in cases of health concerns, the mothers life takes precedence over the limited viability of the fetus.

>triggered
Yeah, well, I'm pretty tired of lazy inbred hicks making their lack of knowledge and insight everybody else's handicap too. Concepts that you don't understand are not the Devil. Nor is your inability or unwillingness to think for yourself an excuse to surrender all decisions to a gatekeeper. Fucking kill yourself if you're such a frightened child.

nobody gives a fuck about ugly coping philosophytards

ugly female cope

Give me an example of how the market cannot be 'efficient'.

I actually like the philosophy and personally consider myself an objectivist... But fuck I dont like other objectivists... Have you ever met them? Jesus they are not the people you can hang out with or drink around.

Also I love the non fiction but find the fiction books to be a little... forced down my throat ish.

>Kind of a shame really

If Objectivists would relax and chill they would be worth being around - because really the philosophy is solid

not true at all. 4 months old fetuses have survived many times and are aborted all the time

by your logic, murder and theft are legal too to Libertarians, because it's "just a choice." You're thinking of anarchy, bro. Libertarians believe in laws to protect inalienable rights, primarily the right to life.

>Ann rand
>Ann

It's Ayn Rand, friendo

1. Common goods like fish and game which can and have been wiped out and no longer usable as a resource.

2. Negative externalities like pollution where the government must prevent businesses from making rivers flammable.

3. Any and all instances of asymmetric information in a market transaction where one party knows more about the product than the other. This intrinsically prevents market clearance and efficient equilibrium considering one of the main assumptions of the neoclassical models you jerk off to is that perfect information is known.

4. Positive externality goods that the market does not provide enough of given the benefit they have to the economy such as public education (which Adam Smith advocated for)

5. Natural monopoly of inelastic good where capital costs are so high to enter a market only the first firm can ever be in control (such as natural gas, electric, etc) and require government to prevent firms from price-gouging and artificially preventing market equilibrium.

Just the ones off the top of my head.

>primarily the right to life.
What defines life in that instance is subjective, is the crux of the abortion argument. If you two insist on having a retarded abortion debate on Veeky Forums, I suggest you actually debate what defines a human being, because anything else is like two ships passing and shouting at each other.

Is that why teenagers are overwhelmingly liberal?

>by your logic, murder and theft are legal too to Libertarians, because it's "just a choice."
>being this fucking stupid
Infringing upon a pregnant woman´s right to decide over her own body is not libertarianism, dumbass.

PS. "Life" doesn't begin at conception, since the "person" isn't even self-conscious in the early stages of development. If you pro-life nutjobs want to be consistent, you should lobby for the rest of the animal kingdom to be treated as humans - they are, after all, living beings with mental capabilities (usually) far surpassing those of a fetus in early stages of development.

hopped up meth addict

This. Literally autistic.

>"life" doesn't begin at conception, since the "person" isn't even self-conscious in the early stages of development.

infants are not self-conscious. Are you suggesting that they can be euthanized whenever convenient? Not that user but pro-life is not contradictory of libertarianism. It ain't even about religion either as I am an atheist and believes that life begins at conception.

ugly ass puta

fucking btfo efficient market fags

shit currency
saffers are gay

no man is an island, gaylord

Wow. Seriously? How is that even possible? Life doesn't begin at conception. Life needs to be self-sustaining in at least some regard, and that's not possible for any fetus before approximately 6 months of development.

actually we are, we all have our own reasoning mind. Collectivism kills individualism, just like how you spout memes without thinking. gud job dood!

u wot m8
let me explain this for you, forcing someone to have a child that they don't want is infringing on their rights, and a fetus, not yet being a person, not yet being conscious has no rights.
stupid fucks like you are whats dragging down the republican and libertarian movements, all for "muh freedom" as long as "muh freedom" isnt something that your youth pastor told you was wrong while he was giving you the reach around

>life (n): the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

Keep making up defintions like a good librul. A human fetus is a human life since it is both alive by defintion and is made up of human DNA.

By your logic, it should be legal to murder those on life-support, since they are not "self sustaining"

>forcing someone to have a child
Outside of rape, your argument doesnt hold weight.

an edgy snaggletoothed jewess

Lol this is straight from my high school econ book which was keynesian as fuck

Have u googled responses to those u bitch

**anne rand

McAfee is Love, McAfee is life.

That doesn't make this person a hypocrite.

If she asked for the state to mandate his return to her, it might. But mostly it's just not relevant.

The 1949 Fountainhead movie is good

vimeo.com/129783975

LOL - laughing out loud

Most of those depend on a belief that some particular state is "good". e.g. wiping out wild fish and game would result in simple farming, which is more efficient. We don't want that, because muh environment muh animal welfare. But it's not efficient.

The market is efficient, but might result us living off nutrients grown in vats.

> 1. Common goods like fish and game which can and have been wiped out and no longer usable as a resource.
Proof?

> 2. Negative externalities like pollution where the government must prevent businesses from making rivers flammable.
NAP and property rights. Your actions cause loss to the value of my property ergo I have grounds for suing you.

> 3. Any and all instances of asymmetric information in a market transaction where one party knows more about the product than the other. This intrinsically prevents market clearance and efficient equilibrium considering one of the main assumptions of the neoclassical models you jerk off to is that perfect information is known.
In that instance information becomes another commodity to be sold. People hire contractors/geographers (whatever) to assess the value/structural integrity of a house/building, people hire a mechanic before purchasing a car to evaluate it.

How does the government resolve this? Government inspection? What about private inspection agencies. Therefore people will refuse to buy cars that aren't inspect from popular trustworthy inspection agencies.

> 4. Positive externality goods that the market does not provide enough of given the benefit they have to the economy such as public education (which Adam Smith advocated for)
What do you mean? In a country like Australia, private tutoring is done for 2 hours for $30. My son has benefited more from it than he has from school. He also does English and French LOTE. When did teachers become social workers that need a lot of funding to run their diversity programs? The guy who tutors my kid hires a room (probably $150 for 2 hours) and uses it.

Add in competition and there you go. Plus the other issues with public education which has now become a social welfare program for lazy teachers who are part of unions.

You sounds Australian? This country is dying because of entitled cucks like you

1/2

> 5. Natural monopoly of inelastic good where capital costs are so high to enter a market only the first firm can ever be in control (such as natural gas, electric, etc) and require government to prevent firms from price-gouging and artificially preventing market equilibrium.

mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0
Read up.

Monopolies happen because gov't regulates an industry so that the bigger business survive even if overhead increases however the smaller competing businesses die out.

I see a lot of post like these. Then I realize redditors browse here and that these posters are Australian.

How does the guy pay $150 for 2 room hours when you pay $30 for 2 tutor hours?

Most of these, especially #3 are just you explaining away a point by saying "the market will solve it because of this specious mechanism" when there's no technological ability to actually do solve such problems. It's basically like the roadway argument that ancaps often present, that even the most basic utilities can be completely and utterly privatized because as long as there is a way to make a buck, people will do it. The problem is the assumption that the capital to provide one of these services isn't so high that it would even be worth it, which of course ties in with your refusal to believe that natural monopoly exists. Firstly, I will not read that article, because it's quite long, and I would expect if you're going to engage with someone online you should be able to synthesize your body of knowledge yourself. I could post textbooks, academic papers, etc that support my claims as well and hten you could reply with more that support your claims and there would really be no point to it because it would require hours upon hours of reading that neither of us want to engage in. Your statement that
>Monopolies happen because gov't regulates an industry so that the bigger business survive even if overhead increases however the smaller competing businesses die out.
Doesn't actually have anything to do with what the article is stating (presumably) as it's literally a basic and well-understood concept called capture theory that's taught universally. The difference is that people like you believe that there are no instances where government can successfully regulate a business to the consumer's benefit, whereas neoclassical theory and mainstream economists (including most "Austrians", whether your "Austrian" website believes it or not) all support the notion that in cases of extremely high capital entry to a market, the first firm to enter has a monopoly and in order to reach what would be a more socially optimal outcome, the government should regulate it.

Seriously?

it often does so by simply reducing the profits the firm is allowed to extract from the consumer. Other regulation may, in fact, be subject to the types of regulatory capture you're referring to. I am not speaking of those types of regulation. I'm sure the website you linked has great and valid arguments to refute my points, and I would be happy to hear them from you, but posting a great long article and expecting your opponent to read it and "see the light" is absurd.

And I'm not sure why you think I'm Australian. I'm American and have a degree in economics. This by no means makes me an expert, but it means that I understand the basics of the theories behind these sorts of statements. I am not close-minded in my views and am always open to new ideas that challenge them. I am, however, suspicious of any set of ideals that challenges anything is an absolute good, and so when someone argues that the invisible hand is absolutely efficient, alarms begin to go off. This is especially true when the goddamned father of capitalism didn't even believe this was the case, nor the father of Austrian economics, nor the father of Chicago economics. In fact, the only people i've encountered are Randroids, and i find it amusing when they advocate their views under the name of Hayek, a man who advocated strongly for a fucking reverse income tax at low levels of income.

Moreover, you move the goalposts on #3 saying "How does the government resolve this?" when the post I replied to literally just said "give me an example of how the market cannot be 'efficient'. I do not argue the government has all the answers. And it certainly can and often does do more harm than good. As with all things economics, each policy has good and bad. Blindly believing that the market is 100% good is more religion than economics.

Okay, as my posts show I clearly don't agree with him, but Alan Greenspan, despite his personal views, was the single most interventionist chairman we've had. He never let the market be efficient. By consistently preventing any and all halts in growth over a 20-year period he helped set up the biggest bubble in US history. He practiced the opposite of what he preached.

They are incredibly basic examples, which is why I used them. And they're found in ANY textbook regardless of how "Keynesian" (nice buzzword btw) the authors are.

oops. should be "recent US history"

>He practiced the opposite of what he preached.

That's my point. I'm agreeing with you.