How do we stop collectivism?

It already has been stopped.

This bitch is so fucking toxic. The commies ruined her bourgeois dicking around in Russia so she went on a life long butthurt tirade about how individualism is the only thing that matters. We are social creatures, we live in societies. Our heros are such because they commit SELFLESS acts. Anyone who is out for themselves and themselves alone is an asshole. She is the largest proponent of being the shittiest person you can be cuz "dont let anyone tell you what to do." Hey newsflash dipshit, people usually need to be told what to do. I don't think she ever realized just how quickly she would die if her ideal world came to fruition.

Someone's never actually read any Rand.

Her ideaology is flawed but for different reasons than what you're bringing up which is usually addressed by her in any of her works. You've misunderstood what she actually wants.

Sounds pretty good to me

Money and business are collectivism, except aim. Businessman do not care about "the common good"

Elaborate

NEVER EVER TIDY YOUR ROOM AND FOLLOW JORDAN PETERSON ON TWITTER.

>Be Ayn Rand
>Advocate openly against any form of government aid
>Health fails
>Collect aforementioned government aid to fund own treatment
>hastily make a shoddy and weak excuse for own hypocritical behaviour
>Works like a charm
>Become adored by a legion of rebellious and weak willed teens who can find no other solace on an uncaring world
>Keks ensue

Living for one's self is described as the fact that nobody can ever do something without their own self interest being involved. If you do something for someone it's because you wanted them to be happy. You love someone because they make you feel good and there's reciprocal exchange between the two parties. The ideal is bent on the abolition of the idea of pure selflessness on the grounds that it's a logical impossibility. Action stems from desire. You can't truly and knowingly take actions that you don't desire the consequences of because if you take those actions then there is by definition some reason with regards to your preference of world states that led you to take that action. When people are fed myths of self sacrifice they get too caught up in the definition of selfishness and selflessness and forget the purposes of their actions, leading to distress and social dysfuntion. The whole point, with regard to selfishness, is just to kill a myth that says that a person could ever do anything selflessly in the commonly understood sense. (cont)

Her gravest error, however, is her misconception of social life as a series of forced exchanges. She sees social interaction as a mandatory series of transactions in which she is losing something be it time or money or patience. This may be sometimes but is not necessarily so. The point of a society is mutual benefit. She was able to concieve of the breakdown of society and the plundering of one partition therein of another, but much like Marx and others she mistakes this for the default state of interaction within a natural social order being built from free association. The healthy state of society is free association with others for mutual gain. The diseased form is forced association for one sided gain, or worse still no interaction at all. There will never be a perfect society but the focus on the ills of the world over the good things to be found all around us are chiefly responsible for the utopian's condemnation of whatever given order they find themselves in and their demands for a newer untested system that is often a variation of "when everyone thinks like this it'll all be perfect."

But that really isn't surprising, is it? She's a woman and a jew, so naturally her philosophy is amoral, sociopathic egoism. Therefore she feels well within her right both denying help to others and parasiting on the social system, since both actions were benefitting HER.

I spent every sunday that summer mowing the neighbor's lawns for $5 a pop so I could save up enough to buy some pokemon cards and a video game.

Why does that other kid who gets a $10 allowance every week for doing nothing deserve my pokemon cards?

Because you having something he doesn't is opression.

Why tho. Let it all burn

Automation.

Then there would be no need to collectivise humans.

Of course there wouldn't be a need for most humans.

Their parents can spend their private property as they wish!

>we
>collectivism
By reading your post again

The idiots are the ones who're the most into collectivism, SJW/alt right for example, because they have nothing for themselves

or accelerate its decline so a country doesn't have to spend a generation or 2 under a socialist regime

What if we made some kind of organized group to fight against it?

...

>we

Sounds like communism to me.

Collect welfare.

Man what, where do you look and find threatening communism in the present day?

Socialism by degrees, slowly over a long period of time, is still socialism.

You didn't answer. Where?

Every western government in general slowly becoming more authoritarian and adopting redistributionist laws and policies for the last 45 years

Dude what the fuck?
1. Authoritarianism =/= Socialism
2. That's so wrong, if anything most western governments are redistributing less wealth now than ever before
3. Kill yourself you dumbass

>Authoritarian != socialism
How do you enforce socialism without a large beauracracy? How can you redistribute without barring certain rights to acquisition and ownership.

As for the divide between rich and poor. Actual states of wealth inequality and intentions of legislation are two seperate things. It's possible to fail to do what you set out to do. A large disparity in accumulated wealth isn't the absence of attempts to undo it.

>all of this inversion stupidity

No, just stop. Rand was an idiot. She never introduced her "philosophy" to academia because it would have been shredded under review. It's nonsensical non-thought stupidity.

There is a difference between purely self-serving actions and doing something for someone else, even if the ultimate cause is a pleasurable sensation created by neurotransmitters. This isn't debatable--they are quite literally two distinct, mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive things.

Goddamn, taking the uneducated seriously was the biggest mistake of post-modernism.

Income inequality is not a bad thing. Any situation with enforced equality of income must necessarily rob some people who are deserving and reward some who aren't artificially. At least natural inequality is, well, natural. And very few people are being wronged in this situation, which leaves you room to specificly target those violators. Rather than punishing all the wealthy for being wealthy and rewarding all the poor for being poor, regardless of their individual merit (which honestly isn't the business of 3rd parties to judge anyway outside of a criminal case.)

Why yes there is a difference between the two and Rand's philosophy IS full of holes... but how does that contradict what I said?

Collectivism is evolution in form of kin-selection. It only works when combined with tribalism or nationalism, in an ethnically homogenous society. Otherwise any form of it requires tyranny to make people do things that benefit other people they have no connection to.

>Income inequality is not a bad thing
too much of anything is a bad thing.

You could die if you drank too much water.

Some income inequality is going to encourage and promote meritorious behavior as people try to better themselves. But too much income inequality only encourages people to give up as the opportunities for advancement simply aren't there

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2AGrXG-AsA

Warrior Priests defending the decree against communism.

I don't disagree. But we may have some disagreements about what is too much and what you'd be justified in doing about it.

>what you'd be justified in doing about it.
We have laws preventing too much political power from accumulating in the hands of too few individuals because we recognize that yes, there should be a merit-based hierarchy, at a certain point we are only kidding ourselves when we assume that somebody could be so meritorious as to warrant monopolizing all of the political capital as to have effectively taken over the government, because at the point somebody is the majority stakeholder in the government, rule of law gets thrown out the window and it becomes "rule of the leader's whim"

why can't we apply that lesson to economic power, as well? Have strong anti-trust laws which prevent mergers which would leave any one company with a majority share in the industry. Because at that point they can leverage their domination of the industry to drive down prices and drive competitors out of the market. On the surface it seems like the consumer wins because of lower prices, but the long term loss is that competition in that industry has been rendered pointless.

Too big to fail is too big to exist

Short answer retort from me is private property and personal liberty trumps muh fairness. You can still make that person play by the same rules as everyone else. When they break the law then you do something. You don't make up new rules because you think somebody has too much stuff.

>Short answer retort from me is private property and personal liberty trumps muh fairness.
Growth for the sake of growth irregardless of the health of the host is the philosophy of a cancer cell.

The good of the nation must be considered above individual ambitions

lmao ayn rand was a just a butthurt kulak and went on welfare herself