A long time ago, society collapsed when The Galt stole all the smart people away. Before he left with his prisoners...

A long time ago, society collapsed when The Galt stole all the smart people away. Before he left with his prisoners, he promised to one day return to reclaim the land as well.

The party starts off in the People's Village of New York, amid the towering ruins of the Old Ones.

Unknown to the players, John Galt didn't steal away the men of ability, he simply told them they didn't have to be slaves to the increasingly socialistic government. He took them to a hidden refuge, and reformed the United States of America, starting with one valley, while the rest of the world collapsed around them.

Optional: The sheer genius contained in the valley eventually resulted in the creation and spread of nanobots capable of harnessing strange energies. A programming error caused the nanobots to grow out of control, and now they circle the earth, providing what appear to be magical services to its inhabitants in exchange for obscure tokens (or whatever your preferred system's spell casting entails).

Years later, President Galt leads his technological hordes to reclaim the land from the people's villages populating it.

Fun setting or not?

Other urls found in this thread:

snopes.com/ayn-rand-social-security/
galtse.cx/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Fun setting or not?
I hate politics, people who identify as intellectuals, people who identify as smarter than other people because of the political beliefs they hold, people who base their identities on books, and settings created solely to make a convoluted joke.

Tell me more about the nanobot magic.

>let me shoehorn my ideology even more!

no gtfo

As long as we can try to kill Cybergalt 5000

>>Fun setting or not?

Not. Objectivism is the college equivalent of edgy teenage horseshit. Hopefully you'll grow out of it.

Of course. Depending on the player's actions, he could be the BBEG or primary contractor for their missions.

>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
t. Aristotle

Hopefully you'll get educated some day ;*)

What would you like to know? I feel like it's a pretty open ended excuse to have "magic" in a post apocalyptic setting based on the real world.

>Of course. Depending on the player's actions, he could be the BBEG or primary contractor for their missions.
Sold. I'd play it.

"I hate feudalism and therefore I WILL NOT play in a system with an aristocracy!!!!!"

...

Change the names so people don't get butthurt over the references and you've got a pretty interesting setting sci-fi fantasy setting

Yeah, I think I'll have to, after seeing the reactions just to a reference in this thread.

There is an absolutely major difference between attempting to portray a fantasy scenario based on a real time in human history and trying to show if Ayn Rand's jackoff fantasy had not only happened, but worked. This isn't trying to portray a real, living, breathing world, but creating a world solely to be used as an ideological platform without a hint of subtlety.

It would be different if Galt's society was flawed and horrible, as was the rest of the world. It would be different if both were fundamentally good and had their own unique defects. But this is creating Rand Paul's masturbatory fantasy for the future and trying to portray it as reality.

>2017
>Still wanking over Rand
Daily remidner that bitch spend most of her life on welfere, crying about evils of socialism and compassion. You know, the two things that kept her fed and warm, since her books sold like shit.

That's literally every future/alt history setting. Maybe you should just stick to those settings and not shit on people into these.

>That's literally every future/alt history setting
user...
Not even him, but have you ever considered reading some GOOD future/alt history setting for a change, rather than Wankfest: The Book and Muh Ideology: The Story?

>Hey guys, is my setting fun?
>Also any criticism is invalid

The issue is that most alt-history/sci-fi stuff attempts to portray depth. They may have a favored faction, sure, but that doesn't mean that the other guys are stupid or evil, just different. No one who's made a "Napoleon wins at Waterloo" setting has portrayed the English as pure evil. If they did, the setting would be garbage. Didactic morality is the death of interesting concepts.

If you find reading masturbatory study of ubermensch leaving rest of humanity to rot amusing or entertaining, you might have some really interesting sexual fetishes.
Wouldn't call them exactly entertaining, but definitely interesting.

her books actually were new york times best sellers immediately after publication, and it's still going fairly strong even after her death.

As for social security, she paid taxes for it. She was against the institution existing, not using it while it did exist.

Not even a rand fag here. There are legitimate problems with her philosophy and her own interpretation of it. For instance, she "derives" most of her positions supposedly from the tautology A=A, but the logic isn't sound. Further, her views on gays were not consistent with the principles of objectivism.

So as someone who has legitimate gripes with rand, I have to ask: why do most anti-rand fags always go for blatantly inaccurate criticisms?

Compare Fallout for tone user. Not every setting has to be "deep" or realistic.

And her own ideals were so fragile that she handed a list of terms to anyone who might interview her; chief among them that no criticism of her ideas could be present in the interview. I mean, if your own ideology doesn't have the merit to stand up to criticism, then it's not really a worthy ideology to hold is it?

Not to mention that it's hypocritical to hold an ideology beyond criticism when the central tenet of that ideology is that meritocracy is held back because mediocrity is protected from challenge.

>>Not even a rand fag here.

Riiight.

idk dude I posted this and I'd play it.

>Fallout
>Not deep
If you ignore Bethesda's shitty attempts, what isn't deep about Fallout's factions? Let's take New Vegas. On one hand, you have a decaying, corrupt, decadent attempt to recreate the US government. It once had the same President for 57 years, and has been in decline since her death. Meanwhile, you have Caesar's Legion, an autocratic military regime which enslaves what it conquers, upholds extreme gender roles, and has no qualms with crucifying a town. On the other hand, they are stable, they enforce the rule of law, and, while brutal, are a good bit more civilized than who they conquer. Their leader even has plans to actually create a real society once he's dealt with the NCR.

Who's the idiot savage? Who's the enlightened patrician? Hint- there isn't one. Both sides are evil, and both sides are good. Both sides have flaws, but both sides have hope. There is no stupid dumbass savage who needs the firm boot of a wonderful capitalist to help them.

Develop the setting. Give it some shades of gray. Then come back.

>her books actually were new york times best sellers immediately after publication
They didn't start selling until the late 60s, almost a decade after premiere.
And all taxes she ever did was evasion of paying them.

Why do Objectivists always try to defend that stupid bitch is beyond me. Her ideology is retarded all by itself and requires some serious mental gymnastics to even try to defend, why even bother with creator then, especially if her entire life could be best described as anti-thesis of said ideology?

Wrong. At least look up the wiki before typing.

>Atlas Shrugged debuted on The New York Times Bestseller List at #13 three days after its publication. It peaked at #3 on December 8, 1957, and was on the list for 22 consecutive weeks.[4] By 1984, its sales had exceeded five million copies.[40]

>On one hand, you have a decaying, corrupt, decadent attempt to recreate the US government. It once had the same President for 57 years, and has been in decline since her death. Meanwhile, you have Caesar's Legion, an autocratic military regime which enslaves what it conquers, upholds extreme gender roles, and has no qualms with crucifying a town. On the other hand, they are stable, they enforce the rule of law, and, while brutal, are a good bit more civilized than who they conquer. Their leader even has plans to actually create a real society once he's dealt with the NCR.
Not sure what's worse. Objectivists or people whitewashing Legion and going on with Obsidian's butchered lore.

I mean you could easily make your point based on F1 and nobody would complain, but since that game is probably older than you...

As for why people defend her, I suspect it's because the only attacks against the philosophy are vague statements like "Her ideology is retarded all by itself and requires some serious mental gymnastics to even try to defend,", which doesn't actually provide specific criticisms. But you folks sure do love to lob specifically wrong criticisms against her, rather than the philosophy.

Does studying the bible make on a christian?

>slavery is a shade of grey
>fucking over everyone and then letting the AI that isn't house take over isn't the objectively best ending, easily seen by anyone with even a mild interest in the lore

Also, new vegas is one game and pretty much antithetical to the rest of the series. It's more of an outlier than Fallout 3 and 4 were, lore wise.

>every setting has to be shades of grey

Fuck you, camp is fun. Adam West's Batman is better than Batman vs. Superman.

>Does studying the bible make on a christian?
So it IS a religion, then.

>implying the bible's only value is for theology.

The bible is a historical and philosophical document user.

And yet we don't see anyone starting threads about jerking it to the genocide of the Midianites.

>Rand
Wew. Try some philosophy first. Or sociology. Or bloody anything.
>Fun setting or not?
Well, firstly, it's far too masturbatory to be any fun. Secondly, it's absolutely bloody unfeasible. It sounds like it was written by a twelve-year-old on a powerwank.
>all smart people follow a prophet of individualism preaching freedom
>not only do they agree on everything without question (food for thought: why are there so many schools of thought in the world?), they also leave everything behind without question
>also nobody knows where they left or makes any effort to find them
>they live in a stable society while the world collapses around them
>and it does collapse around them, for unspecified reasons
>they live in a high-technology paradise while the people outside make no effort whatsoever to create a new society
>obviously, fucking HUMANS wouldn't attempt to somehow organize along social lines
>the species that did that since it came into being and pretty much survived due to it
>the species who spontaneously formes lines whenever it needs to wait for something
>yeah, ok, anyway
>powerwank ultra-intelligent libertarians with nanobots conquering the stupid unwashed barbarians around them
Yeah, sorry, it's a terrible setting.

No, just jerking it to the crusades.

>the legion is a shade of gray
>laughingrangers.jpg
The NCR has its problems, but trying to compare it to the Legion is asinine. They're literal cartoon villains.

And we'll tell them the same thing we're telling you: fuck right off.

>They're literal cartoon villains.
Nope

Why wouldn't the smart people follow the super genius

>hey dude, society is going to crap around you right now. Come hitch a ride with me, I've got plans for a hovercar and a libertarian paradise with the hottest bitches in the world.

Want to know how I know you're new to Veeky Forums?

>most of her life on welfere

Stop lying.

Not really. Knowing that you're out of shit to talk about and trying to change the subject is enough for me.

Not even him, but it's a well known fact - the only time she wasn't on welfere was very early in her adult life and final 5 years of it.

I'll take a specific criticism of objectivsm, the proposed setting, or the merits of nuance over camp (or vice versa) if you want to. Don't pretend that I was the one not open to debate here, since you've ignored half the responses against you so far.

>Come hitch a ride with me, I've got plans for a hovercar and a libertarian paradise
>libertarian paradise
>libertarian
I guess I will pass on that

Atlas Shrugged is a horrible book, pushing even more horrible and retarded "philosophy" (if you dare to call that angsty bullshit suitable for a rebellous special snowflake teenager philosophy)

If you're not him why are you also misspelling 'Welfare' in the same manner?

Any i believe you could probably use the setting as a one shot if your group dug the idea, but its definitely not fleshed out enough for an actual campaign of more than a few sessions.

And as a libertarian, it is still kinda fanwankering.

>Why wouldn't the smart people follow the super genius
Have you ever MET smart people?

I don't know, user. Why didn't they? After all, wasn't that super genius just Rand's mouthpiece? So why didn't they all flock to her?
>hey dude, society is going to crap around you right now. Come hitch a ride with me, I've got plans for a hovercar and a libertarian paradise with the hottest bitches in the world.
What, did he design the hovercraft cars or is it
>hey, come with me and you'll be get to design hovercraft cars
>what do you mean you can do that already

>well known fact that the only time she wasn't on "welfere" (sic), was very early in her adult life and the final five years of it.

snopes.com/ayn-rand-social-security/

Actually, she only took benefits near the end of her life, and only after arguing for years that she and anyone else who didn't like the idea of redistribution of wealth was morally right to do so (to get their money back).

Ayn Rand still has followers to this day though. Her book IIRC is considered the most influential in the world, ahead of even the bible, by public poll.

So what basis do you have to think that her argument isn't persuasive to people?

At least in the book, Galt had invented the most powerful generator in the world, something that would, if allowed to be produced, would raise the quality of life of everyone around it by as much as electricity did when it was discovered. Perhaps more. To the smart people, it was the choice between the guy with a generator and a mostly logically consistent philosophy of ethics that wouldn't tax them (plus lots of gold), or living in the steadily declining socialist hellhole while all the other smart people around you left with him.

It still seems like an easy choice to me.

>it's a well known fact

It's a well known lie. You are parroting propaganda that's decades old.

>Ayn Rand still has followers to this day though.
You're moving the goalposts. Her ideology is in no way dominant, is it now? So what's with all those smart people following?
>Her book IIRC is considered the most influential in the world, ahead of even the bible, by public poll.
I don't believe you for a second. Give me a source.
>So what basis do you have to think that her argument isn't persuasive to people?
On the basis that her argument failed to persuade a critical mass of people. She has some following in the US. That's pretty much it.
>At least in the book, Galt had invented the most powerful generator in the world, something that would, if allowed to be produced, would raise the quality of life of everyone around it by as much as electricity did when it was discovered. Perhaps more.
Nice. Is he just going to keep that knowledge to him? Because if he wants to make any meaningful use of it, it's going to leak, which makes his possession of that technology irrelevant.
>mostly logically consistent philosophy of ethics that wouldn't tax them (plus lots of gold), or living in the steadily declining socialist hellhole while all the other smart people around you left with him.
Jesus, you're reaching out. I'm asking you again. Why did Rand fail to enlist meaningful following outside the US political circles? Why is she so uninfluential in philosophy if that's the case? You can't just sidestep that question.
>socialist hellhole
For one, most people don't think the world we live in is a hellhole. For two, "socialist" isn't an umbrella term for "things I don't like", you know?
>It still seems like an easy choice to me.
It might seem whatever it might seem to you. I am asking you what made all the "smart" people in your world accept Rand's ideology, while she's pretty irrelevant in the intellectual circles of our world, american political circles excluded.

because he comes off as pretentious, the deal looks too good to be true, and the US has an established history of utopian communes descending into violence.

>/pol/shit

No

>Rand Paul's masturbatory fantasy
Fuck off back to leftypol

>As for why people defend her, I suspect it's because the only attacks against the philosophy are vague statements like "Her ideology is retarded all by itself and requires some serious mental gymnastics to even try to defend,", which doesn't actually provide specific criticisms. But you folks sure do love to lob specifically wrong criticisms against her, rather than the philosophy.

Because it's a half-assed bastardization of Nietzche and Aristotle with all sorts of internal contradictions.

>You're moving the goalposts. Her ideology is in no way dominant, is it now? So what's with all those smart people following?

Her ideaology is pretty dominant still. The Tea Party is practically based on it, and they've been stalling U.S. government for years.

>I don't believe you for a second. Give me a source.

I misremembered. It's second only to the bible.

Wikpedia page for the book.

>On the basis that her argument failed to persuade a critical mass of people. She has some following in the US. That's pretty much it.
See above.

>Nice. Is he just going to keep that knowledge to him? Because if he wants to make any meaningful use of it, it's going to leak, which makes his possession of that technology irrelevant.
He's actually willing to teach others in the book, for a fee, but everyone has an understanding on intellectual property: don't mess with mine, and I won't mess with yours.

>Jesus, you're reaching out. I'm asking you again. Why did Rand fail to enlist meaningful following outside the US political circles? Why is she so uninfluential in philosophy if that's the case? You can't just sidestep that question.

I'm not sidestepping anything. Politicians pay lip service to Rand's ideals, some even believe them. People in the country believe them enough to warrant the aforementioned political lip service, and her book is massively influential.
>It might seem whatever it might seem to you. I am asking you what made all the "smart" people in your world accept Rand's ideology, while she's pretty irrelevant in the intellectual circles of our world, american political circles excluded.
It's worth noting that only a few non-americans get in rand's valley. All of whom either worked for two non americans, or were the two non-americans who studied in america with the main character. The european nations are abandoned with the rest of the world to the people's states.

Never read Rand here? what "internal contradictions" are there?

I can't think of any outright contradictions in her philosophy, but there are some leaps of logic that I don't feel are justified.

Rand claims to base her entire philsophy, metaphysics, ethics, ontology, meaning of art, political ideals, etc on the tautology of A=A.

A=A is true. But it isn't possible to divine any knowledge from that statement. You can derive knowledge from statements that contradict it. If you start with some idea or argument, the logical conclusion of which is to say A=/=A, then you know there is an error in your idea or argument. Rand doesn't use this process initially to derive her secondary principals. She just goes from A=A to statements of ethics, etc.

Devils advocate here, OP merely states Galt took the "elites" into hiding, not that Rand was 'right'. The supposition here is "what if that thing did happen?", not "what if that thing was right?"

Arguably, Galt is the villain even in this construction, because he ran away at a critical time in the world history with all the people who could have saved it, and let it die, simply because he/they didn't appreciate having the onus of responsibility to their fellow man put upon them. As a result, the world "collapsed", most likely a result of political and resource wars, leading to the death of billions. And now they return, long after the dust has settled and mankinds attempts to escape it's self destructive cycle have failed, and take by force what the meek and meagre have scraped out of the wreckage.

By what metric are they not the villains? This is 1 for 1 the Conclave. It gets even worse in the optional section where they unleash what is probably a grey-goo apocalypse in the making upon the world.

Really, if OP was trying to make a defense or pro-objectivist argument, they objectively (heh) did a pretty poor job.

Incidentally, Rand was just a salty bitch who couldn't get laid and most of her works were Harlequinn tier smut. The right of her time hated and ostracized her, particularly because of her anti-religious stance and the a-fore mentioned smut

>I can't think of any outright contradictions in her philosophy,
Then why say there are?
>Rand doesn't use this process initially to derive her secondary principals. She just goes from A=A to statements of ethics, etc.
Like I said, or meant to say, I've never read Rand's works before, can you elaborate on that more?

If you've read descartes, it's the same problem that a lot of philosophers have with him: that he starts from the state of no knowledge, and then skips a crucial step of reasoning to get to an initial premise (in descarte's case, I believe it was that god is benevolent, and wouldn't fool him, though it's been a long time, so I may be wrong on the specifics), which he then uses to coherently justify everything else.

You find Galt's secret compound and it's entirely empty. These "intellectuals" didn't invite any telephone sanitisers to their utopia, and they all died from a virulent diseases contracted from a dirty telephone. All, except for ROBOGALT 5000, an objectively mad cyborg who decided to try to build his vision once again; this time by stealing babies and indoctrinating them into his religion from young age.

Wasn't this basically the plot of Bioshock?

all the men of ability think John Galt is a fucking retard, and rightfully so, because he is.

Ayn Rand's work is naive. Most people can realize that with a superficial reading even if they can't articulate it.

The protagonists of her works rarely deal with tragedy brought on by their hubris or mistakes, but instead the mistakes of others. Governmental systems are represented more stiffly than they actually are and don't account for the fact that a slimy politician is just fine pulling an about face if the wind turns against him.
Societies that have radically changed humans on a biological level and bred them to be a near different species can produce a regular guy that's only held back by the same petty corruption as our society.
The protagonists are written to have a profound impact on the world without representing themselves as larger than life and aren't really tested or laid low by the brutal regimes they go against.
Villains are far too villainous. It's like the people of Narnia got together jumped universes and put Worm-tongue in power. Then left him there while things went to shit. There seems to be no reason anyone would ever follow any of her villains besides blind adherence to tradition.
Her monologues are preachy, but are against preaching..

Not to mention what Rand mistakes for destructive altruism is actually the basis for society in all forms - the postponing of immediate gratification in exchange for the promise of mutual, greater gratification at a later date.

>Her ideaology is pretty dominant still. The Tea Party is practically based on it, and they've been stalling U.S. government for years.
Her ideology is influential in the right-wing politics of the US. As I've told you, that's not critical mass in any way. Tell me, once again, why didn't all the smart people fuck off to a randian utopia by now, but they would in your scenario? Because until you offer me a meaningful answer to that, I'm still going to tell you that you didn't fulfill your burden of proof.
>I misremembered. It's second only to the bible.

>Wikpedia page for the book.
I was right, you are lying. It was chosen as the second most influential by some 2000 book-of-the-month club members in the US in the year 1991. Firstly, the US is not the world. Secondly, the book-of-the-month club is not the US. Thirdly, 1991 is one year. Now, if we're talking about influence, let's check the approximate number of sold copies. A bit above 7 million as of now. Comparatively, that's a pretty low sales number.
>See above.
I did.
>He's actually willing to teach others in the book, for a fee, but everyone has an understanding on intellectual property: don't mess with mine, and I won't mess with yours.
Then it doesn't really matter if he has that knowledge anymore, since soon everyone will have it. Either through payment or through the fact that information... leaks.
>I'm not sidestepping anything. Politicians pay lip service to Rand's ideals, some even believe them. People in the country believe them enough to warrant the aforementioned political lip service, and her book is massively influential
You'll be surprised, but the US is not the world, and a part of the american libertarians are not the US.
>The european nations are abandoned with the rest of the world to the people's states.
kek

Guys what if in my fantasy setting magic exists and is powered by nanobots somehow
>ok

Guys what if in my fantasy setting we assume x philosopher was right
>eww get your political wank out of MY /tg, everything MUST be morally grey and open to interpretation at all times! Now back to what i was saying about how the goblins in goblin slayer have a legitimate moral justification...

Read the thread, eh?

...

>Then why say there are?
I'm not the guy you were initially questioning. I was just trying to give you the fairest evaluation of her work since you asked about it.
>Like I said, or meant to say, I've never read Rand's works before, can you elaborate on that more?
Sure. In addition to the further elaboration here, Rand starts with the idea that something exists. Fairly uncontroversial. She then argues that to exist is to exist with specific attributes. I think this is the first leap of logic she makes. She claims this is the identity principal, A=A. I'm not convinced here, but I'll give it to her for the sake of explanation. From this, she then goes on to define consciousness as "the act of perceiving that which exists", which she argues means reality must exist independent of the entity perceiving it. That's the second not adequately justified argument. Her justification is that if you're conscious, you're conscious of "something" else basically.

Anyways, from there, she justifies her metaphysics of objective reality, and goes on to make better arguments for her ethics, theory of knowledge, etc, assuming you buy into her intial premises. Not conclusive arguments, but better ones.

Her ethics system is based on the nature of the living organisms doing the valuing. She claims that a living organisms values should be based on preserving that organism's life according to its nature. Man's nature is to think, therefore he must use reason to survive. She argues that the pursuit of self interest is your goal, and if you're rational about it you'll logically be a good little boy with all the virtues that we like anyways: You'll be just, courageous, honest, and independent. She makes some good points, but given the evidence of people succeeding without being those things, one has to question her argument.

>You find Galt's secret compound and it's entirely empty. These "intellectuals" didn't invite any telephone sanitisers to their utopia, and they all died from a virulent diseases contracted from a dirty telephone. All, except for ROBOGALT 5000, an *objectivistly mad cyborg who decided to try to build his vision once again; this time by stealing babies and indoctrinating them into his religion from young age.
Fixed

>Rand
>Philosopher

Pick one.

>>Never read Rand here? what "internal contradictions" are there?

Have you ever played one of those intensively PvP RPGs, where griefers wreck your shit and kill you for no reason? Imagine if they also said they were doing it for your own good, to encourage you to learn to defend yourself. That's the philosophy.

Now, imagine a Jack Chick comic. Everyone subscribing to the ideology are square-jawed ubermenschen who shit rainbows, everyone opposed to the ideology are snarling, hook nosed jew-satanists. That's the writing.

Rand was not ever against altruism. She was against mandatory altruism, and the idea of self sacrifice as the highest moral ideal. What you described (mutual greater gratification at a later date in exchange for no immediate gratification) is something she argued should be left up to everyone individually. Even in her fiction books she portrays characters acting altruistically without scorn.

The best example would be her story of the 20th century motor company. Before the company was reorganized into a socialist commune, people were generous with each other and help each other out when times were hard. After, when the idea of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" was enacted, their incentives flipped, and voluntary charity stopped, while voluntary violence rose.

To Rand, the idea of mandatory self sacrifice was bad for two reasons: it was just evil, and it was bad social organizing.

That's basically the truth, except for one major detail. Jack Chick doesn't include 60 page long self-congratulatory speeches in his comics so he's basically a saint compared to Rand.

galtse.cx/

I know this may come as a shock to you, but europe actually isn't relevant except as a giant foreign aid project for the united states to defend from russian incursions.

When your shithole countries start paying their own defense budgets, we can talk about relevance on the world stage. Until then, I, and most other people in the world, will continue under the presumption that you morons will never do anything without Uncle Sam sanctioning it.

Meanwhile, at the evil UN NATO headquarters:

Ve are ready to release die troops, mein fuhrer Merkel. Ze americans think die 2nd amendment protects them, ze fat fools! Soon ve vill unite the vorld under New World Order.

>global boker face

Smart people tend to fuck off to america, which is probably the closest analogy you'll get.

Smart people flee overbearing societies.

>Her book IIRC is considered the most influential in the world, ahead of even the bible, by public poll.
I just imagined asking a random person if they had heard of either the Bible or the novel Atlas Shrugged

It made me think you are incorrect.

Even Lord of the Rings is more influential than Atlas Shrugged

he jokes as Germany continues to pass laws and sanctions that objectively favor German products and industry over all other countries.

It sounds like her biggest problem was niavette or baseless optimism then. Don't get me wrong, I believe in an inherent goodness of people - to a point. I also believe that altruism tends to be the most logical choice, and so you can most often happily marry what is right with what is logical.

That being said this shit has to be taught and reinforced because no one is perfectly rational 100% of the time and humans are tool users, lazy short cuts is an instinctive drive for us. People need laws to, at the very least, de-incentivize and punish being shitters. I agree you cannot enforce direct altruism because then it makes people resent it.

That sounds like a 10x better setting: brave conspiracy theorists band together to fight the forces of the new world order.

>Ve are ready to release die troops, mein fuhrer Merkel

They were released years ago.

You mean, brave heroes band together against nazis to unite the world under one government and forever destroy poverty, inequality and hate?

Ayn Rand wasn't against laws (actually she detested people she thought of as anarchists or hippies, including "libertarians", even though modern libertarians agree with her on a lot). She thought government had its place as a police force to protect you from people who irrationally steal and kill, and a court system to protect you from people who break contracts (again, in her mind, irrational). Also a military to protect you from other governments.

But she would be against a program like social security, probably fire fighters, public roads, etc. Other objectivists might differ on the extent of government functions (and roads), but most will agree that government should be minimized.

The Tea Party was based off the old fashioned constitutionalism. That's why it was called the tea party, and they talked about the federalists, and they pushed 1776. Ayn Rand didn't contribute any ideas to that movement that weren't already popularized in the late 1700's

It's easily countered with
>your technological achievements are mostly due to your technicians, Mr. big ideas guy
>I'm not living in a town named after, and beholden to, your smug ass
>If the world really is collapsing I'll just make my own fortress of science and technology, with blackjack, and hookers.

its essentially the same answer as the magocracy question in fantasy and the question of meritocratic technocracy in real life. Why don't the biologists, chemists, engineers and physicists rule the earth from a fortress of knowledge? Because that takes resources, ones that they'd rather put towards their work, not building some fanciful new world order.

I can do you one better. Anyone can change their oil, but who wants to?

>rand
try again. Maybe next time you won't sound like a highschooler who just played Bioshock for the first time.

1. His technological achievements were his own though. He didn't have technicians when he invented the motor. He was the technician.
2. That's only unofficial. Officially, all the land is owned by the greatest banker in the world, and he's got a lot of gold to give back to you.
3. Sure, but why would you want to isolate yourself with hookers when you could have black jack and hookers and super geniuses around?

>On the other hand, they are stable

Caesar is literally dying of brain cancer during the events of the game. His co-founder states that the Legion would not survive his death.

No no no, I mean Alex Jones' sacred warriors harness magical energies from the Upper Dimensions to fight against the evil corruption spreading into jews and homosexuals from the depths of the 2nd dimension.

They aren't separate points, it's a progression of thought.

>You cannot design, mine, refine, cast, machine and build your miracle engine from scratch: so it follows
>Anyone employed by you to do any of those things can take their knowledge of your design elsewhere if they don't like you for any reason: so it follows
>If the world is going to shit, and no one likes you, then all your employees will move on without you.

no man is an island and all that

>Officially, all the land is owned by the greatest banker in the world
Pass.

>fine, I'll pay for schematics of your generator, but you can fuck off about IP when society at large collapses, you'll need to fight my press-ganged cyborg soldiers I'm stealing from the surrounding communes to get a cent of royalties.
>I'm not gonna acknowledge a fucking banker, or your property rights, should normal society collapse. I will be a law unto myself and I see little use in gold other than as a conductor. Without backing it becomes meaningless as currency.
>Because I'd have to listen to you, and presumably them, try to compel me with economic and social leverage, and would have to go through them for ultimately limited resources coming through the bottleneck of your closed community
>If fellow super geniuses want me they may come and visit, even stay at my court. My technological feudalism has all the benefits of your self-serving philosophy without the delusional pomp and equivocation.

If I'm a super genius and the rule of law is collapsing and my rivals are going into self imposed exile I'm gonna carve out a little county or dutchy for myself, somewhere nice and resource rich. If the governments are to be starved for genius and my competition is gone, only a fool would leave the opportunity where it lie, least of all to fulfill someone else's vision for them.

Atlas Shrugged is the largest strawman argument published in history, and at no point is there any grounding to the allegory. If anything there is lots of data showing that the opposite is true - when you allow the individuals holding wealth absolute freedom they stifle innovation in an effort to preserve their status.

>you and your fellow travellers hate socialism
>so you destroy capitalism and leave to found a commune where the people who do work control the means of production

Then again, it's Any Rand and we just don't understand her 4D-chess.

>Her book IIRC is considered the most influential in the world

Dat delusion. Outside of the US, only people who spend way too much time on the US-parts of the internet and professors of north americana know about her works.

Because all those CEOs and billionaires are completely useless without millions and millions of people working for them and the infrastructure of society designed to aid them?

Are they though? Presumably you have to be smart to be a CEO, or to remain a billionaire. Put a steel worker into his CEO's chair and he'll run the company into the ground. Put a CEO in a steel worker's chair, and he'll have to get fit, but eventually he'll succeed.