Mention 3 legitimate arguments why we should hate Ayn Rand

t. alberto barbosa

>taking Atlas Shrugged seriously
AYY LMAO

>Taking any female writers seriously
AYYYYY MY NIGGA

1. I think Ayn Rand is wrong about self-interest validating capitalism because it is in the self-interest of the majority of the planet's population to rise against the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production.

2. 1. I think Ayn Rand is wrong about her philosophy being objective in any way because states and private property are the exact opposite of objective.

3. 1. I think Ayn Rand is wrong about rich dudes going on strike bringing about anything other than massive liberation for the proletariat with no bosses left to tell them what to do.

>1. couldn't write
Just started reading "The Fountainhead" for the first time and her prose style, though a little over the top in places (particularly in the opening), is quite nice. Whether she succeeds in the other aspects of "writing" I, of course, have yet to decide.

...

And she died while receiving welfare

This Desu. Sterner is a much better example of objective self interest.

She died while taking social security checks. Do you know how social security works? I don't even care for Rand, but people who make this argument in every thread must be seriously intellectually bankrupt.

Social security is welfare ....

I bet her personality + her ideas + her looks made her a sexual maniac. Like, she ties you up and then handjob for ten hours and then makes you breakfast and then another ten hours of handjob.

>I don't feel like she ever fairly entertained the possibility that people should work together.
Hit the nail right on the head son.

My biggest grope is that she obviously saw the wrong in the way communist governments were running at the time, but I think she saw perfect capitalism as the end-all-be-all solution (communism the wrong, capitalism the right). I don't happen to agree with that sentiment, I think there are many flaws in a true free market, and I think it's unfair to act like there are only 2 ways to go about doing something

Basically, if she hadn't taken social security, then she would've paid into the system her entire life without ever getting that money back. It's a really specific kind of welfare where you pay into it with expected returns later on in life.

It's welfare

Okay, so you are intellectually bankrupt. Thanks for confirming

How is it not ?

welfare is giving out money to sheboons with 10 kids

getting some of your money back after 40-50 years of getting it taken from you is not the same thing

>casual racism as well as overgeneralizing
can you not?

Look up the definition.

quints (7s)

When ignorance and apathy ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows

its good of you to admit that giving sheboons welfare money is racist, because it is
>muh definitions
'no'. its actually unethical for a government to take money from you and not return a portion of it back. thats called stealing otherwise
i bet u were bullied as a kid.
>ignorance
nice meme

>buying in to the idea of welfare recipients established by rand and reiterated by the Reagan administration as a defense for Ayn rand.

That's not circular logic as all.

>somebody needs to pay for all my children

youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

sure is europe in here

Social security was established as a safety net so people aren't stepping over dying people on the sidewalks and such thus benefitting all of the people not just the ones receiving it

Taxes are a well established tool used by government to benefit society as a collective whole. If the poor are dying from starvation in the streets then they can't exactly be putting money back into the economy. Unless your solution is just let them starve and treat them like second class citizens and quite possibly have the government restricting their rights. Adam smith didn't agree with that. Even he realized that some kind of safety net was needed to keep the poor participating in the economy.

This.

except our current welfare system doesn't keep the poor participating in the economy (buying nikes with welfare checks doesn't count)

it actually incentives having kids and staying unemployed

1. Vagueness of concept. While power, as its understood in the west, and her idea of power is typically Western, it's still too lenient of the definition to provide anything new. Even at the time, its definitions laid in her work were dated, and that partly has to do with her inability to think beyond the frame of her own idea enough to be critical to it, and her disdain for being critical to her ideal. In the end, it ends in lack of coherence.

Say for example, many people have differing views of power. Hers is straightforward, cardboard, but in her own logic, she does not lay definitions strong enough to lay what you shouldn't do that isn't justifiable with her rhetoric. So for example, power and sacrifice, in at least western conceptions of power, sometimes go hand in hand. One with enormous amounts of power using it for benefit of others, is seen as gracious, honorable, powerful. This is not to suggest it is so, but only that the arguments made by Rand that strongly discourage it, do not do so in such a way to make them seem any less desirable within power, as they do have their own benefits where pure selfishness does not. The logic of it all is too fuzzy, its attempting discourse that can be shot through with holes, justifying other ideas contradictory to its own narrative accidentally.

2. Her prose is garbage.

3. All of her novels are more or less the same, you read one you read them all.

How long have you been a fan of Faux news ?

But she was a woman and she said women were shit

not an argument but i don't expect a braindead liberal to have the ability to form one anyways

>we

>tfw she will never tie you up and forcibly give you a handjob for ten hours, make you breakfast afterward, and then tie you up again for the second round

1. Talentless hack with sophomoric prose
2. Plebisized Stirner
3. Walking Jewish stereotype, fueled anti Semitic remarks of greed

1. Everything, because hard determinism is an inescapable reality and nothing ultimately means anything in the wake of it

...wut?

Question about Atlas Shrugged.

So John Galt invents what is essentially a perpetual motion machine. And naturally he wants to profit off of this because he perceives everything in terms of wealth accrual and monetary value. However wouldn't the presence of perpetual motion machines break the economy? In a world with limitless energy wouldn't that mean the end of scarcity?

I don't understand his endgame. He created a device that would eliminate wealth disparity and he wants to use it to increase wealth disparity.

you have shit taste

Stop reading once you finish Part 1. The rest is just horribly boring. On its own, part 1 is rather good.

Hard determinism is one of the points where she struggled the most with. She was a romanticist and argued that humans have their own volition and must defy nature to become better. Determinism limits potential growth and can be defeatist, if you think all your actions are pointless. At least in her mind.
But her views on sexuality implies that people are born with their set of fetishes, and that you can tell the morals of a person by their sexual orientation and interesting. Which, honestly, tells you a lot about Ayn Rand herself and her sexual interests, so she's not entirely wrong. But the problem is that this deterministic sexual interest isn't something that can be overcome, and thus all morals are deterministic.

It's like knowing that there is no free will but ignoring that fact and pretending that you can make decisions. It might be comforting but it's just not true.

It's a horrible plot hole honestly. With endless energy, you would move from a capitalistic society to a communistic one. But it's just Rand bitching that collectivism is shit and wouldn't apply to companies since no one would want to take responsibility.

>With endless energy, you would move from a capitalistic society to a communistic one.
While I'm familiar with this post scarcity argument, when did Veeky Forums? I'll add that post-scarcity doesn't necessarily mean communism nor does a perpetual motion machine mean post scarcity.

Well if you have free energy, arguably you wouldn't need anything else. Though I'm too ignorant to know if it's true or not. It's usually the same argument and view that if we have an unlimited amount of robots to do all manual work, we would go into a communistic society. Would it happen? Who knows.

Ah.

For true post scarcity you'd need materials in such a supply that you'd never need any more. There's nothing to suggest we couldn't make an energy to matter machine and make any shit we want but we have no such tech right now. Do it's beyond our capabilities and as such doesn't entail a post scarcity society. A less sci fi version would be now recycling costs virtually nothing in the long run with infinite energy, so so long as we have enough materials to begin with we just keep recycling to make new things. More nuanced but doesn't take into account recharge times, malthusianism I guess and is ultimately a kind of bounded post scarcity. And all of that is not to say anyone would use a perpetual motion machine like that. It's the ol "big business suppresses efficient ideas" deal, and why we're not all driving cars with magic carburettors that can travel around the earth on just a pin head of gas sort of thing.

That sort of leads into post scarcity not entailing communism. The argument I've heard from most academics is sure you could nearly get to communism but to have true eternal communism you need post scarcity, rather than post scarcity immediately leading to communism. Imo class struggle and dissatisfaction is integral to a global uprising and post scarcity would change that dynamic.

Ah, I see. Thanks for expanding on that.

>it's only welfare when the oogaboogas receive it

k

Poor people will continue to suck from the government teat as long as we elect cucks.

Once a few nignogs start starving to death they'll get their act together and go find a job.

1. spooked by private property rights

2. couldn't write for shit, was a narcissist B-list actor. Never read Stirner.

3. takes value as objective, which is retarded because Stirner.

she's boring

and a better art critic than novelist who unfortunately has more novels than art criticism

and not brilliant with english prosody in any redeeming way whatsoever

god she was cute