Communists BTFO

Communists BTFO.

Holy shit this book opened my eyes on a lot of things, what's Veeky Forums's opinion on it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Ayn_Rand_and_Objectivism#Non-fiction_books
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearned_income
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Pretty sure general consensus here is that it's top 5 of all time.

ebin

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

what

Fine, top 3. I was being conservative.

What

Jesus! It's the best book ever, ok. Calm down

FUCKING WHAT

The only book that I've ever dropped.

...

Jeez I know Ayn Rand was ugly but you don't have to call her names like that

...

I have a lefty friend who's just started his economics major. I can't wait for him to get assigned this book and convert to libertarian master race.

It's pretty good. Hating became a meme on Tumblr a few years back and it's metastasized over to here.

Where have I read this before? I knew the twist as soon as you started

It's on the Wikipedia page for Atlas Shrugged. From the screenwriter of such classics as 'Catwoman' and 'Transformers'.

I know it's a meme but if serious question I enjoyed first while, if nothing else for the plot. But Jesus then Rand keeps drawling. It could be 250 pages shorter and still get her point across.

artistically worthless obviously but not without merit politically. The problem is it should have been a pamphlet and not a 1,000,000 work of fiction

Stay spooked my property.

She could've gotten her point across in a fucking essay

She did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Ayn_Rand_and_Objectivism#Non-fiction_books

they don't assign shit novels in economics majors, unless you took some shit module

Well I wouldn't know because I'm too poor to go to a university like my trust fund babby friends

Only entitled little cunts like this book and its philosophy, none of them produced anything. CEO types like to think everyone else profits from their labor when it's the other way around.

t. NEET

Ironically benefiting from the extortion of money from CEOs.

Care to elaborate?

I want you all to know that taxation is theft, and the national debt is really, really high.

Ok, have a nice day.

State extorts money from productive people under the guise of taxation, these ill-gotten gains are pooled and distributed to non-productive types such as yourself. Not much elaboration needed to be honest.

Ah, to be in 9th grade.

Compelling counterargument. Have you considered writing sequel to Leviathan?

taxation is part of a social contract you make when you choose to be a part of a society, if you don't want to be a part of that system you're free to leave any time

I can't be bothered, you're obviously a kid if you think CEOs pay taxes and that money goes to "unproductive people". I'm sure once you leave high school daddy will buy you a nice college ride and your frat buddies can jerk each other off while deciding which one of you is galt or rearden.

It's a reference to Pitt the Younger who invented most modern forms of taxation. I think he called income tax theft specifically.

1: Contracts require the explicit consent of both parties.

2: Contracts may not be signed under duress.

3: No-one may be a judge in their own cause.

>libertarian master race

Libertarianism is an intellectual baby cup. It is attractive because its principles are so simple that just about anyone can understand them, and appeal because they assert that you are in control of your own destiny, economically speaking. It feels good to be a Libertarian because you get to be selfish and have a moral justification for doing so, and you get to assert that you know better than the state.

What Libertarianism ignores the importance of politics. It imagines that the state could be decreased in size to the point where it doesn't become a burden on people's lives, and that will be that. They don't realise that the power will pass from the hands of the state to those of private companies, or perhaps some wealthy individuals. You do not free yourself from power, you transfer power.

And so long as power exists, you will have the problems of interference and involvement. The Libertarian policy is usually to ignore these kind of issues. They view employment as an equal agreement between employer and employee, even though it is obvious that one of these groups is in a better negotiating position than the other. When you combine this with the dissolution of the welfare state and no means for the workers to negotiate then you wind up with something resembling tyranny.

Another problem I have with Libertarianism, and one which is not discussed enough, is that it is empty on moral terms. Beyond the rule of 'initiating force' and 'property rights' there is very little to go on, and it permits lavish excess and greed without recognising that there are consequences to accepting greed on a large scale.

It also has no serious answer to the problem of externalities, at least that I have come across.

Now compare all of this with Marxism: it's a complete fucking package with a number of different theories, a clear logical progression which leads to a conclusion... it has so much more in the way of content. Consequently, it is a superior ideology.

But how would the employer maintain that position without employees?

You're not only talking about a different kind of contract, they don't have to be explicitly agreed to either.

this is the most wrong thing i've ever heard in my life, and no, i'm not one of these idiots who thinks all taxes should be abolished.

1: You haven't read Crito

2: You haven't read Leviathan

3: You haven't read The Social Contract

The state owns all of its own money that it issues legally... you only temporarily possess it. You can't really form a good critique of extortion as illegitimate otherwise all land or other forms of "property" which was acquired from feudal modes of conquest and capitalized upon would be illegitimate. Taxation is just one of the various forms of control which underlies capitalism... taxation is really just a form of demand management... the state can always finance itself by expansionary monetary policy or other means.

Unearned income makes up the grand bulk of all expenditures so eliminating it would destroy the economy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearned_income

It's the best just behind Looking for Alaska

>one of these groups is in a better negotiating position than the other
Yeah, the employee is

Veeky Forums likes its paraprosdokians.

When I was in High School, Atlas Shrugged was pretty good. Now I don't really like it. It gets too preachy, but I guess I give it some credit for making me think about what money actually is. That speech was a pretty tough sit though.

The onus is not on the employer, it is on the employee.

You need to work, because if you do not work then you do not have access to the resources required to live.

The employer will of course need to hire employees in order to operate, but this is relatively easy when you have more people looking for work than jobs available, and these people have to work to avoid starving to death.

Sure thing, I guess that's why the unemployment rate is so high, you imbecile.

It's not wrong though.

You do not have to participate in the economy if you don't want to. You could just go out into the woods and eat berries. Not much of a choice, but a choice nonetheless.

>tfw you came to economic liberalism (economic conservatism here in 'Murrica) and social liberalism by means of very different philosophical methods than the libertarians but you still have to get lumped in with them and their nuttiness

And Ayn Rand makes me want to fucking kill myself. She's like that one immature friend you had back in grade school who copied what you did and said, but in a more edgy, less tasteful, and less self-aware way.

No. Most well educated people regard it as edgy trash for teenagers going through that phase where they think they know about politics and the world

it's funny how Veeky Forums despises rand's egotism but worship's stirner's egotism.

I know that rand might be a fool without the ability to put a coherent argument for her brand of egotism but to be honest, the core concept of egotism is shard with that of Stirner who might have argued differently and through a better method.

What about solipsistic egotism? Since you're sure only of your own consciousness to exist, the best you can do is serve it. Which is egotism.

What about egotism that arises from moral relativism? No absolute code exists to dictate your conduct so you 'naturally' conduct yourself which maximizes your utility which again is egotism.


I'm not justifying rand. Rand might be a shitty cunt who doesn't know how to write.
But Face it Veeky Forums. Egotism is the only tenable consequence of the axioms that we're sure of.

If you disagree then fight me you cunts. Tell me why it isn't.

Can you provide evidence for why you believe that egotism is the only tenable consequence of the axioms that we're sure of?

Which methods?

There's a total libertarian meme cabal in the UK atm run by the Institute for Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute which has erased all my hope that libertarianism in its essentials is salvageable.

I think people who too often encounter natural rights and NAP libertarians might be tempted to believe that the problem is an obsession with anachronistic philosophies, but really the issue is that libertarianism is inherently trendy

Coming from a libertarian: this book is shit.

neither of those conclusions necessarily follow

i don't feel like explaining why, but just know that.

Rands Objectivism is a normative world view and is spooked as fuck. Egotism isn't just any form of hedonism.

>I have no legitimate argument to back my assertion so i'll just tell you that i don't feel like explaining and ask you to believe me.

I didn't ask you to believe me really, was just letting you know.

Every marxist little shit bernie supporting faggot needs to read this. Not the well read litizen brand of marxist the little shitlords.

>You could just go out into the woods

Which woods? If someone is an not a declared citizen of any country for that matter, where could they go?

>Bernie liberals
>Marxist

But yes they should read it so they either develop the skills to discredit it or die the intellectual death of becoming a right libertarian and then you have to deal with them

(you)

>discredit
lol

>Hating became a meme on Tumblr a few years back and it's metastasized over to here.

You have no idea what you're talking about. This book has been widely (not universally, of course, but widely) shat on for decades.

saw it the other day at a thrift store next to the other children's books. those poor, poor kids.

>Joke's on you, I'm not going to HAVE an education!

It's an okay book but come the fuck on.

>trace symbol of dollar sign in the air with my finger
Bravo, what a way to end it.

It's also been hated on here (with good reason) from the start of the board. Fucking randposting should still be against the rules.

quality bait

>it's funny how Veeky Forums despises rand's egotism but worship's stirner's egotism.
>worship's stirner's egotism

does someone actually take the meme seriously?

why should I "naturally" do things which maximize my utility?

>social contract

I didn't sign shit.

>Libertarianism is an intellectual baby cup. It is attractive because its principles are so simple that just about anyone can understand them, and appeal because they assert that you are in control of your own destiny, economically speaking.

Sounds an awful lot like Marxism.

1) Proletariat = Good / Bourgeois = Good
2) Public Ownership of the Means of Production = Good / Private Ownership of the Means of Production = Bad
3) Public Property = Good / Private Property = Bad

Etc, etc. The one lesson we learn is that the more a philosophy concerns itself with economics, the more indistinguishable from a religion it becomes.

>It feels good to be a Libertarian because you get to be selfish and have a moral justification for doing so, and you get to assert that you know better than the state.

It feels good to be a Marxist because you get to be selfless and have a moral justification for doing so, and you get to assert that you know better than the individual. You also get to be selfless at the expense of other people's money.

See?

>Proletariat = Good / Bourgeois = Good

If that book opened your eyes, you're either too young to be visiting this website or grew up a spoiled brat.

You know what I mean.

>The one lesson we learn is that the more a philosophy concerns itself with economics, the more indistinguishable from a religion it becomes.

My nigga.

Damn right.

The first 300 pages are pretty good. Up until the end of Part 1 where Dagny goes all ''fuck you, fuck everything, I'll go save this fucking goddamn company on my own and don't let anyone stop me''. It felt like this hooray moment that encapsulates her philosophy well into that moment.
The problem is that everything after Part 1 is boring to shit. And when John Galt shows up, he's this boring vanilla shit without a single personality to him. Dagny was a decent female protagonist until Galt shows up and she just wants to desperately want to hum his leg endlessly. And the main feeling you get out of her is simply that she's a slut and it's kinda weird.

The main speech by Galt at the end is long and tedious but if you switch parasites for what people consider to be SJW who use marxist collectivist rhetoric, the entire speech makes sense.
The real problem is that the whole speech is preachy, talking down to a group of people that seems imaginary. However, everything clicks when the individualistic themes of the speech is used against SJW collectivism.

I also find it cute that there's a retard among the evil collectivist group trying to destroy the world that everyone tells him to shut up and that his ideas are bad. But once shit gets so bad for them, they listen to him because his insanity is equated as taking responsibility. I always found that cute.

There is some good in the book but there is a looooooot that is bad. There's a lot to unpack and most people misread or misunderstand her book.

>leftist friend majoring in economics
What?

Ideological bullshit aside the writing is absolute shit. Middle grade, at best. Not to mention completely too long for it's purpose. It reads like a first draft.

Taxation is not theft, and the level of total national debt is irrelevant. You don't belong on a literature board.

>Now compare all of this with Marxism: it's a complete fucking package with a number of different theories, a clear logical progression which leads to a conclusion... it has so much more in the way of content. Consequently, it is a superior ideology.
I was with you until this part. You're a fucking moron.

>unemployment rate is so high, you imbecile.
It's not though...

It's almost like they're different people who said different things in different ways.

>Bernie liberals
>Not marxist
u wot?

Yeah, I don't know either. He believes in Bernie's economic policies but is also willing to set aside his political beliefs in order to get a lot of money.

Libertarians?

More like libertardians am I right?

You should probably tell him that economics won't get him shit.

>Economics Student
>Believes in Bernies economics
Not for long user...Not for long.

>Yeah, the employee is
lel, if you're a native-born Saudi or Swiss then maybe. Most places you need to work to live, and there are not enough jobs for everyone.

Believe me, I have. He switched to economics from civil engineering, and nothing I say will convince him that it was a mistake.

I told him that, as well.

Because Stirner is an excellent writer who's theory is waterproof, Rand is a shit writer who's theory is BTFO by Stirner's. Just because they both deal with self-interest doesn't mean they're the same ideas.

You have no idea what Marxism is if you think Bernie supporters and American "Progressives" are Marxists.

Do you dispute that it's a complete package? Or do you dispute that it's a superior ideology?

The fact that it is more comprehensive is what makes it a superior ideology. You can apply Marxist thought to all manner of things, which you cannot really achieve with Libertarianism.

If you don't think being comprehensive is good... why not?

Important to note that I am not saying that all products of Marxist thought are good or useful. Just the fact that it can be applied in such a wide range of areas makes it better than Libertarianism.

If you don't agree... well, the floor is yours because I'd like to know why.

So the average company is so desperate for employees that they will pay to have you educated, will offer you a higher salary to dissuade you from going elsewhere, immediately bow before any threat of strike action...

I don't think so. Unemployment may be lower than it has been for a few years, but the idea that the employee calls the shots is absurd.

If they were not similar, then I probably wouldn't have made a comparison between them, would I?

But you're mistaken about the formation of Marxism versus the formation of Libertarianism. The former used an approach of making observations about economic trends and theorising their eventual outcomes, while the latter takes a moral principle and applies it to the economically "artificially".

They are completely different to one another in this regard.

The comment about them both being like religions is just trite. I could have asked someone who knows fuck all about either Libertarianism or Marxism and got the very same answer, and here you are thinking you've said something clever. You disgust me.

Why do people seem to be under the impression that economics are necessarily right wing? It's apolitical in essence, you can just as easily make up an economic model for the left as you can for the right. A lot of econ professors are lefties, I don't know why people seem to believe that a leftie going into econ will somehow finally realise "how the world really works(tm)", if anything he will simply keeps his views while actually knowing what he's talking about.

TAXATION IS THEFT

I DO NOT CONSENT

>what's Veeky Forums's opinion on it?

It's responsible for unspeakable harm towards the American working classes.

Nobody asked you to.

Ahahahah dude what the fuck are you even saying how can someone be this wrong

>You do not have to participate in the economy if you don't want to. You could just go out into the woods and eat berries.
You can't actually, it's illegal. Just about every single square meter of land on the globe is claimed by some country.