Why is Rand laughed out of intellectual circles? Individual rights aren't an absurd thing to wish for

Why is Rand laughed out of intellectual circles? Individual rights aren't an absurd thing to wish for.

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/mozart-was-red
www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE2005/articles/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf
mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil
thepoliticalinformer.com/predatory-price-cutting/
theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

That's what happens when women try to talk about politics and philosophy

Majority is left.
Minority is right.

So certain cercles ridiculize others and their voice is predominant.

She isn't laughed at for the advocation of individual rights, she's laughed at because she created "objectivism" purely as a justification for Social Darwinism. It's a disingenuous attempt to subvert criticism.

because anyone with any grounding in epistemology can quickly see what's wrong with objectivism and her fiction is tl;dr jerk off shit

She never seriously engaged critics of her ideas. There are better rights theorists to read, and better an caps if you're that awful. Nozick is good.

I see 3 "ism"s in your post

Horribble, horrible writing. "I know you despise hydraulic pipes!"

You have it, but it's more about her than her work.

Read Murray Rothbard's only work of fiction. A one act play called Mozart Was A Red:

mises.org/library/mozart-was-red

It's really funny. And since Rothbard is regarded by many as the thinker who took a serious libertarian system the farthest toward a functioning model, it's even more hilarious that he felt the need to take her down in such fashion.

>woman
>not an academic
>tried to advance a theory through in-your-face fiction
>wrote about the ubermensch but was nothing like it
>wrote about social darwinism but basically starved all alone
>mainstream hasn't allowed any opinions other than "throw more welfare at it" for the past 200 years

People just can't seperate the message from the messenger and they are terrified of being ridiculed and being called a fedora or edgelord.

>Ayn Rand
>Individualism

rap is dogshit mixed with nigger scum

quality post

...

nice pic, can I save it before going to bed?

1. How is it not economically efficient for the market to simply listen to supply and demand when forming prices rather than accepting the distortion that comes with regulation, government inflation of the money supply, and subsidies?
2. "Corporate" is kind of a buzzword. One of the tricks people pull when talking about an anarcho-capitalist society. The goal is to get people to think of corporations we have now, the kinds of monopolies that result from government intervention and multinational corporations that have the government in their pockets.
3. There's never been an example of good government regulation, not in the economic sector nor socially. It either made the situation worse or it addressed a situation that was already mostly resolved by then.
4. Anarcho-capitalism advocates for voluntary societies. You have no obligation to behave in a way that you don't want simply because a corporation is big. There's also a definite limit to how big a corporation can get without lobbying the government. If the corporation raises prices high enough that they are no longer competitive, they allow competitors to enter.
5. Why do people look at a fucked up system under Keynesian capitalism and think "this would be even more fucked up without the government!"? Why is it so strange to believe that maybe a major reason it's so fucked up is the government itself?

1) Her writing is *at best* mediocre potboiler grade
2) Her "philosophy" is never coherently explained in philosophical terms in one place by her
3) What she does explain in contradictory or incoherent
4) On a personal level she tended to refuse to defend her position or debate others in a real way, instead calling anyone who disagreed with her "evil"
5) She developed a cult of personality that persists to this day and the members of that cult tend to mirror her combativeness and ignorance

Because she violently misinterpreted Aristotle, and the idea that "rational self-interest" will axiomatically lead you to supporting laissez-faire capitalism is a complete non-sequitur.

> Ayn Rand is literature's most important trans author
> the liberal left hate her

Now that's what I call transphobia. Sad!

The Libertarian party does piss me off, desu. We deserve better.

>Having a "libertarian" party comprised of actual autists isn't really helping either.
yeah, what a coincidence

Her writing sucks and was only propped up as Cold War propaganda. Her philosophy is puerile and Rand thought so too as she died on welfare.

>tries to make own philosophy around very simple concept
>can't even live her life according to it
>needed help from others constantly
>was qt before "philosophy"
Even Dirty Dancing knew Rand was bad

Not that guy, but I take exception with #3. I think food regulation is one example of a good job by the government.

>mises.org/library/mozart-was-red
Libertarian concepts are incoherent for the same reason that all Liberal concepts are-
-Politics is the use of coercion to limit freedom
-Liberalism is the ideology that the only legitimate purpose of government is to maximize individual freedom via coercion
Liberals of all stripes (both classical and progressives) make the same two core errors - the one listed above (that the only legitimate use of a toll that operates by using coercion to limit freedom is to maximize freedom and limit coercion) and the belief that the default state of Man is individuality and that society is an artificial construct that is alien to human nature.
............
Rand is just the most obvious example of how innately irrational all branches of Liberalism are. Look at the idea that the few creators would go off and the world would collapse without those tiny few.
It ignores the very literally tens of millions of foremen, administrators, tradesmen, farmers, even simple husbands and fathers that do the actual organization of culture, society, and business every day. She is, in a way, the perfect example of Poe's Law.

Fuck if I remember how, but I remember that the problem in that comic was actually addressed by the book, who I suppose the guy has not read.

I'm not who you're responding to, and my issues are quite different, but corporate entities with limited liability are obviously empirically extremely efficient compared to the alternatives and infrastructure, like pipelines, that underpin a modern economy would be next to impossible to get constructed without eminent domain.
Also people are just to conservative for a lot of what libertarianism is premised upon, like free movement, to be politically possible... you would just get lynch mobs to replace state police.

>How is it not economically efficient for the market to simply listen to supply and demand when forming prices
Since no attempts to allow markets to do this have ended other than with a dire need for intervention, I'd say Real Life wins over theory
> the kinds of monopolies that result from government intervention and multinational corporations that have the government in their pockets.
Yet in the *absence* of governmental interference the monopoly situation was *worse*. By price and market manipulation and sheer force Standard Oil effectively controlled the oil, kerosene, and rail transport verticals of the US and it took government action to *stop* Standard.
>There's never been an example of good government regulation
OSHA; food purity standards; fire safety codes; construction safety requirements; limited liability laws.
Top of my head
>If the corporation raises prices high enough that they are no longer competitive, they allow competitors to enter.
Unless they erect barriers to entry. Like they always have.

>arguing with lolbertarians

Tippity-toppity kek. Next time try explaining the virtues of the state of Israel to Hezbollah members.

I've read the book 4 times (did an analysis on it) and nope - there are very few people in Galt's Gulch, high in the Rockies, and they are blithely going about their other businesses as if food production wasn't a thing

It certainly isn't a coincidence but that's the point, "decent" libertarians will either be of the capitalist kind and feel too successful for a shitty fringe party or of the loner kind which hate the idea of a political party, publicity, etc.

It's hard to run a platform just on "Fuck off, don't tread on me" so the party will consist of the usual politicians of the "what's an aleppo, free borders now!" kind.

The default state of men is living in a "herd" of kins of about ~50 people, it certainly isn't "society".
And libertarians don't treat "being alone" as the default state, they just say that the individual is the smallest unit that counts (whereas collectivists tend to think that the smallest unit that counts is the "group"). Libertarians are proponents of the family and of voluntary groups, as opposed to being thrown in with literally millions of people.

The point about those few creators is that without them, we'd still all be alive, yes, but we'd be living as peasants on the same land as our ancestors. Society is brought forward by very few inventors, explorers, risk-takers. That doesn't mean we can do without the rest or that these are better humans though.

Food regulations are among the most egregious. Government meat regulations are essentially what created the near monopoly of meat production that we have now. And it hasn't made food safer. In fact, by most accounts it's probably become worse. What's wrong with the old. local system of food production? High regulation barriers limit entry to the marketplace and they also prevent my neighbor (someone I trust) from selling me good meat. Now I have to go to 1 of 4 giant corporations, who are responsible for new contamination cases every year.

>-Politics is the use of coercion to limit freedom
A libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society is only libertarian in principle. As David Friedman puts it, if people in a society were willing to pay more to stop drug use than drug users were willing to use drugs, then it would be prohibited in that particular society. No one has a problem with limits or law and order. There are just more efficient ways to do it and also there's an opportunity for unhappy people to simply move voluntarily to a society that has the freedoms that they desire.
I am socially conservative, so I am by no means advocating for no limit on freedom. Libertarians acknowledge that initiating aggression is not ever okay.
>-Liberalism is the ideology that the only legitimate purpose of government is to maximize individual freedom via coercion
The government can't "maximise" freedom. If it's not a natural right you are born with (meaning that all the government could do is take it away) then it's not a right. It's that simple. Stop equating modern liberalism with libertarianism. Kalb is wrong.

I also am not a Rand supporter. I've already said this. She's wrong.

If that land can't be bought, the pipeline won't be built or it will be redirected. I don't see the problem. Forcibly taking land from people doesn't sound like a positive thing to me. I also don't see the point you are making in regards to immigration. Free movement is indeed part of libertarianism, but it's also to be taken with belief in private property. Many libertarians oppose governments allowing thousands of refugees into the country precisely because it's not their land to give. In an anarcho-capitalist society, you and your society can control who enters your private property and private law enforcement does exist. I don't see how anything "replacing" the state police is a problem. I believe in law and order. I just think the government is not very good at it.

Stop blogging you stupid fags, what is this, reddit?

I think her books are fun to read but you sort of have to read them with a filter. Like skip the severely long John Galt speech. Then Atlas Shrugged is a fun fiction adventure.

Your notions of fun must be pretty warped. I'd literally rather read Twilight.

>Since no attempts to allow markets to do this have ended other than with a dire need for intervention, I'd say Real Life wins over theory
I guess during the Industrial Revolution when regulation didn't yet exist, we saw a great decline in civilization. Oh wait, that's fucking wrong.
>Yet in the *absence* of governmental interference the monopoly situation was *worse*. By price and market manipulation and sheer force Standard Oil effectively controlled the oil, kerosene, and rail transport verticals of the US and it took government action to *stop* Standard.
They lowered prices and undercut competitors. I don't see the problem here. How is lower prices not always better for consumers? We have to jerk the dicks of small oil companies that can't compete in order to maintain freedom now?
>OSHA; food purity standards; fire safety codes; construction safety requirements; limited liability laws.
A list of literal wankery. People were fine before any of this legislation and they'd be fine without it. The funny thing about you statists is how strongly you believe that corporations would run amok without the government keeping them in line. You only need to look at stores like Target bending over for trannies in their bathrooms to realise that corporations will do most anything to keep consumers. You can't maintain food purity and you're out of business. It's that simple. Doesn't help in your case, though, that food in the United States is far from "pure" despite all this messianic regulation.
>Unless they erect barriers to entry. Like they always have.
Barriers enforced by what? In the absence of the state, what barriers?
>Because I have read history books.
Yeah, an impartial science if I ever saw one. Congratulations.

>The default state of men is living in a "herd" of kins of about ~50 people, it certainly isn't "society".
1) the size depends upon a lot of things, so your default size is essentially indefensible (else you need to explain, oh, Iron Age Europe)
2) 'fifty people isn't a society' tells me you know zero about actual anthropology.
>whereas collectivists tend to think that the smallest unit that counts is the "group"
Which "collectivists"? When? Where? Are you talking about Distributists?
>Libertarians are proponents of the family and of voluntary groups
Like Distributists, Agrarians, and such? Then why are AnCap books focused on individual rights?

>The point about those few creators is that without them, we'd still all be alive, yes, but we'd be living as peasants on the same land as our ancestors. Society is brought forward by very few inventors, explorers, risk-takers
Obviously false. the Agricultural Revolution developed simultaneously in different ways in different areas over generations. Same with metal working. The history of overall development in well documented societies like China, etc., is primarily incremental growth over generations brought about in broad areas.
The myth of the great inventor who changes everything is a product of sensationalism from rather recent periods. Were their individual that did great stuff? Sure.
But the transition to broad irrigation systems for increased crop yields was generations of farmers; writing was from priests wanting to keep track of who had already paid taxes; etc.
Look at the collapse of the Western Roman Empire; hundreds of local leaders stepped in and kept things going despite the loss of trade, etc. Some of the greatest advances in European history came during a time of hundreds of small, relatively isolated, states from millions of local innovative developments.
When Reardon vanished the board would have made sure competent administrators kept the place running at a profit, just like in Real Life.

>Stop equating modern liberalism with libertarianism.
Good thing I never did that.

>not wanting to read about the misadventures of 1940s businessmen on cocaine that have an unhealthy obsession with trains screw over everybody including themselves

Is this thread just a lolbertarian autist and a regular autist arguing with each other?

>written by a retard complete with novella length speeches and in godawful style

I'd rather just play Bioshock again.

Like I said, just skip the long speeches. I like the style outside of the speeches but that's just personal preference. Bioshock is very good though, it's like the sequel to Atlas Shrugged. I should play it again too.

>I guess during the Industrial Revolution when regulation didn't yet exist
You mean other than the Poor Laws (that prevented the movement of laborers and fixed wages), the Statute of Artificers (which controlled manufacturing of almost all goods and set price limits on raw materials and controlled profit taking), the Navigation Laws and the Royal Charters (that limited what could be shipped, how it was shipped, where it could be sold, established minimum and maximum prices, *who* could ship it, *when* it could be shipped, established tariffs and duties, and limited profits on luxury goods), the Usury Laws (that controlled interest rates, loan terms, etc.), the Royal Bank Charter (that controlled who could issue loans, how they were issued, etc. and taxed interest on loans) and the Bubble Act (that heavily regulated joint stock groups)
You mean "other than those rather strict government regulations on labor, wages, shipping, manufacturing, loans, debt, as well as taxes, tariffs, and duties", right?
FFS, it is almost like you don't know what you are talking about!

>They lowered prices and undercut competitors. I don't see the problem here. How is lower prices not always better for consumers
They used cash reserves to sell at a loss until competitors were driven out, then increased prices free of competition.
They used their large volume to demand that railroads not only give them a steep discount but heavily increase shipping for competitors
They then used their contracts to demand that only Standard Oil be allowed to have pipelines that crossed railroad tracks everyone else couldn't
Then, because they controlled access to oil, coal, and were majorly in control of the railroads, they demanded steel companies give them steep discounts *and* refuse to sell piping and storage tank to their competitors.
It went on and on. They used local monopoly power to drive out competitors, then jack up prices, then seize a new market the same way until they could erect very strict entrance barriers to competitors until they were a hair away from taking total monopoly control over energy, steel, and rail in the US *without* any government controls.
Remember the original pint?
I do.

>Which "collectivists"? When? Where? Are you talking about Distributists?
He's talking about identity politics. Reducing people down to "blacks" or "gays" or whatever else they identify as.

Libertarianism rejects this. So while it seems focused on "individual rights" there's no need to be selfish or individualistic. It's just an acknowledgement that we are individual people and belonging to particular races or sexual orientations doesn't define us. I'm sure there are many libertarians who want to reduce society down to selfish individuals, but that's never been the mainstream position. Reducing it down to family is common and voluntary association the norm. Just because I have certain rights as an individual, doesn't mean I'm going to live alone in a cabin fending off other individuals for the rest of my life. People don't have rights by virtue of being black. They have rights by virtue of being human. That's all that is acknowledged. Why do you think libertarians homeschool so often? Because they don't care about their children? It's the opposite.

I'm a fan of Rand's fiction and even I can tell she was a pretty bad philosopher.

>She never seriously engaged critics of her ideas
This.

Those sound like great regulations. I'm sure preventing movement of laborers and controlling what was shipped was of great benefit to the economy and to people.

Standard Oil monopoly myth has been debunked a million times.

www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE2005/articles/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf

mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil

thepoliticalinformer.com/predatory-price-cutting/

theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company/

>Food regulations are among the most egregious. Government meat regulations are essentially what created the near monopoly of meat production that we have now. And it hasn't made food safer. In fact, by most accounts it's probably become worse. What's wrong with the old. local system of food production? High regulation barriers limit entry to the marketplace and they also prevent my neighbor (someone I trust) from selling me good meat. Now I have to go to 1 of 4 giant corporations, who are responsible for new contamination cases every year.

t. someone who unfortunatelydidnt die of foodborne parasites, contaminants, or carcinogenic pesticides when he was a toddler.

>fire and building safety code
>A list of literal wankery. People were fine before any of this legislation and they'd be fine without it.
-Triangle Shirtwaist Fire
-Cocoanut Grove Fire
-Top Story Club Fire
-dozens of building and bridge collapses
Somehow, I don't think the thousands of people who died trapped in burning buildings because they were full of oil and had locked exits did just fine. Or the people crushed in the buildings that collapsed on them because they were shoddily built and maintained.
>The funny thing about you statists is how strongly you believe that corporations would run amok without the government keeping them in line
Maybe its because we see it happening every day
>Barriers enforced by what? In the absence of the state, what barriers?
The first Sacramento Ferry had a team of hired men that would beat up anyone else that carried people across that local stretch of water. Other ferry operators were burned out.
Standard Oil's tactics have already been mentioned.

>I guess during the Industrial Revolution when regulation didn't yet exist, we saw a great decline in civilization. Oh wait, that's fucking wrong.

I see you havent done any historical research, but you realize that having children working in factories and mines not only vastly increased childhood mortality, but created an indentured underclass right? It was only through massive disasters and scandals and daily death rates that regulation was enforced. Such circumstances to me certainly do sound like a decrease in quality of civilization.

Whether it was good or bad, it points out that the original statement was a lie.

>thepoliticalinformer.com/predatory-price-cutting/
Read it - it is a bit of theory and then this comment
>"Standard Oil most likely didn't use predatory price cutting..."
which links to other speculation.
The actual congressional testimony, however, *demonstrated* that Standard Oil *did* use predatory price cutting.
so - bullshit
>mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil
Yet more theorizing that predatory price cutting is 'too risky' in the abstract, ignoring the case law that demonstrates it happened.
>theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company/
*MORE* discussion of why predatory pricing is a bad idea while ignoring the evidence it happened.
So oyu think a group of links to Objectivist blogs that all use the exact same non-evidentiary sources to say the exact same thing that ignores the facts is a 'debunking'?
No wonder you're a Libertarian - you're retarded!

I'm pretty new to Libertarian theory.

Am I an idiot if I like the Libertarian idea of personal liberty but think there needs to be some form of taxing government to enforce people's personal liberties?

No, it makes you a classical liberal.

You see government as a contract between the state and its citizens to maintain a balance between providing for their security in return for representative taxation, and maintaining their individual liberty, while always erring on the side of personal liberty.

Hoppe shows pretty clearly that this leads to a Tragedy of the Commons situation with *government*, a fascinating insight

except she's also dissed by fellow right wingers

In the US Liberals have never been even 25% of the population

how is that horrible?

You didn't read it if you don't remember all the farming that takes place in Galt's Gulch.

Also, they like doing it and are good at it. They even have a restaurant. Yes, the comic is agitprop for people who have also never read it. Who will build the roads tier.

Because her worldview is fucking stupid and wrong. We're demonstrably social creatures who need compassion and care for one another, and her philosophy is the same as some edgy 15 year old who's angry because he got picked on, and who in response, wrote an angry novel about how he was totally going to shoot up the school, kill all the jocks, stab his crush to death, while saying "Pssh...nothin personel...m'love"

Also, her being on social benefits at the end of her life was basically reality giving her and her entire life's work the ultimate fuck-you. She was literally BTFO by the universe itself

Because she writes political propaganda? Political propaganda has never been well recieved in the novel format

Telephone polls tend to skew older, and therefore more conservative

>better an caps to read
Confirmed for not knowing Rand. She regarded anarcho capitalism and Libertarianism in general as extremely evil.

>All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. - Rand

I once saw Rand deep throat a tennis racket handle at a party

That comic is the ultimate "I haven't even read Atlas Shrugged" indicator.
>Dagny spends like a month of her life out in a cabin in the woods alone.
>Literally all of the heroes of Galt’s Gulch live in houses they built themselves, and cook/clean/work for themselves. There are no servants there.
>The philosophy professor (Hugh Akston) is even a LITERAL FRY COOK.

The book goes into great detail about how these people are entirely self-sufficient, then this atrocity of a comic pretends like they spent the entire book in penthouses ordering room service.

>natural right you're born with

Show me on the cabbage patch doll where your liberty organ is

>Randian Liberalism
>Right wing

top keks. Silly Americans.

Well, OP, if you showed up to MIT with your mom's bodice ripper novels and wanted to discuss how unfair life was to the misunderstood pirate and what MIT was going to do about it, how hard do you think they should laugh at you?

Yep, this.

Because boiling down Rand to individual rights is like boiling down Marx to fairness.

>never
>chart starts in 1992

I mean since rand said it in the book that must be how it would actually be right

>gee how did they have food? those rich scums can't have farmed!

>The book explicitly states that Lawrence Hammond became a farmer in Galt's Gulch

>t-that's not how it would actually be xD

please kys

>The default state of men is living in a "herd" of kins of about ~50 people

Sounds pretty comfy desu.

Didn't someone run the stats and find out that Veeky Forums is comprised of about 50 regular posters for the most part? Maybe that's why it feels so natural here.

How isn't she right wing?

>Howard Roark isn't real.
So what? All of fiction isn't real either. She created perfect heroes of what she wanted people to become and aspire to be, not that they had to be humane or real. In Nietzschean terms, Howard Roark is simply the pinnacle of Apollonian individualism, fighting against the Dionysus collectivist Toohey.

Honestly, a lot of Ayn Rand makes sense when you understand that she's just idealizing master morality and confine her version of the Ubermensch in a capitalist society.

You don't understand, that comic is from the perspective of a 'parasite' who doesn't want to work and hates working. He thought he was going to a communistic post scarcity utopia instead of a new patch of land where you just have to work for yourself.
Seriously, that last panel
>this sucks
A randian hero would've been happy just working for his own earnings. A ubermensch just happy to be alive, working for his own interest and living.

My nigger.

>they're bad cuz they, like, want to be left but that's too mainstream and stuff

typical Randian response. about the extent of discourse to criticism you'll see from her

>Firstly, her life view revolves around ubermenschen that do not exist in real life.

Who is Elon Musk? Steve Jobs? Peter Thiel?

Autists are a master race.

>Somehow, I don't think the thousands of people who died trapped in burning buildings because they were full of oil and had locked exits did just fine. Or the people crushed in the buildings that collapsed on them because they were shoddily built and maintained.
those are filthy poors, the untermensch that are holding back the john galts of this world with their pathetic requests for a living wage, work safety and similar blasphemies

peter "I want to take your blood inside me" thiel, steve "lol cancer can't be cured by medicine I'll just snort some amazonian tall grass and have an etheric oil massage" jobs
elon "I don't want to live on this planet any more" musk

Fortunately cast narcissists with slightly above average IQs?

2 of the 3 think Trump is brilliant and will save us.

>The book goes into great detail about how these people are entirely self-sufficient
Proving you've never worked on a farm.
Farming is very labor intensive. Even with modern mechanization farming takes a LOT of work.
That mechanization, BTW, requires a lot of support.
The comic is making a very simple, direct point. If you are going to be "self-sufficient" including growing all of your own food be prepared for 6-16 hours of hard labor EVERY FUCKING DAY just for the food part!
Dagny gets to the gulch she hears
>"So and so is mining for gold"
*Incredibly* labor intensive.
>"We all built our own houses"
Who made the tools? Processed the lumber? Made the hinges? Made the fucking *glass windows*?! Who was working the fields for you while you built it by your fucking self?
>Francisco is mining for copper
Really? How long each day *by himself* is he driving a shaft into solid fucking rock in between slopping the hogs and weeding the barley?
Half the fucking strikers in the valley are old men with backgrounds as musicians and college professors, yet we are expected to believe these guys wake up at the crack of dawn and tend to a farm all day and make a go of it? Do you have any idea how many farmers with experience, formal training, and a staff struggle?
We aren't even to the fact that the Gulch is at 8,000' elevation! You're growing hay and a little barley and a yard garden at that altitude, kid, and the short growing season means not a ton of it, either.
That fucking comic points out just how little Ayn Rand knew about the things she was writing of.

I grew up in Amish country, working on farms.
Let's see "how much farming" was going on
>The judge was doing was running chickens and a dairy
A dairy requires a herd of cattle and a bull. You will need both pasturage and hay fields and, at that altitude, a lot of it and you must prepare for a long winter. Chickens require grain, management, etc. he's working about 12 hours a day, every day, and since he works alone producing about 10 excess gallons of milk a day and maybe as many as 2 dozen excess eggs a day. He almost certainly can't produce enough grain and meat for himself.
Next long-term resident is Mulligan
>Mulligan grows wheat and tobacco
OK, that's fucking funny as shit. Tobacco is not a food crop, obviously, but it also won't grow in Colorado at 8,000' altitude! He might as well be said to be growing bananas or pineapples. Tobacco requires a long, hot growing season and a long, dry autumn. With moist ground.
So he isn't growing tobacco.
Guess how much wheat he's growing there?
He'll need to work about 16 hours a day during planting and harvesting seasons, 6-8 hours a day tending fields, etc. during growing. If he has a tractor, fuel, etc. he might manage, oh, 30 acres.
>I am being generous
That's about 1,200 bushels of wheat in a year, which is pretty solid. Does he have the equipment to process it? Store it? It takes a lot of work to turn wheat berries into pasta, you know!
Next long term guy is the composer Halley
>He planted fruit trees
LOL!
Know how long it takes an apple tree to produce fruit? Know how long it takes at 8,000'? Know how much fruit per tree, tree per acre, etc.?
In six years he'll start getting apples, folks.,
Six fucking years
And he'll need a lot of land that needs management. Apple trees only produce decently for about 20 years, so you have to plant entire orchards every 5 years and rotate through them
>You knew that, right? Rand obviously didn't!
So from the long term residents you get wheat in the Fall, some milk and eggs every day, and some apples in a few years.
When the Colorado people started flooding in the gulch could support no more than about 15 people, foodwise, and no meat.
There is also no oil (for cooking!), etc.
The entire concept is ridiculous.

>Posts actual problems with Rand's writing and philosophy
>Ayndroids are too busy arguing that the make-believe people in her shitty novel did too grow enough food to refute the actual points

>The book says that a guy built a farm
>Doesn't realize that farming is hard-ass work that requires 6-16 hours of hard labor every day
>The cartoon is about having to work hard just to grow food
>"Why don't people take Randroids seriouslt?"
*snicker*

Actually, Hammond ran a grocery store

She's focuses on individualism. Can't get more left-wing than that.