>Used to be a socialist
>Read Atlas Shrugged
>Realize that relying on the government to nanny you at best stifles one's self improvement and at worst actively threatens one's personal liberty
>Finally grow up and become an independent adult
>Never been happier
Does Rand get so much hate here because this board is full of NEETs who rely on autismbux to survive?
this place used to love rand and Rothbard before reddit and leftypol invaded and started pushing their cultural marxist bullshit
>socialist
you don't know what this word means
All of you are brainlets and ought to leave.
Bye!
Socialism =/= state capitalism
this. if you don't believe it post a thread about marx while american high school children are in school. No replies, but on the weekends or the second school gets out the thread will be flooded with marxists
Not really. Ayn Rand gets hate because her philosophical propositions are uninteresting, much like her prose.
>i can't tell you why she's bad she just is waaaaahahhhhhhh!!!!!
reddit my man, right on time!
Who are you quoting?
I liked Rand as a teen, then I grew up and realized that it was actuall good to be kind and generous.
What I still believe I learned from Rand:
>Be honest with yourself. If you are helping someone to make yourself feel good, don't bullshit about it
>most people act primarily out of self interest
>every single action you perform is a choice: including your reaction to being attacked or threatened
>if it doesn't make sense, something is wrong. Check your premises.
Also, Assange is kind of like Francisco d'Anconio/Galt and their crew of buddies.
lol Fuck off JIDF
Relying on the confiscated product of others is a pretty scummy thing to do, and developing your own strength and independence feels amazing, but objectivism has a lot of problems.
lol Fuck off JIDF
I read it over coffee this morning, sadly there was nothing substantial.
Rand is shitted on because she, like Dostoevskij, is incapable of properly systematizing her philosophy through a structured article or text. She preferred to write door stoppers instead of concise and properly articulated literature. Plus, what does she really adds up to philosophy? Stammler pretty much says all she writes about 50 years earlier and in a much more academic way.
God I want to tell you that Dost is totally different but his shit is undeniably way too long. Like people say "oh, those giant Russian novels," but Tolstoy and Solzhenitsyn are completely different, the former writes characters so gripping and lovable that you cannot but read on and the latter writes with such style, he demands to be read. Dostoevsky is downright plodding in comparison.
>I've been here for 2 years, I'm an oldfag!
haha I said something incorrect and you replied that means I trolled you
Rand doesn't think it's wrong to be kind or generous. She thinks it's wrong for the state to force you to commit to "the public good".
It's actually very likely that under a libertarian state, people would be far more generous than they are now.
This book changed my life view, along with the book Anthem by Rand.
>autismbux
what did he mean by this?
The difference being that reading Dostoevsky is actually enjoyable, while Rand is an insufferable bore incapable of the slightest bit of nuance
t. underage american
Ayn Rand was stupid as fuck, I unironically think so
>It's actually very likely that under a libertarian state, people would be far more generous than they are now.
What do you base that on? I base a contrary supposition on literature regarding the Wild West.
And for this reason, and probably also because he bases that statement on literature by Ayn Rand, I declare you smarter than that poster
I'd be more likely to donate if I didn't pay so much in taxes
1. People would have their untaxed money to donate
2. People would set up public services with voluntary funding (to replace government services)
3. It's been proven that conservatives are more charitable than liberals
And obviously if libertarianism is true, people would generally be richer
>People would have their untaxed money to donate
The people would have their untaxed money, but not the obligation to donate anything.
>People would set up public services with voluntary funding (to replace government services)
So, basically government but without dependable revenue to fund services.
>It's been proven that conservatives are more charitable than liberals
Show me. No, wait, don't show me - what has liberalism/conservatism got to do with libertarianism?
>And obviously if libertarianism is true, people would generally be richer
>obviously
Going to need some clarification on that.
But you wouldn't do it, because you'd find a another suitable excuse. You're creative that way!
Ayn Rand threads are the most perplexing polarization on this board.
Even more puzzling: people who hate Rand are usually the one criticizing the ones who love Rand for being misogynistic, at least that's my experience. I still have yet to met a communist/marxist/feminist who like Ayn Rand.
Agreed. Falling for bait should be an instant ban
>The people would have their untaxed money, but not the obligation to donate anything.
You can't donate money if you don't have money. The less money you take from people the more they will have to donate. Also, without the altruistic sensation of taxation ("giving back to society") there is incentive to make actual active donations. We can disagree over whether taxation is charity but either way, people do perceive it that way and if there weren't any taxes people wouldn't just lose their incentive to donate. In fact they would have more incentive without the possibility of policies that redistribute wealth. If you can just vote money into people's pockets there's no point doing it yourself.
>So, basically government but without dependable revenue to fund services.
Public services shouldn't be able to depend on certain revenue. Fixed income for service providers is the worst possible scenario for consumers, it's terrible for accountability and terrible for efficiency. Public service providers should have to give consumers what they need in order to receive funding, not the other way around.
Regardless, charity would increase to replace public services and welfare. Taxes and donations are different.
>Show me. No, wait, don't show me - what has liberalism/conservatism got to do with libertarianism?
If we lived in a libertarian society it would probably have been the fault of conservatives. A small government society would attract conservatives, and conservatism. Capitalism, private property, individualism, financial independence and every other libertarian principle, are conducive to conservatism.
>Going to need some clarification on that.
I said "if". If libertarian claims are true, people would be richer and would be able to donate more money.
>Turning to woman's opinion
>On anything whatsoever
>Especially politics, of all things
Top kek lads
>any opinion i disagree with is bait
nice b8