You should be able to do this

I'm not a full-blown Randite but she's been triggering lefties hard for years since at least the 80s. Definitely way before Trump came a long. For this reason I'm inclined to like her.

I agree with much of what she says regarding the overburdening state, although the "cult" around her is another story. They tend to be a bit irritating and always trying to pick shit with the Austrians, Rothbardians, and Misesians, -- which in my opinion, are far more intellectual and know their economics more, even if there is some overlap.

>Objective morality
Cannot exist. Men make morals. Then evil men invent gods to enforce their morals. These evil men prey upon the fears and ignorance of innocents to subjugate them into mental slavery and tithing thievery.

All human valuation and action is based upon man's perception of what will maximally benefit his own utility. This isn't opinion, it's objective and observable fact. Man's own utility is literally his summum bonum, the standard with which 'good' is defined and measured.

Ironically, altruists only espouse a philosophy of altruism because they believe that is the course of action that will maximally further their own utility. When they do 'give' to others, they only do so because they believe that is what will maximally further their own utility. Notice how they never 'give' when they expect such 'altruism' to decrease their own happiness? For example, I've never seen a shrieking liberal proclaiming that the good of others is the greatest good offer to pay my Netflix subscription, suck my boyfriend's cock, or do some millionaire pedophile's dishes and laundry free of charge. If asked to, they'd likely - if not certainly - refuse. Because at the end of the day they're rationally self-interested actors like literally all other human beings - as man's happiness is intrinsically and naturally his summum bonum.

Attached: 1536629723485.png (565x541, 157K)

>Rand didn't create Objectivism through rigorous process
She's distorting Aristotolian eudaimonia and you were dumb enough to fall for it.

>suck my boyfriend's cock
You have a boyfriend?

I was just pretending

The greatest good lies in the reunification of man with the divine. I am a brilliant philosopher, no need to answer I already know how profound what I said was.

This short reply alone blows away all of Rand's story books. It just goes to show the big gap between everyday male philosophers and 'professional' female philosophers.

>Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum
check mate

Attached: 1475373737697.jpg (600x600, 49K)

What the fuck does Olive Oyl have to do with this faggit?

I agree. Short and sweet vs drawn out and obsolete.

I won't because Ayn Rand was right about everything

It assumes that everyone will always work to the best of their ability to promote the common good. It doesn't take slackers into account. Also doesn't account for the social bonds that tie people together and allow them to survive more easily, even without a fair distribution of labor.

>Olive Oyl
I had no idea that it was Olive Oyl.
Just a random big nose.

You are.... not thinking about Objectivism.

Attached: image.jpg (236x356, 91K)

> you were dumb enough to fall for it.
You'd like that wouldn't you?

youtu.be/lFbROEFqG1A

Attached: 20170809_224910 - Copy.jpg (1300x1239, 208K)

Humans are social animals they require collective action to get anything done that means government, law, order, etc all supplied by some sovereign body. The sovereign body that most efficiently and accurately meets the needs of the people is one that is representative of those people's interest to one extent or the other and isn't solely privately owned.

It doesn't value cultural cohesion and tradition, and it seems to emphasize social atomization to detrimental degrees.

The government is made of people who are the worst people on the planet.

I don't want to refute it.

Ayn Rand died while she was collecting social security and medicare. A hypocrite who couldn't even follow the philosophy she started. Almost like it's inherently flawed and just an excuse to back up terribly uninformed opinions because you feel like events that happened were more "right" than others.

And she thought the fucktard Thomas Aquineas was a good moral compass to base philosophy off of. Give me Averros anyday over that Papal fuckboi.

If there is objective truth then there must be objective morality. Also
>People invent "gods"
Your autism is showing, user

You should be able to eat 3 meals a day

> Ayn Rand died while she was collecting social security and medicare. A hypocrite who couldn't even follow the philosophy she started.
I’m just going to go out on a limb here and say that a best selling author probably paid far more in taxes than they could ever take in social security benefits.

Attached: image.jpg (736x1104, 320K)

What does objectivism put forward that disagrees with what I said? You are probably right, but why?

Objectivism is not concerned with the common good.

The point is that her own philosophy about self-sufficiency didn't work for her.

Isn't a stable and productive society a goal though? Or does it champion anarchy, and stepping on those less productive in order to further yourself?

Well then she should have put more money into retirement form all her book sales if she made so much money selling them according to her own philosophies. Paying taxes is one thing but then living your whole life complaining about how evil they are only in the end to benefit from tax-payer funded institutions is hypocrisy.

Ayn Rand didn't care about the common good, one of her early "heroes" was a literal serial killer who she admired solely because he didn't care about other people.

Where's the evidence for that?

>I'm not a full-blown Randite but she's been triggering lefties hard for years since at least the 80s. Definitely way before Trump came a long. For this reason I'm inclined to like her.

Hahaha yes let's trigger da libs! The Donald is that way--->

You can only have stability or productivity, not both.

Stability requires the will to do without and expand and consume no more than you need to or can afford.

Productivity always requires someone somewhere being taken advantage of. So long as we have a society where people are forced into servitude no matter how benevolent we disguise it as, the ruling class of society will always work in some way to keep the poor and stupid continually poor and stupid to their advantage. Unless we all work simply because we understand we all have some role to fill in society, we end up creating imbalances.

The ideal society is really a hypocrisy that balances both options in alternations. Productivity to some degree but ideally capped so as to reserve some work for future workers as well as not deplete resources totally.

>Isn't a stable and productive society a goal though?

Not for Ayn Rand. For Ayn Rand you should not even consider the well being of society or other people. You are supposed to be an enlightened isolated individual who gives no shits about other people because they are just an evil viscous stupid mob of animals.

> her own philosophy about self-sufficiency didn't work for her.
After having massive amounts of wealth stolen from her.

You need to actually read about objectivism, I’m not going to teach you basically everything about it.

Kek. Do you think Ayn Rand paid more in taxes than she took out in social security? Yes or no? If she can reclaim her stolen money, why not do it?

>Productivity always requires someone somewhere being taken advantage of.

You are legit retarded

Objectivism is awesome. Read as much Rand as you can, but fiction and non-fiction. Her writings on epistemology can actually make you a smarter human, if you are into that subject.

Rand does care about the "common good", but not in the socialist welfare state sort of way. Rand argues for a very strong government that exacts justice against criminals. That is the proper definition of a common good.

Refute this anons post without memes or strawmans.
Form a cohesive, objective argument against it.

Objectivism is just imperfect Buddhism. It gets it kind of right by trying to understand that life is just a series of events you can't control and to attach morality or meaning to them only creates suffering instead of simply exhisting. But then it bags you down with all kinds of emotional garbage and materialistic pandering telling you that the only thing that matters is personal happiness when even science shows we're happier when we share group happiness versus individual happiness. Happiness itself is a deeply complex human emotion that is designed to make us want to achieve communal goals that in anatomy is like a "reward" system to subconsciously program you in an organic way to do things beneficial for your own survival.

Attached: 3E05026500000578-4285622-image-a-18_1488827777873.jpg (475x357, 36K)

You are forced to take SS and medicare in the US dummy.

Rand's words as she complements a serial killer

>Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

>This echoes almost word for word Rand's later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: "He was born without the ability to consider others."

Objectivism isn't absolute. Otherwise there would be no objective.

Absolutism is better than Objectivism because it gets rid of subjective nature and how it is observed by the individual.

I don't give a flying fuck about objectivism. I guess you have no simple answer for my question?

Woman gets wet thinking about a serial killer; news at 11

This.

/thread

So they held her at gunpoint and told her to keep the money instead of giving it away to an Objectivist association?

> I don’t care about objectivism
> now answer my question about objectivism!

Almost like Objectivism normalizes sociopathic tendencies as virtues huh?

Attached: __ayanami_and_shikinami_kantai_collection_drawn_by_wachi_hati1186__b3d4f36841da15e6c9829bfba7af06aa. (966x1142, 423K)

>no more than you need to or can afford
And is this not for the common good? My point was that not everyone will be "stable" according to your definition. Objectivism doesn't provide a solution for the gibsmedats.

And yet you praise her for it

There's no almost about it

This is who Ayn Rand loved so much

>One afternoon, Hickman drove up to Mount Vernon Junior High school in Los Angeles, telling administrators he'd come to pick up "the Parker girl" -- her father, Perry Parker, was a prominent banker. Hickman didn't know the girl's first name, so when he was asked which of the two Parker twins, he answered, "the younger daughter." Then he corrected himself: "The smaller one."

>No one suspected his motives. The school administrator fetched young Marion, and brought her out to Hickman. Marion obediently followed Hickman to his car as she was told, where he promptly kidnapped her. He wrote a ransom note to Marion's father, demanding $1,500 for her return, promising the girl would be left unharmed. Marion was terrified into passivity -- she even waited in the car for Hickman when he went to mail his letter to her father. Hickman's extreme narcissism comes through in his ransom letters, as he refers to himself as a "master mind [sic]" and "not a common crook." Hickman signed his letters "The Fox" because he admired his own cunning: "Fox is my name, very sly you know." And then he threatened: "Get this straight. Your daughter's life hangs by a thread."

>Hickman's last ransom note to Marion's father is where this story reaches its disturbing end. Hickman fills the letter with hurt anger over her father's suggestion that Hickman might deceive him, and "ask you for your $1500 for a lifeless mass of flesh I am base and low but won't stoop to that depth." What Hickman didn't say was that as he wrote the letter, Marion had already been chopped up into several lifeless masses of flesh.

I had a couple of buddies who got deep into objectivism, and night on of them couldn't figure out if it was okay to bum a cigarette off the other friend. Objectivism wants nothing to do with the practicalities of real life.

Objectivism is the belief that the importance of self exceeds the importance of the collective.
Humanity, for all her endured existence, has thrived in civilization.
Either; we are meant to be individuals without law, or; we thrive within the confines of order.

The latter is demonstrable, whereas there is no evidence to support the idea that there is any intrinsic value in self other than to serve the common good, for the greater good.

>Refute Objectivism without memes or strawmans. Form a cohesive, objective argument against it.
The map is not the territory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation
Reality cannot be known directly and any "knowledge" we have about it is necessarily an incomplete approximation. The rest of her philosophy was a mixed bag of random crap, she seemed to have a poor grasp of austrian economics, and was totally clueless about political science.

Just having a conversation here user. I'll maybe learn something if you tell me, but I'm not going to go read Ayn Rand either.

>Then he took a pocket knife and cut a hole in her throat. Then he cut off each arm to the elbow. Then he cut her legs off at the knees. He put the limbs in a cabinet. He cut up the body in his room at the Bellevue Arms Apartments. Then he removed the clothing and cut the body through at the waist. He put it on a shelf in the dressing room. He placed a towel in the body to drain the blood. He wrapped up the exposed ends of the arms and waist with paper. He combed back her hair, powdered her face and then with a needle fixed her eyelids. He did this because he realized that he would lose the reward if he did not have the body to produce to her father.

> Hickman packed her body, limbs and entrails into a car, and drove to the drop-off point to pick up his ransom; along his way he tossed out wrapped-up limbs and innards scattering them around Los Angeles. When he arrived at the meeting point, Hickman pulled Miriam's [sic] head and torso out of a suitcase and propped her up, her torso wrapped tightly, to look like she was alive--he sewed wires into her eyelids to keep them open, so that she'd appear to be awake and alive. When Miriam's father arrived, Hickman pointed a sawed-off shotgun at him, showed Miriam's head with the eyes sewn open (it would have been hard to see for certain that she was dead), and then took the ransom money and sped away. As he sped away, he threw Miriam's head and torso out of the car, and that's when the father ran up and saw his daughter--and screamed.

This is who Rand said had a "genuinely beautiful soul"

> And yet you praise her for it
Idk what you’re talking about. Ayn Rand was a person and a woman and had all the weaknesses that come along with that.
I do find it hilarious that a thread about objectivism becomes a mudslinging toward Ayn rand instead of, you know, addressing objectivism.

Based. Thanks for the backup user

she was just into accelerationism user.

Attached: 1k98465i143674i61684r6879143651a4646.jpg (350x602, 42K)

Her love of a serial killer wasn't an accident, psychopathy and selfishness was the core of her philosophy and its the core of objectivism.

>Have money taken from you.
>Government gives some of it back.
>You shouldn't take your own money back hypocrite!

Attached: 1539303689257.jpg (645x729, 135K)

Objectivism is a meme. Human nature is collectivist/tribalist and the only way you can run society.

BASED

After reading all replies I must say this has been a really fulfilling thread. What I got from it:
>Jow Forums doesn't understand Objectivism
>criticism to objectivism is aimed at Ayn Rand as a person instead
>applying Kantian morality to what was an anti-Kant philosophy
>shitposting and memes
Objectivism aside, any attempt at serious discussion is clearly beyond Jow Forums's reach anyway but the few serious answers were appreciated.

Attached: 1539568876540.png (888x746, 648K)

So it's okay to be a leech as long as you helped other leeches?

Actual answer were given about how Objectivism encourages sociopath virtues and how Objectivism doesn't make sense when every massive Empire and great person in history has done so not through objectivity but through compromising their own happiness to fulfil a greater plan than just their own. Did Augustus assume control of the roman empire himself? Did Napoleon not crown himself king because he wanted to signify that he was a King of his own merit and chosen by the people and not God? Did Cyrus form the Achievement Empire from simply doing whatever he wanted?

Not to mention Objectivists seriously think if you leave capitalism on it's own everything will remain free for people (look up the Rockerfellers and J.P. Morgan if you think laissez-faire capitalism works so well)

tl;dr Happiness is a terrible metric for indicating moral objectivity since happiness is not a universal metric by which we can ascertain any kind of values. Case and point: there is not legal grounds in America for enforcing "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" outside of when people want to do some morality posing for political points.

bootlicker detected

>Refute Objectivism without memes or strawmans. Form a cohesive, objective argument against it.
Rich fuckers don't need a religion to justify their greed.

> without strawmans.
ppppffffffiiine.

Objectivism on it's surface is fine. It's a good thing to re-evaluate tradition and look at things objectively. But objectivism doesn't live in a theoretical vacuum removed from it's history BECAUSE YOU ATTACHED IT TO A FUCKING PICTURE OF AYN FUCKING RAND. And Ayn Rand's views on politics and philosophy are completely bunk. It's a sort of extreme libertarian-ism and it completely ignores the need for government and things like police while it pretends contracts will be upheld by.... something or other.

you cant refute a is a....retard.