/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>1354

I know the thread is just a "Share your thoughts" thread but actually present an argument.

A list of literal ad hominem, not insults, ad hominem isn't going to cut it.

And I don't even fundamentally disagree with you, I think Randianism involves about as much wishful thinking as marxism.

Randianism involving people being essentially objective, Marxism relying on the assumed worth of the proletariat.

>died poor and alone

>she left her estate to her sole heir, Leonard Peikoff

>he used some of the millions she owned because of fantastic book sales to make the Ayn Rand society.

If you are on an image board asking about philosophy, you are really off, anon.

Objectivism says fuck others unless I have everything I need first. It works off the ideas that survival is of the fittest, and that the greatest government to fit that concept is capitalism. To you socialists and communists, you forget human desire and free will.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2JRFY4SUH3CVL/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0452011876#R2JRFY4SUH3CVL

>engineer refuses to work with coworkers or boss because he knows better, because he is an objectivist

>engineer gets fired

Objectivism debunked

ethical egoism is subjective

>>318

Your concluding statement shows your fundamental understanding of her philosophy. Yes, people should do what they want, for good or ill is what she's saying. According to Objectivism people should ONLY do what they want, regardless of the consequences simply because their existence is finite, material and 'objective' and anything imposing on their will (state, god, ideology) dilutes the authenticity of their will. Will and reason alone functions as the opposite of those and forms the engine of Objectivist philosophy.

It's basically an extreme take on Nietzschism. And one even more pessimistic on the fundamental level.

>>317

>You can't start at the premise that something cannot have two contradictory qualities at once, and jump over a few minor connections and some meandering about consciousness to land at the conclusion that our senses are objective and all that nonsense.

So basically Descartes?

>Start at a vague premise about self existence

>Jump over a few connections and some meandering about consciousness to land at the conclusion the objective world and our senses are intertwined and all that nonsense

>???

>God exists!

>>1470

>And I don't even fundamentally disagree with you, I think Randianism involves about as much wishful thinking as marxism.

>Randianism involving people being essentially objective, Marxism relying on the assumed worth of the proletariat.

Is it odd that I see a lot of strengths in both of them, but see where they fail absolutely with reality? It makes me feel like that's why we need dialectics. There's something to be made out of complete objectivity and depending only on ultimate reality, and being dependent/reliable to a state and social reality, the problem is just reconciling the two.

If you believe in solipsism for instance than Objectivism makes sense. If your root of idealogical thought hails from the Aristotelian ideal than enough "magical thinking" makes it dubious however.

>>1474

It doesn't say fuck others, nor survival is paramount. Just that you should do what you want to do when confronting problems and reality rather than formulate your decisions based on anything else. Not religion, family, duty, morality or anything else. The reasoning and ultimate decisions rest on you.

If you're going to be altruistic, it has to be a genuine decision. And an objective one at that. Any way of saying "You should have empathy because humans are naturally social creatures" or broad generalizations will be inauthentic at best.

In theory the greatest form of government wouldn't be capitalism but socio-anarchy. But I doubt even Rand recognized that, or the radical nature of her philosophy.

>>314

I'd say she's a shitty writer and an ok philosopher, although she has her moments as a writer.

>>318

You have misunderstood her philosophy. You can still act in a manner others would call selfless if you, for some reason, derive a sense of fulfillment or pleasure from helping those in need. It is only when you deliberately act in the manner that hurts you the most that objectivism condemns you. Saving a stranger trapped in a burning car because you value human life is a selfish act. Choosing him over your beloved wife is not.

>>1354

You sound like you ripped all of this directly from some leftist blog. Not a single argument was presented that day.

>>1371

>Murray Rothbard saw this in Rand's cult and said that in it's individualism, it left no place for individuality.

Sounds interesting. Sauce?

>>2273

Ayn Rand rips off the 'invisible hand' and takes it as self-evident that the best actions always come from working for yourself. In fact, Adam Smith's intentions were not to tell people to always act in your best interests. The Wealth of Nations is a book about how a country can become richer than the other countries of the time, and if that included forming a monopoly, that technically was acceptable. After all, such is the self-interest of a rent-seeker.

That's not to say integrity did not trouble Adam Smith, and before that he wrote a whole separate book on the importance of a moral framework of founded on empathy. We can therefore be more forgiving of him, but to my knowledge Ayn Rand was a bitch who never wrote about empathy, because she simply didn't give a fuck about poor people.

However, you can get a good idea of what Objectivism leads to when you look at the followers, in the way a sociologist can understand where Christianity or Buddhism leads by looking at their followers, and the culture they build.

>>1470

>everything in that post was ad homnieum not philosophy

On behalf of that critic, I would like to say that it is legitimate to provide examples of how the followers of a doctrine behave, since they are supposed to be shining examples and if they behaved honorably their supporters would do the same. Just because this is where philosophy splits with empirical examples doesn't mean we can ignore history. Time has given results, and proven that Objectivists tend to be conceded assholes who dogmatically follow a path, blinded by a vision from their female messiah, and they would ruin the livelihoods of those freeloading poor people if they had the chance. They would do so in the name of deregulation and trickle down economics, while enriching big business. At the same time they would simultaneously lead the economy into the ground.

Remember Ayn Rand escaped Communism and was scarred in her adolescence because of her troubles. She was born into money and her Dad lost it and his business due to the revolution; her book might even be seen as her venting her anger at the poor for stealing from her family.

She was blinded by her hate for all Socialism when she perceived it happening again in America, under LBJ's great society, and she as she crusaded against what she saw as the enemy, she lost the ability to reason "objectively."

>>2274

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

She was pretty much a watered down Friedrich Nietzsche for the masses.

>>2448

NO WAY! She believed in objective morality.

She was anti-nihilist. She was an anti-anti-Christ forming her own religion.

>>2451

Frederich Nietzsche was anti nihilist. To be exact one of the problems I have withn Ayn Rand is she pretty much took Nietzsche and Stirners philosophy and filled them with 5,000,000 spooks, while appealing to the idiotic masses.

>>256

It's literal autism

The sane version is egoism

>>2452

He was anti-pessimism. He advocated for "hard nihilism" as opposed to what he termed as Schopenhauer's "soft nihilism."

>>2464

Well, actually to clarify, he was a pessimist, but he sought to affirm life through Amor fati.

Objectivism is "outsider philosophy" and like any academics, philosophers don't like outsiders.

It does have glaring problems as written by Rand, but no one is interested in taking it seriously and strengthening it, they just take cheap and easy shots at the expense of an eeeeebil capitalist non-academic outsider.

>>2474

>they just take cheap and easy shots at the expense of an eeeeebil capitalist non-academic outsider.

I think what plays into that is how Rand, at least in the recordings I've seen of her, comes off as a supremacist who looks at you as an equally barbaric fool if you don't convert to her thought within five minutes of having it explained to you.

I've also heard a lot of bad things, in passing, about how her clubs ran, literally being a cult if even half of what I encountered were true. I think the anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard once said something along the lines of Ayn Rand managing to be a "libertarian totalitarian".

Sure, none of this addresses her thought directly. I haven't read more than summaries of Objectivism, and have only seen the two Atlas Shrugged movies that have come out. But Rand seems like she was the type to pre-emptively alienate others. And so she has.

>>2478

Rothbard had her number, yeah. See his one-act play about her, Mozart was a Red.

But if she came from inside academia instead of outside of it, I think we'd see a book every few years or so from the academic press downplaying her faults and strengthening her philosophy into something useful. It's all politics, man.

>>2480

For me man, look at Rand and see if she was even the type of person who could bring herself to be in academia. She wasn't the type of person one could simply discuss things with. She was a prophet, not a peer.

>>2487

People tend to forget that academics are not unbiased, not even as a whole. In my field (german law) there is constant peer review of ideas. What this means is that one professor puts forth an idea and then three others jump on a strawman and pretend to have debunked it. More often than once have I found a rebuttal to an argumen, yet the argument kept being repeated for decades with no one ever addressing the rebuttal. Peer review is far from the hive mind of rationality that some atheists make it out to be.

>>256

Firstly, she works from the same starting point as Marx. She's a historical materialist.

Second, she assumes rationality.

Haidt is here to help me out on this one and I'm going to explain using the big three: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.

http://www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt%202001.pdf

Never, ever trust a person that claims an adherence solely to logic. What so many people forget so often is that logic is subjective even if reason isn't. Logic is a tool to get to a goal.

How does one find the destination? How can any person divine out what they want? Well, even assuming an objective reality surrounds us our experiences will always be subjective.

This creates the obvious problem of there being no set goal for any individual. Therefore, logically figuring out any philosophical system is retarded. Considering we use reason to justify ourselves instead of using logic to sort of find our "purpose" (because that's not possible) anyone claiming a solely 'rational' approach in a one size fits all manifesto is simply justifying their pathology, see: Marx.

>>2525

You have no idea what historical materialism is.

Second, you also have no idea of what Marx actually argued. Marx never claimed a universal logical proof for his beliefs, and mocked people who claimed an all accepting view that reconciled all positions. For Marx you're either one side of the class struggle, or you're on the other and neutrality was a sham. Like Hegel, Marx's philosophical aims are the understanding of the realization of freedom. For Marx freedom is negatively tied to alienation. You're a mockery of a student.

>>2526

Marx claimed a completely scientific view of the world. According to him world communism was destined to happen because there was literally no other way things could go. There were two classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Historical materialism is a theory of history solely tied to its own economic ability. Methods of production and ability to do so. If this were entirely true than the societies with the most easily available resources would also have the most complicated social structures.

>>2529

Yeah, you have no idea what historical and dialectical materialism is.

I love Ayn Rand because she made Communism look smart.

>>2547

This is the kind of stuff most "intellectuals" have to say about Rand. You demand sources, statistics, cite the names of half a dozen fallacies during the span of a single conversation, but when it comes to objectivism, all you have to say is "das dumb lol". Academics have made a pissing match out of who can give the least regard to objectivism. The goal is not to refute it, but to make it a laughingstock that no one can take serious anymore.

>>2556

>objectivism hasnt been seriously refuted by academics

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/

Better to say that even a Philosophy 101 student could figure out that Objectivism refutes itself.

http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/guestef1100/objectivism-is-wrong

>>2557

>objectivism hasnt been seriously refuted by academics

I never said that, I have said that academics are trying as hard as they can not to give any regard to objectivism, and I still stand by this statement. Half the critics mentioned in this article have probably not even read her works, and I'm not even sure how many of them are academics.

>Better to say that even a Philosophy 101 student could figure out that Objectivism refutes itself.

Oh, shit. Dat sentence and everything that follows:

>Animals exist to reproduce.

The theory of evolution is purely descriptive. It makes absolutely no normative statements of any kind, so it can't be used to support or refute any moral theories.

His other points may have been valid, but this one is a gross failure.

That pseudo-religious persecution complex.

How is Ayn Rand still a thing?

http://youtu.be/_8m8cQI4DgM

>>2547

Not really both are silly ;)

See I might be wrong here but my problem with objectivity is that it assumes that person can be selfless, or selfless for personal gain, or just non-abstracted selfishness. As far as I can tell, there is only selfishness. So she saying what ought to be, when it already is fundamental to human nature. I can not think of one action I could do that would not be selfish at it's core. Like self sacrifice to great cause, is it selfless, or do you get more pleasure, or perceived reward from being used as fuel?

>>2648

This is one of the many reasons I prefer Stirner to Rand.

>>2660

Academics don't have infinite time and interest to splurge on anything they feel like, mostly they'll have to deal with things that are somewhat relevant, somewhat popular, somewhat part of the "canon" and "the dialogue" and so on.

Academics talk about a ton of shit that isn't relevant at all. Gender studies? Completely irrelevant. As for the rest, that doesn't exactly exonerate them. They want to be popular, and part of the team? Good for them. Why should I give a shit?

>>2679

So you're advocating they talk about one more irrelevant thing? How impractical. And gender studies and feminism are popular subjects so it's natural to spend time to debate them. Their practitioners aren't as smug either. It is stupid how Objectivists preach unrestrained selfishness is always good for the whole of society according to sophistry, INSTEAD of resting their case on game theory which would negate Objectivism.

>>2687

>So you're advocating they talk about one more irrelevant thing? How impractical.

I'm advocating they don't selectively talk about irrelevant shit, so they either add Objectivism to the curriculum, or they stop talking about gender bullshit and the correlation between penis-size and happiness in a relationship.

>And gender studies and feminism are popular subjects so it's natural to spend time to debate them.

One of my professors did actually debate these things, and he was afraid of losing his pension claims over it. Most other academics are just engaging in a circlejerk about it, just like they do over the holocaust.

>Their practitioners aren't as smug either.

Have you ever talked to an actual feminist?

>It is stupid how Objectivists preach unrestrained selfishness is always good for the whole of society according to sophistry,

I'm not an objectivist, but I do agree with them that the altruism preached by leftists is simply abhorrent.

>INSTEAD of resting their case on game theory which would negate Objectivism.

Not exactly, as reality is not modelled after the prisoners dilemma.

>>2690

Game theory is bigger than the prisoner's dillemna, which is just one situation in a situation with NO repeating rounds. Tit for tat strategies (try cooperation first, but then respond the way others treat you) work better for the individual and the whole over multiple rounds of interaction. Objectivism refuses to accept cooperation or self-sacrifice can be in the best interests of everyone.

>gender studies

I took a class titled "gender and politics" which was taught by a male former family law lawyer, and I learned a lot. Basically he talked about past/current divorce law was and is, how marriage and property was and is, how the suffrage movement developed and led to the later waves in Feminism, and why the ERA failed. You're not giving the subject due credit.

>>2708

Actually, objectivism encourages cooperation, by arguing for strong property rights. They go even farther than that. Ever read Atlas Shrugged? All the main characters refuse to get into positions of extreme power, especially John Galt. They all let go of their wealth, too, because they have to do that to escape the world they live in. Hell, one of them even redistributes wealth, by stealing from governments and giving it back to the people they taxed, and he does so without demanding anything in return. In "The Virtue of Selfishness", Ayn Rand even argues that helping strangers in need can be virtuous, if it's an expression of one's appreciation of the potential they have. Let me guess: You only read secondary literature on the topic.

>>2740

You've read a few chapters, I've read the entire thing. Yeah, the book was shit, but your critique of objectivism based on game theory is still unfounded.

>go to /philosophy/ for the first time

>first thread is about ayn rand

>there are people taking her seriously

not a good first impression

>>2750

>I sincerely doubt it is compatible with game theory based on the one-sided diatribes I've read. I know how the story goes, and your robber looks to have played "Robin Hood" or more accurately captain harlock because of his own values, not because they would be necessarily better for any society outside of the farcical fictional world of total rule by the "looters" which Ayn Rand created.

So? Doesn't mean that was not an example of cooperation. If you think the results aren't good (and I'd likely agree with that if anyone did a stunt like that in the real world), then that's another issue entirely. Whether a philosophy encourages cooperation and whether the cooperation it encourages is actually good, by any standard, are two entirely different topics, and I'd argue that in most cases, the cooperation encouraged by objectivism would have good consequences.

>The onus is on you to prove why this isn't trash.

>Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.

So you think that if someone steals from a rich person, the rich person is not allowed to get his property back?

>So a guy is stealing relief ships sent from the US to the people's states of Europe, so rich fucks can have gold bars. He is portrayed as a hero because he gives rich fucks a portion of their taxes back in the form of plunder. His tactics are like Lenin, and if he had given it to anyone other else, Ayn Rand would have objected.

Ayn Rand would not have objected if he had given gold bars to the poor who payed taxes. Neither would you do that, if you thought that taxes were unjust, which they are.

>If it wasn't called "taxes repaid," Ayn Rand would have objected.

That's kind of the central point. That's like saying a judge wouldn't have condemned someone if what he did wasn't called "goods stolen".

>If the "capital" (loot) came from ships were sent from another country to Europe her philosophy would be less tenable, even if the recipient of the loot still deserved or required it it.

Not really. It would still be applicable, no matter the country.

>Her philosophy offers no guidance in an even slightly greyer world.

Except it does. I don't see objectivism faring worse than utilitarianism in that regard.

>The pirate's reward is a lifestyle of adventure according to his principles, not the gold he does not care about. I hardly see this as the self-sacrifice you make it out to be.

It isn't self-sacrifice. That's another one of Rands central points: Cooperation does not constitute self-sacrifice.

>>2761

Forgot to greentext the first part of your post. Dammit.

>>2761

>So? Doesn't mean that was not an example of cooperation.

I'll get to this later in the post.

>So you think that if someone steals from a rich person, the rich person is not allowed to get his property back?

Ayn Rand was obsessed with the rights and privileges of the rich. Don't you think this philosophy would be better if it at least pretended to care about the poor? Maybe without painting them in an extremely unfair and negative manner, mainly as bums and moochers deserving of pejoratives on the very first page of Atlas Shrugged?

>Ayn Rand would not have objected if he had given gold bars to the poor who payed taxes.

In the real world the very rich frequently pay a lower effective tax rate, or even no income taxes. The small amount they got back on taxes would be peanuts compared to regular income redistribution, and totally dismissable as feel good rhetoric. Ayn Rand was opposed to "unearned" redistribution of wealth even if the poor badly needed it; that's why she puts in the tax exception. A poor ten year old who never worked, or a poor old person who needed an expensive operation greater than the taxes she had paid into the system would not survive in Ayn Rand's philosophy. How amusing too that she made an exception to allow income redistribution when stealing from the bad socialist government, because she has demonized it so much. Objectivism is inconsistent.

>That's kind of the central point. That's like saying a judge wouldn't have condemned someone if what he did wasn't called "goods stolen"

I addressed why this is hypocritical.

>Not really. It would still be applicable, no matter the country.

The point is, if the money was looted from a ship from a second country that was en route to a third country, Ayn Rand couldn't justify the said income redistribution by saying, "I'm just repaying your taxes."

>It isn't self-sacrifice. That's another one of Rands central points: Cooperation does not constitute self-sacrifice.

I would have to check the chapter to be sure, but it does not sound like he does more than the bare minimum of cooperation that is required of any sane person. He sounds more of an egotist who gets off from playing a dashing white knight, which coincidentally provides just what the other party needs without sacrificing anything of value to himself.

Money and leadership tie a person down and if you do not personally value those things, you are not sacrificing when you give them up. So from his perspective he sacrifices nothing by choosing to role play as Captain Harlock or Peter Pan instead of giving up the freedom on the sea that he actually values. A true sacrifice for him would be to become a community mediator/manager with a boring desk job, since that would mean he had compromised his values for a common good. If he would make a better manager than a pirate he would have a real ethical dilemma and once again Ayn Rand's philosophy would be forced to consider whether it is actually pragmatic and not just idealistic.

Alternatively he could be given the choice to sacrifice his own dreams to raise his hypothetical children well. Or if that's still not altruism, to help his community, or neighbors he would not gain from.

Cooperation in the real world frequently constitutes a degree of self-sacrifice for the common good; a degree of cooperation is also unavoidable if we are to live in a semi-harmonious society without violence. I have not gotten the vibe that this philosopher has given serious thought to presenting this truth fairly.

>>2764

>Ayn Rand was obsessed with the rights and privileges of the rich. Don't you think this philosophy would be better if it at least pretended to care about the poor?

I do. This is not a failure of the philosophy, it's one of how Rand applied it, though. She generally saw businessman as noble and the poor as looters, not completely without reason, but she biffed it.

>In the real world the very rich frequently pay a lower effective tax rate, or even no income taxes. The small amount they got back on taxes would be peanuts compared to regular income redistribution, and totally dismissable as feel good rhetoric.

And how exactly is that important?

>Ayn Rand was opposed to "unearned" redistribution of wealth even if the poor badly needed it; that's why she puts in the tax exception. A poor ten year old who never worked, or a poor old person who needed an expensive operation greater than the taxes she had paid into the system would not survive in Ayn Rand's philosophy.

The ten year old would most likely have his parents, the poor old person would've been given the means to acquire insurence. Objectivists have ways of dealing with the poor, too. True, the poor have no right to charity, but at the end of the day, they'd still be better off than under a socialist system, so from a consequentialist viewpoint, objectivism wins.

>How amusing too that she made an exception to allow income redistribution when stealing from the bad socialist government, because she has demonized it so much. Objectivism is inconsistent.

There is nothing inconsistent about that. Stealing money from a thief is not the same as stealing money from someone who actually worked for it.

>The point is, if the money was looted from a ship from a second country that was en route to a third country, Ayn Rand couldn't justify the said income redistribution by saying, "I'm just repaying your taxes."

How exactly does that matter?

>I would have to check the chapter to be sure, but it does not sound like he does more than the bare minimum of cooperation that is required of any sane person. He sounds more of an egotist who gets off from playing a dashing white knight, which coincidentally provides just what the other party needs without sacrificing anything of value to himself.

THAT'S THE POINT! He doesn't HAVE to sacrifice anything of value to himself for the other party to benefit from the deal. Him acting according to his own, egotistical urges leads to beneficial consequences.

>Cooperation in the real world frequently constitutes a degree of self-sacrifice for the common good; a degree of cooperation is also unavoidable if we are to live in a semi-harmonious society without violence. I have not gotten the vibe that this philosopher has given serious thought to presenting this truth fairly.

The "cooperation" you probably have in mind is not made possible by self-sacrifice, but by plain sacrifice. Stealing money from a hard working entrepreneur to give it to the poor is not a self-sacrifice on the part of the entrepreneur, nor on the part of the thief.

>>2807

> Objectivists have ways of dealing with the poor, too. True the poor have no right to charity-

Such ways include what? Child labor?

>and how is (lower effective tax rates for the rich) important?

Her philosophy is idealist, not pragmatic. It is not grounded in reality and does not address real world problems. It is not good to allow paradox of thrift which happens when the rich accumulate most of society's resources. It is not efficient if you you believe in decentralization, or educating a workforce to allow them to make good decisions independently like ants in a hive mind. Nor does unchecked rising income inequality make the greatest number of people happy.

I respect Marx more because he at least studied Russian Economics and tried to react to mathematical problems. Ayn Rand was personally so emotionally scarred by the Communist revolution that she uncritically thought the polar opposite had to be true. Like a religious person scarred by the extremes of religion who switches to the other extreme of Atheism overnight for emotional reasons, she does not seriously consider that the middle ground could be true. She closed her mind to outside ideas and stopped studying because she thought she already knew all she needed to know.

>they'd still be better off than under a socialist system

A degree of socialism can do a lot of good outside of Ayn rand's world that has been taken to a delusional extreme.

>stealing money from a thief is not the same as stealing money from someone who worked to earn it

She admits the thieves won't use the money more effectively. She also believes thieves won't voluntarily return money, but believes the Objectivist leaders will be above corruption or mismanagement when they attain power and wealth in the new world order. Her philosophy is so broken she had to leave this gaping ethical loophole or it would fall apart.

It follows that if my Objectivist masters cunningly coerce me, or overcharge me for a product I need to survive (water), I am within my rights to steal my property back from them. Now suddenly we have class warfare between the rich and the poor who see every transaction as their property. Every middleman is a looter detested by both parties, and would be wise to arm himself.

>THAT'S THE POINT! He doesn't HAVE to sacrifice anything of value to himself for the other party to benefit from the deal. Him acting according to his own, egotistical urges leads to beneficial consequences

The overarching problem is she wrote an unrealistic book where everything is skewed in favor of the Objectivist and he can do no wrong. The Objectivist is always right in this fictional reality.

I do not think classic literature would consider it heroic that a person "didn't have to sacrifice anything of value to themself for another party to benefit." In Ayn Rand's literature where are the martyrs who would make ultimate sacrifices against their interests, and reluctantly die for society? Where is Socrates? This is a dishonorable and cowardly philosophy.

>The "cooperation" you probably have in mind is not made possible by self-sacrifice, but by plain sacrifice. Stealing money from a hard working entrepreneur to give it to the poor is not a self-sacrifice on the part of the entrepreneur, nor on the part of the thief.

Plain sacrifice coerced by a third party is necessary for complex societies to function. I have not been convinced anarchism is viable.

>>2839

>Such ways include what? Child labor?

Increased real wages, charity, increased standards of living in general.

>Her philosophy is idealist, not pragmatic. It is not grounded in reality and does not address real world problems.

Except it totally does. She's a classical deontologist. I don't see many lever the same criticism against Kantianism.

>Nor does unchecked rising income inequality make the greatest number of people happy.

Freedom does.

>she does not seriously consider that the middle ground could be true.

What middle ground would that be? Let only half the population commit robbery, as opposed to all of it?

>A degree of socialism can do a lot of good outside of Ayn rand's world that has been taken to a delusional extreme.

Can't recall a single socialist measure that did any good when compared to complete deregulation.

It follows that if my Objectivist masters cunningly coerce me, or overcharge me for a product I need to survive (water), I am within my rights to steal my property back from them. Now suddenly we have class warfare between the rich and the poor who see every transaction as their property.

It isn't class warfare if you don't turn it into class warfare. Your "master" stole from you? Take it back from him. Do not take it back from the rich idiot who didn't fucking steal from you.

>The overarching problem is she wrote an unrealistic book where everything is skewed in favor of the Objectivist and he can do no wrong. The Objectivist is always right in this fictional reality.

You know Atlas Shrugged isn't her only book, do you?

>I do not think classic literature would consider it heroic that a person "didn't have to sacrifice anything of value to themself for another party to benefit."

Classic literature is wrong.

>In Ayn Rand's literature where are the martyrs who would make ultimate sacrifices against their interests, and reluctantly die for society?

Like whom? The Oskar Schindler's and John Rabe's? Risking their own life for what they believe in: Justice.

>Where is Socrates?

Not foolishly dying for a state that hated him.

>This is a dishonorable and cowardly philosophy.

Like utilitarianism?

>Plain sacrifice coerced by a third party is necessary for complex societies to function.

Citation, please?

>I have not been convinced anarchism is viable.

I have.

>>2862

>Can't recall a single socialist measure that did any good when compared to complete deregulation.

You're using a false dichotomy. Ever heard of democratic socialism? Its why Finnish schools are awesome.

https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/capitalist-us-vs-socialist-finland/

Power plants are natural monopolies and are better run with government regulations. Deregulation leads to Enron scandals.

Also deregulation is not enough to fix society. You need to smash companies apart again and again when they inevitably consolidate if efficiency is the goal. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/14/business/la-fi-lazarus-20130215

>Citation, please?

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, and nearly any philosopher frim that era.

>>I have not been convinced anarchism is viable.

>I have.

Citation please?

>Do not take it back from the rich idiot who didn't fucking steal from you.

Rich idiot better man up and selflessly give me some fucking water from his swimming pool or I'm gonna start a communist revolution, chain and blow his brains out. He doesn't deserve to live if he's not using his resources to help me to get water. Objectivism would lead to a Communist backlash.

>Nazis

Schindler is not an Objectivist. He was a shitty businessman his whole life, and was only good at corrupting officials for government contracts during the excesses of war. Hardly the paradign of Objectivist efficiency.

>socrates should only care about his own skin

You still haven't shown me martyrs who made ultimate sacrifices, because that's the opposite of Objectivism. That's why Objectivism is a pathetic philosophy. An army of men raised to be Objectivists would drop their weapons and run like dogs when the Nazis invaded their country. When they refused to work they would be murdered and the world would be worse because of their short-sighted egotism.

>>2873

>You're using a false dichotomy.

I'm not. I mean any measure that involves regulation, no matter how small.

>Its why Finnish schools are awesome.

They are awesome because they are the least authoritarian school system. The US schools don't teach competitiveness, they teach obedience.

>Power plants are natural monopolies

They aren't. You can still choose between different ones.

>Deregulation leads to Enron scandals.

Regulation - and there's already a shitton of regulation - didn't prevent the Enron scandal. It didn't prevent the economic crisis, neither in Europe nor the US. It is, however, a huge pain in the ass for entrepreneurs everywhere.

>You need to smash companies apart again and again when they inevitably consolidate if efficiency is the goal.

A free market would do that on its own. Economy of scale, cartels being inherently unstable... that kind of stuff.

>Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, and nearly any philosopher frim that era.

I know this idea isn't new. I'd like to have it explained, instead of being referred to a book. That's just cheap.

>Rich idiot better man up and selflessly give me some fucking water from his swimming pool or I'm gonna start a communist revolution, chain and blow his brains out. He doesn't deserve to live if he's not using his resources to help me to get water. Objectivism would lead to a Communist backlash.

So would democratic socialism, because looters gonna loot. Communism must be killed as an idea, slowly and steady, to get rid off it. Democratic socialism does a piss poor job at it. Instead, it makes concessions to the revolutionaries who want to put everyone and everything into the gulag.

>Schindler is not an Objectivist. He was a shitty businessman his whole life, and was only good at corrupting officials for government contracts during the excesses of war. Hardly the paradign of Objectivist efficiency.

Whether he was a good or a bad businessman is completely irrelevant. My point was that what you deem altruism is perfectly compatible with objectivism. Giving away parts of your income to help others is not just allowed, but encouraged under objectivism.

>socrates should only care about his own skin

Says who? I'm sure he would've given his life in the name of his philosophy or his students. Giving it to uphold a corrupt law was as selfless as it was pointless.

>You still haven't shown me martyrs who made ultimate sacrifices

Neither have you.

>An army of men raised to be Objectivists would drop their weapons and run like dogs when the Nazis invaded their country.

Nope, because an army of objectivists would rather die than allow themselves and their loved ones to be enslaved by the nazis.