/lit/ - Literature

>>11138581
No you shouldn't.
Also are you really a social conservative socialist? Or are you a social conservative sanders? Because if you ar a genuine socialist you you are gonna get fucking cancer reading this bitch. I like reading stuff from politcal opponents if the know what they are talking about, this bitch didn't know what she was talking about.

>>11138581
I don't know anon, she's a jew and a woman so I personally wouldn't, but that's up to you. Follow your instincts.

>>11138581
>socially conservative socialist

Socialism before Marxism infected it has an extremely interesting history. Coming from an era where men were treated like replaceable cogs in the machines of capitalism, I can easily see the appeal. Many authors subscribed to the tradition before Marxist scum infected socialist circles with their butchered interpretation of dialectics and materialist reduction.

Anyway, she's worth reading because of her influence. Just wait and see how many people get angry in this thread over just looking at her. Her actual theories are as halfbaked as any modern socialists though, just the other side pf the psued coin.

>>11138581
She's a commie
Fuck commies

I would give her a try ;)

>>11138622

>you will never give Ayn Rand the kinky sex fantasy of her dreams by tying her to a bed, slapping her, choking her and putting red hand prints on her ass, and having her accidentally scream out the name "Howard" when she cums
Why even live

>>11138581
Giving it a read wouldn't hurt, but she's just as Utopian as Marx.

Into the trash it goes: the novel

>>11138947
/thread

>>11138581
Wow never realised 4chan lit is so anti rand.
Read it and then see how you think of objectivism

>>11138820
Depending on what utopian means. Her ideas have been in major practice since the 80s at least

>>11138581
no

>>11138998
The things she fantasises about in Atlas Shrugged are outright utopian and super irrealistic.

>>11138581
It's a well written novel, and it's worth a read
Only people that blindly hate it are social losers who are upset

>>11139015
People who have tried their hardest to put whatever is practical in her philosophy to use have been in power for 40+ years. At this point I think we can do away with the with the excuse that her ideas were too pure for the world.

>>11138581
Her fiction is straight up shit, read her nonfiction if you want to know her ideas.

>>11139015
>irrealistic
I feel like this should be in the final stage of the expanding brain meme

>>11138581
I was a normie conservative when I read the Fountainhead. It's an atrocious book. Extremely boring and one dimensional characters. Her ideas are anti-social and her work does not represent a Promethean individual, but a damaged and selfish (sub)human.

Ayn Rand looks like an adult Anne Frank.

>>11139123
tfw there was no adult anne frank

>>11139123
She looks like Stabbers, the British feminists who makes bread from her menstral blood

>>11139123
yo actually what the fuck, she even has the same lazy eye

>>11139245
Wait anne frank has a lazy eye?

Dropped

>>11139035
In which countries? Everywhere I look there is a mixed economy and a strong welfare state.
Rand isn't influential in any way. I mean she's influential on objectivists, but they're a weird cult not taken seriously by mainstream politics or academia. L. Ron Hubbard is influential on Scientology, but if you go to actual medical school you don't learn about dianetics.

>>11138581
I liked We The Living. It's semi-autobiographical, explaining why Rand is so hostile to both religion and communism. Plus it's a lot shorter than Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.

>>11138581
I used to be quite left-leaning (not socially conservative though) until I came across The Fountainhead. It's the single most transformative book I've read. Never could really get into AS though. William Hickman has nothing to do with almost anything she wrote, that's another of the memes repeated by people who haven't read a single thing written by Rand.

I think you should read her. Everyone should read her. If only to be able to argue against her without using strawmen that you conjured up simply because you have no idea what she actually wrote like 99% of her "critics".

The Fountainhead is a good novel on its own since it actually has a plot. I would argue that it's a better book than Atlas Shrugged and contains the soul of her philosophy. Atlas Shrugged is just more explicit and the characters are more idealized.
I was rereading Atlas Shrugged recently and I kinda lost it when an idealized smartest person on earth scientist starts talking about how the only facts that exists are those of science. I guess some things don't change.

>>11138581
Both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead revolve around protagonists who deliver 1000+ word monologues explaining their (Rand's) beliefs.

It's not like they're terrible books, but they're self-righteous as all fuck without much in the way of empathy for dissent. Drink the koolade or just skip it all.

>>11140172
Are you saying there's anything wrong with being self-righteous as fuck?

>>11138581
>Woman
>Jew
>Wannabe philosopher that didn't actually read what she criticized
>Only popular with Americans (biggest red flag)
>Shilled cigarettes
You tell me

>>11140181

>>11140181
You mean nothing wrong?

With being self-righteous as fuck, which I take to mean very self-righteous? That is, very righteous, as there is no real difference between self-righteousness and righteousness.

Should there be something wrong with being righteous? A rhetorical question, obviously. Not what you meant?

>>11140194
Just answer the question.

>>11140198
I thought you were replying to me, never mind.
I wondered where the whole 'self-righteous' came from.

>>11140198
Already did in >>11140186
>>11140194 is just some faggot who doesn't bother with making sense.

>>11140206
Yeah, you're fucking retarded.

>>11140209
>Already did
Ah, alright. I was kinda hoping for more than a meme.

>>11140213
Of course he won't actually reply. He can't.
It's all he can do after being driven into a corner, hurl memes and insults.
It's getting kind of boring how easily these mental midgets give up. I was hoping /lit/ would be a more intellectual board, I guess not.

>>11140213
Use a little intelligence and interpret the meaning behind being told to go kill yourself when you ask if there's anything wrong with being self-righteous as fuck.

>>11140222
>dude it's self-evident
Again, just answer the question. What's wrong with being self-righteous?

>>11140221
What corner? You're posturing. Fuck you.

>>11140228
Gee, nothing, I guess. You sure won. There's nothing wrong with taking a stand for what you believe in without showing regard for any possibility of situations that don't fit with your ideals.

>>11140237
>You're posturing.
I'm not the one writing shit and pretending there's some deeper meaning that we're not getting and you just refuse to explain because you are above us.

>>11140237
So what you're saying is that people shouldn't have any pride or self-determination of any kind?

>>11138581
>Should I give her a try?
I found myself criticizing her the other day without ever having read a word she wrote. I felt intellectually dishonest, so I decided to start reading her. As far as I can tell, this is a "Judge for yourself" type of situation, but I'm not finished with her works yet.

>>11140247
Nope.
>>11140244
Whatever.

Christ, trolls aren't even trying these days

>>11140237
>There's nothing wrong with taking a stand for what you believe in without showing regard for any possibility of situations that don't fit with your ideals.
At least there's more detail now.
So what you are saying, that people should argue for opposing views than the ones they believe in, and having convictions is wrong.

>>11140258
I'm pretty certain that balancing your views with addressing the potential for flaws in your views is a little more interesting to read than a 100,000 word diatribe

>>11140269
So you're saying that all potential views must have flaws, nothing cannot be perfect? You must always leave room for being wrong about everything, right?

>>11140269
If you can identify flaws in your views, maybe the time is to go back and revise those views, so that there are no flaws no longer, instead of writing a book about them.

>>11140273
The world is complicated.

>>11140275
Hence "drink the koolade or just skip it all," as Rand paints everything in black and white.

she's yid

>>11140282
>The world is complicated.
What a non-answer lol

>>11140287
It's concise. Opinions on social organization aren't concrete truths.
If you think they are, you're kinda misguided

>>11140293
So you're saying that any opinion cannot be a fact because it is inherently an opinion?

>>11140282
Well yes, a theme that runs through her work is that good and evil are real and evil people like to hide behind the excuse that things in reality are 'grey' and that morality is subjective and malleable.

You speak like Objectivist morality being harshly black and white is some kind of a flaw that Rand failed to recognize, when it was the very thing she was, quite consciously, arguing for.

"The world is complicated" is exactly the kind of thing one her villains would utter. "But Ellsworth, you just murdered that man!" "The world is complicated."

>>11140301
Nope. This is a thread about Rand's writing.

>>11140258
>so what ur saying
cathy?

>>11140305
fuck off randroid, no one cares about your retarded mommy

>>11140320
Did you stop to consider the possibility that there might be a flaw in your statement, or that things might be not so clear-cut and black and white that absolutely NO ONE would care about my retarded mommy?

>>11140305
>>11140320
I can't actually work out if this post opposes or supports Rand. Either interpretation can work

>>11140329
One talks about her work the other one goes 'wwaaaaah stop talking, no one cares'. I wonder.

>>11140327
The only absolute truth we have is that nobody with a brain cares about Rand. It's sort of an A=A situation

>>11140305
I guess it's clear you've drank the koolade, huh?

In the real world, everything is on a spectrum. People aren't just good or evil, they just do what they like. If you're obsessed with absolutes, you judge them.

The problem with Rand's writing is that she doesn't create a realistic world, yet writes as though her thoughts and opinions apply to the world as people live it, even though there's little parallel for her assumptions. I don't guess you'll accept that, though.

>>11140335
I know no one cares guy is opposed. I can't work out:
>>11140305
Is this poster exposing Rand's thought, or is he celebrating it?

>>11140338
>The problem with Rand's writing is that she doesn't create a realistic world
No shit? She wrote the world 'as it should be' by purposefully idealizing and making the characters grand. It's her stylistic preference.

>>11140341
>Is this poster exposing Rand's thought, or is he celebrating it?
Celebrating. The last line is the most obvious clue since it uses the main villain of the Fountainhead to repeat his words that the world is complicated to advocate murder, something Ayn Rand was against. The world being complicated is an excuse for not having to explain your actions and advocate nihilism.

>>11140343
Yeah, but it isn't just the characters she writes in that way, it's the background and plot progression. After a certain point it's just ridiculous. Entertainment is one thing, but Rand poses those multi-page monologues as god-given truths. The end result is weird dudes getting indoctrinated into weird ideas, regardless of reality.

>>11140327
did you stop to consider the possibility that you're retarded?

>>11140350
For what it's worth, I posted "the world is complicated" as a reaction to >>11140273 trying to over generalize when I'd pointed out that Rand doesn't write with consideration for any situations that don't fit her worldview

>>11140353
What part of 'it's her stylistic preference' did you not get?

>>11140364
You quoted me twice.

>>11140366
No part at all. That quality is what anyone reading her stuff should take into consideration when thinking about her ideas. She's not unhinged, but she's definitely not balanced.

>>11140368
Gee, good for you.

>>11140379
Balance does not equate quality.

>>11140389
You got a point rattling around in that shitpost?

>>11140396
You got something to say other than 'I don't like her idealized style of writing'?

>>11140400
Yeah. Try reading what's already been posted.

>>11140350
>The world being complicated is an excuse for not having to explain your actions and advocate nihilism.
That's convenient. Everyone who points out the flaws in your ideology is actually a butthurt nihilist.

>>11140360
I'm not the one arguing for that methodology.
Maybe you can try and flip this statement around as well, and direct it against me, maybe this time it will make you look smart or something.

>>11140414
That doesn't dismiss that 'the world is complicated' is advocating for nihilism or to not explain anything. Hence what >>11140305 pointed out.
You're either selfless, selfish or apathetic. There is no 'balance' middle ground.

Pretty sure she would have interpreted 'definitely not balanced' as high praise

Any time someone argues for 'balance' it's about compromise of some sort, and we know how much Rand loved compromise.

>>11140432
>There is no 'balance' middle ground.
And that's how terrorists get their fanaticism, by the pretense that there's only extremes.

>>11140447
It's a conscious choice. Especially when you read her artistic manifesto on romanticism versus naturalism. But hating her for making that stylistic choice really says nothing other than hating its existence rather than what is said. They cannot go beyond it. Not to say that the style itself isn't jaring in its grandiosity but it doesn't make it a flaw simple because it's entirely idealistic.

>>11140449
>by the pretense that there's only extremes.
Indeed there are. That's the point. From the ground up, from life or death, surviving or perishing, there is only life or death.

>>11140341
Do you prefer being preached at, or do you prefer neutral writing that simply describes the facts?

Do you prefer Reddit, where you can clearly summarize your thoughts as an upvote or a downvote, without thinking too hard about it?

>>11140432
>You're either selfless, selfish or apathetic. There is no 'balance' middle ground.
Okay anon. Good to have it confirmed that Randism is definitely not a cult

>>11140447
I kinda like how she valued work ethic and creation for the sake of beauty, but it's sad that she couldn't bring herself to understand why creation for the common good aligns with compromise for the common good.

>>11140463
Notice how you're unable to point to a contradiction and point to something else entirely by implication.

>>11140449
Yes, but terrorists choose the wrong extreme.

If Objectivists are extremists, how come they don't go around bombing and killing people and taking hostages?

Perhaps there is such a thing as a good extreme.

>>11140458
>Do you prefer being preached at, or do you prefer neutral writing that simply describes the facts?
Those aren't the only options.

>>11140468
>why does nobody actually prove the world is round, they just say it is, but they've never actually shown how it is round

>>11140471
Maybe my writing was the balanced middle ground, if the reader got suspicious enough to question it?

>>11140475
Again, implications with nothing said.

>>11140470
There's choices that detriment society which don't involve bombing and killing. There's a spectrum involved there, too.

>>11140484
Do you think there's a debate going on? Shitpost after shitpost, you're just patting your own back and pretending it's in a vacuum

>>11140496
You mistake debate for 'seeing if anything will be said'.

>>11140498
I guess that's definitive trolling. Take 'er easy there, anon.

>>11140502
Funny how anyone that likes Ayn Rand is a troll. Convenient, ain't it?

>>11140511
The alternative is that they're serious. So if anything we're giving you the benefit of the doubt.

>>11140511
Seems like a pretty good assumption. Only trolls like Ayn Rand.

>>11140520
>declaring someone a troll
>giving the benefit of the doubt
Again, funny how anyone that likes Ayn Rand can't possibly like her, there must be an ulterior motive.

>>11140521
Sounds like an extreme position. I dunno, maybe there's some 'balance'.

>>11140534
>>11140532
Given that you've only been trolling, it's hard to argue in your favor.

>>11140418
dumbass

>>11140532
Given this is a board that has made memes of Hegel and James Joyce, it's generally a safe bet to assume anyone claiming to like Rand is a troll.
If you do genuinely like her I'm truly sorry.

>>11140550
Pity is slave morality crap.

>>11140550
I think he does like her, and that's paralleled by his being a troll.

>>11140556
Whether or not it makes sense to you, you've made yourself a slave.

>>11140562
>Whether or not it makes sense to you, you've made yourself a slave.
Please, you ignorantly assume that I am bounded by any philosophy simply because I am defending it.

>>11138646
11/10

>>11140587
'Zat so? Wow.

>>11140181

>>11140598
Yep.

>>11140562
Oh I knew he liked her. I'm just sorry

>>11140532
In unironically like Ayn Rand. The fact that you cannot conceive of anyone honestly liking her work and they MUST be a troll is honestly worrying.

>>11140470
Here's a better way of assessing this: centrism and extremism are both anticoncepts of the same order in the forst place. Don't use them.

>>11140620
I think it's a safe bet that Rand was trolling, too. Makes sense that anyone obsessed with her stuff would wind up trolling

>>11140463
>anyone who thinks centrism is a fallacy is a cultist
Yeah sure buddy

>>11140631
>fallacy
yep, it's a teenager

>>11140631
I mean, Rand fans are basically cultists. You posted some sideways shit, but still

>>11138581
No, no, yep, no.

>>11140550
>safe bet to assume anyone claiming to like Rand is a troll
If you would abandon this blatantly anti-reasonable soft-brainwashing that'd be great. Fucks sake anon.
>Given this is a board that has made memes of Hegel and James Joyce
>this board has
>/lit/ is all the same person
>implying everyone comes to /lit/ under the same intent and premises
What claustrophobic space it must be inside your skull.

>>11140693
Jeez. You come off as so combative. What would Ayn think?

>>11140705
Where exactly do you think you are?

>>11140643
He wasn't me

Ayd Rand is proof the State needs to regularly massacre people.

>>11140725
The sideways shit is this post: >>11140631

>>11140723
Thankfully, not living in close proximity to you.

>>11138581
No you should not read anything by Mrs. Rand. You are too fucking stupid and are roundly undeserving of any helpful perspective or romantic insight you might find her capable of, should you read any of her works. Your brain is infected with political idealism because you have been raised up to believe you have no individual value. You have nothing outstanding to offer the world and so you hope simply to leave it undisturbed. >Socially conservative socialist
ha!
i will admit, it's rare that I ever laugh while discussing Mrs. Rand, but you asking permission to read her has truly brought a comic bit to the show. please, share some thing more about your 'views'..give us some more very important questions you have about life and it's short educational opportunities..

>>11138646
this. fuck i love her :(

>>11139366
u a fuggin retard nigga

>>11139854
well put.

>>11140146
You learn very little about the state of the world outside of 'America' in AS, so how do you know Stadler was considered the 'worlds smartest scientist'? Wouldn't it seem more likely that the point of his character in the novel is to show that your 'intelligence' is meaningless and only makes you a useful tool if you do not have a personal drive to use it for yourself?

what is your motive-power?

>>11140305
i love you bro.

>>11140338
you should be put to death in a public square. not because of your 'views', but because of your prissy attitude.

>>11140343
so all sci-fi should be tossed because it envisions a world vastly or slightly different than the one you wake up to? that's dumb.

>>11140868

>>11140871

>>11140320
This is legit the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board. We're literally in a thread about Rand. Have a word with yourself, my dude

>>11140829
It's posts like this that confuse me. I'm always torn between 'Is this nigga for real?' and 'is this expert trolling?' It's so hard to work out with Rand cultists - she is the greatest example of Poe's law out there

>>11140904
so because you are too dumb to figure something out for yourself, our conversation must now suffer? you'd make a bad parent i imagine.

>>11140909
>you'd make a bad parent i imagine.
Children are evil parasites. They take and take without shame or remorse. One of the hardest things about committing to Objectivism is swearing by your life and your love of it that you will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for yours. It makes it hard to hold down a girlfriend, but the self is its own priority.

>>11140879

>>11141051
or...you are just a bad parent. abortion clinics exist for a reason, be reasonable.

>>11139018
>Well written
Give up reading. Don't ever touch a book again.

It's not well-written, but It has some interesting ideas and is worth reading.. The fountainhead is a little better, but that and Atlas Shrugged are definitely worth reading if you're an avid reader... If you hardly read then no it's not worth reading

Read Chapter 2 of Atlas Shrugged and Galt's speech.

She makes every character who disagrees with her philosophically a bumbling idiot.

Objectivism is more interesting than her novels, and that's not saying much.

Maybe I misunderstood her but in fountainhead I got the impression that society is composed of weak collection trying to bring down great men. Especially men of artistic vision. A forced egalitarianism on all men and that only the men who don't surrender will triumph.

>>11142632
Maybe that's because everyone who disagrees with her philosophically is a bumbling idiot.

>Should I give plasmids a try?

>>11142632
Redpill anon: Upon the precipice of the collapse everyone WILL philosophically be a bumbling idiot. What exactly do you think the wrecking of nations ala Rome and Babylon constitute?
Turn your gaze to CNN and observe the state of the "intellectuals" they bring on. Then ask yourself if you think that it cannot get much worse.

>>11138581
give her the old lickaroo

>>11143945
delet

>mfw /lit/ has come full circle that randfags are forgetting that they aren't welcome here

>>11143888
>Turn your gaze to CNN and observe the state of the "intellectuals" they bring on. Then ask yourself if you think that it cannot get much worse
Bitch please I browse /pol/

>>11139366
The US. Half of Trumps cabinet has read her. Trump has at least read the fountainhead, his favorite book, go figure. Alan Greenspan was part of Rands inner circle and he was treasure secretary. Atlas shrugged the most read book in the US Congress library after the bible.

>>11139854
I have never read a critique of rands works by someone who dislikes her, without that person using ad hominems. Only people who are on rands site seem to be able to critique her in a fair way.

>>11144952
>Alan Greenspan was part of Rands inner circle and he was treasure secretary.
>Greenspan
The same idiot that was so fucking wrong about 08?

>>11144980
I think he was. But I was addresing Rands influence.

>>11144971
The Stanford encyclopedia has a go:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/
>For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact.

>>11144952
>People who have tried their hardest to put whatever is practical in her philosophy to use have been in power for 40+ years
So Trump claiming to have read a book proves this? You think that for the last 40 years the US government 'have tried their hardest' to implement Rand? You're deluded.

>>11144990
I think the reason that professional philosophers ignore her is quit simple. Rather you agree or disagree with her, their is a large portion of ppl who read her and fall in love with her philosophy. So fewer ppl talking about her means fewer ppl reading her.

I finished Atlas Shrugged recently. Inevitably, I didn't agree with all of it, but there are some essential principles in the book. The scope of the book is extensive, so it's highly unlikely you would agree with everything said in it. But that shouldn't stop you from reading it; it's vital to find what you agree and disagree with.

>>11144998
Well she is one of the most influential characters on right. Trump is showing that at least some parts of her ideas bear fruits. Cutting regulations,taxes. Hell even Bush W expanded the regulations. The libertarians in the Us are seeming to gain more influence. Its not a total victory for her, but she hasnt lost.

>>11145004
You don't think it's because:
>Whereas Rand’s ideas and mode of presentation make Rand popular with many non-academics, they lead to the opposite outcome with academics. She developed some of her views in response to questions from her readers, but never took the time to defend them against possible objections or to reconcile them with the views expressed in her novels. Her philosophical essays lack the self-critical, detailed style of analytic philosophy, or any serious attempt to consider possible objections to her views. Her polemical style, often contemptuous tone, and the dogmatism and cult-like behavior of many of her fans also suggest that her work is not worth taking seriously.

>>11145033
Cutting taxes is not a uniquely Randian idea though. Plenty of right wing thinkers have advocated similar.

>>11145038
I m sorry, i didnt expresses myself clear enoug. You are right, cutting taxes is not an exclusively Randian Idea, but Rand influence on the right/libertarian movement is huge. That was the point I wanted to make.

>>11145035
So let me rephrase that, the madwoman rand communicated with the people while expressing her philosophy rather than to explain it to Ivory tower academics. This is at most a negation of her academic influence rather than a negation of her influence. Furthermore, how is that refuting her ideas? An idea is right when its right even if a bum on the street is offering it too you.

>>11144980
this nigga talk he never got anything wrong in his life lol

>>11145004
>fewer ppl reading her
>second most read book in American history

it's like you mofos are retarded on purpose

>>11145115
My point was fewer ppl reading her is the goal of academics of the left, I m not arguing that they are succeeding.

>>11144990
>to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. (1961b: 16)

>Critics raise two objections to this argument. (i) It begs the question by assuming what is at issue, namely, that a non-living entity cannot be harmed (Nozick 1971). Unlike the robot of this example, real robots can be damaged or destroyed, not only by external events, but also by a failure to perform their functions well, that is, by their own actions or inactions. Hence they can, quite straightforwardly, be said to have values.[3]

What the fuck kind of criticism is this even? She asked quite plainly to imagine an IMMORTAL, INDESTRUCTIBLE robot for an argument's sake, and this guy fucking failed to imagine just that, and missed the point entirely.

Are all professional philosophers this retarded?

>>11145136
They don't ignore Heidegger, who was a literal Nazi.

>>11145176
>Are all professional philosophers this retarded
Most of them are lefties, so yes.

>>11145115
I'm not American. I hadn't even heard of Rand until well into my 20s. They don't really discuss her where I live, or at least they didn't before the internet.

>>11145209
Same here pal. Here we dont even talk about individualism vs collectivism because everybody is a leftie collectivist.

>>11145188
well the modern acacdemic is in most cases a leftie and more and more lefties start to hate jews and love Muslims, just like the nazis.....

>>11145047
>Rand influence on the right/libertarian movement is huge.
I'd agree with this. I don't think those people have ever really been in power though, even in USA. Looking back at the previous presidents, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, I don't think you can say any of them were Libertarians. Even the Republicans were still very much on the side of big government spending and welfare.

>>11145188
You don't need to suppress Nazi thought because most people by now intuitively understand Nazis were wrong. See how they even allow Mein Kampf being sold in Germany now.

Objectivism is a very persuasive ideology, and I could understand its enemies wanting to suppress it.

>>11145239
I agree with everything you wrote but now we have trump, big on cutting taxes, regulations. He is also cutting welfare by creating jobs. Spending sadly not so much.

>>11145033
>Trump is showing that at least some parts of her ideas bear fruits.
what fucking fruits

>>11145250
can't wait for the recession, party like it's 2008

>>11145250
You may have a point with Trump, he's a bit of a black swan. On the other hand, this time next year he might see something on Twitter or Fox that makes him raise taxes and change everything back (while claiming this was his plan from the start)

>>11144990
>2.2 Survival as the Ultimate Value
I'm not going to green-text all of this but this is a long ass chapter with like 9 points that all point out that criminals and dictators and the like can sometimes survive by acting immorally.

The emphasis on the word sometimes. Seldom. Occasionally.

It's not much of a criticism of Rand's ethics, is it, to point out that sometimes immoral people succeed, if it's still less far likely to succeed and survive than if you were acting morally?

They also blabber something about how survival can't be both the origin and end of morality even though Rand never argued for it to be anything more than the origin of morality, and the end is "happiness and productive achievement".

>>11145033
Trump isn't a Randian. He isn't even a libertarian. I mean I don't even know what the fuck he is, he doesn't seem to have any kind of a consistent ideology. But he certainly is not an example of someone putting Rand's ideas into practice, even if he may sometimes, randomly, do things that an Objectivist might agree with.

>>11145250
You do realize that there have been plenty of tax cutters on the state level, right? Not everything in politics is 100% determined by what does on at the federal level.

>>11145176
>>11145567
It's a prestigious peer-reviewed source chaps. If you can point out where they're wrong and publish your work I'm pretty sure they'll take your criticism on board.

>>11145136
very well.

>>11145176
this.

>>11145209
part of the point of her work is that it is your own job to improve yourself and to find the means to do such