Objectivism is a natural counter to SJW/Globalist/Multicultural agenda

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

If there is to be any hope of countering of the Globalist powers that be, we must unite under a label. Being the "Silent Majority" is not enough; the sheeple are united, while we are scattered.

What does Sup Forums think of "Objectivist?"

Other urls found in this thread:

atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/objectivism-q-a/objectivism-q-a-blog/4297-existentialism-and-ayn-rand
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Objectivism is retarded.

What else do you expect from an ideology made from equal parts butthurt about communism and female sexual frustration?

>female sexual frustration

What?

>Objectivism is retarded
Why?

The heroes of Ayn Rand novels are extremely sexualized. They're all strong, rugged baddasses that you'd normally only see in the erotica section.

It would be very gay if Ayn Rand were not a woman.

The female sexual frustration is totally apparent in the writing. Roark pls destroy me~
But really, I really think you're missing the forest for the trees, m8. The philosophy is solid and the aim is totally in line with the best parts of Nazi Sup Forums

Is good. We will influence the meaning to suit ourselves. Just as the feminists have changed the meaning of 'rape' to mean "I regretted it in the morning"

> He's not a logical positivist

fpbp

Honestly, Objectivism can be described as "call whatever Ayn Rand liked objectively good, and anyone who has a different opinion irrational looter who doesn't really want to live".

They used to believe smoking cigarettes is objectively good because Rand was a smoker, for Christ's sake.

Man IS not heroic. But he CAN/COULD be heroic

>with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life
So you want an emotion, a chemical reaction in the brain, to be man's moral purpose? That's nigger tier right there.

Productive to what?

My reason will almost always be different to your reason. How can somthing that divides us completely be a good absolute? It brings nothing but absolute division.

>kill yourself op

>Man IS not heroic. But he CAN/COULD be heroic
Deep, man. It's called an ideal.

>So you want an emotion, a chemical reaction in the brain, to be man's moral purpose? That's nigger tier right there.
No, I want man to seek their own happiness, in whatever form they find suitable, so long as it does not infringe on others.

>My reason will almost always be different to your reason.
Whatislogic.jpg

Because people are simply not as independent as objectivism believes them to be. No one but literal psychopaths have an attitude of "Fuck you, I'm getting mine" nor can people subsist on their own hard work.

If a society like Galt's Gulch were to exist in real life it would collapse, because no one would want to give up their nice white-collar jobs in favour of manual labour just on pure principle. And more importantly they wouldn't know what they were doing if they tried to go from professors of economics to farmers.

>shaming instead of giving an argument about objectivism.
OP is right, we are all scattered and divided on bullshit.

You going to OCON, op?

>Objectivism is a natural counter to SJW/Globalist/Multicultural agenda
You misspelled complement.

If it's an ideal then man is not automatically heroic. It is an ideal which he can possibly reach. Are you trying to prove yourself wrong?

Muh libertarian moral system. not even going to argue with this stick in the mud. I know I'm not capable of changing your mind.

>what is logic
Uhh I don't know, what is logic? Maybe the thing that is different for everyone. Not only is everyone's mind different, but everyone is in different positions. Do you honestly believe everyone thinks the same and will reach the same conclusions? Oh that's right of course you do because you're a libertarian.

I enjoyed your total lack of anything resembling an argument

>nor can people subsist on their own hard work
they need to use the hard work of others?

When I read this book I had very mixed feelings about it.

I felt like there were some extremely importantant ideas about purpose and objective good.

I also thought the writing was trash, and Rand ignores a lot of important philosophy like existentialism (which I believe actually reinforces objectivism). She also seems to largely ignore religion.

If it was 200 pages and really just hammered home her objectivism philosophy / ideology I would say it's one of the most important books ever written; unfortunately it's not very well written and feels incomplete.

No, they need to recognize that they need each other and to not spit on the poor for being less fortunate.

You need people to harvest your food, build your house, and make your clothes just as much as having someone to teach their kids how to read or design buildings or to write fiction about rugged individualists can make their lives easier. Life is very much a system of co-operation to make things go as smoothly as possible, it's not that much of a sacrifice to spend tax money on welfare to make your fellow man's life easier when you consider that having a stable and happy working class is vital to the success of a nation.

But of course Ayn Rand can't have that because economic security is literally communism and unfettered capitalism is the tits contrary to all empirical evidence.

It is a weak philosophy that combines multiple parts of better philosophical thought to justify a type of behavior. Her perception of reality is Reidian based, separation of form and object Aristotelian, her potential ideal of man is a weak form of ubermensch. She unnecessarily tries to give some all encompassing outlook she pretends to be unique when all she really wants to argue for is the morality and value of personal interest. Objectivitism is simply trying to make a framework where the wanted conclusion is inherently right using others work

Do I believe man is a heroic creature? Yes I do.
Are there non-heroic men? Obviously.
I like to believe the potential exists in all men, regardless of whether or not they exercise it.

>Uhh I don't know, what is logic? Maybe the thing that is different for everyone.
I'm going to leave this here for you to rethink.

> Do you honestly believe everyone thinks the same and will reach the same conclusions?
Well, considering there is more than one ideology on Earth, no. I'm proposing a guideline to follow, not implying that it is the natural state of mankind.

Just read nicomachean ethics dude. Rand cant even give a proper sense of what life should be lived beyond what she thinks the end purpose is, Aristotle provides means and end.

nobody is advocating spitting on the poor

welfare is a trap, and it's a form of slavery, to force some people to work for the benefit of others

harvesting food, building houses, making clothes are all productive tasks

> Life is very much a system of co-operation
yes, co-operation on a voluntary basis, not coercion

> it's not that much of a sacrifice to spend tax money on welfare
rand wasn't against charity, just INVOLUNTARY charity

how can you call them a working class if they are not working?

>contrary to all empirical evidence
oh come on now

name me a socialist state without a fucking huge defecit and debt, spending more that you earn, as a person, family or country, is not sustainable

we're all fucking broke!

I agree that the writing is pretty bad. I liked the first half, I think Rearden Metal was a nice example, the speech is cool. The second half and the action movie ending felt out of place.

I think that there are a lot of other ideologies that are compatible with Objectivism on at least a surface level. I think the most important parts of Objectivism are the belief in an objective reality and the emphasis on personal achievement.
Religion is not, though. Lack of proof, ya know?

Objectivism doesn't exist to justify a behavior. The behavior (the heroic man) is meant as the highest form of lifestyle that meshes with Objectivist thought.

To be honest, I don't adhere to the philosophy wholesale. If we could smash the belief in an objective reality together with the spirit of the ubermensch and call it something, I'd be down.

All species attempt to progress and develop. This could be seen as a point to existence. This makes an individual's own purpose to enable in any way, anything that progresses this concept. This concept of progression can be defined by scientific achievement, advancement of applicable technologies, and ration brought to the generally unsound view of human kind's relation to it's own existence.

Using these logical points, a conclusion can be made that humans are only now beginning to realize what sort of paths lie before us. One of the only courses that can be taken towards such an ideal of interplanetary dominion and things of the like, is a glottalization of the planet Earth that involves recognition of the advancement of humans as a species beyond all else. This is something very much outside our grasp, and in all likelihood, outside of our current perceptions.

Awareness is our most important struggle right now. We need not worry about details when we do not know what our target even is. We can only hope that we will approach this in the coming years, but a glance at the majority, and it provides a trepidations atmosphere.

*trepidatious, my finger slipped.

To quote Ludwig Von Mises' words to Ayn Rand
>"You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you."

Objectivism is not kind to poor people.

>welfare is a trap, and it's a form of slavery, to force some people to work for the benefit of others
Here is the folly of libertarianism. You may say that the social contract is reaping the fruits of others labour based on a social construct but if you're to follow such logic to the rational conclusion then so is private property.

The institution of private property allows the landed classes to simply take the produce of the working class based on nothing more than a state enforced idea. It has no objective basis, it is simply made up just as much as the social contract. If you're to abandon all spooks then you ought to be an anarchist as opposed to a statist or capitalist of any kind.

>harvesting food, building houses, making clothes are all productive tasks
Productive tasks that only pay half well or have any kind of safe conditions because of state regulation.

>yes, co-operation on a voluntary basis, not coercion
If you consider taxes to be coercion, as said earlier, private property is coercion by the same measure. The only way to justify it as anything more than an idea is to use force to stake your claim to it.

>rand wasn't against charity, just INVOLUNTARY charity
Most people are quite happy to pay taxes, the ones that don't move open off-shore bank accounts.

>how can you call them a working class if they are not working?
They are working, more people need welfare than chavs sitting around smoking dope all day.

Objectivism is the most autistic shit ever.

>people would go Galt
>the world would crumble

>Name a socialist state
There you go doing it again. Being against unfettered capitalism doesn't mean being a socialist.

Being in favour of regulations and spending isn't socialism, it's fucking orthodox economics.

>le atlas shrugged
You're funny op

>opposes sluts and degeneracy
>supports a philosophy that literally espouses self centered hedonism
Ayn Rand was a disgusting kike. I hope she's being raped in hell right now. Or not, she'd probably just enjoy it.

You're an early bird as I can see.

*globalization

The ideas run too strongly for me to slow down.

The reason I bring up these points is because globalization is almost always seen in a negative light, despite being something crucial to human advancement. To ignore this is flawed; but to also ignore the manner in which it occurs is even more of a mistake.

It is generally correct in all regards to question the way that globalization is currently occurring. But this does not mean it isn't a proper concept to regard. I completely understand nationalistic concepts, and find them almost innate to a part of me, as well as inherent to humans because of their experiences throughout history. I've never been one for the whole "love one another unconditionally" but the real point to be made is that if we cannot find a way to at least co-exist and share information, we cannot achieve the ideals that we wish for as a species.

SJW bullshit is at its heart and objectivist ideology.

What the fuck are you smoking OP?

you seem very good at dodging questions

it's a trifle dishonest

was it because you couldn't think of one?

>They are working, more people need welfare than chavs sitting around smoking dope all day.
if you reward a behaviour, you get more of it

>>rand wasn't against charity, just INVOLUNTARY charity
>Most people are quite happy to pay taxes, the ones that don't move open off-shore bank accounts.
that's not answering my question

>You may say that the social contract is reaping the fruits of others labour based on a social construct but if you're to follow such logic to the rational conclusion then so is private property.
not an answer to my point

>To quote Ludwig Von Mises'
who cares

But as I think you would admit the behavior is more important than the philosophy, the desire for a justification for self interest is clearly the basis of objectivism. So instead of trying to create a metaphysical or epidemiological framework, just admit that the self is where values stem from and the highest ideal of the self is creation of its own values. Calling them rationally based are formed on the framework of reality is an ideological weaknessn

Objectivism's problem stems from Aristotle. Man needs to be led like cattle because man isn't rational. You need an ubermensch to grab man by his scruff and drag him through the world.

Jew

No, it's because I'm not a socialist nor did I ever say socialism is a good thing.

You may as well turn around and go
>Oh yeah, well if Ayn Rand isn't right about everything then can you tell me what colour my shirt is? Checkmate, commies.

It's just totally irrelevant and a way of doing that classic libertarian tactic where you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a socialist.

It often comes to my mind the intentions of those leading the largest of financial funds / banks / political groups. Obviously, a simple goal to state would be control over the majority to profit their individual. This is foremost to the observer, and apparently disregarded by most as something expected.

Another that comes to mind is along the lines of what I've already mentioned; actual advancement. Genetic engineering and planetary colonization being at the pinnacle of my thought. For one moment each day I ponder the possibility that these are the intended goals of those spoken of. This brings the question of logistics.

There's essentially two paths that my mind conceives right off the bat when it thinks of this; a separation of mankind, involving the most elite becoming a genetically, medically, scientifically, and technologically more advance definition of human kind, then to spread among the stars as one might hope man might...and then there's the second path, which seems much more difficult. A path that involves slow and arduous, virtually impossible to enforce eugenics and birth policies that would mold the human race into an ideal, that could then approach the universe.

These thoughts occurred because I attempted to justify the global elite's end-game. The logic of it terrified and comforted me at the same time. Think of it what you will; because that's all I can provide. A perspective for you to discern your own from.

>It's just totally irrelevant and a way of doing that classic libertarian tactic where you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a socialist.
you seem to support involuntary redistribution of wealth

likewise you claim that I must be a libertarian in order to consider any of rands ideas interesting, and seem to imply that I must agree with every word out of her mouth

also, you haven't responded to this

>if you reward a behaviour, you get more of it
You don't reward rent-seekers though. You could argue that rent-seekers can manipulate the system, and some do, but that's really rewarding them considering they're not making very much out of it.

>that's not answering my question
It wasn't a question, it was a statement that I presented a counter-argument to.

>not an answer to my point
But it is. To claim that taxes are force, but deny that wage-labour is force is just silly for the reasons presented.

>who cares
Flawless logic.

>What does Sup Forums think of "Objectivist?"

Objectivism doesn't exist! Your thought patterns are based on your own experiences and education. Both are limited for everyone and shaped by preconceived notion, so you are never truly objective. Thats why sjws actually think that they are right.

Objectivists are Supremacy LARPers who pretend not to be influenced by their upbringing and information supply.

As a nationalist, I appreciate your well thought out defense of globalization. However I don't believe the human species will ever unify unless it faced extinction.

Also, I think we will be more likely to achieve great things when there exists competition between nations. If our species ever went full no-borders and everything didn't go to shit, and instead prospered like the hippies hope, then man would become complacent.

That's not socialism, socialism is the worker control of the means of production in a statist framework.

If you're not a libertarian I apologize. It's just that if someone both defends Ayn Rand and decides anyone in favour of any vaguely Social Democratic policies must be a socialist it's a safe bet to assume they're a libertarian.

>that I presented a counter-argument to.
I said rand wasn't against voluntary charity, and you countered by saying most people don't mind being forced to pay? surely you should have attacked my statement, perhaps implying it was wrong in some way

>To claim that taxes are force, but deny that wage-labour is force is just silly for the reasons presented.
you didn't imply I was wrong, just that if a is, then b is

>Flawless logic.
says the user using the appeal to authority fallacy? kek

I got completely the opposite impression. Rand is pretty upfront about man's life (like, being alive) being the source of value, confines metaphysics to observable reality, and offers reason as it's epistemology.

I do not advocate any particular system, because the only real point I have to make is a recognition of steps to achieve a very specific height. I attempt to view the points regarded from all perspectives.

That being said, I actually completely agree that humans are not at the point where unification or even completely co-operation could occur.

Very often I regard the competition as a valuable aspect of advancement, but I view it in a similar regard as many things that have brought humans to their current point, such as inter-warring when it obviously fuels nothing but destruction when not spurred by proper catalysts. That being said, I don't disagree with wars as a concept, because very often there are those who do not want something that benefits most, or do not want to contribute to humans as a whole.

A concept of globalization is something that is outside our grasp, which is why I advocate awareness of paths as opposed to any specific reform. We have not yet made a system that is ideal for us and will likely not see one for many years to come, if ever.

>socialism is the worker control of the means of production in a statist framework
redistribution of wealth is generally a feature of socialist/lefty thought, it seems that way to me anyway. socialists think it's unfair that there is wealth inequality, or even any inequality. the only solution in their mind is to vote to steal others property

how would you describe your political stance? do you fit in a nice box?

I never said I wasn't a libertarian either. Can you like certain aspects without subscribing to the whole thing? I suppose I'd say I was an individualist, I think it's wrong to force people to do things, in general, although people who violate the non-aggression principle must be dealt with in some way

>I said rand wasn't against voluntary charity, and you countered by saying most people don't mind being forced to pay? surely you should have attacked my statement, perhaps implying it was wrong in some way
I cannot say your point is wrong because was true. Ayn Rand believed exactly that.

But the purpose of the counter-point is to illustrate that people who don't want to pay taxes, don't pay taxes. And if you really want to remain perfectly consistent with the law you could just move to the Cayman islands with your money.

>you didn't imply I was wrong, just that if a is, then b is
I was pointing out the inconsistency in your logic. What you said wasn't exactly untrue, it's just illogical to apply that view to the state but not to private entities.

>says the user using the appeal to authority fallacy? kek
The point of the quote wasn't that it's true because Mises said it. The point was that it's true regardless, it just so happens Mises said it.

The competition of nations is still very valuable to us, since we have yet to achieve widespread recognition of this concept of ideal advancement. We won't even agree on what we want to progress towards for another thousand years at least. This is a very large scale view of humans, and such a view is something we only now can begin to approach.

For so long now, societies have been created, and collapsed. But we face a level of establishment within our own civilization that has yet to be precedented, or even conceptualized. Now that we are closer than ever to sustaining nations as large as we do, we can begin to think of these ideals, assuming we don't implode over the beginnings of transition. Which is most likely the case.

It's so easy to write off human advancement because it's seemingly stagnated already, but to say so is very flawed because of the long term that must be regarded.

But...then again...we do like to kill each other over what we see as progression (profit).

Alot.

The solution of inequality to socialists isn't to just take money from people's bank-accounts and redistribute it equally. The solution according to socialists is to abolish private property as they consider wage labour to be theft in the same sense that libertarians consider taxes to be theft. It's not stealing as far as socialists are concerned anymore than abolishing slavery is stealing.

If I were to describe my politics I'd say I'm mildly centre left.

What you're talking about is positivism and it's a huge failure.

You just described classical liberalism. My freedom ends where yours begins.

Classical liberalism is just about the antithesis of modern American "liberalism" and a much more effective cure since it uses their own """ values""" and """"""""""" ideals""""""""""" against them.

>I cannot say your point is wrong because was true. Ayn Rand believed exactly that.
>
>But the purpose of the counter-point is to illustrate that people who don't want to pay taxes, don't pay taxes. And if you really want to remain perfectly consistent with the law you could just move to the Cayman islands with your money.
part of the problem with giving the government the right to take your labor is they can decide to take any amount of it, and they can spend it on bullshit you don't agree with, such as foreign wars and importing trillions of shistkins to replace you, and vote for you to pay even more. How do you even know that most people are happy to pay their taxes?

>I was pointing out the inconsistency in your logic. What you said wasn't exactly untrue
inconsistent, but not untrue? interesting. I don't see maintaining private property to be a form of theft. could you explain further?

> The point was that it's true regardless, it just so happens Mises said it
we all have betters, and most of the inventions that helped raise our quality of life were by better men than us. what's wrong with that?

just like we owe a debt of gratitude to those who defended our lands in times of war

abolish private property, that seems insane, so the state owns everything? including you?

what do you think of White Genocide?

Ayn Rands theory of morality falls flat at its base point that good and evil boils down to pleasure and pain.

Interesting. Thanks for the tip.

Good and evil boil down to life and death, not pleasure and pain.

if there is no private property, does this apply to wages too? does everyone get paid the same?

if so, what incentive is there to work hard or to innovate or take risks?

You're correct to assume this will take a long time. Just take a look at NASA's budget...people aren't in favor of taking on ambitious plans that don't directly benefit them in some way. In the 1960's the push to reach the moon was basically just to beat the Soviets to it.

Most of the worries and pains of life will need to be taken care of before the general populace would be in favor of putting much R&D into space exploration or other grand plans.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Rand or her ideology, Atlas Shrugged is an objectively terrible novel.

Life is not always good and death is not always bad.

Very much so.

Also it's valuable to note that ocean colonization comes much before space; deep sea presents many similar problems for us to solve as deep space, and will help us gain insight to those issues with a bit more ease of access.

I could even see deep sea colonization become a thing before any proper level of globalization.

>"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."


>not being stoic

People who don't value their life tend not to live too long.

>Atlas Shrugged is an objectively terrible novel.
I disagree

do you have any reasons, or just a claim?

Happiness is worthless as a value.

That's true, but that has much more to do with the inherent failings of parliamentary democracy as opposed to a problem with taxes themselves.

How do I know most people are happy to pay their taxes? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with them, but maybe outside of my area the rest of the UK are really secret ancaps.

>could you explain further?
Fundamentally it's the same logic as the social contract. Private property exists for the sole reason that people believe it does as well as the fact that the state enforces it.

The system of private property makes it so that people without private property must sell their labour as their only means to survive to those who do own private property in exchange for a wage to compensate them as opposed to the full produce of their labour. In turn they must use their wage to pay for rent to live in the private property of their landlord, and then buy the commodities that people like them produced to begin with. The only thing keeping this elaborate system of middle-men between producers and consumers afloat is the threat of state sanctioned force for those who violate property rights.

>what's wrong with that?
It's a matter of Kantian ethics.

By grading people as "inferior" or "superior" based on their social standing you're viewing them as means rather than ends in of themselves.

>so the state owns everything? including you?
Private property as used by socialists is short for the means of production, things that you can accumulate value from simply by owning. But not exactly, in theory it's a matter of no one owning such things but rather they simply are. Like how following the abolition of slavery no one could own another person.

I don't think there's a conscious effort to wipe out white people. But I do think there's a very active effort by people like George Soros to introduce huge amounts of immigrants to make the market for unskilled labour as competitive as possible in order to drive down wages.

That's not what I stated. I stated life and death are not always good or bad. One suffering from desease may view life as suffering and death as peace.

Disease*

It depends. There's a few ways of organizing this.

1. Yes, de facto the state taxes everything 100% and pays everyone a set wage.
2. The workers organize the distribution of resources themselves and can decide how much should be paid to each individual and how much should be spent on other matters. Possibly everyone could get the same wage
3. The workers simply keep all the produce for themselves, then sell it themselves. So everyone gets paid according to what they've produced and what the market offers for it. So by working longer/harder you can make more.

Innovation is desireable in every possible system however, capitalist or otherwise. It will make your job easier no matter how society is structured.

A suffering man wants to end his suffering. Do you want to base your morality on the model of a man under duress?

Even then, wouldn't a healthy continuation life be preferable to a speedy death?

Yeah, except libertarians don't really believe in the right for peoples to govern themselves since they don't really believe in governance in the first place.
How does one justify border control using libertarian philosophy?
How does one justify the preservation of local industry and culture?

No, but I want to point out how flawed objectivism is for basing its morality on life.
Life is suffering due to the fact that we exist without a purpose only to die.

You created a false dichotomy and then expected someone to play on your dishonest terms. So who is being dishonest here?

A suffering man does not necessarily want to end his suffering. It's wrong to say he always does.

Where's the false dichotomy?

One could be heroic following happiness if by happy you mean the concept of eudaimonia

This as well.
We can only truely learn by suffering. Those who are happy never learn a real lesson.

I don't think you have made your point. Your example does nothing but show that some people give up.

>"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

what makes this any different from Existentialism?

That's wrong too. Nothing about being happy necessarily prevents people from learning.

>any proper level of globalization.
wtf do you mean by this? you think there is a proper level of globalization?

>I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with them
aah, anecdotal evidence, I see

> Private property exists for the sole reason that people believe it does as well as the fact that the state enforces it.
it exists because it can be defended. we all have the natural right to defend ourselves and out property, even though in our useless country there are literally ZERO allowed self-defense weapons

so perhaps it's fairer to say that it no longer exists, the government owns everything, and we just have the usufruct

if you don't support private property, do you support government only property?

>By grading people as "inferior" or "superior" based on their social standing you're viewing them as means rather than ends in of themselves.
but surely you are objectively better than others at some things, and worse at others? are you uni educated? presumably you picked a subject you thought you were good at.

what do you want? a system where everyone is identical? everyone gets a first place medal?

>you're viewing them as means rather than ends in of themselves
not sure what you mean by this

>I don't think there's a conscious effort to wipe out white people. But I do think there's a very active effort by people like George Soros to introduce huge amounts of immigrants to make the market for unskilled labour as competitive as possible in order to drive down wages.
if it's not organized, why is it going on in all White countries? and only White countries?

the right likes low wages, the left get free voters that will vote socialist, the jews get to rule over a low-IQ deracinated populous with no cultural roots, and to destroy their chief rival/obstacle to world rule

Irrelevant. If he doesn't want to end his suffering, then he values life.

Happy people can be taught but cannot learn. Learning comes through suffering.

Giving up isn't morally good or bad. That's the point. It just is.

NOT AN ARGUMENT

Not true, value is an active idea. Life is just a state of being.

That's also not necessarily true. I could be commanded by God to suffer and value life at 0, but since I'm commanded to suffer and I value following God's commands infinitely, I'm not allowed to die even if I wanted to.

Objectivism is both morally and pragmatically incomprehensible. Its almost like it is a philosophy invented by a bad fiction author, to be embraced by self-interested libertarians who want to act as parasites on the public.

There are few more disgusting ideologies out there, and as far as I am concerned, it is pretty high on the "purge it with bullets and blades" list.

I had actually wondered the same myself, so I found this:

atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/objectivism-q-a/objectivism-q-a-blog/4297-existentialism-and-ayn-rand

1) sounds like full communism. which requires fear and tyranny to motivate workers

2) voting just pits different classes of workers against eachother, and the ones with the most members get to rule, even though they might not be the most useful to the production

3) the janitors, the designers, the accountants, the truck drivers, etc don't make any products themselves, but are still needed. also I presume there would be different products made

innovation might be desirable in some cases, but in others it can put people out of jobs

in all these scenarios, the people are still forced to work, which is what you were complaining about before

What can someone uniquely learn by suffering that one cannot learn while in a state of relative happiness? Especially given that someone can be happy and suffering simultaneously, since they're not mutually exclusive qualities.

I follow this with this hypothetical. Say you have a chicken, you value its life as a companion, but I do not value its life, it is something to be used, not valued.

I asked him to name a socialist state that wasn't heavily in debt

how was that a false dichotomy?

you some kind of moran buddhist faggot?

at least attempt to give some reasons you stupid faggot

are chickens popular as comapnions in canadia?

You cannot learn the depth of the human will from happiness. Only through suffering can you truely reach understanding of what a human is truely capable of when they have reached their lowest. You must reach the lowest point if you are ever going to understand what the need for power truely is. The need for power is the way of understanding the true will to power and the only way to make steps towards the overman. If one has not truely suffered one cannot know true peace and the way to peace.