You are violent

You are violent.

Attached: 4DF9648C-A3B0-4ABE-BD1E-99D74CDB14C1.jpg (220x329, 11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

not as violent as your mother.

Oh hai there Ayn Rand. You talking about "Atillas" and "Witch Doctor's" again in your false dichotomy summation of all human personality archetypes?

Attached: friedrich-nietzsche-9423452-1-402.jpg (1200x1200, 243K)

All dichotomies are false in that human personality is not a binary. That doesn't mean they aren't illustrative.

>is not a binary

She said the initiation of physical force is evil. Killed no one.

Mo, on the other hand...

You are right

She also believed in radically de-regulating and letting the private industry run everything with 0 oversight. Lets swap the tyranny of government with the tyranny of corporations you guys!

Oh! She also died living on welfare. Reminds me of the old saying, "Do as I say and not as I do." Someone who definitely lives by example huh?

They deserve it

>>She also died living on welfare.

You either know little of what you speak or you are purposefully distorting the truth.

Nope. She said government should be limited to the protection of individual rights.
And she was best=selling author who made and was taxed millions. Her estate is still taxed today.

snopes literally shows it's true. She received social security payments from the government.

It also shows that in fact receiving Social Security payments, which she contributed towards was not in contradiction to her beliefs. Additionally saying 'She died living on welfare' is pretty hyperbolic compared to 'she eventually accepted Social Security payments at the behest of her estate managers'. Of the two the second is most correct and THAT is what Snopes says.

LOL. Well she was against all forms of government welfare. You can tip toe and tap dance around it any way that you want too but she was against that only believed in "private charities". Whatever. Have fun with your Ayn Rand toys you little moral objectivist edgelord. I was once in high-school too.

I don't believe in government welfare social security ECT. But I know exactly what I pay specifically in social security and I'll fucking take my money back when I'm eligible supposing it even exists at that time

But also, Ayn Rand was a disgusting Jewess whose ideology existed to justify cucking her husband, and it's espoused solely by Jews and spiritual Jews. Even Trotsky was less of a kike.

Attached: 3320a728406fe18b970ae33607acfd2bdac27cc4ac3f4c45c8b3750323a2388f.jpg (720x540, 23K)

You may feel that you've struck some great blow against an objectivist with this, but I assure you all political philosophies fail when confronted with reality.

I don't want to ruin the moment for you, so go ahead and dance. Ayn Rand accepted Social Security through the hand of someone who was given the power of attorney to do so. Certainly this makes her the equivalent of Pol Pot who also failed in living his political vision.

TLDR: "Do as I say not what I do. I disagree with a system but I will definitely still use it and take full advantage of it!"

What a crybaby. Sounds like you don't care enough about your ideals to curtail the system.

"supposing it even exists at the time"

No shit it won't. It was a fine good working system that people loved and still love to this day because it helps so many desperate working poor. But the chronies in government cooperate with their ultra-wealthy donors to give them endless tax cuts. When they create a deficit from aforementioned tax cuts, they then turn around and cut any social safety nets in place by borrowing against it then turn around and say "SEE?! This thing doesn't work! Never mind the fact that we keep deliberately borrowing against it to offset the massive tax breaks we give to the ultra wealthy!! It doesn't work!"

Ayn Rand followers are nothing but useful idiots who polluted and corrupted the libertarian ideology. You can thank the Koch brothers and the Koch foundation for that.

The greatest blow of all against objectivists is that their political philosophy will never see implementation.

Attached: b17addfe3cdf6819e0299720f7de334fccab397d1eb2cc26fd076d02247095ae.png (291x293, 24K)


Attached: Cinnamon.png (357x384, 54K)

She married some neet artist.
Who else would marry that ugly slag.

Another Christcuck unable to understand her rejection of self-sacrifice - probably thinks Terry Waite accepted "Muslim Welfare" while he was chained to a radiator in a Lebanese basement for 4 years.

Moral objectivism is so popular among the high schoolers and youth because the human brain typically doesn't fully develop until the age of 25 when they obtain this thing they reject called "empathy". Her ideology pushes the narrative that it's okay to be a totally selfish self-centered asshole that justifies asshole behavior. Wouldn't expect much from this ugly woman who was into weird rape fantasies and an amphetamine addict. Her writings read like someone who was on a week-long adderall binge.

I'd say it's unlikely to ever see implementation again. The first hundred years of the American Experiment was pretty Objectivist, even if it didn't call itself that. If you're a historian you'll be able to point to plenty of examples where it failed to be Objectivist, but no system is pure, just like no man is pure.

I think it has less to do with that than with the fact that a) Objectivism appeals to the chuuni "unsheathes katana, I'm a sociopath" mindset and that b) it's such a fringe political philosophy that supporting it is irrelevant. It's like being a monarchist in America.

That's a cope. Classical liberalism being relatively amenable to your outlook isn't the same as it being the same as Objectivism. You'll never see me saying "Franco was close enough."

Attached: 744d088a4e137c2098a71df2b3a701e872c833a9b59ad3309976d6e3b6cb60de.png (425x406, 88K)

the only way objective morality can exist is through the existence of a god or deity to enforce it's moral sensibilities. All morality is otherwise entirely subjective. Yet another reason why Ayn Rand is a fucking dolt. Have fun with your high school crush user. Maybe once you graduate high school and your brain fully develops by 25, you will realize how stupid it is.

Perhaps you 2 don't understand that I don't care all that much about this conversation, or philosophy. I'm not an Objectivist, I'm just playing one because I'm bored.

You're never going to get pure anything in politics in the real world. So in fact Franco may be close enough depending upon the conversation.

I agree. 'God is dead' was not an exaltation it was a lament.

Her letters have more empathy than they should. She spends years denouncing hedonism {correctly} only to be accused of hedonism.Actually attacks asshole behaviour then gets accused asshole behaviour. Says reason is key to life - like everyone else in the 18th c.- then gets accused of lacking emotion.

Everyone complains about the splinter in the other's eye while enjoying a mote of their own. (kind of a bad paraphrase).

The difference between life and death is not a matter of preference - it is an objective fact of reality. Life and death are not negotiable terms.

Well that's certainly a basic truth. So basic it's hard to tell if you meant to apply it against a particular statement.

I agree. She's very kind in interviews as well.