Ayn Rand: 'I Would Never Vote for a Woman President'

Ayn Rand: 'I Would Never Vote for a Woman President'
youtube.com/watch?v=cL8g7zy6qxw

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LmvORfDs0D0
youtu.be/089xOB9bbhU?t=32m37s
youtube.com/watch?v=u-T0ey0IKDA
youtube.com/watch?v=6AndrSAkaSw
blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Ayn Rand
you must be 18 years or older to post here

I am :)

Cuck

Rand is based. Unfortunately most of Sup Forums shits on her for being a jew(ethnically at least.) Her philosophy is pretty unique, and I think it's really worthy of serious academic interest (especially her Epistemology). As for politics, she was able to predict the mess America was heading to. All in all, she's pretty red-pilled.

This is a Christian board. Don't post lewds please. Thanks ^_^

f p b p

Based Ayn Rand.

>Christian board
>Worships Kek

the smiley face bugs me because its always opposed nonsense ideas

typical democrat mental lunch

...

clinton foundation
fed
law and judges
obama
syrians placed in usa against usa citizens will
green programs by billion no one voted for

Is Ayn Rand taught in US high schools? She's too anti-commy/socialist for that

Sup Forums shits on her because she's up there with communism for baby's first non-conforming ideology. It's a classic example of Sup Forums contrarianism hating something because of the fanbase, which can't be helped.

if you tax money is stolen
its ok to goto tax paid school
same with soc security
if you tax money is stolen
ok to get back
better to fix system where no stealing
so enuf with your sad attempt to find illogic
lol

tax parasites flip out at anyone who fights them on moral grounds

wtf I love Ayn Rand now.

>"It is not in a woman's personal interest to rule men. It puts her in a very unhappy position. I don't think any good woman would want that position. "

Fuck ... to think this was a rather common view during her time ... she's right, we HAVE fallen that low.

It's crazy - women from Rand's generation were much more respectful towards men. Now we're just universally treated like shit.

women need resources

as they steal them from men who produce

they then are happy

they can slut it up

It's funny too because too many of my fellow Objectivists keep arguing against Trump. I swear most of them have hipster-contrarian tendencies. Even though Trump proved to be a good choice, they just shill for Johnson so they can keep up their "BOTH SIDES ARE SO BAADDD" whining.

Even though they all know damn well it's a waste of a vote.

Not all of them though, but too many are playing this retarded game. Too many are falling for social justice shit too. I don't think they're quote aware of the cultural Marxist implications of the whole thing.

She`s right.

Objectivists don't like Trump because he is a statist, not because they are contrarian. The ideal form of government is one in which the government serves one function: remove coercion and fraud from society. Trump supports:

>socialized medicine
>tariffs
>government-protected industries like the auto industry
>"free" daycare for women (meaning taxpayers pay for it)
>restricting immigration

He has said almost nothing about reducing the deficit or the debt, the two greatest threats to our future prosperity as a nation.

Ayn "I have daddy issues" Rand is not taught in US schools.

>Is Ayn Rand taught in US high schools?
kek

at least she realizes a few things
ayn rand philosophy is literally "fuck everybody else, better be selfish and benefit none but me at every opportunity no matter what". what a miserable way to live life.

It was a choice from a list of books in my sophomore or junior year IIRC

>(((AYN RAND)))

Nigga pls

>ayn rand philosophy is literally "fuck everybody else, better be selfish and benefit none but me at every opportunity no matter what". what a miserable way to live life.

This is the number one misconception about objectivism. Ayn Rand explains that people are happiest when they pursue their own /rational/ self interest, and engage in activities of creation. It is not in your rational self interest to build your life and accomplishments on theft, deception, and harming others. Even Hillary, whi is guilty of all those things and may become the most powerful person on earth, would be happier if she earned that position without relying on destructive behaviors.

If there was ever a woman to vote for President, it would be Hillary. Hillary has bigger balls than Trump.

youtube.com/watch?v=LmvORfDs0D0

Everyone was able to predict the mess America was heading towards and Rand is an edgelord.
Pic related.

Capitalism is a win-win game, and you pursuing your own self interest benefit others when they voluntarily trade with you. There is no "benefit no one but me" in this scenario.

From most of my political leanings, I could say that I am an Objectivist, I fully support Trump. How old are you? A lot of people that I know that say they are "objectivist" are in their early 20s and want to be edgy and don't to be called a lolbertarian.

Holy shit someone here on pol that actually read her works. Bravo my friend. Bravo.

youtu.be/089xOB9bbhU?t=32m37s

It's a good interview, you should watch the whole thing

I could care less if she was a Jew or not, she had some really good ideas, and if you have the stamina her fiction, through which she expressed more of her ideas, were brilliant.

youtube.com/watch?v=u-T0ey0IKDA

Also, one of the best things written, IMO...

but the logical endpoint of objectivism is that you don't see why you should work for things when you don't have to, translating to skimping out on duties whenever you can consider how it would improve your life as a whole
it's the "i want to live in a commie state who gives me everything but i don't want to serve the commies" way of thought

Thanks, I think I've watched it earlier this year but I saved it to watch it later.

>skimping out on duties

"Duty" is a false, evil concept that Rand rejects entirely. It's a nonsense concept invented to form a sense of unearned obligation in the minds of people so that they are willing to sacrifice their own wellbeing for others.

>why work when you don't have to

You work because you have to eat. Objectivism rejects any form of state-established welfare or handout, and advocates that individuals provide for themselves and those they /voluntarily/ choose to provide for, such as their families. After you have provided for yourself, you work because you want to enrich your life - you want better food, a nicer home, more attractive clothing, whatever. It's on you to decide what you rationally want in the 80 years you are here for and how best to get it.

it was taught in my (((seattle))) advanced literature class.

otherwise, she was mentioned in normal history classes as well

I think the depiction of crony capitalism in atlas shrugged is very similar to our world now. All the regulations to kill competition that wasn't benefiting politicians. Crooked industrial leaders creating policies. Not getting shit done and destroying the country.

Pence has talked on how they will repeal executive orders that overregulate industries, will cut taxes, and will make trade deals that are in the interest of America. You can infer that's part of a plan to work on the deficit. If we can't produce anything, we can't produce anything.

duties such as earning your own keep is indeed a false concept, which is why i am mentioning that if it were not necessary to earn your own food at the table, then you would certainly not do so
what you describe as an "objectivist government" is a very silly thing to say, akin to calling for true communism or ancap rule, clearly nobody but the individual will subscribe to this ideology, paving the way for a lot of abuse of the goodwill of others with more fulfilling lives with actual obligations, and the ideology does nothing to explain how this is not the case, for it would be the case if you were ever offered the alternative of working for your keep or not doing so because you aren't required to
it is a matter of putting the self beyond all else, but not properly recognizing it as such, making it inferior to egoism or epicureanism

>repeal regulations
He's also said that if the auto industry outsources jobs, he will impose a 30% tariff on their products reentering the states. You might as well give up the farce and jsut nationalize the industry at that point, it's naked pandering to voters in a (((swing))) state. I will be forced to pay more for a car just to protect American jerbs, instead of Americans taking responsibility for their own employment and training.

>cut taxes
If he actually does this, I agree. Good for him. Especially corporate tax, which I know he's talked about dropping to 15%.

>Trade deals
The best trade deal is no trade deal. Why does the government allow us to trade for this and that and that or this price? There should be no tariffs, no controls (excepting obvious things like hazardous or weaponized commodities), no government interference in trade. That is not government's function.

>Deficit
He's talked about reducing revenue, which is fine, but mentioned almost nothing about reducing spending to match. That means more deficit and more debt.

>If we can't produce...
We don't need the government to help us produce. Government is an obstruction to production, not a protector or enabler of it. It creates nothing itself, only takes resources from the creators. For some thing like defense this is necessary, but for almost everything else it is not.

Ideally, people would not work for food if food were given to them for free. That is fine, since we all want more time to pursue more enriching activities. It allows us to make art, or build rockets, or whatever. Advances in technology have permitted us to spend less time and effort feeding ourselves and opened up opportunities to earn our living by pursuing other things, but you still have to make something of value if you want to trade for your own needs. Capitalism compels people to produce, there is no way around it. The desire for leisure compels people to innovate. Neither of these is a bad thing.

>The best trade deal is no trade deal.
You can't honestly expect American workers to compete with workers in the third world who have much lower living standards while trying to maintain their own first world standards of living. This is the problem with the objectivist ideal, you create a situation where you either export all your jobs to the third world and create a dependent underclass that can't provide for themselves or you allow their living standards to drop to the point where you create a third world inside your country. Although I suppose objectivists would say that you simply let the people die in the first scenario but then you're just building a low trust, low empathy society that no sane person will want to live in.

Corporations ultimately exist at the whim of the government, and by extension the whim of the people(in Western nations). Accepting them as some kind of external entity that shouldn't be restrained by the thing that allows them to exist is simply naive.

>You can't honestly expect American workers to compete with workers in the third world who have much lower living standards while trying to maintain their own first world standards of living.

This is Luddite logic of the highest order. 100 years ago, 80% of the US population lived and worked on farms, because agriculture only produced a marginal surplus. You grew barely enough to feed yourself, then a bit left over to sell so that people can live in cities. Today, we produce orders of magnitude more food with only 2% of our population in agriculture. Where are the armies of angry, impoverished farmers? For that matter, where are the unemployed buggy whip craftsmen and dueling pistol artisans?

Industries change as an economy advances. I am not obligated to pay more for a product just so that you can keep your job. An employed is not morally required to employ you because you were born on this rock instead of that one. If a Chinese guy will do your job for 1/10th the price, it signals that he needs the job more and is willing to do it for less. I the taxpayer and your employer are not required to provide and maintain your standard of living. If your job is under threat of outsourcing you need to move to another industry.

>export all your jobs
You assume again that there are a fixed number of jobs. This is false. Capitalism creates more jobs than there are people when markets are free. If people saved money on products because prices went down (due to outsourcing labor), that saved money would be invested in new industries which would create new jobs. Magnavox was wiped out by the Japanese, but there are not unemployed television manufacturers here, are there? They moved to new industries, which pay more.

>allow their living standards to drop to the point where you create a third world inside your country

Only if you don't retrain yourself and find new work. You assume a person is a cog incapable of performing any task but what he was forged for.

Give this a watch. It's both entertaining and enlightening, talks about why deydurkerjerbs is bunk.

youtube.com/watch?v=6AndrSAkaSw

>Where are the armies of angry, impoverished farmers? For that matter, where are the unemployed buggy whip craftsmen and dueling pistol artisans?
Farmers went from preforming their (relatively speaking) unskilled labor to preforming other unskilled labor. The problem here is that you're talking about exporting effectively all of the unskilled labor which means you have to confront the issue that only a certain percentage of the population is suited for skilled labor. The artisan gunsmith is still very much in demand by the way, and one that's comparably skilled to the gunsmiths that would have made dueling pistols in their day will make more than you or I will in a lifetime.

>Only if you don't retrain yourself and find new work. You assume a person is a cog incapable of performing any task but what he was forged for.
You're assuming people can be retrained from unskilled labor to skilled. While this is obviously true for a certain percentage you'd have to have never set foot in a manufacturing plant to think this is the case for everyone.

I'll also add the point of what do you do with people who are potentially able to be skilled but can't afford to pay for retraining themselves? Under your system they get discarded with the unskilled and you end up with a system where you're no longer culling people solely on ability but now also on inherited or created means.

>unskilled to unskilled labor
This is an excellent point, but there is a solution. What is the difference between skilled and unskilled labor? Well, education and training, right? What are the obstacles associated with obtaining education and training? Usually, government regulation. Practical education is not actually that expensive, it is made expensive and ineffective by our insanely failed public education catastrophe.

Let's apply some real world examples. Almost all the cheap shit you can buy at WalMart is made in Asia. WalMart has, therefore, moved some US jobs overseas. However, everyone who buys a hammer at WalMart now saves 50% on that hammer. Who buys hammers at WalMart? The poorest Americans are their primary shoppers. WalMart outsourcing those jobs and reducing prices has enabled the poorest Americans to buy more with less. They are wealthier.

What do they do with this wealth? Well, they can invest in education. They can get a load to supplement it and get vocational training. Meanwhile, those industries like WalMart which have saved money on labor costs have now expanded and are offering new jobs in more technologically-demanding sectors.

Is transitioning easy? No, I agree. But it is morally wrong to compel another person to buy only certain goods just so you can keep your job.

>What is the difference between skilled and unskilled labor? Well, education and training, right?
No it's an intrinsic quality some people have and others don't. This blog post which discusses the implications of an academic study provides a great illustration of that.

blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/

The notion of the tabula rasa human that can end up or be reshaped into anything is simply not true. If you remove unskilled labor you remove jobs that a certain segment of the population is only capable of preforming. You can either force these jobs to remain in your country as some kind of pesudo-welfare or you can simply place the permanently unemployed on cradle to grave welfare.

>They can get a load to supplement it and get vocational training.
Another flaw in your rational is assuming that there are infinite vocational jobs available and that they're highly accessible. While certain fields may be in high demand and are relatively easy to get into if you don't mind the health hazards(welding) others are very hard to break into and require either massive start up costs(mechanics/electricians/plumbers generally need to purchase their own tools even if they work for a company, and professional grade tools are not cheap) or they're unionized and only accept so many new members a year to prevent their wages from dropping to the levels of unskilled labor. It's not as simple as "retrain everyone to something higher skilled" even if you assume they're capable of it.

Any being that bleeds for one week out of four does not have the fortitude to be a leader of the most powerful nation on earth........

Ayn Rand is a stupid cunt. Stop glorifying her.

>caring about ayn rand

how stupid are you fucks?

probably all she ever needed was a good roll in the hay
8 inches of tube steak would have turned her into a purring Ann Margret

We read Anthem was I was in high school ~2000

ITT libertardians defending their goddess

>implying people will change their minds based on arguments and not just spew propaganda

>implying people on Sup Forums give a flying fuck about what (((alisa rosenbaum))) thought

It is. I read Anthem in the 10th grade for class.