|
*puts lantern in window* it begins.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 07:34 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:12 |
|
paragon1 posted:I mean I'm not, but it really isn't good to assume mean things about strangers! I could not agree more, I am however inferring that jrod is a shithead from his posts.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 07:37 |
Wasn't one of the Ayn Rand heroes a pirate who sunk foreign aid shipments?
|
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 08:02 |
|
Nessus posted:Wasn't one of the Ayn Rand heroes a pirate who sunk foreign aid shipments? A blogger made a quip about charity and Rand, implying that she wouldn't approve of his donating, and then a crapload of randroids swooped on his facebook post correcting him that Rand was a massive contributor to charitable causes.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 08:05 |
|
i stopped reading this trainwreck of a thread a few pages in, but has any lolbertarian in the history of mankind offered an explanation as to why "having absolutely no property rights at all is a bad idea" means "property rights above all"
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 10:02 |
|
If the authoritarians thread taught me anything, 'true believers' try to keep their real world view secret. That bullshit debate points is just the polite facade to lure you in. E: The thread I refer to: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3708238 By popular demand fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Oct 14, 2015 |
# ? Oct 14, 2015 11:26 |
|
Nessus posted:Wasn't one of the Ayn Rand heroes a pirate who sunk foreign aid shipments? Probably! She did have the hots for that one serial killer.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 14:17 |
|
Nessus posted:Wasn't one of the Ayn Rand heroes a pirate who sunk foreign aid shipments? Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_Shrugged_characters#Ragnar_Danneskj.C3.B6ld That "aid" was stolen at gunpoint from the captains of industry, he simply launders it into gold bars for its original owners. He is the real Robin Hood, see, because the Sheriff of Nottingham was the State, and... Google image search turns up some cool poo poo!
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 14:21 |
|
Wanamingo posted:Probably! She did have the hots for that one serial killer. She also loved cheating on her husband repeatedly right in front of him. She claimed they had an open relationship, but when her husband started seeing someone else she went nuts on him. http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/60120/index1.html CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Oct 14, 2015 |
# ? Oct 14, 2015 14:22 |
|
There's a few things that are interesting about old Ragnar. One is that his introduction is a telling silence: Rand never spares the reader a gigantic treatise on every one of her heroes' perspectives, but Ragnar's is shuffled by awkwardly in a paragraph or two, with the implication that the other Gulchers are not really comfortable with his methods. The other time this happens is when Galt tries to talk about how family bonds can be reconciled with his radical individualist ideology, and just sorta mumbles something about a sort of contractual-like bond, then later has some lady say that she could only be a good mother in the Gulch for reasons. Libertarianism in general is horrible at dealing with the facts of human reproduction and the family, but Ragnar reflects how convoluted its supposedly clear line on violence is. The other is that Rand is insistent that the only things government-funded science is good for is inventing new weapons and methods of destruction. So it's kind of interesting to think about how a single former philosophy student (!) can take on the worlds' navies with one ship, given how his closest pal is apparently a super-genius scientist inventor.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 14:27 |
|
GunnerJ posted:The other is that Rand is insistent that the only things government-funded science is good for is inventing new weapons and methods of destruction. So it's kind of interesting to think about how a single former philosophy student (!) can take on the worlds' navies with one ship, given how his closest pal is apparently a super-genius scientist inventor. Apparently the Gulch is Area 51 and they have alien technology. I always loved how deus ex machina it was, pulling unbelievable technology and energy systems out of thin air and then proclaiming it a product of the genius of the objectivist movement.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 14:29 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Apparently the Gulch is Area 51 and they have alien technology. I always loved how deus ex machina it was, pulling unbelievable technology and energy systems out of thin air and then proclaiming it a product of the genius of the objectivist movement. It's easy to forget sometimes that it's basically pulp scifi with free energy engines, cloaking devices, magic wonder-metals, and earthquake makers.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 14:40 |
|
CommieGIR posted:She also loved cheating on her husband repeatedly right in front of him. She claimed they had an open relationship, but when her husband started seeing someone else she went nuts on him. wasnt her husband schtuppin someone good-looking too
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 14:48 |
|
CommieGIR posted:She also loved cheating on her husband repeatedly right in front of him. She claimed they had an open relationship, but when her husband started seeing someone else she went nuts on him. Glad she died.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:11 |
|
Nonsense posted:Glad she died. On welfare!
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:18 |
|
Literally The Worst posted:wasnt her husband schtuppin someone good-looking too A model, Ayn demanded that he be impotent for the rest of his life.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:20 |
|
Nonsense posted:A blogger made a quip about charity and Rand, implying that she wouldn't approve of his donating, and then a crapload of randroids swooped on his facebook post correcting him that Rand was a massive contributor to charitable causes. Do they ever say which charities?
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:21 |
jrodefeld posted:
What about people who might hurt themselves? Are you against involuntary commitment?
|
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:22 |
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Do they ever say which charities? No, he asked and they retorted that what kind of monster demands that charitable donations be identified when it was clear she donated anonymously because she is humble unlike George Clooney!
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:23 |
|
Alhazred posted:What about people who might hurt themselves? Are you against involuntary commitment? I don't see why he wouldn't be. I kind of am myself.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:23 |
|
CommieGIR posted:A model, Ayn demanded that he be impotent for the rest of his life. Oh hey that reminded me: http://eviltwincomics.tumblr.com/post/72771087448/action-philosopher-ayn-rand-from-action
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:39 |
|
SedanChair posted:I don't see why he wouldn't be. I kind of am myself. It's an uncomfortable idea, but I don't think the idea of someone truly being unwell enough to be trusted to make a decision in their own best interest is really beyond the pale.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:39 |
|
GunnerJ posted:Oh hey that reminded me: http://eviltwincomics.tumblr.com/post/72771087448/action-philosopher-ayn-rand-from-action Seriously thinking about a new av.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 15:47 |
|
CommieGIR posted:She also loved cheating on her husband repeatedly right in front of him. She claimed they had an open relationship, but when her husband started seeing someone else she went nuts on him. Literally The Worst posted:wasnt her husband schtuppin someone good-looking too CommieGIR posted:A model, Ayn demanded that he be impotent for the rest of his life. I hate myself for knowing this, but her husband never hosed anyone else. It was her younger already-married protegee/lover who, fifteen or so years after he and Ayn broke it off, started dating a hot model on the DL while Ayn was trying to convince him to start up their old affair. This was of course an unforgiveable sin on his part because your sexual desires should be totally integrated with your intellectual and philosophical values, which means a good Objectivist would want to sex up Ayn Rand's unthoroughly-washed geriatric body all the time. The better Objectivist you are, the bigger the harem you're allowed to have and the more exclusive your subordinate Objectivist fucktoys have to be to you, since Ayn Rand is the best Objectivist...
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 16:03 |
|
I'm beginning to think that Ayn rand was kinda hypocritical
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 16:11 |
|
God dammit JRod get back here and say something stupid so people stop posting about Ayn Rand having sex.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 16:12 |
|
Nolanar posted:God dammit JRod get back here and say something stupid so people stop posting about Ayn Rand having sex.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 16:29 |
|
Caros posted:I am very confused. Splittist!
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 18:28 |
|
Also, while Rand frequently describes bad female characters as being frumpy and unfashionable, she actually committed a lot of fashion faux-pas: Ayn Rand Fun Fact #75 posted:Marcella Rabwin, Rand’s next-door neighbor in the 1930’s, remembers her this way: “[She dressed] like a dowd. She was the worst-dressed woman I have ever known in my life.” Ayn Rand Fun Fact # 61 posted:Rand’s favorite fragrance was Edwardian Bouquet by the perfume house Floris of London. Olfactory scholars Lucca Turin and Tania Sanchez describe the scent thusly: “On paper, this handsome chypre has a classic galbanum profile: fresh, bitter green, slightly musky. On skin, it turns peculiarly and distinctly urinous with curdled milk smell, and would invite speculations on one’s continence.” Also, a weird thing about Ayn Rand and her clothes: Norah Ephron, "Fountainhead Revisited" posted:Ayn Rand is not easy to write about - and not just because she doesn’t cooperate. One example will suffice. When I was interviewing her editor Ed Kuhn he told me that she was furious because an article in Life magazine had described her as wearing a tricornered hat and a cape. Remember, a rational person never makes mistakes.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 21:02 |
|
It's also worth noting that the guy kept drilling her far longer than he wanted to. Like he just didn't want to anymore but kept doing it because he knew what would happen. When he finally did quit she destroyed everything they had built together, ended his career, and deliberately turned him into a nobody. I could be wrong but that isn't something that a person endeavoring to create a rational, just society should be doing. She was literally holding his career hostage for sex and ended it when he turned off the sex faucet. She also made her husband wear a bell so she could hear him coming if he was writing.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2015 21:27 |
|
All this talk about homesteading Ayn Rand is nice and all...
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 02:15 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's also worth noting that the guy kept drilling her far longer than he wanted to. Like he just didn't want to anymore but kept doing it because he knew what would happen. When he finally did quit she destroyed everything they had built together, ended his career, and deliberately turned him into a nobody. I don't think he really wanted to to begin with.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 03:25 |
|
Sex can be sold as a commodity, discuss Ayn Rand in terms of marginal utility.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 03:27 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Sex can be sold as a commodity, discuss Ayn Rand in terms of marginal utility. Someone help me out. I know there is a joke about time preferences here.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 04:15 |
|
Ufff keep going, I'm almost there
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 04:52 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Sex can be sold as a commodity, discuss Ayn Rand in terms of marginal utility. Here's Francisco D'Anconia's long-rear end speech about sex from Atlas Shrugged, which articulates Rand's theory of sexual attraction. Basically, sex and sexual attraction is a reflection of what one values most - if you reject Objectivist values, you're doomed to seek an unsatisfying relationship with "a brainless slut ... from the gutter," but a proper egoist will hold out for "the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer — because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement." And because Rand was, in her own, estimation, the greatest genius to ever live, I can imagine that she considered herself a great heroine. That's a big part of why she got so mad at Nathaniel Branden when he slept with another woman - how could he claim to value reason above all else and not choose a great reasoner?
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 05:00 |
|
Sex and property rights just makes things so unsexy, and opens up some very strange doors. Let us never walk through those doors. Because basically, sex gets reduced down to fluid exchange between two adult humans who are looking to exchange fluids, and trust me, nobody will go to bed with you if you ask them to exchange fluids with you.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 05:09 |
|
Caros posted:Its a long story that you can find in the libertarian thread, but the short answer is that I had a very good friend who lived in the US who found out she had cancer. Considering her age and the stage at which it was discovered her survival rate with treatment was something like 95% over five years, 90% over 10 years and so on. It was the type of cancer you get better from. The problem is that she lived in the US and wasn't wealthy. In the first place, as I'm sure you are now aware, the "factories to the factory owners" phrase was a typo and I meant to write "factories to the factory workers". Given the context of the quote, and the fact that I mentioned its relationship to Marxist rhetoric, you probably could have assumed that it was a typo. Syndicalism is a second best option for returning public property to private ownership. In the absence of proof of who held the original just property claims, the closest standard by which individuals could be considered to have homesteaded the land are the government employees and/or individual contractors who worked on the lands. Assuming the original homesteaders or their descendants cannot be found, dividing the land up among the individuals who worked on the lands is a second best option. Some public lands might be simply made open to individual homesteading. That is, the State declares the lands unowned and announces a date by which individuals can travel and homestead the land by building homes, farms, etc. What the State should NOT be permitted to do in my view is to sell the land or to choose arbitrarily which people to grant property titles to. If the State cannot legitimately own property, then they cannot legitimately sell that which they don't own. Your objection to the homesteading principle vis a vis the Native Americans strikes me as odd. There is no question that early European settlers disregarded any legitimate property rights of the native peoples, repeatedly broke treaties they signed with them and proceeded to wipe out vast numbers in a genocide while herding the rest of them onto State appointed reservations as if they were livestock, dehumanizing them. The narrative you are bending over backwards to create is that the homestead principle is some elitist European idea that was designed to allow white people to colonize and steal land and resources from darker skinned people. The genocide of the American Indians ran contrary to every tenet of Enlightenment-Era liberalism and Natural Rights Theory. The legacy of white supremacy and patriarchy unfortunately carried over into the new world, despite the pretty words written into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You are wrong to believe that Native Americans had no concept of private property or that it wasn't possible to reasonably respect the rights that they did have. There is one thing that is clear though. Not even the most liberal and generous notion of property rights conceivable would grant the American Indians exclusive control over the entire continent of North America. Yet this seems to be what you are implying. Are you suggesting that European settlers had no right to step onto the beaches of Plymouth, Massachusetts because they were trespassing on the property of the native peoples?! Let's suppose that the American Indians did have either a concept of private property that granted them "ownership" over the entire continent or they didn't recognize private property rights at all. Stipulating that this is true, I would say that they had an incorrect understanding of property rights, which we are not bound to respect. However, the crucial point that must be made is that the early European colonists indeed DID steal an enormous amount of land from the native peoples according to libertarian property rights theory and, more fundamentally, the theory of Natural Rights and the non-aggression principle. Superior ideas should win out. And I contend that the first user principle of original appropriation is the only coherent theory of private property rights that exists. None of us can undo the atrocities committed by people in the past. The best we can do is provide a consistent theoretical framework for understanding what constitutes just property and which constitutes stolen property. This of course means that some of us will be the unfair beneficiaries of past theft that cannot be proven or completely overturned. There isn't any perfect solution to this problem no matter what ideology you subscribe to. Some past land theft can be proven. Whether it is to provide reparations to descendants of black slaves or descendants of Native Americans who were murdered, libertarian justice would compel us to provide restitution for past damages if sufficient evidence is provided. It is patently unfair to criticize libertarianism for not having a perfect solution to a difficult problem when no competing ideology has any better of a solution. Is it any more "just" to take money ad hoc from white people, whether they or their ancestors had anything to do with slavery and give it to black people, whether or not their ancestors were enslaved? Furthermore, is it "just" to kick tons of European-Americans out of their homes and give them to descendants of Native Americans even if there is not the slightest evidence that the redistributed property belonged to their ancestors? The best we can hope to do is reallocate stolen goods and property to their rightful owners, to the extent that it can be proven, and sustain a coherent system of property rights based on original appropriation into the future. The further into the future we get with genuine equality of rights and property rights based on libertarian theory, the less important property theft in the distant past will matter.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 07:27 |
|
Thank you for entering into a contract with me, Jrod.jrodefeld posted:In the first place, as I'm sure you are now aware, the "factories to the factory owners" phrase was a typo and I meant to write "factories to the factory workers". Given the context of the quote, and the fact that I mentioned its relationship to Marxist rhetoric, you probably could have assumed that it was a typo. So you believe Native Americans have a claim to some of North America, and that the descendants of slaves are due reparations, right? Except you keep falling back on the question of "proof" for things you admit happened. What kind of proof are you talking about here? Would genealogical evidence that a person is descended from a slave be sufficient proof to entitle them to reparations? How about a treaty signed with a Native American tribe?
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 07:33 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:12 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Some public lands might be simply made open to individual homesteading. That is, the State declares the lands unowned and announces a date by which individuals can travel and homestead the land by building homes, farms, etc. That sounds hilarious and I now want a reality show where a bunch of libertarians rush to build lovely houses as quickly as possible and try to come up with other schemes to homestead as much land as possible.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 07:37 |