Jump to content

Workable Objectivism (Ayn Rand)


Br16

Recommended Posts

"Speak softly and carry a large stick" only works as a political strategy if there is an actual large stick somewhere in the equation. Gradual broadening of the right to vote during 19th century happened only because the alternative was the French Revolution repeating itself in other major countries; apartheid ended due to combination of external pressure and the risk of revolution; the fall of Berlin Wall and Velvet Revolution happened because the alternative was the Romanian Revolution; increase of worker's rights in early 20th century came about partly out of fear of the communist revolution; etc.

You may notice the word "revolution" repeating itself in the previous sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a huge range of communication and interaction between civil discourse and outright violence.  At some point in this thread it seems that anyone advocating shouting down Nazis has to also be arguing that violence or the threat of it is the only alternative to debating them on live TV.  Which of course is a load of bullshit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
On 7/11/2019 at 8:36 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Indeed, the very notion of a self-made anyone is a totally bullshit fallacy, but is used to perpetuate the notion that the Bezos's of this world actually deserve the obscene riches they've been able to accumulate.

Or we could end up with something like 

Or is this the same as objectivism?

Hmm, just re-watched this movie a few days ago.

Thought of this thread, and your post.

This is in my opinion an interesting interpretation for a society how a society could  develop after presumably following Rand’s advice although in my opinion not a totally unrealistic one. The parasites had given complete control of society over to the Genius capitalists. There was no regulation, no checks against corporate greed. And they(the genius capitalists) fuck up the world so much they just decide to leave it. And we end up with a society totally enfeebled and intellectually degrading by the day. Because their general people’s prosperity isn’t really a concern for the Genius capitalists who’ve managed to destroy the world. They’ve made the people who would be their “customers” comfortable enough to not rebel get the products when called upon and have structured society in a way that pays no real attention to their intellectual, or even just physical needs. 

As much as Rand and B16 complain about the general masses being parasitic by all reason such individuals who only care for profit should try to weaken the general masses. If everyone is an addict to your drug/food/game etc then you’re the most powerful. Everyone is worse off but who cares? You’re prospering. 

Also, I just saw an old video of a KKK doing a news interview where he was rather polite in explaining the virtues of his activism and cause. Try as I might I could bring myself to congratulate this guy for being civil as he civilly tried to white-wash a terrorist organization. Oh how intolerant am I for thinking the person is a bad person by virtue of pushing for a society where I’m literally treated less than human? I would say not very.

On 9/2/2019 at 7:40 AM, Rippounet said:

One very interesting example, because many people are labeled or described as terrorists... Until they're not. And many people do cheer for some of the milder forms of "terrorism" at least (some forms of vandalism or intimidation for instance).

True. Why people dub others as being terrorists almost always rely more on the cause the individuals are fighting for than the actual actions taken. If the people find a  cause as “worthy” they’re more likely to excuse/glorify those who commit violence in the name of that cause as  freedom fighters, heroes etc.  Think of the “freedom fighters” America repeatedly sponsors in countries that don’t have a friendly Government. Most of the time there’s really no difference in tactics between these “freedom fighters” and the  groups the US counts as terrorists.

Hell, look at Cruz’s attempt to get the Antifa movement classified as a terrorist organization. The things he literally listed as proof they are one could be found in any movement and aren’t even as extreme as some of the actions found in other movements.

And he was silent when right wing political activists (on video) deliberately sought out their political opposition to commit violence against them. 

Because in the end he never cared about civility.  He cared about shutting up those who opposed his side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Recently stumbled across this jem of a video and thought of this thread:

Its just baffling reading the comments.

She’s not SEXIST even though she’d discard a woman from the position of president because a normal woman should not want to have a position of power over men especially where they could put a man in danger. 

I mean judging an individual by his or her own character and accomplishments?

That’s just silly.

They(women) should be happy being under the thumb of powerful men.  
If they want power where they would have authority over men and their lives they’re certainly wrong with them.
Joking. 
And I know the question posed was specifically in regards to the presidency, but essentially any political office of any significance should be barred from women using this train of logic. Meaning all the actual power to directly move society should be held exclusively by men. 

Congress(in theory), has to vote for the US to go to war. 
So no women should theoretically be voted in Congress.

How could they reasonably be expected to act appropriately in a case where there clear and present threat to the country, and the use of the military might be necessary? 

Much of military service in general should be out of the question too, as well anything to do with Law-enforcement in general. They may actually have to kill people after all. They may even have to kill men.
Men apparently being in a position where’d they have to do things that may kill a lot women. 
It’s just always baffling to see people argue against the idea of women having the same political/social power as men(sometimes the arguers women like Rand), but then say they're not being sexist.

It seems they don’t know what the word means, or the bar of it is so insanely high for them. I think literally killing women for being women could only be called sexist to them.
One comment even asked if feminists would feel comfortable with a guy being the president of planned parenthood. Ignoring the fact that men do get services from such as STD/STI checkups, and condoms, the person seems to imply women aren’t fully citizens and thus it’d be an abomination for one to be president.  
It's just really saddening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...