ITT we come up with measures against Coronachan that do not violate the NAP

ITT we come up with measures against Coronachan that do not violate the NAP

Attached: s-l600.jpg (295x500, 34.37K)

Other urls found in this thread:

goodreads.com/book/show/662.Atlas_Shrugged
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Everybody becomes a bubble person

Reminder that Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst books ever written.

Social distancing. Only the strong can survive the starvation.

I used to be a huge Rand fan, and in turn, objectivist. I then learned basic economics and she's now a fucking idiot.

Attached: yuiiiiiiiii.gif (300x298, 890.4K)

Based musician loli

Your criticism doesn’t even make sense. Objectivism is based on basic economics such as supply and demand or economies of scale. Socialism is against basic economic concepts because >muh morals but ironically it does more harm than good as we saw in the Cold War.

Stay at home, buy from grocery stores, under consume and save.

Covid is just another flu. The free market would ignore it like it should be doing and let people go about their lives.

What exactly did you learn about "basic economics" that disproves objectivism?

There is no “NAP”.

Sell stinky Odor.

He read in a book that 2% inflation is good and now he has abadoned beeing objective.

(((Ayn Rand)))

I'm sorry user but you must be 18 to post

you dont read much if you think this is the worst book written. its average if anything

Nuts And Penis

The non-aggression principle damns society. Here is a simple way for you to understand reality.

There is a way that things are supposed to be; whether this is the way we were Created, the purpose we were supposed to have, or simply that which biology and nature deemed best; it is what we must follow to ensure success.

There are those who would seek to oppose and pervert our purpose, our successful strategies, our nature; these things must be understood as corruption. Just as the corruption of disease or cancer will destroy the body if not opposed; so too will the corruption of society destroy civilisation if left unopposed. There are only two options; the corruption must be destroyed, or the corruption must destroy (it is usually a slow process, where the corruption spreads and spreads, just as a cancer does in the body; destroying us piece by piece until we can no longer survive). The only solution is to DESTROY it.

Intolerance is virtue. Tolerance is surrendering to corruption and ultimately inviting defeat. Those who wish to 'live and let live' are in reality arguing to allow the cancer to grow until it can no longer be defeated.

All myths indicate that we should destroy corruption when confronted by it. From the shepherd fighting off the wolf to the doctor amputating the infected limb to the farmer warding off the locust to the hero slaying the monster. Kill the corrupting influence as soon as you can, otherwise it will kill you.

Ayn Rand was a jew. She was advocating that we let the cancer grow and grow until we too would die. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

He said it's one of the worst ever written and he's right.

>spends 3 pages describing every minute detail in a scene
>70 page monologue about an objectivistly shit ideology

Objectivist here. Things being done now don't violate people's rights. The governments job, in the ideal capitalist world is the physical protection of people, their rights and their property from physical force and other harm. So how do you protect your citizens from a microscopic virus that's killing large amounts of people?

This is what you do, you order shutdowns you can enforce if necessary. Maybe there are better, more efficient ways to do it -- we've never done anything like this before so we're experimenting. But the general idea is to protect the citizens from being infected as much as you can. This can be treated like a war of sorts. This virus is physically attacking people (in a sense) and the government has a job to stop that just like if a foreign nation or insect swamp or alien kaiju were attacking people.

Funny because I studied basic *and* advanced economics and have a degree in Finance and all it has ever done is strengthen my support of capitalism, just gave me a better insight into how it all works and how to properly defend it.

If you want better economics, read George Reisman. He explains capitalism from the economics side far better than Rand who was coming from the philosophy side.

Attached: 1358087472721.png (408x286, 10.41K)

>OH NO A BOOK HAS A LOT OF BIG WORDS NNNNOOOOO!!!!

Do you complain about Tolkien spending volumes of pages talking about non-existent elf people too?

No because one there is actual content and two Tolkien isn't pushing some jewish politics.

>The non-aggression principle damns society.

"Don't harm other people" damns society?

Capitalism isn't Jewish politics. It was invented by white people in the 1700s. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Bohem-Bart, David Ricardo... all white. Capitalism is a European philosophy.

>He doesn't know it's all a long con by "the Joos" to out smart the "master race," despite apparently being inferior and less smart than the "master race."
Weak, stop taking your meds already.

Ayn Rand's ideology is not "capitalism"

Objectivism has nothing to do with NAP

>2020
>Not being an egoist

Enjoy your spooks

Attached: 6B34D51F-0D56-4200-9343-6198C8F3CB9A.png (1200x1555, 84.35K)

Yes it is. It also is against the union of capitalism and politics, which inevitably becomes a form of fascism (state-driven way of life close to socialism, where the state is all powerful).

Ayn Rand's ideology is anarcho-capitalism. Objectivism is the technocracy of the entrepreneurs.

Yes. The corruption needs to be destroyed. Be it disease, idea or man.

There are times in life where you have to harm others if you want to succeed

>Funny because I studied basic *and* advanced economics and have a degree in Finance and all it has ever done is strengthen my support of capitalism, just gave me a better insight into how it all works and how to properly defend it.
Okay, but should we destroy investment banks tho?

Since nobody else has posted it

Attached: 11d.jpg (600x747, 33.31K)

>Ayn Rand's ideology is anarcho-capitalism.

It's capitalism. It's not anarcho-anything and Rand was very strict about that. Capitalism still has a State, that State just is limited too functions for protecting the citizens from physical force and fraud and other rights violations. Capitalist government = military, courts, police and firefighters (coast guard, animal rescue, all that).

Yes, because it becomes "don't harm other people's feelings", then "don't harm other people's view of the world / of society", then, "it is now illegal to challenge one's view of the things". Then you have become France or California.

The more I look at things "objectively" the more I'm convinced that humanity would never have over it's barbarity, to the degree it has, without Jesus Christ.

Attached: Rosebyanyothername.jpg (288x432, 62.17K)

Only if you're evil or a rights violator and deserve punishment. If you harm people, expect to be harmed. That's the NAP. Physical force is for self-defense only, so if you hit first, shoot first, swing first, etc you're the aggressor and means must be used to stop you.

No. They serve a legitimate function. We need no central bank though. No fiat currency.

So you're cool with someone just shooting you in face? If harming people is okay, you're fine with other people harming you or anyone you care about right?

> because it becomes "don't harm other people's feelings", then "don't harm other people's view of the world / of society", then, "it is now illegal to challenge one's view of the things".

No it doesn't. It means "don't physically harm people" and it stays that way. I don't know where the rest of what you said comes from. It's not an extension of the NAP (I hate that term but it's the one Yas Forums seems familiar with sooo).

>No. They serve a legitimate function. We need no central bank though. No fiat currency.
A government backed monopoly on selling securities on the market is a legitimate function? Are you already drinking this early in the day?

Capitalism has a tendency of allowing lobbying to bypass the state's original boundaries. To prevent this, you have to strictly limite the state's power to the NAP and protection of contracts under the law. Anarcho-capitalism prevents the businesses of becoming politics, and politics of become businesses. That's mostly what Dagny Taggart is against when Washington's lobbyists are begging her to fall for when they need her help and the only thing they can offer her is influence. At least that's what I understood (I finished the book litteraly yesterday at 1am).

Without the idea of punishment and the idea of some mystically reward for not being an asshole --sure. Have your faith, but I personally think it's more of the idea and less of the real figure.

>So you're cool with someone just shooting you in face? If harming people is okay, you're fine with other people harming you or anyone you care about right?
If I was a subversive parasite trying to undermine someone else's home by, for instance; turning the children against the parents, inviting hostile foreigners to live near or among the people, working to impoverish the natives, working to to see crimes against the native go unpunished, or anything like that; then yes, those people should kill me. If I, as a corrupting influence, am not stopped; then I shall eventually start to bring their society down. It might be slow if most of the people simply ignore me, but over the years more and more will listen to me (especially if I gain a position of authority as an academic, journalist, politician, police chief, etc); and then the damage will start to be done. Eventually that society will die.

If someone had killed me, that society would have survived.

Did I say they were government-banked? No I did not. Government-backed anything is a no-go in capitalism. But in a free society, investment banks would still exist, companies would still use them to divide shares and sell to investors. That's their legitimate function.

Might as well call it "gods and goyim".

Attached: CzB0LRoVQAAqw21.jpg (1153x655, 136.25K)

Imagine a world where collectivist society makes up a spook called objective morality and all the religious zealots follow unquestioningly.

Attached: 1580665934060.jpg (533x533, 52.64K)

>evil

Can we please be adults here? If you have oil and refuse to trade with me or my allies, I’m going to shoot you for it

Yes it does. Laws change all the time under pressure of lobbyists, from businesses to think tanks to groups like minorities. Look at the state of nowaday's politics where feelings are more important than facts. You can't decently say the law is about not hurting one's feelings when the the very definition of "hurting" is changing year after year.

...

You're confusing multiple things here so I don't know where to start.

"[Why] do we force the healthy to live with the contagious?"
- Dr. J.S. Steinman (Bioshock)

Attached: nappy time.jpg (448x324, 58.82K)

Brokers have a legitimate function, what I call investment banks are specifically institutions that exist in US purely because of government backed monopoly.

Any re-seller is a broker in a sense, except for securities and other shit like that. That's off limits.

>You can't decently say the law is about not hurting one's feelings when the the very definition of "hurting" is changing year after year.

You're arguing that other people's definition is changing. My definition is not changing. Ayn Rand's definition did not change. You're not arguing with me. Take it up with them.

No you are. The non-aggression principle is idiotic because people try to apply it to everything. Saying something like "be kind to your children" is far more effective if you are simply trying to say that beating kids is bad. No one really disagrees with that (although some people only learn through physical punishment). If you are trying to say you shouldn't randomly assault people; well DUH! You aren't some enlightened philosopher, you're an idiot spouting common sense and then being more of an idiot by trying to make out that there is never a time for violence.

The world we live in is one of struggle. If there is struggle, there will be conflict. You can have moral rules to try to avoid unnecessary violence; but if someone else is not playing by those rules then purging is the logical and appropriate approach. Seeing as corruption is a fundamental part of our world and is understood by all religions and evidenced in nature; we need to be vigilant and destroy it where we find it.

Sometimes you can destroy it with words. Sometimes you can't. Do what you must or die.

>If you are trying to say you shouldn't randomly assault people; well DUH! You aren't some enlightened philosopher, you're an idiot spouting common sense and then being more of an idiot by trying to make out that there is never a time for violence.

I think you have a weird understanding of "don't initiate the use of physical force" so it's not getting anywhere arguing with me here. That's my stance. That was Rand's stance. Did I literally ever say is "NEVER A TIME FOR VIOLENCE" No. I did not say that. I said it was okay IN SELF-DEFENSE. That's what the "NAP" means. Don't be the aggressor -- don't let the aggressor get away with the violence though.

If you're arguing against that you're essentially saying it's okay for someone to randomly assault people because that's INITIATING THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE. Physical force does not exist until someone throws the first punch or shoots off the first bullet or whatever.

I said my piece, I need to sleep.

Has anyone else noticed that essentially 100% of the people who very vocally hate Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged are complete losers in their personal lives?

I've never met someone who I would describe as a winner or simply a forthright, quality person who also has a seething hatred for her/her books. I'm not even a big fan of hers (I've only read Anthem which I thought was fantastic), but it is handy as a litmus test for identifying beta, rage-filled losers.

I mean just read the 1 star reviews for Atlas Shrugged. The vast majority of them read like their blood pressure shot up and their hands were shaking just trying to type out how much they hate it. Complete freaks.

goodreads.com/book/show/662.Atlas_Shrugged

Attached: 1493901887633.jpg (373x359, 36.38K)

Most people dissing Rand never read anything of her.

Now, are her books great? In parts. Some conversations/speeches like the Francisco Money Speech are simply amazing. But that can't disguise the fact that her books are essentially self-insert fanfiction about being a woman that is desired by ubermensch.

For example, Atlas Shrugged doesn't end as it just stops. Similar for The Fountainhead. There conclusions are either unsatisfactory or rushed. But in terms of values communicated they are quite superb.

Attached: normal member of human race.jpg (500x288, 42.81K)

yes.

They are mad because Ayn Rand called people like them out. In great detail. She could be a little cruel, but she did a good job pointing out the bad philosophy and mindset that a lot of people carry which leads to them supporting politics and movements that literally rob and kill everyone else.

I'm a "loser" myself but I've never sunk to certain lows. Objectivistm has been a good philosophy for me. I haven't harmed anyone. I've never taken from anyone that I couldn't give back in some way, it wasn't with money but with doing something good for them.

Rand shatters certain people's ideas of the world and they can't handle that.

You're right. I have nothing to add.