>required government handouts to survive

>>18463039
I wish there was porn of her, you have no idea how attractive a woman who thinks herself smart but is a retard is

>>18463049
>>18463060
I don't get why people get seethe so much over her.

>>18463147
SAAAARRRR!!!!

>>18463049
The Soviet Union required US handouts to survive

>>18463147
She appeals to the 'it's my life' teenagers.
>>18463173
It also got into an arms race that bankrupt it.

>>18463147
If they have to concede even one of her points, that means they lose their "moral claim" to the fruits of someone else's labor. This makes them very scared because deep down they believe they cannot take care of themselves. Disliking Ayn Rand is a confidence issue.

>>18463147
She firmly asserted her own comprehensive philosophy. Naturally, it pissed off everyone else who believed in anything else.

>>18463147
Property rights are anathema to parasites

>>18463205
Everyone disagrees with everyone else all the time though. The hate Rand gets is totally different, it's just weird. For instance, what other intellectual gets shit like >>18463049 ?

>>18463147
lolbertarianism is a kooky dumbfuck ideology.

>>18463211
she's not a lolbterian thougheverbeit

>>18463211
glad you agree with ayn rand on that

File: IMG_20260506_115503.jpg (375 KB, 1080x1311)

375 KB JPG

>government interventionism is ...le BAD!
>corruption? worker exploitation? market manipulation? trusts? monopoly? insider trading?
n-no, those don't exist!!

>>18463292
you’re mixing up cause and effect. corruption, insider trading, and “trusts” don’t come from too little government - they come from people using government power to tilt the field. if the state has the power to hand out favors, block competitors, or bail out failure, someone will buy that power. that’s not a market failure, that’s a permission structure for abuse.

“worker exploitation” also doesn’t mean much in a system where employment is voluntary. if a job is truly bad, people leave - and competitors offering better terms win. the only time workers get trapped is when regulation limits options, licensing blocks entry, or unions and laws lock markets in place.

monopolies? the only durable ones are the ones protected by the state. without that, high profits attract competitors and innovation eats incumbents. “market manipulation” is either fraud - which should be illegal - or just people not liking outcomes they can’t control.

you’re pointing at distortions created by power and concluding the absence of power is the problem. backwards.

>>18463209
>shit like their absolute utter shattering hypocrisy

>>18463294
english saar

>>18463292
>Worker exploitation bad
>Supports communism
What did he mean by this

Ever notice how it's retarded commies that cry the most?

>>18463327
Commies hate anyone that became successful after leaving their impoverished shit holes.

>>18463325
Which part of that isn't correct English my good fellow?

>>18463335
What are you talking about?

>>18463329
Successful like dying in absolute poverty and squalor and having to beg the government for help?

>>18463337
You implied I am some variety of Jeet.

>>18463341
>Successful like dying in absolute poverty and squalor and having to beg the government for help?
You just described Karl Marx and anyone who ever lived under communism.

>>18463341
Damn, it's almost like this is what happens to retarded commies? Are they projecting?

>>18463293
I can't think of many examples where government DIDN'T play a role in regulation or oversight or at least taxation

File: 827625b89b098d33c7573d327(...).jpg (86 KB, 876x785)

86 KB JPG

>>18463039
She didn't, she's a massive pseud

>meme oversimplified metaphysics
>mistaking egoism for the brain's reward system
>thinking that capitalist freedom = freedom to live how you want to be

Her philosophy is either oversimplified pseudery, like her metaphysics, or is either erroneous non-sequiturs.
For what she oversimplifies, her rejection of metaphysics stands on a vague materialism from which she sees justification as vain. In a similar manner, her epistemology is simply that we form concepts from the outside world by essentializing them. It's not wrong per se, but it's just very simple and midwit-friendly, which probably explains her following. I mean, this has more or less been the subject of most of epistemology and metaphysics post-Descartes but she just handwaves it. This is why a lot of people dislike her; her oversimplified philosophy does not constitute a serious system yet is taken like so.
For what she got wrong, her argument for "ethical egoism" is essentially that by choosing to live, you're choosing to live for yourself as a human. This is true but it doesn't imply egoism or capitalism. It doesn't imply that I should value your life, or that I should value your freedom to make companies. This is simply a biological observation which links actions to the brain's reward system. Her entire political argument as such rests on LITERALLY thinking that socialism = you being forced to do something you don't like. It's this level of oversimplification.

>>18463344
Did Marx say that accepting help from others and the government was bad?
>>18463347
>Ayn Rand was a communist
This fucking board I swear to god

>>18463293
>>18463293
>that’s not a market failure, that’s a permission structure for abuse.
Wrong nigger, corruption occurs when it can take place. Yes, this means that governments can play a role, but no, this does not mean that it is exclusive to it. Corruption occurs when there is power, and libtards like you want big firms to hold it over the common joe for *insert justification detached from the real world*

>“worker exploitation” also doesn’t mean much in a system where employment is voluntary
Wrong again. "Voluntary" here doesn't mean anything. Voluntary implies choosing something to change your state of being. Choosing between multiple constraints who all leave you in a lesser state of being than originally is not "voluntary".
If you claim the opposite, that means that you think that blackmail is voluntary.

>monopolies? the only durable ones are the ones protected by the state
Opposite. Anti-trust literally occurred because the absence of regulations lead to massive concentrationt of powers and the ability for big companies to fuck over small ones.

Literally all of what you say has historically been true (the late 19th century/early 20th century) and yet all the things you said it brought about (competition, voluntary work, low corruption) are historically not true. In fact, it's quite the opposite which happened.

>>18463327
Not really. I'm not a commie personally but most of the times burgers can't help themselves but lash on to any post mentionning "marx" to spew the most retarded nonsense.

>>18463404
>Opposite. Anti-trust literally occurred because the absence of regulations lead to massive concentrationt of powers and the ability for big companies to fuck over small ones.
Anti monopoly legislation hit america when rockefeller already lost like 30% of his market share of petroleum naturally.

>meme oversimplified metaphysics
Foundations being simple isn’t a flaw. If anything, you’re just calling clarity “meme” because it doesn’t hide behind jargon
>mistaking egoism for the brain's reward system
That’s a category error. Ethics isn’t neuroscience or biology, that's just your projection.
>thinking that capitalist freedom = freedom to live how you want to be
No, it’s freedom from coercion. You’re arguing against something she didn’t claim
>her metaphysics... vague materialism
Saying reality is objective isn’t “vague,” it’s the baseline most philosophy depends on. Calling it pseud doesn’t make it so
>her epistemology is simply that we form concepts... very simple and midwit-friendly
“Simple” doesn’t mean wrong. You’re basically admitting it’s not incorrect, just not dressed up enough for you.

>does not constitute a serious system
Then actually refute it instead of repeating that it’s “simple” and hoping that counts
>doesn't imply egoism or capitalism
You skipped the argument linking them. Disagree with it if you want, but pretending it isn’t there isn’t a critique
>socialism = you being forced to do something you don't like
Strawman. The claim is about coercion in production and exchange, not personal inconvenience

>>18463404
>corruption occurs when there is power
Yeah, and only one of those has legal force baked in. Firms can’t compel you, the state can. Pretending that’s the same is braindead
>"Voluntary" here doesn't mean anything
It literally means no one is forcing you. Bad options ≠ coercion. By your logic, reality itself is “oppression” because choices aren’t perfect
>blackmail is voluntary
No, because it’s a threat. A job offer isn’t. You’re confusing “I don’t like it” with “I’m being forced”
>anti-trust proves free markets fail
You’re just parroting a myth. That era wasn’t some pure free market, it was full of state favoritism. And a lot of those firms were already getting wrecked by competition
>history proves you wrong

No, your version of history is just oversimplified cope

File: 0c1599ce0a61b7f9fac49e63a(...).png (16 KB, 128x117)

16 KB PNG

>>18463410
>you’re just calling clarity “meme” because it doesn’t hide behind jargon
>it’s not incorrect, just not dressed up enough for you
I'm calling it a meme because it's very basic lol. Ayn Rand herself did not read most philosophers and simply discarded them as being pseuds. She read Aristotle but misunderstood him because she was reading old theistic interpretations of him. Notice how you don't have an argument too ? It's because her epistemology and metaphysics are undergrad level.
You asked why people didn't take her seriously, that's why.

>Ethics isn’t neuroscience or biology, that's just your projection
No anon, she is the one making a category error (voluntarily too). Her resolution of Hume's is/ought problem rests on her observing that most people already have "oughts" they follow. She's not making an ethics claim, she's making a scientific observation on how most people like to live. She's essentially saying that most people want to flourish, and that therefore capitalism is the most rational system. It's not an ethics claim, it's an observation leading to a non sequitur. Her entire system collapse once you start taking into account suicidal people, as they actively do not seek to live and thus do not care about self-flourishment.

>You’re arguing against something she didn’t claim
She's not claiming that we seek freedom from coercion, she claims that we want to live for ourselves. These are different claims. Her claim for ethical egoism is grounded onegoism, not on a libertarian conception of rights. That's why she's a minarchist.

>Then actually refute it instead of repeating that it’s “simple”
So you're conceding that she's making overly simplified claims ?

>but pretending it isn’t there isn’t a critique
It is indeed not there. Ayn viewed altruism as being forced to do something for others, and viewed socialism as derivative from altruism. The argument collapses once you realize this is a strawman.

WHO WOULD BUILD THE ROADS ANNIE

>>18463433
>it’s very basic lol
“Basic” isn’t a refutation. Math is basic too. You’re just mad it doesn’t need 300 pages of hedging
>she didn’t read most philosophers
Irrelevant. Arguments stand or fall on their content, not her reading list. “She didn’t read X” isn’t a counterargument. Nor does one need to read every argument ever made to be correct.
>undergrad level
Then it should be easy to actually refute instead of repeating that line over and over
>her resolution… is/ought… observation
No, you’re butchering it. The point is conditional, if you choose to live, then certain values follow. That’s not “most people feel X,” it’s a standard tied to a chosen goal. You just flattened it into sociology
>suicidal people break it
No, they reject the premise. If you choose not to live, the framework doesn’t apply. That’s not a contradiction, that’s you ignoring the “if”
>these are different claims
They connect. Living for your own sake requires freedom from coercion because force replaces your judgment. That bridge is literally the argument you keep pretending doesn’t exist
>so you’re conceding it’s simplified
No, I’m saying clarity isn’t a flaw. You’re treating “not convoluted” as a gotcha because you don’t have a real one
>altruism… strawman
Wrong again. The critique is of enforced self sacrifice as a moral duty. You turning that into “helping others = bad” is the actual strawman

>>18463437
People would.

>>18463410
>>18463415
>Yeah, and only one of those has legal force baked in. Firms can’t compel you, the state can.
>mistaking corruption and blackmail
I'm starting to understand why you're a fan of her lmfao. Also are you that retarded brown that spammed /lit/ with Rand threads and got into a heated debate ? Didn't you start sperging and say that you'd rape whites or something like that ?

>reality itself is “oppression” because choices aren’t perfect
Lmfao I always find it funny when randoms on /lit/ or /his/ discover accidentally major philosophical contetions. But yes, that's why consent is not taken seriously in polphi because it's an abstract concept that can't really be used in abstracto. I mean, it's literally the origin of the problem of consent to the state. The libertarians' solution also doesn't rest on consent btw, it rests on property. Libertarians use it because it's convenient for midwits but their justification is grounded in property rights.

>You’re confusing “I don’t like it” with “I’m being forced”
You're being forced because you don't like it retardino. You don't like seeing your private pics being sent to your family, which is why you pay the ransom.

>That era wasn’t some pure free market, it was full of state favoritism
Oh boy if only we had accounts of what was happening back then...

>>18463446
What happens if you want to build a road across my land and I tell you to get fucked with an iron stick?

>>18463326
>I disdain Rand's retarded book so I must be a commie
as a radical centrist, I am offended.

>>18463452
The road isn't built because your property rights are respected.
You can read all about what happens in today's world and mixed planned economy if you google Killdozer.

>>18463448
another leftypol midwit? seriously?

>>18463039
She predicted the rich destroying the US because they felt that their feelings weren't properly taken into consideration, yes.

>18463448
>no arguments
>mentions libertarians
>obsessed with being raped by jeets
LMFAO

>>18463456
>Killdozer
The guy who went apeshit because the town wouldn't let him dump his septic tank into the middle of the street?

the “she’s too simple” argument is just philosophers/pseuds mad they can’t bury it in jargon and reinterpret it into nonsense

>>18463443
>Math is basic too. You’re just mad it doesn’t need 300 pages of hedging
You asked why people don't take it seriously, I've given you an answer lmao : it's because she's overly simple.
PS : complex maths require much more than 300 pages of proof

>The point is conditional, if you choose to live, then certain values follow
>>If you choose not to live, the framework doesn’t apply
That's what I'm saying, she's not making an ethics claim (i.e. you SHOULD), she's deriving capitalism from an observation based on psychology (i.e. people choose this therefore ...)
You're parroting what I'm saying because you have nothing to add.

>Living for your own sake requires freedom from coercion because force replaces your judgment
As I've detailed previously, Ayn Rand is not making a property-based ethical argument. Let's think for 1 second, shall we ? If I want to live for myself, why shouldn't I enslave you ? You might say that you can escape or whatever. But, if I somehow found a way to make sure you could be my slave, there would be no contradiction for Ayn Rand's own """"system"""". Libertarians argue for capitalism because it actually follows from their ETHICAL premises. Ayn Rand's argument for capitalism doesn't follow from her psychological observations because she's treating capitalism as non-coercive and making a modal fallacy.

>The critique is of enforced self sacrifice as a moral duty
Which she reduces altruism and socialism to...

>>18463466
What's up with that "no you" lol, you're the one in the last thread which started spamming about how you'd rape whites. That behavior is a bit weird but, as you pointed out last time, you're brown. So I guess I shouldn't be too surprised

>>18463479
nigger you've not even quoted Rand no one knows what you're talking about

Disagreement with Rand is mostly just a list of people being upset that her philosophy isn't flexible enough for them to patch their preferred beliefs.

Theists hate her because her metaphysics shuts down miracles, divine intervention, and any claim that reality depends on a supernatural layer above it.
Subjectivists and postmodernists hate her because “existence exists” kills the idea that reality is just interpretation, language games, or social construction.
Skeptics and Kantians hate her because she insists perception refers to an external reality, instead of trapping knowledge inside “you only ever access your own mental representations”.
Relativists hate her because she treats truth as objective instead of something that changes depending on perspective, culture, or convenience.
Socialists and statists hate her because her politics bans initiatory force, which means no coercive redistribution, planning, or “for your own good” enforcement of outcomes
Moral collectivists hate her because she rejects the idea that individuals exist as means to group goals like “society,” “the nation,” or “the greater good”
Egalitarians hate her because she links outcomes to individual action under freedom, which makes responsibility unavoidable instead of politically adjustable
Academics and jargon philosophers hate her because she writes in plain language, so you can’t bury disagreement under fog and call it profundity

>>18463479
>>18463214

>>18463479
No one asked why people don't take her seriously. We are debating whether she's correct, not whether she is popular.

>>18463484
Rand's argument is as follows :
>we humans live in a world which exists outside of our mind, and in which we survive through reason
>We distinguish between things through our ability make concepts by regrouping real-world objects and finding common traits
>by choosing to live, we can observe that you think you ought to live as a human
>if you want to live as a human, rationally speaking, capitalism is the best system

The problem is that there's a modal fallacy in the last jump (capitalism must be always the most rational and logical step if you want to live for yourself), and the rest is not taken seriously because Ayn Rand herself never develops beyond basic assertions.
The other anon is seething because he knows that Ayn Rand is not exactly known for her solid proofs, and is trying to bring coercion into account, when it's not an argument which figures in objectivism in the first place.

>>18463039
Loathsome zionist kikess witch burning in jahannan atm

>>18463495
>by choosing to live, we can observe that you think you ought to live as a human

I don't think she said that.
Capitalism is the best system but that's besides the point, can't work off a faulty premise. So you're just admitting your misunderstanding at least.

>>18463497
>Paki bro
Typical pajeet fucking, every single time

>>18463492
Not "we" >>18463147

>>18463498
>So you're just admitting your misunderstanding at least.
That's literally her argument. We ought to follow capitalism if we value our own lives.

>>18463501
obviously because they fundamentally disagree with her and she challenges many worldviews from shitty politics, shitty philosophers, shitty academics, pseuds, etc. and other sorts of people

>>18463501
Yeah and you reacted to OP instead.

>>18463503
That's not "her argument". And that's very detached from her argument. She advocated capitalism not because "we value our own values" (though that itself may be true) but because it's consonant with her she viewed human nature.

To live, human beings need to be free, to think, and to act on that thinking, and to be able to dispose of the products of their effort. What can stop a human being from doing this, socially amongst other people? The use of force (and fraud, if we recognize intellectual efforts). Ergo politically, a proper social system is one that bans force (put simply).

>>18463518
"we value our own lives" not values, with how she viewed human nature*

>>18463518
You're mistaking 2 distinct things. Her moral argument is simply that we already choose certain "oughts" by living.
Once you admit this, for her, it becomes rational that you would avoid any system which relies on the use of force, and comes to the conclusion that only capitalism is consistent with that.

She BTFO'd incels, chuds, anti-semites, nazis, socialists, communists, christians alike.

For a philosophy damned as simple, it's weird how many people don't understand it.

ITT: Lazy, envious, people hate a woman who told them why they're single and unmarried

>>18463471
yes, the objectivist hero

>>18463039
I like to think she had a "Laura Loomer flirts with Mike Ma" moment once or twice.

>>18463039
Amazing how the moment the financial and business elites adopted her way of thinking the world became instantly worse and white western countries began becoming infested with imported brown scab labor

>>18463676
>financial and business elites adopted her
Who are you talking about

>>18463679
Ayn Rand remains highly popular and influential within the American business class, particularly among entrepreneurs, Silicon Valley, libertarian-leaning executives, and investors. Her novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, are often viewed by these groups as moral endorsements of profit-making, ambition, and rational self-interest, with sales spiking during economic crises.

>>18463681
Yes, but who? And how did the world "became instantly worse"? Do you think she advocated governments giving third worlders welfare?

>>18463147
>>18463208
>>18463327
>>18463477
>>18463488
>>18463544

As a based capitalist job creator, it’s in my rational self interest to import H1B Indians to replace you and work for half your wage.

>>18463691
Are you scared of jeets?

>>18463687
Several prominent Silicon Valley CEOs and founders have cited author Ayn Rand as a major influence, aligning with her philosophy of objectivism, rational self-interest, and libertarian capitalism. Key admirers include Travis Kalanick (Uber), Peter Thiel (PayPal/Palantir), and Mark Zuckerberg (Meta). Her work, particularly The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, is often associated with the "founder myth" that fuels disruptive tech culture

>>18463697
I’m not a fan of inbred barbarians that eat cow dung being imported against my will

>>18463698
You named people that made the world better though. You haven't demonstrated even in your own examples how they made the world worse using Rand's ideas.

>>18463700
>against my will
does everyone that want to move to America have to get screened by you now?

>>18463704
I would prefer to have a country where the political and business class does not have open contempt for its citizens and treats them as human instead of cattle to be exploited

>>18463701
>You named people that made the world better though
They’ve all contributed to the erosion of civil liberties and privacy by selling data to the government, they’ve popularized subversive business tactics instead of honest dealings that have resulted in them being able to break contracts and lie freely while you are left with little to no recourse, they work hand in hand with a government that hates its citizens to tighten its grip on freedom. Every single one has compromised they’re “civil libertarianism” to further their financial ends, I have no reason to trust them nor does anyone else.

>>18463706
>conspira-schizo nonsense

>>18463711
>They’ve all contributed to the erosion of civil liberties and privacy by selling data to the government
No more than any other business.

>>18463049
>sneed
Would you decide to do things that went against your depiction of an ideal world if you were I'm a non-ideal world? Why must you limit yourself for no reason at all? Why give yourself the principle, "I must always do things that disadvantage me, because muh ideals"?

>>18463049
this is how lefties think. if she was born and died rich, then this person would use that to "show "her philosphy is wrong. If she wasnt, then they use that to "show" her philosophy is wrong.

no matter what your financial state is, the state just right for them to use it to disprove you supporting capitalism or anything adjacent.
>you a bootlicker
>you a lifting-ladder-behind-him
>you a one-day-it-will-be-me-delusional
>you an evil-rich-man

>>18463897
It's simply revealing that she's a hypocrite and that her own moral system (free market capitalism is the most rational if you value your human life) is visibly in contradiction with her own lived experience.
Once you admit that maybe it's more rational for individuals to accept some level of government regulations to ensure their own egoistic interests, then you start delving into serious political philosophy and either end up a libertarian (Nozick) or a republican egalitarian liberal (Rawls or Pettit)

>>18463039
Such as?

>society is the parasite
>continues to live in society when she could just as easily though less comfortably live outside of society¿?¿?¿?

There are few who were less right about anything than Ayn Rand.

>>18464089
Wrong
>>18464045
Metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, politics art
>>18464044
She wasn't a hypocrite though? She escaped the USSR and made a life for herself.

Jew

File: media_HHaudD-W8AAAEWE.jpg (871 KB, 2048x1856)

871 KB JPG

>>18464044
>It's simply revealing that she's a hypocrite and that her own moral system (free market capitalism is the most rational if you value your human life) is visibly in contradiction with her own lived experience
This is an incredibly stupid thing to say, considering there are plenty of books you can read about the stupidity and absurdity of communism. Capitalism, by all metrics, is better than communism, This is a fact of history. It's not even debatable.

>>18463211
You have to be 18 to post here

I don't get it
It seems to be in my own self-interest to gang up with others and use force to coerce people to act in a way I want
why shouldn't I do that?

It was fucking awesome when I was seriously ill for a few years, not being ill that was bad, but having other people forced to pay for my hospitalization and such
it would have been terrible for my self interest if there was no system in place
I would probably have died

>>18463039
>taxes are bad
>unless they get sent to Israel

>>18463293
>if a job is truly bad, people leave - and competitors offering better terms win.
Yes, and I'm sure it's impossible for the tiny segment of society who own all the companies, and are all acquaintances because they're all in the same upper class social circles, to ever coordinate with one another to suppress wages.

All of your points rely on businesses and corporations being locked in a state of endless direct competition. But these people are not stupid and as soon as they realize they can work together against the public rather than against one another, they will. This has happened countless times in the real world. Rather than endlessly increasing wages to poach employees from one another, two competing companies get together and agree to put a cap on their wages.

>high profits attract competitors and innovation eats incumbents
China is a nice example of what this sort of idealism looks like in reality: massive corporations, when faced with a new competitor, will offer that competitor a choice: either sell your business to us, or we will take your idea or product and make it ourselves, for cheaper than you possibly could due to our massive infrastructure, and aggressively put you out of business.

>>18463897
so then their disagreement is based on her philosophy rather than a genetic fallacy?
leftists are based i guess

>>18464589
what?

>>18464048
that's not what she said
>>18464044
“Rand used public healthcare” is such NPC-tier argumentation. Living under a system you oppose isn’t hypocrisy unless you think anarchists can’t use roads

And lol at “serious philosophy” meaning “eventually you become a redistribution enjoyer.” Rawlsoids just wrap envy in jargon and call it ethics

Nozick at least had consistency. The rest is just freedom until the state wants your wallet

>>18464508
>why shouldn’t I gang up with others and use force for my self interest
because then everyone else gets to do the same, retard. congrats, you just reinvented society as a giant loot contest
>it benefited me when i was sick
yeah no shit. people benefit from coercive systems all the time when they’re on the receiving end. that’s not an argument, that’s just “i liked getting stuff”
>i might have died otherwise
okay? plenty of people benefit from favoritism, corruption, theft, bailouts, etc when they’re the winners. doesn’t suddenly make the taken-for-granted principle here (that being force) good
>it was in my self interest
short term maybe. until the same logic gets used against you by a bigger voting bloc, bureaucrat, or mob later. then suddenly “force for self interest” stops sounding so epic

>>18464583
>Tiny segment of society who own all the companies
Reddit tier understanding of economics. Most companies fail constantly and giant firms rotate over time. “The rich all secretly coordinate” is conspiracy cope
>They’ll just work together against the public
Cartels are unstable as hell without state backing. Every member has incentive to undercut the others for more profit. That’s why actual durable monopolies almost always end up tied to regulation, licensing, subsidies, patents, or political favoritism
>This happened countless times
Because people continue to support the above.
>China proves it
China is a mixed economy where corporations are fused with government power. Using that as an argument against free markets is braindead.
>Big companies crush competitors
Yeah, unless the smaller company innovates better, finds a niche, lowers costs, or disrupts the market. Which happens constantly. “Large firms exist” is not proof competition stops existing. Small companies don't have a right to exist. Who the fuck wants to pay more?

File: The_Rockefeller-Morgan_Fa(...).jpg (340 KB, 1280x1049)

340 KB JPG

>>18464618
It's interesting that you can write this lengthy response without making a single legitimate point, or really any point at all. That typical 4chan disingenuousness where you intentionally misunderstand an argument so that you can "win" with your response.
>China is a mixed economy where corporations are fused with government power. Using that as an argument against free markets is braindead.
Here's a nice example. The structure of the Chinese economy has nothing to do with my point, which was that modern logistics make it possible for large, established corporations to effortlessly steal the products or ideas of startups and casually out produce and out advertise them. This would happen in any truly "free market" economy.

>unless the smaller company innovates better, finds a niche, lowers costs, or disrupts the market.
This is only possible when regulations exist to prevent the above, otherwise the smaller company just finds that their innovative new product is now being sold by a multinational corporation with 10,000x the advertising budget.

All of those government regulations you keep mentioning didn't just spring into existence out of nothing; they were responses to the practices of corporations of the time. We had a lengthy period of "free markets" beginning in the mid-1800s which featured the establishment of things like nationwide trusts in most major industries because, surprise, when established businesses realize they can coordinate with each other to suppress newcomers and manipulate prices, they can and will. They have done so at every point in history when they have been given a chance and they would do it again in an instant if they weren't legally forbidden.

I'm glad you're trying to develop an interest in this area but before you start criticizing modern economic policies, it would very much benefit you to read some history to understand how and why those policies were enacted in the first place.

>property rights...
>except for the goyim, Israel stealing property from Palestinians is 100% okay
>shut the fuck up goy, I gave my characters that I like a magic device that makes free energy, that means I'm right
Lol

>>18464662
You’re treating “big company beats small company” as some kind of moral crime instead of basic competition. Copying an idea and producing it better or cheaper isn’t theft unless actual property rights were violated. Consumers aren’t obligated to buy from startups forever out of pity.

And your fantasy version of the 1800s ignores how much government favoritism already existed. A lot of those “evil trusts” were propped up by subsidies, tariffs, licensing, and political connections - not some mythical pure free market.

Also hilarious that you think regulations hurt big corporations most, when giant firms are the ones constantly lobbying for them because they can afford the compliance costs while smaller competitors get crushed. You’re describing corporatism, then blaming capitalism for it.

>>18464694
Retard.

File: 1000058618.jpg (26 KB, 454x440)

26 KB JPG

>>18464694
I'm convinced this anon is the only one on this thread that has also read Atlas Shrugged. She's genuinely a fucking terrible writer

>>18463049
Using the state for self interest is not contradictory.

>>18464714
>commoid image
Why are you replying to yourself?

File: console-wars-by-blake-j-harris.jpg (64 KB, 1200x900)

64 KB JPG

>>18464714
I've been a long term fan of a podcast called Business Wars. It's a pretty common situation that a business makes a very successful product and immediately faces competitors. You had Pong, which printed money as it was the first on the market and then you got Pong clones. When space invaders got big you got Space invaders clones. When Nintendo monopolized the market in the 1980s, Sega entered the market and generated what we understand to be the console wars. Going from 8 to 16 bit hardware which forced Nintendo to technically developed the Super Nintendo ahead of schedule. Exclusives became more of a big deal compared to the Atari 2600 V Intellivision fight. Competition can be someone who enters the market with a very similar business model and ends up being the same with slightly different rules. That's what happened with the Android Operating system, breaking up the monopoly Apple had in 2007 when they first introduced the iPhone, which put downward pressure on the price of smart phones

She naturally alienates christcucks, socialists and commies
That's at least half of America right there

>>18464714
>1000058618.jpg
Why doesn't quality regress to zero? Why doesn't one of the piggies expose his rivals and present their product as whole undiluted milk? They'd capture most of the market share and make a fortune.

>She's genuinely a fucking terrible writer
Give an example of her terrible writing? There is not a single case of bad writing, her work was always impeccable.

>>18464741
Her bad writing is the part where she disagrees with me.

File: iu[1].jpg (85 KB, 1200x640)

85 KB JPG

>A moral code of self‑sacrifice makes it possible for any leader or group to justify coercion, to turn a supposedly noble cause into an instrument of power over individuals.

This in particular is what makes them seethe. When BLM use their cause as an excuse to loot and see this they think "SHEEEIT, SHE BE TALKING ABOUT US". When trans rights activists push their deranged fetish on the underage they go *lip smack* "ugh, that BITCH got us all sussed out". Whenever Ayn Rand is brought up they have to pretend she is le bad, but they can never really explain why exactly.

>>18464755
This is exactly it, if you do not want to live on someone else's dime then Ayn Rand is not offensive at all. Parasites will cry humanism when you don't want to be their host anymore.

>>18464694
>He thinks Islam is native Palestine
>He thinks Arabs have never stolen anyones' property
What's up with you being brown not understanding history despite being on this board
>>18464714
Milk is one the cheapest commodities in the world simply because there is so many brands and competition. Commies are retarded. Get a job, bum.

>>18464741
Have you actually read Atlas shrugged? I mean since you first read it at age 14 after playing Bioshock. The kikess main character is a hilarious self insert, the sex scenes rival the cringe written in a modern romantic series, its full of drab 20 page plus soliloqies showing how the author is right and poor people are stinky. It's hilarious as an engineer because she has no idea how research and development actually work. Commercial products and innovations are never the work of a single Atlas like figure. Not surprising she has no idea how actual contributions to technological development work given she was a parasitical writer who lived off welfare

>>18464771
What's hilarious is that milk cartels exist in Canada but not in the US, leading to a visible price disparity.

>>18464788
Typical retard copeseethe posting.

>>18464788
Great, then you can point out how she's wrong instead of crying about tropes.

>>18463147
She was a Jewish woman, of course incels hate her. Rosa Luxemburg of leftoids.

File: 1778016541262313s.jpg (8 KB, 250x216)

8 KB JPG

Every economic system oast Feudalism has failed

>>18464617
>short term
I would have been dead

>>18464844
Wrong about what? What's even supposed to be on the table

>>18464941
Read the book you stupid nigger.

>>18463039
Vile zionist kikess burning in jahannan atm

>>18464934
> it would have been terrible for my self interest if there was no system in place
You're acting like doctors would stop existing.

>>18464934
>I would have been dead
Assuming you contribute as much as everybody else in taxes, you didn't get anything for free and basically paid for it yourself, but of course you didn't and don't, since you're a parasite.

>>18464844
>>18464792
You are carrying water for an evil jewess welfare queen, who never contributed anything to society. Her understanding of how research and development, from which she bases most of her thesis about titans of industry driving innovation and society, is inherently flawed and belies the fact that she never lived in the real world. Her worldview is entirely driven by seethe about her parasite middlemen pharmacist parents being driven out of Russia lmao

>>18465034
>never contributed anything to society.
>never lived in the real world.
You are clearly projecting

>>18465039
He’s right and you are retarded. Her life’s work is influencing parasitic think tanks to convince politicians to do what the people who fund them want. Shed be irrelevant otherwise

>>18464771
Milk is also extremely heavily regulated if it’s to be sold in stores

>>18464755
>>18464764

>there are no higher values than radical individualism, just do all the drugs and fuck all the whores and fuck the future, your nation, or you family!
This is why Rand is retarded

>>18464755
>when trans activists push their fetish on the underage
Objectivists don’t beleive in collectivist norms like age of consent lmao

>>18464741
Because it’s easier and more profitable for most buisness to operate as a de facto cartel where they don’t compete in any meaningful way. That’s why trust busting is neccesary. All these things that Randian objectivists claim to hate make a functional free market and society possible.

>>18465059
What think tanks are you talking about
What politicians are you talking about
Who are the people funding them are you talking about

You're a hack

>>18465064
>>there are no higher values than radical individualism, just do all the drugs and fuck all the whores and fuck the future, your nation, or you family!
She didn't even say this you dumb nigger.

>>18465067
Objectivists don't believe in age of consent based on collectivist norms, that doesn't mean they don't believe in an age of consent.

>>18465069
>What think tanks are you talking about
Mises, Cato, Hoover etc.
>What politicians are you talking about
Damn near every establishment Republican and some democrats too.,
>Who are the people funding them are you talking about
Large portions of silicone valley
>you’re a hack
You’re a psued who got enamored with a Jewess who ostracized her own family for not living up to her insane philosophy (that she herself didn’t meet).

>>18465069
>She didn't even say this you dumb nigger.
I’m taking about you, stupid faggot. You argue like Marxists
>Achsually Marx didn’t say that! You’re misquoting!
>you just don’t understand it
>sure this is what we believe, but she meant something completely different

If she was right, why did Rapture fail?

>>18465071
Mises Cato and Hoover don't care for her
It's ironic you didn't even name the ones that are actually influenced by her
>damn near every establishment republican
LMFAO
>large portions of silicon valley
no names again
You're a hack

>>18465073
Cope
>>18465083
because it was written that way

>>18465067
objectivists at least prefer scraggly older jewish women

>>18465085
> because it was written that way
low iq response

>>18465089
At least you labelled your own post this time.

>>18464044
your second statement might be right might be wrong, but your first statement is just wrong and has obvious fallacies in reasoning.

>>18464997
Right
So give an argument why I should want for the free healthcare to go away, and die

>>18465069
>She didn't even say this you dumb nigger.
What did she say?

>>18464944
What's some of the things Rand say that we're supposed to prove wrong?
Give an example