u/TheBigKaramazov

Been going down the Ayn Rand rabbit hole lately. Read The Fountainhead, currently reading Atlas Shrugged, watched interviews, read Objectivist discussions etc. And honestly I get the appeal. The whole “stop feeling guilty for wanting success” thing hits hard when you grow up around people acting like ambition itself is some kind of moral failure.

But the deeper I go into it, the more one thing keeps collapsing the entire structure for me.

Who controls the force?

Because wealth is never protected by ideas alone. It’s protected by organized violence. Always.

A billionaire is not safe because society magically respects rationality and property rights out of moral enlightenment. That wealth survives because somewhere in the background there’s an institution willing to enforce ownership with guns if things go south. Police, military, courts backed by force, private security, whatever. Strip away the aesthetics and that’s the foundation.

And honestly capitalism itself has always expanded through military power. The history of capital is basically the history of armies traveling with money attached to them. Colonial trade routes, resource extraction, maritime empires, even the so called “free markets” of early modern Europe were protected by navies and soldiers. The age of exploration wasn’t just brave merchants sailing around discovering stuff for fun. Those routes survived because kingdoms had military power behind them. Trade and force have been married forever.

That’s why I think Rand’s framework eventually runs into a serious contradiction.

If rational self-interest is the highest value, and if people naturally seek to maximize their own power and flourishing, then eventually the people with the most wealth will also try to control the institutions of force. Not because they’re cartoon villains but because it’s literally the rational move inside the logic of the system.

And once capital merges with military power, Objectivism starts mutating into something way darker.

Either you get a hyper-authoritarian state whose real purpose is protecting concentrated wealth

or

you get giant corporations functioning like mini states with private militaries and populations economically trapped under them

People always respond with “yeah but Rand believed in limited government.” Cool in theory but limited by what exactly. A constitution is just paper once the people controlling the weapons and infrastructure stop respecting it. History is full of systems that were “limited” right until powerful groups realized they didn’t need limits anymore.

That’s the thing I can’t shake.

Rand sees the state as the primary danger to freedom, but concentrated private power almost always turns into state power eventually. Wealth seeks enforcement. Enforcement centralizes. Centralized force becomes authoritarian. That progression feels almost built into the system.

And there’s this deeper irony underneath all of it.

Objectivism glorifies the sovereign individual, but the kind of inequality required to produce mega-capital eventually demands surveillance, hierarchy, militarization, and obedience to maintain itself. You can’t have massive monopolies sitting on resources and infrastructure without building giant coercive systems around them. History never works that way.

At some point the society stops being about free individuals competing in an open market and turns into “listen to the guys with the armored vehicles.”

That’s why I can’t fully buy Rand’s optimism. Her philosophy starts with radical freedom but logically drifts toward whoever controls organized violence most effectively.

And once that happens philosophy just becomes branding for power.

Kinda curious what people think about this.

Yeah Rand hated the USSR, but after 1991 Russia wasn’t communist anymore. Private business came back, capitalism started creeping in etc.

At the same time though, modern/post-Soviet Russia also feels super far from the hyper-individualist society she imagined.

(She was speaking with Russian accent.)

So what do you think?

Would she have felt any connection to Russia again after the Soviet collapse or was she mentally checked out forever the second she got to America?

I’m writing this from the other side of the world after reading about Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew.

Honestly, I’m really impressed.

It’s not just about economic success or “development” in the usual sense. A lot of countries aim for that. What stands out is the mindset that was built, discipline, long-term thinking, and a serious attitude toward public order and shared space.

And yes, a lot of it is tied to Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership. But what makes it more interesting is that it didn’t end with him. It became something the society itself maintained over time, which is probably the hardest part.

He came from a relatively poor family background, and what stuck with me most was reading about 1965, when Singapore separated from Malaysia. Apparently he was in tears during that moment. It just made him feel very human in a way that surprised me.

Where I come from, success stories are usually more individual and short-term. Singapore feels different. More structured, more consistent over time.

Of course, no system is perfect and there are trade-offs. But the fact that Singapore is even used as a global reference point says a lot on its own.

Just wanted to say respect. It’s one of those rare examples of how a small place can really change its trajectory with clarity and consistency.

Yeah, Kurosawa, Terayama, Ozu, Matsumoto, Mizoguchi (only seen Ugetsu), Oshima... for me, Japanese cinema is pretty much the undisputed peak of Asian cinema. China, Malaysia, and especially Hong Kong absolutely have great directors too, but when people say Asian cinema, very few countries touched the level of consistently insane masterpieces Japan put out. There are so many great directors and an incredible number of great films.

My ranking is probably gonna surprise people a bit, but I’m a massive Terayama fan.

1. Terayama
2. Kurosawa
3. Ozu
4. Matsumoto
5. Oshima
6. Mizoguchi

So yeah, you can probably already tell the kind of films and directors I’m into. Hit me with recommendations.

I keep hearing different stories about rural China and foreigners, so I wanted to ask people who actually know or have been there.

Some say in smaller towns people are not used to seeing foreigners, so they stare, act distant, or sometimes behave awkward, but not necessarily aggressive, just unfamiliarity.

Others claim there is stronger xenophobia in rural areas compared to big cities like Beijing, Shanghai, or Shenzhen, where foreigners are a normal part of daily life.

I also read that it is less about organized hate and more about lack of exposure, stereotypes, and curiosity mixed together.

So I wanted to ask what is actually true from people who lived there or traveled outside major cities.

Is rural China genuinely uncomfortable for foreigners, or is this mostly exaggerated online narratives.

so yeah, i’m an atlanta hawks fan, which means my son is too by default. kid’s actually into it, has the jersey, watches games with me, the whole thing.

we’re watching the game tonight and it just keeps getting worse. not just a bad game… like historically embarrassing. down 50 at one point. kid goes quiet, you know that kind of quiet where they’re trying to process something but don’t have the words yet.

then he hits me with: “dad, i have my friend’s birthday tomorrow… everyone’s gonna make fun of me for being a hawks fan. what do i do?”

and i just… froze. like what do you even say there? normally i’d go with the whole “you stick with your team through good and bad” speech but bro… 50 points?? that’s not character building, that’s trauma.

do i tell him to own it? deflect? pretend he doesn’t care and just focus on cake? switch teams mid-party?? i have no playbook for this.

my dad would’ve just told me to suck it up but honestly the kid has a point, he’s about to get cooked socially over something he had no control over.

any advice? i’m down bad too so i’m not exactly in a great position to give a pep talk here.

Saw Luka call Sengun “baby Capela” and of course people ran with it, started a whole new wave of debates.

Then I check the comments and it’s just page after page of people arguing whether Sengun is “European” or not.

Like bro who actually cares about this stuff?

Turkey plays in EuroLeague, the whole system there is already a mix. They’ve been influenced by strong Balkan basketball cultures like Serbia and all that, and since the early 2000s with guys like Okur and Hedo making it to the NBA, they’ve also taken a lot from the US style too.

It’s literally a blended basketball culture. So why are people acting like Sengun’s identity is some huge controversy?

Turkey has produced legit success at both national team and club level for years. This whole race or “what label he fits into” discussion feels so pointless.

People are seriously overthinking it and just looking for something to argue about.