r/aynrand

I just beat Bioshock again and it reminded me what a shit bag waste of oxygen she was in life.

In John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged:

>There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist... Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence.

I believe Rand was incorrect here in presenting the fundamental alternative between existence and nonexistence as exclusive to living organisms. Non-living entities also have conditional forms of existence. A star, for example, is an organised process sustained by certain physical processes, such as nuclear fusion and gravitational equilibrium. Its continued existence as a star depends upon the continuation of these processes; otherwise, like life, the star ceases to exist, although the matter remains.

This alternative as such applies to any entity, insofar as its continued identity depends upon particular physical processes, arrangements, or conditions.

Any thoughts on Trump signing a bill to subsidize farmers for lost revenue due to Trump's tariffs?

It seems he is picking winners and losers. Not very objectivist.

Ayn Rand was interviewed about her books as fiction or philosphy. She said her books represented the world she wanted to live in.

In her books, she assumes an underlying moral principle. In her world, the good individual has a set of moral values. They do not steal, they respect property rights, and they hold truth to reason in high regard.

What do you think are the best films inspired by or at least unintentionally similar to Randian philosophy? For me it’s:

1. BvS
2. The Incredibles
3. A Most Violent Year

Apparently, Ayn Rand stated in 1962:

>But to the hypothetical question, “What would I advocate if my advice were immediately put into effect?,” I’d answer: Start decontrolling the economy as fast as rational economic considerations permit. I speak of “rational economic considerations” because today, every part of the population is dependent on government controls. Most professions have to function under controls, and their activities are calculated on that basis. So if anyone were to repeal all controls overnight, by legislative fiat, that would be a disastrous, arbitrary, dictatorial action. What a free country needs is to give all the people concerned sufficient notice to readjust and reorganize their economic activities…. Any sudden changes could create disastrous dislocations, and so we should decontrol gradually.

If I understand this correctly, it would be dictatorial and problematic if economic freedom was implemented too quickly rather than gradually, as society would be unable to adjust and stabilise to such rapid, sudden changes in policy such as deregulation. For example, I imagine this applies to social security, where the livelihoods of many have become dependent on it and so the programme may have to be phased out with time, perhaps over some decades.

Basically the title. It seems every atheist on the internet seem either anti capitalist to a degree or outright communist, fuck communism. r/Atheists Seems soft bed for commie thinking, and this people call themselves rational, dont even understand basic economics.

Free markets aren't perfect, well nothing is, but that's just human nature, it's the best system we got.

Anyway I also think most atheist on the net specially reddit is just straight anti religious, I mean yes religion have plenty of problem, but it doesn't mean good people can't be religious, most religious people are kind hearted , yeah I know defending religion somewhat is ironic as a atheist, but what's fair is fair.

He’s an extremely intelligent guy, just got married! Anyways, a while ago, he was at a family dinner, and I was talking to him about Ayn Rand. I had already read the fountainhead (and really liked it), and was talking to him about Atlas Shrugged, which I had just began reading. He told me he liked Ayn Rand, but that young men often got caught up in her books, and start accepting everything she writes about fervently. Now for objectivism, that’s fine, but he had an issue with her treatment of the family unit. He argued that her writing at success at all costs with total disregard to the family unit was incorrect, and actually a net negative for the individual and society. He argued that these parts of her philosophy were influenced by her youth, where she apparently had… an abusive relationship or a weird family or something? He never went into detail as I didn’t ask. What do y’all think?

Elon Musk: "We want to have empathy that is deep, not shallow. I strongly believe we should care about humanity and we should care about the future. But we need to have empathy that is deep, not shallow Shallow empathy is caring about criminals, but deep empathy is caring about the victims of the criminals.”

Ayn Rand: "I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims."

I'm here because I'm a fan of Ayn Rand and want to discuss her work and possible objections to it. I'm not here to be insulted by idiots looking for a cheap laugh. I've started blocking people who are clearly doing this, and I encourage other serious members of this sub to do likewise.