Fuck Ayn Rand

[PortraitOfSanity]

I'd say Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism are closer than the Marxist IRA and the staunchly Capitalistic Republican Party. At least Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism share a means to an end, so to speak.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Rather than means to an end, they share a common enemy (the state)
But when it's for entirely different reasons and for entirely different futures, then it's more accurate to put communism and anarchism under the same blanket than anarchocaptalism and anarchism.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Cherry picking? I removed the one block of rhetoric in your post that was the assumptions of me rather than the actual claims of me. That's not cherry picking.

...Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are not on the same blanket. At all.

1) you removed them from the context of the arguments, which I have explained now, TWICE, and then juxtaposed them to make it appear like I was contradicting myself, after I explained why I did not. Honestly I'm beginning to see why you're doing this, but that's an argument for another time so I won't go into it here.

1) Really? not under the same blanket? They why the hell do they appear under the same term when I google them?

Although anarchists share a rejection of the state, they differ about economic arrangements and possible rules that would prevail in a stateless society, ranging from complete common ownership and distribution according to need, to supporters of private property and free market competition. For example, most forms of anarchism, such as that of anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism not only seek rejection of the state, but also other systems which they perceive as authoritarian, which includes capitalism, markets, and private property. In opposition, a political philosophy known as free-market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism argues that a society without a state is a free market capitalist system that is voluntarist in nature.

The way it seems to me under all definitions of the word Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarcho-Communists both share "a rejection of the state", and The Fucking Dictionary agrees with me.

A-Coms and A-Caps claiming one or the other is not an Anarchist is stupid. They both are, they just differ in their approach.

Now, granted, I was confused by this, as I have not read Rand, and previously had not met someone who specified Anarcho-Communist/ Anarcho-Capitalist so I apologize for my ignorance on the matter. Still I'd say it's pretty fair to refer to both groups as "Anarchists". The only reason I can see for excluding a group would be snobishness at this point.

Now, onto your criticism of Rand. I'll leave her literary value out of it because I have yet to read her work.

As to her philosophy, as near as I can tell I share your disagreements. Rand's work is based upon the premise that the playing field is always fair, and thus it is "unjust to ask someone to sacrifice something for others."

I ran into this problem when I got into an argument with a guy who was a remorseless anarcho-capitalist (and Rand fan). I pointed out the fact that after the civil war, there were many factories in places like Pittsburg that hired the newly freed slaves and forced them to live in their housing, all the while charging them more for their room and board than they were paid for their wages. With no other job prospects, many newly freed slaves, and first generation free blacks were forced to take the jobs that made them, for all intensive purposes, softly coerced back into slaver by unchecked capitalism.

Basically I put him in a position where he had to either agree that some government oversight of industry was necessary or defend slavery.

He chose to defend slavery, claiming that without the factories they would have starved to death and thus the factory owners were not exploiting their workers.

So yeah, I agree with you that her philosophy is inherently flawed.

[Despanan]

Stupid 5-minute rule, this is what I meant to say:

Originally Posted by Despanan

A-Coms and A-Caps claiming one or the other is not an Anarchist is stupid. They both are, they just differ in their approach and origin.

[JCC]

Anarchocapitalists are not real anarchists.

Anarchism is to be without a ruler, there is no better dictator than capital.

[MegearaErotica]

You do realize that Ayn Rand was an author, and no matter how tempting it is to want to complain about her writing in the Politics forum, the proper place would be in Literature.

GC who is too lazy to log in for herself and is at Megeara's house.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by JCC

Anarchism is to be without a ruler, there is no better dictator than capital.

Agreed: someone has to control the coinage; the one who does is at the top of the political food-chain.


GC: Hitler was an author too, but his writing is best discussed in politics wouldn't you agree? Being an author shouldn't be the criteria for placement, rather, the ideas expounded.

[Knight in Shining Armour]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Agreed: someone has to control the coinage; the one who does is at the top of the political food-chain.


GC: Hitler was an author too, but his writing is best discussed in politics wouldn't you agree? Being an author shouldn't be the criteria for placement, rather, the ideas expounded.

But, Hitler himself was a major political figure, not just an author. In fact, most people don't even know that Hitler was a writer. They just hear his name and automatically they think "Oh, I know all about him, he did the Holocaust." Which is completely wrong, one man did not kill 6,000,000 Jews by himself... erm... that's a bit off topic though.

The thing is, Ayn Rand was not a politician, she was a novelist.

[PortraitOfSanity]

But her influence in the world politics dwarfs her influence in the world of literature.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by JCC

Anarchocapitalists are not real anarchists.

Anarchism is to be without a ruler, there is no better dictator than capital.

I understand this. However the accepted definition of the word "Anarchy" is without governmental authority, and thus it is reasonable to consider both A-coms and A-caps to be anarchists, as I have said before.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

I have a feeling that saying that anarcho-capitalists are not real anarchists is like saying someone is not a real goth because, while they wear mostly black, they like to throw a bit of purple in.

[gothicusmaximus]

Damn, I thought this thread was advertising some kind of contest, like "TAKE A CRUISE IN THE BAHAMAS!"

I'd hit it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

I have a feeling that saying that anarcho-capitalists are not real anarchists is like saying someone is not a real goth because, while they wear mostly black, they like to throw a bit of purple in.

Can you tell me why you think that is?
Or it just sounds like that to you?

Anarchocapitalists have nothing to do with anarchism anymore than Republicans follow the ideals of a republic. It's that simple.

[7734¯7IA3]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Bitch never even read Kant.

Not quite true....How was she "vociferously opposed to the views of Immanuel Kant" (wikipedia), if she never even read Kant? HA! Gotcha!

[7734¯7IA3]

Originally Posted by Knight in Shining Armour

But, Hitler himself was a major political figure, not just an author. In fact, most people don't even know that Hitler was a writer. They just hear his name and automatically they think "Oh, I know all about him, he did the Holocaust." Which is completely wrong, one man did not kill 6,000,000 Jews by himself... erm... that's a bit off topic though.

LOL!...No, let's go INTO the topic...You are quite correct in that Herr Hitler did NOT kill six million...that number was made up by the AMERICAN propagandists....The REAL figure is more like 270,000...if you will do a little research- not in the AMERICAN libraries, because, naturally, they will suppress that information from you- because they think most people don't know any better than to criticize and be skeptical of ALL alleged "facts and truths"....LMFAO, Those gullible Americans...Geeeez....When will they ever learn...

Kinda reminds me of stupid Flanders, when he didn't realize Russian exchange students were making "SEXY on the internet" in his house.....LOL!!!

Homer Simpson: "Yeah, but the best part is that stupid Flanders doesn't know about it!, He, He, He, He..."

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by 7734¯7IA3

Not quite true....How was she "vociferously opposed to the views of Immanuel Kant" (wikipedia), if she never even read Kant?

That's what's so fucking hypocritical about her. Well, one of the things.
She really never read Kant, but oh how she loved talking bad about him.
That admission is by Nathaniel Branden himself, the best student Ayn Rand claimed to have until he started questioning her.
Just look for Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the history of philosophy
HA! Gotcha!

[7734¯7IA3]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's what's so fucking hypocritical about her. Well, one of the things.
She really never read Kant, but oh how she loved talking bad about him.
That admission is by Nathaniel Branden himself, the best student Ayn Rand claimed to have until he started questioning her.
Just look for Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the history of philosophy
HA! Gotcha!

So, the "fact" that she never read Herr Kant's writings was stated by this, er, Nathaniel Branden? Remember that all "knowledge" is contingent- thanks to the Postmodern condition (which I hate **shakes fist**, but)...Meaning that this Nathaniel Branden could have said anything in scholarly circles, but, how do we know for sure that she in fact did not read Herr Kant's writings, if she herself did not admit to not having read them? I'm just going by who-said-what in a logical manner...In other words, this Nathaniel Branden, although very close to the "Devil herself", is really a secondary source of info and thus not quite accurate...Logically, if he started questioning her, he will inevitably "twist the truth" a little by saying that she never read Herr Kant's writings...

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Anarchocapitalists have nothing to do with anarchism anymore than Republicans follow the ideals of a republic. It's that simple.

Admittedly that's based on what I know, which is probably less than what you know. Why are anarchocapitalists not anarchists?

[Godslayer Jillian]

To Evil_Hell: There's also the fact itself of her critiques of Kant. They're very ignorant. If she did read Kant, then either:
She knows nothing of his teachings anyway.
Or she accuses Kant of things he never said.
There's two chances that she's a hypocrite, and one chance that he's an idiot.
And then there's the reason that Nathaniel Branden has admired Rand too much to lie about her.
Really, the only thing you can do is rationalize, not actually posit a legitimate argument.


To SansMerci: Just look at the above posts, particularly JCC's. They sum up everything in the least amount of words.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Why is anarchism not reconcilable with capitalism? It wouldn't be pretty for a lot of people (or is that what you mean by irreconcilable?)...
If money is going to be counted as a ruler, then why not count human needs (food, shelter, water) as rulers? Money can be a middle-thing to said needs.

Wait.. I suppose that unless everyone made their own business, then there would be employers and employees, which would be rulers and rulees...
I see now, kind of.
There still wouldn't be any official government... so maybe it would be semi-anarchism... until it got corrupted.... which it would.

[Saya]

Anarchocapitalism just seems like an oxymoron. I can't see how it wouldn't make the gap between rich and poor significantly worse, for one, and would there be rules or regulations for companies? Would they get away with paying their employees very little? Private companies would make up law enforcement...and motivated by greed, whats to say they wouldn't become more corrupt than the current law enforcement?

I know I could look this up but I just can't get a paragraph into the wikipedia article without giving up. All I got out of it was "It would be like the American Old West."

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

If money is going to be counted as a ruler, then why not count human needs (food, shelter, water) as rulers?

That makes no fucking sense.
Anarchism is not some bullshit philosophy to which human life means nothing. Capitalism subjects humans to its cold standards, which allow for inequality and exploitation. It IS an oxymoron to say anarchocapitalism.
You could equally say "existence itself is oppressive by its nature." Does that mean anything? No.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Yeah, I could see the Old West thing.

I think it's more that anarchocapitalism wouldn't work for long before a ruling body of some sort developed. And it would probably be very exploitative.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

We need a nuclear war to make a fallout world.

[7734¯7IA3]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

To Evil_Hell: There's also the fact itself of her critiques of Kant. They're very ignorant. If she did read Kant, then either:
She knows nothing of his teachings anyway.
Or she accuses Kant of things he never said.
There's two chances that she's a hypocrite, and one chance that he's an idiot.
And then there's the reason that Nathaniel Branden has admired Rand too much to lie about her.
Really, the only thing you can do is rationalize, not actually posit a legitimate argument.

Point taken...Understood, Thanks