Dark Ages 2 is coming lads. She warned you

No friend, taxation isn't a necessary evil either.

Attached: Interventionism_Mises(2).jpg (240x357, 9K)

Money isn’t even necessary
Sure is evil though

Attached: 057E2645-4EAB-438B-8513-41BAD71238EE.png (850x1202, 17K)

>Rand was born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum (Russian: Aлиca Зинoвьeвнa Poзeнбayм) on February 2, 1905, to a Russian-Jewish bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg.[12]

So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.
youtube.com/watch?v=LTQqFGLDdJ0
The blackpill only gains potency if you let it champs.
>echoesposting
the pseudo-redpill once again.

Attached: Dsorp3sXcAUEs8M.jpg (1109x1200, 115K)

Based Aлиca Зинoвьeвнa Poзeнбayм

Attached: 1546719963163.jpg (1080x1331, 135K)

Yeah yeah, I have thought this all through.
Have you ever read the book I posted? No, of course not. Do so.
I still won’t care what you think of it, but you owe it to yourself to read it.

Attached: 8FECC3CF-29F9-4ECB-AD04-6A979A98E478.jpg (482x335, 29K)

No.
And what pray tell is it's central differentiator? What thrust does it make that I have not heard irrationalist socialists make a thousand times before?

Nigga, u dumb & u use ad hominem arguments

It shows we can replace money.
Capitalism is wasteful, cruel and always breaking down.
Money is corrupting, valueless in all truth.
It’s well past time humans move past these primitive ideas.

“No” pff. Too scared to learn, but not scared of the next stock market crunch or even the unraveling health of the environment. Child, please.

Not him hopefully?

Rand I found has a better explanation of modern economic ills in her use of the term "mixed economy". Hardly the fault of Capitalism; economic ills are instead verifiably the result of statism's parasitism on capitalism and altruism's delusions on the nature of what constitutes the objective good.
Are you at least vaguely aware of it?
This replacement of money, should instead happen in reverse with a reinstitution of gold.

Capitalism is only cruel insofar as the requirements to grapple with existence and do it well are cruel. And compared to what the social-premise in philosophy does to the minds of people in every other system, this is nothing.

Tldr: LfCap>>>>>>>Soc/Com=AnCap
Imagine for one second what the separation of state and economics would for problems you are attempting a backward solution to.

p2
>"No" pff
First off cease the redditry. Second I obviously made it clear that I am willing to read it (if only to add to my arsenal) if your hook is novel enough. WHAT can we replace money with?

Attached: s-l640.jpg (319x500, 38K)

>capitalism is wasteful
>we can replace money
>money is corrupting
>health of the environment

Good fucking God, you’re like a dispenser for socialist slogans. It’s all well and good to bitch about capitalism on an anonymous board, but then you’re hit with reality. Your commie utopia will never come to fruition. It’s just a dream, a fantasy, like Lord of the Rings. It’s never going to happen. Maybe the thought that one day we’ll get rid of money gives you peace. Maybe in several thousand years, surely not while you’re alive. So stop it, do something with yourself. You talk about bettering society but you’re just going to die a bitter and resentful death without ever helping one person. At least hurl yourself off a cliff side to make food for the sharks.

I swear to fucking God, modern day socialists are some of the most hypocritical, paradoxical, contradictory, and complacent beings to have ever walked this land: you fight for a remote ideal that will never happen, and you never practice what you preach to make that ideal even theoretically possible. You don’t give a fuck about the poor, you just hate the rich.

>This replacement of money, should instead happen in reverse with a reinstitution of gold.

I think so, but there are other commodities one could 'create'. Like an algorithm for a new crypto-currency, government sponsored. These would obviously be limited in quantity.
>Capitalism is only cruel insofar as the requirements to grapple with existence and do it well are cruel.
I think that this not only applies to Capitalism, it applies to most government systems. One should recognize that the actual system of government really only changes reality -so- much, there are objectively 'set' modes of living, which we all share. Hardships we all have to endure as part of 'living'.
>And compared to what the social-premise in philosophy does to the minds of people in every other system, this is nothing.Tldr: LfCap>>>>>>>Soc/Com=AnCapImagine for one second what the separation of state and economics would for problems you are attempting a backward solution to.
I have come to a similar conclusion, the problem with that, however, is that Ayn Rand's system and ideas surrounding her perfect government, are absolutely fucking retarded.
Other than that, good points all around. There are certain principles of reality which exist before governments are applied to societies. The government applied simply changes how people act in games surrounding economic exchange, and how the different participants engage. For instance, communism is a one-participant society. You win this game by not playing any game at all. And perhaps this is not great, as this detracts from free will a bit.

We know from game theory, that 'effective triangles' within an imputation, imply that for that area of the imputation graph, those sets are effective. Otherwise, there is no other solution and your situation is completely determined (by outside sources' contributions like in Communism).

I believe this finding by game theorists shows a real difference between free will and determinism. To have free will, and freedom within society, and to be determined to act a certain way, are two very different things. But if the exchange is simply one party, you are de-facto determined. Such is not the case with 4 or more participants. Therefore, aristocratic or democratic governments promote wider free range competition, and promote free will, while large contributions of outside (or inside) money promote determined (and increasingly biased coalitions, which can lower the amount of effective sets [an effective set is a coalition of participants within the society] overall for the society).

But all of this simply matters after you apply the government. Indeed, however, from an economic viewpoint, it does seem to reason that communism and some forms of socialism limit free will within economic decision making.

Ayn Rand, as I said, is pretty stupid. She goes much further than Hayek, and simply says no government at all should exist. Hayek advocates for government monopolies.
:3

Oh, dear. He doesn’t understand.
You need to start over. You’ve been lied to.

You plainly said no. You replace it with non-accumulatives. This is to cut out money’s corrupting feature. “Crypto” isn’t going to do that.

Reminder nobody actually likes Rand, she's just an easy way to get (you)s

>She goes much further than Hayek, and simply says no government at all should exist.
I am going to leave every single Rand related point you made unaddressed because of this line as it demonstrates a complete ignorance of Rand. She was a minarchist, she believed only in the separation of state and economics and no further. Which is Laissez-faire capitalism. The whole reason I said LfCap>AnCap. Moving on.

Objectivists are conflated with Libertarianists so often so it may surprise you to learn that I am wholly unimpressed with crypto. In short my nickname for it is "the cuck's alternative to gold" which you can probably glean my assessment of crypto roughly. Crypto as it stands cannot replace gold as it's arbitrary and cannot survive internet censorship or destruction.
Crypto would need to be stored in little novel perpetually power mini computers to sufficiently approximate gold's properties. The only threat to gold that would be if a way to convert energy to matter, cost effectively, were invented. Which is about as likely as this miniature perpetual energy device. The only critique crypto has of gold is that it is less vulnerable to corrupt non-objective banking and government seizure. A problem solved by rigorous development of philosophy in the practice of the handling of gold, and reinstitution of the gold standard and dismantling of anti trust laws. Which heavy curtail and sometimes make impossible the use and deploying of that priceless resource: Reputation.
>One should recognize that the actual system of government really only changes reality -so- much
Worse: it purposefully ignores it. Only the metaphysically validatible is the moral. A philosophic operant which is crucial to Laissez faire and to which our current mixed economy system is inimical.
>,are absolutely fucking retarded.
I thought for a second reading this sentence that the part after the comma would contain you being serious and have something for me to work off of. Silly fucking me.
>The government applied simply changes how people act in games surrounding the economy
Based on the presumption that people handling and delegating money products and ideas they have not produced can ever be moral noncorrupt. Simply put: the "social/common good" and philosophic subjectivism (which is a operant present in all our universities) is always evil. The only ""social good"" is the statistical success rate of the individual good. Meanwhile you have our zeitgeist chattering about things like nihilism, determinism, and accelerationism.
cont.~

Attached: il_570xN.1353875935_r2tt.jpg (570x760, 117K)

p2
>But if the exchange is simply one party, you are de-facto determined.
The curtailing of available options does not prove or induce determinism. If the freedom to which you allude is to exist, the ability to assess meta of exchange must be left open to the individual, utterly, without coercion. What you are preaching necessitates and invasive government control. Cool thought experiment: did you ever notice that when google took over YouTube, the options and tools available to the end user were MASSIVELY curtailed. Why? Incompetence? No, see one of things authoritarians do when they want excercise greater degree of control is that they necessarily need to simplify the venue to be controlled. YouTube, under g's control, will NEVER get an optimal suite of features. It is hard-necessary for them to erect as small a box as they can to keep users minds under scrutiny. Now apply this principle to way governments with a hand in the economy need to operate, and always do.

>Oh dear. He doesn't understand.
>speaking to me in the third person
>Is a commie tripfag
Holy FUCK could you be more reddit?
>Understand
>lied to
I'm listening butterfag
But what about me tho?

Attached: 1547325764390.jpg (720x720, 90K)

Rand has no taxes. Period. Simply put, she is myopic.
>What you are preaching
Not preaching anything. I'm just agreeing with some of the points you made, and making sure you understand how stupid Ayn Rand is.

You're talking about something being 'metaphysically validatible'. Using Aristotleian logic I would think? That's something Ayn Rand is a fan of. Well using metaphysics, I can determing that selfishness is not virtuous, because it increases multiplicity. The very title of her book is a paradox, and an emphasis on 'oxymoron'.

A lot of your other points are a false sense of superiority simply because you have read troves of books by a woman who has no idea what she is talking about, or even actively trying to disseminate misinformation regarding how governments and society actually work. Because I cannot for the life of me think why anyone would actually think of Rand's non-fiction and understand it as anything more than glorified Redbeard.

>moral noncorrupt
*moral or noncorrupt

>and making sure you understand how stupid Ayn Rand is.
Which confuses me as all you've said in all of your setences is Rand=bad.
>Because I cannot for the life of me think why anyone would actually think of Rand's non-fiction and understand it as anything more than glorified Redbeard.
It'd help if you understood. Note that that is not some mere jab as you hard-confirmed you know little/nothing of her with that little comparison you drew between her and Hayek.
I will default to the assumption that you were given your opinion with anything of Rand.
>Well using metaphysics, I can determing that selfishness is not virtuous, because it increases multiplicity
What on earth does philosophically old-as-fuck issue as multiplicty which was tackled by Thales, Heraclitus, and Parmenides have to do here? You clearly are operating with some field-specific definition of multiplicity which you have forgotten to actually mention to me on top of failing to tell how in the fuck you make this jump from multiplicity to immorality.
I confess: I have failed utterly to understand what you are on about here.

Language spans many years of time. To worry about specific problems or terms is to lose the grasp of language and its meaning.

Multiplicity was also tackled by Aristotle, someone who created the field of Metaphysics, a term you used in your post over there to 'validate' morals. Indeed, if you used metaphysics to validate morals you would be like the founding fathers of America, James Madison to be exact, whose papers were largely treatises of how to extract rational principles of the form of government from the objective reality you live in. Surely many different religions do this as well.

I am simply showing that titling her book the 'Virtue of Selfishness' is an oxymoron, and unbelievably uneducated. I have not read any of her non-fiction so I believe I am far more qualified to speak on this than someone that has been indoctrinated.

Thanks.

I suppose I read some of The Virtue of Selfishness actually. I had to put it down. It was simply a mess, and I didn't agree with the morals it was supporting.

The general rationale that something 'freely' moving without any government intervention is by its very nature superior to something with government intervention is just false. As long as it doesn't force the system into determinism, economically you are simply limiting the range of free market choices the individual can make, as opposed to prescribing what the parties do, in the case of communism.

I did forget to tackle this issue in the other post as well: Communism is extremely deterministic because it is a one-participant society: the government. That is the definition of determinism. I would like to hear you argue this point as well.

Finally, Hayek says things much differently than Rand. Hayek says government monopolies are justified, Rand would not, or say that they would have to be run on the collective participation of the members, which is to say, that they are essentially not run.

Rand is living in a fairy tale world, and you are reading too many of her books.

>Multiplicity was also tackled by Aristotle
I know, by which you mean he identified what dumbfucks the aforementioned three were being. Also you didn't actually expand on what you were getting at with "multiplicity".
>James Madison to be exact, whose papers were largely treatises of how to extract rational principles of the form of government from the objective reality you live in
Ok, turning off the snark. You are sufficiently well read (barring Rand) to know this. It is a pitty he did not have Rand's brilliant "trichotomy" insight to work with. Without it no one can grasp the true nature of the objective.
>The general rationale that something 'freely' moving without any government intervention is by its very nature superior to something with government intervention is just false
The reason why it very much is is due to the fact that a man's ability to assess his pin point his actual no-delusions-about-it pinpoint status in the world must be and is most effectively handled capacitatively and not prescriptively.
Rand quote: The free market represents the social application of an objective theory of values. Since values are to be discovered by man’s mind, men must be free to discover them—to think, to study, to translate their knowledge into physical form, to offer their products for trade, to judge them, and to choose, be it material goods or ideas, a loaf of bread or a philosophical treatise. Since values are established contextually, every man must judge for himself, in the context of his own knowledge, goals, and interests. Since values are determined by the nature of reality, it is reality that serves as men’s ultimate arbiter: if a man’s judgment is right, the rewards are his; if it is wrong, he is his only victim. If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not exist, a mixed economy would bring them into existence. Since there is no rational justification for the sacrifice of some men to others, there is no objective criterion by which such a sacrifice can be guided in practice. All “public interest” legislation (and any distribution of money taken by force from some men for the unearned benefit of others) comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined, undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials.
The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly.

>Communism is extremely deterministic because it is a one-participant society: the government. That is the definition of determinism. I would like to hear you argue this point as well.
Determinism is an epistemological issue, you are misapprehendimg what that word means. That's one of those word with a hard "ism" and it does not apply to politics in the way you mean. Determinism is not a synonym to "prescibe" or "resultant".
Anyway socialism isn't divergent enough from communism in epistemology or ethics, only in politics. Which is why they are conflated so often (sometimes unjustly, but not always)
>Rand would not
Well what she would say is that there is a difference between coercive and elective monoplies. The latter is when a company excellence of development of reputation is such that it ends up objectively earning it's monopoly status. One where would-be competitors wouldn't bat an eye at joining the fold instead. Rand notes however that this seldom-to-never occurs in practice but if the stars aligned at it did; it would be perfectly moral. This is where AnCaps. go "Reeee monopolies"

*company's

Posting OC

"The essence of the glorious potential that is the human being is found in the power and potent morality of the traded coin. Stamped in gold, this concept grants no room to the irrational and is tied 1:1 to reality and life."
- Anonymous

Attached: gold-pill-3d-model-max-obj.jpg (676x380, 33K)

>The reason why it very much is is due to the fact that a man's ability to assess his pin point his actual no-delusions-about-it pinpoint status in the world
Wew lad I fucked that sentence up.

Attached: 1545793652242.png (292x551, 307K)

Great post

You know that's just a speech from Atlas right? Don't be too impressed.

It is but mostly because of Randroid-esque thinking rather than >Collectivism.

Why are you so ignorant? A socialist can't just practice what they "preach" that's not good praxis. A socialist is supposed to speed up the revolution as much as possible, it's no one's thought process to just be altruistic. You can find inconsequential dweebs like that in most major religions, but historic materialism demands the movement of the masses