Aversion to confrontation is cowardice

>that's not how typical governments work
True, but we're speaking of what can be, not what typically is.

Rand was right about a lot, but she got the state wrong.
youtu.be/Se0VmSaJDvc

Attached: 62614177_2758668320870881_2343591021511704576_o.jpg (1511x2015, 221K)

If your government is voluntarily associated with, it is not a state. At any point anyone would be able to secede. That is assuming you didnt willingly sign a slavery contract, and THAT'S assuming that slavery contracts are even legitimate.

>If your government is voluntarily associated with, it is not a state.
Typical Jew, begone with your wordplay

>willingly signing a contract
>is slavery
Check your premises.

If you're signing away your right to freely disassociate, you're a slave. I don't even think the idea is coherent. You have to have agency to sign a contract. That agency doesn't magically disappear because you say so.

no clue wtf your dumb ass is talking about, but learn the meaning of the word state, you stupid nigger. It means a coercive monopoly on arbitration over a geographic region.

>If you're signing away your right to freely disassociate, you're a slave.
Indentured Slavery

does being president of the autism speaks foundation pay well?

you really think this low IQ pap offends me? you're like a roach squeaking under my foot.

Tomato tomato, dude. If you become the property of another person, you're a slave. Hence why the argument in favor of such contracts is flawed at best and incoherent at worst. You can just keep saying "nuh uh" or you could actually make your case. Just embrace consistency and become a voluntarist already. Floating in between reason and whim makes you do dumb shit like this.

>since you trade
>you're a slave
Whew lad

Yeah keep doing that. Keep doing your pithy bullshit. It really makes it seem like you have a strong grasp on your worldview and how it relates to reality.

Attached: 1560698842520.png (640x486, 212K)

The moment you sign a contract into slavery you no longer have the capacity to agree to a contract. You cannot give up your freedom without having your freedom, but you cannot continue to give up your freedom if you no longer have it.

It's a paradox.

Ya, she got a lot right because she was just spouting off other ideas before, but also denouncing those same ideas in others. She invented nothing, and the only people that follow her is more like a cult than it is a stable practical ideology.

Altruism functions because you teach others how you want to be treated. This doesn't mean only subservience is benevolent, but it doesn't mean that personal greed is only forwarded by your own advancement.

>UPSET ABOUT PORNPOSTERS
>TROLLS ANY THREAD THAT ISN'T PORN

Why not just goto redit, and be done with it for once?

>I have never once studied Rand or Objectivism once, but I wrote this anyway.
Jesus christ, nigger. Yaron Brook exists. He can explain it for morons like you. Then move onto Charles Tew once you know a little. Then start reading. Then regret this canadian-tier post.

How is sincerely engaging in a conversation trolling? Can you PLEASE, for humanity's sake, just kys? Remove this source of stupidity from existence. You have the power to make the world a better place. Do it, user. Do it for humanity.

What part of Rand do I have wrong?

Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being.

This premise is obviously false when you look at what any parents, police, or military person would do in a situation that requires sacrifice. Rand 'theory' that it would be ultimately better to pursue your own well-being over that of the society is from the idea that the individual is not a delusion that persists within your own mind. The tribe, village, town, city, and nation is not a new or novel idea that is isolated to only certain cultures.

As time went on beyond the 1950s the global community has only expanded, and proved that society is not some passing trend but in fact what humanity ACTUALLY is, to the point that separated from other humans we actually functionally break. We need others to exist because even tho we're not a hivemind, we're about as close to a network of humans than we are individuals. Our strength as a community does not stem from how strong we are separately but at how the collective can surpass the sum of its parts.

We take care of the weak because strength is temporary, and only subjective to the task at hand. I may be able to bench press 400 lbs but I cannot do quantum computing in my head, nor do I have the time and resources to devote to develop this idea. We all have our own unique traits but this doesn't mean each of us are suited only best to serve our selves at all time, nor is it our own fault that the conditions in our life are not optional at all times.

If i get hit in a car accident and then it's discovered I have a tumor you can blame me for not having a saving to recover from both the injury and the illness at the same times, but that I also lack the means to replenish my resources because I am in weakened state.

Society would at benefit to preserve each and every person because at the least it's a work that can be used in the future.

Good

You only think you're a human, because the 'perception' that Rand heralds above all else is fundamentally flawed. You only think you exist alone and separated from everyone else. You are a member of a collective, probably more than one. By engaging in Yea Forums, you're not a part of us. The yellow army even agrees the needs of Yea Forums supersede that of the individuals.

We're all collectivist, but Rand perpetuates this delusion that the self is a part of the outside world, and not merely just a ghost in the machine. In fact your own consciousness from which your perception stems from is what is the only thing you cannot experience. Anything you can experience is something that is not your ownself. You wants and needs and desires ARE NOT YOU. You are which experiences the world, the consciousness within your head. Like the tongue cannot taste the tongue, and the eye cannot see itself, your own consciousness is the one aspect of the entire world you cannot experience, for which it is what experiences the world.

Anything you can see, touch, thinking about, perceive in anyway is not you. It's all fictional. It's the perceptions that we can relate to each other that is a part of our shared reality, but ultimately that is what society as we know it based off of starting with the very language in which we're talking in.

The basis of her entire ideology, stems from the basis that perception is not flawed. It is. Cognitive bias exists on almost every level to the point that true reality is just a fiction.

So maybe I don't know Rands teachings that well, it's only because I found better more pure examples that make the outdated 1950s ramblings of an old women unneeded. Ancap goes against it's own need. You want to live long by being rich, but you don't want to exploit others to detriment their ability to achieve their own full capacity? The conflict that you engage in only defeats your own goal.

I mean even Sun Tzu said this long before that it is best to avoid conflict, especially long drawn out conflict, and to instead unify as one seamless and without separation. The collective is stronger than any individual.

Always has been always will. The lone man travels fastest, but the group travels further. No one man ever achieved greatness as himself. Conflict only serves to defeat your ownself. Unifying is ideal. Conflict should be avoided at all costs, but when it has to happen it should be quick and swift and over.

Cowardice is a concept that only the dumb think exists. To an strategist or tactician retreat and avoidance is just another tool to be used to achieve victory. Personal glory is as limited as and self contained as personal defeat.

>The moment you sign a contract into slavery you no longer have the capacity to agree to a contract.
Slavery is not chosen.
Servitude is chosen.

Synonyms

>you exist with others
>therefore you are a slave
The absolute state of anti Rand posters.

>slavery = indentured servitude
Find a dictionary

>This premise is obviously false when you look at what any parents, police, or military person would do in a situation that requires sacrifice.
Sacrificing your life for something you value is not altruism. Sacrificing your life for something you do not value is. Again, you don't know Randian egoism.

Also, like all totalitarian collectivists, you confuse society--an abstract concept meant to understand the emergent phenomena of social interaction--with an actual physical entity or being. You assign rights, things that CAN ONLY exist for individuals, and project them onto groups: literally you're giving ideas rights and think you're smart for doing it.

You also conflate VOLUNTARILY giving your life for a higher value and being FORCED to do so by some third party.

Again, you're pathetic and should study individualism more, because you don't get it.

Well you seem to think that rapacious greed is in alignment with rational egoism.

>Sacrificing your life for something you value is not altruism.
This- one can SELFISHLY value the existence and success of their progeny.
Infact, I believe that successful people have the ability to mentally enjoy contributing to another's success- I believe it comes from a non-zero-sum worldview.

Happiness is slavery.

Indentured servitude can be either voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary servants were people, often trained in a craft or skill, who could not afford passage to the colonies. In exchange for their passage, they agreed to work for a period of four to seven years for a colonial master.

indenture: a legal agreement, contract, or document.

Exactly, business is not a zero-sum game. There's a saying that the only way to keep business partners that made you a million dollars is to make them a million as well.

Indentured servitude is always voluntary.

Not if you have aversion yet do the confrontation anyway, are you retarded op ?

True- for some reason people figure that values, in all areas, are immutable- and that there exist set values in all areas of life- but the truth is that they do change, and we are constantly competing against other people, not some unchanging standards.

But Rand was picking on Kant's understand that only a selfless deed is moral, but no good deed is unselfish, inherently. It's an easy argument to win, but it's not like morality was what Kant's is known for as a philosopher.

Nope. Involuntary indentured servants were the impoverished, those in debt, or criminals whose sentence was a period of servitude. Most indentured servants in North America were voluntary. Their period of obligation to a colonial master was longer than that of a voluntary servant, usually seven to fourteen years.

I don't put much stock in the current interpretation of Kant- we are separated in both our environment and language.

That said, I also hold the Misean premise that all all actions are selfish.

>indentured servitude includes prison sentences
Punishment slavery.
Trading freedom for sustinence slavery

The self is a delusion. I mean even who you were 10 years ago is not the same you that you are today. Even your memories as a person are mostly fabrications that are not set into stone anywhere. Your own needs and wants can just as easily be manipulations from others.

The ability to be an individual doesn't start from the ground up based on perceptions like Rand says, but from the premise that you are just a consciousness. What you take for granted as reason and logic can only be truly understood when you understand the source of the understanding. That your will is the only power you have as an individual and that can only come from sacrificing EVERYTHING to achieve those goals, which includes your ownself.

If not than it was never a goal worth obtaining and just what Rand would call a 'whim'. This is why looking at conflict as something to be fought only works in the framework of an ultimate GOAL. That goal may not even bring your happiness.

>Cowardice is a concept that only the dumb think exists
Said the coward

I read atlas shrugged. And ive been meaning to read fountian head. Any one got reccomendations from her?

Ya, except in the real world that's not how those terms were used. That's just your own headcanon. These are not new concepts, in fact they're quite antiquated at this point. indentured servitude is temporary but can be involuntary, slavery is permanent and is always involuntary, at least as the terms are known now taken from colonial times.

I dunno man, you do you.

Cowardice is mostly a ad hominem. In the best use of the word.

That's the two books. Beyond that I would read up on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, play some bioshock?

bump

STOP PORN

MAKE WHOLESOME, NON-PORNOGRAPHIC THREADS

CALL OUT THE DISCORD SJW SHILLS THAT WANNA DESTROY "ALT-RIGHT" Yea Forums

SHADILAY¡¡

yellow will win

Maybe ill check it out. Yeah i play some bioshock, never hot the philosophical undertones till i got older.

Bitch took welfare until the day she died.

>he says while behind keyboard

>one can only progress through change
Goes without saying.

many many jews many dead jews