Any objectivist comics out there?

The weak like you have no right dictating what others should do.

Glorious Stardust

Attached: Stardust.jpg (1024x714, 286K)

>ugly, impoverished, bitter femcel writes plodding, monumental fan fiction about imaginary genius billionaires complete with clumsy sex scenes
>utter shit that's impossible to read but libertarian fanboys who identify with the idea of "well nobody likes me because I'm so great" keep her name around
>died on welfare paid for largely by working people as the wealthy began paying less and less taxes

>I can't argue against the philosophy presented
>let's just resort to ad hominems and ridicule
Seethe more, parasite.

(try Nietzsche instead. what you're describing is master/slave morality)

>The masses are ingrates, a race of born parasites who steal from the virtuous few who have made this miserable shit ball of a planet worth living on.
Question:name a problem that anyone's facing since the Vietnam war that wasn't caused by private interests fucking over everyone-name a problem that wasn't caused by your captains of industry

Question: you are not strong

Name one problem that wasn't caused by the incestuous meddling of the government into the free market.

Objectivism appeals to the narcissistic and anti-social. There's a reason neckbeards and incels took Rapture, a bitter parody of Objectivism, seriously

Yeah I'm sure you're quite the financial alpha male irl

The people constructed inefficient socialist systems of oppression to further enslave the powerful, and further steal from their superior strengths of innovation and creativity. And now what do we see?

The eventual collapse of these socialist pyramid schemes seem to soon be upon us, and governments across the west are importing unintelligent savages to continue this dysgenic process that has led our species spiraling towards oblivion.

Why should the masses be allowed any sort of power over the state when those dishonorable rats will always do nothing but use the power of the state to extort wealth from the noble few?

Ayn Rand referred to selfishness as a virtue a lot in her works, but she used it differently then it's commonly used, meaning opposition to the same sort of pathological altruism SJWs expect of more powerful/influential/wealthy people but not of themselves.

>With great power comes great responsibility
A phrase loved by people who routinely see themselves as poweless, thus not burdened with responsibility. Like a perpetual child.

You learned about all this from Bioshock, didn't ya kiddo?

Do you have any counter-arguments against Ayn Rand's statements, or is your arsenal filled to the brim with bullshit?

Oooh, you're a real tough guy, huh? A real manly man, aren't you?

>no u

if you want a circlejerk then go to reddit nigger

>sort of pathological altruism SJWs expect of more powerful/influential/wealthy people but not of themselves.

That's why you have things like taxes, to collective secure funds that are then diverted to help people worse off.

Most people who get rich do so through hard work, self-sacrifice, creativity, and willingness to take risks. People who aren't willing to do these things all too often see themselves as a victim, powerless, cheated by those who dared to improve their own lives, turning to bitter, jealous resentment. Ideologies like Communism turn that bitterness into an ideology and sense of identity. Rather than striving to empower themselves and improve their own lives, they seek nothing more than to tear-down the ones they see as powerful and responsible for their own lack of success. "Everyone should suffer, because everyone's to blame."

Communism is the ideology of evil itself.

Attached: 1322113166687.png (174x287, 93K)

>>tfw muh vidya had Walt Disney tell me I'm special because I'm smart, and everyone doesn't like me because I'm special and they're just parasite grunts
>>no gods no kings only man no women

Most wealth is inherited man

If those were private charities that people could donate to willingly, that would be okay. The issue is that one's money is taken to fund those programs at the threat of force (locking you into a cell at best, locking you in a cell and seizing your property at worst), with the promise that it's being done for a good cause.
You cannot use force to make people do a good deed. It's akin to threatening to kick someone's ass if they don't adopt pacifism.
If one's counter-argument is that, without the government taxing people, these kinds of things would never exist I say no. There exist multiple charities and organizations that try to do good (whether or not they are is a different argument) without the need to take your money by way of the government, and they're still functioning to this day.
>"Everyone should suffer, because everyone's to blame."
Was that from that Purge episode of Aeon Flux? Appropriate for this discussion.

The collective weak have historically brutally murdered the few strong repeatedly throughout history when things have reached a boiling point. Modern financial safety nets and other social programs exist in part to prevent these types of meltdowns and the associated mass suffering from happening.

Yet poverty is still an issue no matter how high taxes get raised.

That wealth had to be generated, and then built upon. It's not like there existed a rich elite from the beginning of time. You have money, you work to get more money, you then invest it in your kids who repeat the same process. After a while, if everything goes right and all future generations are raised with the values of smart investment and not spending money of drugs and parties, they'll have enough money to inherit from their ancestors.

>Productive minority
Unemployment in the United States is around 3%. The vast majority of adults in developed society work daily and contribute to society through their economic activity and taxes.

Don't listen to that guy. He's larping as an objectivist, but only knows what little he's read off of RationalWiki's Ayn Rand entry.

>Yet poverty is still an issue no matter how high taxes get raised.

It's still an issue despite how much wealthy people donate to charity. The former however doesn't rely solely on people feeling generous and charitable throughout the year.

>Was that from that Purge episode of Aeon Flux? Appropriate for this discussion.
Yup. That's my favorite episode. Don't really know why that line came to mind, but it really seems to sum-up anti-capitalist ideologies in a nutshell. Communism needs a host to mooch off of, which is why China stays in power, but once you cut-off their exports their economy starts to collapse, eventually they'd turn into Russia under Stalin where they'd start killing millions of their own without another country to steal from.

Attached: tumblr_nxxmprjE7c1tbcweeo1_400.gif (320x256, 1.6M)

>Most people who get rich do so through hard work, self-sacrifice, creativity, and willingness to take risks.
lmao. Not even you believe this.

So we come to the conclusion that charity organizations as well as tax-funded programs like welfare, et al aren't going to help because poverty is caused more by a wrong state of mind/philosophy, instead of just not having money.

>There exist multiple charities and organizations that try to do good (whether or not they are is a different argument) without the need to take your money by way of the government, and they're still functioning to this day.

And none of them are able to fund themselves in a way where they could provide the type of active social safety nets as the government does by collecting taxes.

No, instead it relies on forcing people to give money to the government at gunpoint, very little of it going to people who are actually in need, and the rest going to overpaid politicians and government bureaucrats.

Although there is absolutely nothing wrong with primogeniture, the modern way it works is at odds with the Western idea of meritocracy. The sons and grandsons and even further descendants of the upper class inherit vast fortunes and exert massive influence over the economy and government. Those individuals didn't earn that money at all, and their generally unsustainable exercise of their power is indicative of that.

Taxes pay for a lot of things you take for granted. Like maintaining roads, keeping the water clean, providing education to everybody. Society has improved from collective social programs and lifted plenty of people up from poverty thanks to the tax revenue being pooled together and used to fund projects that improve the general quality of life across the country.

Yeah, I do. It's why I decided to start my own company instead of working for some other fucker for the rest of my life. I sell shit people want to buy and after several years of working my ass off the company basically runs itself.

Attached: 1395510912426.png (482x349, 232K)

The housing bubble.

Why is that a good thing?

I've yet to see a good explanation for what's wrong with inheritance. I want my kids to have a better childhood than the one I had. What's wrong with that?

It's also representative of the mentality some people have, where if Person A doesn't have an advantage and Person B does, it's obviously because B cheated. Why? Because A never cheats, therefore it's impossible to have an advantage without cheating, therefore B is evil, therefore stealing from him is justified because there are no bad tactics only bad targets.
Communism is a philosophy of envy, and not even the good kind of envy Nietzsche described, but the kind that bubbles and boils and stews in its own rot, not doing a damn thing to improve a situation.
My favourite is Thanatophobia for the animation, but the Purge is the best when it comes to visuals and story in general
I do find it entertaining how Aeon and Trevor represent dangerous freedom and secure imprisonment without prettying anything up, or without the creators taking a side. They just leave it up to you to determine which is the right path according to your philosophy. Both have seemingly good intentions, but both their actions have some negative consequence, and you just have to determine which is better.

>Objectivism
>Philosophy
Pick one

Then you got lucky.

>>Acting like his tiny private business makes him a peer to Fortune 500 elite

>Taxes pay for a lot of things you take for granted. Like maintaining roads, keeping the water clean, providing education to everybody.
And this infrastructure costs are almost nothing compared to fruitless spending going to pointless endeavours like social security and Medicare which should just be privatized to allow people far more choices and options at competitive rates.

Attached: 1553742579058.png (1003x915, 146K)

Prove to me that luck exists.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it at all, but anybody born with a silver spoon who started their shit with daddy's money and acts like a selfmade man is full of shit

So? How does that then justify taking money from people at the point of a gun or the threat of imprisonment? Valiant ends justify morally unjust means? If that's the way you want to go, be my guest, but keep me out of it. But you can't. Such a system depends on money being taken not only from the willing, but from the unwilling, or it will collapse. So why can't the government then use the "ends justify the means" philosophy to impose an even greater burden, if it's all done in the name of security and safety?
Whether or not one has earned something is so broad and subjective it's not worth discussing. I could say I earned my paycheck this month, but someone could argue I didn't because I had greater luck in life to be born in a country where I could get an education and not worry about dying from disease at age 2.
If these people have power, good for them, that's how it's always worked throughout history. Nobody has an obligation to level the playing field because it never will be level. Some people are lucky and privileged, some are not. Quit thinking about it, and start doing something to improve your own situation and the situation of your kids. Instead of thinking how much more someone has than you NOW, think about how you can get more TOMORROW or two years from now. Envy is a thot who needs no attention.
Human stupidity, you can't legislate that way (unless you bring back eugenics).
No amount of daddy's money will help you be successful if you're stupid and act on impulse. At best, you'll be the equivalent of a trophy wife.

When you're inhering millions/billions, it creates a problem where all the wealth converges to just a handful of wealthy families where they own more than rest of the country put together. In the long run you end up with aristocracy who think they're better simply because they were born into wealth. It's not healthy for the economy, it's not good for the nation, and it only accelerates disenfranchisement and poverty. It's a recipe for oppressive inequality.

You're not living in India or Africa right now, correct? Luck

>to fruitless spending going to pointless endeavours like social security and Medicare which should just be privatized to allow people far more choices and options at competitive rates.
YOU
DENSE
FUCKING
MORON

It's the proivate insurance who are overpriced. It's like you enjoy sucking the cock of corporation. We are in an oligopoly structure and they are sucking dry people who want insurance company. There would literally be an improve of incom if Medicare for all got passed. the increase in taxe would be less than the private insurrance they would need to buy.

Business would have their cost reduced as they woudn't have to buy insurrance for their employee and people would be less afraid to quit their job to start their own business as leaving their job wouldn't mean losing your healthcare insurance.

Only corporate Chill and moron are agaisnt that.

That's not luck in the slightest. People's genetic profiles are not randomly determined from scratch. A person could only be born to their own parents: their parentage is what determines their personage!

I swear you fucking children think the world works like a videogame.

Are there any libertarians, other than Nozick, who is not completely retarded?

Have fun when the inevitable financial crash comes

>If those were private charities that people could donate to willingly, that would be okay.
People in need are not to be depended of the whim of the fortunate ones. One substance is not to be dependende of someone feeling generous on a peculiar day.

> The issue is that one's money is taken to fund those programs at the threat of force
It's not an issue, it's how most of laws are enforced. do'nt try to make taxes a special case.

What's not healthy for the economy is to keep small businesses down with eternal bureaucratic bullshit. The only way you can stop aristocrats from having a lot of money through their efforts is by forcing them to give it to you at the threat of a gun, which is evil. If you free up the market (like Sweden did in the 70s), everyone will have access to greater opportunities and more money and the economy gets better.
That's the way to fix the issue of people not having cash and some having lots of it: stop making it difficult to start a business or hire new workers.

Kek, immagine being such a brainwashed burger that you wish to be more heavily exploited by corporation

>privatized to allow people far more choices and options at competitive rates.

Bitch people. How can there any real competition when your fucking life depends on getting your social security check so that you can even feed yourself?

All privatization will do is raise the costs up while cutting down benefits from the people who desperately need them.

>People's genetic profiles are not randomly determined from scratch.
you still got lucky your spermatozoid got to fecund the egg instead of an other or you wouldn't be you.

>can't argue against the philosophy presented
Wich is?

And I am not obligated to give my money away just because someone says I should. I'm more than willing to give money to my family and close friends if they really need it, because I know them and I care about them. I don't know or care about Joe Q. Driveway, and I have no guarantee he'll use my money responsibly. Why in god's name should I then trust that both he and Red McTape will use it properly?
>It's not an issue, it's how most of laws are enforced. do'nt try to make taxes a special case.
Theft is illegal. Taking money from someone at the threat of force is illegal. Taxes are taken at the threat of force, and you have no say in the matter. Do the math.

>How does that then justify taking money from people at the point of a gun or the threat of imprisonment?
The same way you justify every laws existing: people or their representative voted for it. Don't try to make it some sort of big drama about it.

>It's the proivate insurance who are overpriced
Because the government made it so damn easy for them to do that you stupid fucking retard. You ever wonder why college and healthcare prices skyrocketed the moment the government started providing subsidized student loans and started forcing people to have a health care plan? Because no matter what those corporations were able to take in dough because regardless of how much they raised their costs it would have to be paid out in some way.

It's basic fucking economics when the government makes it so the demand for something is basically infinite the price index is going to climb exponentially.

Those are deterministic physical processes, though. There's no luck there, just tail speed.

>And I am not obligated to give my money away just because someone says I should.
You are obligated by law enforcement to follow every laws of the country you reside in. Again, don't make taxes a special case.

>Theft is illegal.
But taxes isn't. It's the law. Don't use legality as an argument against taxes, you dunce.

>I'm more than willing to give money to my family and close friends if they really need it,

The world is bigger than your immediate circle of acquaintances and not everybody have people who can subside their poverty through friendly handouts. Your narcissistic selfishness is not an argument for letting other people suffer because you're too much of a greedy person to give a small part of your wealth to help other people.

>implying I need to be

>Those are deterministic physical processes,
Don't use arguments that haven't been scientifically proven yet. Science still hasn't ruled whether or not we live in a deterministic world and our current knowledge on quantum reality would tend to indicate we live in a probabilistic world.

>>Can't make money by acting on impulse

My grandfather was a functional idiot who made his fortune on stocks by picking the best logos.

>I don't know or care about Joe Q. Driveway
He is still a citizen of the same country as your.

>I like Objectivism as a philosophy
Dear god, why? Its best aspects are present in so many other philosophical structures that don't also shit all over the concepts of social interaction and moral relativism/nihilism

>Iron Man is an objectivist hero
Quite the opposite. Tony Stark starts as an objectivist wunderkind before he becomes Iron Man and has to improve dramatically in order to become a superhero. He has to set aside both his own desires and the concept that he can do everything on his own. If anything the story of Iron Man is anti-objectivist.

The general idea behind most modern laws is to not interfere with people's lives and to make unwanted interference illegal, which in turn is based on philosophies of individualism.
Or in other words, most laws are about guaranteeing you'll be left the fuck alone. When you make a law that guarantees you'll be pestered, and if you try to stop the pestering will then be punished, you have a tyrannical law.
Laws change, baby, that's why I don't determine what's moral with them.
Indeed, I should've said theft is immoral. Thanks for correcting me.
>The world is bigger than your immediate circle of acquaintances
My circle of influence, however, is no bigger than my family and close friends. Thus, trying to help people outside of it will be hollow work at best.
>Your narcissistic selfishness is not an argument for letting other people suffer
I like the freedom to determine what I'll do with the money I made by exchanging effort for it. That doesn't mean I'm letting people suffer, unless you wish to argue that any moment I spend doing something other than sacrificing myself for others is letting them suffer. In which case, Auguste Comte, you first. How dare you waste time arguing here when you could be helping.
>because you're too much of a greedy person to give a small part of your wealth to help other people.
My "wealth" is already hellishly small. Congratulations, Bubba Joe and his 7 chillins get $0.01 from me, what a massive help I was. I'm under no obligation to help those I don't know or care about, period. If you want to change that, you'll have to rob me, baby.

>objectivism doesn't denounce the idea of using your power responsibly
Not in so much as it uses those specific words, but it absolutely denounces the idea of using your power for others excepting when it is explicitly in your self-interest.

>Book has 70 page long sequence that is nothing but a character giving a speech outlining the message of the book and the author's ideology
Yikes!

Attached: IMG_4821.png (812x655, 486K)

>Because the government made it so damn easy for them to do that you stupid fucking retard.
>things are fucked up
>let's do nothing to fix it
naaah
>You ever wonder why college and healthcare prices skyrocketed the moment the government started providing subsidized student loans
Indeed, the correct thing to would have been to directly pay for their education instead of involving private loaners.

the issue is that, confronted to an unfair system, they thought it would be a "good middle ground" to help more students get their private loan, so that the loan market wouldn't be hurt by those aids, thinking they would play ball and not abuse the situation. they didn't (of course they didn't) and jumped on the occasion to make as much dough as possible.

Private market had its chance, they abused the situation, now they'll have to face they won't be making money out of education anymore.

What if my self interest is the happiness of all mankind?

>shit all over the concepts of social interaction and moral relativism/nihilism

I LIKE that it shits all over moral relativism/nihilism. Those are shitty concepts for shitty people.

>Tony Stark starts as an objectivist wunderkind before he becomes Iron Man
Try actually reading The Fountainhead, and stop pretending your know what you're talking about.

>actually being full-on "even roads and hospitals and bridges and schools would function properly if privatized"
I genuinely hope you are under 15 because any adult with half a brain knows that his is complete and utter bullshit. There are plenty of things that are 100% integral to society that simply do not function properly under profit motive.

I say it is the masses who should rightfully be oppressed, and it is the powerful minority who should be uplifted, as they are the only ones who drive the progression of the human animal.

Any dissenter can enjoy getting killed, while the rest of us can enjoy having yet more worthlessness being cleansed from our collective genepool.

We should rid ourselves of this mind decease called Democracy, and strive towards a new line of governmental thought. Force. That is what we need to create a world of worthiness. Ruthless and unfeeling force.

Probabilities are just ways of describing processes without describing all the steps. And science has never once shown the existence of "luck."

>powerful minority who should be uplifted, as they are the only ones who drive the progression of the human animal.
There's no such thing as progress. Anything that is possible was possible from the beginning.

Then you're doomed to live an unfulfilling life. You can't make everyone happy. Hell, if you try to make half of the people happy you'll just manage to make the other half miserable.

Attached: 1345265173258.png (361x388, 34K)

That would be a desire, not self-interest.

>I LIKE that it shits all over moral relativism/nihilism. Those are shitty concepts for shitty people.
Moral relativism/nihilism is pretty much undeniable at this point. The mere existence of moral disagreement precludes any kind of transcendent moral code, and actions do not have physical properties of being "good" or "evil".

>Try reading the fountainhead
I did, a long time ago. It was shit. Try actually making your argument instead of implying it exists.

Good for him, and how many people make their fortunes using that method?
That's great, I still don't owe him anything besides leaving him alone to do his own thing. And, of course, I expect the same in return. If he starts pestering me, he initiated the use of force by forcing himself upon me and my peace of mind, at which point he is the aggressor and therefore morally evil.
You are technically true, but you neglect to mention that what Rand means by "self-interest" is rational self-interest. Rational self-interest is what most people do relatively frequently. It's essentially doing what you normally do to better yourself/your situation without forcing someone to worsen their situation in return. If I have the power and the self-interest to create a successful video game, and I make $10 million off of it, and my competition barely make $1 million off of theirs because they didn't have the power, then this isn't evil, it's just them not being good enough.
So long as you don't force anyone to sacrifice themselves for your goals, then whatever. I think your goal is not achievable, and I'll let you know as much, but I won't stop you.
>implying government doesn't function under a profit motive
I guess all those functionaries and politicians work for free, am I right? The only difference is that they want to have a monopoly on making money off of your needs.

philosophy is not inherently all good ideas user. Karl Marx himself said philosophy is to science what masturbation is to sex.

>The general idea behind most modern laws is to not interfere with people's lives and to make unwanted interference illegal,
No, it isn't. that's what you would like, but it isn't.
Just because the laws aren't the way you wish they were doesn't make it illegal.
>Laws change, baby, that's why I don't determine what's moral with them.
We were'nt talking morality. And yes LAw change. But the whole argument of "they arrest you if you do'nt pay taxes" is stupid nonetheless. That's how laws work and therefore you can't put that against taxes.
>Indeed, I should've said theft is immoral. Thanks for correcting me.
No what is immoral is letting someone die when you could easily help them without causing significant detrimant to yourself. Ooops? are we having a moral debate? Guess the only way to settle this disagreement is to vote on it and let the majority decide. that's how law are made. Not on what you think laws should be.

Agreed. I don't understand how people can hear a philosophy that believes the best socioeconomic model is one where everyone is out for themselves like a Machiavellian jackal trying to screw and scam everyone else

>Probabilities are just ways of describing processes without describing all the steps.That's your interpretation.
>science has never once shown the existence of "luck."
It hasn't proven the world is deterministic, don't try to present it as a fact.

This one

Attached: LR 087.jpg (450x3150, 314K)

>That's great, I still don't owe him anything
According to the law, you do.

Your money has value because the collectivity assign it value. If you use the currency to gain benefit out of that collectivity you therefore also agree to the rule they establish with the use of it.

You've still not shown an iota of the substance called luck in the physical world. You might as well invoke "The Hand of God."

>If you use the currency to gain benefit out of that collectivity you therefore also agree to the rule they establish with the use of it.
Who decided this?

Because these people are delusional enough to think they would always come on top. It's also why the ideology is partly fueled by greed and the rationale that being selfish is good.

According to him, a lot. Most of the people he did business with were fraternity jerkoffs with daddy's money purchasing stocks on a whim. And most of the ones still alive are still doing really good

>You've still not shown an iota of the substance called luck in the physical world.
Missing the point again. Don't act like determinism is a fact up until it is proven.

How is self interest not good? Collective self interest is still based on self interest, or are you actively campaigning for everyone to suffer?

>>implying government doesn't function under profit motive
That's not what I said. I said there are things 100% integral to society that do not function properly under profit motive. Things like schools and hospitals and roads and bridges and water and gas and electricity. These are things that benefit and uplift society but do not necessarily massively enrich their owners directly but rather indirectly through the maintenance of society and the opportunities for growth they allow. Only those incapable of seeing beyond the most immediate consequences of their actions are unable to understand this very basic truth

"rational self-interest" is also a very tenuous concept because whether or not something is in your self-interest is not objective. Take the examples given above; giving charity to a school (or just not avoiding your taxes) is a loss of liquid assets with no direct gain whatsoever and could be considered not in your rational self-interest, but the consequences of that school being funded are far-reaching and may produce workers with new innovations, or prevent an economic collapse in the area that would eventually threaten your other assets, etc.

Objectivism is a shallow philosophy that doesn't stand up to actual scrutiny.

the incredibles

The people who give the currency values. They do it through voting and representatives.

>Don't use arguments that haven't been scientifically proven yet.
Oops, you're retarded.
While there is indeed the question of randomness or a multiverse when it comes to quantum events, genes exist so so so SO far above those events in scale that said quantum events have no bearing on them. They are absolutely deterministic.

If you believe the deck is already stacked in your favor, why wouldn’t you want it?

So money didn't exist before representative democracy? What fucking idiot history are you reading?

Randomness is actually impossible.

Prove that it doesn't.

>Human stupidity, you can't legislate that way (unless you bring back eugenics).
Eugenics is not going to make rich greedy assholes less greedy.

When everyone just acts selfish, the entire collective suffers.

Self-interest is fine and healthy. Malignant self-interest is destructive

You've never worked a government job if you honestly think we have any sense of running anything efficiently.

Lmao what kind of edgy larping is this?

Attached: 1555070131133.jpg (392x400, 69K)

>genes exist so so so SO far above those events in scale that said quantum events have no bearing on them.
Irrelevant. If the foundation of the world is probabilistic, then everything is and is the result of probabilistic occurrence.
If the foundation of the world is deterministic, then everything is and is the result of deterministic occurrences.

The deterministic or probabilistic nature of the quantum world doesn't magically goes away once you change of scale.

You are assuming everyone plays fair, which isn't true. Lets say to free the market, do you think mom&pop business are suddenly going to become big corporations, or the more likely outcome big corporation are going to get even bigger and create a faux monopoly like the fucking airlines?

>muh rational self-interest
>society would be fine if everyone were objectivist
There is a field. Five farmers graze on that field in turn.
Each farmer has the opportunity to "over-graze" the field to have glossier sheep who will fetch higher prices.
If four of the five farmers over-graze the field will die.

If the farmers are objectivists, they will over-graze. It is in their rational self-interest to make more money now, especially since they have no control over the other farmers who may destroy the field regardless of ones' own actions. This leads to the immediate death of the field, and while 4 farmers get a larger one-time profit, their lifetime profit plummets.

hint: that's an allegory for society

>If the foundation of the world is probabilistic, then everything is
That is an intensely ignorant statement and I'm sorry you seem so convinced of an obvious untruth. I'd be willing to bet you don't actually understand what part(s) of quantum mechanics are probabilistic and where and how those probability fields break down.

If this thread has results, please post it in a list towards the end. I don't wanna read all of this. I'm not completely into Ayn Rand, but I saw the live action movie of Atlas Shrugged, and liked it, and I think there should be more of that in entertainment culture. Positive depiction of makers and entrepreneurs, more skepticism towards (bad) governance.

Attached: wontreadthat.jpg (550x301, 53K)

>So money didn't exist before representative democracy?
Don't make me say what I didn't say. Money don't exist without people giving it its value. That's what I said. The rules that establish the use of that currency can be done through the use of a government.

Yes and no. Science without philosophy is amoral. Philosophy without science is just poncy wankers wanking poncily about their own self-importance.
Yes it is, my sweet tender rosebud. Most laws are there punish bad things that happen to you, not to give you freedom to do things. The fact that some people and countries want it the other way around... well, those countries often wind up economic shitholes. Who would've guessed.
They arrest you if you don't pay taxes, which is an immoral action because they want to force you to do something. Making that a law is a shit law. That was my point, they're enforcing an evil action by putting it into law.
You imply people are dying because I don't want to give them money? Where? In Africa, maybe, but that shithole won't be saved through donations. If you want to take my money away because you think it's immoral for me not to give it away, then I'll defend it regardless of how many people say your actions are justified.
>where everyone is out for themselves like a Machiavellian jackal trying to screw and scam everyone else
You never read anything by Ayn Rand, have you? Ayn Rand spoke at length about not actively hurting people to get what you want. If you work towards the destruction of others, then others will kill you back.
I was never asked to agree to that, I was forced into it.
>According to him, a lot.
The guy, supposedly, made his fortune on whims. I don't see much of a reason to trust his word on the matter.
The government having a monopoly on these various services allows them to do what they want and have the quality set to whichever they find most practical. If they had a challenger who made a better product, and no allowance to stop the challenger under pain of force, then they'd either have to improve their products or bugger off. Public education is a joke precisely because the government decides on the quality of it.

>Randomness is actually impossible.
Stop using unproven statement as arguments.

When was the last time bureaucracy or the government in general has been depicted as being anything but incompetent?

I prefer a less efficient management of affair done in the interest of the public than an efficient run of affair done in the interest of a few oligarch and at the detriment of most people.

>Moral relativism/nihilism is pretty much undeniable at this point.
I disagree.

>I did, a long time ago. It was shit. Try actually making your argument instead of implying it exists.
I'm sorry, I should have said Atlas Shrugged instead of The Fountainhead. Tony Stark invents a free energy device and then keeps it to himself instead of sharing it with the world, and in the sequel defending his rights to keep his inventions from being seized by government just like Hank Rearden. Does that not sound like an Objectivist hero?

I can't think of a comic about a society that doesn't use roads.

IDK, maybe John Prophet?

>I'd be willing to bet you don't actually understand what part(s) of quantum mechanics are probabilistic and where and how those probability fields break down.
They literally collapse when interacting with the macroscopic universe, in, as far as we have observed a probabilistic way.

the quantum world isn't so much probabilistic as it is a superposition of all the possibilities existing at the same time. it's when they collapse that they do it in a probabilistic way (for what we have observed). Therefore, if the collapsing is probabilistic so is the macroscopic world.

Cont.
>"rational self-interest" is also a very tenuous concept because whether or not something is in your self-interest is not objective.
If you actually read through Ayn Rand's text, you'd see it's not half as tenuous as you report. It's easily defined as (I'm nutshelling it): doing everything you can to improve your situation, without worsening the situation of others. And yes, there are those who will lie and manipulate others to make it seem they aren't worsening shit, but that's something you can't stop. Rational self-interest is meant as a way to lift everyone up, instead of keeping everyone down with the idea that they are to meddle in everyone else's affairs for some greater good.
>"rational self-interest" is also a very tenuous concept because whether or not something is in your self-interest is not objective.
That depends entirely if one is able to view things long-term or short term, and that kind of view cannot be influenced by anything other than constant challenges forcing you to plan ahead and worry about different fronts at the same time. If you're allowed to sit on your laurels, because your security is assured through others, then you don't really have any motivation to think about more than the next day ahead beyond whimsy.
>Objectivism is a shallow philosophy that doesn't stand up to actual scrutiny.
Only if you read the mangled version provided by those who oppose it. I recommend starting with the Fountainhead. But if you don't care for Rand's fiction, I recommend The Virtue of Selfishness. If you're worried about length, the latter is some 150-200 pages.
Neither will giving free money to fiscally irresponsible people make them less fiscally irresponsible.

I married one of their granddaughter's man. Her grandfather was a drunken gambling addict who looked at stocks the same way he looked at dice or ponies. He ran his factories mostly through bullying and letting others do the decision-making for him. His son slent decades undoing the damage, but Charley died a millionaire

>Most laws are there punish bad things that happen to you, not to give you freedom to do things.
>most
there you have it. Laws don't have to abide to your arbitrary rule, whether you like it or not.

>They arrest you if you don't pay taxes, which is an immoral action because they want to force you to do something.
It is not more or less immoral than the enforcement of any laws, therefore, ytopu are not making any point, there. Don't try to make taxes a special case.

>I was never asked to agree to that, I was forced into it.
You agree tot he rule of the collectivity the moment you use their currency gain riches out of it. If you don't like it, don't use that currency.

>The deterministic or probabilistic nature of the quantum world doesn't magically goes away once you change of scale.
It literally does. That is exactly how it works.

A photon is given off by a source - the location and vector is defined by a probability function and that photon is in superposition.

Then the photon interacts with something that has consequences beyond the quantum scale. It bounces off an object. The probability field collapses.

>if the government allowed competition those things would be better
Except no, that's a shallow and ignorant statement.
Public education is widely considered vastly superior to private education. Private education is for rich kids who couldn't cut it in a public program. Magnet schools and Gifted programs are the ones good colleges value most. It's "a joke" in some very poor areas because funding has been slashed repeatedly by people whose intent is to destroy the image of public schools so they can fully privatize.

Besides that, the majority of the things being discussed (like roads, bridges, phones, electricity, water) are things that have an ultra-massive setup cost which is why the government had to create them with tax dollars in the first place. You seem completely ignorant of the basic concepts behind utilities and public easements. Educate yourself.

Objectivism and Libertarianism are brainlet philosophies for people who can't hold more than a single absolute sentence in their brain at one time. The world is far more complicated than that.

Attached: 1419190745461.gif (300x290, 1.74M)

>Therefore, if the collapsing is probabilistic so is the macroscopic world.
That's not supported by nor does it follow anything you just said

You prefer a system that prefers to pay its administrators over its general staff?
You prefer a system that actively works against it's fellow municipalities?
You prefer a system that is forced to keep a sexual predators employed because of red tape?
You prefer a system that let's a child it's supposed to serve be left without a proper education because they were misidentified as special needs and chose to ignore the situation for 5 years rather than solve it immediately?
And that's just a district department, can you imagine how much worse it gets the higher up you go?

If working for the government has taught me anything, it's that you can't trust the government to work for any interest other than its own. I'd rather back a private industry that was upfront about it's endeavours rather than a government that pretends it's for the people when it's really just for itself.

>if you read the text blah blah blah rational self interest is...
Under that definition you could still classify the example I gave as both in one's rational self interest and not in one's rational self-interest. Your stating of a definition does not address the argument.

You go on to say
>That depends entirely if one is able to view things long-term or short term
which is literally you agreeing with me that the concept itself is fluid and tenuous and not at all objective.

>the only reason you dislike objectivism is because you don't know what it is!
Go fuck yourself

>It literally does. That is exactly how it works.
No, it isn't.
>Then the photon interacts with something that has consequences beyond the quantum scale. It bounces off an object. The probability field collapses.
And the way it collapse is done in a probabilistic way. This is how, if the quantum world is probabilistic, that property trickle down to the macroscopic scale.

Hell, it's actually incorrect to say the quantum world is probabilisitc, it's actually in superposition of all possible state. The probability only occur once the collapsing occur, as which state it will actually be once it interact will be picked through a probabilistic way. the collapsing is probabilist.

Stop talking like you know what you are saying. It hasn't been proven yet the world is deterministic.

>And yes, there are those who will lie and manipulate others to make it seem they aren't worsening shit, but that's something you can't stop
Maybe if there were things, like laws, to punish people for doing it, the problem wouldn’t stop but it would be less of an issue
It’s pretty funny how you think that people screwing each other in an objectivist world would be the exception, and not the rule

>do you think mom&pop business are suddenly going to become big corporations
Hell no, such things are built over time. Look at McDonald's, or Coca Cola, or any other gigantic company. They either started small and grew over generations, or started big only because other people built up their success and wealth over generations. If a mom & pop store expects to become Apple's rival in a couple of years, that's their problem for not knowing dick about how one invests and grows.
>or the more likely outcome big corporation are going to get even bigger and create a faux monopoly like the fucking airlines?
Such monopolies are only 1) possible and 2) long-lasting with the power of the government backing them. Monopolies rarely exist for long in a free market, especially when other companies join in. Right now, Disney is one of the dominant forces in animation. If Blizzard got their collective head out their ass, and Activision stopped snorting coke for 5 minutes, and started making a WoW/Overwatch Cinematic universe, Disney would have a rival unlike any other.
There is a thing called private property. Objectivism holds private property in a high regard, somewhere slightly below individualism. These farmers would likely divide the field and set up posts so those other fuckers don't graze on their pasture. Why? Because they don't trust them. If they are too stupid to plan ahead, then no philosophy on earth will help them.
Dude, fuck this thread. It's just a bunch of bullshit. Best advice is to read Ayn Rand. Start with either her short non-fiction books, or with the Fountainhead. They'll be more coherent than this thread.

Alright cool. I'm sure you never use public roads, or tap water, and would never call on police or firefighters for help.

this and thread.
Rand aficionados would be fine if they weren't infatuated with their power delusions, and mythification of status l, and self improvement.

Alas, tis a stupid dogma, so following it would likely lead to something cringey.

>posts a complete misunderstanding of quantum concepts in utterly broken english
>"stop talking like you know what you are saying"

Attached: 1478784940948.gif (248x225, 203K)

>There is a thing called private property. Objectivism holds private property in a high regard, somewhere slightly below individualism. These farmers would likely divide the field and set up posts so those other fuckers don't graze on their pasture. Why? Because they don't trust them. If they are too stupid to plan ahead, then no philosophy on earth will help them.
Wow. You literally don't know what an allegory is.

I wasn't expecting much intelligence from a libertarian/objectivist, but that's fucking incredible.

I'm out

Attached: abandonthread.gif (340x255, 951K)

>Such monopolies are only 1) possible and 2) long-lasting with the power of the government backing them. Monopolies rarely exist for long in a free market

Attached: ohwaityourserious.gif (288x198, 1.45M)

Nazi Germany

>You prefer a system that prefers to pay its administrators over its general staff?
No, that's why I prefer the private systm to stop doing that
>You prefer a system that actively works against it's fellow municipalities?
No, that's why I prefer the private system to stop doing that
>You prefer a system that is forced to keep a sexual predators employed because of red tape?
No, that's why I prefer the private system to stop doing that (Hepstein, anyone)
>You prefer a system that let's a child it's supposed to serve be left without a proper education because they were misidentified as special needs and chose to ignore the situation for 5 years rather than solve it immediately?
No, that's why I prefer the private system to stop doing that

The difference between the private and the public system is that you can at least fire the public official if they are incompetents. I prefer the system that has more accountability.

>the freee market will save us!
well memed friend.

It is.
It's literally how it work.
The quantum world is in a state of superposition of different states.
The state who come to be when the collapsing occur is "picked" in a probabilistic way
If the result of a collapsing is probabilist, then our macro world is probabilist.

That's Quantum science 101.

yeah lol. this fucker sounds like watches those "how to be an entrepreneur/charismatic/alpha male" videos on youtube.

Attached: 1563179947425.jpg (800x960, 218K)

The objectivists suffer from the same problem as the Nazis do with the target of their anger, the mighty weak.

The weak parasites are at the same time weak and pathetic and so incredibly mighty they are able to chain down the strong and powerful and bend them to their will.

Fun exercise - the government is the people, and it is run by and answers to the people. When someone tries to say something like this replace every instance of "the government" with "the public" and see if it still makes sense.

"If working for the public has taught me anything, it's that you can't trust the public to work for any interest other than their own. I'd rather back a private industry that was upfront about its endeavours rather than a public that pretends it's for the public when it's really just for the public"

>The quantum world is in a state of superposition of different states.
You're already wrong. Not all quantum events are in superposition. That is one small part of quantum physics.
>If the result of a collapsing is probabilist, then our macro world is probabilist.
This does not follow. You are missing many many MANY intervening logical steps.

Go home ESL-kun.

Rand's Anthem is now available as a graphic novel thanks to The Atlas Society. World wide shipping is included in the price if it's still available. It's also in stop motion format on youtube.

>These farmers would likely divide the field and set up posts so those other fuckers don't graze on their pasture. Why? Because they don't trust them. If they are too stupid to plan ahead, then no philosophy on earth will help them.
You are aware that current private corporation act exactly this way, right?

>Not all quantum events are in superposition. That is one small part of quantum physics.
I never said, all of it. you are not making a point.

>This does not follow. You are missing many many MANY intervening logical steps.
Each of them originating from a probabilistic occurrence.

Once again, determinism hasn't been proven yet.

She's trash and sip is anyone who likes her

I don't think you know what "does not follow" means.
At best your argument is incoherent.
Even if what you were saying was accurate and all events at the quantum scale are purely probabilistic, that doesn't automatically mean events on a larger scale are probabilistic. In fact, all evidence and observation points to the contrary. You can keep repeating your completely mistaken conclusion, but that doesn't mean you've supported it.

>Hates Communism so much she created a right wing version of it

Attached: Qustion.jpg (480x270, 33K)

SHE'S TRASH

>Even if what you were saying was accurate and all events at the quantum scale are purely probabilistic,
Not what I said. I said current observations indicate the collapsing occur in a probabilistic way.
>that doesn't automatically mean events on a larger scale are probabilistic.
Event on larger scale stem from events on a smaller scale. It all trickle down from it.

> In fact, all evidence and observation points to the contrary
False, Like I have already said, determinism hasn't been proven yet.

You are so so so naive
t. Got rich off inheritance

>he can't into allegories
Jesus christ, user. Here, let me help:
>they could split the field into five
The field is not large enough for any of the flocks to survive on a fifth of it, which is why they rotate in the first place. Your solution has killed all five flocks and rendered all five farmers destitute.
Try again.

>Event on larger scale stem from events on a smaller scale. It all trickle down from it.
This is patently false. If it were true then emergent properties would not exist.
You are literally just wrong.

>Most people who get rich do so through hard work, self-sacrifice, creativity, and willingness to take risks.
No, most people who are rich inherited, or got lucky. People who succeed through hard work tend to be more generous. Look at Lebron or Stephen King.

Sounds like a good setup for a comedy.

>If it were true then emergent properties would not exist.
Statement made out of your ass. that large scale occurence stem from smaller ones doesn't in no way prevent emergent properties. What we call emergent properties are events that couldn't be predicted from a a simplified model simulating the event.

Anthem was the most preachy books I've ever fucking read. Literally ends with her proclaiming the words EGO!

Attached: 1563161597063.png (640x627, 493K)

I'm an upper-middle-class jew from a family of wealthy political jews and wealthy well-connected WASPS (my grandfather was one of the founders of Kraft and has a signed letter talking about how the fucking Titanic was designed in his pool).
There's a common saying among the wealthy: "Nobody gets rich working."

My great grandfather was a millionaire, he worked for his wealth by stepping on the heads of his fellow man and lax regulations that allowed him to sell the oil from his company at lower prices than competitors, he got rich literally off the suffering of others. My family got cut out of his will, but my distant cousins are still millionaires to this day, however they all inherited their wealth. This is the case for most rich people in this country nowadays, the self made millionaire is near impossible to find.

Do you play video games? show us your Battle-Station.

>What we call emergent properties are events that couldn't be predicted from a a simplified model simulating the event.
lol wat
No, user, emergent properties are properties that do not exist on smaller scales; ones that come about through a larger scale organization. Atoms are not slippery. Some molecules are slippery, because of their organization. That is an emergent property.

You are saying that because there are probabilistic quantum-scale events, larger scale events are therefore probabilistic. Not only does this not follow, the existence of emergent properties contradicts it entirely.

You are wrong and your english is trash. Go away now.

>the self made millionaire is near impossible to find.
And most of those self-made tend to be on the left-side.

>Not only does this not follow, the existence of emergent properties contradicts it entirely.
There is zero contradictions.

Your argument basically is "there is a contradiction because I say so". Emergents properties does not constitute a barrier to random event.

Not that any of that discussion matter, seeing that currently Determinism still hasn't been proved.

go ahead, show me the paper that state our world is deterministic.

You've become incoherent. I suggest working on your english.

what I am sating is perfectly clear. Emergent property doesn't stop the impact of probabilistic events.

>what I am sating is perfectly clear. Emergent property doesn't stop the impact of probabilistic events.

Attached: 1392228465874.gif (390x277, 2.31M)

What you are being asked is to show the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrate the universe is deterministic.

>If I laugh at what he says, that make me right
Not how it work.

Probability does not prevent emergent properties.

>probability does not prevent emergent properties
No one said it did. The existence of emergent properties precludes your insistence that all properties are fundamental.

English is too hard for you, and genetic mixing is deterministic.

I had to read Anthem in high school and write a report comparing it to another 20th century work. Chose Of Mice and Men because they seemed like polar opposites

Of Mice and Men
>>The world is a shitty place because of powerful men, but if look out for those who need help and have a little human decency, the future might be brighter

Anthem
>>The world is a shitty place because of powerful men, but if the the Übermensch claws his way out of the ignorant teeming masses, he'll forge a better future for the select few

Got a B

>what I am sating is perfectly clear. Emergent property doesn't stop the impact of probabilistic events.

Attached: jay.gif (294x197, 942K)

>what I am sating is perfectly clear

Attached: original.gif (250x141, 651K)

>what I am sating is perfectly clear Emergent property doesn't stop the impact of probabilistic events.

Attached: clonehigh.jpg (512x384, 125K)

>The existence of emergent properties precludes your insistence that all properties are fundamental.
That was not my claim. my claim was never that ALL properties are fundamental. You once again attacked an argument I didn't made.

> and genetic mixing is deterministic.
Please show me the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrate the universe is deterministic.

>Event on larger scale stem from events on a smaller scale. It all trickle down from it.
>what I am sating is perfectly clear

Attached: 1405381600468.gif (245x190, 870K)

Lo what a faggot

Follow the conversation thread. I am not the one who brought the matter of emergent properties.

What's not to understand?

>That was not my claim
except yes it was
>Event on larger scale stem from events on a smaller scale. It all trickle down from it.
And in case you try to claim that's not what you meant, you are literally using this statement to say that because the components making up larger systems have probabilistic elements, all those larger scale systems are probabilistic and cannot have their own emergent properties. That is the consequence of your argument, and it is wrong.

This will be my last post arguing with an ESL student failing physics.

>he can't even see how fucked up and broken his written english AND his interpretation of english has been.

Study harder, Dazeem.

>except yes it was
I wasn't
>>Event on larger scale stem from events on a smaller scale. It all trickle down from it.
Notice the absence of "ALL"
>you are literally using this statement to say that because the components making up larger systems have probabilistic elements, all those larger scale systems are probabilistic
>all those larger scale
>all
I never said all.
Again, you are trying to make a point on something I didn't say.
>and cannot have their own emergent properties
I never said it couldn't have their own emergent properties
>That is the consequence of your argument
It isn't. You argumentation rest on a word I never said. Try again.

Also, you still haven't posted that peer-reviewed paper demonstrating our universe is deterministic.

Again, what is so hard to understand?

>Event on larger scale stem from events on a smaller scale. It all trickle down from it.
>Notice the absence of "ALL"
>it all trickle down
>notice the absence of all
>it all

>I never said it couldn't have their own emergent properties
Then you've made no argument, because those properties can be deterministic in nature.

"It" didn't refer to "larger scale events" it refer to "randomness". "Randomness all trickle down from it".

you still haven't provided the peer-reviewed paper demonstrating our universe is deterministic.

that emergent properties exist doesn't mean thing cease to be probabilist.

You are the one who made no argument with emergent properties. It never had any point on the nature of the universe. that the world is probabilistic or deterministic doesn't imply the existenceor not of emergent properties.

Simply show me the scientific demonstration that our world is deterministic, only then will I allow you to use that as an argument.

So you've gone from wrong to nonsensical

>that emergent properties exist doesn't mean thing cease to be probabilist.
No one said it did. It simply precludes the idea that all scales must be probablistic.

>You are the one who made no argument with emergent properties. It never had any point on the nature of the universe. that the world is probabilistic or deterministic doesn't imply the existenceor not of emergent properties.
This is where your english is failing you, you simply don't have a grasp on what is being said.

>show me the scientific demonstration that the world is deterministic
Literally any basic physics calculation that isn't quantum in scale.

If you're only an Objectivist because tou played Bioshock, kill yourself you larping incel

>nonsensical
There is nothing non-sensical. If randomness exist on a smaller scale, you have to prove why it cease to be on a larger scale.
>It simply precludes the idea that all scales must be probabilistic.
It doesn't. you have to prove it first.

>you simply don't have a grasp on what is being said.
I do, you simply go full denial

>Literally any basic physics calculation that isn't quantum in scale.
>if I ignore a part of physic, then the universe is deterministic
That's not how you proe soemthing user.

Science still hasn't proven the world is deterministic. You therefore can not use determinism as an argument point.

>nuh uh
Cool post bro

-pointed out he need to prove his claim
-pointed out he was the one going nuhu
-showed the flaw in his reasoning

that's the opposite of going nuhu, user, but well tried.

>no no no ignore my broken argument that you crushed you cant just destroy my argument you have to prove the opposite
No I don't. Now stew in it.

Grade A Indian gaslighting user

>you have to prove the opposite
You are the one who claimed the universe is deterministic. You are the one who have to back that claim. and you can't. you never crushed any of my arguments. You went on a tangent on emerging properties that never backed your point in the first place.

All you are doing here is describing how you are acting.

Please, provide me the proof that the universe is Deterministic. Only then can you use it as part of your argument.

>gaslighting
you don't know the meaning of that word.

It's nuh uh you curry nigger

>ignore my broken argument that you crushed
Where?

>it is because I say so
you are not even trying, there user.

google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-att-us&source=android-browser&q=nuh uh

Learn English pajeet

>ignore my broken argument that you crushed
You didn't crush any argument. the argument was that randomness on a small scale impact event on a bigger scale. You mentioned emergent properties and failed to explain how it prevent small scale events from impacting big scale events.

Al Capp's ":Lil' Abner"

Attached: capp_lil_abner.jpg (1250x989, 216K)

>You are the one who claimed the universe is deterministic
> If the foundation of the world is probabilistic, then everything is and is the result of probabilistic occurrence.
We're done here.

What do YOU think it means? After all, we can make up whatever facts we want here

You are aware that explaining your point is the opposite of going nuhu, right?

>We're done here.
Not really. the conversation stem from higher in the thread
>Those are deterministic physical processes, though. There's no luck there, just tail speed.
and>genes exist so so so SO far above those events in scale that said quantum events have no bearing on them.
Again, to use that argument, you first have to prove the universe is deterministic. You have to prove that randomness has no bearing on genes.

To recap:
Pajeet: genetic swapping isn't deterministic
Us: lol wat
Pajeet: everything is random because quantum events are random
Us: That's retarded, emergent properties are a thing and can demonstrably be deterministic. Only quantum events are random.
Pajeet: NUHU *SHITS IN STREET* SHOW PEPPER SHOW PEPPER

Attached: dfg1.jpg (600x600, 31K)

Are you unaware of English idioms, such as uh-huh, nuh-uh, and dunno?

>gaslighting is creating an environment by an abuser he has most control to convince their victim that the wrong doing he is doing to them is not real. It's the result of a crafted web of lies.

Glad you have Google in Pakistan

Don't put word in my mouth
>Pajeet: genetic swapping isn't deterministic
You forgot the claim before it
>determinist user: Which sperm fecund the egg is deterministic

>Pajeet: everything is random because quantum events
Nope, my argument is that if random events exist on a smaller scale, you have to prove first it doens't impact thing on the larger scale.

> emergent properties are a thing and can demonstrably be deterministic.
>and can demonstrably be deterministic.
It hasn't.
you still haven't proven it's deterministic.

>us
you and what army?

I am aware you pretended what I said summed up to nuh-uh, which isn't the case

I just tipped it myself.

Attached: atlas_shrugged_2.gif (790x416, 65K)

Ayn Rand spent the later years of her life on food stamps and medicare. Objectivism is oligarchy porn. Waste your time reading her shit when you should be reading all the writers she ripped off.

Bad recap.
-which sperm fecund the egg is deterministic
-Determinism hasn't been proven, do'nt use it as an argument, as a matter of fact observations tend to indicate the foundation of the universe are probabilistic, either way, Determinism hasn't been proven yet
-I will focus my full attention on the first part of your point, throw emergent property despite its existence not disproving in any ways the impact of small scale events on bigger scale events and completely ignore the second part requesting prove of determinism.

Attached: libertarian_housepets.jpg (500x372, 74K)

Attached: rand_time_travel.jpg (494x3617, 1.06M)

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-07-13 at 3.54.15 AM.png (980x633, 760K)

>locomotion is not deterministic
That's even more retarded
>if random events exist on a quantum scale you have to prove that larger events are not random
Except, no, that's not how that works. In fact you know that's not how that works, because you attempted to make the logical argument that properties of a thing's components and properties of a thing are the same (which is incorrect).

Your claim is analogous to saying that the relative position and velocity of individual electrons in the stable atoms making up a rubber ball impact its trajectory when energy is added to the system which is very obviously false. Their position in the electron cloud is irrelevant to the higher-order and emergent events taking place at that scale.

Attached: rand_time_travel_2.jpg (494x4336, 1.04M)

That's accurate for cats though

So to recap your recap
>sperm locomotion is not deterministic because quantum events are probabilistic
That's retarded. Goodbye.

Wasn't Ford a proto-Nazi?

Attached: mouth_robot.jpg (327x376, 30K)

>if random quantum events exist you have to prove they don't impact macro events
>I don't see what deterministic emergent properties have to do with this
Pajeets everybody

Attached: heh_robin_hood_men_in_tights.gif (296x160, 1.27M)

All libertarians are close to being Nazis. All the sense of self-reliance they have is just because they're on the winning side of the wealth imbalance, and they didn't get their by merit. As soon as it starts to change, they rush right back to subjugating other people to preserve their material prosperity.

>That's even more retarded
Please provide the peer-reviewed paper that prove the Universe is deterministic.
>because you attempted to make the logical argument that properties of a thing's components and properties of a thing are the same (which is incorrect).
I haven't.
You claim the property of a part of something (in this case, randomness) doesn't have an impact on that something.

>Your claim is analogous to saying that the relative position and velocity of individual electrons in the stable atoms making up a rubber ball impact its trajectory when energy is added to the system which is very obviously false.
It isn't false. It's simply considered negligible. you are taking simplifications for ease of calculation as the truth of reality. the reality is that the ball is not perfectly round, the rubber does not perfectly absorb and reflect energy and the walls aren't perfectly flat.

Let say you send the ball with enough force for a 1000 rebounds in a closed room, you might still be able to deduce the trajectory after 10 or so rebound, but I can grantee your simplified model will never be able to predict accurately the end trajectory, even if you precisely no the initial direction and the speed of the ball. Or even if it will last this long.

you still have failed to provide me the scientific proof that our universe is deterministic.

Dick Tracy

Attached: nancy 3.jpg (1353x459, 124K)

>>sperm locomotion is not deterministic because quantum events are probabilistic
Nope, not what I said. I said.
here is the actual recap:
>you can't claim sperm locomotion is deterministic, you first nee to prove determinism.
Can you do that now?

>the ball is not perfectly round and does not perfectly absorb energy
True. Also irrelevant because the position of electrons in a cloud has no impact on those larger-scale properties.

>nuh uh what I said isn't what I said
Shit on your street, not my board

>>I don't see what deterministic emergent properties have to do with this
explain of the existence of emergent properties prevent of the impact of small scale events on the bigger scale, please.

You keep acting as if it is self evident, but it isn't. If it was, you would have already provided to me by now the consensus by the Physicist community that our universe is deterministic.

the molecular structure of the ball has an impact on how it rebound and absorb energy and the molecular structure exist due to the bounds between atoms that is directly due the electron cloud.

>>nuh uh what I said isn't what I said
Here is what I said>Don't use arguments that haven't been scientifically proven yet. Science still hasn't ruled whether or not we live in a deterministic world
Try again.

It's Hinduism. "I don't have to take personal responsibility for my actions or their cosequences because muh Cosmos"

It's why they dump trash in their holy river or shit on public sidewalks

It's due to the electromagnetic forces exerted by the electron clouds which are not impacted by the incidental position of electrons in the cloud

You are aware that has nothing to do with what is being said, especially in this case as the user you quote make a point of making me say things I didn't say.

Then why don't your people care about all the pollution and human waste? The businesses care more about saving money than protecting their neighbors

Self Interest gone awry

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates agree, but the other 99.999% of the 1% couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the rest of humanity

>Then why don't your people care about all the pollution and human waste?
Why do you ask question about a country where I don't live?

Have you considered that your understanding of both physics and english is sophomoric and your attitude of having no burden of proof on your extraordinary claims makes you a cunt?

It is impacted by the level of energy of the electron. Note that all that is beside the point, you still haven't demonstrated how randomness on small scale don't impact event on bigger scale.

You still failed to show me the scientific demonstration we live in a determinist world.

>and your attitude of having no burden of proof on your extraordinary claims makes you a cunt?
I never made any extraordinary claim.

user did. He said we lived ina determinist world and failed to provide any proof, any study, and scientific paper backing his claim.

user also claimed small scale events do'nt impact big scale events, but failed to provide any proof of it for that either.

I never made any extraordinary claims ever.

user did. He said we lived in a determinist world and failed to back that claim.

This thread is such a great departure from cock rate, traps, and that girl with the gaping neck wound!

>I never made an extraordinary claim
>except that macroscopic events are probabilistic
Hurr

>>except that macroscopic events are probabilistic
Nope, never claimed that macroscopic event where probabilistic. I claimed that if, IF, events on the quantum scale where indeed probabilistic (it hasn't been proven yet), then there is no known reason it does not impact the macroscopic world and that the existence of emergent property as far as we know would not prevent that impact.

IF

I actually never claimed the macroworld was probabilistic.

user, still has failed to provide proof the universe is deterministic.

>fails to address clear counterexample
>I never claimed nuffin i a good boy
Failure.

I use to consider myself an objectivist, and I still think the philosophy is spot on....
>However
Other objectivists fucking ruin it. There is too much infighting over dumb shit... and Yaron Brook is a total shill for Isreal.

>>fails to address clear counterexample
>>I never claimed nuffin i a good boy
See my original post>Science still hasn't ruled whether or not we live in a deterministic world and our current knowledge on quantum reality would tend to indicate we live in a probabilistic world.
>Science still hasn't ruled
>our current knowledge on quantum reality would tend
>would
For someone complaining about how I don't read English, you sure aren't good at reading it.

>>fails to address clear counterexample
How does your counterexample prove the world is deterministic. And you are the one who have repeatedly and systematically failed to provide proof that we live in a deterministic universe.

>I ain't never made no claims
>if the quantum world is probabilistic, that property trickle down to the macroscopic scale
>Therefore, if the collapsing is probabilistic so is the macroscopic world.

Let this thread stand forever as a testament to the intellectual cowardice of the pajeet

>>if the quantum world is probabilistic, that property trickle down to the macroscopic scale
>if
>>Therefore, if the collapsing is probabilistic so is the macroscopic world.
>if

If, user, IF. I never claimer the macroscopic world was probabilistic.
again, for someone who complain about how I don't know English, you sure fail at reading it.

You have systematically failed to provide prove that the universe is deterministic and have anchored yourself all along on a supposition I made. A supposition.

Meanwhile you have systematically failed to back a claim you have always presented as a fact.
>Let this thread stand forever as a testament to the intellectual cowardice
Indeed, user, indeed.

So assuming that, if the collapsing of superposition states are probabilistic, then it means the macroscopic world is probabilistic too is an extraordinary claim how?

>because I used the word "if" before something that is obviously true, the direct consequences I proscribed are not a claim
nice mental gymnastics, pajeet

>prove my extraordinary claim is an extraordinary claim or prove something that can only ever be a theory and not a proof
The Pajeet's intellectual cowardice knows no bounds

Attached: 1394373516322.gif (493x342, 480K)

>nice mental gymnastics, pajeet
It's called basic english, user.
Indeed user, it means it is a supposition and not a fact, unlike you, who have claimed the universe is deterministic without providing any proof to back it up. And you keep to systematically back your original claim.

Again, how is it an extraordinary claim to say the smaller scale impact bigger scale?

>or prove something that can only ever be a theory and not a proof
user, you claimed the universe was deterministic as a fact. you are the one who has to prove it.

Intellectual cowardice indeed.

>>because I used the word "if" before something that is obviously true
>that is obviously true
No, it means that it is a supposition and therefore not a claim.

Do youunderstand English, user?

It'll be a cold day in hell when a pajeet teaches me English

Holy shit are you for real?
And you believe yourself to be one of the virtuous few? Or just grateful for your overlords?

Yeh, that useless bitch collected social security and medicare while calling other people that did "moochers". Fuck that hypocrite and her grinch-like pseudo-philosophy

Irrelevant who teach you.

here is your little lesson.
When someone use the word "if", it means they are not making a claim, but a supposition.

When you say
>Those are deterministic physical processes
this is a claim our world is deterministic. You have to back that statement. Now could you please provide the proves our universe is deterministic.

>an if-then is a supposition and not a claim
It's both you fucking mouth-breather

>using if means I'm not claiming anything
That's not how english works, Pajeet.

>Pajeet gets rekt
>switches tactics
>gets rekt again
>switches tactics again
>gets rekt a third time
>tries to build a semantic trap
>fails miserably because he doesn't understand english
Get out.

IT'S irrelevant who TEACHES you

Learn English pajeet

1. It still means I haven't claimed the macroscopic world is probabilistic (which was the supposition), unlike what you have accused me of, there 2. you still haven't establish how it unreasonable to consider smaller scale events affect bigger scale events (which was the claim).

Holy fuck this thread wtf.

seeClearly, you need to learn reading comprehension.

The vast majority of wealth is inherited. If the MAGA crowd gets their wish and they abolish the estate tax, then this inherited wealth will create a dynastic aristocracy that will imperil democracy. Teddy Roosevelt, among others, warned us of this. In short, you dont even have a vague idea of what youre talking about.

i dont think you're reading comprehension is quite up to scratch

>>Pajeet gets rekt
Please point me where the proof that our universe is deterministic was posted, thank you. until then, no.
>>switches tactics
Nope, never did. see original post there, never changed my claims from it >>gets rekt again
still no proof that the universe is deterministic
>>switches tactics again
I simply pointed out to user how he misinterpreted my words, which never changed
>>gets rekt a third time
Where is that peer-reviewed paper demonstrating our universe is deterministic, please?
>>tries to build a semantic trap
No semantic. Simply explained to user the difference between claims and suppositions. see >>fails miserably because he doesn't understand english
I seem at least read it better than deterministic user.

Saying I am wrong doesn't magically make it true. Please point me out to the proof our universe is deterministic, thank you.

Thanks.

>1 I didn't claim that
>2 except I did and you need to prove me wrong

Attached: andersoncooperistiredofyourshit.gif (220x212, 86K)

This.

No one but 15 year old boys and guys who wear polo shirts in middle management take objectivism seriously.

except I did and you need to prove me wrong
You really ned to improve your reading comprehension.
No, I made no claims, so no "excpet I did"

Determinist user stated we lived in a deterministic universe and now he need to back his claim.

You don't need to prove me wrong, what is needed is to prove our universe is deterministic.

Do you know how to read?

>nuhu

Attached: REDCARD.gif (520x293, 1.21M)

Again, explaining why you disagree means you are not doing "nuhu". Stop using words you don't know how to use.

>100 posts of half-decent argument about objectivism then 200 posts where a retarded indian tried to pretend saying motion isn't consistent because lol quantum physics isn't a claim and isn't retarded

I cannot sage hard enough

>nuhu

Does anyone have the green text about a cop living in an ayn rand utopia?

No, user, you are the nuhu
And then user shit in the street

>tried to pretend saying motion isn't consistent because lol quantum physics isn't a claim
Learn to read. I didn't say that. read my first post I never claimed the universe is Probabilistic.
I asked an user to back his claim that our universe is deterministic.

So, again, user claimed our universe is deterministic, can he please back his claim.

>learn to read
No u.

Yes user, this is what you are doing, you are trying to deny something but don't even try to explain why.

>nuhu

I at least read better than determinist user, seeing has been unable to provide a very simple request:
please back your claim we live in a deterministic universe.

>I never claimed the universe is Probabilistic.
>if the collapsing is probabilistic so is the macroscopic world.
English is hard

someone who nuhu is someone who doesn't explain why he disagree. where have I been doing that, please?

Nuhu is doodoo, so poopoo goes boohoo

hard for you
>>if the collapsing is probabilistic
>if
>IF
that it is probabilistic is a supposition. The only claim I made is that events on smaller scale affect events on bigger scale.

Meanwhile determinist user has claimed the universe is deterministic and still hasn't backed his claim.

There is a whole comedy book out there. Think it's called Atlas Shrugged. Will get you laughing in no time.

Do you even read the texts you quote?

Slow day at the call center pajeet? You have a lot of free time

>You have a lot of free time
Not really, but I should be studying.

Also, here is a little spoiler alert, though it isn't really important:[spoiler] I am not Indian[/spoiler].

>>he's a liar AND a newfag

No lies. And I'll admit, I come from Yea Forums where this thread come from (it was moved by the mode). I almost never go on Yea Forums and didn't knew it doesn't work here (funny how ctrl+s still work, though).