Thread: Objectivism: Ayn Rand's Philosophy for Living on Earth

Very few women will be an Objectivist. Because a central belief of Objectivism is not to exploit people. Women is all about exploiting people. They exploit men. Play them for what they can get. Then the vote for political parites that advocate income redistribution because women treat government they way they treat men. Government as sugar daddy. And the beauty of handouts is that women don't have to put out.

Originally Posted by The_Joker

Very few women will be an Objectivist. Because a central belief of Objectivism is not to exploit people. Women is all about exploiting people. They exploit men. Play them for what they can get. Then the vote for political parites that advocate income redistribution because women treat government they way they treat men. Government as sugar daddy. And the beauty of handouts is that women don't have to put out.

That is what is so absolutely AMAZING about Ayn Rand. She described this shit decades ago, in a long and amazing time-line of philosophically-driven stories, from "We The Living" through and beyond "Atlas Shrugged."

She was a male soul in a female body, IMHO. And we could do well by learning and following her Objectivist philosophy.

There are plenty of people (probably the majority) who say that those who are better off should be compelled to help those who are not. I have always asked them why this should be the case. I have never heard a very convincing answer but I'm always on the look out for one.

The best I have heard is that we need welfare to keep otherwise troublesome people docile and distracted. I repeat, that was the best reason I heard.

Originally Posted by Thomas Covenant

There are plenty of people (probably the majority) who say that those who are better off should be compelled to help those who are not. I have always asked them why this should be the case. I have never heard a very convincing answer but I'm always on the look out for one.

The best I have heard is that we need welfare to keep otherwise troublesome people docile and distracted. I repeat, that was the best reason I heard.

So the worse off wouldnt kill them .

I remember when the soviet union fell the very first mafia structures started racketeering ...and their first victims were ...guess who ... former government thieves . They cant go to the police cause they are thieves themselves

You cant be too well off without killing / stealing / exploiting . So share .


You cant be a carpenter and make stuff 1500 times faster than others ... you just cant .

People do not hate this world per se ... they hate usury and explotation .

Every human must be his own private company so every cock of a "boss" would have to negotiate everything with everyone on different terms and conditions .

But you you dont become filthy rich this way .


Filthy rich are the problem not the filthy poor .

Originally Posted by Thomas Covenant

There are plenty of people (probably the majority) who say that those who are better off should be compelled to help those who are not. I have always asked them why this should be the case. I have never heard a very convincing answer but I'm always on the look out for one.

The best I have heard is that we need welfare to keep otherwise troublesome people docile and distracted. I repeat, that was the best reason I heard.

Do you know how Trick or Treat in Halloween got started?

During the Great Depression American were very angry. That was very true for young people. They would go on a destruction rampage across every Halloween. Young people without money destroyed the property of those who had money. So this women baked cookies and told kids if she spared her home, she would give them treats. It worked. Kids left her alone. Then other Americans did the same thing. It swept the country. Kids would knock on a door and said, "Trick or treat." So the tradition was started as a shake down of people who had stuff.

Welfare is much like that. American rich people saw the Communist and Socialist revolution sweeping Europe. They did not not what all their wealth taken away. So they came up with the idea of backing Liberalism is the idea of paying off the poor. The rich said, it is better we give up some of our money in order to placate the poor. If we try to keep it all we will get a Communist revolution in America and we lose it all.

But there is a saying. "Democracy ends when people realize they can vote themselves money from the treasury." What follows after Democracy ends is dictatorship. We are living this today. You can thank feminism for that. They teach women that government is a money spigot

Today women marry government not men. They brag that they don't need a man but turn to food stamps to help them raise their kids. What happens when all of America looks like the inner city when every other woman has a kid without a father. Disaster that's what. Last I heard it cost about $10,000 per year to raise one child. Now multiply that by a majority of kids in America. Then throw in military defense, Social Security etc etc and what you got. Economics collapse. That's what.

Sounds like an approach to life that is based on REALITY. I love it!