Radical Centrist Liberal Conservative Libertarian
I blocked craig Anthony wells along time ago him and "culturalist jack " they're both left wing fascists masquerading as "conservatives "

I don’t know anything much about culturistjack, but I haven’t gotten that impression of craiganthonywells. Regardless, he asks too interesting of questions to consider blocking.

militiamedic:

mmmmbeefy96:

maxlibertarios:

afloweroutofstone:

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

If North Korea is undemocratic, what is the USA?Graphic by Antiimperialistische AktionGerman version 

Never forget

Remember that time they ordered the murder of every sex worker in the entire country?
Man, what a great place to live.

Because you know mass starvation, rolling blackouts, complete media censorship, no economic growth, radios that you cant turn off that only spew propaganda, and murder are all part of a functioning democratic society.

You know, death camps are great! Everyone’s employed there!



Of course, that only describes some of it. The remainder is outright lies.

militiamedic:

mmmmbeefy96:

maxlibertarios:

afloweroutofstone:

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

If North Korea is undemocratic, what is the USA?

Graphic by Antiimperialistische Aktion

German version 

Never forget

Remember that time they ordered the murder of every sex worker in the entire country?

Man, what a great place to live.

Because you know mass starvation, rolling blackouts, complete media censorship, no economic growth, radios that you cant turn off that only spew propaganda, and murder are all part of a functioning democratic society.

You know, death camps are great! Everyone’s employed there!

Of course, that only describes some of it. The remainder is outright lies.

Why do you think that government is by its nature coercive? Is it coercion to pay your servant to perform tasks for the household?

When you servant can legally kill you for refusing to employ them anymore—why, yes, it is.

Born 500 years too early

adifferentlogicnovel:

I feel I was born 500 years too early…..

Being an atheist, I’m among a small minority on earth….in 500 years, it might not be so….

Being alternative culture, lgbt, I don’t fit in as well as I might in a more enlightened culture….in 500 years it might not be so…..

Being ultraliberal, I always push the limits of what other people readily accept…..in 500 years it might not be so…..

In 500 years everyone might be dead, too….

In 500 years, people might not overuse the trail off….

In 500 years, you would not be you.

Why do they always teach us that it’s easy and evil to do what we want and that we need discipline to restrain ourselves? It’s the hardest thing in the world—to do what we want. And it takes the greatest kind of courage. I mean, what we really want.
Ayn Rand (via observando)

therealashleydionne:

twinkleofafadingstar:

number one pet peeve of all academia related to literature:

  • when men are characters but women are symbols

Can’t say that about Atlas Shrugged.

John Galt is the symbol.
Dagny’s the character.

But they wouldn’t teach that book.

runningrepublican:

redrunningfox:

Petition to make “trying to teach a Republican empathy” the new “trying to baptize a cat.”

Have you considered that the best form of empathy would be to leave someone alone rather than tax and subsidize?

image

communismkills:

Hey guys.

I know this is hard

But you can hate militarized police AND rioters at the same time!

communistjokes:

What is the difference between a Russian and a Soviet fairy tale?

A Russian fairy tale begins “High in the Ural Mountains…”

A Soviet fairy tale begins “Pravda today reported…”

Freedom has cost too much blood and agony to be relinquished at the cheap price of rhetoric.
Thomas Sowell  (via philosophicalconservatism)
One does not and cannot “negotiate” with brutality, nor give it the benefit of the doubt. The moral absolute should be: if and when, in any dispute, one side initiates the use of physical force, that side is wrong—and no consideration or discussion of the issues is necessary or appropriate.
Ayn Rand (via the-capitalist)

betterdeadthancoward:

c-a-bergamot:

r-u-seri0us:

my-bed-artwork:

rainbow-orca:

thebinbee:

feduptoinfinity:

thebinbee:

feduptoinfinity:

commanderabutt:

let’s get another chain of non-political/social unpopular opinions going

i don’t think Friends was a good show

I find the Scary Movie and Epic Movie films hilarious.

i hate american food

Benedict Cumberbatch isn’t sexy or handsome. His voice is nice though.

benedict cumberbatch looks like a hamburger

Tumblr users are creepy and fetishize villains

Beyonce is overrated

Rihanna isn’t good

Nicki Minaj is shit. Katy Perry is overrated,

Chocolate is overrated.

Y’all need to calm down about dogs.

If you are a fan of Rand why are you making a rebuttal of Atlas Shrugged?

adifferentlogicnovel:

craiganthonywells:

adifferentlogicnovel:

craiganthonywells:

objectivistnerd:

adifferentlogicnovel:

objectivistnerd:

adifferentlogicnovel:

objectivistnerd:

adifferentlogicnovel:

The rebuttal is only mild. I still believe in individualism. Still atheist.

My protagonists are all businesspeople who believe in giving philanthropy to the homeless and the third world. Whereas Rand defended being selfish with one’s assets and only living for self, I believe a case can be made for the individualist living at least in part for those he loves or cares for. I think it is smarter to give to the poor who suffer than to amass luxury…..

"Smarter"

Let me just ask—by what standard?

By the standard that smart and truly kind people don’t like to sit by idly while other people suffer and die. Empathy is a form of intelligence. Some people either repress their empathy center in the mind—or just don’t have it. I think buying a priceless mink stole for Dagny, as Rearden did, makes less sense than buying an apartment for a homeless mentally ill person, if you have excess funds…..

So basically your feels.

I suppose you meant “feelings.”

I really don’t see a huge controversy if I write a novel encouraging people to freely choose to help the poor more generously with their funds. Objectivists are all about preserving free choices. Some of you feel such rancor (deep seated ill will) toward me for rebutting Rand about charity as a rationalist. The difference between her ideas on generosity, and mine isn’t a huge betrayal of some sort………

If you present your case in terms of altruism, it does contradict Objectivism, and you’ll get nowhere.

You say “freely choose” but you’re on record supporting the welfare state. Maybe you forgot that government—by it’s nature—is force. So which is it, Penny?

This isn’t a rebuttal at all of Rand then? She thought that it was fine to help people as long as one had helped oneself first, i.e. one could afford to help others. What she opposed was a moral duty to help other people or indeed ascribing moral value to the act of giving to others; altruism.

In a different world, Rearden and Dagny may have been willing to use their money for different means, but the whole point of Atlas Shrugged is that the world is beyond help, which is why they run away from it. Dagny and Rearden did live for people other than themselves; they lived for eachother- because they were worth living for in a world that was not.

Actually, in the context of the world Ayn Rand drew in her novel, I believe her characters acted justly, as you say….

I actually do believe charity is a virtue or moral value, unlike Rand. But not to the extent of self-obliteration. I emphasize giving, above amassing luxury, as a value.

What then do you define as luxury?

If I were  a multi millionaire, I would consider buying a cheap SUV, then donating the money I would have spent on a sports car to charity…..
For a person of more modest means, I believe in making similar decisions in sacrificing small luxuries and donating to charity instead.. I.e. not buying a 1000 dollar laptop, making due with a 250.00 one, then donating several hundred to the poor….It isn’t really a sacrifice because I value mitigating the suffering of others above non-necessities in my life. I don’t sacrifice my whole life however…….

Answer his question, Penny. Preferably without doing this….

Justice should be your top priority.

thaddeus-maximus:

Depends on your definition.

If your definition is ‘most utilitarian allocation of resources’, then by all means, I’m for justice. That kind of is my top priority in life. I like to think myself as altruistic and selfish as possible.

If your definition is ‘treatment based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair’ as per the dictionary, we’re going to have to define what is morally right and fair.

It also seems to have the connotation nowadays that justice implies punishment and/or enforcement by a legal entity, and this connotation is why I mostly oppose ‘justice’. Tell me: when’s the last time you saw anyone have a demand for ‘justice’ that wasn’t routed through the government or brought about in a way where the net benefit for society is positive? Justice as the term is used today refers to something always net zero or less in gain.

I don’t believe that punishment is oftentimes the most efficient allocation of resources, or even morally right and fair. Take the example of low-income crime. A better solution than jailtime (so long as it isn’t kept as a statute but rather a pardon of sorts; otherwise you’re paying people to commit crimes) would be reeducation/training (so the perpetrator can go on to be a productive member of society and fend for himself), considering inability to be productive is a cause of much crime. That’s just a rough example; probably not the best or accurate, but you get the point.

It’s really not the dictionary definition that I oppose, but rather the things people associate with justice. And that’s the important part of language- how people use it and associate things with it. It’s annoying when things don’t line up, but eh, you gotta go with connotations.

Thank you for stating this explicitly, Thad.