• THCDenton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Used to think I was libertarian. But now I think it’s too absolute of an ideal to be any good for humanity. I definitely think free healthcare, housing, food, and education should be guarenteed for everyone.

    • Subverb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Your comment precisely expresses my attitude. When it came up i used to say that I was fiscally conservative and social liberal. A Libertarian.

      But the older I get the more I realize that Libertarianism isn’t the fiction of Atlas Shrugged. There are many people of great worth that cannot be Dagny Taggart or Howard Roark.

      Rand failed to take into account that the allure of increasing wealth subverts many bright creators into becoming resource vampires that in turn become oppressors. Ayn Rand would have loved Mark Zuckerberg’s rise through intelligence and hard work, but what would she think of what he’s ultimately built and what it’s done to society?

      Real people aren’t as altruistic has her characters.

      • paholg@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think we read different books if you think her characters were altruistic. I remember her specifically calling out altruism as a sin (compared to the virtue of selfishness).

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Atlas Shrugged will be the Malleus Maleficarum of the 2100s onward.

          …if you want to be an Egoist fine no problem read Stirner and exorcise some spooks.

      • squid_slime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Rand and her husband ended up taking welfare.

        cant say i trust her ideas if she cant stick by them.

        • Subverb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          She defended this by saying that it was thejr money that had been taken from her by force and, therefore, she was entitled to getting it back.

          • squid_slime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Its a cop out. She added little to society other than justification for the rich cunts to profiteer and lord over the many.

            Her books are treated with scepticism in academia, what has she really done other than prop up a few insidious think tanks?

            Edit: not argumentive btw sorry if I come of that way

    • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I agree. The world requires way to much subtlety to function well for everyone for single truth ideas and ways of doing things to work at large scales.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      But now I think it’s too absolute of an ideal to be any good for humanity.

      Would you mind elaborating on this?

      • THCDenton@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’d rather not :D I’m not trying to convince anyone what to think. If you disagree, I trust you have a good reason for it.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I’d rather not :D I’m not trying to convince anyone what to think. If you disagree, I trust you have a good reason for it.

          Without elaboration, you are engaging in conjecture. There is no argument to disagree, or agree with.