

A Manifesto for Psychopaths - cycojesus
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/03/05/a-manifesto-for-psychopaths/

======
MaggieL
"1. In the spirit of Rand, I suggest you don’t pay for it, but download it
here.."

That's pretty much all you need to know about how much this fellow understands
about "the spirit of Rand".

"Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed second-hand by people who have
never read it."

And it's rejected by lefties in precisely the same way. Usually under the
helpful guidance of an undergrad prof. :-)

~~~
TheCowboy
Your comment is not in the spirit of HN. Maybe you could fill readers in on
how he misunderstands things, or how "lefties" reject it, rather than smugly
dismissing people who you view as flawed for being dismissive. 8oD

~~~
etherael
I'm not sure he is misunderstanding anything so much as out and out
misrepresenting the entire premise of the position;

Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are
irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve
unmediated power.

This is nonsense, it would be like me claiming that bastiat and hobbes were
just spinning the same tired old bullshit that statists had always spun
before, attempting to push forward with the divine right of kings idea as
justification for totalitarian states, and if we don't accept their logic
we'll all just devolve into a state of eternal war amongst all humans.

You could make that argument about those positions, but in doing so, you make
it clear that you're not attempting to accurately portray anything bordering
on nuance, you're just trying to join a chorus portraying them in the worst
possible light.

Politely responding with "Well don't you think you might actually have missed
this little point here on the side" is to validate the position being offered
as if it had any kind of bearing on reality. It's simply not an appropriate
response to this kind of reality warping polemic.

------
free-man
Also, there is nothing 'psychopathic' about wanting to keep the fruit of your
labor. Imagine there's no government (it's easy if you try). You are
responsible for yourself, starve or prosper. Your choice whether to feed the
moochers and looters, or to fight them. Pirates are glorified in Atlas
Shrugged...

------
free-man
Rand opposed the domination of the individual by the State, and dramatically
illustrated the snivelling scum who infest and control the Omnipotent State as
a way to dominate those with whom they can't compete. If you enjoy having
bureaucratic control over all your decisions, instead of the freedom to try
your ideas, possibly failing or possibly hitting big then join the criticism
of Rand. There's nothing wrong with being charitable and generous to others,
unless it is enforced by the State. As a choice it is a virtue, as an edict
enforced with deadly force it is slavery.

------
yaix
If she was not already disproven before, then she was in 2008, when even
Greenspan was speachless confronting the magnitude of the disaster that the
ultra-market-liberal ideology had caused.

~~~
free-man
Being forced to lend to borrowers who could never repay is not a symptom of a
free market. The debt-crash would be a prime example of the problem Rand
argued against. Corporatism (corporate-crony payoffs) are a disease which
requires a powerful State. End the Fed, decentralize and shrink the federal
gov't and encourage competition, small enterprise and see prosperity. Gov't
handouts are addictive and destructive.

------
etherael
Way to strawman a complex philosophy with a simplistic summary.

~~~
NDS
Anybody who reads Rand as anything other than sub-standard Science Fiction is
an idiot. Why waste energy debunking her imbecilic assertions (most of which
have been obliterated by studies) that she presents as fact?

~~~
ad_hominem
Anybody who reads /(Marx|Lenin|Mao)/ as anything other than sub-standard
Science Fiction is an idiot. Why waste energy debunking his imbecilic
assertions (most of which have been obliterated by studies) that he presents
as fact?

~~~
NDS
You are aware Das Capital doesn't actually present a vision of any future
society & is simply a historical analysis of the formation of capitalism? Most
economists accept the materialist dialectic.

