Your love of authoritarianism is troubling. And, I don't think your position is coherent at all.

All philosophy that promotes communal constructs over individual rights to self-determination are merely a means to support the powerful in their desires to oppress and exalt their own desires; in other words, you merely support individualism for the powerful, and nobody else.

There's no such thing as "community" on the same ontological plain as "individual." It is a trick of langauge, and nothing more, that allows you your philosophy.

But, I still like you. :-)

Its an infantile philosophy.

This is shocking!

i'm so fucking sick of Ayn Rand i could shit.

Yes, yes no serious person believes in that bullshit. But no serious person would ever say that something is entirely without value either.

Any philosophy has something to offer humanity even if it's simply an example of bad philosophy.

I think Rand was a self-absorbed nerd in the same vein as Nietzsche. She was a wallflower and a recluse. I think she was merely trying to express the way she thought humanity was going rather than the way way she wanted it to go, much as I believe Freddy did. I think Atlas Shrugged, gods help me, was more of a warning than a road map. That book nearly killed my love of reading (a la South Park), so full disclosure: I never got past page 30. I think that was enough to get the gist of it.

As to Marx, well I see him as a man of the people even if he did sponge off his rich friends for most of his life. He saw the suffering of the working class and tried to come up with a way of thinking about life that balanced the scales a bit between them and the people with all the money. It seems to me he thought it wasn't fair that so many work so hard for so little while a few hardly work and get so much in return.

Do you see? They both offered something to humanity: a view of the self-absorbed rich and a new way to think about the people who do the heavy lifting.

Her view of individualism will never be realized, and any system that tried to implement it would be self-correcting. Why? Because she'd give power to individuals (democratic pluralism, anyone?) and on the whole, very few individuals are as extreme as her characters are.

This fear of Ayn Rand, as though she would somehow impose her view of the individual upon each individual is hysterical nonsense.

Now, Marxism? That's scary shit, as it will impose upon every one the idealized view of a few powerful people. It does precisely what those who fear Ayn Rand fear the most.

Want an example? Our own Charles, just like Ayn, think that there's an objectively correct view of things like architecture. But, only one of them would mandate that buildings be built to this standard. Guess which?

they need to objectify everyone into their predefined narrative in order for their world to make sense. all i need to is look back and say "No" and it all falls to pieces.

Hence why charles and his decrees about taste and architecture are not The Only Way. Because free willed individuals say "No" and do their own thing.

And why are all the youngin's into Rand so much these days? It is scary? Who ever thought that crappy book, with the crappy philosophy-maybe that is harsh-the infantile philosophy that uber materialism-captialism-makes right-what happens when the best of the best get old? Slower? Not so great? out to pasture in the Nazi sort of definition of it-I think-and who the hell wants to live in Colorado all their live long days? No ocean? No Surfing? Fuck that-give me Tiberius, a toga, and an orgy over that-you can keep your individuality-or that definition of it.

FG