The same monster that said millions of slaughtered First Nations peoples deserved to be slaughtered because they didn’t “own” the land in a proper way to begin with?
AnarchoCapitalism is a deeply unserious ideology with no historical basis and should be viewed as similarly ridiculous to AnarchoMonarchism. Fascist theory is famously incoherent nonsense, but at least there have been fascist movements in history. At least they exist.
How can an objectivist support the state forcibly moving people off the land people are entitled to, and worked for with the sweat of their brow?
Even their founding monster said that forcibly moving people off the land and doing atrocities to them was cool and good because they weren’t using the land correctly and there was some veiled cryptofascist bits about mud huts there too.
I think that Ayn Rand didnt genuinely believe in her own ideas. So i view objectivists as either scammers or the victims of a scam. Its not like liberals where its wrong instead of being a scam.
I don’t think she thought her own ideas out thoroughly enough to actually acknowledge contradictions in them. She was mad about her faildaughter estate being taken away by the Bolsheviks and was fascinated by Hollywood glamour and everything else was “ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE” justified after the fact.
Idk how anyone can think history is determined by great individuals when evsn the moat impactful individuals like Alexander the Great wouldnt have existed if the price of lumber collapsed in his fathers reign.
The same monster that said millions of slaughtered First Nations peoples deserved to be slaughtered because they didn’t “own” the land in a proper way to begin with?
Being a libertarian is just dressing up your support for white supremacy in fancy language
AnarchoCapitalism is a deeply unserious ideology with no historical basis and should be viewed as similarly ridiculous to AnarchoMonarchism. Fascist theory is famously incoherent nonsense, but at least there have been fascist movements in history. At least they exist.
How can an objectivist support the state forcibly moving people off the land people are entitled to, and worked for with the sweat of their brow?
Ive always really hated libertarians, and double these people, because the libertarians i know would hate it.
Even their founding monster said that forcibly moving people off the land and doing atrocities to them was cool and good because they weren’t using the land correctly and there was some veiled cryptofascist bits about mud huts there too.
I think that Ayn Rand didnt genuinely believe in her own ideas. So i view objectivists as either scammers or the victims of a scam. Its not like liberals where its wrong instead of being a scam.
I don’t think she thought her own ideas out thoroughly enough to actually acknowledge contradictions in them. She was mad about her faildaughter estate being taken away by the Bolsheviks and was fascinated by Hollywood glamour and everything else was “ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE” justified after the fact.
Idk how anyone can think history is determined by great individuals when evsn the moat impactful individuals like Alexander the Great wouldnt have existed if the price of lumber collapsed in his fathers reign.
It feeds selfish assholes’ sense of self importance. The messaging, the propaganda, is everywhere for Great Man Theory.