As Contrapoints teaches us, it always ends in phrenology.
Children and adults with damaged cognitive ability can get “society’s” material support. Just don’t force members of society to do it through government control. Persuade them to, if the parents can’t.
That is not a unique deployment of anti-coercion trotted out for a special case. It is a consistent application of Rand’s anti-aggression philosophy.
By the way, mates who have selected each other appropriately could become parents of a damaged child. And it is you who keep injecting “superior” into the conversation.
She tried to tear herself away from him. The effort broke against his arms that had not felt it. Her fists beat against his shoulders, against his face. He moved one hand, took her two wrists and pinned them behind her, under his arm, wrenching her shoulder blades.…She fell back against the dressing table, she stood crouching, her hands clasping the edge behind her, her eyes wide, colorless, shapeless in terror. He was laughing. There was the movement of laughter on his face, but no sound.…Then he approached. He lifted her without effort. She let her teeth sink into his hand and felt blood on the tip of her tongue. He pulled her head back and he forced her mouth open against his.
These are the actions of her hero.
Do you think rape is heroic?
It occurs to me that there is probably a non-trivial overlap of Randyans and Goreans.
Where is the choice in what she portrayed as her ideal?
Silly, women don’t get choices! Only Heroic and Manly Men who give women what they deserve and secretly want! /s
We do persuade them. It’s called living in a liberal democratic nation-state where we elect representatives who levy taxes and apply the revenues (at least in current non-MMT economic theory) for societal good at scale.
You implied it by using the term “spectacular” and by including it in a list of positive traits leading to people who can earn half a million per year, contrasting it with those of us poor souls (including John Rogers) who dare criticise Ayn Rand.
The term “appropriate” is an interestingly vague one, and it’s not the first time I’ve heard it used by eugenicists and/or Objectivists in discussions of who mates (i.e. breeds) with whom.
Let’s just say that’s one of those “if you have to ask, you won’t get it” questions.
It might be a good idea to split this thread, given the Randian derail going on here - which, incidentally, is a bang up way for Randroids to actually avoid discussing the inherent problems of the capitalist economy…
“There’s a nice knock-down argument for you!” – H. Dumpty.
Now where would we ever get the idea that Rand thought some people were inherently better than others or that any governing society had the right to exert control over another?
“Now, I don’t care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages.”
— Rand, addressing the Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, 1974
“The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”
— Ayn Rand Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974, text published on the website of The Ayn Rand Institute
Mod note: I’m usually pretty restrained when it comes to moderating community topics, but the sheer volume of mocking or contentless image replies required action.
If you’re going to post a reaction gif, especially without text, your post needs to include something on-topic as well. I’d point to @Melizmatic as an authority on how to do this well.
Otherwise, if your post exists Soley to mock the opinion of another poster, well… The rude will be eaten first.
Wow… what a way to introduce yourself to a new community, guy.
It ain’t the thread, yo; it’s the disrespectful & condescending individual who burst into the original topic like gangbusters, flinging passive-aggressive insults around willy-nilly, instead of making sound arguments to present their beliefs, (no matter how flawed inviable, and unsustainable.)
Here’s your basic error. A ‘government’ (in an democratic state) should be the expression of society’s wishes, not an imposer of some cult-like political philosophy (whether of right or left).
E.g. after WWII The UK decided it wanted a social safety net, healthcare for all, and education for all. And its government implemented it. The failure of today’s political/democratic mechanisms is a tangential but other issue.
ETA it’s what some of us choose to call a civil society as opposed to a bunch of self-determining individuals and happenstance.
And the idea that governments are the only institutions capable of oppressing people is a load of malarkey.
Agreed, that’s highly fallacious reasoning.
Any group that amasses enough significant power can oppress and exploit the masses, who often do not have easy access to the same resources.
Sarcasm doesn’t transmit on the internet very well. Have you not been here long? Maybe you should either say what you mean or be more explicit with things like
Although I doubt you really were being sarcastic and just wanted to see if you’d get any support at all for moronic ideas like eugenics.
It’s not our fault you are bad at explaining yourself over and over.