Does Rand ever account for the scenario where even more powerful person comes up and just crushes what the protag had built up with their "individuality"? Does the protag just accept that character as superior? Or do things turn into Mary Sue revenge porn?
That's not at all how objectivism works though.
You don't get to take or destroy anything by someone else in her philosophy without a contract. As for being bettered by someone else, that happens a few times (iirc, dagny-> that lover of hers forgot the name-> john galt) and yes they take it dignifiedly. Yeah that's Panglossian, but like Leibniz or Hegel you should read it as idealism.
Preferably a combination, but if I'd have to choose definitely Rand. In the idealized version everyone is free and pursuing artistic endeavors in a Randian world, as opposed to drones expending themselves for others in a Marxist world. In a bastardized practical world, it's basically communism versus capitalism.
Yes like I said it's Panglossian. In the books themselves though there are many people that do not respect the boundaries of others. These are the villains.
Marxist societies have already been tested and produced nightmares pretty much every time. Randian societies probably would be awful but on balance of probabilities I would say its unlikely to be worse than what Marxism has produced.
Idealism is dumb. Period. It's Philosophy were the thinker only went half the way and didn't establish balance in his/her texts.
The problem are not the ideas but the people. Marxism has the problem of power accumulation, which of course leads to a nightmare when combined with selfish people who run the show.
I worded it negatively, but each according to his ability to each according to his need is very much the core of Marxism, and art is a frivolous activity borne out of an egocentric drive to create something useless, so it's intrinsically problematic for Marxism. No wonder you saw artists die first in the gulags every time. I'd rather be poor in an inspiring world than perhaps slightly less poor in a dull one. Just think about every time you play a videogame you're not using you abilities to help the person in need. And make no mistake there will always people in need, especially in a world where the only beneficial fun thing to do is make children. I'm speaking from privilege as someone who has been very fortunate in the talent lottery though so take that as you will (though I dont know a Marxist who is not extremely privileged).
They also LOOOOVEE Jesus, but I very much doubt he would reciprocate were he alive. Let's be sure again, Rand was not a pleasant woman (but then neither were Spinoza, Wittgenstein and others*), but it doesn't take a genius to see the conservatives love for law strong-arming and the military complex are very antithetical to what she purported. In fact a more liberal interpretation of the social contract would fit much better.
Someone didn't read Hegel. You can blame idealists a lot of things, but not these two things.
Dominate how? Are you sure you actually read the books?
Those books were boring and quite unrealistic with their depictions of human beings, so why would you use them as arguments?
A government enforced on the people yes. A voluntary social contract would not be against objectivist tenets. Welfare would be practically impossible I agree. Objectivism believes in the nobility of people so nothing would stand in the way of a group of people pitching in to help a severely disabled person, but we can all agree this to be, as I said, Panglossian.
Now I'm not that much an expert on Objectivism (though a lot more than apparently 99% of this thread), but I don't believe judging people is a part of it. The point of it is that you should do what you think is important and then find likeminded people who will want to give money or deeds for the fruit of your labor. In her idealized Galt's Gulch, work is judged, not people, because people are assumed to be of right moral character blabla. I fully agree it would be disastrous if done in reality, but it's not as intrinsically botched as Marxism, again history has shown this. I think Rand's ideas are interesting, in moderation, but like other philosophies in the early 20th century, it's rooted in an industrialist world that doesn't fit well with modern society.
I don't necessarily want to defend Atlas Shrugged, I liked the Fountainhead a lot better, but I think it's established quite well that Dagny is not without flaws. I understand you don't want to give it time of day so I don't know why you're arguing though.
The people are the problem: and thus is a text not taking people into account.
Not bad, not bad at all.
Hahahaha. I'm crying
you'd be wrong. See how the only reason the protagonist ever saved the hobo from being thrown out of a high-speed train was because he was wearing a bone-white shirt. Or all the times she bothers to describe leeches as ugly. People are very much judged.
I think the proper term would be that people are valued, according to their economic contribution to society, rather than judged.
I'm inclined to agree with this.
