Luckily the characters, Rourke and Dominique liked architecture instead of ananomy either character could easily been serial killers. Must nice to be them, not feeling anything or thinking about anyone else.

am yet to explore the concept of Anarchy, but all I can tell is Objectivism sucks as a political philosophy.

Lemme first make it clear, there are two type of Anarchy, individualist, and collectivist. And before you explore any of these you will have to make such a choice.

A collectivist anarchy according to me cannot work, without a govt people aren’t just going to collect whatever they produce by themselves. Surely if you earn below the average you will put up whatever you earned into the collective pool(because you will get more in return) but if you do not earn more than average, you would not wanna voluntarily give up your produce.

An individualist anarchy on the other hand is totally voluntary in nature, and that is the biggest difference between them. There will be billionaires and millionaires in an individualist anarchy but then not everybody works the same, saves the same and spends the same.

Any person who works more, saves more, spends less will become richer than anyone who does not work more, or provides more skills to other people, spends more, and/or saves less.

For any collectivist society there is a simple question, if someone does not want to give in his produce to the collectivist pot, what will you do about him?

Another thing is, you can be a group of collectivist in a individualist anarchist society, but you cannot do it vice versa.

If everyone was an individualist who would the (let me call it the) “dirty work” .
Who is going to do the farming etc.

This is actually a collectivist problem.

If everybody is individualist,the problem of “who is going to do this or that” never comes. Nobody is working for anyone else. If nobody is ready to clean the toilets those who wanna get their toilets cleaned will offer thousands of rupees for their toilets to be cleaned.

If nobody wants to do the farming but people do need someone to do the farming then the money anyone doing farming will be a lot.

On the other hand in collectivist egalitarian everybody must make same amount of wealth, so if I can make same amount of money driving a bus, and cleaning a toilet, why should I clean the toilets.

That leaves us with Anarchy .
Decisions by the Group.
Priority – Individual .
As far as i can see . Anarchy is a win-win situation .It gives equality , freedom . What else can you ask for ?

May I ask why is Somalia so individualist and so capitalist when there is Anarchy in there?

@mannar

All i can say is he was everything an Individualist is ‘he Believes in what he believed’

Well nobody is saying that you supported hitler anywhere, but now you are defending an off the cheek remark you made.

Hitler was a hard core collectivist, in fact Nazism is given as the supreme definition of when govt becomes all powerful. The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was, that latter was egalitarian collectivist, and Hitler was Nationalist collectivist.

Stalin wanted equal distribution of wealth for achieving socialism, Hitler wanted the most optimal distribution of wealth to achieve maximum utility. And Hitler did make his nation quite prosperous initially.

But you cannot be more wrong academically in calling Hitler Individualist.

Thanks for your detailed response and all your comments. Lets hope, who knows eventually we might get to talk someday. Never say never..

Hitler was not an individualist or an objectivist as per Rand’s theory. But, I guess it will be difficult to explain a lot of things just through arguments – especially writing. Because reading itself is so difficult to do.

While reading, we take meaning out of words based on the biases and perceptions in our head. To objectively read with no intention to agree or disagree is in itself a task.

Its not easy to explain even through talking. But, its still better than typing and waiting for a response.

I do not think Roark is perfect but he has minor flaws, nothing else. He is almost perfect in my opinion. Buddha, I believe, is one perfect human being. People might term him impractical, I would term him objectivist.

Who said being objectivist meant being practical in everyone’s opinion. Anyway, I would not like to argue more on this – not because I cant but because I realize it would be to no avail.

Someday, we might talk and I might be able to tell u how I feel about objectivism and I would listen to you about your beliefs too. Till then, happy contemplating!

Anyways thanks for your comment

“Individualism is acting in what he or she believes in and others business is no concern of his”

Now if you are pointing out Hitler’s ideology, I can surely say it was not Individualistic.All i can say is he was everything an Individualist is ‘he Believes in what he believed’

Collectivism to me means -
Decisions by the group
Priority is the group .
Which means that the individual is doomed .
Art cannot survive in such a state .

And as far as Ayn Rand goes .
She believes in Capitalism .
And capitalism stands for superiority , slavery .
Power to one individual over another.Hierarchy.
Which i can never stand for .And i don’t think any human stands for .

That leaves us with Anarchy .
Decisions by the Group.
Priority – Individual .
As far as i can see . Anarchy is a win-win situation .It gives equality , freedom . What else can you ask for ?

Look what Hitler did, I think he was supreme form of individualism.

What are you smoking dude? The guy who wanted to kill all the Jews for being Jew was individualist?

The guy who thought Aryans(his own race) were born to rule the other races is individualist?

The guy who invaded almost the whole Europe was supreme individualist?

What is really your definition of individualism dude?

Someone who believes in racial superiority kills people based on their religion and race, attacks other nations to bring them under his OWN collective empire??