Ryan, Ideology, Atlas, Fontaine & The Downfall of Rapture

[Frank Fontaine]

Hey everyone

now i know part of this is already in another thread so i apologize but i couldn't think of another way to do this anyway...

now there was a previous topic questioning the forum as to if it was Ryan or the ideology that caused raptures downfall...well i would like to bring a new point to this debate...mabey it was Fontaine that caused it's downfall...now we know that Ryan and Fontaine started a Civil war and became enemies, this led to Ryan abandoning his ideas and started to attack Fontaine...now what if this was in protection for the city that he so cared about. In the game once Fontaine reveals himself he starts to talk about how ungreatful the city was with his aids...now you must forgive me i had a train of thought earlier today on this topic and lost it so i hope this made sense...basically...mabey it wasn't Ryan or his idea that destroyed the city (as i feel he may have tried to protect its from Fontaine's evil) but mabey it was Fontaine who tried to take the city through fighting...so let me know your thoughs on this idea...and if anyone feels i wasted server space with this i apologize

[SplicedUp]

It was both, In a way, Ryan became the exact tyrant that he claimed did not belong there, and Frank Fontaine was exactly the kind of man Rapture was built to Nurture, a Rags to Riches story, FF might of also seemed like a great man and ruler if it wasnt for his own flaws and hipocricy

[Homicidal Cherry]

Ryan's ideology was the very thing that allowed Fontaine to become a threat to him, so in a way, his ideology is what allowed Fontaine to ruin Rapture. So I guess you could say a little of both, although, in the absence of Fontaine, I think it would be inevitable that someone else would rise to challenge Ryan.

[Ammo_Bandito]

Ryan was a power hungry hypocrite and thats what killed the city.

Rapture was built to allow the best market strategist to become the most powerful person. Ryan always assumed that it would be himself who would run the place. As soon as he found out that somebody might be better at capitalism them him, he abandoned all he ever claimed to stand for and tried to maintain his position. He outlawed Fontaine's importing company and started calling them smugglers, parasites etc. Then Fontaine began working on his poorhouses and Ryan started his 'altruism doesn't exist' campaign. At the end, he stops the facade of 'common interest' and steals the entire futuristics. Fontaine sees that it's time for all-out war, disapears and starts to raise an army. Ryan shows exactly how much of his 'free will' ideology is left by green lighting Suchong's plans for mindcontrol.

A shame that his exposure to Ryan's mindcontrol plasmid made him a bit mad over time so that we eventualy have to kill him.

[stephensolofo]

If you have read atlas shrugged,then you know rand makes the point of saying that oee should not fear their competitor but embrace them.

Ryan could of easily made a deal with fontaine but he wanted hsi power to much.

[Musicfreak54]

I don't think he was power hungry. It was more of keeping rapture away from the surface that led to this. Because of every precaution he put in place, the more people wanted the surface. This is why fontaine started smugguling thus leading to the civil war. In my opinion it was just him trying to keep his world away from the world he left. It just didnt happen as planned. Ryan was a power hungry hypocrite and thats what killed the city.

Rapture was built to allow the best market strategist to become the most powerful person. Ryan always assumed that it would be himself who would run the place. As soon as he found out that somebody might be better at capitalism them him, he abandoned all he ever claimed to stand for and tried to maintain his position. He outlawed Fontaine's importing company and started calling them smugglers, parasites etc. Then Fontaine began working on his poorhouses and Ryan started his 'altruism doesn't exist' campaign. At the end, he stops the facade of 'common interest' and steals the entire futuristics. Fontaine sees that it's time for all-out war, disapears and starts to raise an army. Ryan shows exactly how much of his 'free will' ideology is left by green lighting Suchong's plans for mindcontrol.

A shame that his exposure to Ryan's mindcontrol plasmid made him a bit mad over time so that we eventualy have to kill him.

[Gorgeras]

My own contribution in the other thread was that the downfall of Rapture was totally inevitable; there was no saving it. All utopias are doomed to fail by their very definition.

When you found a society, you must be very careful about what exactly you found it upon. If you create a society based on pacifism: the two most powerful people in that society will be the most obvious symbol of non-violence and the symbol of violence. Same again if you create a society based on physical conflict. Utopian ideals go out of their way to see things the way they supposedly should be rather than as they are.

Create a society based on Veganism: it will struggle with Carnivism.
Create one based on Secularism: it will struggle with Faith just as a Faith-based society struggles with Secularism.
Create it based on Human Rights: it will always be be forced to confront Human Wrongs. The polar-opposite Human Wrong society would also fight Human Rights challenges and who ever most obviously represents them will have just as much power as who ever obviously embodies the opposite.

Ryan hated 'parasites': his denigrative term for anyone who is unable or unwilling to survive and thrive without completely reciprocal relations. Fontaine was a thief and con-man even before he arrived in the city: he's the very worst and extreme embodiment of what Ryan hated. So he was inevitably going to share the title of most powerful person with Ryan.

I also argued that 'Fontaine was inevitable' by which I mean even if he never arrived in Rapture; it was unavoidable that one day someone like him would. Opposites attract. It isn't even suprising that this happened to the society within it's founder's lifetime: most new societies in the world do actually fail within a short time. Saddam Hussain lived to see a Nationalist Socialist Secular Iraq created by his will and then be destroyed. Many banana republics change systems so often they must have revolving doors.

The rare examples are Cuba under Castro, who will die happily knowing his dream still lives. Lenin and Stalin died with their dream still intact, which last almost a century before the iron curtain fell. Amd we all know China can't hold out forever, though it seems like it.

But they are very RARE examples. Their continued existence can be attributed to one of the few things that distinguishes them from the banana republics: outside support. They have had extensive support from what Stalin called 'Useful Idiots' who believe their ideology is benign, but believe in a version of it more compatible with their own lives than what actually happens in practice.

Had Ryan ironically not kept Rapture secret, it might have been saved.

[Frank Fontaine]

I don't think Ryan would have been able to keep it a secret...If you look at it he was only inviting what seemed like the Elite...in terms of artists, and scientists...he also had normal people there also...but he seemed selective...sure he could try with the city out in the Atlantic but sooner or later it was bound to be discovered...he or someone else would invite more ppl as someone would be bound to catch on and start inviting more and more ppl as each person would feel they could contribute something that Johnny Tamborine couldn't...i just realised i read you r question wrong but still...even if it was know to the world you still would get someone like Frank who comes down and starts to wreck havok

[Gorgeras]

He wouldn't wreck 'havok', I doubt that would be possible. In the event of a civil war, the winning side is always the one that recieves the most outside help. This is certainly true of the US when France helped it beat the British and gain independence. On the flip side of the coin: the one that has the least outside enemies has an advantage. The Baron's Revolt in England that led the way to a constitution protecting the rights of the King's subjects and the beginning of seperation of powers, would not have happened if the King's army was not stretched by outside enemies.

Ryan would have had support from the outside and presumerably Fontaine wouldn't have made a business out of smuggling, if only he hadn't been desperate to keep Rapture a secret. The very purpose of building the city underwater was secrecy. Rapture would have been an 'open secret' as in known about enough for working class people to get there, but secret enough that the governments that knew about it could not openly discuss it but probably attempted to find and infiltrate.

You can't found a society of 'elite' people: they don't clean toilets. I think Ryan did know Rapture couldn't stay a secret, even an open secret for long. I think his goal was to get the city to grow as large as possible with a population so set in it's unique culture that they would resist attempts to change them once Rapture was eventually broadcast to the world.

[jokerthesplicer]

they should've used little sister as soldiers in the civil war. imagine a little girl with a helmet and a gun leading soon-to-be ground beef.

[TrustCo]

I'm currently reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand which goes into the ideology that the game was built around. It's called 'Objectivism' and can be very unhealthy (see BioShock). The idea is to give everyone freedom to do anything beyond morals as long as it doesn't involve crimes like murder and theivery. That is why we have rules in society to keep 'Rapture' from happening for real. I will explain more after I have read the book (very lengthy) and understand better the ideal that Miss Rand is talking about.

[Ammo_Bandito]

they should've used little sister as soldiers in the civil war. imagine a little girl with a helmet and a gun leading soon-to-be ground beef.

As long as they have a way to keep enemies away from the slug that is their power source(read: BD) their would actualy be near invincible(untill they encounter an explosion powerful enough to take out the slug and instantly kill the host that way)

Also, if anything they would more likely wear a bulletproof vest then a helmet, the slug is far more vital then their brains.

[John Stein]

I think his idea did destroy his city, or at least it would inevitably lead to the destruction of the original idea. For one thing, like Fontaine said, everyone wanted to come down to Rapture and be "Captains of Industry", but someone has to "scrub the toilets". It is impossible to have a working system (from the smallest to largest groups of people) without some people doing the dirty work. In no society in the past or future is that possible. But the problem was that in this "free market", the working class jobs were considered undesirable and the capitalist jobs were. Since it was based only on self interest, no one would want to do the working class jobs because they paid less and weren't fun at all. The solution to this was force which is exampled through out the game.

This leads into the secrecy part of the game. In order to protect the city from the collectivist governments; it had to be a secret according to Ryan. This was a perfect excuse to keep people there and send them off to do the dirty work. Not only that but to keep people there meant to enforce governmental laws on the citizens and once that happens it is no longer a free market. Ryan then justifies this action by 1) saying to take away some freedoms is necessary to protect the rest of the freedoms and later when in denial 2) it isn't all his fault because everyone had the choice to come down to Rapture and help build the city. He says this quite clearly when talking about the abomination of the little girls, but "their little hands were right there with mine". Now one must ask "Mr. Ryan, those little girls didn't really have a choice in the matter." Clearly Ryan was confusing participation with the freedom of choice. Now compare this to the city. The citizens are basically tricked into participating in this insane project.

If Ryan had allowed products to come to rapture, unknown to their respective governments and allowed the working class to exist in the other societies, he could have had living space outside Rapture and kept rapture as more of a "lab" where incredible things are made and sold back to the public of the countries of the world. Of course this necessitates privatization outside Rapture which no longer existed if we are in the same universe as ATLAS SHRUGGED. I guess it could work in this universe though. Rapture in the game just seems like a Capitalist equivalent to the USSR.

And ATLAS SHRUGGED is a very good book, although I don't agree with Objectivism.

[doomgiver]

I agree with Objectivism in every way, but it can only work if people show 100% true belief in their convictions. Personally, if America was Objectivist and our people at least would try, I think we would be better than where we are today.

[janissary12]

Objectivism doesn't work because it has no negative feedback loops built into it. As a system, it is brittle and prone to abuse.

The reason the US constitution works fairly well are the built in checks and balances (negative feedback) between the 3 arms of the government. Ideally, they would all have a healthy suspicion of each other and little would get done to violate the rights of the citizenry.

When the 3 arms get too cozy, that's when abuses happen. Note the last 8 years, when the executive, legislative, and judicial branches got a little too chummy: goodbye habeas corpus! Throw in another "arm": business.

A good political system is flexible and limited. Rapture just seemed to be a dictatorship, although McDonnough (sp) makes a brief reference to a "board" or something, which is immediately ignored. IMO Objectivism and anarchism inevitably lead to dictatorships and kleptocracies.

[Endiku]

I'd put it like this: nothing lasts forever. Sooner or later, someone stronger, smarter and wiser will inevitably come and chuck you out of the building.

People are not perfect, thus no perfect societies can exist. If you trusted everyone to do the right thing no laws, organizations or governments would have to exist. Even though all ideologies and faiths could be uppheld if people worked for them and believed in them, they won't.

Fontaine was also in a way the man Rapture looked for, a strong leader who wasn't concerned by petty morality. Sure, he wrecked the city and would have corrupted the rest of mankind too, but he won (if we remove Jack from the equation) fairly and squarly after Darwins rules: Survival of the Fittest.

Could I have made mistakes? One does not build cities if one is guided by doubt. But can one govern in absolute certainty? I know that my beliefs have elevated me, just as I know that the things I have rejected would have destroyed me. But the city... it is collapsing before my... have I become so convinced by my own beliefs that I have stopped seeing the truth? Perhaps. But Atlas is out there, and he aims to destroy me, and destroy my city. To question is to surrender. I will not question. Andrew Ryan in Point Prometheus.

[jonesjulia]

I sometimes like to ponder what rand would have said about Bioshock. Assuming she didn't just straight out pan it for misrepresenting her philosophy.

For instance Ryan isn't a true Rand-ian hero. He's more Stadler of Atlas Shrugged. A man of great mind but lacking in a commitment to a moral center.

I think we find that what Ryan wanted above all things was control over others. Something no Rand hero would seek out. He wanted things to be his way no matter the cost. He didn't want people to tell him what to do but he darn sure wanted people to obey him. Rand's heros are more self sufficient. They don't need anyone.

In the end this is part of why Rapture failed. His society could probably have survived Fontaine and Adam, at least for a time. It's ironic that it could not survive Ryan.

[Kyburz]

I sometimes like to ponder what rand would have said about Bioshock. Assuming she didn't just straight out pan it for misrepresenting her philosophy.

For instance Ryan isn't a true Rand-ian hero. He's more Stadler of Atlas Shrugged. A man of great mind but lacking in a commitment to a moral center.

I think we find that what Ryan wanted above all things was control over others. Something no Rand hero would seek out. He wanted things to be his way no matter the cost. He didn't want people to tell him what to do but he darn sure wanted people to obey him. Rand's heros are more self sufficient. They don't need anyone.

In the end this is part of why Rapture failed. His society could probably have survived Fontaine and Adam, at least for a time. It's ironic that it could not survive Ryan.

I am not sure that is a fair criticism of Ryan. For quite a while Ryan seemed to be living the true Randian hero's dream. It was only when Fontaine started to gain power that Ryan felt great chain slipping away from him. In the end he was trying to protect something that he loved, even if he took morally reprehensible steps to do so. So I think it was the situation that forced Ryan to largely abandon his ideals, I don't think he necessarily had a fatal character flaw that made his descent into madness inevitable.

That said, I think the lesson that we can take away from the game is that objectivism is unworkable because there will always be Frank Fontaines who will ruin things for everyone else.

[jonesjulia]

I am not sure that is a fair criticism of Ryan. For quite a while Ryan seemed to be living the true Randian hero's dream. It was only when Fontaine started to gain power that Ryan felt great chain slipping away from him. In the end he was trying to protect something that he loved, even if he took morally reprehensible steps to do so. So I think it was the situation that forced Ryan to largely abandon his ideals, I don't think he necessarily had a fatal character flaw that made his descent into madness inevitable.

That said, I think the lesson that we can take away from the game is that objectivism is unworkable because there will always be Frank Fontaines who will ruin things for everyone else.

He seemed to be living a Randian hero's dream because he had exactly what he loved. The problem is that what Ryan loved wasn't what Ryan produced. Ryan loved what other people could do. I.E. Give him power, Make Rapture. He was willing to break his putative moral code for it, i.e. take what someone else produced. A true Randian hero wouldn't break that moral code for anything.

Objectivism is unworkable, in my opinion, because it works on absolute ideals. I'd argue that no man is that pure 24/7 and that's what Randian utopias require. 100% dedication to that moral code.

[doomgiver]

No. Objectivism CAN work.

[Endiku]

Well, if we presume that the universe will last forever, in one form or another, it will mean that everything will sooner or later happen.

Edit: Sorry, my point was just that with the right people, time and place everything may work.

But ah, well, I am a cynic. Faith in mankind, bah! :-)

I'd say that Ryan was in love with his fame and popularity. When he lost it, he did everything he could to retake it. But yes, he also wanted to protect his city even though he then helped turn it into it's very opposite.

[janissary12]

No. Objectivism CAN work.

Beyond the "no negative feedback loops" I mentioned earlier, another reason Objectivism fails, indeed why most things fail, is an internal contradiction at the heart of the concept.

While you could say "Objectivism CAN work", it can only work if everyone consistently applies its precepts. BUT, and here's the contradiction, holding to those precepts is an INTRINSICALLY altruistic behaviour. In a system that explicitly rejects altruism, everything depends on everyone acting in an altruistic manner.

So, when someone sees their short-term gain conflicting with society's long-term benefit, they act on their own short-term gain, because doing otherwise would be an altruistic act.

A robust, flexible system works even when it's members pursue goals that are psychological imperatives. This is why capitalism prospers while communism fails. Capitalism takes into account individuals' psychological needs: prestige, variety, ego.

[doomgiver]

Nope. You're just spewing propaganda. You're nothing more than a Parasite.

Objectivism can work. And when it does, we'll progress more than anyone can imagine.

PS: Oh and Communism failed because of their corrupt leaders. Objectivism rejects Communism. So don't you dare compare the two.

[janissary12]

I'll do whatever I like, you annoying little cretin. Objectivism demands it, so suck it.

[doomgiver]

Alright. We'll go our separate ways and follow our own beliefs. But when we achieve more than you, don't come to us and whine.

[Dr. Locke]

I wouldn't respond to him janisarry, or you will both become banned for at least three days, like I....... was. (But thats another story.) Grit your teeth at each other, force a smile, and take breather.

***

[ZeusLegion]

Ryan's main problem was his fear and hatred of the outside world.

Fearing his city becoming infected by the surface parasites, he began passing laws that restricted the natural freedoms of the people of Rapture. The right to control your body, mind, property and the fruits of your labor. The right to voluntarily interact with others and transact business or to socialize. It was a very bad idea and one that all Tyrants make.

The nature of Capitalism is that Supply must meet Demand. If you imagine Demand as a river and Supply as the current, Ryan's restrictions are a shaky dam. The pressure is inevitably going to build up and seek a release. Soon, cracks start to form and spring leaks. Those leaks are the black market. The more Ryan tried sticking his fingers in the dam, the more leaks that formed until it all came crashing down and drowned him.

Someone in search of profit is always going to try and fill Demand with Supply. The greater the risk, the bigger the profit if one succeeds. Look at what happened in the 30's with bootlegging. The very act of banning alcohol created the underground market that would spawn the likes of Al Capone (or a Frank Fontaine) and the type of violence witnessed in the Valentine's Day Massacre.

By restricting the freedoms of the people of Rapture and preventing them from acquiring things from the surface world, Ryan set in motion the creation of Frank Fontaine and his smuggling ring.

And of course, Ryan's attempts to squash it with violence only escalated the conflict between him and Fontaine as Ryan sought to regain control. Ryan's fear of the surface had become a madness focused at Fontaine. An ever-increasing hatred that caused Ryan to abandon his morals. Without those as a guideline for his actions, his philosophy becomes meaningless and hollow. Like all Tyrants, Ryan's need for control caused him to resort to coercion and violence and thus the downward spiral for Ryan and his city was inevitable and inescapable.

[doomgiver]

That still doesn't change the fact that Objectivism can work. Ryan's mistake was believable, he's human - we all are. We sometimes follow our own impulses when we shouldn't, we are all driven by common basic instinct, needs, and desires. So if we had people who follow the belief to heart, Objectivism will work. Objectivism can only be destroyed if it's from the inside. And actually, Ryan didn't restrict everyone from that, as long as they didn't follow Fontaine or smuggle, they were okay. And plus as things got worse, he put laws that if there were 4 people in a group, they had to get permits; along with the fact that people had a curfew... and if they were caught, they were relocated. Ryan has my sympathy and he's a great man. Objectivism can work. Also, everyone has their fears, so don't blame him.

[Endiku]

Ryan was indeed a great man, and I suppose that he has the sympapthy of all who've played the game, but was what he did the right thing? Did the means justify the ends, or would they have had he succeded? The old debate, act wrong to achieve good, or act with honor and face the eventual consquences? Could Ryan have stopped Fontaine by sticking to his ideals? And ofc, should one stop Fontaine, he's a nice, honorable, intelligent and competitive old fellow isn't he? :-)

[John Stein]

That still doesn't change the fact that Objectivism can work. Ryan's mistake was believable, he's human - we all are. We sometimes follow our own impulses when we shouldn't, we are all driven by common basic instinct, needs, and desires. So if we had people who follow the belief to heart, Objectivism will work. Objectivism can only be destroyed if it's from the inside. And actually, Ryan didn't restrict everyone from that, as long as they didn't follow Fontaine or smuggle, they were okay. And plus as things got worse, he put laws that if there were 4 people in a group, they had to get permits; along with the fact that people had a curfew... and if they were caught, they were relocated. Ryan has my sympathy and he's a great man. Objectivism can work. Also, everyone has their fears, so don't blame him.

You said Objectivism can work, but I want to know if there is anything in your theory that says it will naturally replace any system we have now. In other words, do you think Objectivism is inevitable? You said we sometimes follow our own impulses when we shouldn't because we are driven by we are driven by basic needs and desires which lead to the downfall of Rapture. Does that mean we shouldn't follow our basic needs and desires in order to reach Objectivism? That seems like a contradiction.

[doomgiver]

You're not looking at the bigger picture, Stein. I'm saying that we as humans sometimes get sidetracked, and that Objectivism is... like nirvana, would be a better way to put it. Objectivism can only work as long as people maintain that affiliation and that dignity to follow that belief. If we have people - like Fontaine or Atlas - to come and try to break it apart from the inside out, or tries to convince others that this way is better than that, then we're back in square one. Objectivism IS the better way to follow than any other philosophy or belief system. Yes, it's true that sometimes we need a portion of altruism to keep the tide in balance. I agree with that. Yes, Capitalism is good, yes, I heard it all. But if we weren't restricted by anyone or anything, and we focus nothing more than our own self and the pursuit of happiness. We can live lives as better men today in our society. Men can achieve great things, especially through the individual mind and body.

[Endiku]

In a way, the reason why we have a society, why our hunter/gatherer ancestors banded together in the first place, was it not to help each other? If it is every man for himself, can it even be called a society then? And if we are as divided as we perhaps should be, would it not be easy for a ruthless but intelligent man, like Fontaine, to pick us off one by one until we are united again? One says that Objectivism can only work if everyone truly belives in it, what about those who doesn't? Kill them (a popular method)? Genetic modification
:-)? That would affect the free will wouldn't it?
And, even though Objectivism could possibly achieve greater things, have humanity not done pretty well this far? :-) Our beloved (semi)dictators have given us pyramids and monuments, societies with hundres of millions of inhabitants and taken us out into space itself. To our knowledge, no other lifeform has ever been as powerfull. Could an individual do this? Even the richest tycoons of our age can hardly compete with either the money or the power of any government. For good and bad that is, and ofc the hen or the egg.
But whatever one personally thinks about an ideology, it is always good that people fight for it. Wars, conflict and change is what has formed the world, we would probably only grow fat and decadent if we ever reached an utopia (which in ancient greek means something like "A place which does not exist") quickly turning it into the opposite. Sometimes, I wonder if that is what is happening to us in the West right now...

Anyway, Brave New World! Wars, Poverty, Social unrest, Revolutions and change for the win! As long as it does not happen right where I live that is :eek: .

[jonesjulia]

. So if we had people who follow the belief to heart, Objectivism will work.


Therein lies the problem. Almost ANY system will work if everyone will follow the precepts perfectly. If your system of society requires absolute faith by everyone it's pretty unlikely for it to work.

[doomgiver]

That's because you're a doubter, jonesjulia. People shouldn't doubt, they should embrace their beliefs to heart and not listen to what can bring you down. Objectivism can work. Trust me, it can. As long as people are kept in order. And when we achieve more, don't say we were wrong. And I'm sure if America followed Objectivism rather than the society of democracy and capitalism we have... twisted with some socialism... I'm sure America will prosper more than it is now.

[janissary12]

Well, hell, "America with no democracy", THERE'S a plan that will bring Goodness & Light to us all. NOT.

[doomgiver]

Doubter. Parasite. Objectivism > Democracy.

[John Stein]

"people being kept in line" Doesn't that defeat the purpose of Objectivism? I thought that was what the capitalists in ATLAS SHRUGGED wanted to escape from?

[doomgiver]

What I meant by "being kept in line" is that they all followed the same belief system WILLINGLY. That's the key term. Must I spell it out to you? But I think your primitive mind will fail to grasp that. Typical and predictable.

[John Stein]

What I meant by "being kept in line" is that they all followed the same belief system WILLINGLY. That's the key term. Must I spell it out to you? But I think your primitive mind will fail to grasp that. Typical and predictable.

Well when someone says we need to keep people in line, I generally don't associate it with going along willingly. I merely did not connect that to what you said before hand. I see now that you were using it in a different context. There was no reason to make immature comments like that. Technically we are all human beings, so all our minds are equal. I asked you for a reason, because I did not understand and I got an answer.

[doomgiver]

How is what I'm saying immature? You're the one who's accusing me for being vague. But hey, it's your loss. You asked, so I answered.

[John Stein]

I never said you where vague. I said I did not understand which I recognized as my fault. I was referring to you calling my brain primitive as immature.

[doomgiver]

Then if you want me to respect you, you have to earn it. I'm not just going to hand it to you like handing a buck to a beggar. It goes against my beliefs. Remember, I'm an Objectivist.

Next time, be more specific so we can avoid misunderstanding each other.

[jonesjulia]

That's because you're a doubter, jonesjulia. People shouldn't doubt, they should embrace their beliefs to heart and not listen to what can bring you down. Objectivism can work. Trust me, it can. As long as people are kept in order. And when we achieve more, don't say we were wrong. And I'm sure if America followed Objectivism rather than the society of democracy and capitalism we have... twisted with some socialism... I'm sure America will prosper more than it is now.


Grin. You're sure. I should trust you. On what evidence? Is there an Objectivist society/experiment that you've seen work? Is there any proof to your assertions other than your "beliefs"? Your beliefs which, in these threads, seem to say that your beliefs will only work as long as everyone agrees with yours. Everybody's "beliefs" work in a vacuum, you know.


Also. Embracing your beliefs without doubt is pretty much the dumbest thing anyone ever says to anyone. It's even sillier coming from someone who's claiming to be an Objectivist. If it's a belief, it's not proven, so you should doubt it. You can still believe it, faith can be a wonderful thing sometimes. All doubting means is you're still letting your mind work on the problem. If life and philosophy teach us anything it's this, don't believe everything you think.

[doomgiver]

Jones, you're nothing more than a Parasite. One who failed and still do, unlike me. You SHOULD trust me, because Objectivism DOES work, it's the corrupt minds of people which makes it falter. BUT ME, I have the confidence that if I led a society that supported Objectivism, we'll succeed more than the world itself.

[jonesjulia]

I must confess you make me giggle, doom. You're a great troll.


I particularly like how you're leading the society. Most people are when they're talking about brave new worlds. None of them are, say, waste disposal guys. It's sort of like how everyone, in a past life, was Cleopatra or Caesar. Nobody was the guy who died of diptheria. (See also: The Fountainhead "The parasite seeks power").

[doomgiver]

I'm no troll. I'm an Objectivist. And giggle all you want, but when we succeed... we'll see who has the last laugh.

[jonesjulia]

I'm no troll. I'm an Objectivist. And giggle all you want, but when we succeed... we'll see who has the last laugh.


Yes. Yes. Come the revolution, I'm sure.

[Endiku]

Would it be possible to merge these two discussion threads with one another?