>>972071Ayn Rand condemned tribalism as anti-conceptual mystic retardation. individuals judge reality independently, not by collective dictate btw.
Do I need to say again? libertarianism (via de NAP) protects voluntary action universally, but personal revulsion toward furries is an individual rational judgment, its a heckin
personal belief, not hypocrisy.
your claim that libertarianism "is based on what you can and can’t own/do" flips causality, you spergeguul.Objectivism grounds property rights in rational self-interest and reality, not economics as markets emerge from NAP adherence, not the opposite blud. I have already clarified that economics is irrelevant to libertarianism and given what it is which is, a valid distinction; furry "growth" doesn't negate degeneracy if it blurs human virtue with beastly escapism, which Rand would decry as life-denying <-this means it is immoral, but unethical. libertarianism is explicitly about ethics, or rather law. again: the NAP. Morality is outside the realm of libertarianism.
objectivism assumes rational faculty, not innate rationality. men can choose reason over whim, enabling NAP-based anarchy. this is the "anarcho-objectivist," part fusing Rand's epistemology with Rothbardian anarchism. my anti-furry stance is reasoned disgust, not rights violation, again, morality, not ethics, which law is a subset of. I already explicityly said this previously. "I dont care whatever the fuck you do, I don't say that we should heckin enfoce le antifurry laws or whatever you are implying. its just a simple matter of "ew I dont like this!""
now I never gave a proper reason why I do go: "ew I dont liek zis", since we were talking about libertarianism, and not objectivism, which is a separate but close ideology, its a completely different concept. objectivism does not equal libertarianism and I have already disputed your claims of all libeorts being le jewish faggotry.
>do you know why she hated" homosexuals/drugs?in-fact I do, its called objectivist morality, my dear illiterate. It goes that human life is a virtue, given that in order to have any sort of value (consider, wanting or enjoying eating an apple) you need to be alive. death cannot be a virtue or a valid valid since once you "achieve death" you aren't there to achieve it, its impossible for someone to genuinely value death as a virtue. meaning that life is the main value which other values are built upon.
it is in mans nature to be the rational animal, meaning that in order to sustain the (good) life, then we must use rationality in order to survive. meaning that anything against life, or rationality is logically evil. you would know this if you read her great book called "the virtue of selfishness"
Now, the reason she hates gays is that she views homosexuality (to an extent) as irrational hedonism, and with drugs again being drugs as reason-destroying tools of a false "escape" from reality.
Objectivism requires integrating knowledge hierarchically, from axioms to applications. evading thinkers like Rand/Rothbard/Hoppe leaves you concretely-bound. I be citing specifics such as Hoppe's conservatism, Rand/Peikoff lectures and essays, as well as Rothbards political and cultural persuasions, proving depth. Your "
>I already know itis dogmatic assertion, not evidence, keep crying, keep seething. I am whiter and smarter than you! blud got knowledge gapped blud ohnoonono qway xissies not like this!
