Diegetics

makes me wish I could write.

it needs the counterbalance of "my son isnt a whiny victim, your just oppressing him with your existance".

Here was my response:

'She didn't EARN that ball', using the potty and receiving a ball have no corrolation between cause and effect. Therefore two disconnected events occured. One your daughter took a fucking shit in the appropriate place, which shoudl be her own reward, and you charitably gave her a fucking ball. Now you're going to teach her that receiving charity is actually the fruit of her own labor, but in the future, she's going to get something and think she earned it, but really all she's going to think is, 'I shit in the right place, now where's my reward motherfucker?'

Well, it's a pithy response to what is obviously satire. But in the end it's true. Objectivism is false because it rests of first principles that simply are not true, that one can rise to the level of a Taggart or Galt by sweat, hard work, and perserverence. It's simply not possible. Money doesn't work for you, other people work for you, and you take a portion of the profits of their labor. Objectivism is objectively wrong because work and productivity is a communal enterprise. That's what makes that article so funny, it disregards that parenting is a hundred percent charitable enterprise.

a cynical view of humanities capacity for peace and harmony tends to put the priority on the individual being as robust as possible against any outcome, assuming that in general the "collective" is as plagued with problems as human "collectives" always are... this would be my interpretation of atlas shrugged.

I realise im a tad right wing nutter - but i still cant get my head around the left wing/progressive interpretation which to all apperances is just as cynical about humanity as me- *except* its damn sure the collective will not suffer from it, because the collective is them.