How was a woman this fucking based? Howard Roarkes closing argument is still my favourite fictional speech, only one that gave me chills while reading it.
The conception of man as a heroic being, bending nature to his will was quite new to someone who grew up in a culture where your entire life is supposed to be about duty. I always loathed the concept of dharma, why must we do what we are supposed to do rather than what we wish to? If Arjuna didn't wish to spill the blood of those dear to him, why must he? Who determined that it was his dharma to do so and what'd have happened at most if he hadn't? A tyrant would have ruled for a few more decades? Big deal, the damage suffered by the kingdom from the war was greater.
Ultimately I don't believe in either because neither can prove soundly their core premises but if I had to, I would rather pick the view that made me an independent being. As an idealist political philosophy, libertarianism conceives man as a autonomous being, capable of recognizing and acting in his own interest as he always has. If one wishes to start a commune without currency, they can in a libertarian state, though the reverse obviously doesn't happen.
Communism sees him as an unit in a cog too retarded to understand his own interest, to be directed by others for their idea of what the collective interests are. These collective interests are ideally the interests of the mean of society, but the interests of a significant chunk of the population must necessarily be subverted even if they are are and they must be forced into servitude to the majority. In the utopian Communist state there might not be any masters but everyone is still a slave.
Why would anyone pick the latter over the former? Do people wish to be enslaved?
35 posts and 4 images omitted.