How to argue with an Ayn Rand kike?

Finding a slightly feminine steve buscemi attractive is certainly the mark of something, but not "patrician".

I recommend reading Francis Yockey on the myth of the "Survival of the fittest". He was a fascist and didn't believe it himself. The survival of the fittest assumes that in nature the zebra and the lion are killing each other for food. It assumes they are for the same thing and have same goals. In reality, the Lion is attacking the zebra for food, and the zebra is simply trying to get away. The capitalist does not fight for survival, he has abundant resources to live. The only people who fight for survival are those on the bottom.

You can easily make this "survival of the fittest" into an argument for class conflict.
Two lions have a common goal, and they work together for that common goal to both benefit. The same with zebras. The lions are the exploiters and the zebras are the exploited. The lions of course cannot kill off all the zebras or they will die, so they let some live so they can benefit. This is just pure ideology of course.

Lastly, the survival of the fittest mentality actually justifies "crony capitalism". If a capitalist can use the state to benefit then he is simply smarter and stronger than the rest. In nature, there is no morals. There is only being the best. Trying to eliminate the state to try and make things fair simply goes against the idea of "Survival of the fittest". Crony capitalism is the epitome of this mentality. Nature isn't fair and it isn't equal they say. Why should we make it "Fair" in the market by making it free? True capitalism lies in cronyism.

The fittest who survive are those with the best social instinct.

Hit them with some mutual aid:

"in The Descent of Man he gave some powerful pages to illustrate its proper, wide sense. He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for means of existence dissapears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution, results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure the species the best conditions for survival."

"None of the higher mammals, save for for a few carnivores and few undoubtedly decaying species of apes (orangoutans and gorrillas), live in small families, isolatedly straggling in the woods. All others live in societies. Darwin so well understood that isolatedly living apes never could have developed into man-like beings, that he was inclined to consider man as descended from some comparitively weak but social species. Like the chimp."

Point out they are statist cucks because they need the state to protect their property.

They won't be convinced by that, they'll say that's an oxymoron because taxes are theft

I mean its pretty easy seeing as she bases her "objectivism" on both a serious misunderstanding of the idea of the "survival of the fittest" while simultaneously being retarded enough to not believe in evolution. Add to that the idiocy of her vulgar egoism which she attempts to combine with a slavish adherence to "muh rights".

She literally believed that all over nature the prime goal of any form of life was the maintenance of each INDIVIDUAL life-form. She believe humans should act accordingly and hence the term "objectivism". The fact that there are countless species whose reproductive strategies base themselves on sacrificing the individual for the propagation of their genes, along with cooperation being the foundational survival mechanism for all social animals, which includes humans, shows you how retarded that is. Collective cooperation is what serves as the basis for modern indivualism, and not recognizing this just means you belong in the back of the short bus.

Being an egoist that bases their thought in terms of "rights" also simply doesn't make sense. Why should I hunker down and let her exploit me if self-service is the only thing that matters?

...

As far as I'm concerned, no harm in ideas such as virtue and value Ayn Rand went by or her take on individualism and egoism, seems to me more of a missunderstanding if anything. As long as someone follows the ideas without falling for ancap kind of retardation then I do not really see the problem.

Seeing the opening I thought I was on pol

stfu you're just jealous you're not as qt

Ayn Rand is not nearly well-read enough to have read any Nietzsche.

I think the imagined connections between them come from people who have not read either and only have a vague understanding of both.

You can't. Last I tried the retard acted like she was an all knowing saviour of humanity.

Nope
youtube.com/watch?v=tYCCOiBSJW8