Objectivism: Ayn Rand's Philosophy for Living on Earth

Off Topic
21

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
I hope you realise we’ve never had a communist nation state on this planet. Socialist or pseudo-socialist dictatorships (North Korea in particular calls itself socialist but really isn’t), sure.[/quote]

“It’s going to actually work THIS time guys, I swear. It won’t instantly devolve into all that evil just like it has every single other time it was tried.”[/quote]

Marx actually said socialism wouldn’t work in Russia because it wasn’t advanced enough.

I won’t start an argument about whether or not communism would ever work at all since I’m not entirely convinced myself. But the regimes that murdered countless people in the 20th century in the name of socialism (I actually think the Khmer Rouge, with their luddite approach, may be the worst example) had one thing in common: they forced new ideas down people’s throats. That never, ever ends well.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

No, government dictating what you do, what you say, where you work, who you love does…

sigh…

Of course it does define you. It isn’t the only way in which a person is defined, but you bet your ass what people CHOOSE to own is a reflection of how they are defined, and what they CHOOSE to do with what they own (which doesn’t exist in Utopia Commie Land) defines them.

That people right’s to own and do as they please, as long as they cause no harm to others, are protected defines a nation. Collectivists want to take away the protection of that right. [/quote]

Well, let’s just entertain this thought, and I’m being very, very hypothetical here - what if everyone was free to use things? If someone owns something, this means access to it is barred for all others. We share plenty of things in our culture - roads, library books, public services… See where I’m going with this?

What I really object to is your implication that any and all leftist thinking will lead to the creation of gulags and that untamed capitalism will take us to the promised land.

22

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I found from my limited reading of Rand that I disagreed with the premise of Objectivism because it seemed to consider self-destruction an unreasonable pursuit, and hinged many of it’s arguments upon this premise.

[/quote]

That is an unreasonable pursuit in any philosophical “societal” model I can think of.

By unreasonable I mean, stupid and a poor choice. Not unreasonable as in “no one will do it”. Typically the person bent on self destruction has something going on that is outside the “norm” so to speak, and isn’t acting rationally. [/quote]

I feel as though this is hinged upon the idea that living is worth pursuing or that the human race needs to perpetuate. It’s definitely the norm, as you’ve mentioned, but it also can significantly alter the discussion on morality.

[/quote]

Well if living isn’t worth pursuing, and perpetuating the result of instinct, doesn’t that prove a God, at least in part?

I mean, someone can sit there say this all happened by random, from nothing, for nothing, and we developed reason and the mental capacity to have this conversation because of a cosmic dice roll with a straight face?

Please expand on the last part of your post. [/quote]

Woah, I don’t even know how we got to a God argument, haha.

As for the last part of the post, a morality that hinges upon the survival of the human race as is will be different from a morality that does not. Different guiding principles will result in different conclusions.

23

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

I won’t start an argument about whether or not communism would ever work at all since I’m not entirely convinced myself.[/quote]

To be fair, I think AnCaps are just as delusional as commies. Just not nearly as dangerous.

The sweet spot is somewhere left of anarchy, yet right enough away from total government control to protect basic human freedom. Is that the “middle” or “middle right” or “middle left”? I don’t know. But it’s between the two.

We certainly agree there. And it goes without saying that asserting control will require this, as humans typically reject being taken advantage of given a long enough time line and a means to defend themselves.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, let’s just entertain this thought, and I’m being very, very hypothetical here - what if everyone was free to use things? If someone owns something, this means access to it is barred for all others. We share plenty of things in our culture - roads, library books, public services… See where I’m going with this? [/quote]

I’m not anti government facilitated services. I think having the federal government facilitate things other than, say, the military is foolish. Particularly in the case of the things you mentioned, local governments facilitating those things is fine, mainly because it is beyond easy to get involved in town politics and have a say in how things are run.

Well, to be fair, our capitalistic model has given rise to the wealthiest group of human beings the world has ever seen, and in the last 30 years growth in that area unprecedented in human history.

There is no evidence that a central planned economic system could possibly do the same thing, the regulated free market has. I’m not anti regulation, I’m anti stupid fuckign regulation.

But end of the day, I speak in terms of toeing the line of AnCap, yes. That way when and if I have to compromise I’m not slipping too far left.

The left (Contemporary American I’m talking here) gets some things right, I’ll openly admit that. They get enough wrong and are drifting towards full retard though, and it pushes me more and more right.

24

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

Woah, I don’t even know how we got to a God argument, haha.[/quote]

Not trying to start an argument about god, as much as mention that given the circumstances you proposed, my first thought is: well if this is all meaningless and not worth the instincts born into us, then that make me think an omnipotent must be at play. Because honestly, if there is no omnipotent, consciousness is the omnipotent.

[quote]As for the last part of the post, a morality that hinges upon the survival of the human race as is will be different from a morality that does not. Different guiding principles will result in different conclusions.
[/quote]

More damn it, lol. I want to hear what differences you mean.

25

I generally take a back seat and inject my opinion here and there during these conversations - a lot of you are more succinct than I am BUT…

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
Well, let’s just entertain this thought, and I’m being very, very hypothetical here - what if everyone was free to use things? If someone owns something, this means access to it is barred for all others.
[/quote]

Let me finish this thought for you …should the owner CHOOSE not to share. MOST people, in my experience, are quite reasonable and unselfish to a point. They might expect some sort of favor of courtesy in return, but your example (to prove your point) is half baked. Not to mention poppa government is inherently less efficient (and by design) at “sharing” things than the free market.

I appreciate your disclaimer, but you’re framing of the situation is unrealistic (kind of like thinking any form of collectivism, given enough time, won’t lead to utter desperation and oppression of the people trapped in the system).

All of which serve to make private markets and economic transactions that much more efficient. It also serves to preserve an educated and free populace (see library/library books). There’s a reason collectivist governments burn and ban specific literature which poses a threat to their dogmatic ideals. See where I’m going with this?

I’m reluctant to include your “public services” as a good more efficiently provided by the government (as are roads, military, libraries, courts) as it’s damned ambiguous (probably for good reason … Admiral Akbar springs to mind “It’s a trap!!”) … Not all public services serve to further liberty, even in this country, much to my chagrin.

[quote]
See where I’m going with this?

What I really object to is your implication that any and all leftist thinking will lead to the creation of gulags and that untamed capitalism will take us to the promised land.[/quote]

I won’t address this as it was not directed at me … aside from your shot at “untamed capitalism” which I know beansie isn’t an anarcho-capitalist … kind of a jump

26

I have not spent a lot of time reading her philosophical essays, but I have read:

Atlas Shrugged
The Fountainhead
Anthem

Atlas Shrugged is one of my all time favorite books. I’ve read it twice. If you guys are talking about Ayn Rand but haven’t read it … Well, you should.

The common criticism is that she falls short in not addressing how a society will always have people who need to be cared for. We will always have children, elderly, mentally handicapped, people with disability. Those people really don’t exist in her fiction. BUT if you can decide that we have some responsibility to take care of those people on some level, then she’s absolutely right about so many things.

27

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
I hope you realise we’ve never had a communist nation state on this planet. Socialist or pseudo-socialist dictatorships (North Korea in particular calls itself socialist but really isn’t), sure.[/quote]

“It’s going to actually work THIS time guys, I swear. It won’t instantly devolve into all that evil just like it has every single other time it was tried.”

No, government dictating what you do, what you say, where you work, who you love does…

sigh…

Of course it does define you. It isn’t the only way in which a person is defined, but you bet your ass what people CHOOSE to own is a reflection of how they are defined, and what they CHOOSE to do with what they own (which doesn’t exist in Utopia Commie Land) defines them.

That people right’s to own and do as they please, as long as they cause no harm to others, are protected defines a nation. Collectivists want to take away the protection of that right.

lol. You don’t want to play this numbers game and you know it. Pretty sure Russia, China, Cuba, NK, Vietnam and Cambodia are going to smoke the living shit out of any example you list.
[/quote]

Not sure if there’s a term for this or not, but I’ve noticed that people that have left countries with left-wing governments, often end up voting in their new country, for the same types of parties that were in power from where they left. Strange.

28

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

Not sure if there’s a term for this or not, but I’ve noticed that people that have left countries with left-wing governments, often end up voting in their new country, for the same types of parties that were in power from where they left. Strange.[/quote]

Some derivation of the Stockholm Syndrome.

We’re drawn to what we’re familiar with.

29

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
But I’ve been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, and that’s most likely my problem, haha.
[/quote]

Nietzsche is always the problem :stuck_out_tongue:

(I googled “Nietzsche sucks”; I was expecting something else)[/quote]

That poor kid…what a terrible name.

I honestly think I’m just addicted to the writing style. I carry around a paperback for whenever I have downtime, and the aphorisms are easy to digest in little chunks. Tried doing the same with Sartre, and I’d have to go back a bunch of times and re-read passages because I’d forget what I had read before.

And then I tried doing it with Camus and just about blew my brains out.[/quote]

You should check out Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Stoicism is a remarkable philosophy.

30

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
I have not spent a lot of time reading her philosophical essays, but I have read:

Atlas Shrugged
The Fountainhead
Anthem

Atlas Shrugged is one of my all time favorite books. I’ve read it twice. If you guys are talking about Ayn Rand but haven’t read it … Well, you should.

The common criticism is that she falls short in not addressing how a society will always have people who need to be cared for. We will always have children, elderly, mentally handicapped, people with disability. Those people really don’t exist in her fiction. BUT if you can decide that we have some responsibility to take care of those people on some level, then she’s absolutely right about so many things.
[/quote]

Rand argued that one man’s need is not claim on another man’s life, but capitalism is good for the most vulnerable because it creates curses for disabilities, makes work easier, and raises living standards.

31

Who is John Galt? He might be this guy driving a Kia.

32

If anyone wants a better idea of what Rand was about, her collections of essays are much, much better than her fiction. The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal would be a great place to start. The New Left is also very good.

33

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
But I’ve been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, and that’s most likely my problem, haha.
[/quote]

Nietzsche is always the problem :stuck_out_tongue:

(I googled “Nietzsche sucks”; I was expecting something else)[/quote]

That poor kid…what a terrible name.

I honestly think I’m just addicted to the writing style. I carry around a paperback for whenever I have downtime, and the aphorisms are easy to digest in little chunks. Tried doing the same with Sartre, and I’d have to go back a bunch of times and re-read passages because I’d forget what I had read before.

And then I tried doing it with Camus and just about blew my brains out.[/quote]

You should check out Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Stoicism is a remarkable philosophy. [/quote]

I actually have that in the bathroom right now. You’re exactly right, more easily digestible little chunks of info.

34

Communism has never been implemented without mass murder of the steadiest, brightest, and most productive people, or those who dared to dissent about how they were being mistreated. So my question is, how do you equalize a nation without getting rid of such people? Also, how do you get people to put their best foot forward when there is little or no reward?

An estimated 50 MILLION Europeans were shot, raped, hanged, starved, tortured, gassed, and worked and frozen to death in the name of communism. It has always inspired the meanest and degenerate of people.

And in the case of Raynd-style libertarianism, how do you make a world where everyone is just going to comply with rules and be nice to one another so long as each one’s personal pursuits don’t infringe upon another?

35

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And in the case of Raynd-style libertarianism, how do you make a world where everyone is just going to comply with rules and be nice to one another so long as each one’s personal pursuits don’t infringe upon another? [/quote]

Same as we do now, with laws enforced by a court system and the police (and an armed population). Except ideally the police would be dealing with actual crimes instead of arresting pot dealers and kids who set up lemonade stands without a permit.

36

[quote]Iron Condor wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And in the case of Raynd-style libertarianism, how do you make a world where everyone is just going to comply with rules and be nice to one another so long as each one’s personal pursuits don’t infringe upon another? [/quote]

Same as we do now, with laws enforced by a court system and the police (and an armed population). Except ideally the police would be dealing with actual crimes instead of arresting pot dealers and kids who set up lemonade stands without a permit.[/quote]

Perhaps I am wrong, but libertarians are anti-taxation. So who will be paying for this armed police force?

37

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Iron Condor wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And in the case of Raynd-style libertarianism, how do you make a world where everyone is just going to comply with rules and be nice to one another so long as each one’s personal pursuits don’t infringe upon another? [/quote]

Same as we do now, with laws enforced by a court system and the police (and an armed population). Except ideally the police would be dealing with actual crimes instead of arresting pot dealers and kids who set up lemonade stands without a permit.[/quote]

Perhaps I am wrong, but libertarians are anti-taxation. So who will be paying for this armed police force? [/quote]

Anarcho-capitalists are anti-taxation - libertarians recognized the classical liberal functions of government (protection from outside forces, courts to uphold contracts, etc) as defined by Adam Smith, et. al. and the methods of funding said functions (taxation). It’s frivolous taxation and misuse of the power of taxation that libertarians are against, I believe.

38

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Perhaps I am wrong, but libertarians are anti-taxation. So who will be paying for this armed police force? [/quote]

There are many shades of libertarian, but most favour some form of limited government to provide several essential services that cannot effectively be provided by the free market (such as the police and the military). The goal is to have the government as small as possible, but some government would still be essential. Ancaps go further and want to abolish all government and privatise the police, but they are distinct from libertarians.

39

[quote]Iron Condor wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Perhaps I am wrong, but libertarians are anti-taxation. So who will be paying for this armed police force? [/quote]

There are many shades of libertarian, but most favour some form of limited government to provide several essential services that cannot effectively be provided by the free market (such as the police and the military). The goal is to have the government as small as possible, but some government would still be essential. Ancaps go further and want to abolish all government and privatise the police, but they are distinct from libertarians.[/quote]

Pretty much this and what Polo said. I’d swap the use of “provide” with “facilitate” but otherwise it’s good.

Most simple way of putting it is, government is a necessary evil. So be vigilant, as you’re dancing with the devil.

40

[quote]Iron Condor wrote:
Ancaps go further and want to abolish all government and privatize the police, but they are distinct from libertarians.[/quote]

They should move to Somalia. The privatized police there are generally referred to as “warlords”