Dinner with Obama
- Thread starter brack1969
- Start date
I'm interested: what parts of Objectivism don't you go with?
We know that the main difference between Rand and Rothbard is the view on the state. While both of them want to abolish the welfare state, Objectivism and its laissez-faire politics hold that there should be a police, court of law and a military as functions of the state, while Rothbard wants none of those as well. But is there anything else in your case (doesn't have to be on the politics; can be metaphysics, epistemology, ethics etc as well)?
Sry but i simply have to comment that
Because you seem to not know that nearlly all european countrys + USA does exactly that. Just because you have not been effected by censorship in your internet live does not mean there is no ...
.Nearly every country with quite a bit education + technical know how have internet censorship or rules that allows the owner of ISP etc to gather your data to make money from it. Not to mention all the websites who are doing that anyway...
Uk for example is starting to buy chinese censorship infraststructur allready
and we will see more from that in the next years ...(hope i didn't hijacked that thread but as someone who is interested in stuff like that i just wanted to drop my 2 cents about that)
To be sure, other countries have problems. That said...
To your point about federal income tax...
The federal income tax rate fluctuates. It wasn't so long ago that the top rate hit 94%.* Yes, war was a catalyst. But, we're at war now. Plus, as Gerald Celeste recently commented, at the bottom of financial and economic disaster, a major war typically follows.
Source: The Origin of the Income Tax - Adam Young - Mises Institute
Also, keep in mind that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are hemorrhaging as baby boomers retire. The only way to continue funding these programs is to borrow, print, or tax. The first two options lead to the burden of higher interest costs and a decimated currency, respectively. Price inflation will follow and Germany showed us the end of that path in the 1920s. The only option left is to tax the populace. To suppose that only the richest will feel it is optimistic.
To your point about the federal government not shutting off the internet when they please, I present to you the Cybersecurity Act of 2009.*
Source: S. 773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)
And for good measure, just in case you think your civil liberties are not at risk, enter the federal government's Office of Livability.* It is only a proposal at this point. But, Cap and Trade was, as well.
Source: Pay More, Drive Less, Save the Planet - WSJ.com
* Hat tip to Karen DeCoster on the last one.
She only fought the idea that is was a moral duty. When charity is a moral duty you have altruism which opposes self-interest.
To quote herself:
Quote source
Charity is an absolute moral duty of the privileged (IMHO)
---> Noblesse oblige - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this board has some weird split personalities.
First Jon and Sumit
Now popeye and brack1969
We get it!... blacks and dems are the incarnation of evil. If you mix the two we get the antichrist.
First Jon and Sumit
Now popeye and brack1969
We get it!... blacks and dems are the incarnation of evil. If you mix the two we get the antichrist.
Spot on. Ayn Rand is fucking awesome!
The Fountainhead was awesome. Almost halfway through Atlas Shrugged now. Got a large portion of her non-fiction books in my room, ready to be enjoyed after Atlas Shrugged:
The political party of which I am a member, 100 % laissez-faire, got about nationwide 212 votes back in 2005 when the last Norwegian national election was.
- Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
- The Virtue of Selfishness
- For The New Intellectual
- Philosophy: Who Needs It
- The Romantic Manifesto
- Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
+rep to all Objectivists!
Ayn rand was a rationalist more so than anything. Objectivism is simply a philosophy that follows to its logical conclusion. One of her quotes illustrates that:
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
BTW I have pretty much all those books. Whats most important is that you apply her ideas to your life.
The idea of employing reason is great.
But Objectivism is not a rational philosophy, so one should be careful not to confuse her proposed methods with her conclusions.
Her rational egoism, which is similar to methodological individualism, is her great contribution to modern literature and thinking.
On markets and human rights, she's not so good.
But Objectivism is not a rational philosophy, so one should be careful not to confuse her proposed methods with her conclusions.
Her rational egoism, which is similar to methodological individualism, is her great contribution to modern literature and thinking.
On markets and human rights, she's not so good.
rational egoism her contribution? Isn't Nietch before her?
And objectivism is an oxymoron for a PERSON's world view (read personal)
And objectivism is an oxymoron for a PERSON's world view (read personal)
"contribution to modern literature and thinking"
Not necessarily. She understands subjective value, but she talks about how we construct our subjective preferences within a world of objective reality, eg. A = A. What is, is.
To be subjective about reality, would be to say that A = A, or A = B, or A= Z depending on how I feel at any given time. That's basically the mindset of progressives and collectivists. That nurture is more powerful than nature. That anything can be made to be something else, by definition and understanding, by radically influencing perspective.
The theory behind gulags and re-education camps. Forced indoctrination.
How is Objectivism not a rational philosophy?
Wasn't Nietzsche a nihilist?
His concept of "supermen" being that they can and should rule over the weak?
That differs from rational egoism where no man rules another and are held to be means in and of themselves.
She believed that in order to protect rights, one had to abrogate rights.
Minarchism (limited government) is based on fallacies like delegated rights and a monocentric interpretation of the law. If the government cannot legislate against basic rights like property, then it can't collect taxes. A voluntarily funded government cannot enforce its dictates on people who choose not to be its patron (donors). Any government which is the sole arbiter of what the law is, will always rule in favor of the broadest interpretations of government power (government growth).
She also favored the use of violence against civilians and was a virulent homophobe.
I love Rand on individualism. But not on Objectivism. On Objectivism, she unfortunately allowed her personal biases to cloud her rational thinking. Which isn't a sin. There is no perfectly rational man, even if we strive for that end.
When did she say that? How does her view abrogate rights in any way?
Ahh so your an anarcho-capitalist eh?
Wouldn't that lead to a situation similar to Somalia (gang/warlord rule)? I can think of no other scenario than some form of mob or gang rule.
BTW I agree that Rand was weak on political economic theory but she was in the right direction. There are people who pay little or no taxes under our current system such as the homeless or the poor but still have to abide by laws. To think that since they don't pay taxes rights and property can't be enforced is a fallacy.
When did she say this too? Homophobe? What does that have to do with her philosophy? Its irrational to have fear of people for being gay but that had nothing to do with her philosophy.
Minimal government has to abrogate rights in order to defend rights. Rand did not believe in the individual right of secession. She felt that if you were born under a social contract, your rights and property were automatically ruled by it.
Yup.
That's a popular fallacy. First, the material conditions of Somalis have improved under some degree of anarchy. Life expectancies have risen among other things. But more importantly, the Somalis are not interested in voluntary self-government, they simply lack government. There is a big difference between wanting to be an individual, and being alone for example.
Anarcho-capitalism occurs whenever you have two or more people who associate and interact voluntarily. It's not the absence of government (like in Somalia) it is the absence of involuntary government.
Well, to me, this is utter nonsense and the problem with Randism. You can't say people are sovereign and have rights, and then claim you have a right to impose laws on them against their will.
You can defend your own rights and property, but government doesn't work that way. The government claims your property, then decides if it wants to defend or redistribute it. Without the ability to withdraw consent (secession) an individual is always subservient to the system.
But it did have a lot to do with her philosophy, because she claimed to live her philosophy.
I don't want to go into it in detail, it's a minor point. You can Google for details. The remnant of the Objectivist movement has tried to disassociate themselves from her irrational (read: without reason) positions.