What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?

[Ayn Rand]

Any system with zero social mobility is, effectively, a caste system. Your "class" - as it were - has nothing to do with that.

So socialism is a caste system? Good to know.

Well, people tried the self-education and home-schooling and learning-on-the-job for many thousands of years. Public schooling is a standardization of the process of education, and is meant to give a wider variety of people access to the type of education that really matters. I mean, almost nobody teaches themselves math and science, to say nothing of the more esoteric elements in both subjects and many others.

Well of course they don't - as you've just pointed out, we have a system of universal education. So to defend this system by pointing out that no-one educates themselves anymore is just silly.

I simply don't agree with you that universal education is worth having. It doesn't even educate most of the people who pass through it - most of whom are technically literate and numerate, but in reality can barely read and write. It imposes massive cost on society and slows down the best elements, in order to impose a nominal "literacy" on people, the majority of whom will never apply it in any way even if they were capable of it.

When I got to the part where D'anconia taught himself calculus despite having no mathematical background, I had to close the book in anger: I didn't come back to it for a month.

Why, strong personal feelings of jealousy? Perhaps that explains why you have such strong emotions affecting your judgement towards Objectivism.

What I'm saying is there is no reliable alternative. You need a standardized education to make sure the knowledge people are getting is established as scientific, and it makes the most sense that government take care of that because it has no ulterior motives (well... okay, that's not entirely true, but a profit motive is less reliable than something like "indoctrination," which is in large parts and unfounded worry in a society with as many watchdogs as the USA).

It is not even reliable anyway - and there is no guarantee that in the future it will get any better. Western democracies have been spending huge sums of money trying to raise educational standards and they have either remained the same or fallen despite these efforts. The education system you are defending has already run out of potential.

I won't respond to the parts about Trump as these are your own personal feelings again, and the same with the ending of the book which is a work of fiction, not history.

I meant that such a system has the effect of being a caste system, in that you are born into your station of life with little to no prospects of advancement.

I guess the nomenclature doesn't really align, so I should emphasize that what I mean is any system with zero social mobility isn't really conducive to liberty nor the concept of bootstraps.

I will just record this in case I ever hear you defending socialism

You are assuming the courts would. An objective view of the court system assures you that it won't. Courts apply laws. If you don't make laws, the courts are powerless. Common law, you may respond. Problem with common law is that it is not consistent and doesn't necesarrily have much to do with justice. Further, civil suits in courts inherently favor the rich over the poor. So the merits of the case generally don't even matter if there is a big disparity in the wealth of the participants.

Yes, of course I'm assuming that the courts would - and I know that the courts apply laws, we really don't need to get that basic do we? And yes, you are correct that there are problems with courts but perfect justice is not possible.

You have a government with a mandate to protect a minority of the population while not protecting the majority of the population. Under those circumstances, the majority can only do exactly what they are told to do, or be punished. That's authoritarian.

You didn't answer my question - I'll repeat my comment:

What kind of definition of authoritarianism is that? By that definition, isn't almost everyone an authoritarian - please tell me who, under that definition, would not be classed as an "authoritarian"?

You've missed the point. All property cannot be separated from force to enforce the claims. Trying to pretty it up doesn't change the basic facts.

I know that it can't. I just don't see the relevance of this to something that might/might not have happened 75,000 years ago in pre-history.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Sorry for the double post

But the issue is Ayn Rand's views on neolibertarianism and Objectivism as a different way to govern ourself as opposed to the existing way, the Red Cross thrives under the existing forms of Government( recieving funding, as well as lobbying for its veiws to be adopted) same with Medicine Sans Frontiers, note both mainly opperate outside their own borders in areas that don't have the protections of current forms of government/economic advantage/Freedoms as such they are an extention of current forms of government/society

the Bill Gates Foundation is interesting, at first glance it would seem that it is a good example of what would happen... till one realizes his partner in charity and wealth distribution is Warren Buffet and he very publicly supports Higher taxes on the rich

so it still seems that the Objestionists who propose a new form of governing ourself, fall short on answering questions of how they would do it, saying "well you do it under the current form of government " dosn't really cut it for a view that holds that Society dose not really exist... BUT trust us we have your best interests at heart, just give us the freedom to prove it, we are going to leave nearly all the existing structures of law and order in place, we just need to free up Bussiness/ elites to reach their full potential,
its not for the present system to answer, we tinker and change it all the time ... its for the proposed new system to explain in detail How things would be done, so many things have just not been thought through with any detail tho

Yes, all your points are correct - and I don't think that Objectivism is really that serious about creating a new type of society. This concept of an "Objectivist Society" is interesting to speculate on but is not really something that Objectivists are that interested in creating. If we ever did become interested, then we would have to give more sophisticated and detailed thought to issues like these.

Also, I don't know where you got this "Society does not exist" phrase, but it's not one of ours [frankly I think people who say that society does not exist are a bit silly ].

Your insurance is through a private entity, not with the government (unlike the corporate limited liabiulity privilege). And yes, you are potentially inflicting more than $300 worth of damage on your counter-parties. Anyone that wants to hold you individually liable has to contract specifically for it which inceases their transaction costs. If your comapny goes belly up, creditors are left holding the bag while you as an individual are left holding all the assets you transferred from the corporation to yourself. Even worse if you are going belly up because of a large damage award in a tort lawsuit where some innocent party does not get just compensation because of your $300 privilege to transfer assets beyond the reach of such a judgment creditor. Again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the cheap government provided limited liability shield - I'm just saying it is not libertarian at all.

I think your point may hold up well at this point - although a consideration is the lawful mandating of insurance to cover against the tort scenario [we have that here in UK, businesses must be insured against accidents in case their assets don't cover it].

However, as I said before I don't see why it can't be done through a market or contracting mechanism. Although I've got to say - I have no problem with government services where the choice and costs are voluntary. When people are genuinely free to choose, they can have all the government they want as far as I'm concerned - I might even have a little myself It is strictly the coercion and removal of choices that is immoral.

 

[JollyRoger]

The problem with the "choice" is that by making the "choice" you are partnering with government to make the default a burden on your trading partners against their likely preferred choice.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, of course I'm assuming that the courts would - and I know that the courts apply laws, we really don't need to get that basic do we? And yes, you are correct that there are problems with courts but perfect justice is not possible.

Actually, we do. Because you see the reason that conservative and libertarian thought started to emphasize courts as an option to regulation is that they were seeking to control outcomes by controlling venues.

The sole reason that courts are the focus of attention as the venue to arbitrate all disputes is because they are such a poor one for doing so. The idea is to prevent regulation, not have regulation by different methods.

And on those rare occasions that courts do do a decent job, conservatives try to neuter the courts with things like tort reform, limiting standing, limiting punitive awards, limiting class action.

You didn't answer my question - I'll repeat my comment:

The maximum liberty for the individual exists where powerful are fighting each other to a standstill, leaving the rest of the people free to act.

I know that it can't. I just don't see the relevance of this to something that might/might not have happened 75,000 years ago in pre-history.

What's changed? If you have property now, you have force protecting it. So you do have a coercive society after all.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ok, thanks for the correction. While not fully Marxist, you are still thrusting a set of interpretations of capitalist fundamentals and therefore attributing an implicit responsibility onto Objectivists to defend or explain these things.

I'm not "thrusting" anything, I'm describing fairly self-evidently realities. Do you deny that a pronounced division of labour exists within modern industry? Do you deny that this division of labour is structured such that the individual worker has limited control over their part in the process of production, and that the process can only function with the control of a directorial minority? Do you deny that this means the creative capacities of the majority are in practice subsumed into those of the minority who direct them? Are these or are these not the realities of capitalist production in the year two thousand and eleven? Not "is this good" or "is this just", simply "is this reality"?

My first response is that in order to take the measure of the things you mentioned [specifically, concentration of economic and thus social power and all that it implies] we need a standard of measurement. The standard of measurement when making choices, is to consider alternatives and compare them. So the "subsumption of the will of the employed majority to the employing minority" is good or bad relative to the alternatives on offer.

So, what are the alternatives?

You tell me! Your claim was that Objectivist politics proceed logically form Objectivist ethics. I ask for elaboration of what should be a well-structured and well-documented logical progression. You can't tell me that you just lumped for capitalism because it seemed the most straightforward- not least because you've clearly but some thought into what kind of capitalism you prefer. There has to be a logic to this, or the entire Objectivist project ends up irreparably cloven between abstract theorising and groundless politics.

For Objectivist goals of material and scientific progress, capitalism is the most reliable and consistent provider that there is. Whether you consider that kind of progress to be worthwhile or not is your own choice to make - I don't expect you to agree with me on this. But I think that progress is best served by a free society where individuals compete to create the best methods and products they can, without unnecessary limits.

But again, what is "progress"? And why is that, all of a sudden, the goal of Objectivism? Yesterday it was "freedom". Has freedom suddenly become a mere utility, something that would be cheerfully replaced by the most Orwellian dictatorship if it proved to be the most "progressive" mode available?

If something is a practical impossibility, then why pursue it as a goal? Competition is a reality that can't be put aside. However, people are free to lower their own standard of living, to lower their income, to increase their working hours and so on, by reverting to a semi-medieval form of production if they so wish. The reason they don't is that it doesn't work at all, and it won't work if forced on an entire society any more than it will work on the individual level.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The overwhelming majority are given no meaningful choice in how society is organised. They can simply accept society as it is, or live on the streets. And that's "freedom"?

While you've been busy criticising the "elite" and demanding that I self-criticise and examine capitalism, you here finally mention the self-cricitism you yourself need to carry out. This criticism is to look at the nature, degree of rationality and morality of the class of people who you are presumably trying to chamion. Rand does examine this group of people in some detail - their freedom is not so much disposable as self-destructed through their own decision-making. And we cannot deal with their irrationality by feeding it or entertaining the delusional idea that enslaving ourselves to their irrational choices will somehow make a safe path to a rational and moral society.

And so we return to Rand's Promethean elite, and to the logic which sustains her beloved capitalism. Rationality is the preserve of the few, and so it is the freedom of the few which truly matters. As such, the majority can be consigned to a life of subalternity- a happy life, if they care to make it so, and surely free from all unnecessary tyrannies, but a life conducted within the terms decided by distant, higher minds. All animals are created equal, dear Boxer, but it would appear, tragically but undeniably, that some of us are simply created more equal than others...

Not at all, all Galt really does is to walk away. One way or the other, he really only wants to be left alone - his impertinence, to assert that he is born free and intends to stay that way. There is of course a second resolution - Objectivists leaving the wider society. Galt is capable of being free without dominating anyone - but is that true of the class of people whose side you are taking?

Well, Galt has his nonsense utopia to retreat into, which is so tragically untrue of his real-world equivalents, and if Rand's book is to have any actual relevance to the real world- which I can only assume was her intention- then these in-story sops to the readers' unsettled conscience can't be allowed to obscure the realities of what she is saying. The Actually Existing Galts did not stumble into this world, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, to find themselves bullied and exploited. They built this world, built its structures, built a painstakingly constructed relationship of hegemony and subalternity between themselves and the labouring multitudes. They did not, to use Rand's own image, have the role of Atlas foisted upon them, they actively and consciously volunteered for it. For them to accept this and use it for blackmail, to say to the masses "Do as I say, or I'll drop the sky down upon your heads"- what is that, if it is not violence? What is that, if it is not domination?

 

[Old Hippy]

Also, I don't know where you got this "Society does not exist" phrase, but it's not one of ours [frankly I think people who say that society does not exist are a bit silly ].
.

its quite common thought among Libertarians, it comes from the 1890's France, before the split in libertarianism and is still widely used(and misused) " Society dose not exist, its individules are its only reality" thus it holds validity for anarchist liberaterians on the left and neo libertarianism on the right (its current form re-emerging in the 1970's), with Thacher's often misquoted "Society does not exist" its such a common thought among Libertarianism on the left and right.
Actually when her full meaning is clarrified further in that interview I would tend to agree with her... surprised you have not followed this line of thought in your readings,its part of the basis of the free individule line of thought that has evolved over the last 100 odd years

 

[Crezth]

So socialism is a caste system? Good to know.

Ah, well, no. Socialism doesn't prescribe a casteless society.

Well of course they don't - as you've just pointed out, we have a system of universal education. So to defend this system by pointing out that no-one educates themselves anymore is just silly.

I'm saying that without a system of universal education we would barely have even a portion of the professionals we have today.

I simply don't agree with you that universal education is worth having. It doesn't even educate most of the people who pass through it - most of whom are technically literate and numerate, but in reality can barely read and write. It imposes massive cost on society and slows down the best elements, in order to impose a nominal "literacy" on people, the majority of whom will never apply it in any way even if they were capable of it.

This is a monumentally elitist sentiment and I hope you realize that it's basically unsubstantiated. We're basically churning out professionals today, whereas in the past you were strongly limited by wherever you started out.

Why, strong personal feelings of jealousy? Perhaps that explains why you have such strong emotions affecting your judgement towards Objectivism.

The first time I read Atlas Shrugged I thought it was dense, mostly unreadable prose, but I thought Ayn Rand had the right idea. So no, I wouldn't say my opinions regarding the impossibility of d'Anconia color my perception of Objectivism (although fine man you are saying that they do).

D'Anconia is, in a lot of ways, an impossible person. There's no point in being jealous of a paragon. He's not the only one: the Galt engine actively defies the second law of thermodynamics. I had to put the book down because Rand's contempt for hard work shone through from her example of a man who was innately superior. D'Anconia could have been an utterly idle person, although that was not Rand's point, and she highlights that explicitly: he is superior because he is superior, a member of the upper class, of the aristocracy. A is A.

It is not even reliable anyway - and there is no guarantee that in the future it will get any better. Western democracies have been spending huge sums of money trying to raise educational standards and they have either remained the same or fallen despite these efforts. The education system you are defending has already run out of potential.

Sources, please. I thought it was generally accepted that the Chinese are turning out record numbers of engineers since they instituted mass education.

I won't respond to the parts about Trump as these are your own personal feelings again, and the same with the ending of the book which is a work of fiction, not history.

Would Objectivists defend an idle man who has money because he came from money? If not, why not? How is what Trump does "objectively" good?

I will just record this in case I ever hear you defending socialism

I believe I already touched upon that, though I will admit my definition is a bit weak. Since it's clear you mean communism, I should establish that the root of the problem is a lack of social mobility in lieu of total equality.

 

[tonberry]

To any objectivists out there, care to comment that quote from Ayn Rand (the real one ) please? Is that what objectivism is about or Rand was simply wrong according to her philoshophy?

"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." * Source: "Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974"

 

[Leoreth]

They were standing in the way of the superior white men who were better able to civilize the land they wasted with their inferior culture. Seems pretty in line with Rand's arguments to me.

Basically Social Darwinism and White Man's Burden without even pretending to care for the "primitives".

 

[classical_hero]

The problem with the "choice" is that by making the "choice" you are partnering with government to make the default a burden on your trading partners against their likely preferred choice.

So there is a systemic anomaly?

 

[aelf]

No, I mean in the sense that the goal is eudaimonia - the pursuit of happiness, with the realisation that rationality is not strictly a choice but a necessity imposed by reality in order to make eudaimonia possible.

But again, this can't be a real critique, because in order to make it you have first assumed that the conditions of survival have been met. You therefore have to assume the fundamental correctness of the proposition [the mind needs to survive], in order to advance a further argument about prosperity [either to refine the sophistication of the ethics, or against it as the case may be].

Also, I agree with you that survival is not the end of the process - as I pointed out, prosperity [I didn't define it, but take it in the broadest sense of material, intellectual, artistic etc happiness] follows on from survival. But the first and fundamental choice is survival or non-existence, so the mind can't exist as a mind without survival - it's only alternative to survival is non-existence, and thus its self-termination as mind.

Survival alone is not enough - one can survive as a slave or prisoner, for example. Each person decides what level of survival they are content with, but it's true that living humans always pursue additional values above survival - such things as love, spiritual fulfilment and so on.

In that case, why not be entirely Aristotelian? As it is, I'm having a hard time seeing why selfishness is so important. You've led me to believe that the individual's rational self-interest should be emphasised because of the mind's need to ensure its survival. But once survival has been ensured, is there a need to continue prioritising your rational self-interest? Why should people behave like the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged? Why shouldn't they share the fruits of their labour with others and live by other virtues?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I simply don't agree with you that universal education is worth having. It doesn't even educate most of the people who pass through it - most of whom are technically literate and numerate, but in reality can barely read and write. It imposes massive cost on society and slows down the best elements, in order to impose a nominal "literacy" on people, the majority of whom will never apply it in any way even if they were capable of it.

I find it odd that people who believe this line of thought, always, without exception, believe themselves to be outside the majority. Never have I seen an objectivist, libertarian or elitist say:
"My god, what an awful thing it was for the state to try and educate me. I sure harmed society by attempting to get an education off the backs of the productive class. As if a simpleton like me could be educated!", when you know, if they had an understanding of statistics, they'd understand that most of them would be in that position.

I know that it can't. I just don't see the relevance of this to something that might/might not have happened 75,000 years ago in pre-history.

Speaking of failures of education, the end of nomadic/collectively owned land in the British Isles happened in the 17th-19th century. About 200 years ago.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Sorry for taking ages to reply, I've been rushed the last few days.

No, I'm not thinking of an Objectivist society where there is no law, but an Objectivist society, one based solely on the principles of Objectivism as the best philosophy to base all the laws on.

But from your answers it seems that basically the principles of Objectivism cannot and do not work as principles to guide much anything since what Objectivism would advise would need to regulated by laws and priniciples based on completely different philosophies and principles, that have no basis or does not adhere to the principles of Objectivism.

You're going to have to be more specific about precisely which principles you're referring to. You seem to have a private interpretation of Objectivism which revolves around the idea that "if it makes profit, it's okay". But that's not Objectivism as I tried to point out before. If it was, then going around mugging or murdering would be okay, as long as you made a profit.

To further qualify my response, remember that we are also talking about a hypothetical transition from theory to reality - and there is considerably more complexity and difficulty in "real society" than there is in "Objectivist theory".

'False' Advertising, my Good for you cigarettes, allows me to follow the principles of Objectivism to the maximum, it's in my rational self-interest and maximizes profit and progress. I can even spin and show how my 'false' advertising isn't 'false' at all, no matter how some may say it's misleading. (my cigarettes are “Good for you” doesn't mean it's good for your health, but it's good for your mood, social status, image, etc.) So the tenets of Objectivism are all completely for this kind of behavior. By saying, well the courts will resolve this and make sure I don't run my business how I want that maximizes my personal self-interest and does not directly cause aggression to anyone else since I'm not forcing anyone to buy my products, this shows Objectivism fails as the best system to guide our actions.

But this would surely be something to be argued in a court of law - one cannot pre-judge the outcome of individual cases like this with all their hidden complexities.

Ayn Rand holds that Objectivism is the best philosophy for people to guide their lives by, but you fail to make that case and keep going back to saying, well, other laws and the courts and regulations imposed by these courts will... basically, keep Objectivism in check. If Objectivism needs to be kept in check, how is a good philosphy to go by?

How do you interpret that Objectivism needs to be kept in check? The construction of a social system or politi must contain degrees of sophistication and realism for working in the real World. Objectivism is not anarchy, nor is it a kind of feudal capitalism where the strong can do whatever they want and prey upon the weak without rule of law.

You also keep suggesting Charity is proven by history to be, well, practiced lots and so this may continue to happen to help cover the areas that the Objectivist society may fall short on. Objectivism holds that altrusim and charity are not favorable. One of the reasons Charity has a strong background in America, even among our wealthiest like the Rockefellers, is because this nation has always been, for better or for a worse, though not on any official theocratic level, America grew up and still is a christian nation. It's population has always been heavily raised on christian values.

That's certainly an element of American charity but not all of it.

Now I myself am an athiest, but the charitible nature of the average american is heavily, strongly tied to the religious, christian upbringing and its moral values, which strongly stresses charity and giving to the less fortunate. This is both directly and indirectly, as even agnostic and atheist families are raised with, or around these altruistic values which christianity has always taught are a moral duty and major virtues.

Now Objectivism prescribes the opposite of what christianity prescribes, Objectivism says altruism is not a value that should be highly regarded whereas its one of the most important virtues in christianity. So, sure, in America, with most people following their christian based and influenced upbringings, these non-objectivists may continue to be charitible in an Objectivist society, but the only reason that charity would work to help cover the gaps left by the Objectivist society is because people would be following a philosphy and principles that go against and are opposite of what Objectivism is about. So Objectivism again fails as the best way to go forwards as once again it relies on other philosophies, ones it even goes against, to be feasible in practice.

While you make a valid point in some ways, you are continuing with your private belief that Objectivism and charity are incompatible. I am an Objectivist and I am extremely fond of charity and generous towards people who are in need. But we respect that it is a private choice, and my giving to charity is still a selfish act as it plays to my desire and interest to see a certain kind of World. If I believe in that kind of World, it is right that I should struggle for it, but it is wrong to impose that view on others by force.

And if you want to take issue with my suggestion here that America's charity is heavily influenced by its christian background, take a look at China, or India, and notice how charitable they are compared to christianity based America. So in a society truly based on Objectivism, the level of charity would be way more comparable to those nations, not how it is now in the U.S.
If Rockefeller was an Objectivist he would not have given nearly as much, or anything even, to charity, as he only did because he personally felt it was a major virtue and moral duty, as his religion dictates. So your suggestion that charity would fill the gaps in an Objectivist society does not seem to have any weight.

Good arguments but do they describe the full situation of this complicated area? China and India, for example, are not Ojectivist nations, nor were they ever capitalist. India was also a religious country - yet it had a caste system that imprisoned people in brutal poverty.

The same is true of medieval Europe - your concept of charitable Christianity didn't really create much for people until capitalism was invented, did it?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Actually, we do. Because you see the reason that conservative and libertarian thought started to emphasize courts as an option to regulation is that they were seeking to control outcomes by controlling venues.

The sole reason that courts are the focus of attention as the venue to arbitrate all disputes is because they are such a poor one for doing so. The idea is to prevent regulation, not have regulation by different methods.

And on those rare occasions that courts do do a decent job, conservatives try to neuter the courts with things like tort reform, limiting standing, limiting punitive awards, limiting class action.

I'm going to have to call "conspiracy theory" at this point. This is a drastic over-simplification of the legal process.

The maximum liberty for the individual exists where powerful are fighting each other to a standstill, leaving the rest of the people free to act.

So Russian and German soldiers on the Eastern front in 1942-45 had the maximum personal liberty?

What's changed? If you have property now, you have force protecting it. So you do have a coercive society after all.

All forms of existence on Earth are coercive in some way. While I kind of concede your point, I think you should be careful to perceive the modalities of force that exist, rather than create an undifferentiated equation of all types of force to one another.

snip

Will answer in its own post

its quite common thought among Libertarians, it comes from the 1890's France, before the split in libertarianism and is still widely used(and misused) " Society dose not exist, its individules are its only reality" thus it holds validity for anarchist liberaterians on the left and neo libertarianism on the right (its current form re-emerging in the 1970's), with Thacher's often misquoted "Society does not exist" its such a common thought among Libertarianism on the left and right.
Actually when her full meaning is clarrified further in that interview I would tend to agree with her... surprised you have not followed this line of thought in your readings,its part of the basis of the free individule line of thought that has evolved over the last 100 odd years

Thanks for filling me in on the background. I just tended to ignore that kind of thinking, mostly I suppose because of the kind of misquotation you mentioned.

Ah, well, no. Socialism doesn't prescribe a casteless society.

I'm sure

I'm saying that without a system of universal education we would barely have even a portion of the professionals we have today.

That would be true if we suddenly "turned off the tap" of UE all of a sudden. However, over the last century or so, if UE didn't exist then we would have evolved other means for education, for certain.

This is a monumentally elitist sentiment and I hope you realize that it's basically unsubstantiated. We're basically churning out professionals today, whereas in the past you were strongly limited by wherever you started out.

The past is a big place Not all of it was bad or limited a person's capacity to achieve. It is a question of selecting the proper social model - obviously, there is some degree of difference between an individual's freedom to achieve their potential without UE at different places in both the past and present.

The first time I read Atlas Shrugged I thought it was dense, mostly unreadable prose, but I thought Ayn Rand had the right idea. So no, I wouldn't say my opinions regarding the impossibility of d'Anconia color my perception of Objectivism (although fine man you are saying that they do).

D'Anconia is, in a lot of ways, an impossible person. There's no point in being jealous of a paragon. He's not the only one: the Galt engine actively defies the second law of thermodynamics. I had to put the book down because Rand's contempt for hard work shone through from her example of a man who was innately superior. D'Anconia could have been an utterly idle person, although that was not Rand's point, and she highlights that explicitly: he is superior because he is superior, a member of the upper class, of the aristocracy. A is A.

It's interesting that we both read the same book in completely different ways - an argument to demonstrate the power of subjectivism, if ever there was one

Sources, please. I thought it was generally accepted that the Chinese are turning out record numbers of engineers since they instituted mass education.

I'll run around getting sources when you do As for China - let's ask the 7 million heroin addicts in the country what they think of their social system?

It is all a question of where you place your emphasis, I suppose. I dislike UE because it generally fails, it is expensive on society, and it is compulsory and thus limits the best elements. It also institutionalises the members of a society until, after several generations, there are virtually no people left in the Country who have not spent most of their childhood going through a State institution in some form or other. That is potentially quite distortive and dangerous for freedom and free thought.

Would Objectivists defend an idle man who has money because he came from money? If not, why not? How is what Trump does "objectively" good?

I haven't given an opinion on Donald Trump, nor will I. We can get lost in the details of single, person examples, but what difference does it make?

I believe I already touched upon that, though I will admit my definition is a bit weak. Since it's clear you mean communism, I should establish that the root of the problem is a lack of social mobility in lieu of total equality.

So a society without upward mobility is bad, unless it is socialist/communist, then it is good. Gotcha

To any objectivists out there, care to comment that quote from Ayn Rand (the real one ) please? Is that what objectivism is about or Rand was simply wrong according to her philoshophy?

"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." * Source: "Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974"

Isn't she just being honest? If you support native Indian rights, leave Quebec and go back to Europe. It is utter hypocrisy for anyone who is not an "indigenous indian" currently living in the Americas to criticise Ayn Rand for saying this.

So there is a systemic anomaly?

The architect must have been a Hegelian socialist, for sure

 

[HannibalBarka]

Yep, a variety of safeguards is necessary and ultimately there is an argument to be made for government controls. But there is a good case for market self-regulation and also an argument against government influence-peddling and bribery/lobbying that can become systemic when elements such as the US Congress are given the reigns over every industry and market. So there is no easy solution to this problem from either viewpoint.

You definetly can corrupt many people including MP, the difference between MP and other "private" controling bodies is that
1. MP are elected
2. they have no conflict of interest problem

I largely agree - however, times change. If resources start to get too depleted, people may change their attitude.

Agreed, the one that has the last word is "The people".

Inheritance is fine, as it is up to the property owner to gift the property to whomsoever they wish.

And it's up to the Government to taxe that also, as the kids have no merit in having all this money for free

I disagree with you on this point, because paying for the education of people who don't want to learn is a drain on society which holds back creativitey as well. But in a free society, people will work out solutions to solve the problems that face them - those who want to advance, may not have government programs or subsidies, but will gain in other ways because they have lower taxes and fewer impediments. Also, government education is not that good in most countries. People can educate themselves and each other if the will to do it is really there.

How is educating people holds back creativity? And I do not know many parents who do not want their kids be educated. They sometime can't afford to send them to schools but when they can, few, if any will prefer to keep their kids in ingonnorance.
And in a free society, all people will not work out solution to solve the problems that face them and some would need to be helped. Education being a precondition for people to be fully free, and being also a great investment for the country, must be freely abailable to all kids.
Governement education is definetly not good in many countries, there is no doubt about that, but no education is even worse

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Isn't she just being honest? If you support native Indian rights, leave Quebec and go back to Europe. It is utter hypocrisy for anyone who is not an "indigenous indian" currently living in the Americas to criticise Ayn Rand for saying this.

"Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." Just so we're sure, you agree with this sentiment? "Take over the continent". Not living together, sharing, leaving everyone be, but "take over this continent".

And you are making a false comparison between someone who was born here, and someone who supposedly had a right to take over the continent. I don't think any of us ever took over a continent.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Possibly I am - but it is not intended. All the characters in Rand's books relate primarily to objects and processes, rather than people. Their "dominance" is a dominance of reality, rather than of society. They want, more than anything, to create better steel, better railroads, better architecture.
They do sometimes employ tens or hundreds of thousands of people - but they are somewhat indifferent. They employ on a technocratic basis, not because they desire social power over others. The attitude is "I'm making the best steel, so of course people want to come work for me, and I need workers, so of course I'm happy to take them"

I get back to this post. It seems to me that you are a little bit "disneylanding" this.

How is taxing "steelmakers" going to hold them from creating the best steel?

 

[Leoreth]

Objectivism is not anarchy, nor is it a kind of feudal capitalism where the strong can do whatever they want and prey upon the weak without rule of law.

That's a good point. But it escapes me at the moment how Objectivism would want the law to actually be like.

I am an Objectivist and I am extremely fond of charity and generous towards people who are in need. But we respect that it is a private choice, and my giving to charity is still a selfish act as it plays to my desire and interest to see a certain kind of World. If I believe in that kind of World, it is right that I should struggle for it, but it is wrong to impose that view on others by force.

Can't every action construed to be "Objectivist" under this premise?

It is all a question of where you place your emphasis, I suppose. I dislike UE because it generally fails, it is expensive on society, and it is compulsory and thus limits the best elements. It also institutionalises the members of a society until, after several generations, there are virtually no people left in the Country who have not spent most of their childhood going through a State institution in some form or other. That is potentially quite distortive and dangerous for freedom and free thought.

That depends on what's going on in these institutions. Just because they might be abused is no good argument for generally getting rid of them.

And how are "the best elements" limited? UE doesn't mean the end of all private schools. And those who can't afford private schooling wouldn't be able to in a world without UE either, so it's rather that some portion of the potentially "best elements" is wasted.

I haven't given an opinion on Donald Trump, nor will I. We can get lost in the details of single, person examples, but what difference does it make?

Examples are a good way to show how your philosophy applies to the real world - or if it does at all.

So a society without upward mobility is bad, unless it is socialist/communist, then it is good. Gotcha

There's a difference if social mobility is the central premise of the system. It is for Western capitalist societies to varying degrees. The premise of a socialist society is that upward mobility shouldn't be necessary.

Isn't she just being honest? If you support native Indian rights, leave Quebec and go back to Europe. It is utter hypocrisy for anyone who is not an "indigenous indian" currently living in the Americas to criticise Ayn Rand for saying this.

Is that your actual opinion? Judging actions of the past doesn't preclude us from acknowledging the situation as it is now. And you don't have to be a victim of someone's Social Darwinist world view to say that it's full of crap.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Isn't she just being honest? If you support native Indian rights, leave Quebec and go back to Europe. It is utter hypocrisy for anyone who is not an "indigenous indian" currently living in the Americas to criticise Ayn Rand for saying this.

That just show that you don't have to go back 75000 years ago as you said earlier to see private property principle not respected without objection from Ayn or you. Private property has no value outside of the State institutions, there is no God given right to private property.

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't she just being honest? If you support native Indian rights, leave Quebec and go back to Europe. It is utter hypocrisy for anyone who is not an "indigenous indian" currently living in the Americas to criticise Ayn Rand for saying this.

The fact that you yourself unable to provide a more nuanced perspective on the issue than one of all-or-nothing racial conflict doesn't speak well of Objectivism's ability to provide useful ethical guidance.