Ron Paul said in book he doesn't agree with Ayn Rand philosophically

[RCA]

If Ayn Rand's primary philosophy is objectivism, why does Ron Paul disagree with it? Isn't Ron Paul's philosophy that each person should take responsibility for their own lives and not depend on the government? This sounds very similar to objectivism in which each person is to focus on their own well-being primarily. Am I missing something?

[Truth Warrior]

Ron Paul discusses Ayn Rand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI

[MS0453]

Objectivism isn't libertarianism. Libertarianism is a wholly political philosophy and objectivism is more an all encompassing one. It just happens that the political outlook of objectivism resembles libertarianism. For example, to be an objectivist, you have to be an atheist. In libertarianism, religious beliefs are irrelevant.

[Dustancostine]

Probably because of religion.

[Dustancostine]

If Ayn Rand's primary philosophy is objectivism, why does Ron Paul disagree with it? Isn't Ron Paul's philosophy that each person should take responsibility for their own lives and not depend on the government? This sounds very similar to objectivism in which each person is to focus on their own well-being primarily. Am I missing something?

Also can you give the quote from the book, I don't have it yet.

[Kludge]

Ron Paul is a conservative with libertarian streaks, not a "hard" libertarian.

[MS0453]

Ron Paul is a conservative with libertarian streaks, not a "hard" libertarian.

What does that even mean?

[Kludge]

What does that even mean?

Ron Paul is not an anarchist - it's arguable that he isn't even a minarchist on the local and state level. Instead, he wants government intervention - but NOT on the federal level, because he feels that will allow greater control over government. IIRC, he also wants to increase defense spending - but a libertarian would argue the dangers of a government monopoly on force.

[AutoDas]

Ron Paul is a conservative with libertarian streaks, not a "hard" libertarian.

Ayn Rand didn't even consider herself a libertarian.

[Kludge]

Ayn Rand didn't even consider herself a libertarian.

She didn't consider herself a Libertarian.

[MS0453]

Ron Paul is not an anarchist - it's arguable that he isn't even a minarchist on the local and state level. Instead, he wants government intervention - but NOT on the federal level, because he feels that will allow greater control over government. IIRC, he also wants to increase defense spending - but a libertarian would argue the dangers of a government monopoly on force.

1. I'd like to see any sources where he says that any of the government programs now at the federal level would be legitimate at the local or state level. Has he argued that "such and such" an issue should be handled at the state/local level? Of course, but thats just making the case for federalism. I'd like to see an example of him saying that he thinks "X government department" is great and beneficial, minus roads/police/courts.

2. As for his desire to increase defense spending, I'd also like to see a source. I've seen him argue for shrinking the size of our military across the board.

"There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines."

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:TMwKLSqQjv8J:www.thelibertypapers.o rg/2007/10/12/ron-paul-no-reason-to-ever-go-to-war/+navy+could+defend%2Bron+paul&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

And here's an article from him critiquing standing armies.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8893

[Kludge]

1. I'd like to see any sources where he says that any of the government programs now at the federal level would be legitimate at the local or state level. Has he argued that "such and such" an issue should be handled at the state/local level? Of course, but thats just making the case for federalism. I'd like to see an example of him saying that he thinks "X government department" is great and beneficial, minus roads/police/courts.

2. As for his desire to increase defense spending, I'd also like to see a source. I've seen him argue for shrinking the size of our military across the board.

"There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines."

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:TMwKLSqQjv8J:www.thelibertypapers.o rg/2007/10/12/ron-paul-no-reason-to-ever-go-to-war/+navy+could+defend%2Bron+paul&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

And here's an article from him critiquing standing armies.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8893

1. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

" Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system.A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend.
Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them?
A: No, I'm not. It's not in my platform.
QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
A: I bet that's a misquote. I do not recall that."



Abolition of public schools would be libertarian. Moving public schools' authority to the local/state level is Conservative.



2. I didn't recall correctly. He calls for continued funding of US defense, but doesn't talk about increasing/decreasing spending while instead asking for an "intelligence overhaul". He does, however, call for tighter border control - another Conservative thought (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/national-defense/).

[Fox McCloud]

As MS0453 said, while he will say "that's best handled at the State" doesn't necessarily mean he supports it; when someone asked him about greenhouse gases and taxing it, he quickly stated he was against regulating it and having a carbon tax...however, he did say that the States could regulate it and could tax it, if they wanted.

That said, he quickly added that he thought it would be very unwise to do so because neither side has been 100% proven, and the potential to cripple and damage industry in that State is vast.

From general statements he's made over the course of the campaign (and since it's obviously, sadly, that he won't get the nomination), he seems to have become more and more opposed to the idea of global warming in general...my guess is that he was treading lightly when he was attempting to pick up as many supporters as possible in the heat of the battle...but now that things have cooled off, he can air his personal views a little more.

I think the reason he's against abolishing the public school system is for the same reasons he's against abolishing social security, etc...there's far too many people entrenched in it (as of now), and it could cause potential disaster for the nation if it was gotten rid of overnight.

Plus, it truly is a State issue; if you have the Federal government stepping in and saying "no more public schools.", then that unilaterally gives the government the same, exact power to step in and tell a State "no homeschooling or private schools--public schools only".

He does, however support a voucher system...which could increase competition amongst schools....the voucher system isn't perfect, by any means (as it still requires tax-dollars), but I'd much rather have a voucher system in place than what we currently have (and again, it would be a transitionary stage from public schools being the standard to private schools being the standard).

[Truth Warrior]

Ronald Reagan the Libertarian
Here's a wonderful quote from Reagan in 1975 from Reason magazine.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html

[brandon]

I admire Ron for quoting so many of the people he did, regardless of religious difference. He even favorably quoted Bertrand Russell, the guy who wrote the book "Why I am not a Christian"

[Dustancostine]

Ron Paul is not an anarchist.


Neither was Ayn Rand, she detested anarchist.

[Truth Warrior]

Statists most usually have a very strong leaning and tendency to just LOVE the shepherds and flocks . Only as long as they're the shepherds. :D

[0zzy]

Objectivist are like the neocons of the libertarian movement, let's put it that way.

[Truth Warrior]

"It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand" (Paperback)
by Jerome Tuccille (Author)

[DrYongrel]

An objectivist is a libertarian who is an asshole. :p

[0zzy]

The leaders of the objectivist movement also hate Ron Paul. They call him an isolationist who doesn't understand Islamofacist.

[Kludge]

The leaders of the objectivist movement also hate Ron Paul. They call him an isolationist who doesn't understand Islamofacist.

Leaders of the objectivist movement??? And who are they? Leonard Peikoff? Guy's loonier then McCain. I know a few objectivists and while they disagree with Dr. Paul on a lot of stuff - I can't imagine they'd back anyone else.

[Kludge]

Neither was Ayn Rand, she detested anarchist.

She promoted anarcho-capitalism when she formed "Radicals for Capitalism".

[Truth Warrior]

She promoted anarcho-capitalism when she formed "Radicals for Capitalism". Murray Rothbard just might beg to differ there. :D

[Kludge]

Murray Rothbard just might beg to differ there. :D

*shrug* Murray was part of the Objectivist movement for a short while.

[IRO-bot]

Are most of you in your 30's to 60's or just extremely well read on a whole lot of minute details. I can't decide.

[crazyfingers]

I’m admittedly ignorant on the tenants of objectivism, but as far as I could tell from my reading of “Atlas Shrugged” all those years ago, objectivists seem to detest charity – even if it’s a wholly private matter (no coercion involved). Whereas most libertarians (well me at least) don’t have a problem with charity – and see that it is sometimes necessary – but prefer that it be dispersed locally among willing individuals. In short, objectivists seem to take the notion of “survival of the fittest” to its extreme conclusion.

[Kludge]

Are most of you in your 30's to 60's or just extremely well read on a whole lot of minute details. I can't decide.

I've done a few essays on Rand and Rothbard and quoted the pair over and over and over in my papers.

[Kalifornia]

Ron Paul is not an anarchist - it's arguable that he isn't even a minarchist on the local and state level. Instead, he wants government intervention - but NOT on the federal level, because he feels that will allow greater control over government. IIRC, he also wants to increase defense spending - but a libertarian would argue the dangers of a government monopoly on force.

Fairly accurate, but I think you can argue that a Paul administration would end up cutting the DoD overall, mostly because he would relimit the mission to defense, and likely retool the Navy from one capable of large scale invasions to one capable of defense and surgical ground strike capacity. Im sure that the remaining programs would be expanded, but I doubt it would offset the costs of those areas that are cut (offensive capacities)

[chowdy]

This makes me mad that neocons blackened the term "conservative" so much >:|

[DriftWood]

The little i read up about Ayn Rand and objectivism..

Rand says she was against initiation of force but also said she was against withdrawal from Vietnam because it would embolden the communists and Soviet, she also picked sides with the Israelis in the Arab-Israeli War, because she thought Israelis where free and the Arabs where primitive. The self interest principle trumps the none-aggression principle when it comes down to it. That seems to go further than just self defense towards justifying preemption. I wonder what she would have thought about the neo-con idea about spreading democracy by force.

The fact that she kicked people out of her little cult if they dared to ally or debate with libertarians shows that she did not really respect freedom. Its my way or the highway. Freedom by force.

(She labeled libertarians as anarchists, even though most (?) libertarians are minarchists.)

Cheers

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ron Paul is not an anarchist - it's arguable that he isn't even a minarchist on the local and state level. Instead, he wants government intervention - but NOT on the federal level, because he feels that will allow greater control over government. IIRC, he also wants to increase defense spending - but a libertarian would argue the dangers of a government monopoly on force.

Ayn Rand was clearly not an anarchist. Just watch her two interviews on youtube. She said there should be a state, but there should be the separation of state and economy.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The little i read up about Ayn Rand and objectivism..

Rand says she was against initiation of force but also said she was against withdrawal from Vietnam because it would embolden the communists and Soviet, she also picked sides with the Israelis in the Arab-Israeli War, because she thought Israelis where free and the Arabs where primitive. The self interest principle trumps the none-aggression principle when it comes down to it. That seems to go further than just self defense towards justifying preemption. I wonder what she would have thought about the neo-con idea about spreading democracy by force.

The fact that she kicked people out of her little cult if they dared to ally or debate with libertarians shows that she did not really respect freedom. Its my way or the highway. Freedom by force.

(She labeled libertarians as anarchists, even though most (?) libertarians are minarchists.)

Cheers

I thought she favored Israel because Israel was invaded?

[DriftWood]

I thought she favored Israel because Israel was invaded?

I picked that info up on wikipedia.. however i found a better reference, straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_a rab_conflict

"
Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)

Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?

AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.
"

Edit: Sounds like the neocon argument; They hate us because we are free. They are just jealous.

Cheers

[danberkeley]

Ayn Rand was an ethnic Jew, so I would not be surprised that if she had to chose a side between Isreal and someone else, she would chose Isreal.

[Mini-Me]

An objectivist is a libertarian who is an asshole. :p

Quoted for truth :) (Except for their apparent aggressive neocon streak, the assholishness of which is completely outside the realm of libertarianism)

[nickcoons]

Edit: Sounds like the neocon argument; They hate us because we are free. They are just jealous.

Perhaps, but it sounds as if the approach is totally different. What she is trying to do is persuade individuals to help Israel, not convince our government to do so. Voluntary assistance of individuals to other individuals or their country is very Libertarian, and persuasion is a legitimate weapon in a Libertarian's arsenal.

[SeanEdwards]

Rand was militantly anti-communist and believed in intervention to sort out backwards-ass collectivists and other neanderthals.

[nickcoons]

There really isn't much difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. At its best, Libertarianism is the political implementation of Objectivist ideas. Objectivism is a moral philosophy on how one should live one's life. Other moral philosophies generally come from religion (i.e. God determines what is right and wrong), but Objectivism is derived from reason and observed reality. And Objectivism is the only moral philosophy that places the individual as paramount. All others (as far as I know) allow that society may sacrifice an individual for the good of others (i.e. Socialism).

The problem that many Objectivists have with Libertarians, and the reason Ayn Rand didn't like Libertarians, is because Libertarians usually arrive at their conclusions for utilitarian reasons. For instance, an Objectivist would say that the income tax must be abolished because it's wrong to steal. A Libertarian may say that the income tax must be abolished because we need to decrease the amount of revenue that government receives so we can decrease spending, because it's better for the economy, or for any number of other reasons. But all of these reasons are based on the result of getting rid of the income tax (it's better for society to not have it than to have it). Objectivists have a problem with this because the Libertarian that believes this will change his mind if he is convinced that the result of having the income tax is better than not having it, whereas the Objectivist will still be against it because it's morally wrong, independent of whatever result it may have.

In short, Objectivists see Libertarians as having many of their same political beliefs, but no moral foundation supporting those beliefs. For those that are Libertarians, but were former Republicans or Democrats and became Libertarians because they see it as simply an alternative, or they see the waste in government, these are the ones that Objectivists disapprove of, because these people are prone to sway back and forth. They have no innate belief that initiation of force is simply wrong, and will approve of the initiation of force (not to be confused with retaliatory force, which is perfectly acceptable to Objectivists and philosophically-based Libertarians) if they belief the result of that force will make an overall improvement.

Ayn Rand is by no means a perfect person, but the Objectivist philosophy is logically sound. I would highly recommend learning more about for those that aren't familiar. And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion.

For a better understanding of the ideas, you can get a brief introduction from this series of videos. It's not specifically about Objectivism, but about Collectivism vs. Individualism, so it talks about the differences more than promoting them (but it does seem to be slanted in favor of Individualism):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKPPe78pX5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0

And of course, there's the classic "Philosophy of Liberty":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

BTW, we're not really assholes.. I think a better word to describe many of us would be arrogant, or at least we have the appearance of arrogance. But that's because we have a solid philosophical foundation on which to base arguments. If you put a bunch of us in a room together, that arrogance tends to go away since we're all pretty much on a level playing field.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I picked that info up on wikipedia.. however i found a better reference, straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_a rab_conflict

"
Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)

Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?

AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.
"

Edit: Sounds like the neocon argument; They hate us because we are free. They are just jealous.

Cheers

So always aid the guys with the better technology? LOL. What if they're murdering the natives, should we still aid them in their efforts?

[nickcoons]

So always aid the guys with the better technology? LOL. What if they're murdering the natives, should we still aid them in their efforts?

I would venture a guess that that's not what she meant. She did refer to them specifically as savages, not just lesser-developed. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what she said, just clarifying the point.

[OptionsTrader]

The man votes 500:1 often. He doesn't agree with hardly anyone :)

Gotta love this man's adherence to principle.

[berrybunches]

I would venture a guess that that's not what she meant. She did refer to them specifically as savages, not just lesser-developed. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what she said, just clarifying the point.

my thoughts

Libertarians and Objectionists generally do not take into consideration the totally undeveloped world. I like Objectivism on its moral grounds (the do not steal argument) but I don't really care about technological advancements and I don't think people are all the wonderful in general. I don't even think civilization is really that great I mean civilization would never even have arisen if it was not for men wanting to exploit each other. I guess we would all be living in yurts but the world stayed stable for a couple hundred thousands of years that way.
Most Objectivists or Libertarians don't take into consideration any living thing unless it has some kind of deed to its property. Like the penguins in "March of the penguins" I think that there way of life is worth preserving, that land is thiers....or the Tigers in Asia, beautiful, they desrve the forest there...the world be worse off without them. The tribal lifestyle prevailed for 200k years. The civilized lifestyle has only been around 10k years. A lot of bloodshed happened before we have gotten anywhere remotely close to comfort and thats only if your fortunate enough to live in westernized areas - most of our trial and error at a state has been in bondage and still is. I mean try being a women for the first 99% of civilized existence...I would have rather lived in a tribe. Just some thoughts on "savages"
Besides that Ayn Rand is awesome in how she portrays the blunders of socialism and I love her fiction.

[USAFCapt]

I wonder if Mcain, Obama or Hillary supporters have this type of discussion...

[DriftWood]

There really isn't much difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. At its best, Libertarianism is the political implementation of Objectivist ideas. Objectivism is a moral philosophy on how one should live one's life. Other moral philosophies generally come from religion (i.e. God determines what is right and wrong), but Objectivism is derived from reason and observed reality. And Objectivism is the only moral philosophy that places the individual as paramount. All others (as far as I know) allow that society may sacrifice an individual for the good of others (i.e. Socialism).

The problem that many Objectivists have with Libertarians, and the reason Ayn Rand didn't like Libertarians, is because Libertarians usually arrive at their conclusions for utilitarian reasons. For instance, an Objectivist would say that the income tax must be abolished because it's wrong to steal. A Libertarian may say that the income tax must be abolished because we need to decrease the amount of revenue that government receives so we can decrease spending, because it's better for the economy, or for any number of other reasons. But all of these reasons are based on the result of getting rid of the income tax (it's better for society to not have it than to have it). Objectivists have a problem with this because the Libertarian that believes this will change his mind if he is convinced that the result of having the income tax is better than not having it, whereas the Objectivist will still be against it because it's morally wrong, independent of whatever result it may have.

In short, Objectivists see Libertarians as having many of their same political beliefs, but no moral foundation supporting those beliefs. For those that are Libertarians, but were former Republicans or Democrats and became Libertarians because they see it as simply an alternative, or they see the waste in government, these are the ones that Objectivists disapprove of, because these people are prone to sway back and forth. They have no innate belief that initiation of force is simply wrong, and will approve of the initiation of force (not to be confused with retaliatory force, which is perfectly acceptable to Objectivists and philosophically-based Libertarians) if they belief the result of that force will make an overall improvement.

Ayn Rand is by no means a perfect person, but the Objectivist philosophy is logically sound. I would highly recommend learning more about for those that aren't familiar. And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion.

For a better understanding of the ideas, you can get a brief introduction from this series of videos. It's not specifically about Objectivism, but about Collectivism vs. Individualism, so it talks about the differences more than promoting them (but it does seem to be slanted in favor of Individualism):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKPPe78pX5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0

And of course, there's the classic "Philosophy of Liberty":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

BTW, we're not really assholes.. I think a better word to describe many of us would be arrogant, or at least we have the appearance of arrogance. But that's because we have a solid philosophical foundation on which to base arguments. If you put a bunch of us in a room together, that arrogance tends to go away since we're all pretty much on a level playing field.

Basing policy on morals vs consequences. Hmm.. i think i prefer the latter.

I think that slogan "evil prevails when good men fail to act" should be replaced with "evil prevails when good men try to help". That way whatever you do you dont make things worse.

I think the none-intervention aka "mind your own bussniness" policy is relevant to just about every aspect of life. Individuals and govt should only step in to help those who are under their direct protection. So therefore the US govt should not do anything about Tibet, and i should not do anything about the neighbour that beats up his wife. Tibet and the beaten wife must liberate themselves on their own. Intervention would probably just make things worse. I guess that makes me a pacifist. However i do think you have the right to defend yourself and the people that have voluntarily comitted themself to your protection. You have a duty to protect your family from violence, and a govt has a duty to defend its citizens (the people who pay for protection thru taxes) from viloence. You do not have a duty (or even right) to protect other people, because protection in some whay implies ownership and authority.

If think basing politics to much on morals instead of their consecuences, and you start down a slippery slope to where it becomes the duty of people to impose their will on others. Say, a duty of free people to free other people. Or a duty of democratic countries to overthrow dictatorships.

I might be unfair to objectivists, as i know little about them. Maybe they are not inteventionsist at all, it just sounds like it from where im standing.

(I'll take a look at those videos.. thanks)

Cheers

[DriftWood]

my thoughts

Libertarians and Objectionists generally do not take into consideration the totally undeveloped world. I like Objectivism on its moral grounds (the do not steal argument) but I don't really care about technological advancements and I don't think people are all the wonderful in general. I don't even think civilization is really that great I mean civilization would never even have arisen if it was not for men wanting to exploit each other. I guess we would all be living in yurts but the world stayed stable for a couple hundred thousands of years that way.
Most Objectivists or Libertarians don't take into consideration any living thing unless it has some kind of deed to its property. Like the penguins in "March of the penguins" I think that there way of life is worth preserving, that land is thiers....or the Tigers in Asia, beautiful, they desrve the forest there...the world be worse off without them. The tribal lifestyle prevailed for 200k years. The civilized lifestyle has only been around 10k years. A lot of bloodshed happened before we have gotten anywhere remotely close to comfort and thats only if your fortunate enough to live in westernized areas - most of our trial and error at a state has been in bondage and still is. I mean try being a women for the first 99% of civilized existence...I would have rather lived in a tribe. Just some thoughts on "savages"
Besides that Ayn Rand is awesome in how she portrays the blunders of socialism and I love her fiction.

Life in tribes a thousand years ago was really horrible. I think there was a TED video about it. It went something like: there are less murders and wars now than any time before in history. A thousand yeras ago and just about everyone died a violent death (murder or wars with other tribes). Civilization has not just made us richer but safer. I agree that this progress has been at the nature and animals expense. But i think its worth it. When it comes down to it a human life is "worth" more than an animals. I know that this kind of speceism is just as morally wrong as racism, but then again self interest is natural and you cant really fight it. Personally i think the current upswing in the enviornmental movement will cause a increase in human misery and poverty. Enviornmentalism is abit like socialism, to redistribute the wealth from where it naturally goes, to where it should be. Redestributing it from humans to "the nature".

Edit: Found the video. Talks Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163

Its great, a must see.

Cheers

[DriftWood]

I'll take a look at those videos..


I watched the video about individualism vs collectivism. I agree with the most of it and specially the fact that rights are derived from violence and war. However i disagree that individuals of the winning side (as opposed the govt) are the ones that "win" the war. The ultimate winner of a war is the leader of the winning side. He is the govt, and the owner of all power. The individuals of the group get whatever power they are given. There are no rights without power.

So, power is derived from violence. How come most countries are not dictatoriships then? How come citizens are given any rights at all? Well, Imagine a group of individuals at the beginning of time. They will fight eachother for power. The weak will seek protections with the stronger to get protection from the violence of others. The strong will protect some of the weak individuals from the violence of other in exchange for favors (protection money). The different groups will fight eachother. Some of the individuals will change groups because the protection and rights they get in the new group is better. The groups will compete against eachother for members. Eventually one group will win by eighter killing the other group or by stealing its members with promises of better protection and more individual rights. So in the end its in the leaderships interest to give away many rights to the individuals. Its in the survival iterest of the leadership to keep the people happy. Obviously they will not give away power for free.

Individuals always have choices, and they will choose the gov that is best for them. Even a refugees has some form of choice. Its no surprise USA is a favorite. Its one of the countries that offer them the best protection and the most rights.

Cheers

[berrybunches]

Life in tribes a thousand years ago was really horrible. I think there was a TED video about it. It went something like: there are less murders and wars now than any time before in history. A thousand yeras ago and just about everyone died a violent death (murder or wars with other tribes). Civilization has not just made us richer but safer. I agree that this progress has been at the nature and animals expense. But i think its worth it. When it comes down to it a human life is "worth" more than an animals. I know that this kind of speceism is just as morally wrong as racism, but then again self interest is natural and you cant really fight it. Personally i think the current upswing in the enviornmental movement will cause a increase in human misery and poverty. Enviornmentalism is abit like socialism, to redistribute the wealth from where it naturally goes, to where it should be. Redestributing it from humans to "the nature".

Edit: Found the video. Talks Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163

Its great, a must see.

Cheers

I agree, I am not talking about 1000 years ago I am talking about 10k + years ago. 1k years ago nearly every tribe around had been touched by civilization (monotheism being the most telling factor and the most dangerous). Pre - history is not "pre" it is history and it has humans in it for a very long while that managed not to drop nukes on each other OR wage global war or have global catastrophe.
Tribal anarchy is what got be interested in libertarianism anyway.

I am not an environmentalist I just see every life form (not just humans) as having a right to exist. If that is some how un-liberty minded, tell me exactly, what is liberty mindedness about?
Personally I don't care to be surrounded by buildings, shopping centers or many other houses... I prefer animals, trees and lots of space. Should I not have this liberty because its better for the whole of mankind that we keep building corporate empires and if so I thought this was about the individual, not the collective.


Has anyone ever read The continuum concept? I highly recommend it.

[Mongoose470]

I watched the video about individualism vs collectivism. I agree with the most of it and specially the fact that rights are derived from violence and war.

Rights are derived from war in the individualist state.

Rights are deprived of individuals by war in the collectivist state: War on its own people. "There is no communism without terror." Wladimir Lenin.

Even in the animal kingdom, collectivism can only be achieved and maintained through brutality.

There is no murder in the police state because nobody dares to call the policeman a murderer.

Tyranny is as old as time. Freedom is a novel concept in its infancy which is already considered antiquated by our intellectual elite.

[MBA2008]

Quoting nickoons,

"And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion."

I can't possibly think why someone would think Objectivists are assholes or arrogant.

I know the "god" debate is a waste of time, but outside of math, I would love to see any evidence of the "non-existence of something", in particular conclusive evidence. Conclusive evidence of the non-existence of something would require omniscience, and although Objectivists are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else, I'm pretty sure they haven't achieved omniscience yet.

[Crickett]

The whole thing is, that the FEDERAL government should not be instructing teachers what to teach, period. This is called INDOCTRINATION, not education, and has been used in every single fascist and communist government. Having the Feds in charge of our schools is NO WAY part of our Democratic Republic, and should never have been allowed. Period.

[Mongoose470]

The whole thing is, that the FEDERAL government should not be instructing teachers what to teach, period. This is called INDOCTRINATION, not education, and has been used in every single fascist and communist government. Having the Feds in charge of our schools is NO WAY part of our Democratic Republic, and should never have been allowed. Period.

Aw c'mon! You mean you don't support No Chump Left Behind? :D

[DriftWood]

I agree, I am not talking about 1000 years ago I am talking about 10k + years ago. 1k years ago nearly every tribe around had been touched by civilization (monotheism being the most telling factor and the most dangerous). Pre - history is not "pre" it is history and it has humans in it for a very long while that managed not to drop nukes on each other OR wage global war or have global catastrophe.
Tribal anarchy is what got be interested in libertarianism anyway.

I am not an environmentalist I just see every life form (not just humans) as having a right to exist. If that is some how un-liberty minded, tell me exactly, what is liberty mindedness about?
Personally I don't care to be surrounded by buildings, shopping centers or many other houses... I prefer animals, trees and lots of space. Should I not have this liberty because its better for the whole of mankind that we keep building corporate empires and if so I thought this was about the individual, not the collective.


Has anyone ever read The continuum concept? I highly recommend it.

Yaeh, i should have added a fue '0' to that number..

Anyways.. the point was that life for humans on this planet has grown less and less violent. The myth that people where more peaceful back in the day is not supported by evidence, all those bones with holes in their skulls..

Its nice to have a forest all to yourself. But is it your right? Everyone wants space, property and other resources in abundance. But if someone is given a whole forest all for himself it will be at the expense of the others who have to share space and resources. The worlds resources do not grown, but our efficiency at using them grows. Thats why it took a whole forest to keep alive a small hunting tribe back in the day. Today with the wonders of farming and the industrial revolution we can support more people with the same amount of resources. The only thing limiting human population is how efficiently the resources of the earth are used.

We are in 6 billion now. Every life that can survive is worth living, so the more the merrier. 2050 we are going to be 9 billion, and in a thousand years who nows how many. (Daydreaming a bit.. Maybe we will all be living underground and have all the available surface areas as farm land to produce food). That might sound claustrophobic, but doing anything to control the natural growth of the human population is probably going to be immoral and totalitarian. Too fast a growth in the population might on average make people more poor as there are more people per scarce resource. But what is poverty other than the most efficient and conservative use of a given resource, as in the poorest are using just enough resources to survive (no more no less). There will always be people like this who live on the margin of existence. But is such life not worth living? Poverty can be solved, but that just means that the poor people are made illegal and their existence is not allowed at all. Say thru state population control, or even thru outright genocide of the poor. I think doing something about poverty and the population growth is much worse than just letting freedom take us where freedom takes us.

Cheers

[nickcoons]

Basing policy on morals vs consequences. Hmm.. i think i prefer the latter.

Not I. I don't think it's a good idea to steal, kill, or enslave anyone no matter how good they think the consequences of those actions would be. Aside from those little bits of initiation of force, I'm all for taking actions that yield better consequences.


If think basing politics to much on morals instead of their consecuences, and you start down a slippery slope to where it becomes the duty of people to impose their will on others.

Politics is based on morals, whether it should be or not. The problem is coming up with the right morals. Objectivism is the only moral system that values the individual over the collective. Following that moral system, you are forbidden from imposing your will on others.


I might be unfair to objectivists, as i know little about them. Maybe they are not inteventionsist at all, it just sounds like it from where im standing.

Objectivism is a moral philosophy which states that each individual's highest value is his own life. Everything derives from that. This is as opposed to, say, a socialist philosophy, where the collective is more important than the individual, such that the collective may sacrifice the individual (take his property, freedom, or ultimately even his life) if they deem it will benefit others. Most religious morals are the same way, that self-sacrifice is required, such that your life is somehow worth less than others.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong in an Objectivist's viewpoint with charity. If you give to a cause that you wish to contribute to, you are being consistent with what you value. For instance, I might value finding a cure for cancer, so I'll give to that cause. Doing so is not altruistic or self-sacrificial. I am taking the action out of my own self-interest because the cause is of value to me. And also as important, I'm doing it voluntarily, without someone else deciding it's necessary for me to sacrifice myself to a cause.

[nickcoons]

Quoting nickoons,

"And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion."

I can't possibly think why someone would think Objectivists are assholes or arrogant.

Yeah.. funny :). Arrogant maybe, but there wasn't really anything asshole-y about that comment.


I know the "god" debate is a waste of time, but outside of math, I would love to see any evidence of the "non-existence of something", in particular conclusive evidence. Conclusive evidence of the non-existence of something would require omniscience, and although Objectivists are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else, I'm pretty sure they haven't achieved omniscience yet.

I was trying to be brief in that comment, something (being brief) that I'm not usually very good at :D, and in doing so I was very unclear.

The default position is that God (or anything) does not exist. At some point, someone made the claim that he does. The burden of proof is on that person, or anyone else that makes the claim. I am aware of zero evidence of God's existence (anecdotal stories about things that happened in one's life are not evidence). Therefore, I do not deny the possibility of a god, however I see no reason to believe in a god. And after thousands of years of people claiming such existence, one would think that by now some evidence could be presented to support the claim. It is the lack of evidence after such a long period of time that makes having such a belief almost absurd.

I can understand people having traumatic experiences in their life and something happening against the odds causing them to believe in a god because they can fathom no other explanation. But there is nothing logical about this. It's purely emotional.

[DriftWood]

Not I. I don't think it's a good idea to steal, kill, or enslave anyone no matter how good they think the consequences of those actions would be. Aside from those little bits of initiation of force, I'm all for taking actions that yield better consequences.

Politics is based on morals, whether it should be or not. The problem is coming up with the right morals. Objectivism is the only moral system that values the individual over the collective. Following that moral system, you are forbidden from imposing your will on others.

Objectivism is a moral philosophy which states that each individual's highest value is his own life. Everything derives from that. This is as opposed to, say, a socialist philosophy, where the collective is more important than the individual, such that the collective may sacrifice the individual (take his property, freedom, or ultimately even his life) if they deem it will benefit others. Most religious morals are the same way, that self-sacrifice is required, such that your life is somehow worth less than others.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong in an Objectivist's viewpoint with charity. If you give to a cause that you wish to contribute to, you are being consistent with what you value. For instance, I might value finding a cure for cancer, so I'll give to that cause. Doing so is not altruistic or self-sacrificial. I am taking the action out of my own self-interest because the cause is of value to me. And also as important, I'm doing it voluntarily, without someone else deciding it's necessary for me to sacrifice myself to a cause.


Hmm, i guess what i am saying is that murder and stealing etc is bad only because in the long run it has bad consequences for all individuals. A collectivist / democratic society where the majority uses violence/force against a minority individual is bad even for the individuals of the majority because any one of them might be next. Every individual is a minority in some respect, so its better for all individuals to adopt a policy against the use of force against other individuals. I guess thats my moral for politics. That it is in my self interest to respect others individual freedom.

When it comes to religion or charity i dont have a problem with objectivism. Im an atheist, although i think politics and religion (or none-religion) are best kept separate. Charity.. as I am completely conviced that free market capitalism makes society better for everyone, I then suspect that charity (and self sacrifice) might actually make society and the peope in it worse off. As in, when you trade something with another person, both of you have gained. Both of you value the thing you got more than the thing you gave away. Society as a whole is thereby in some way better off. However when you sacrifise your own gain by giving someone "something for nothing" only one of you are better off. Society as a whole did not gain anything.

Cheers

[nickcoons]

As in, when you trade something with another person, both of you have gained. Both of you value the thing you got more than the thing you gave away. Society as a whole is thereby in some way better off. However when you sacrifise your own gain by giving someone "something for nothing" only one of you are better off. Society as a whole did not gain anything.

And I fully support your view on this. The charity that you're describing is self-sacrificial or altruistic, which is frowned-upon from an Objectivist standpoint. If I (speaking only for myself) give to a charity or cause that I value, I am not getting nothing in return. What I am getting in return might be furthering a cause that I support, or it might simply be a good feeling that I've helped someone else. Both of those are things that I value, and I would consider those things more valuable than what I gave. So in the same capitalistic vein, both parties are better off for the exchange, otherwise we wouldn't make the transaction. If I valued what I gave more than what I got, I wouldn't have participated in the exchange.

The key is that it's voluntary, and helping others can only be compassionate and truly virtuous when it is 100% voluntary. This is the antithesis of a socialist society, where so-called compassion is forced upon everyone, removing any virtue from the act of charitable giving.

[jemartinsen81]

I believe the cover of this Objectivist magazine speaks for itself. I feel pretty sick just watching that image -- its beyond disrespectful.

http://atlassociety.org/images/tni_janfeb008cov.jpg

[Dustancostine]

She promoted anarcho-capitalism when she formed "Radicals for Capitalism".

Sorry Kludge you are mistaken.

Ayn Rand on Anarchism:


From the Virtue of Selfishness


Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction... a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of government.


--Dustan

[nickcoons]

I believe the cover of this Objectivist magazine speaks for itself. I feel pretty sick just watching that image -- its beyond disrespectful.

Yep, that's all one needs to completely understand Objectivism.. a magazine cover. I guess one could read Ron Paul's newsletters from the early 90s (the ones with the racial slurs written by ghostwriters) to get a complete understanding of him, right?

[Dustancostine]

I’m admittedly ignorant on the tenants of objectivism, but as far as I could tell from my reading of “Atlas Shrugged” all those years ago, objectivists seem to detest charity – even if it’s a wholly private matter (no coercion involved). Whereas most libertarians (well me at least) don’t have a problem with charity – and see that it is sometimes necessary – but prefer that it be dispersed locally among willing individuals. In short, objectivists seem to take the notion of “survival of the fittest” to its extreme conclusion.

This is incorrect:

From Ayn Rand's Playboy Interview:


My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.


From The Objectivist 1966


The fact that a man has no claim on others does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others--a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal....

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism's terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste--then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it, and when it is offered in response to the receiver's virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

[jemartinsen81]

Yep, that's all one needs to completely understand Objectivism.. a magazine cover.

You are of course correct in that criticism, so here's some quotes from interviews with Ayn Rand herself. She goes as far as to call Libertarians "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people".


Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.


Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.


Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.


Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.


Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]

AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.


Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.


Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.


Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

[Dustancostine]

I wonder what she would have thought about the neo-con idea about spreading democracy by force.


Ayn Rand on spreading "good" by force:

From Capitalism an Unknown Ideal


An attempt to achieve good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man's capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a man's judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one's mind, is not a value to anyone, the forcibly mindless can neither judge or nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes. Values cannot exist outside the full context of a man's life, need, goals, and knowledge.

[Kludge]

Sorry Kludge you are mistaken.

--Dustan

Radical libertarianism in the form of minarchy only to protect property (from which all rights derive). Sorry for my poor choice of words.

[Dustancostine]

You are of course correct in that criticism, so here's some quotes from interviews with Ayn Rand herself. She goes as far as to call Libertarians "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people".

Ayn Rand's position on Libertarians:

From The Objectivist 1971


For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before, I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so called "hippies-of-the-right" who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by th concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

Harry Binswanger a disciple of AR


The libertarians... plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute....

In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the libertarians are tying capitalism to the whim-worshiping subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future.

While I don't agree with either Rand or Binswanger on compromising to reach common political goals, you need to understand Rand's contempt for libertarians. She was waging a philosophical battle, any deviation is a compromise and would undermine her philosophy.

On the other hand, you have to form alliances with those with similar goals regardless of their philosophy to achieve things in our political system. That has been the beauty of the Revolution.

--Dustan

[Dustancostine]

There really isn't much difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. At its best, Libertarianism is the political implementation of Objectivist ideas. Objectivism is a moral philosophy on how one should live one's life. Other moral philosophies generally come from religion (i.e. God determines what is right and wrong), but Objectivism is derived from reason and observed reality. And Objectivism is the only moral philosophy that places the individual as paramount. All others (as far as I know) allow that society may sacrifice an individual for the good of others (i.e. Socialism).

The problem that many Objectivists have with Libertarians, and the reason Ayn Rand didn't like Libertarians, is because Libertarians usually arrive at their conclusions for utilitarian reasons. For instance, an Objectivist would say that the income tax must be abolished because it's wrong to steal. A Libertarian may say that the income tax must be abolished because we need to decrease the amount of revenue that government receives so we can decrease spending, because it's better for the economy, or for any number of other reasons. But all of these reasons are based on the result of getting rid of the income tax (it's better for society to not have it than to have it). Objectivists have a problem with this because the Libertarian that believes this will change his mind if he is convinced that the result of having the income tax is better than not having it, whereas the Objectivist will still be against it because it's morally wrong, independent of whatever result it may have.

In short, Objectivists see Libertarians as having many of their same political beliefs, but no moral foundation supporting those beliefs. For those that are Libertarians, but were former Republicans or Democrats and became Libertarians because they see it as simply an alternative, or they see the waste in government, these are the ones that Objectivists disapprove of, because these people are prone to sway back and forth. They have no innate belief that initiation of force is simply wrong, and will approve of the initiation of force (not to be confused with retaliatory force, which is perfectly acceptable to Objectivists and philosophically-based Libertarians) if they belief the result of that force will make an overall improvement.

Ayn Rand is by no means a perfect person, but the Objectivist philosophy is logically sound. I would highly recommend learning more about for those that aren't familiar. And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion.

For a better understanding of the ideas, you can get a brief introduction from this series of videos. It's not specifically about Objectivism, but about Collectivism vs. Individualism, so it talks about the differences more than promoting them (but it does seem to be slanted in favor of Individualism):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKPPe78pX5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0

And of course, there's the classic "Philosophy of Liberty":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

BTW, we're not really assholes.. I think a better word to describe many of us would be arrogant, or at least we have the appearance of arrogance. But that's because we have a solid philosophical foundation on which to base arguments. If you put a bunch of us in a room together, that arrogance tends to go away since we're all pretty much on a level playing field.

+1

[nickcoons]

You are of course correct in that criticism, so here's some quotes from interviews with Ayn Rand herself. She goes as far as to call Libertarians "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people".

Yes, I'm familiar with Objectivist views on Libertarianism. I thought I pretty thoroughly explained that in post #39 of this thread.

[Dustancostine]

Quoting nickoons,

"And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion."

I can't possibly think why someone would think Objectivists are assholes or arrogant.

I know the "god" debate is a waste of time, but outside of math, I would love to see any evidence of the "non-existence of something", in particular conclusive evidence. Conclusive evidence of the non-existence of something would require omniscience, and although Objectivists are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else, I'm pretty sure they haven't achieved omniscience yet.

I am not trying to be a a-hole and Nick's statement, as you pointed out, was a logical fallacy. But what he meant was, that there is a mountain of evidence for existence (like everything that has ever occurred), and not one shred of it points of the existence of the supernatural.

This is why I do not consider my self an atheist, but when asked about god/religion just state that I have no belief or logical reason to hold those beliefs.

--Dustan

[Dustancostine]

If Ayn Rand's primary philosophy is objectivism, why does Ron Paul disagree with it? Isn't Ron Paul's philosophy that each person should take responsibility for their own lives and not depend on the government? This sounds very similar to objectivism in which each person is to focus on their own well-being primarily. Am I missing something?

BTW: This statement has been over looked in the ensuing debates. Ron Paul did not say that he disagreed with Ayn Rand philosophically, but that he did not agree with certain tenets of her philosophy (religion, abortion). Which is different than not agreeing with her philosophy.

-Dustan

[nickcoons]

This is why I do not consider my self an atheist, but when asked about god/religion just state that I have no belief or logical reason to hold those beliefs.

The term "atheist" has often been used to mean denying the existence of god. In fact, I've even seen some dictionaries define it as such. A "theist" is one that believes in the existence of a god. Grammatically, an "atheist" is not one that denies that existence, but simply holds no such belief (one who is not a theist).

There have been other ways to supposedly clarify this, such as "strong atheist" (denies existence) and "weak atheist" or "agnostic" (holds no belief). As you, I fall into the latter category, primarily because of he logical fallacy that you've pointed out.

[MBA2008]

Quoting nickcoons,

"Quote:Originally Posted by MBA2008
Quoting nickoons,

'And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion.'

I can't possibly think why someone would think Objectivists are assholes or arrogant.

Yeah.. funny . Arrogant maybe, but there wasn't really anything asshole-y about that comment."

Oh, I guess I'll just post this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole

and let others decide for themselves...

Again, quoting nickcoons,

"The default position is that God (or anything) does not exist."

Although practical, this does not constitute evidence, much less a mountain of it, of non-existence. The fact that you (or humanity in general) is unaware of something, or has not witnessed it directly, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. In other words, the existence of something does not depend on your (or anyone's) knowledge of it.

"At some point, someone made the claim that he does. The burden of proof is on that person, or anyone else that makes the claim. I am aware of zero evidence of God's existence (anecdotal stories about things that happened in one's life are not evidence)."

Just like the above, whether or not someone can prove something exists has no influence on its actual existence. Sadly, I am about to quote Wikipedia; a transgression for which my whole post (indeed, my whole life's work) may be discredited. Alas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

As it turns out anecdotal evidence is, well, evidence. It may be evidence that you are not satisfied with, and maybe you are justified in not being satisfied with it, but evidence has been presented. I concede that the article which I reference does not give a glowing account of anecdotal evidence, but in any case, the failure to produce "satisfactory" evidence does not constitute evidence to the contrary.

"Therefore, I do not deny the possibility of a god, however I see no reason to believe in a god."

Ok, so this addresses my points; you're keeping your options open, but let me ask, what evidence do you require? And if you're truly being scientific about this, isn't the following statement a little hasty?

"And after thousands of years of people claiming such existence, one would think that by now some evidence could be presented to support the claim. It is the lack of evidence after such a long period of time that makes having such a belief almost absurd."

I guess I'm just not impressed by thousands of years, considering that the universe is how many billions of years old? How much stuff do we not know about? I'd bet it's billions of times more than the stuff we do know. It may not really be all that surprising that you/we haven't encountered evidence to your liking in what is literally not even a blink of the universe's eye (and to which your lifespan is not even a blink of the thousands of years' eye). And as I said before, evidence has been presented, as limited and unappealing to you as it may be.

There's a case to be made for the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life, even without all of the anecdotal evidence, but (in the event that such life exists) it could very well be (tens of, hundreds of (?)) thousands of years before such an observation could be made. Thousands of years is not a particularly long time, especially when contemplating something like God.

I acknowledge that you aren't denying the possibility of the existence of god, but it seems like you're getting a little needle in on people who believe in god, by saying "such a belief is almost absurd". It almost seems as if your mind is made up, and not as open as you profess.

"I can understand people having traumatic experiences in their life and something happening against the odds causing them to believe in a god because they can fathom no other explanation. But there is nothing logical about this. It's purely emotional."

I will assume that you are not implying that this applies to all people who hold a belief in God. Believe it or not, there are people out there who have a reasoned faith, and do not just believe based on emotion. You are certainly welcome to detest those who have blind and unconsidered faith, although I’m sure you’ve got better things to do.

Quoting Dustancostine,

"I am not trying to be a a-hole and Nick's statement, as you pointed out, was a logical fallacy. But what he meant was, that there is a mountain of evidence for existence (like everything that has ever occurred), and not one shred of it points of the existence of the supernatural."

Who says that God is supernatural? I did not say that. In fact, I would argue that a supernatural god does not make logical sense. Supernatural only means, "not yet explainable by human science."

For what it's worth, I appreciate your non-asshole-yness. You even go so far as to even avoid spelling the word out. If only every debate were this courteous...

And for the record, I don't think anyone's an asshole; well, at least nobody here.

[Dustancostine]

The fact that you (or humanity in general) is unaware of something, or has not witnessed it directly, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. In other words, the existence of something does not depend on your (or anyone's) knowledge of it.

MBA2008,

This is true. Whether or not a thing has been identified does not mean that it cannot exist. That is the definition of a thing; something that exist. But an existing thing cannot be discussed, named or described until it has been identified. Until a concept (as a product of human thought) has been verifiably identified it cannot be considered an existing thing, just a possibility. And all things imaginable are not possible and are certainly not necessary.




Nickcoons:
"At some point, someone made the claim that he does. The burden of proof is on that person, or anyone else that makes the claim. I am aware of zero evidence of God's existence (anecdotal stories about things that happened in one's life are not evidence)."


Just like the above, whether or not someone can prove something exists has no influence on its actual existence. Sadly, I am about to quote Wikipedia; a transgression for which my whole post (indeed, my whole life's work) may be discredited. Alas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

As it turns out anecdotal evidence is, well, evidence. It may be evidence that you are not satisfied with, and maybe you are justified in not being satisfied with it, but evidence has been presented. I concede that the article which I reference does not give a glowing account of anecdotal evidence, but in any case, the failure to produce "satisfactory" evidence does not constitute evidence to the contrary.


First on anecdotal evidence;
From your wikipedia article.


"Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay"


Wikipedia on Anecdote:


An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident. It may be as brief as the setting and provocation of a bon mot. An anecdote is always based on real life, an incident involving actual persons, whether famous or not, in real places. However, over time, modification in reuse may convert a particular anecdote to a fictional piece, one that is retold but is "too good to be true". Sometimes humorous, anecdotes are not jokes, because their primary purpose is not simply to evoke laughter, but to reveal a truth more general than the brief tale itself, or to delineate a character trait or the workings of an institution in such a light that it strikes in a flash of insight to their very essence........

An anecdote thus is closer to the tradition of the parable than the patently invented fable with its animal characters and generic human figures— but it is distinct from the parable in the historical specificity which it claims. An anecdote is not a metaphor nor does it bear a moral, a necessity in both parable and fable, merely an illustrative incident that is in some way an epitome........

As a rule, biographical anecdotes are considered too trivial or apocryphal to be included in a scholarly biography.........

Anecdotes are typically oral and ephemeral. They are just one of the many types of stories told in organizations and the collection of anecdotes from people in an organization can be used to better understand its organizational culture....


This is a good description of religion. Evidence that is pretty much made up to describe truths and culture. This is the purpose of religion. Not to get people to heaven, but to pass along cultural truths in easy to understand ways.

You also said that non satisfactory evidence is not evidence to the contrary. Meaning that non satisfactory evidence is not evidence that a concept is not a thing. Well applying negatives to everything you get satisfactory evidence is evidence that a concept is a thing.


But back to the philosophical debate:

So far we have:

Things Exist
Not all things are identifiable.
Not all concepts are things.
Satisfactory Evidence is Evidence that a Concept is a Thing



Nickcoons:

"Therefore, I do not deny the possibility of a god, however I see no reason to believe in a god."


MBA2008:
Ok, so this addresses my points; you're keeping your options open, but let me ask, what evidence do you require? And if you're truly being scientific about this, isn't the following statement a little hasty?


"And after thousands of years of people claiming such existence, one would think that by now some evidence could be presented to support the claim. It is the lack of evidence after such a long period of time that makes having such a belief almost absurd."


You ask what evidence is appropriate, the answer to that is satisfactory evidence as you have already indicated. And satisfactory evidence is not anecdotal (by its very definition), but physical (I don't necessarily mean something you can hold, but that can be measured by physics).

And no he is not being hasty. Is he being hasty by not believing in Unicorns just because only a couple thousand years has passed by with no physical evidence? Of course not. The burden of the proof or evidence is on anyone who makes such a claim.



MBA2008
I guess I'm just not impressed by thousands of years, considering that the universe is how many billions of years old? How much stuff do we not know about?

You have answered your own question. Things that we do not know about, we do not know about, which means that we cannot talk/discuss them. To do so implies knowledge, which we don't have.

Just because you describe a concept, whether it is Aliens, God or Unicorns, does not mean that it's existence as a real thing opposed to a concept of the human brain is automatically debatable.




MBA2008
And as I said before, evidence has been presented, as limited and unappealing to you as it may be.

It has not. Anecdotal evidence is not satisfactory evidence.



MBA2008
There's a case to be made for the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life, even without all of the anecdotal evidence, but (in the event that such life exists) it could very well be (tens of, hundreds of (?)) thousands of years before such an observation could be made. Thousands of years is not a particularly long time, especially when contemplating something like God.

More evidence has been presented both direct, in the form of physical evidence, and indirect, from deduction, that extra-earthly life exist, than for a "God". For instance the very fact of life on earth is rather strong evidence of the probability of evidence of life else where in the Universe. (BTW: I don't believe in Aliens either, but there is probability of aliens, while I have seen nothing for me to believe in the probability of God)


MBA (I am not sure of your real name, mine is in fact Dustan),

I am not trying to shake your faith, but to make the claim that something exist you have to have good physical evidence that such a thing does. Claims of God lack this evidence and the burden of proof is on the claimer not the skeptic. This is where a lot of theist make logical mistakes, just because you can conjure a concept does not mean that it is automatically debatable as possible, even though we do not know everything, or even close to everything. Non-theist will win this debate every time.

On the other hand, the argument from faith is very undebatable. The theist claims that they have knowledge/believe in a spiritual being through emotion and extra-worldly spiritual sense. There is no debating what another person feels. This does not mean that something exist physically or is possible physically, but to the person who feels it, this claim is reasonable.

BTW, I have no problem with religion and think is serves many very important roles in our society. There is a lot of truths in the teachings of Christianity outside of the spiritualism, many times the only way to teach these truths and pass them along is through tradition and anecdote. Also humans have a tendency to be irrational and they also have a strong tendency to need to put their trust and faith in something, it is a survival technique. Without finding a suitable outlet for this, major problems can occur. Even though one does not need religion to be moral, I would argue that society in general probably needs religion to be moral. I would also argue that without religion people would put their faith into other things that would not be healthy to them or society. This is part of the problem with socialism today. Nietzsche proclaimed that "God was Dead", this has lead to our modern liberal movement which has replaced God (now that he is philosophically dead) with the state.

There is more I could say on this but I am getting tired. I hope you understand my view point.

--Dustan

[nickcoons]

Oh, I guess I'll just post this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole

and let others decide for themselves...

Given that this is purely subjective and open to interpretation, I don't see it necessary to argue this point, and will agree with you that others should decide for themselves.


Again, quoting nickcoons,

"The default position is that God (or anything) does not exist."

Although practical, this does not constitute evidence, much less a mountain of it, of non-existence. The fact that you (or humanity in general) is unaware of something, or has not witnessed it directly, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. In other words, the existence of something does not depend on your (or anyone's) knowledge of it.

I've already addressed this earlier in this thread.


"At some point, someone made the claim that he does. The burden of proof is on that person, or anyone else that makes the claim. I am aware of zero evidence of God's existence (anecdotal stories about things that happened in one's life are not evidence)."

Just like the above, whether or not someone can prove something exists has no influence on its actual existence.

That's certainly true. But then one must wonder, if one lacks the capacity to prove (or provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) the existence of something, why would one be so certain of its existence?


Sadly, I am about to quote Wikipedia; a transgression for which my whole post (indeed, my whole life's work) may be discredited. Alas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

As it turns out anecdotal evidence is, well, evidence. It may be evidence that you are not satisfied with, and maybe you are justified in not being satisfied with it, but evidence has been presented. I concede that the article which I reference does not give a glowing account of anecdotal evidence, but in any case, the failure to produce "satisfactory" evidence does not constitute evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't say that it discredits your entire post, but the fact that you felt the need to provide a disclaimer first doesn't give much to your argument. At worst, you're wrong and anecdotes are not evidence. At best, we're arguing semantics. But you're right, when it comes to something as supposedly as important as god, I am not satisfied with anecdotes.


"Therefore, I do not deny the possibility of a god, however I see no reason to believe in a god."

Ok, so this addresses my points; you're keeping your options open, but let me ask, what evidence do you require?

I haven't created an itemized list, if that's what you're asking for. Are you asking because you feel that you have a method to meet my criteria?

If I observed something or became aware of new information, I'd evaluate it. I think it would be improper to attempt to create an exhaustive list of acceptable evidence, which might exclude other potentially acceptable evidence simply because it wasn't part of the original list.

To generalize, I would want scientific evidence, just as with anything else.


And if you're truly being scientific about this, isn't the following statement a little hasty?

"And after thousands of years of people claiming such existence, one would think that by now some evidence could be presented to support the claim. It is the lack of evidence after such a long period of time that makes having such a belief almost absurd."

I guess I'm just not impressed by thousands of years, considering that the universe is how many billions of years old?

I'm not sure how the ratio of the "thousands of years" to the time that the universe has existed has any relevance to this discussion.


How much stuff do we not know about? I'd bet it's billions of times more than the stuff we do know.

I would agree with that.


It may not really be all that surprising that you/we haven't encountered evidence to your liking in what is literally not even a blink of the universe's eye (and to which your lifespan is not even a blink of the thousands of years' eye). And as I said before, evidence has been presented, as limited and unappealing to you as it may be.

Please present it. Evidence that I'm aware of goes something like this:

"I prayed to God to make my life better, and yesterday my mom called me after not speaking to me for 10 years and now we're close again."

That is not acceptable evidence. And even if it happens repeatedly under certain variations, it is still not acceptable evidence.

If you know of any evidence that is more concrete than that, I'd love to hear it.


There's a case to be made for the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life, even without all of the anecdotal evidence, but (in the event that such life exists) it could very well be (tens of, hundreds of (?)) thousands of years before such an observation could be made. Thousands of years is not a particularly long time, especially when contemplating something like God.

Humanity has been contemplating god for at least 6,000 years, probably longer. If the universe had only been 10,000 years old, which would mean that we'd have contemplated god for 60% of the existence of the universe, would that be more to your liking? Is there a particular threshold, as opposed to an absolute time, that you've set?

I don't see the seemingly artificial link you're creating between the amount of time we've been contemplating god and the length of time the universe has existed.


I acknowledge that you aren't denying the possibility of the existence of god, but it seems like you're getting a little needle in on people who believe in god, by saying "such a belief is almost absurd". It almost seems as if your mind is made up, and not as open as you profess.

My mind is, for the most part, made up about the people that believe in a god, but not about the existence of a god. My view on most people that believe in a god is that they do for a couple of different reasons, none of which are logical:

- There are the majority, that have been indoctrinated from youth. Not only are they taught of god's existence, but that it is wrong to question his existence. This makes having serious discussions about whether or not he exists difficult. And some people become far too agitated to have a calm discussion when you question their faith.

- Some traumatic event occurs in someone's life, such as an automobile accident where the doctor tells them that they don't know how they could have possibly survived. And with the lack of scientific knowledge necessary to answer that question, it must have been god that saved them.

It is a common human trait to not want to give up on something that you've put much effort into, which is often referred to as "effort justification." People, after learning about making a bad financial investment, will keep throwing good money after bad. If one shapes their life around a theological faith for 5, 10, 20, 50 years, or more, it can be difficult for one to objectively examine that faith and dismiss any inconsistencies outright.

I was raised Christian, and spent more than half of my life with that faith. I've been through this process. I was involved in a particular discussion with someone that pointed out the logical fallacies in my faith. Luckily for me, I'm stubborn and inquisitive, and those two qualities kept me involved in the conversation long enough to cause me to seriously re-examine my beliefs instead of just walking away and dismissing everything that was said.

I would love to have evidence of the existence of a god. I very much enjoy the idea that when I die, there is some sort of afterlife where I can continue on. Or that no matter what I do here, as long as my intentions are good, that I'll be in good company later because god will see me through it. So the lack of a belief on my part is not for lack of want.

I would also love to believe that when I come home from work today, there's a pile of cash sitting on my living room floor. But the want alone doesn't allow me to believe that. Because in a few hours when I get home, my faith in the pile of cash will be destroyed when it turns out there is no pile of cash. The reason someone can have faith in a god is because their faith will never be destroyed. At no point will they walk through their front door expecting to see god, but not find him there. They expect to see him after death. But after death, they're put into a coffin and buried where their body decays and they cease to exist.

Such a result is far less desirable than an actual afterlife. But just as you've mentioned that lack of evidence to support something is not evidence that it does not exist, so too is an emotional want not a logical reason to have a theological belief.


"I can understand people having traumatic experiences in their life and something happening against the odds causing them to believe in a god because they can fathom no other explanation. But there is nothing logical about this. It's purely emotional."

I will assume that you are not implying that this applies to all people who hold a belief in God. Believe it or not, there are people out there who have a reasoned faith, and do not just believe based on emotion. You are certainly welcome to detest those who have blind and unconsidered faith, although I’m sure you’ve got better things to do.

I don't detest people unless they impose their will on others, and even most of those people I don't detest. There are those that seem to have a reasoned faith, but that is quickly dispelled once you engage them in debate about their faith. Every single "reasoned" argument that attempts to prove god's existence that I've ever heard has been circular. Take this one for example:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

The gist is this: The proof that god exists is that without god you couldn't prove anything.

And here's another:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

All six of the points made there can be easily refuted.

There are many cases of supposedly reasoned arguments for god's existence, none of which I've seen hold any water.


Who says that God is supernatural? I did not say that. In fact, I would argue that a supernatural god does not make logical sense. Supernatural only means, "not yet explainable by human science."

More accurately, it means "outside of nature," which would pretty much mean that god would have to (in most theologies) be supernatural. If he created the universe, then he must exist outside of it. Otherwise, he wouldn't exist until after he created the universe.

[DriftWood]

I know i shouldnt but i cant help jumping on this handgranade.. (I dont mean to disrespect anyone or anything, just reason about it..)

I have a bigger "beef" with agnostics than the religious.. because agnostics hold that stating that there is no god is unreasonable. (The religious usually just ignore reason when it comes to religion.)

The agnostic statemnet that there might or might not be a god, is not reasonable. It makes it seem like its fifty/fifty. Maybe there is a god (choose any definition you like) or maybe there isnt, both possibilities are equally likely. Reasonable people do not allow this kind of agnostism about any other subject about reality so I dont see why the existance/none-existance of god should be any different. People dont say that there might or might not be a man living on the moon, or that its fifty-fifty that santaclaus exists, or that its equally likley that neon-green elephants exist. The fact that we have never come across such a thing makes it more likley that such a things does not exist. So the fact that there has never been (in the history of science) a direct observation or experiment that gives evidence to support the therory that there is a god means that it is unlikley that there is such a god. Its not fifty fifty. It more like a billion to one. If after all this it still is not reasonable to state that there is no god, then nothing else we hold true about reality is reasonable to hold. For example just because every time we have dropped a ball and it has always fallen to the ground, is no reason to hold that the ball will fall to the ground the next time we drop it. In a agnostic world gravity is not reasonably proven. If we could not hold such things as reasonable truths, then science and even practical life would be impossible. Imagine walking if we could not take gravity for granted.. doing anything would be impossible.

(Ofcourse it matters what the definition is used for god. The more details that are attributed to god the less likelier it is that such a god exists because a god with lots of attributes is one that is easier to observe and test for. The most likley god is the one with least properties. Its the first movement. The first cause that set in motion cause and effect, the movement that set in motion the big bang. However this is not how most peple define god, they hold that god holds all kinds of attributes. It is alive, it can think, it is good, it can intervine, it created life, it put souls into people, it grants life after death etc.. all these things make the god less likley, not only because it makes it easier to test for such a god but also in the cases where testing is impossible it becomes unliklier because we are left to guess at the properties and the more we guess the more likley it is that we get some of them wrong.

Pheeew.. I just had to write that down. I have not heard any good reasonable counter argument to this. If you have one then please correct my thinking.

Cheers

[nickcoons]

The agnostic statemnet that there might or might not be a god, is not reasonable. It makes it seem like its fifty/fifty. Maybe there is a god (choose any definition you like) or maybe there isnt, both possibilities are equally likely.

You are lumping together "maybe there is, maybe there isn't" and "50/50", and they are not the same thing.

My wife and I both work long and hard at our careers, so we have a designated "date night" that is set aside no matter what. About 8 times out of 10, she's not ready to go at the specified time (you know women when it comes to picking an outfit :rolleyes:). As this time approaches, I wonder whether or not she'll be ready in time.. I experience uncertainty. But uncertainty does not imply 50/50. In fact, given our history, it's more like 80/20.

Most agnostics would not tell you that they think there's a 50/50 chance that god exists. Most would probably put the odds at something much more in favor of god not existing. Your implication that agnostics think both possibilities are equally likely is a huge misrepresentation.

[DriftWood]

You are lumping together "maybe there is, maybe there isn't" and "50/50", and they are not the same thing.

My wife and I both work long and hard at our careers, so we have a designated "date night" that is set aside no matter what. About 8 times out of 10, she's not ready to go at the specified time (you know women when it comes to picking an outfit :rolleyes:). As this time approaches, I wonder whether or not she'll be ready in time.. I experience uncertainty. But uncertainty does not imply 50/50. In fact, given our history, it's more like 80/20.

Most agnostics would not tell you that they think there's a 50/50 chance that god exists. Most would probably put the odds at something much more in favor of god not existing. Your implication that agnostics think both possibilities are equally likely is a huge misrepresentation.

Okay, maybe im misrepresentating agnostics with this 50/50 approach. Personally speaking, the agnostics i have debated with never made a point out of saying that it is more likley that god does not exist. Most of them say that atheists are just as unreasonable as the religious. It seems both sides are given equal weight. I know some agnostics that go to church or babtise their childeren, just incase. That seems a bit silly to me. Agnostics like this are sitting on the fence. I think the agnostics that giv more weight to the none-existance of god have jumped off the fence and become a type of atheist. Whatever they are called I think they are more resonable than the fence sitters.

Cheers

[nickcoons]

Okay, maybe im misrepresentating agnostics with this 50/50 approach. Personally speaking, the agnostics i have debated with never made a point out of saying that it is more likley that god does not exist. Most of them say that atheists are just as unreasonable as the religious. It seems both sides are given equal weight. I know some agnostics that go to church or babtise their childeren, just incase. That seems a bit silly to me. Agnostics like this are sitting on the fence. I think the agnostics that giv more weight to the none-existance of god have jumped off the fence and become a type of atheist. Whatever they are called I think they are more resonable than the fence sitters.

I would agree that taking certain actions, like baptizing your child just in case, is silly. In Catholicism at least, one is judged based on his beliefs just as much as his actions. Baptizing your child while not holding the faith is not very good "just in case" insurance.

[mczerone]

I would agree that taking certain actions, like baptizing your child just in case, is silly. In Catholicism at least, one is judged based on his beliefs just as much as his actions. Baptizing your child while not holding the faith is not very good "just in case" insurance.

I, personally, believe that there are no gods, but do agree philosophically that acting 'just in case', without having faith in your choice, is not going to score any points with an all-knowing God anyway. Which is why I find "Pascal's Wager" ridiculous: living your entire life piously just because it is a better bet whether or not there is a heaven neglects the personal reflection required to really have faith in any religion, established or personal.

[Mongoose470]

God can never be proven. How do you prove God? What testing, analysis, experimentation could establish a being as "God?"

We haven't even defined God in clear terms. What does "god" mean? We can't even agree on that.

Defining a monotheistic God is utterly impossible because any definition would establish a limitation or a boundary. According to monotheists God is infinite. Infinity is undefinable. Does that imply monotheists contradict themselves with faith in doctrine? yeppers.

[Pbronstein]

"When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."

Wonder who Ayn would have supported in the Soviet Afghan mess.

[Todd]

1. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

" Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system.A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend.
Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them?
A: No, I'm not. It's not in my platform.
QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
A: I bet that's a misquote. I do not recall that."



Abolition of public schools would be libertarian. Moving public schools' authority to the local/state level is Conservative.


That is a great example of his differences with the anarchists.

[wild03]

Okay, maybe im misrepresentating agnostics with this 50/50 approach. Personally speaking, the agnostics i have debated with never made a point out of saying that it is more likley that god does not exist. Most of them say that atheists are just as unreasonable as the religious. It seems both sides are given equal weight. I know some agnostics that go to church or babtise their childeren, just incase. That seems a bit silly to me. Agnostics like this are sitting on the fence. I think the agnostics that giv more weight to the none-existance of god have jumped off the fence and become a type of atheist. Whatever they are called I think they are more resonable than the fence sitters.

Cheers

You bring an interesting point, On "Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand" Peikoff writes

"the agnostic is the man who says: "We can't prove that the claim is true, But we can't prove that it is false, either. So the only proper conclusion is: we don't know; no one knows; perhaps no one can know."
Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance"

and continues,

"The agnostic miscalculates. typically, he believes that the he has avoided taking any controversial position and is thus safe from attack. In fact, he is taking a profoundly irrational position. In struggling to elevate the arbitrary to the position of cognitive respect, he is attempting to equate the arbitrary with the logically supported."

As nick points out, there are shades of agnosticism, T.H. Huxley, the inventor of the term defines it as:

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle ,may be expressed as, in the matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations, And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty"

At one end you could be skeptic about God's existence on the other you can claim that the question is insoluble, that we cannot prove or disprove God's existence through empirical evidence or deductive proof.

This second position is the one most people mean when they attack agnosticism when it comes to God. This is what Peikoff refers to and what you mean by "50/50".

The subject is not an easy one. and as pointed out before being a "middle of the roader" is probably not a defendable position. For what I have read Rand probably considered herself an atheist. I used to consider myself an agnostic close to atheist just like nick but as I look more into it I'm leaning more towards atheist.

Take the unicorn for example: If one is agnostic about their existence but for all practical purposes uses their non-existence for all cognitive processes, Is one really agnostic? or just a non-believer?

Also I would like to point out that Rand is not objectivism. Rand discovered the philosophy but any errors by her or her followers are not errors of objectivism. for example I don't agree on her use of "Evil" but this does not mean that objectivism should be discarded. As with any philosophy it will get refined with time as new people contribute to it.

[wild03]

I agree, I am not talking about 1000 years ago I am talking about 10k + years ago. 1k years ago nearly every tribe around had been touched by civilization (monotheism being the most telling factor and the most dangerous). Pre - history is not "pre" it is history and it has humans in it for a very long while that managed not to drop nukes on each other OR wage global war or have global catastrophe.
Tribal anarchy is what got be interested in libertarianism anyway.

I am not an environmentalist I just see every life form (not just humans) as having a right to exist. If that is some how un-liberty minded, tell me exactly, what is liberty mindedness about?
Personally I don't care to be surrounded by buildings, shopping centers or many other houses... I prefer animals, trees and lots of space. Should I not have this liberty because its better for the whole of mankind that we keep building corporate empires and if so I thought this was about the individual, not the collective.


Has anyone ever read The continuum concept? I highly recommend it.

Berry, you bring contradicting arguments. 10k years ago life was far from simple and pure. Mortality rate most have been tremendous people hardly reached their 40's. Babies and mothers died form childbirth and infection.

If you really believed in every life form's right to exist, to you take medications for infections? or a virus? after all viruses and bacteria are lifeforms too, so are roaches and rats and all kids of pests.

The reality is that we live is a violent world. every other higher life form survives by eating others from the plants up. To revert back to an Amish society is to condemn countless of people to suffering and death, Walk around a modern hospital now days and you'll see the countless of lives that are saved because of modern technology. Simple things as an aerosol for asthma or an antibiotic.

Those people are life forms too.



I prefer animals, trees and lots of space. Should I not have this liberty because its better for the whole of mankind that we keep building corporate empires and if so I thought this was about the individual, not the collective.

You certainly can have this liberty you speak of, But only if you earn it, you have no right to take it from someone else. This means that you have the right to purchase as much land as you like and live in it as you please. You have no right of imposing your believes on everyone else.

"Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy." Ayn Rand

[Romantarchist]

As a Christian Libertarian, I would like to say that Ayn Rand disgusts me. Any philosopher who tries to claim that selfishness is a virtue and a good thing, that reason is the only source of knowledge and truth, and that charity and helping others is wrong is someone I'm staying far far away from. She isn't a real freedom fighter. She has more in common with Marx and Hitler than she does with Thomas Jefferson, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, etc. It annoys me that the Free State Project puts her on their posters, I think they should remove her.

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 1

http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2008/04/narcissism-and-scapegoating-of-ayn-rand.html

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 2

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

[wild03]

As a Christian Libertarian, I would like to say that Ayn Rand disgusts me. Any philosopher who tries to claim that selfishness is a virtue and a good thing, that reason is the only source of knowledge and truth, and that charity and helping others is wrong is someone I'm staying far far away from. She isn't a real freedom fighter. She has more in common with Marx and Hitler than she does with Thomas Jefferson, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, etc. It annoys me that the Free State Project puts her on their posters, I think they should remove her.

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 1

http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2008/04/narcissism-and-scapegoating-of-ayn-rand.html

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 2

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm


I'll check the links later, From your post I can tell that you do not understand her philosophy.

I read her book "The virtue of selfishness" and did not find any reasons to believe that selfisness is bad. In fact her arguments against altruism are excellent.

What else would you use in the search for knowledge? Feelings? intuition? Whim?

According to her philosophy charity and helping others is not wrong at all, Nick has explained this many times already.

On the contrary, Marx and Hitler were altruists

[Romantarchist]

I understand her philosophy quite well, actually. I prefer Jesus', who lived his whole life for the sake of others. I also agree with Immanuel Kant when he says that a moral person overcomes their own personal desires, and instead chooses to do what is morally right, regardless of pleasure or inconvenience. BTW, the way she defined "selfishness" and "altruism" is just crazy. When you say that Altruism is "only living for others" and Selfishness is simply "pursuing one's own interests", of course you're going to come out with a warped perspective.

[AutoDas]

Have you ever considered you're not actually helping the person by alms? Ayn Rand has said she is against charity being a morally acceptable goal, not against helping people, which I think can only happen through selfishness.


I understand her philosophy quite well, actually. I prefer Jesus', who lived his whole life for the sake of others. I also agree with Immanuel Kant when he says that a moral person overcomes their own personal desires, and instead chooses to do what is morally right, regardless of pleasure or inconvenience. BTW, the way she defined "selfishness" and "altruism" is just crazy. When you say that Altruism is "only living for others" and Selfishness is simply "pursuing one's own interests", of course you're going to come out with a warped perspective.

This is the reason why I'm atheist and libertarian. You're religion says you should live for the life of others, but there are no people attached to my waist so I am not responsible for them.

[Romantarchist]

I understand that teaching the poor to be self-reliant is the ultimate goal, and one of the kindest things you could do for them. This is what missionaries in Central America are doing right now, actually. But that's still you giving up your ego and conveniences for the sake of others, which I believe is the right thing to do. I'm not really concerned with myself in this R3volution; I have a comfortable life. Other people in America don't. That's why I'm doing my part to get Ron Paul & his friends into the government.

Actually a true Christian lives for others, himself, and most importantly, for God. There are passage in the Bible where Jesus praises honest entrepreneurship and profits.

And that ends my involvement in this thread.

[Dustancostine]

"When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."

Wonder who Ayn would have supported in the Soviet Afghan mess.

She didn't consider communist civilized, but the worst kind of brute. So clearly the Afghans.

[Dustancostine]

As a Christian Libertarian, I would like to say that Ayn Rand disgusts me. Any philosopher who tries to claim that selfishness is a virtue and a good thing, that reason is the only source of knowledge and truth, and that charity and helping others is wrong is someone I'm staying far far away from. She isn't a real freedom fighter. She has more in common with Marx and Hitler than she does with Thomas Jefferson, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, etc. It annoys me that the Free State Project puts her on their posters, I think they should remove her.

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 1

http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2008/04/narcissism-and-scapegoating-of-ayn-rand.html

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 2

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

The most ignorant statement yet on this thread. I highly doubt you know much about Rand or objectivism.

[Dustancostine]

I prefer Jesus', who lived his whole life for the sake of others.

. When you say that Altruism is "only living for others"...... of course you're going to come out with a warped perspective.


You contradict yourself in your post.


Btw: Jesus did not live his entire life for others. He did what his father asked him to do.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I agree with much of Ayn Rand. An idealist philosophy that we will never see in its purity. The most it can do is influence, but I hope it doesn't influence us in the wrong direction.

[wild03]

I understand that teaching the poor to be self-reliant is the ultimate goal, and one of the kindest things you could do for them. This is what missionaries in Central America are doing right now, actually. But that's still you giving up your ego and conveniences for the sake of others, which I believe is the right thing to do. I'm not really concerned with myself in this R3volution; I have a comfortable life. Other people in America don't. That's why I'm doing my part to get Ron Paul & his friends into the government.

Actually a true Christian lives for others, himself, and most importantly, for God. There are passage in the Bible where Jesus praises honest entrepreneurship and profits.

And that ends my involvement in this thread.

Speaking of the bible,

The best way to teach the poor to be self reliant is to teach them free market economics not that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24)

Maybe they are giving up those conveniences because they believe that once they die they will have a special place in heaven. What better deal that to sacrifice 60 years for a guarantied eternity?

A true Christian should live for God, It just happens that he said to live for others, And when he says the contrary, well too bad for those others i.e. When Abraham was about to sacrifice his son. and Genesis 19:8 comes to mind, the father giving his daughters away.

To bad you decided to jump into the thread the way you did, This could have turnout to be a rational discussion on Rands views of selfishness, etc. It would have clarified some of the false misconceptions you have on the subject.

[DriftWood]

I might be out of line here.. but Christian (and its offspring Islam) values seem very anti-capitalist. I wonder what the world would have been like without this anti-capitalist movement. Maybe the dark ages would not have been so dark and the world would have developed quicker.

Cheers

[nickcoons]

I understand her philosophy quite well, actually.

If you did, then you wouldn't be claiming that she thinks that charity and helping others is wrong, because that's fundamentally incorrect. This is akin to saying that you truly understand Ron Paul's position, and then claim that he wants to invade Iran.


I prefer Jesus', who lived his whole life for the sake of others. I also agree with Immanuel Kant when he says that a moral person overcomes their own personal desires, and instead chooses to do what is morally right, regardless of pleasure or inconvenience.

One does not "overcome their own personal desires" when they are charitable. They are being selfish and pursuing their own interests, just as Rand has described, and I'll explain why.

If you donate $5 to charity, you do so because you believe it to be the right thing, you value it, or you value the cause; maybe you're donating to fighting a disease that your wife is encumbered by. The same is true if you donate your time or other supplies.. all of these actions are you acting in your own self-interest, your self-interest being that you want to help others because it is something you value, and Rand would say that you are living consistent with your values. This is not "living for others."

Living for others is forced upon people in socialist societies. Where, instead of you donating $5 to your favorite cause, I steal (through taxation) $5 from you and donate it to my favorite cause, and then expect you to happily comply because it's your duty to be altruistic. This is what Rand and Objectivism opposes.


BTW, the way she defined "selfishness" and "altruism" is just crazy. When you say that Altruism is "only living for others" and Selfishness is simply "pursuing one's own interests", of course you're going to come out with a warped perspective.

Those definitions sound very reasonable to me. How would you define them?

I think the view of most people regarding selfishness and altruism is warped, not Rand's view. People are taught from a young age that selfishness is a bad thing and we should be altruistic. So these words have built-in negative and positive connotations, respectively. When someone comes along and offers reasonable definitions of the words, you find those definitions unacceptable because they don't fit into the mold of what selfishness and altruism are that has been ingrained into you.

[Tanner]

Actually a true Christian lives for others, himself, and most importantly, for God.

This entire argument assumes faith in the possibility of an afterlife. The real reason for living for others in this case is that there is incentive of a reward, or more accurately, fear-inspired punishment after death; it is absolutely true that one has very selfish goals to reach if they have faith in an afterlife. In other words, one is not truly living for others as the individual is completely self-interested in "getting to Heaven" / "avoiding Hell." There mandate is set by the dogma "do as I say or else," which is a threat based on fear and violence. If there was a positive and negative afterlife, would it not be more loving of others to give them your right to enter the positive and take their place in the negative? Of course, this would be great injustice.

After all that, know that I would never accept any infringement on anyones right to practice any religion or lack thereof. I was raised Protestant, educated and disciplined in a Catholic school by a Zoroastrian, a Buddhist, Taoists and Hindus. I studied the histories and languages of the Greeks and Romans to better interpret Judaism, Islam, the mystics of Egypt and the wise men of Persia. I have learned a great deal about reality and peoples; I cannot accept faith, but I will never impede on your right to follow. There are generally good individuals that exist regardless of faiths, and that's why Ron Paul is usually correct.

To respond to a previous post that I did not quote, attaching a moral judgement to the word selfish is inaccurate. I am not called upon to defend Rand herself, but to denounce her philosophy without knowing the terms invalidates the argument. Rational Selfishness. Following blind desire and whims do not a reasoning person make.

[rational thinker]

Oh dear. This old mix-up again.

A/gnosticism is about what you can and cannot know.
A/theism is about what you do or do not believe.

So one can be agnostic without being atheistic if one does not know that the supernatural exists, but chooses to believe that it does anyway.

But as someone brighter than I pointed out, everyone, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is by definition agnostic because none of us can know anything about the supernatural.

The real question, then, is how honest we can be about it.

[Leroy_Jenkems]

This entire argument assumes faith in the possibility of an afterlife. The real reason for living for others in this case is that there is incentive of a reward, or more accurately, fear-inspired punishment after death; it is absolutely true that one has very selfish goals to reach if they have faith in an afterlife. In other words, one is not truly living for others as the individual is completely self-interested in "getting to Heaven" / "avoiding Hell." There mandate is set by the dogma "do as I say or else," which is a threat based on fear and violence. If there was a positive and negative afterlife, would it not be more loving of others to give them your right to enter the positive and take their place in the negative? Of course, this would be great injustice.

After all that, know that I would never accept any infringement on anyones right to practice any religion or lack thereof. I was raised Protestant, educated and disciplined in a Catholic school by a Zoroastrian, a Buddhist, Taoists and Hindus. I studied the histories and languages of the Greeks and Romans to better interpret Judaism, Islam, the mystics of Egypt and the wise men of Persia. I have learned a great deal about reality and peoples; I cannot accept faith, but I will never impede on your right to follow. There are generally good individuals that exist regardless of faiths, and that's why Ron Paul is usually correct.

To respond to a previous post that I did not quote, attaching a moral judgement to the word selfish is inaccurate. I am not called upon to defend Rand herself, but to denounce her philosophy without knowing the terms invalidates the argument. Rational Selfishness. Following blind desire and whims do not a reasoning person make.


[Gasp] You just used your reasoning mind instead of "blind" faith! Heretic!

Excellent post.

[wild03]

Oh dear. This old mix-up again.

A/gnosticism is about what you can and cannot know.
A/theism is about what you do or do not believe.



This definition is no different from say skeptic. and this is true when agnosticism is used as a method; expressing both an epistemic and a moral ideal.

But agnosticism when applied to the question of God's existence means one believes that this issue is intractable or insoluble.

This is the agnosticism that I refer to. Michael Shermer provides a case for this type of agnosticism in his book "how we believe".

In the article "Shermer's Agnosticism A philosophical Examination" Shawn Dawson provides a brief criticism of this type of agnosticism.



So one can be agnostic without being atheistic if one does not know that the supernatural exists, but chooses to believe that it does anyway.

But as someone brighter than I pointed out, everyone, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is by definition agnostic because none of us can know anything about the supernatural.

I don't believe you are correct here. If someone chooses to believe in something for which he has no proof he/she is no longer agnostic. (see Huxley's definition)

[therealjjj77]

If Ayn Rand's primary philosophy is objectivism, why does Ron Paul disagree with it? Isn't Ron Paul's philosophy that each person should take responsibility for their own lives and not depend on the government? This sounds very similar to objectivism in which each person is to focus on their own well-being primarily. Am I missing something?

The very premise that people have certain rights that should not be infringed is entirely different from the animal world.

When you see injustice done, it is not just you that would feel that way. It is virtually universal. Where an animal would kill, torture, or maim one of it's own kind for no reason and think nothing of it, we have a serious problem with doing so.

Take for instance your property. Everyone has a sense of property ownership and if someone tries to violate that, we certainly are not pleased with the situation and believe it should be recompensed.

Or if you see a strong person harming a weaker person, you want to stop it. That's quite opposite of the animal kingdom. There is nothing objective about that.

[wild03]

The very premise that people have certain rights that should not be infringed is entirely different from the animal world.

When you see injustice done, it is not just you that would feel that way. It is virtually universal. Where an animal would kill, torture, or maim one of it's own kind for no reason and think nothing of it, we have a serious problem with doing so.

Take for instance your property. Everyone has a sense of property ownership and if someone tries to violate that, we certainly are not pleased with the situation and believe it should be recompensed.

Or if you see a strong person harming a weaker person, you want to stop it. That's quite opposite of the animal kingdom. There is nothing objective about that.

Not sure where you are going with this and why you bring the animal kingdom up, but you are making a lot of assumptions. An animal always has a reason/goal, "survival".

There are plenty of people that renounce property, or want to take it from other people. As there are more people that really "kill, torture, or maim one of it's own kind" than animals do and REALLY think nothing of it.

You make it look like there's a human collective mind. In fact it takes a lot of effort to lay down human rights (to life, liberty, and property)and get people to respect them. In all human history it has probably happened once with the birth of this country. Even then they are going away fast.

Objectivism arrives at these rights and defends them on logical grounds. By the nature of man, Just like a plant/animal needs certain elements from the environment for its survival. Man if it is to survive as man, needs these rights.

Even if you believe that these rights derive from a creator or not. it does not change the nature of man. Rand makes an excellent defense of human rights in her writings.

[RonPaulalways]

Objectivism is to Libertarianism what Christianity is to monotheism. Objectivists most certainly are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't think idealism is any good because people won't play by your rules. So unless it's for yourself and yourself only, we will never have a world without competing philosophies and the majority in the middle as moderates from all sides. I also believe in exceptions. Sometimes you need to compromise in a position of power in order to get things done. I believe that the goals of any leader should be to correct injustices, cut spending, taxes, and to fight corruption. Of course sometimes ego gets in the way, we're all not so perfect in regards to moral character and all.

I think that idealism can be fun, but let's face it, we can't just privatize all the streets, privatize all the parks, you know etc etc just because of we're idealists, these issues are completely trivial and having no meaning other than to try and make things as we want them to be. We should be more focused on spending and taxes, while we either eliminate or reform the bad things AS LONG AS we have the political power to do so. The LP has no power and the GOP and DP are full of corrupted politicians, so I don't see much good coming out of America's government for a while. And less than 300 years.... Rome's Republic lasted much longer than that.

[blocks]

From what I understand it is the difference between politics and religion. Which Ron Paul believes should never intertwine.

[wild03]

I don't think idealism is any good because people won't play by your rules. .....we're all not so perfect in regards to moral character and all.


I'll have to disagree with you. What idealism are you referring to? A libertarian society will not expect you to follow any rules. If you don't, you just pay a price. This correction mechanisms will be in place.

I would only call it ideal because it is the only political system that takes into account human nature and reality. It doesn't expect the "new man" of socialism nor "a perfect moral man" that this mix economy system demands.

The morals of compromise are what got us were we are now, there is no compromise between good and evil, a lie and the truth, a thief and the man he is going to rob.

Rand has a great chapter on compromise in "Capitalism the unknown Ideal"



I think that idealism can be fun, but let's face it, we can't just privatize all the streets, privatize all the parks, you know etc etc just because of we're idealists, these issues are completely trivial and having no meaning other than to try and make things as we want them to be....

Just because you don't see how this could possible work does not make it "impossible", Let's face it, If you were living in the 1900 you would be telling the Wright brothers to forget about heavier than air flight, because "the idea could be fun but let's face everyone knows..."

when in fact WE don't know. and we will never know until we give the market a chance. until then I'm not ruling out anything, Rothbard and others who's lectures you can find in mises.org due offer ways in which this privatization could happen.

[tonyr1988]

Also can you give the quote from the book, I don't have it yet.

I don't have it on me, but he mentions it at the very end. He gives a "reading list" for people to read to gain a deeper understanding of his principles. One of them is Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and he mentions next to it that he disagrees with her on some important philosophical views, but it's a good read.

Also, she was definitely not an anarchist (I'm not extremely well-read on her, but I know a little bit).

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immortality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."

("The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness)

[literatim]

This entire argument assumes faith in the possibility of an afterlife. The real reason for living for others in this case is that there is incentive of a reward, or more accurately, fear-inspired punishment after death; it is absolutely true that one has very selfish goals to reach if they have faith in an afterlife. In other words, one is not truly living for others as the individual is completely self-interested in "getting to Heaven" / "avoiding Hell." There mandate is set by the dogma "do as I say or else," which is a threat based on fear and violence. If there was a positive and negative afterlife, would it not be more loving of others to give them your right to enter the positive and take their place in the negative? Of course, this would be great injustice.

It does? I am not sure about other people's faiths, but one doesn't get into heaven by being selfless. It is only through the acceptance that Jesus died for our transgressions of the Law so that we are forgiven of them. We know we are sinful and the primary goal of becoming better people is because it is right and for the sake of others.

[mudsling3]

Enjoy reading Ayn Rand, her concise use of language help condensate my ideas and thoughts. This is the most interesting thread IMO.

[G-Wohl]

Btw: Jesus did not live his entire life for others. He did what his father asked him to do.

You're both wrong. His supposed father never existed and Jesus was the son of a child hooker.

[wild03]

I don't have it on me, but he mentions it at the very end. He gives a "reading list" for people to read to gain a deeper understanding of his principles. One of them is Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and he mentions next to it that he disagrees with her on some important philosophical views, but it's a good read.

Also, she was definitely not an anarchist (I'm not extremely well-read on her, but I know a little bit).

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immortality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."

("The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness)


I'm sure one of these views is religion, Rand was an atheist and her philosophy arrives at this conclusion.

She also defined anarchy as you mention, and argues that goverment should handle the courts, police, etc. It is important to note that when some libertarians like Rothbard argue for no goverment at all (For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, I believe) this is not the anarchy that Rand Defines. Rothbard makes a good argument for private courts, police, etc and how they could work. His arguments answer the issues Rands brings up on (the virtue of selfishness).

[BeingJohnGalt]

We more experienced O'ists are only a**holes sometimes... but only to those who deserve it. :p