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

[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/PageServ..._arab_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 $#@!.

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 $#@!s.. 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/PageServ..._arab_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 $#@!s.. 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 $#@!s 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?

[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 $#@!s or arrogant.

Yeah.. funny . Arrogant maybe, but there wasn't really anything $#@!-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 , 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.

[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?