Statists masquerading as Objectivists or Objectivists unaware of their contradictions?
Posted by MaxCasey 11 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
Through very few posts on here I've been amazed that so many so-called Objectivists would unwittingly espouse beliefs that are in line with statism and the denial of man's individual rights. So amazed in fact that I can't help but wonder if these people are part of those who are paid to troll message boards and "tow the party line", or if people truly don't understand Objectivism.
Recent posts suggesting that its okay for the government to force people to work against their will and the lack of understanding of the primacy of the individual over society are some of the things I've seen recently that give rise to my amazement.
What do you think? Trolls or ignorance? Or maybe both?
Recent posts suggesting that its okay for the government to force people to work against their will and the lack of understanding of the primacy of the individual over society are some of the things I've seen recently that give rise to my amazement.
What do you think? Trolls or ignorance? Or maybe both?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
But their are several differences between us and this is one.
I believe there are a few "emergency contraception" methods available by prescription. "Plan B" and RU486 come to mind.
I claim no expertise on these matters but I clearly remember triumphant news that we had figured out how to prevent the fertilized egg from embedding in the uterus. (I say "triumphant" because that was exactly how I felt. Remember I am pro-choice.)
And no, public opinion should NOT be the standard by which we determine who can access what services, because that just allows bigotry to run rampant, which is harmful to minorities.
You bring up the issue of not forcing people to behave as you think they should, but the fact of the matter is that it's not possible to maintain a peaceful society without some level of government coercion. The belief that it is possible is an anarchist ideal, and I have no respect for anarchy. Society must have laws and regulations if order is to be maintained.
This is not a totalitarian stance, it is an anti-anarchist stance. Something I've noticed is that many Objectivists tend to believe that anyone who thinks laws and regulations are necessary is automatically an advocate for totalitarianism, which couldn't be further from the truth. Naturally government is always susceptible to corruption, which is why we need to have both internal and external controls and limitations on government. But at the same time we must acknowledge that government does have a legitimate purpose, and that tyranny can come from non-government sources.
***
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
― James Madison, The Federalist Papers
I have a “Who is John Galt?” sticker on the bumper of my car. It is there because I liked Galt’s idea that at some point the creative and productive people should strike against the high taxes that are placed on their labor. But I also feel that the belief in a creator in my life is overreaching and important to such an extent that if I find that the philosophy of Objectivism is such that it requires one to be an atheist, I will remove myself from the collective symbolized by removing the Galt sticker from my car though I will still support the ideals of individualism.
I am that I am is not emotion.
I exist, therefore I exist.
I'm pretty sure Moses and the Israelites predated Aristotle.
Having created the universe, God doesn't exactly need a vigorous study of reality, as He created it.
There's a reason I included the Babylon 5 youtube link.
A couple of interesting references:
1. The Virture of Selfishness by Ayn Rand: http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness...
2. The Fountainhead, course offered by Ayn Rand Institute: http://campus.aynrand.org/classroom/8/
The Fountainhead is a pretty lengthy course at 6 hours of video but is really worth the time as it really goes into a deep dive into the various perceptions of selfishness.
Benevolence vs. altruism.
A = A is arrived at after a vigorous study of reality based on the validity of the senses, the application of logic to Reason.
A = A is Reason. "I am that I am" is Emotion.
Based on my Alexa ranking - I can see that Galt's Gulch has a U.S. Ranking of 98,988 and 491,062 globally. This means that it is 98,988th most viewed website in the U.S., and 491,062nd globally. Again, not sure if that is a precise indicator, but it can provide a sense.
Concerning "keeping the door open," aren't objectivists by their very nature uncompromising on their basic principles?
Most famously (to me anyway) in her last speech at the Ford Hall Forum she refused to endorse Ronald Reagan because of his association with the Moral Majority and his stand on abortion. When pressed she decried that "he is NOT an advocate of Capitalism but of a mixed economy - albeit a slightly different mix."
(I put quotes around that last because I remember that tape so clearly. The sound of her voice still thrills me - even just the memory of a speech I haven't listened to in twenty years. God I loved that woman.)
But back to the point - Ronald Reagan did wonderful and terrible things. He won the cold war and defeated the Soviets. He also commenced the war on drugs and set our nation on the path to become a police state. He was a deregulator, but he also spiked our debt - showing that neither party could be trusted to behave with fiscal responsibility.
It's hard to say she was wrong.
Ayn Rand would not have voted for the Anti-Obama.
She said the time for politcs had not yet come - that we must first win the battle of Ideas.
Granted, with the rise of the Tea Party there may be some she would endorse now, but surely not in the last presidential election.
Freeing your mind is indeed a very difficult thing to do, if not the most difficult thing a person will ever do. I believe the programming occurs from both sides, liberal and conservative and one of the most challenging things to do is the question the conventions that one was raised with and whose close relations may still embrace. For example, is it wrong to be selfish? A majority would say yes, however objectivists view it as a virtue. Not an easy thing to explain to those unaware.
I recall that when starting down my path to learning objectivsim I had no idea where to begin so I performed a simple Google search. I thought I had a good sense after doing some basic research, I was sadly mistaken and there is still so much that I have to learn :)
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(dictionary.reference.com)
The Atheist and the Baptist make the same logical error. They are certain of something for which there can be no certainty. Agnosticism is the rational position. Of course you refute all religious doctrine, but the idea that the universe may have been created is still a very real possibility.
In fact, until "multi-verse" theories show some meat (predictions, falsifiable tenets, etc.), the exact strengths of the Four Physical Forces make a very compelling argument for our creation.
I am a rational Deist for just that reason. (Well, that and a series of personal experiences that pushed me over the 50/50 tipping point.)
I still don't believe in the supernatural, I don't believe in an immortal soul, and I surely don't believe anything anybody has said on the subject up until this point.
But I still believe I am an Objectivist. For just this reason...
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
-Ayn Rand
I intone those words as others Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.
As long as I do that - the way I see it - I'm in.
Load more comments...