Statists masquerading as Objectivists or Objectivists unaware of their contradictions?

Posted by MaxCasey 11 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
158 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivists are not full anarchists. They share a lot of similar principles but the main difference is objectivists believe there should be a government with a monopoly on the use of force. They believe in a voluntary way of people paying the government to provide a protection of individual rights. I'm an anarchist and not an objectivist for that reason. I'll have to read maph's book. But I disagree that objectivist and anarchist are synonyms.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    point for picking up on whoa ooh ooh. there is not alot I disagree with in Objectivism-I mostly want to knock some Objectivists' heads together. that is different. Objectivists tend to not appreciate this site. some stick. I'm just hangin out at the reception desk. table for two?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It depends which branch of Christianity. As far as I know, it's mostly just the Evangelicals and Catholics who oppose contraception and abortion. Others, such as Mormons, are either neutral or supportive of it.

    And you're operating on the assumption that contraception has no purpose other than to prevent pregnancy. There are many health concerns totally unrelated to pregnancy or child birth which birth control pills help to alleviate, such as reducing cramps or menstrual pain, menstrual regulation, preventing migraines and other painful side effects of menstruation, treatment of acne, treatment of endometriosis, etc.

    So yes, when a pharmacist refuses to provide such medication on religious grounds, he is doing great harm to women.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/...

    I may be a Libertarian, but I still acknowledge the necessity of regulation. As for the use of force, please see the scanned pages from the book I mentioned in my other response to you:

    http://imgur.com/a/n2MfO
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I did say there are several differences between us. This issue of inventors property rights is apparently another.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    By what standard do you decide to "like" or "dislike" an idea?

    Scroll up to about 6 From the Top where I replied at length to khalling. "You cannot claim to be a logical positivist who denies the validity of mathematics. Ayn Rand's work similarly demands acceptance of certain fundamentals. She outlined them more than once."

    See "Ayn Rand standing on one foot" here:
    http://atlasshrugged.com/the-philosophy/...

    This is the philosophy behind "Atlas Shrugged." If you deny any fundamental premise, then you negate the positive message of the book and movie.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To the Christian pharmacist it is not debatable at all. Life begins at conception. And you would FORCE him to commit murder. Or FORCE him out of his profession. Because you would FORCE your opinion on him - by FORCE of law.

    Doesn't sound very Libertarian to me.

    (Just sayin' Maph - you know I think the world of ya!)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jrsedivy 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That must have been a great opportunity. I have seen him on "The Prophecy of Ayn Rand" documentary and his video lectures at Ayn Rand Institute, great stuff.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True enough, KH.
    Myself, I absolutely believe in voting for the lesser of evils.
    I typically vote Republican but always with a heavy heart. I'd vote for a Democrat if I could find one whose knowledge of economics didn't stop at Marx or whose idea of a businessman was just a little more nuanced than Dickens' archetype.

    I mainly pointed out Rand's antipathy to modern politics because it sounded like you were claiming her mantle for your political beliefs.
    Beliefs that I share - but for which I would never chastise another Objectivist for being out of step. --
    "I am amazed at the ignorance of Objectivists in the political realm-which as Rand stated is the fourth foundation of any philosophy. You have to put it into action some way.and voting for Obama wasn't it."

    Just because someone disagrees does not make them a fool.

    BTW, I notice that you too, pick and choose what ideas of Hers you like and dislike.
    "Rand said a woman should not be President. Really?"

    Again, not that I would disagree, I belong to no cults of personality, but - again - I do not hold my up my views as being "politically correct!"
    I've never really liked that mindset.
    ----
    But this is growing harsh and wrongfully so. I agree with you on virtually every point.

    I'm going to shut up now and go away. Just for a while - no hard feelings.
    ---
    (Ooh, oh, but one last thing - that Reagan debt bit. He could never have spent THAT much if our money was still real instead of fiat. - Just sayin'.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah, I never really understood Rand's belief that a woman shouldn't be president, especially since she herself was a woman. I mean, that's the sort of thing I'd expect a man to say, but I find it surprising coming from a woman.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oddly enough, symbolic logic was a requirement for my associate's in criminal justice. I got an A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jrsedivy 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is curious. I suspect perhaps it may be human nature as people become involved in larger groups they may begin to miss the forest for the trees as you said. They become more focused on the objective and the message of the group. They lose focus on "why" and become blinded by tunnel vision with the "what" or "how" and "us" vs. "them."

    I know very few objectivists so this is speculation on my part :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I attended the Yaron Brook lecture in person. They had Peter Mayhew in the month before. The college club has a benefactor who pays for these quest lectures. Usually, I just cannot make them. This one, I pushed some stuff aside for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 11 years, 4 months ago
    I would have to argue that anyone claiming to be a "pure" Objectivist is as much a religious fanatic as a passionate Atheist. In the case of the Objectivists, they choose to purposely ignore everything that does not have a simple, concrete explanation, and expunge any spiritual element from their thinking. I'm not even sure a real Objectivist would be willing to accept the principles of quantum physics, given the mystery element of what has to be accepted as naturally occurring unpredictability.

    Rigid definitions of personal belief, treated as digital, black and white, either-or have a robotic perspective. Human beliefs can best be described as analogue in nature, with a certain amount of "fuzzy" overlap between discrete definitions.

    There is no such thing as a "pure" Objectivist, or any other sort of political believer, as we all have thoughts that would be heresy to a purist. Live with it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. People also think they are Democrat and therefore not Objectivist. Most people I meet who are really opposed to Rand admit they haven't read any of the books. They often haven't even started them. They wrongly think they're about the stuff left/right talking heads yell about on TV.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    agreed. but I find it curious that many Objectivists focus on religion as the evil and ignore how the non-religious progressives have taken over the country. forest for the trees
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    that is incorrect. Libertrians are not staunch supporters of pure capitalism. Rand was clear about inventors property rights. Libertarians are weak on strong property right protections.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jrsedivy 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rand's journey to the U.S. undoubtedly played a key role in getting her existing ideas out there as well as creating new ideas. I believe that someone would be hard pressed to find a larger champion of capitalism and America than Ayn Rand. There is no way that she could have published anything critical of collective society in Russia, especially during that time. It is worth noting however that her books were not well received after release as her ideas flew in the face of liberal collectivists and religious altruists alike. She had a very difficult time finding publishers for her work to say the least and once released caused quite an uproar and backlash among critics on both sides of the aisle.

    Concerning religion, I am not blaming it, simply stating something I had learned and made sense to me during my studies of objectivism. Statism and religion can both have dangerous impacts on people, as can anything that asks you to disregard independent thought and sacrifice for a collective good based on faith or public good.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hmm, well, I don't know if that really qualifies as abortion since a fetus has not yet begun to form, but I guess it's a debatable point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    could Rand have likely written AS having stayed in Russia? The US has always compromised. It ain't pretty-but think of the liberties in 1800 US and in 1920s US. She shows up in the US during prohibition (religious in your face) and says the US is the best country in the world! she enjoyed the US that voters helped maintain and compromised with their votes (Objectivists would be appalled!) and still presented the best alternative for her to choose to emigrate to.and have the OPPORTUNITY to pursue her science of philosophy and enjoy making her first dollars working in Hollywood! I am not that knowledgable of game theory to weigh the loss of a vote not made or a vote made in compromise-but I know the the logical reality of scrambling extra time taken away from the war of ideas to make payroll. You blame religion. I blame marxism and the religion of environmentalism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivism is actually a derivative of anarchistic philosophy. In spite of the fact that Ayn Rand strongly criticized anarchy, she nevertheless appears to have accepted its basic tenants completely, and so far I have been unable to find any discernible difference between her ideas and the ideas of genuine anarchists such as Stefan Molyneux (who describes himself as being a big admirer of Objectivism).

    Recently I've been reading a book titled "Without A Prayer - Ayn Rand And The Close Of Her System," by John W. Robbins, in which the author points out all the logical contradictions and inconsistencies of Objectivism, and explains how they are in fact indistinguishable from anarchy. One especially persuasive chapter was Chapter 6, which talks about the initiation of force, anarchy, and man's rights. You can read a scanned version of the chapter here:

    http://imgur.com/a/n2MfO

    Please pay special attention to the section titled "The Initiation of Force," which starts on page 186, as well as "The Depravity of Man," which starts on page 194, and explains exactly how Objectivism leads to anarchism.

    I've also been reading the works of Stefan Molyneux, who, unlike Ayn Rand, openly endorses anarchy. Several of his books are available online for free at freedomainradio.com, and you can read them there. In particular, you should look at Practical Anarchy, which you can read here:

    Practical Anarchy, by Stefan Molyneux:
    http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/book...

    If you can find any difference whatsoever between the views of Stefan Molyneux and Ayn Rand, please let me know, as I have as of yet been unable to do so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    not voting can be a stand, winning the battle of ideas and educating is certainly important. When the economy is prospering one has more time and resources to devote to the battle of ideas or to plan to have the time for the battle of ideas. Under Reagan, Roe v Wade was not overturned, the war on drugs has escalated, however 9/11 gave rise to both sides voting for a police state, spiking the debt is not valid. It must be compared to revenue and top tax rates were lowered significantly under Reagan. If you had 30% say vote libertarian, we would have presented a strong voice to either side winning. IT is hard to win the intellectual battle if one is ignorant of the political spectrum. for example, Rand said a woman should not be President. Really?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo