I quoted Ayn Rand as follows: “The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.” How in the world is that leaving out that the principle of non-initiation of force is a political principle based on her ethics? Do you actually read my posts?

The country was founded on reason and individualism for white males and few others, and slavery took decades to abolish because reason and individualism were far from being “taken for granted” during the American Revolution.

You accuse libertarians of being “subjectivists” with no basis, as if it were axiomatic. Any perusal of serious libertarian writing and discussion would refute that accusation.

When people believe in a moral duty to serve, a duty to serve will be in government. It isn't a progressive "trick", the power seekers are cashing in on it. It is not a "simple argument to dispel"; it is cause and effect. Proper concepts and definitions have never been more important.

You wrote that "I don't see 'sacrificing for others in any definition of altruism'" and called it a "pinhole definition". Living for others as the standard of the good is the meaning of the ethics of altruism.

You called it a "common emotional response to other's needs. It is just a common (normal?) thought process, probably rooted in tribalism. It is one emotional input to consider when making a logical decision."

There are no innate ideas. Emotional responses are determined by one's values. The meaning of an emotional response to others' needs depends on that. It may mean benevolence or, if altruism is accepted, a desire to sacrifice one's self. Those are two opposite meanings.

Altruism has always been 'package-dealed' with benevolence and kindness in order to put it over, and that has led to widespread confusion. Part of explaining and rejecting altruism requires distinguishing them, and showing why altruistic demands for sacrifice denying the worth of a human being to himself makes benevolence impossible.

More broadly it requires understanding the basis of ethics in the requirement to make rational choices in all aspects of one's personal life, and that the province of ethics does not begin and end with relations with other people, let alone the notion that the meaning of morality is sacrificing to others.

You also wrote that "Altruism is difficult to set aside in a philosophical argument. However, it is unnecessary. The question is not 'Is there, or should there be altruism?' The question is should it be instituted in government. This is simple to defend against. All the rest of altruism is irrelevant as voluntary, and we'll find it in everyone."

All moral theories are "voluntary" in that they state what you should choose to do. They also imply politics that says what you will do. Statism and collectivism cannot be stopped without stopping the underlying morality that is used to justify them.

Widespread belief -- which is not automatic in everyone -- that the good consists of sacrificing to others is not irrelevant, it is an essential cause of the problem. That belief, emphasized further with the notion of ethics as duty, is the cause of welfare statism and the more extreme collectivist ideologies. If you have a duty to serve you will be made to do it.

Being angry over being right and ignored -- along with whatever the throwing rocks comment meant -- does not justify conceding a major false premise. If you want to connect with and sway people in politics, addressing the moral premises for politics is a necessity.

That is why Ayn Rand repeatedly emphasized the need to defend reason and egoism, and rejected the notion that all that is required is political activism. There will be no reform in a society in which a duty to serve is taken for granted as a substitute for moral guidance.

If you wait for the 'next revolution in a wheel chair' (which you won't have because they will be rationed) it will be too late. (Maybe they'll let you have one without wheels). Without a philosophy of reason and individualism driving cultural change, the next revolution will be fought over competing versions of more extreme collectivism and statism as the implementations of the ideas already accepted -- in which you will be left in a quandary trying to decide which "side" to support, knowing that none of them are any good or will save us.

The vague mantra "with freedom comes responsibility" won't help either. Responsibility does not "come" with freedom, intellectual and moral responsibility are required as a base for political freedom. That means understanding and advocating the proper philosophical ideas required to defend freedom. And that requires defending rational egoism and rejecting altruism.

I argue the key point to contest is instituting (altruism, charity, love, etc) in government. This is the trick the progressives are using against us for power, and claiming the others (us et al) are (selfish (yes, I know), hateful, and a host of negatively viewed things).

It is a simple argument to dispel, rather than an attempt to educate a legion on definitions they don't care about. Few argue government does not act foolishly or with bureaucratic silliness, waste, inefficiency and sloth, including progressives. However, they never talk about this when championing the underdog or defaming the successful.

Please do not lecture us on slavery as a diversion. The Enlightenment was in fact based on reason and individualism, the country was founded on that, the slavery in this country preceded it, and slavery was abolished because of it.

A "common principle uniting libertarians" is not the meaning of objectivity. It is typically subjectively accepted and parroted by libertarians with no basis, as if it were axiomatic. That is the subjectivism.

In quoting Ayn Rand you left out that the principle of non-initiation of force is a political principle based on her ethics, which preceded it in both Galt's speech and Ayn Rand's essay on her ethics. It is a consequence of reason and egoism. Your ignoring that is an illustration of why libertarians are rejected for ignoring it.

Really? “individualism and respect for reason could be taken for granted then”? That would have been news to the 500,000 slaves (about 20% of the population) present at the time of the American Revolution, and women of all races who were considered inferior in the ability to reason (and whose ability to own property and participate in the political process ranged from limited to nonexistent).

And non-initiation of force is hardly a “subjectivist premise”. It is a common principle uniting libertarians, and a centerpiece of Galt’s speech: “Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.”

In The Virtue of Selfishness Ayn Rand states: “The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.” To attack libertarians as “subjectivists” for upholding this principle makes no sense, especially considering the “principles” that guide all the other participants in the political process.

America prior to emigration in 1910 already existed as a free society to come to. It wasn't created by 'strikers'.

Perhaps you are being mis-read. But if you are saying you want to be able to sway people on the def. of altruism in order to better see the harm done by that morality, then we need to better explain the def. and show how altruism has been applied in our culture, not soften it and allow the true altruists to prevail.

I will disagree with the last part of this to some extent. Those who came to America prior to 1910 were very much like the strikers in AS who escaped to a place that they could make into their own utopia.

I believe in this thread I have noted that tdechaine was right in the specific definition of altruism several times. However, we continue to argue the same point. This is doing nothing to change my mind (since I am not arguing that point), and I bet it does nothing to change the thought of an objective person. Therefore it is a complete waste, unless one are motivated by reading one's own posts.

Here is an example, of which there are hundreds, of a person expanding the definition of altruism to describe behaviors I noted earlier.
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/art...
And in doing so, they affect a good portion of people who consider "caring" a positive individual trait, and fail to understand the fallacy and negativity of instituting individual behavior in government.

You and tdechaine are welcome to be right. I am completely sick of our group being right, ignored, and sitting on the porch angry throwing rocks at kids on this forum. We need to figure out how to connect and sway people, or just wait until the next revolution when most of us will be in wheelchairs.

With freedom comes responsibility.

I believe in this thread I have noted that you are right in the specific definition of altruism several times. However, you continue to argue the same point. This is doing nothing to change my mind, and I bet it does nothing to change the thought of an objective person. Therefore it is a complete waste, unless you are motivated by reading your own posts.

Here is an example, of which there are hundreds, of a person expanding the definition of altruism to describe behaviors I noted earlier.
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/art...
And in doing so, they affect a good portion of people who consider "caring" a positive individual trait, and fail to understand the fallacy and negativity of instituting individual behavior in government.

You are welcome to be right. I am completely sick of our group being right, ignored, and sitting on the porch angry throwing rocks at kids on this forum. We need to figure out how to connect and sway people, or just wait until the next revolution when most of us will be in wheelchairs.

A capitalist economy does not "lead to" individual liberty at all. It is freedom. A capitalist economy requires individual liberty. A social system based on private property, with a government instituted to protect the rights of the individual, including private property, is a consequence of reason and individualism.

Attempting to appeal to "hearts and minds of voters" for free markets without regard to that understanding is futile. 'Capitalist nations that violate individual rights' is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is not "within the wider framework of a free market economy", it is freedom, based on reason and individualism. "Capitalism" that is in fact a mixed system, part free and part controlled based on collectivist premises, should not be identified as "capitalism" at all. The free aspects show what capitalism is capable of to the extent it is allowed.

It's much more than "managing assets". It depends on the creativity of rational thought to create wealth with new ideas, and that depends on the freedom to it in accordance with a rational philosophy of reason and individualism.

I suppose the glib answer to 'how will you know?' is that you won't because when (if) that time comes it will be off the other end of your life span so you don't need to worry about it :-(

But there isn't any single point in time when the culture is ready. As proper ideas spread more becomes possible in rolling back controls and taxes in advance of full reform. "Becomes possible" refers to receptivity in the general population; there is always resistance from the statist establishment that must be overcome politically, but that is secondary. One must assess what is possible at any point in time just like we have to today (with much less possible).

How realistic is it to expect that any country will ever be ready to accept (fundamental) individualistic political reform? There is no way to know. People have free will so its possible for any ideas to spread. What ideas spread depends on what people who understand them do -- and don't do -- to apply them and spread them. The fringe Libertarian Party that is still a futile fringe party after half a century is an example of what not to do.

The "intriguing aspect" you describe is the fact that a relatively free entire society did in fact exist as a consequence of the Enlightenment, showing historical evidence of what is possible on a large scale -- not just in the late 18th century but lasting for a century in America before it began to erode under Pragmatism and Progressivism. And even with that erosion much continued to be accomplished in spite of the growing collectivism and wars. The American sense of life continued despite the explicit intellectual assault of the counter-Enlightenment, but has been dying out with no defense.

But the people of the late 18th century did not simply up and "establish" such a society in a vacuum. They had a stable free society as a consequence of the dominant ideas. It wasn't a matter of suddenly appearing, breaking out of a statist tyranny in an enclave, it evolved out of the settlements of the 16th and 17th centuries across the eastern north American continent, and to a lesser but still great extent in England, as Enlightenment understanding replaced the religious domination of those times. In other words, the rise of America was not like the 'strikers' in Atlas Shrugged who escaped to a utopia in the Valley. It was a general intellectual phenomenon across a continent and to a lesser extent western Europe..

You make several excellent points above. I was particularly intrigued by the "was (and still is) too soon to expect a consistent individualist political reform to be accepted by the public." I completely agree. How will we know that a sufficient percentage of the public will be ready to accept the proper ideas? There was a high enough percentage in 18th century America and probably in 19th century America. How realistic is it to expect that any country in any era going forward will ever be ready to accept such an individualistic political reform? The most intriguing aspect of America's founding and one of the more intriguing aspects of Atlas Shrugged was the possibility that people who do not need others could establish a flourishing society based on value for value exchange without the need for others to rule them and without the looting and mooching parasites.

No one has to "side with conservatives"regardless of what they stand for, including their demands for religion in politics. Alliances can be and often are made on specific issues -- though the libertarians themselves are known for not being very effective in politics.

Subjectivism and a-philosophical are not "mutually exclusive". Acting on feelings need not be an articulated technical philosophical position.

The Libertarian Party is both subjectivist and a-philosophical in its plunging into politics, seeking fundamental political reform without regard for philosophical principles driving the culture. Those who openly ridicule and reject the importance of philosophy are the worst.

Libertarians who ignore the necessity to base their political views philosophically, starting with with some equivalent of 'non-initiation of force' as their subjectivist premise, are subjectivists. Those who are 'hippies of the right', obsessed with drug rights and hedonism, are subjectivists.

Those, such as many in the 'tea party', who want freedom in the sense of classical liberalism and the natural rights tradition, often do not understand how to defend it and have adopted subjective premises without realizing it even though the are responsible individuals whose lives are not characterized as subjectivist. Many of them think of themselves as articulating a philosophical position, but one that is simply wrong and has subjectivist components, such as religionists with a crude faith in "freedom". That one of course also applies to many conservatives.

The founding fathers were much more intellectual and philosophical. They did not embrace subjectivism, even though there were errors and incompleteness in Enlightenment thinking. Unlike today, individualism and respect for reason could be taken for granted then.

Most libertarians are neither subjectivist nor a-philosophical. And subjectivism is in fact a philosophy, so the two terms are mutually exclusive. Wikipedia defines subjectivism as “the doctrine that ‘our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience’, instead of shared or communal, and that there is no external or objective truth.” Dictionary . com defines subjectivism as ”Epistimology - the doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiences by the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible,” and “Ethics - any of various theories maintaining that moral judgments are statements concerning the emotional or mental reactions of the individual or the community”, and “any of several theories holding that certain states of thought or feeling are the highest good.” Political freedom can arise and has arisen from many philosophical schools of thought that were not fully rational in other respects. It did not begin with Objectivism.

Altruism is not "used" as a negative, it IS a negative. And as EWV noted, it is certainly not supporting an underdog.
If you don't define terms correctly, there can be no rational conversation.

Taught everywhere is an understatement! It's indoctrinated from cradle to grave. Sacrificing your interests to others is inculcated as the very meaning of morality. That is why it is so entrenched as an emotional response and is why it must be rooted out before political reform getting rid of the welfare state and socialism is possible..

Altruism means living for others, not sympathy for an underdog and helping a friend.. As long as altruism is regarded as the meaning of morality it will be enforced in politics. If you are regarded as having a moral duty to sacrifice for others, then you will be forced to do it.

Every political system presupposes an ethics and every ethics presupposes an epistemology. Subjectivist, a-philosophical libertarians ignore that political freedom requires a rational philosophy. Politics is not just another branch of philosophy. There is a hierarchical dependency.

It is easy to accept once rationally understood, but that requires overcoming 2000 years of emotional indoctrination for a mentality of duty to sacrifice one's own interests as the very meaning of morality.

That mentality is outside the realm of rational understanding. It includes collectivists as well as the religious mystics who have been indoctrinated to believe a duty to sacrifice is required to save their own souls in the supernatural realm. It's not rational behavior, but most people think of ethics in emotional terms and do not naturally gravitate towards a scientific, fact-based approach like you accept. A consistent dedication to reason is presupposed by rational ethics.

Ayn Rand's biggest argument against a political party formed by legitimate advocates of freedom is that it was (and still is) too soon to expect a consistent individualist political reform to be accepted by the public. That can only be accomplished by first spreading the proper ideas.

The Libertarian Party -- advertising itself as "the party of principle" -- was even at the beginning a mish-mash of conflicting ideology promoted by publicity seeking in the name of electoral politics, ranging from anarchists to religionists, mixed in with distortions of Ayn Rand.

The anarchism was such an embarrassment that they mostly stopped talking about it, at first claiming that it was still an "ideal", then dropping that embarrassment, too. There aren't many open anarchists left, though we see a few pop up on this forum out of the fringes from time to time and the same kind of a-philosophical subjectivism still dominates. But anarchism was not the only problem with the Libertarian Party and still isn't, as illustrated by the two confused clowns that publicly led the party in its last presidential election debacle.

Ayn Rand did use the common definition of selfishness, but identified and defended what is in fact in one's self interest as the good. Clinging to historical precedent for invalid concepts like Christian ethical standards would not have been possible for rational understanding.

Spreading better ideas is not done through "marketing" slogans as a "hook" "scoring points". Ayn Rand did not seek to appeal to mystics. Ignoring the mystics, Ayn Rand appealed to the sense of life of her readers -- whatever their background or prior indoctrination -- of the novels, who then had endless questions as they sought more understanding in non-fiction terms, not slogans and duties.

Contrary to Blarman, her standard of ethics is not anything like that of Christianity and she did in fact understand that, exemplified by her "challenging two thousand years of philosophy". The irrational 'egoism' of the "spiritual/long term" in the supernatural requiring sacrifice of one's life here in reality is the opposite of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand advocated a "philosophy for living on earth" with ethical standards for rationally choosing in pursuit of happiness, not following duties to sacrifice in the hope of supernatural rewards.