Could Someone Here explain this to me?

[Idealism]

I've recently met an objectivist at my new school who I've been debating a lot with. But I just do not understand how his reasoning works, how on earth do"industrialists run society" (coming from Atlas Shrugged)
I'd prefer a response from the point of view of a believer, instead of just a refutation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not a believer here, but no one else has said anything yet:

Well their thinking is basically a fancy ideological justification for the staus quo and to make virtues out of many of the things that people don't like about capitalism.

It is also a ideology based on a whole mess of elitism - basically there are "special" people and "clods". Industrialists are the uber-men born with aryan blood - oops, wrong ideology - born with special induvidual abilities. Workers are drones with no imagination and so they are not smart or special enough to become industrialists. It's kind of like how puritans thought about weather people are blessed by god or not - oh, you got small pox, God, hates you; I murdered 10 indians and got all this land to farm, I guess God loves me!

Objectivism also relies on a false political division of "collectivists" vs. "induvidualists" and this is probably the part of their belief-system that has caught-on with the Ruling class and US conservatives. In this view, the NAZIs, Communists, Boy Scouts, Catholic Church are all essentially the same thing.

[MMIKEYJ]

Are we talking capitalism? Ive never read Ayn Rands works, but Im an avide capitalist, and I subscribe to Libertarian ideals, free market, adam smith, Ron Paul, etc. and so forth.

[IcarusAngel]

Lol. MMIKEY is back. Give it up MMIKEY, the RP revolution is over.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Are we talking capitalism? Ive never read Ayn Rands works, but Im an avide capitalist, and I subscribe to Libertarian ideals, free market, adam smith, Ron Paul, etc. and so forth.

:rolleyes:

[MMIKEYJ]

Lol. MMIKEY is back. Give it up MMIKEY, the RP revolution is over.
Youre mistaken.. Its just begun my friend.

[Pogue]

Youre mistaken.. Its just begun my friend.

If its just begun then all my suspicions are confirmed and it is officially the most boring revolution ever. I'm not feeling it.

[SavagePostModern]

I've recently met an objectivist at my new school who I've been debating a lot with. But I just do not understand how his reasoning works, how on earth do"industrialists run society" (coming from Atlas Shrugged)
I'd prefer a response from the point of view of a believer, instead of just a refutation.

Ah, you've met a objectivist Randian.

( They're scary people.)

( Their philosophy is almost religious in a sort of fundamentalism.)

( They are kinda like a religious elitist cult much worse in comparison to even that of scientologists.)

( Alot of their beliefs they come to accept as absolute truths.)

( A big deal of skepticism will go a long way in arguing against them.)

[AvanteRedGarde]

It's capitalist ideology concentrated to crackpot form, the type that most capitalists don't even seriously, or at least publicly, uphold.

According to Ayn Rand, the "moral" thing to do is to follow rational self interest. Marxists have always argued that the rational self interest of those living under the weight of capitalist-imperialism is to unite along class lines to overthrow their exploiters. The only people who think "rational self interest" means saying "fuck you" too everyone else are spoiled brats, usually college students.

[Havet]

I've recently met an objectivist at my new school who I've been debating a lot with. But I just do not understand how his reasoning works, how on earth do"industrialists run society" (coming from Atlas Shrugged)
I'd prefer a response from the point of view of a believer, instead of just a refutation.

Since I am a post/ex-objectivist, perhaps my opinion might be of interest.

I'd argue with them mainly from an anarchist angle. Ask them why does society need running.

Ask them why is a government necessary. Expect the response of: to provide a police force, law and military defense. Explain the benefits of free gun laws (basically absence of laws), common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) as an alternative for disputes to be handled (http://mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf), and free association into militias in case an attack is imminent.

Ask them why is it logical for someone, whether able, willing, qualified or not, to command what the other people should do by forcing them at gunpoint to do so.

At some point they will bring about the claim that the U.S. Constitution is a valid social contract. This is where I suggest you show them the following links regarding that subject:

http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2009/01/15/the-state-is-not-a-voluntary-arrangement/

http://www.nothirdsolution.com/non-libertarian-faq/#7

http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2008/07/21/its-not-voluntary-and-its-not-a-contract/

Basically, the main argument present there is the following:


a valid contract requires several things:

offer and acceptance, by which one party extends an offer and the other party has an opportunity to freely accept or refuse to accept,
consideration, usually understood to mean that there is an exchange of value for value, but at the very least an exchange of wills in accordance with (1),
legal intent, that is, the contract may not oblige parties to do anything which is illegal
capacity, that is, the parties are both of mind sound enough to give valid consent and agreement

It is plain that the Constitution is not a contract of any sort, nor was it ever intended to be such an instrument. midwesterner follows the stale “it’s a contract, stupid!” argument, with the equally asinine suggestion that I agreed to the constitution when I took my oath of office (http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/07/why_the_2008_el.html#182992), only to backtrack later and argue that acceptance of the constitutional “contract” is the “default” for anyone born here. Being born in to slavery does not mitigate the fact that one is born a slave.


And as the cherry in top of the cake, here's a compilation of objectivism's criticisms:


http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html#politics

[Comrade B]

Are we talking capitalism? Ive never read Ayn Rands works, but Im an avide capitalist, and I subscribe to Libertarian ideals, free market, adam smith, Ron Paul, etc. and so forth.
So... Ron Paul is now the prophet of Libertarianism? What about his whole anti-gay rights deal? Really, the only Libertarian idea he has is that we shouldn't be taxed, which is as very stupid idea, that is why the US gave it up so early, you cannot 1. fund an army 2. fund public transportation 3. fund public education or hospitals 4. fund your own government 5. fund a law enforcement organization

but if you are cool with the world being run by the law being enforced by private interests, wars fought by companies like blackwater, having to pay for school and hospitals fully, and using any roads and not being able to travel to a lot of places without roads... well... have a blast!

[trivas7]

If its just begun then all my suspicions are confirmed and it is officially the most boring revolution ever. I'm not feeling it.
Ditto to the socialist one, too, friend.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If its just begun then all my suspicions are confirmed and it is officially the most boring revolution ever. I'm not feeling it.Hilarious!

I can imagine an insurrection of objectivists:

Randite 1: Comrade Objectivist, we need reinforcements over here!
Randite 2: Pfft! Our barricades are holding up perfectly, if you barricade is under attack, that's your problem, suck it up.

[Pogue]

Ditto to the socialist one, too, friend.

But I'm not saying its just beginning. I wholeheartedly accept its not begun yet. So your attempt at being clever failed.

[Havet]

Hilarious!

I can imagine an insurrection of objectivists:

Randite 1: Comrade Objectivist, we need reinforcements over here!
Randite 2: Pfft! Our barricades are holding up perfectly, if you barricade is under attack, that's your problem, suck it up.

Better:

Randite 2: Sucks to be you. Since A is A, it is in my self-interest to not help you, so tough luck!
Randite 1: Oh well, who is john galt?

[Dejavu]

Originally Posted by Idealism http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1548142#post1548142)
I've recently met an objectivist at my new school who I've been debating a lot with. But I just do not understand how his reasoning works, how on earth do"industrialists run society" (coming from Atlas Shrugged)
I'd prefer a response from the point of view of a believer, instead of just a refutation. Since I am a post/ex-objectivist, perhaps my opinion might be of interest.

I'd argue with them mainly from an anarchist angle. Ask them why does society need running.

Ask them why is a government necessary. Expect the response of: to provide a police force, law and military defense. Explain the benefits of free gun laws (basically absence of laws), common law (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) as an alternative for disputes to be handled (http://mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf), and free association into militias in case an attack is imminent.

Ask them why is it logical for someone, whether able, willing, qualified or not, to command what the other people should do by forcing them at gunpoint to do so.

At some point they will bring about the claim that the U.S. Constitution is a valid social contract. This is where I suggest you show them the following links regarding that subject:

http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2009/...y-arrangement/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2009/01/15/the-state-is-not-a-voluntary-arrangement/)

http://www.nothirdsolution.com/non-libertarian-faq/#7 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nothirdsolution.com/non-libertarian-faq/#7)

http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2008/...ot-a-contract/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2008/07/21/its-not-voluntary-and-its-not-a-contract/)

Basically, the main argument present there is the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Website
a valid contract requires several things:

offer and acceptance, by which one party extends an offer and the other party has an opportunity to freely accept or refuse to accept,
consideration, usually understood to mean that there is an exchange of value for value, but at the very least an exchange of wills in accordance with (1),
legal intent, that is, the contract may not oblige parties to do anything which is illegal
capacity, that is, the parties are both of mind sound enough to give valid consent and agreement

It is plain that the Constitution is not a contract of any sort, nor was it ever intended to be such an instrument. midwesterner follows the stale “it’s a contract, stupid!” argument, with the equally asinine suggestion that I agreed to the constitution when I took my oath of office (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/07/why_the_2008_el.html#182992), only to backtrack later and argue that acceptance of the constitutional “contract” is the “default” for anyone born here. Being born in to slavery does not mitigate the fact that one is born a slave.

And as the cherry in top of the cake, here's a compilation of objectivism's criticisms:


http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics....html#politics (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html#politics)

[Dejavu]

^^ qft

[Havet]

^^ qft

:thumbup: (had to look "qft" on urban dictionary haha)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Better:

Randite 2: Sucks to be you. Since A is A, it is in my self-interest to not help you, so tough luck!
Randite 1: Oh well, who is john galt?:thumbup: