Objectivism

[ComradeRed]

Any objectivists here that wish to explain what is objectivism?

[Invader Zim]

Well I always thought to be objective was to view sources with as little bias as possible, I was unaware than an ideology existed.

[ComradeRed]

Its some form of odd laissez-faire loving, pseudo-logical, specious reasoning form of capitalism. I don't really understand it.

[Bolshevist]

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faq.asp

[elijahcraig]

Objectivism is the most ridiculous ideology I have ever seen.

I wrote a critique of the system a while back but can't find it on my computer, I'll post it if I can.

[Monty Cantsin]

if Ayn Rand is one thats all we have to say.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Its pretty much Rand's thing these days, have a look her works to understand objectivism.

[Shredder]

Heaven on Earth (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html)

[ComradeRed]

Nice link, shredder. I'll be sure to keep it.

[mark_d]

I am an objectivist. We believe the following things

Metaphysics: reality
Epistemology: reason
Ethics: rational self interest
politics: hands-off capitalism

I could start to explain the metaphysics and epistemology of objectivism but it would take too long, and to really understand it one would need to simply read what Ayn Rand and others have written.

rational self interest (selfishness): this simply means that one's life should be dedicated to pursuing one's goals. This DOES NOT mean that one should go through any means necessary in the pursuit of one's goals. This does mean that someone needs some sort of goal or goal in their life to be selfish.

hands-off capitalism: basically stated, this translates into the ban on the initiation of force; I can't impose my will on you and you can't impose your will on me. This also means force against one's property. In essence, the only laws that should exist in a society are laws against murder, rape, theft, and stuff like that.

No, I am not pro-bush or a conservative, and I don't think that ronald reagan was the greatest person of all time.

Also, objectivist are atheists, probably the one thing that we would agree on with Marx.

[ComradeRed]

Tell me, is there any right to kill a person?

[elijahcraig]

Read the objectivist reply above and behold the awesome idiocy of Rand.

It nearly hurts my eyes to see such shining examples of capitalist whoreshit.

[mark_d]

Tell me, is there any right to kill a person?

If by this you mean capital punishment, then no. I don't think giving the government the right to terminate someone's life is a good idea. This will tend to be widely abused, as most government powers are, so it's always best to let the government do as little as possible.




Read the objectivist reply above and behold the awesome idiocy of Rand.

It nearly hurts my eyes to see such shining examples of capitalist whoreshit



"Whoreshit"? Wow, what a neat word. Care to explain why?

[elijahcraig]

Because I say it is.

[Nyder]

Objectivism says that use of force is wrong and abhorrent as it deprives an individual of his/her use of reason and is a violation of their right to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness (or something like that). The only time that an initiation of force is acceptable is when force is used against your person and you must use force to defend yourself.

Thus if someone tried to kill you with a shotgun, it would be acceptable and reasonable to apply that same amount of force in order to defend your life. This is already written into the common law but it unfortunately allows for the force used by the state, so no one has any sort of legal protection against force used by the state as long as it is 'lawful' (but that all depends on who makes the law).

[Osman Ghazi]

Objectivism says that use of force is wrong and abhorrent

And yet the people who tend to support it are murdering bastards. Well, what can ya say about the wacky dichotomies of capitalism?

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi[email protected] 18 2004, 02:04 AM

And yet the people who tend to support it are murdering bastards. Well, what can ya say about the wacky dichotomies of capitalism?
:lol:

I could say the same thing about communists, but generally I don't blame an ideology for people killing others. No ideology explicitly states to go around killing people. People often use ideology as an excuse, though. But I've never heard of them using objectivism as an excuse.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 18 2004, 02:04 AM

And yet the people who tend to support it are murdering bastards. Well, what can ya say about the wacky dichotomies of capitalism?
Please tell use how many "murdering bastards" you know are (or claim to be) Objectivists, Kazi.

[Kurai Tsuki]

Even the word objective has begun to be used as an ism -_-

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:36 AM
Because I say it is.
And thus we see the logic of the philosophical subjectivist and it's political collorary.

"Because I say it is"- The words of a spoilt brat and would-be dictator who wishes reality to adept to his wishes instead of the other way round and then kills, enslaves and scapegoats when it refuses to.

Keep talking, buddy. Every word you utter seems to make that "awsome idiocy" more and more like "awesome truth" and "awsome fact".

[Misodoctakleidist]

The old "force" arguement is the part of objectivist ideology that makes me laugh more than any other, they just choose define "force" as whatever suits them. It is force to make someone dance by threatening to shoot them but apparently it's not force to make them dance by refusing to give them them food otherwise.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:14 PM
The old "force" arguement is the part of objectivist ideology that makes me laugh more than any other, they just choose define "force" as whatever suits them.
It's been quite clearly defined.


It is force to make someone dance by threatening to shoot them but apparently it's not force to make them dance by refusing to give them them food otherwise.

Another genius who can't tell the meatphysical from the man-made.

Your use of the word "force" is a blatant equivocation. I suppose you think that being "forced" to eat to stay alive is the same sort of thing as being "forced" into a concentration camp and made to work as a slave. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

WHile I don't disagree with the core values of Objectivism: Material reality being the only reality, Man as a fundamentally heroic being, Happiness being the objective in life, and reason being the only absolute,
I fail to see why the pursuit of happiness has to involve LF capitalism and why selfishness is paramount (Since it goes against reason).

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:38 PM
I fail to see why the pursuit of happiness has to involve LF capitalism and why selfishness is paramount (Since it goes against reason).
It doesn't go against reason. Being forced to spend your entire life working for the benefit of everyone who claims to "need" your property is hardly the pursuit of happiness. Even if this is a source of happiness for some, it shouldn't be forced on anyone.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Even if this is a source of happiness for some, it shouldn't be forced on anyone.

And it isn't forced on anyone, since there is no state to enforce it (If you aren't a Marxist-Leninist, that is to say, that the revolution was bought about by the people themselves and not by a vangaurd of so-called 'professional revolutionaries'). And those who really don't like it can become hermits or leave.

[Daymare17]

Do objectivists think it's okay for a tiny minority of people to possess a personal fortune of trillions of dollars while 3 bn. human beings live on less than $2 a day?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Yes, they do.

Apparently those 3 billion people are either lazy or are living under government who "interefere with market forces"

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2004, 05:25 PM
Another genius who can't tell the meatphysical from the man-made.

Your use of the word "force" is a blatant equivocation. I suppose you think that being "forced" to eat to stay alive is the same sort of thing as being "forced" into a concentration camp and made to work as a slave. :rolleyes:
If i have all the food in the world and refuse to let you have any unless you suck me off am i not initiating force?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:30 PM
And it isn't forced on anyone, since there is no state to enforce it (If you aren't a Marxist-Leninist, that is to say, that the revolution was bought about by the people themselves and not by a vangaurd of so-called 'professional revolutionaries'). And those who really don't like it can become hermits or leave.
Yes, it is forced on people. "Join it or leave" is a claim that your actions are legitimate and your siezure of people's land and property is legitimate and justified. It isn't. Notice how I don't advocate such a siezure.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:19 PM
Do objectivists think it's okay for a tiny minority of people to possess a personal fortune of trillions of dollars while 3 bn. human beings live on less than $2 a day?
For christ's sake...how many more times do I have to refute this ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:25 PM
If i have all the food in the world and refuse to let you have any unless you suck me off am i not initiating force?
Floating abstraction. How can someone "own all the food" ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, it is forced on people.

Only the tiny minority who still hold reactionary ideas like capitalism, racism etc.

[/QUOTE]"Join it or leave" is a claim that your actions are legitimate and your siezure of people's land and property is legitimate and justified. It isn't. Notice how I don't advocate such a siezure. [QUOTE]

The actions are legitamised by the fact that enough people are fed up with the state to overthrow it. Just because land is held in common doesn't mean you can't use it - it just means you can't evict someone from property you don't use.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:11 AM
Only the tiny minority who still hold reactionary ideas like capitalism, racism etc.
Just because something is popular or unpopular doesn't tell us anything about it's morality or legitimacy. Overt slavery was popular at one time.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just because something is popular or unpopular doesn't tell us anything about it's morality or legitimacy. Overt slavery was popular at one time.

Morality is what you make of it and the more people willingly participate in a social system the more legitimate it is.

[redstar2000]

Actually, consistent Objectivism does allow for the restoration of slavery. Here is the argument...

Right-Wing "Libertarianism" and the Restoration of Slavery (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083547923&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[New Tolerance]

So far from what I heard "Objectivism" just sounds like a really old version of Liberalism. What is so significant about this idea?

[Vìcmælon]

I'm not an objectivist, but one of the tenets of Objectivism is the principle of self-ownership; that the individual owns his/her body (something Mr.Redstar disingeuously ignores in his article). Thus slavery is entirely inconsistent with Objectivism.

New Tolerance: Objectivism does have a lot in common politically with classical liberalism, but that is only one facet of Objectivism. As well as a political standpoint (minarchism, free enterprise), Objectivism also entails Metaphysical, Epistemological, Ethical and even Esthetical beliefs. These are rigourously derived at this Objectivist philosophy:

www.importanceofphilosophy.com

Peace,

Vìc

[redstar2000]

I'm not an objectivist, but one of the tenets of Objectivism is the principle of self-ownership; that the individual owns his/her body (something Mr.Redstar disingenuously ignores in his article). Thus slavery is entirely inconsistent with Objectivism.

Obviously, you didn't read the argument in my link.

If you "own yourself", then you can "rent yourself", "give yourself away", or "sell yourself into slavery".

Only involuntary slavery would be illegal -- but there'd be no logical objection to someone voluntarily selling themselves into slavery...the principle of "freedom of contract" over-rides all other considerations.

Read the link!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Guerrilla22]

Objectivism is something that you use when writing a paper for college, unless you have a left leaning proffesor, then you just be honest.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 01:07 AM
If you "own yourself", then you can "rent yourself", "give yourself away", or "sell yourself into slavery".
No. You can't. ("Voluntary slavery" is contradiction in terms.)

But surely, isn't this a critique not just of O'ism, but of any philisophy that involves self ownership. What's the alternative of self ownership ?

Why, to be owned by someone else. We have a word for that, don't we ?

Oh yeah : Slavery.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:25 PM
Morality is what you make of it and the more people willingly participate in a social system the more legitimate it is.
Hence the reason democracy quickly degenerates into mob rule if not limited.

[Vìcmælon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 01:07 AM

Obviously, you didn't read the argument in my link.

If you "own yourself", then you can "rent yourself", "give yourself away", or "sell yourself into slavery".

Only involuntary slavery would be illegal -- but there'd be no logical objection to someone voluntarily selling themselves into slavery...the principle of "freedom of contract" over-rides all other considerations.

Read the link!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I read your strawman quite thouroughly, I assure you. You misrepresent the Objectivist concept of self-ownership; it is that each human owns his/her self, always. This form of property is different from others as it comes about not through homesteading or voluntary trade, as all other legitimately held property, but by virtue of the fact the individual and the indiduals self are one, they cannot be separated. Objectivism recognises only voluntary human relationships as morally valid. You can voluntarily submit to the will of another; but, should you change your mind, your servitude is involuntary and thus inconsistent with Objectivism. QED.

[redstar2000]

You can voluntarily submit to the will of another; but, should you change your mind, your servitude is involuntary and thus inconsistent with Objectivism. QED.

Not if you sign a contract. The sanctity of a contract between two "freely" consenting persons is inviolable.

If you informally agree to help your friend to move and then back out when you see he owns a fucking piano...that's ok.

But you do not have the "right" to "back out" of a contract just because you "don't like it"...without facing the full severity of the law.

This has to be paramount in Rand's "philosophy"...without it, you don't even have capitalism anymore, just banditry.

QED yourself, buddy.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vìcmælon]

That would be correct if it were the case that sanctity of contract took pride of place over self-ownership in Objectivist theory, but such is not the case. Self-ownership is primarily an epistemological concern, whereas contracts are in the realm of ethics. In Objectivist philosophical hierarchy, the former comes before the latter, or 'outranks' it if you will. To demonstrate, self-ownership [B]must[\B] come before contract as without self-ownership, nothing can be traded and no contracts can be made, by definition.

My refutation of the idea that Objectivism condones slavery, if it is consistent, thus stands.

Peace,

Vìc.