Come On- Why The Beef With Objectivism?

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Objectivism, whenever it is mentioned directly or is commented on because of my signature, is always given a bad rep. "Oh, it's delusional!" "The ideology of a sociopath!" "Ayn Rand is a shit writer!" Blah blah blah. Oh, the ad hominem police are rounding up many tonight.

So, what exactly is the beef with objectivism? I can understand the whole Ayn Rand being a shit writer, because she sort of is, but the idea of objectivism personally appeals to me. It encourages creativity, and giving people due credit. It is true that people are different- at least it is honest about it.

NationStates, please don't bog yourself down in, "I don't like it because I don't like it". Be reasonable. We're not three years old.

[New Werpland]

It was developed by someone who didn't know what they were talking about. There are better Libertarians though.

[Indo-Malaysia]

I say that if you support Objectivism, go support Objectivism. Nobody should go tell you not to 'because it's bad'.

[Alyakia]

oh, the woman who was fascinated with a child murderer because how bold he was in ignoring conventional morals. she was a bit crazy i guess.

[Dooom35796821595]

I hate isms. I hate them because there's so many and their definition is always changing.

Perhaps you should include a definition of your objectivism, or else people will just hate it due to its connection to Ayn Rand.

[MERIZoC]

I tend to be fond of other people, and have acquired something called empathy over the years. Fascinating, isn't it?

[Xeng He]

It assumes that all exchanges are fair and just simply by virtue of the choice being made to participate in one, failing to take into account the idea of least bad alternatives.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I tend to be fond of other people, and have acquired something called empathy over the years. Fascinating, isn't it?

Objectivism doesn't condemn empathy or fondness for other people. In fact, Ayn Rand's masturbatory emblem of her ideology (John Galt) sacrificed himself for his lover/wife out of his feelings for her and his desire not to see her tortured.

Theme-park Objectivism, of course, does. But that's because people who believe it get their opinions from one-liners and dystopian video game set in an alternate past.

[Alyakia]

I tend to be fond of other people, and have acquired something called empathy over the years. Fascinating, isn't it?

Objectivism doesn't condemn empathy or fondness for other people. In fact, Ayn Rand's masturbatory emblem of her ideology (John Galt) sacrificed himself for his lover/wife out of his feelings for her and his desire not to see her tortured.

Theme-park Objectivism, of course, does. But that's because people who believe it get their opinions from one-liners and dystopian video game set in an alternate past.

The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

[Farnhamia]

I tend to be fond of other people, and have acquired something called empathy over the years. Fascinating, isn't it?

Objectivism doesn't condemn empathy or fondness for other people. In fact, Ayn Rand's masturbatory emblem of her ideology (John Galt) sacrificed himself for his lover/wife out of his feelings for her and his desire not to see her tortured.

Theme-park Objectivism, of course, does. But that's because people who believe it get their opinions from one-liners and dystopian video game set in an alternate past.

No, he didn't.

[Mushet]

I don't like Objectivism, but I don't know why people think Rand's novels are so terrible.

[Ximea]

Objectivism, whenever it is mentioned directly or is commented on because of my signature, is always given a bad rep. "Oh, it's delusional!" "The ideology of a sociopath!" "Ayn Rand is a shit writer!" Blah blah blah. Oh, the ad hominem police are rounding up many tonight.

So, what exactly is the beef with objectivism? I can understand the whole Ayn Rand being a shit writer, because she sort of is, but the idea of objectivism personally appeals to me. It encourages creativity, and giving people due credit. It is true that people are different- at least it is honest about it.

NationStates, please don't bog yourself down in, "I don't like it because I don't like it". Be reasonable. We're not three years old.

There's nothing wrong with the idea that people get to benefit from the fruits of their own labor. Randian objectivism fails because it takes that concept to extremes. Maybe not every objectivist feels this way, but I've heard some espouse the idea that it's actually immoral to help people even by one's own choice. That's sick thinking. It's also contrary to the very characteristics that made Homo sapiens the dominant life-form on the planet - our inborn desire for community and cooperation.

Objectivism castigates altruism because altruism is frequently detrimental on the individual scale - but evolutionary science has borne out that altruism confers extremely powerful benefits at the community and species level.

Also, yes, by many accounts, Rand was a shit writer. I cannot speak from personal experience, though; that's just what I've heard.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Objectivism doesn't condemn empathy or fondness for other people. In fact, Ayn Rand's masturbatory emblem of her ideology (John Galt) sacrificed himself for his lover/wife out of his feelings for her and his desire not to see her tortured.

Theme-park Objectivism, of course, does. But that's because people who believe it get their opinions from one-liners and dystopian video game set in an alternate past.

The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

Yes?
Do you imagine you have a point in there somewhere, or do you just enjoy quoting small bits of Rand's writings for no reason?

[Alyakia]

I don't like Objectivism, but I don't know why people think Rand's novels are so terrible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUa7s3xuqxI

[Occupied Deutschland]

Objectivism doesn't condemn empathy or fondness for other people. In fact, Ayn Rand's masturbatory emblem of her ideology (John Galt) sacrificed himself for his lover/wife out of his feelings for her and his desire not to see her tortured.

Theme-park Objectivism, of course, does. But that's because people who believe it get their opinions from one-liners and dystopian video game set in an alternate past.

No, he didn't.

Yes, he did.

...Dagny accidentally leads the authorities to him, and he is arrested. She and the strikers rescue Galt as the government tortures him.

It occurs in there.

Here we go, from the Atlas Society summary (not that anybody probably cares):

...He [John Galt] warns her [Dagny Taggert] that she undoubtedly has been followed. If the government learns what they mean to each other, they'll torture her to force him to comply with their orders. So when police arrive, he tells her, she is to turn him in and claim the reward. Reluctantly, Dagny agrees...

[Quintipoli]

If everyone just did what they wanted with no regard for anyone else, as Objectivism seems to recommend, civilization would crumble. There would be no support for the poor and disadvantaged, who would be unable to move upward in society. Wealth would accumulate in a small portion of the population that would have no obligation to use it to help the rest of society. Seems that's what's happened with capitalism already.

[Mortuus Luciferus]

Because it's stupid and can't work.

[Valkalan]

I assess that Objectivism is disliked because it contrasts with mainstream cultural norms and prevailing social theories that tend to subordinate the individual to the collective. Indeed, most rebuttals of Objectivism tend to be of a subjective nature.

[Greater Mackonia]

Egalitarian, fundamentally afraid of its own logical conclusions....egoism of the marketplace alone.

[Quintipoli]

I don't like Objectivism, but I don't know why people think Rand's novels are so terrible.

Have you read any of them??

[Ximea]

If everyone just did what they wanted with no regard for anyone else, as Objectivism seems to recommend, civilization would crumble. There would be no support for the poor and disadvantaged, who would be unable to move upward in society. Seems that's what's happened with capitalism already.

Capitalism isn't all bad. Allowing people to reap the benefits of their own work has driven human progress immensely. What's harmful is this notion that we should ignore our sympathetic instincts in pursuit of our own advancement. We correlate that behavior with mental illness for a reason.

[Ximea]

I assess that Objectivism is disliked because it contrasts with mainstream cultural norms and prevailing social theories that tend to subordinate the individual to the collective. Indeed, most rebuttals of Objectivism tend to be of a subjective nature.

If you get down to it, objectivism is subjective too.

[Greater Istanistan]

Because it's ethically inconsistent, in that it calls for maximalist individualism while proscribing any kind of action for the benefit of any other, which may well be what an individual would wish to do.

It reduces the human being in all its magnificence to a pathetic little machine that tries to drag its way upwards while spitefully pushing others down in an undignified and frankly repellent manner. Under its formulae, people have no obligation to care for or aid aged relatives, for example, because that brings no material advantage. It has no use for child-rearing, because children would probably get in the way of one's accumulation of money and would, for the first eighteen or so years of their lives, be considered "useless eaters" because they take without material contributions.

Objectivism is a puerile fantasy for those with delusions of grandeur - the believers think they're going up to the top, and if they claim anything else then they're admitting to acting for the greater social good and as such betraying their so-called principles.

It also legitimizes protection racketsz because it's a legitimate exchange where one trades money for not being beaten by thugs. Pretty rational, no?

Oh yeah, and its voluntarism is a sham undercut by the fact that under its system of rule by the (supposedly) competent and ambitious, it is ethically sound for the most wealthy, ruthless, and competent to be the most powerful, right? In that case, it is the duty of such a person to attempt to solidify and expand their power and wealth as much as possible. They should be able to hit people to help them, enforcers to protect their clientele, and benefits for people who contribute to their wealth. And it makes sense for them to try and protect their monopolies - profit is king.

Congrats, Ayn, you've recreated the state by abolishing it and putting this kind of twisted principle forward.

TL;DR: Ethically repulsive, morally sickening, plain unworkable, and with a horrifically optimistic view of human nature that fails to translate into real life.

[Valkalan]

I assess that Objectivism is disliked because it contrasts with mainstream cultural norms and prevailing social theories that tend to subordinate the individual to the collective. Indeed, most rebuttals of Objectivism tend to be of a subjective nature.

If you get down to it, objectivism is subjective too.

How so?

[Farnhamia]

No, he didn't.

Yes, he did.

...Dagny accidentally leads the authorities to him, and he is arrested. She and the strikers rescue Galt as the government tortures him.

It occurs in there.

Not really. The synopsis from the Atlas Society, the official site of all things Randian, says:

Mr. Thompson warns Dagny that the national leadership is divided into two factions: his own, which abhors violence, and the Ferris-Meigs faction, which is urging him to control the nation through a reign of terror. Casually, he wonders aloud if their goons may already have found and killed Galt. His ploy works.

Desperately anxious, Dagny looks up Galt's address on the Taggart payroll. Then she makes her way through a slum neighborhood to an ancient tenement and rings the doorbell. The door opens and John Galt stands before her. She collapses in his arms.

He warns her that she undoubtedly has been followed. If the government learns what they mean to each other, they'll torture her to force him to comply with their orders. So when police arrive, he tells her, she is to turn him in and claim the reward. Reluctantly, Dagny agrees. Then he shows her a locked room: inside is his scientific laboratory, its equipment powered by his static electricity motor.

When a group of soldiers arrives, Galt and Dagny begin their charade. She identifies him, and he feigns anger. He refuses to open his laboratory door, and the goons force the lock only to find nothing inside but piles of dust.

Galt tells Dagny, who isn't his wife, that the government might torture her to get to him and tells her to turn on him. That's not him giving himself up to save her because he never does that.