The single most important political principle ever

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't know if BC will point this out or not, but Objectivism != Anarchy.

No, that's the problem - it does.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing I've probably read 6-8 times more Objectivist literature than you have, as I was an adherent of the philosophy for some time. Objectivism is not anarchy, sorry. Do more research.

It would be going out on a limb, since I got thoroughly versed in the philosophy before I rejected it. Indeed, if you search back far enough in the old forums, you might find me arguing Bluth's side of the argument.

[Grave_n_idle]

So - pointing out that this argument is a strawman is reasonable, but ultimately fruitless.

Just a note, 'Objectivism = Anarchy' is a straw man.

Not really, since 'objectivism = anarchy' wasn't something I even mentioned to Bluth, so it can hardly be an attack on his argument.

[Melkor Unchained]

I don't know if BC will point this out or not, but Objectivism != Anarchy.

No, that's the problem - it does.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing I've probably read 6-8 times more Objectivist literature than you have, as I was an adherent of the philosophy for some time. Objectivism is not anarchy, sorry. Do more research.

It would be going out on a limb, since I got thoroughly versed in the philosophy before I rejected it. Indeed, if you search back far enough in the old forums, you might find me arguing Bluth's side of the argument.

Then you probably didn't pay a terrible amount of attention. There are numerous references in OPAR concerning the "role of government" which precludes it from being Anarchy. Swing and a miss.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't know if BC will point this out or not, but Objectivism != Anarchy.

No, that's the problem - it does.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing I've probably read 6-8 times more Objectivist literature than you have, as I was an adherent of the philosophy for some time. Objectivism is not anarchy, sorry. Do more research.

It would be going out on a limb, since I got thoroughly versed in the philosophy before I rejected it. Indeed, if you search back far enough in the old forums, you might find me arguing Bluth's side of the argument.

Then you probably didn't pay a terrible amount of attention. There are numerous references in OPAR concerning the "role of government" which precludes it from being Anarchy. Swing and a miss.

On the contrary, the philosophy is flawed. It lacks the courage of it's convictions. The ultimate etension of objectivism must be a rejection of government, since it has to logically devolve to the ultimate unit of governance and law, which is the individual.

[Ryadn]

I still want someone to explain to me why Bluth doesn't belong to his parents, being the direct fruits of their labor.

Until this is addressed, I will assume that any work performed or wealth amassed by Bluth that does not directly compensate his parents for the work of creating him is de facto theft.

[Melkor Unchained]

On the contrary, the philosophy is flawed. It lacks the courage of it's convictions. The ultimate etension of objectivism must be a rejection of government, since it has to logically devolve to the ultimate unit of governance and law, which is the individual.

Objectivism doesn't say that the individual is the ultimate unit of governance over society; it says that the individual is the ultimate unit of governance over himself. Without a government to enforce them, contracts would be meaningless. Objectivism recognizes the occasional need for force in civilized society, and holds that the government should have a monopoly on it, for use only when someone's rights are violated or a contract is broken. It doesn't say the individual has authority over everything (which seems to be the predominant conclusion I'm seeing people reach); rather that s/he is sovereign over him/herself. There's a difference between maintaining a general sense of order and fairness, and mortgaging someone's labor, be it for individual or collective benefit. If a robber points a gun at me, he doesn't gain any moral 'brownie points' for not shooting me if I hand over the money; and what he does with it afterward is immaterial to the fact that he took it in the first place.

I seem to differ from Objectivists on the premise that I'm willing to pay taxes if I get a service in return. I don't mind paying 'insurance' type taxes for things like fire, police and military protection. I don't think (in this city at least) that roads are tax-funded--I think we maintain them via bonds and such, but I don't know how the Interstate system is funded--but that's another example of something I'd pay for too. Again, I'll advance the idea that tax-funded programs should only be used for vital services that the private sector can't be expected to support without turning a profit. For everything else, a 'public option' plan should exist that would allow the government to operate directly on the wishes of society. It's sort of like voting, only with cash instead of ballots and in supermarkets/industrial parks instead of in the voting booth. You want the government to help all the starving orphans? Buy public. Don't give a shit? Buy private.

[Czardas]

I still want someone to explain to me why Bluth doesn't belong to his parents, being the direct fruits of their labor.

Until this is addressed, I will assume that any work performed or wealth amassed by Bluth that does not directly compensate his parents for the work of creating him is de facto theft.

Objective morality indicates that an individual can belong to nobody once they have reached the age of majority. Hence, I assume Bluth doesn't belong to his parents in his view because he's over 18.

This post should in no way be construed as an approval or belief in the validity of Objectivism. Ayn Rand still sucks.

[Fnordgasm 5]

I think there's a tendency to paint something of a caricature of Objectivism; people read the wiki article or whatever and are subsequently prepared to assume that Everything It Says Is Wrong. An excellent example of this is the "A=A" hate I keep seeing here; I don't know how BC has portrayed the concept but it's a pretty simple one that I can't say as I understand any logical basis by which it might be refuted. "A=A" refers to (I think it was Aristotle's) Law of Identity, which basically means that shit is what shit is. For instance, you're looking at a computer monitor right now, and that monitor is displaying words. You're not reading a magazine or sharpie scribbled on an inflated balloon; you're reading written commentary from some putz in Ohio. I think people like to attack it because it's the basic lynchpin of Objectivist thought more than anything else.

I don't like it because I don't understand it. I've never met an objectivist who didn't portray the concept as anything more than..

Phase 1: State the identify A=A.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Claim supreme objective authority on everything ever!

BC here hasn't even bothered with the first 2 phases.

You seem to know stuff, right? I don't suppose you could explain it?

[Phenia]

I still want someone to explain to me why Bluth doesn't belong to his parents, being the direct fruits of their labor.

Until this is addressed, I will assume that any work performed or wealth amassed by Bluth that does not directly compensate his parents for the work of creating him is de facto theft.

Objective morality indicates that an individual can belong to nobody once they have reached the age of majority. Hence, I assume Bluth doesn't belong to his parents in his view because he's over 18.

This post should in no way be construed as an approval or belief in the validity of Objectivism. Ayn Rand still sucks.

So, if he argues, as you say, that once you reach the age of majority you cannot belong to your parents... does that mean that he also argues that children below that age do belong to their parents? That they are actually just possessions or property?

[Melkor Unchained]

I think there's a tendency to paint something of a caricature of Objectivism; people read the wiki article or whatever and are subsequently prepared to assume that Everything It Says Is Wrong. An excellent example of this is the "A=A" hate I keep seeing here; I don't know how BC has portrayed the concept but it's a pretty simple one that I can't say as I understand any logical basis by which it might be refuted. "A=A" refers to (I think it was Aristotle's) Law of Identity, which basically means that shit is what shit is. For instance, you're looking at a computer monitor right now, and that monitor is displaying words. You're not reading a magazine or sharpie scribbled on an inflated balloon; you're reading written commentary from some putz in Ohio. I think people like to attack it because it's the basic lynchpin of Objectivist thought more than anything else.

I don't like it because I don't understand it. I've never met an objectivist who didn't portray the concept as anything more than..

Phase 1: State the identify A=A.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Claim supreme objective authority on everything ever!

BC here hasn't even bothered with the first 2 phases.

You seem to know stuff, right? I don't suppose you could explain it?

I don't mean for it to sound like I"m trying to weasel out of this, but the "Phase 2: ???" bit is philosophical exposition I fear I'm not qualified to present. It's also been quite some time since I familiarized myself with the reasoning, but I remember it's discussed at length in Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It starts out with basic concepts like Identity, and gradually builds on them to explain how the rest of the philosophy works on said basis. It's been a couple of years since I read it, and anything I could say here on the subject of Phase 2 would be more or less lifted straight from Peikoff.

In my opinion, Peikoff did a better job of explaining Objectivism than Rand did; Rand had a tendency to speak in vague terms and assume the reader agreed with/understood the underpinnings that she subsequently used to arrive at some of her more over-arching philosophical principles. I also think her personality seeps in here and there (although that's probably inevitable) especially when it came to things like art and sex.

[Czardas]

I still want someone to explain to me why Bluth doesn't belong to his parents, being the direct fruits of their labor.

Until this is addressed, I will assume that any work performed or wealth amassed by Bluth that does not directly compensate his parents for the work of creating him is de facto theft.

Objective morality indicates that an individual can belong to nobody once they have reached the age of majority. Hence, I assume Bluth doesn't belong to his parents in his view because he's over 18.

This post should in no way be construed as an approval or belief in the validity of Objectivism. Ayn Rand still sucks.

So, if he argues, as you say, that once you reach the age of majority you cannot belong to your parents... does that mean that he also argues that children below that age do belong to their parents? That they are actually just possessions or property?

You'll have to ask him. I know that according to current law children are considered to be a third category between "people" and "property", with the rights and responsibilities of property but with crimes against them considered crimes against people -- or something like that.

[Neo Art]

It's also been quite some time since I familiarized myself with the reasoning,

so, are you saying that you should re-familiarize yourself with the works of emminent russian-american philosopher ayn rand?

[Melkor Unchained]

It's also been quite some time since I familiarized myself with the reasoning,

so, are you saying that you should re-familiarize yourself with the works of emminent russian-american philosopher ayn rand?

Um... what? I must be missing something.

[Czardas]

It's also been quite some time since I familiarized myself with the reasoning,

so, are you saying that you should re-familiarize yourself with the works of emminent russian-american philosopher ayn rand?

Um... what? I must be missing something.

You need to familiarize yourself with the works of the eminent Russian-American philosopher, pianist and composer Sergei Rachmaninoff.


(am I doin it rite guise?)

[Neo Art]

It's also been quite some time since I familiarized myself with the reasoning,

so, are you saying that you should re-familiarize yourself with the works of emminent russian-american philosopher ayn rand?

Um... what? I must be missing something.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2452&p=66264&hilit=familiarize+yourself+with#p66264

it's....kinda his calling card.

[Fnordgasm 5]

I think there's a tendency to paint something of a caricature of Objectivism; people read the wiki article or whatever and are subsequently prepared to assume that Everything It Says Is Wrong. An excellent example of this is the "A=A" hate I keep seeing here; I don't know how BC has portrayed the concept but it's a pretty simple one that I can't say as I understand any logical basis by which it might be refuted. "A=A" refers to (I think it was Aristotle's) Law of Identity, which basically means that shit is what shit is. For instance, you're looking at a computer monitor right now, and that monitor is displaying words. You're not reading a magazine or sharpie scribbled on an inflated balloon; you're reading written commentary from some putz in Ohio. I think people like to attack it because it's the basic lynchpin of Objectivist thought more than anything else.

I don't like it because I don't understand it. I've never met an objectivist who didn't portray the concept as anything more than..

Phase 1: State the identify A=A.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Claim supreme objective authority on everything ever!

BC here hasn't even bothered with the first 2 phases.

You seem to know stuff, right? I don't suppose you could explain it?

I don't mean for it to sound like I"m trying to weasel out of this, but the "Phase 2: ???" bit is philosophical exposition I fear I'm not qualified to present. It's also been quite some time since I familiarized myself with the reasoning, but I remember it's discussed at length in Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It starts out with basic concepts like Identity, and gradually builds on them to explain how the rest of the philosophy works on said basis. It's been a couple of years since I read it, and anything I could say here on the subject of Phase 2 would be more or less lifted straight from Peikoff.

In my opinion, Peikoff did a better job of explaining Objectivism than Rand did; Rand had a tendency to speak in vague terms and assume the reader agreed with/understood the underpinnings that she subsequently used to arrive at some of her more over-arching philosophical principles. I also think her personality seeps in here and there (although that's probably inevitable) especially when it came to things like art and sex.

I've found an audio book of it.. will it send me to sleep?

[Fnordgasm 5]

It's also been quite some time since I familiarized myself with the reasoning,

so, are you saying that you should re-familiarize yourself with the works of emminent russian-american philosopher ayn rand?

Um... what? I must be missing something.

You need to familiarize yourself with the works of the eminent Russian-American philosopher, pianist and composer Sergei Rachmaninoff.


(am I doin it rite guise?)

Not really.. perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the works of the eminent Russian-American pianist and popstar Regina Spektor?

[Melkor Unchained]

I've found an audio book of it.. will it send me to sleep?

Honestly? It's very possible. It's not exactly the most exciting reading.

[Tekania]

I still want someone to explain to me why Bluth doesn't belong to his parents, being the direct fruits of their labor.

Until this is addressed, I will assume that any work performed or wealth amassed by Bluth that does not directly compensate his parents for the work of creating him is de facto theft.

He likely won't answer... So I'll do so on his behalf...

"Because, I am an individual, and me belonging to someone else without my consent is coercive, because that is against 'Objectivist moral principle'... A is A, I win...."

[Tekania]

I still want someone to explain to me why Bluth doesn't belong to his parents, being the direct fruits of their labor.

Until this is addressed, I will assume that any work performed or wealth amassed by Bluth that does not directly compensate his parents for the work of creating him is de facto theft.

Objective morality indicates that an individual can belong to nobody once they have reached the age of majority. Hence, I assume Bluth doesn't belong to his parents in his view because he's over 18.

This post should in no way be construed as an approval or belief in the validity of Objectivism. Ayn Rand still sucks.

So, "Objective morality" is based on a subjective concept such as "the age of majority? That would make it non-Objective... I would concur with that.... As no one adhering to Objective Morality, or any independent reading I've done of it myself, has convinced me it is anything but subjective in its operations and approach (but dishonest in its presentation)...

[GetBert]

So is objectivism just a poorly thought out philosophy or a poorly explained one? Because so far BC seems to be going out of his way to not explain it while maximising the amount of pissing people off. Probably not the greatest marketing strategy ever.

[Allbeama]

Can you show that there is no such thing as "authority" even in the subjective sense?

Why would I want to? I have never claimed "there is no such thing as 'authority'," in any sense.

If no one has authority as you suggested its existence in any sense becomes questionable. Can't you see that I was following what you yourself said, when I made my post?

[Czardas]

It's also been quite some time since I familiarized myself with the reasoning,

so, are you saying that you should re-familiarize yourself with the works of emminent russian-american philosopher ayn rand?

Um... what? I must be missing something.

You need to familiarize yourself with the works of the eminent Russian-American philosopher, pianist and composer Sergei Rachmaninoff.


(am I doin it rite guise?)

Not really.. perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the works of the eminent Russian-American pianist and popstar Regina Spektor?

Not really. Since A=A and I have a CD by Rachmaninoff but not a CD by Spektor, I clearly don't need to do so because doing otherwise would be a violation of objective principles of morality.

[Tekania]

Not really. Since A=A and I have a CD by Rachmaninoff but not a CD by Spektor, I clearly don't need to do so because doing otherwise would be a violation of objective principles of morality.

Yes, there's an idea... We can stop all actual debate anywhere, by appealing on every minute ideological factor as being supported (and therefore overturning the other) on 'objective moral principle(s)'...

That way, every(thing/one) will win/lose because it is supported/defeated by 'objective moral principle(s)'...

[Allbeama]

So is objectivism just a poorly thought out philosophy or a poorly explained one? Because so far BC seems to be going out of his way to not explain it while maximising the amount of pissing people off. Probably not the greatest marketing strategy ever.

Well he makes cryptic statements, claims they are irrefutable proofs for his world view, and upon anyone attempting to refute them responds by saying " I didn't say/imply/remotely begin a chain of reasoning that might lead to /conclusion and argument made against his position/.