Objectivism

[Bluth Corporation]

Why has it become fashionable and acceptable to mock the proponents of objectivism on here?

Because most of them seem to have graduated from the Peikoff school of bullshit.

If any of them espouse Kelly's ideas, I'd gladly welcome them in.

That's obviously false, given your attitude towards me.

[Vittos Ordination]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

"Society" determines what one receives in return for products and services.

We cannot act as if the role society plays is meaningless.

[Bluth Corporation]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

"Society" determines what one receives in return for products and services.

We cannot act as if the role society plays is meaningless.

How so? Through the price mechanism?

That is still not any single, unified organism acting.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Why has it become fashionable and acceptable to mock the proponents of objectivism on here?

Because most of them seem to have graduated from the Peikoff school of bullshit.

If any of them espouse Kelly's ideas, I'd gladly welcome them in.

That's obviously false, given your attitude towards me.

That's because you are, in my opinion, not an Objectivist.

I.e. you are a fake.

[Sitspot]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

If there was no such thing as society, there would be no concept of property or indeed payment. These things merely exist because society decrees that they should.

[Treznor]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

"Society" determines what one receives in return for products and services.

We cannot act as if the role society plays is meaningless.

So, you were asking me why I mock Objectivism? Because Objectivists beg to be mocked.

[Bluth Corporation]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

If there was no such thing as society, there would be no concept of property or indeed payment. These things merely exist because society decrees that they should.

Incorrect.

[North Suran]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

"Society" determines what one receives in return for products and services.

We cannot act as if the role society plays is meaningless.

How so? Through the price mechanism?

That is still not any single, unified organism acting.

So until society operates as a Borg hive-mind, you refuse to acknowledge its existence?

I think you just answered the question posed by this thread.

[GetBert]

I can't take Objectivism seriously because of the relentless way Bluth Corporation sends it up so effectively.

[Vittos Ordination]

How so? Through the price mechanism?

That is still not any single, unified organism acting.

Yes. Through the price mechanism.

Even if there is no single, unified organism acting, there are factors that keep prices from clearing appropriately. If your primary wish is to see individuals compensated appropriately for their labor, you must be prepared to deal with externalities and other market failings.

[Industrial Enigmatics]

I am strictly speaking an Objectivist, but I only believe that Objectivism can work if society has a set of morals that do indeed encourage fair play and genteel commercial honour.

Once you get companies domineering everything and sucking the blood out of everyone you have a problem. Leave buissness alone I say but have a minimalist government on the side to educate, watch and care for society.

[Sitspot]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

If there was no such thing as society, there would be no concept of property or indeed payment. These things merely exist because society decrees that they should.

Incorrect.

No you are incorrect and my daddy is bigger than your daddy! So there!

[Obama Jugen III]

Well, let me ask you this in response:

Can you give me one objective fact?

Everything that's true by definition rather than through observation is a fact.
2+1=3. That's a fact. It doesn't matter what you observe. There is no opinion which can change it without that opinion being wrong.
In Kant's language any a priori truths are objectively true. Any a posteriori truths are true because they are best explain by what has been observed. Some models which are true a priori describe the reality quite well simply because their assumptions agree with observed facts.
The "A=A" statement is essentially there to communicate that facts which are true a priori cannot ever be false.

[Sitspot]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

"Society" determines what one receives in return for products and services.

We cannot act as if the role society plays is meaningless.

How so? Through the price mechanism?

That is still not any single, unified organism acting.

Incorrect

[Obama Jugen III]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

If there was no such thing as society, there would be no concept of property or indeed payment. These things merely exist because society decrees that they should.

Incorrect.

No you are incorrect and my daddy is bigger than your daddy! So there!

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why. Society is an abstraction. Talking about society agreeing to something anthropomorphizes it. It makes it seem as if it had it's own intelligence rather than being an amorphous mass of choices made by a large group of individuals. The amorphous mass doesn't agree to anything. It just reflects the choices of individuals within it.

[Treznor]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

If there was no such thing as society, there would be no concept of property or indeed payment. These things merely exist because society decrees that they should.

Incorrect.

No you are incorrect and my daddy is bigger than your daddy! So there!

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why. Society is an abstraction. Talking about society agreeing to something anthropomorphizes it. It makes it seem as if it had it's own intelligence rather than being an amorphous mass of choices made by a large group of individuals. The amorphous mass doesn't agree to anything. It just reflects the choices of individuals within it.

The behavior of individuals in private is markedly different from the behavior of individuals in a group. You cannot reasonably claim that people behave the same and make the same decisions in a group as they do by themselves. So yes, you have to take society into account instead of attempting to "objectively" separate them into discrete individual units.

[Obama Jugen III]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

If there was no such thing as society, there would be no concept of property or indeed payment. These things merely exist because society decrees that they should.

Incorrect.

No you are incorrect and my daddy is bigger than your daddy! So there!

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why. Society is an abstraction. Talking about society agreeing to something anthropomorphizes it. It makes it seem as if it had it's own intelligence rather than being an amorphous mass of choices made by a large group of individuals. The amorphous mass doesn't agree to anything. It just reflects the choices of individuals within it.

The behavior of individuals in private is markedly different from the behavior of individuals in a group. You cannot reasonably claim that people behave the same and make the same decisions in a group as they do by themselves. So yes, you have to take society into account instead of attempting to "objectively" separate them into discrete individual units.

I made no reference to private vs public behavior. I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence at all, actually. I will insist, however, that attempting to anthropomorphize a group of people as if they were of some one mind is misleading. We are not borg.

[Sitspot]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

If there was no such thing as society, there would be no concept of property or indeed payment. These things merely exist because society decrees that they should.

Incorrect.

No you are incorrect and my daddy is bigger than your daddy! So there!

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why. Society is an abstraction. Talking about society agreeing to something anthropomorphizes it. It makes it seem as if it had it's own intelligence rather than being an amorphous mass of choices made by a large group of individuals. The amorphous mass doesn't agree to anything. It just reflects the choices of individuals within it.

I'm more than happy to run with that.
So how many individuals does one have to have an agreement with before something becomes your property?

[Treznor]

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why. Society is an abstraction. Talking about society agreeing to something anthropomorphizes it. It makes it seem as if it had it's own intelligence rather than being an amorphous mass of choices made by a large group of individuals. The amorphous mass doesn't agree to anything. It just reflects the choices of individuals within it.

The behavior of individuals in private is markedly different from the behavior of individuals in a group. You cannot reasonably claim that people behave the same and make the same decisions in a group as they do by themselves. So yes, you have to take society into account instead of attempting to "objectively" separate them into discrete individual units.

I made no reference to private vs public behavior. I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence at all, actually. I will insist, however, that attempting to anthropomorphize a group of people as if they were of some one mind is misleading. We are not borg.

We may not be borg, but we are different people when we work collectively. The process by which decisions are made collectively are what we refer to as "society." Insisting that this is merely anthropomorphizing a group of people is to miss the point entirely.

[Obama Jugen III]

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why. Society is an abstraction. Talking about society agreeing to something anthropomorphizes it. It makes it seem as if it had it's own intelligence rather than being an amorphous mass of choices made by a large group of individuals. The amorphous mass doesn't agree to anything. It just reflects the choices of individuals within it.

The behavior of individuals in private is markedly different from the behavior of individuals in a group. You cannot reasonably claim that people behave the same and make the same decisions in a group as they do by themselves. So yes, you have to take society into account instead of attempting to "objectively" separate them into discrete individual units.

I made no reference to private vs public behavior. I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence at all, actually. I will insist, however, that attempting to anthropomorphize a group of people as if they were of some one mind is misleading. We are not borg.

We may not be borg, but we are different people when we work collectively. The process by which decisions are made collectively are what we refer to as "society." Insisting that this is merely anthropomorphizing a group of people is to miss the point entirely.

It is not to miss the point, but rather to bring attention to the misleading language that is used to describe one of the aspects of the point.

[Sdaeriji]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

The reason it's mocked here is because of Bluth Corporation's stubborn and thick-headed defense of the position. I am under no obligation to demonstrate to you why his antagonistic nature has demolished the position's credibility (a statement I am sure you will appreciate), but if you wish to know more, you can utilize the search function to see how he has successfully alienated any potential support the position might have had.

I won't address your unearned arrogance in presuming that anyone who opposes and mocks objectivism is necessarily uneducated on the topic, but to simply tell you to get over yourself.

[Obama Jugen III]

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

If there was no such thing as society, there would be no concept of property or indeed payment. These things merely exist because society decrees that they should.

Incorrect.

No you are incorrect and my daddy is bigger than your daddy! So there!

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why. Society is an abstraction. Talking about society agreeing to something anthropomorphizes it. It makes it seem as if it had it's own intelligence rather than being an amorphous mass of choices made by a large group of individuals. The amorphous mass doesn't agree to anything. It just reflects the choices of individuals within it.

I'm more than happy to run with that.
So how many individuals does one have to have an agreement with before something becomes your property?

In a hypothetical "society" of 100 people in which 1 has a weapon and others do not, it only takes agreement of that one person with the weapon. Property rights exist because governments enforce them. Government, for the purposes of this discussion, is the strongest group of people, where strongest is defined as most able to win in a fight.

To be clear, AS doesn't blindly advocate a society with absolute property rights. It explores the alternatives between a society in which the exchange currency is property-based vs the society in which the exchange currency is interpersonal-relationship based. It further shows that the latter one favors rule through violence while the former favors rule through innovation.

[Obama Jugen III]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

It doesn't. It explores the alternatives between societies. Anything that is based on introspection of alternatives is not (by definition) dogmatic. So calling it religion is a mis-characterization.

[Sitspot]

In a hypothetical "society" of 100 people in which 1 has a weapon and others do not, it only takes agreement of that one person with the weapon. Property rights exist because governments enforce them. Government, for the purposes of this discussion, is the strongest group of people, where strongest is defined as most able to win in a fight.

And I totally agree, the reason I started this line with Bluth is because he asserts that Governments have no rights over property, only the individual has. I merely wished to show that his concept of property was not consistent with his concept of government.
I see that you agree "Property rights exist because governments enforce them."
We must both wait with bated breath for Bluth's contradiction. I hope it is rather longer than "incorrect" this time.

[Sdaeriji]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

It doesn't. It explores the alternatives between societies. Anything that is based on introspection of alternatives is not (by definition) dogmatic. So calling it religion is a mis-characterization.

The fundamental premises upon which the entire philosophy rests rely entirely on the faithful acceptance of said premises as truth. As an unstructured system of thought, it is faith. As a structured belief system, it is a religion.