Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
  • °

    Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy

    In the universe, what you see is what you get,

    figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,

    and each person's independence is respected by all

  • Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words

    • "Metaphysics: Objective Reality"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
    • "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
    • "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
    • "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"
  • Objectivism Online Chat

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Azrael Rand
    By Azrael Rand,
    Hi, Originally posted this article on my minds page earlier today: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand If you're interested, I also have a rebuttal to Stefan Molyneux's UPB: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-objective-critique-of-stefan-molyneux-s-universally-prefe-891837573402587136

    Reblogged:Sears: Capitalism vs. Jim Crow

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Image via Wikipedia. As yesteryear's Amazon files for bankruptcy, Jason Kottke posts on the ways the Sears catalog helped undermine bigotry and Jim Crow laws. This happened despite the fact that the company was hardly -- as evidenced by some of its catalog offerings -- on the forefront of the fight for racial equality. Kottke quotes from the blog Bitter Southerner regarding a policy that helped many poorly educated blacks improve their standard of living:
    Other parts of this post note how the catalog helped break the power of the shopkeepers in the sharecropping system, and helped along the development of musical styles, such as the blues.

    The piece reminds me in an important way of the story of the end of commercial segregation in Houston, Texas (aka, The Strange Demise of Jim Crow). The fact is that treating a customer poorly or turning one away on the basis of race is detrimental to one's own best interest. This alone did not end the moral outrage that is racism, or the political scourge of JIm Crow, but it did (a) provide one way around some of the problems for blacks, and (b) demonstrate at least to some whites on some level that this foolishness was also harmful to themselves. It is indeed fortunate that, despite the high degree of repression in the Jim Crow South, there was enough freedom for Sears to send its catalog everywhere and sell its goods to everyone.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Jason Hunter
    By Jason Hunter,
    Hi this is my first post. I've recently read Atlas Shrugged, Why Businessmen need philosophy and The Virtue of Selfishness. I've also read many parts of the lexicon and scanned forums etc. If my understanding of Objectivism is wrong please correct me. I'd like to hear responses to this issue. I am seriously struggling to get past some fundamental problems.  Salon released an article a few years ago claiming Objectivism is anti-family and the Atlas Society released an article in response which I found to be rather weak. (https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/5440-objectivism-is-not-anti-family). I've struggled to find many articles dealing with this issue and Rand herself didn't have a whole lot to say other than criticising duty to family members. My argument is as follows: Objectivism is fundamentally anti-family because it rejects the very essence of the family; duty/obligation. By relegating the family to the same plane as any other relationship among individuals (based on the trader principle), the family is effectively eradicated. Once the children reach adulthood, there is no distinction between family and a group of friends. As is often the case with friendship groups, they disperse over time as its members respond to changing conditions in their own lives. As their interests change, friends often lose the values they once held in common and naturally seek different avenues, forming new bonds and new friendship groups.  Without the traditional special status of family members (whereby blood means automatic obligation), the family is just as vulnerable to this turbulence among friendship groups. Or at the very least, significantly more vulnerable than it currently is. If one were to practice Objectivism, he must measure his relationships to family members in the same way he would with any other individual; purely by the values being traded.  But this conception of the family flies in the face of the actual family as it exists in reality. In the Atlas response, the writer admits that the "family is a vital institution" and is a "natural part of our propogation as a species" but this natural part also includes the sense of obligation to our family members whether it can be rationally justified or not.  The writer also deceives the ignorant reader by claiming that the Objectivist stance is merely a rejection of obligation toward extremes, like an "abusive parent". He asks the reader; "is it disdainful to say that this [the family] doesn't imply a blanket, open-ended, out-of-context obligation?". Such intellectual cowardice on display here. The Objectivist stance is not merely a rejection of blanket obligation. It is a rejection of any obligation whatsoever. The writer does not address this most important point. Most conservatives also reject blanket obligation. The limit of that toleration toward negative family members varies among individuals and cannot be defined. (talking about toleration, where is the comment section on that article?) The crux of the issue is that in typical situations where one would usually cut ties with a friend, one would make an extra effort to stay connected purely because that person is a family member. That extra push is crucial to the survival of the family and by extension the species.  When considering the Objectivist conception of the family in practice, one struggles to imagine a lasting society. Families would have little reason to stay together. The greatest unifying force is and has always been duty. Moreover, the incentive to have children in the first place would also be greatly diminished by eradicating the duty to pass on the genes or carry on the family name. It is telling that Rand spent little time addressing the family and in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, the main characters don't have children. Even Rand herself abstained from having children.  Is it not obvious to Objectivists that human beings have and always will place greater irrational obligation on their most inner circle starting with the family, extending out to the community and the nation state? And that this process of human relationships is deeply interwoven in the process of survival of our species which has evolved over millions of years? i'll leave you with a quote from Adam Smith; "We do not love our country merely as part of the great society of mankind - we love it for its own sake. That wisdom which contrived the system of human affections, as well as that of every other part of nature, seems to have judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted by directing the principal attention of each individual to that particular portion of it which is most within the sphere of both his abilities and understanding." (The Theory of Modern Sentiments, p.375).  I am strongly attracted to the Objectivist concept of indivdual rights and I wish I could subscribe to the philosophy in full (no half measures) but the somewhat sobering arguments of conservatism are a real barrier. 

    Reblogged:To Oppose UBI, Oppose All Government Looting

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    (Or: FEE Offers Spending Advice to Looters)

    An article hosted at the Foundation for Economic Education illustrates perfectly something Ayn Rand once told its founder, Leonard Read, in a letter:
    With this in mind, and consider what a title like, "Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried Before. It Didn't Work." portends. The conclusion isn't pretty for anyone who values individual rights, including that to property:
    Of course giving money away reduces the desire for people to earn some of their own, but pardon me for disagreeing with the Heritage Foundation on what the proper goal of government is; my answer is that a proper government protects individual rights. Passing out loot for whatever alleged purpose does not alter (or sanctify) the fact that it is loot, and was ultimately stolen from someone who produced it (or received it freely from someone who did). As when conservatives sell the farm when they implicitly praise socialists or plead that they are "impractical" -- yet wonder why that thoroughly deadly and discredited creed remains popular -- so it is that the laudable desire to argue against "Universal Basic Income" (the latest repackaging of handed-out loot) degenerates into squabbling about how to reform welfare (the old name for the same thing).

    That is not what making a stand for freedom looks like, not at all.

    -- CAV Link to Original

Portal by DevFuse · Based on IP.Board Portal by IPS
×