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

    Reblogged:(Rent-)Seeking a Way to a "Social Credit" System?

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    David Harsanyi raises some good arguments to the effect that the Zuckerberg hearings are a case against regulating Facebook:
    None of this is good, but I part ways with Harsanyi at two points: First, I regard any government role other than protection of individual rights to be improper, which rules out even the light regulation Harsanyi allows for. And second, he opens with the observation that many politicians aren't technologically savvy. This may be true, but it wouldn't make regulation okay if they were. Having said that, Harsanyi is correct that the solution to any problem with Facebook (which he rightly observes can't make anyone join or share data) is "to let Facebook fix itself or go the way of Myspace."

    Those last two points, combined with the obvious opportunity rent-seeking represents to cronies, become quite obvious when we look across the Pacific to China, which is imposing a "social credit system."  The government will use that to dole out penalties like restricting access to public transport on the basis of such behavior as jaywalking, gaming more than some official might like, or online shopping habits deemed bad by the regime. At least it's obvious to me that allowing people to abuse government force is bad enough without supplying a continuous stream of convenient excuses for them to appear justified in doing so. Unfortunately, it may not be so obvious, for example, to members of the Sun, who call China's system creepy, but don't bat an eye at the idea of the Leviathan state regulating "big" media companies.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    How does Objectivism handle public interactions

    Rubal Sher
    By Rubal Sher,
    I am new to Objectivism, so please go easy on me. I get the gist of the theory and agree with the concepts.
    My question is about how are public interactions handled under this theory. Let me give a few examples. 1) I set up a machine that vents potentially harmful air as a by-product, which let us say only affects a subset of my neighbors adversely. Some are immune to it and some maybe not. Do I have any responsibility whatsoever or not? If yes, who judges or regulates the issue and how does the line get drawn? 2) I go to a library totally naked or maybe covered in a burkha (Islamic clothing that covers the entire body including the face). Are both acceptable? If a distinction has to be drawn, again who adjudicates and on what basis? 3) I send my kids to a school that teaches some flavor of religion. If I was an atheist or disagreed with the particular flavor of religion, what recourse do I have? To reiterate, I am a newbie and maybe the questions I am asking are phrased incoherently or incorrectly, but I would like to essentially discuss what defines the rules of engagement in a public sphere, given that we cannot lock ourselves up on our personal property forever. The issues could be cultural, environmental, religious, etc where it is particularly not clear how wide my fist is and how far your nose is.  Thanks for your time and I would appreciate your responses.

    Innate ideas and animals

    By gio,
    Leonard Peikoff said in Ideas in History: Objectivism’s Relation to the Past and the Future that instinct philosophically means innate ideas. If instinct means innate ideas, does it means that animals have innate ideas?  

    Reblogged:Friday Hodgepodge

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Four Things

    Innovations from my bookmarks...

    1. Might potholes soon be a thing of the past? Yes, by the looks of an invention out of Turkey:
    The time savings is impressive, although I am not quite sure what to make of the money savings figure. Perhaps the repairs are at one-sixth the cost of traditional methods.

    2. An idea from the automotive industry, promises superior smoked flavor, but with fewer carcinogens:
    This has reminded me to check the forecast, which looks promising enough that I might finally fire up the grill for the first time this season.

    3. You know a technology has matured when it starts popping up even in the most ... pedestrian ... places: "DNA testing is cracking down on doggie-doo offenders."

    4. Meet "Smokin'" Ed Currie's Carolina Reaper, the world's hottest pepper:
    Indeed, this one has even made the medical literature, delivering a series of thunderclap headaches to one culinary daredevil.

    -- CAV Link to Original

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