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:If Altruists Really Cared...

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Writing at RealClear Markets, John Tamny makes the following interesting point about recent calls for golfer Phil Mickelson to give his winnings away:
    All I might add to this piece is that the altruist chattering classes aren't just wrong about the idea that the best way to lift all boats is to give money away on the basis of need: The whole idea that anyone is obligated to do so is not even wrong. In addition, I think Tamny is being very generous towards many of them: See also Richard Salsman's recent piece, "Socialism Worked in Venezuela." But yes, as for the point that investment bests handouts as a means to help everyone, especially including the investor and the less fortunate, this article is worth remembering.

    As Ayn Rand once put it, "[T]here are no conflicts of interests among rational men." The stark contrast between effectively throwing money out the window and growing it is an excellent illustration.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Reblogged:Warmer, Warmer, ... Colder

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Writing at Forbes, self-described free marketeer Brian Domitrovic takes an interesting lesson from Donald Trump's election to the presidency:
    Domitrovic is right: it is inconsistent to advocate one form of taxation while ruling out another. (I can think of at least one free marketeer who is not guilty of such a sin. Read on.)

    But worse, it is unprincipled. What do you mean by that, Van Horn? I can almost hear you ask.

    First, recall what a principle is:
    Domotrovic seems headed in the right direction, when he notes that, "It is no answer to say that the government must fund itself through taxation." And I started feeling hopeful when he stated, "[W]e should endorse an unending series of tax-rate cuts, indeed until rates hit zero." But the proverbial "other shoe" lands with the following thud:
    Image via Wikipedia. I will leave it to others (such as the economist Richard Salsman) to argue against the particular form of central planning and taxation that is central banking, but I will note that the fundamental issue here isn't a squabble about how much money the government should take by force (be it by taxation or inflation), but whether the government should take money by force at all.

    A more productive place to start would be way further back than how the government funds itself to why -- at what the purpose of government is. Only then can one begin to see the outlines that Ayn Rand, the ideal capitalist, has laid out (and Craig Biddle has explored) for financing a proper government.

    While Domitrovic takes a step in the correct direction by noting the contradiction of free marketeers who advocate any taxation, that step will lead nowhere if it is made without an eye on the goal of a government limited to its proper function of protecting indiviual rights.

    -- CAV Link to Original


    Free Thinker
    By Free Thinker,
    I have a very difficult question which I have been unable to answer. Is Colonialism moral? I define colonialism as follows: "Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and often markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism) Imperialism? - "Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) 3 Questions: 1. AR has stated (and Thomas Bowden) that the removal of Native Americans was moral. Now, whether one considers this colonialism or not, was it moral? 2. British hegemony in India, "The Scramble for Africa", "The White Man's Burden" -> (Rudyard Kipling's invention); were these moral in general? 3. If/if not for the cases listed, when is it moral?

    Reblogged:Professional Conduct Standards for Social Media

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Writing for Slate, Mike Godwin (former counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation) discusses an intriguing new way to conceptualize our relationship, as customers, with social media companies:
    As any regular reader should suspect, I am absolutely not in favor of any company (or its customers!) being forced to have such obligations imposed by government force. That would be a violation of the freedom to contract. But, aside from the ridiculous idea that advertising robs us of free will, I think the article makes a good case for the idea that companies could and should abide by rules established by something like a professional association to ensure that something like the relationship one has with a doctor or lawyer exists regarding one's personal data. As an example, Balkin notes the following legal precedent:
    I'd strike "collectively" from the above, as numerous cases of "doxing" should indicate -- along with the fact that freedom of speech is an individual right.

    Although there are several things I do not agree with in this article, I think it provides enough information to suggest an individual rights-respecting, free market solution to a modern problem caused in large part by a lack of uniform basic standards regarding what companies do with our information.

    -- CAV Link to Original

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