Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

  • |

     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"

    Reblogged:Millennials: 20 Percent Poorer than Boomers at Same Age

    Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.
    By Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.,
    According to USA Today, with a median household income of $40,581, millennials earn 20 percent less than post World War II baby boomers did at the same stage of life, despite being better educated, according to a new analysis of Federal Reserve data. The analysis gives concrete details about “a troubling generational divide that helps to explain much of the anxiety that defined the 2016 election.” Hmmm…Last time I checked, millennials voted Democratic more than Republican. Their lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton happened because they saw her as not socialistic enough, which is why many of them preferred the openly socialist Bernie Sanders. If socialism is so good for the economy — and we’ve had plenty of it under Obama with much higher taxes, much more regulation, much more “spreading the wealth” — then why would millennials want even more of what is making them 20 percent poorer than their parents at the same age? Millennials have half the net worth of boomers. Their home ownership rate is lower, while their student debt is drastically higher. Student loan debt is a problem. But remember the laws of economics, millennials: Student loans are backed by the federal government. This enables colleges to increase their tuition at far higher rates of inflation than would have otherwise been the case, had the federal government never got into the business of student loans. Without federal backing (and ultimately a bailout, which we know is coming), colleges would be forced to operate in a free market atmosphere where the law of supply and demand set the prices, rather than artificially inflated government tuition. The generational gap is a central dilemma for the incoming presidency of Donald Trump, who essentially pledged a return to the prosperity of post-World War II America, says the USA Today article. Well, you won’t get prosperity without free markets. Donald Trump has the right idea when it comes to lowering corporate and income taxes for everyone. The rich need these cuts most of all, because they spend the most and therefore have the greatest influence on the economy. It’s fine to hate rich people, but if you’re part of the 99 percent, like it or not you need that wealth production to continue unless you’re to live in a third world country. Tragically, the millennials who are making 20 percent less than their elders did at the same age are 20 percent on the way to a third world economy. How much more socialism will we have to take before people get the message that socialism impoverishes, and does not create wealth for anyone!? The economy surged after John F. Kennedy’s and Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts, in part because of their across-the-board tax cuts. Of course, the national debt was not $20 trillion in those days, but thanks to a decades-long refusal to privatize social insurance and restrain spending, we’re about to hit a fiscal Armageddon any time now. The only way I could be wrong about that would be if debt into infinity doesn’t matter. Donald Trump and Republicans will of course get the blame, but it’s really the spending of both parties — including the fiscally unsound and unsustainable Medicare and Social Security — that we have to blame. These poor millennials were born into this mess. They didn’t ask for it. They’re right to be resentful, but not for the reasons (“Evil capitalism!”) many of them have been trained to think by ignorant or socialistic educators. If they think all-out socialism will be the answer, which in today’s era would literally have to involve outright nationalization (like Communism) of the entire economy, then they’re in for the rudest awakening in all of human history. Unless millennials want to be poor, we need the exact opposite of what we’ve been getting. We need unhampered free market capitalism and economic growth for all. On our present course, we’ll continue our descent into mediocrity and ultimately widespread poverty. It’s up to you, younger people, not to let this happen! Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1 Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here! Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.           The post Millennials: 20 Percent Poorer than Boomers at Same Age appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center. View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

    Are you stealing if you find money?

    By Altan,
    I'm sure this has happened to many of you, but you're going about your day, say walking along a foot path, and you happen to see a coin on the ground. What would you do? (Or what have you done?) From the very few times that I've happened to come across a random coin on the ground, I end up picking it up and putting it in my wallet (then again it depends how much it is, if it's 5cents I won't bother, a 50c, dollar or $2 coin, I would). Now I'm not sure if this topic has already been discussed (I did a quick search which didn't return anything directly related), but is this immoral? Have I stolen someone elses money? Should I have left it there? But then again, someone else would have most likely taken it, so it would have been in my interest. Plus you can't exactly 'report' it to the police. I'm mainly talking about small sums of money that are just coins. But what if you were to find a large sum of money? I wouldn't take it, but rather report it to say the police(?).


    By dlb585,
    How can perception not be an axiom when it is the stimulus of epistemology. - http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Perception.html

    Reblogged:How to Stay Rational When the Subject is Emotional

    Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.
    By Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.,
    Q: Would you offer your observations and some action people can take to stay calm, rational and effective in stressful and emotional interpersonal situations? I think many people lack these tools. I consider myself very learned in this area and still struggle when I find myself in confrontational situations. I feel the adrenaline kick in. The threat is not even a deadly threat, of course. It’s more of a defensive position.  Especially in our culture now, with politics and the attack on principles and ideas. I have to tell you, I see irrationalism every day in the corporate/business world, and trying to communicate ideas clearly and dispassionate is difficult.   A: Here’s a good tool: Ask questions. Don’t ask hostile questions. Just ask honest, thoughtfully provocative ones. And always acknowledge the other person’s perspective first. If you don’t, then his or her adrenaline/issues will kick in too, and you’ll potentially have a mess on your hands. Example: “I know you strongly believe that’s the right way to do it. I have some different thoughts. Would you like to hear them?” End with a question. It’s different from, “I don’t agree.” While saying, “I don’t agree” is perfectly fine and sometimes may be your best option, asking the question is usually better. By asking a question, you put the person in the position of accountability. You might soften it by acknowledging his or her point-of-view first. And then really listen to the answer. If you’re already convinced you’re correct and nothing he or she says will change your mind (and this may be true), then look for what you believe or know to be mistaken assumptions in the answer. And then address those, if you’re still interested in the conversation. Sometimes you’re dealing with people who don’t seem rational, or at least not receptive to changing their minds. When you believe or know that to be the case, your own adrenaline might rise. Questions are effective in this kind of situation too. “Why do you think that? What evidence do you see for that? I found this contrary evidence; what do you think of that?” Doesn’t it make you feel calmer to put the accountability back on the other side? You’ve said you become very anxious in these situations. What creates anxiety? Generally speaking, (1) a lack of serenity and (2) a lack of feeling in control. For additional serenity, reconsider the need for you to change other people’s minds. Is it ever really a life or death situation if you don’t change someone’s mind? If a person is not open to persuasion, or if your reasoning does not convince them, are you at peace with this fact? Why or why not? This is something to explore when you’re NOT in the heat of an adrenaline-pushing situation. The more you can come to peace with the fact that you will NOT change some people’s minds and it’s actually NOT necessary for you to do so, the more serene and calm you’ll be when you confront mistaken or irrational people who don’t see things your way. “Oh, well. That’s how this person needs to look at it. Not my problem.” Another cause of anxiety? A perceived lack of control. We feel more in control when we have more choices/options. Have you provided yourself with enough choices in these situations? Is avoidance an option? In other words, have you given yourself permission simply to walk away or excuse yourself if the conversation isn’t doing anything for you? It’s OK to do that. Obviously, situations differ. A spouse matters a lot more than a stranger, or a co-worker. Stick around long enough to support the importance of that person in your life. But you’re not obliged to stick around just because. If you feel that way, or if you subconsciously assume that, then it will be very anxiety-provoking when the conversation escalates or otherwise fails to go your way. My point here isn’t to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on all situations. I’m only saying: Give yourself choices and options. You mentioned politics, ideas, principles and the like. When people fight about politics, they’re really trying to discuss philosophy. Most of our candidates are not very philosophical, so things tend to get personal. Yet philosophy is the subject that really matters. Philosophy refers to ethics, among other topics, and ethics is the subject most relevant to politics. That’s when I go back to questions. If someone wishes to fight about Donald Trump, for example, I would give myself the option to shift discussion to what the purpose of government should be. If the person says something like, “There has to be a social safety net. You can’t let people go without government benefits,” then I might ask, “Why do you say that? Why is that so?” Or if they say, “Taxes should be higher, not lower,” or, “We should make peace with ISIS and embrace Islam, not build up the military,” then ask them why they think that will help? How well have these things been working? Make the other person defend his or her case. To me, it arouses less anxiety to put this accountability on the other person. Why should I have to prove it’s NOT justifiable for the government to force people to work 6 months of the year to pay for other people’s livelihood? Why should charity be compelled by the government? And what about all the things the government does that aren’t even charity? The person making the claim should be obliged to prove the claim. Put them on the defensive, not through hostility but through reason. And if they become hostile, just withdraw from the conversation, serene in the knowledge it’s a waste of your time. I offer this suggestion not just with ethical or political arguments, but for anything. And the tool at work here, once again, is planning your strategy ahead of time and giving yourself options. Anxiety on the level you describe is a symptom. It’s a symptom that you possibly (and subconsciously) expect yourself to do things it’s neither possible nor necessary for you to do, such as convince others. What you’re after here is serenity. Serenity’s a good thing! The epitome of serenity is a person who stays and actually feels calm even when another is irate or upset. So plan your strategies for conversations ahead of time, and ask questions. Hopefully this will take you to the next level. Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1 Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here! Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE. The post How to Stay Rational When the Subject is Emotional appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center. View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

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