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"
  • Objectivism Online Chat


    Practice Good Theory Blog
    By Practice Good Theory Blog,
    At one level, 451 is about oppressive government keeping books away from people, but the message is deeper than that. Peel back a layer and we find that it is not just about books and not just about government.

    Bradbury tells us that textured, varied, un-sanitized, life is the good life. The life of purely passive leisure -- the do-nothing life depicted in Mildred watching TV all day -- is bad (she almost kills herself with sleeping pills, and it doesn't really seem to bother her; after all, what is there to live for?). Bradbury fears we are losing touch with reality -- with doing things with our hands, with contact with the earth -- as all our comforts alienate us from nature.

    In 451, we see TV as a passive medium. Bradbury also criticizes it for being a broadcast medium, though we also see a degree of 'fake" individualization like the device that fills in the viewer's name at certain points. How does it compare to Facebook?

    Bradbury has the style of a poet. It makes for a brief book. Link to Original

    The Case for Private Health Care

    By Laika,
    In the UK, the National Health Service has a sort of cult-like status and immunity from criticism. The principle that healthcare should be publicly owned and free at the point of need is not really questioned at all. If a politician said you should privatise the NHS in public, it may come across as a "flat-earther" to a Brit. The UK Libertarian Party appears to share this view and won't touch the issue of privatising the NHS either.   I think as far as the brits are concerned, this is partly because healthcare is such a sensitive area as we all will need it at some point, and we are all going to die- so having the NHS there ready, waiting for when the time comes, perhaps makes it more reassuring that when we die it will not be complicated by how much money we have. There are some "positive externalities" from it too as if you are priced out of the market and simply too poor to afford healthcare, you may miss out on vaccinations that offer protection from preventable diseases and so make it easier for them to spread. In a way, its also nice to know that there is some "progress" in healthcare standards and that the government can ensure that the next generation doesn't suffer from diseases that may have existed in the past. no-one wants to be told their kid is going to die from a disease that's curable and its "your fault" for not being able to pay for it. that just doesn't sound even remotely civilised or humane.  That's definitely not the case in the US as the fury over "Obama Care"/The Affordable Care Act shows even as Republicans scramble to try and repeal it.  I'm guessing the view is defined in relation to the fear of government and the power of life and death (e.g. Sarah Palin's "death panels") but I'm not really sure.  Making sure everyone is healthy as an obligation for the government and instituting public health care as a social and economic right would (it appear) be self-evidently a good thing. It may be something that as a brit I'm just too used to in order to see the other side of the argument. I'm guessing Objectivists won't support public healthcare and would privatise the NHS. Am I right on this? why would you do it and what do you think the benifits of doing so would be?


    By Parcus,
    Give your best arguments against Marxism, from exploitation theory to the Marxian labor theory of value. I realize this is in the economics board, but more philoshophical critiques are welcome. 

    Building Atlantis; find the flaws

    By Mindborg,
    Hi there I'm completely new here, so please tell me the things I'm doing wrong and I'll try to adjust.   Inspired by Galt's Gulch in Atlas and after making some money I'm working on a project to create a community of rational individualists. It's crazy and will never work, I know. But still I have not yet found any specific reason why it shouldn't work, and so far no problem has come up that cannot be solved.
    Spot 5 errors in this project: http://mindshore.weebly.com 1) Why do you think it will fail? Very good if you can find 5 reasons we'll fail, but we're thankful for any number. 2) How much do you like the idea? (1-5 stars) 3) What's the most attractive part to you? 4) What are the barriers that would stop you from joining this project next month, if you wanted to join? 5) How much do you want to join if it works? (1-5 stars) 6) What parts of the content did you not like? What did you like? Is there too much text, or too little? 7) Other improvements we should make?

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