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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Repairman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Southeastern Wisconsin
  • Interests History, economic theory, psychology, films, custom cars and motorcycles. I actively write for the purpose of creating my own graphic illustrated stories. Also, I hold title to two investment properties as a proud capitalist.

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Wisconsin
  • Interested in meeting Of course I would be interested in meeting a woman with Objectivist views. Appearances do matter.
  • Relationship status Single
  • Sexual orientation Straight
  • Real Name Keith
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro b.1959, SE Wisconsin. I have always had a deep attraction to comic/professional illustration, and often used my time in school to develop my own style. This got me into lots of trouble. At age 18, I lived independently, working factory jobs, until, at age 23, I supported myself through 2yrs of college. My choice allowed me to work in radio for 3 yrs. At age 26, I became a father. The State dictated the terms of my obligations, demanding 17 percent of my gross earnings for child support; my son's mother relocated to her original home, in a more affordable state hundreds of miles away. While I made every effort within reason to maintain contact with my son, financial obligations remained non-negotiable. This period of my life is difficult to explain, other than to say my choices included going to jail, or making more money. I chose the latter over the former. Eventually, I attained a career as a maintenance mechanic, and returned to factories. It is honest work, although it does not fulfill my aspirations. My obligations to others have been made whole, but my life remains an object under my continuous efforts to repair.
  • Experience with Objectivism I discovered the works of Ayn Rand late in life, however, many of my own life-long observations were so nearly identical to Rand's that I was immediately convinced of her genius. Since 2008, I have read Virtue of Selfishness; Capitalism: Unknown Ideal; The Fountainhead; Anthem; We the Living; and Atlas Shrugged. I have For the New Intellectual on CD. I have recently read Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, The DIM Hypothesis, both by L.Peikoff.. I have reviewed multitudes of YouTube videos, interviews, and anything about Rand, including many critical commentaries. I have also attempted to converse with others about Objectivism, but so far, my experience has been that most people are opposed to rational ideas.
  • School or University Associate Degree in Radio Broadcasting
  • Occupation Maintenance mechanic/ landlord / illustrator

Recent Profile Visitors

4175 profile views
  1. Hell no. Absolutely. If you examine President Trump's rise to power, you'll find he has used political influence to his advantage. As for the other observations and criticisms you've made, I wish I had enough time to address them all, although I will say that some of the story in Atlas Shrugged is a bit hard to imagine in reality. That's why Ayn Rand called it, Romantic Realism, or so I assume. As for historical context of America's mid-twentieth century experience, the scenario set in Atlas Shrugged is very dramatized, and bears little resemblance to the 1950s as they were. To be sure, the 1950s were America's golden age, a time of unprecedented prosperity and comfort for nearly anyone willing to hold a job. Conspicuously missing in AS was the presence of the American global military hegemon, as you pointed out. No Cold War, no reference to a Second World War, let alone a first. I assume that the alternative historic background is one in which these major world events never took place, but rather the industrialized nations of the world willingly embraced socialism, for whatever reason. And the United States being the last hold out. Inasmuch as most Americas don't know much about the actual history of the twentieth century, (with particular reference to the extremes of socialism) we certainly are now witnessing the willing embrace of socialism in ever greater degrees of compromise to our once dynamic and competitive economic system. We'll never know just how our present scenario would have looked had the American people had a better understanding of the expansion of government organizations and their influence on average citizens. Today, more than ever, it appears the American people expect their government to save them from whatever forces are preventing them from living the ideal life-styles, as they believe that they were in the 1950s. Adrian, I appreciate your insights into the status of Britain's NHS; I couldn't tell you much about America's new system as I've been fortunate enough to have had insurance through my employer(s), which has been more or less the institutionalized norm since WW2. As every economic failure brings even more demands that "someone do something," we keep lurching forward to the ultimate results of state control, as F A Hayek referred to as, The Road to Serfdom. Prompting the people to seek out alternatives to government monopolized solutions does not appear to be anywhere on the horizon. That is where the influence of Romantic Realism could help change social attitudes.
  2. If you don't agree with Objectivism, or its advocates, what purpose does it serve to repeatedly pose such questions, be they "freewheeling," scatological, and often, questions you would be able to answer for yourself with the minimum of research? Debate for the sake of debate? The preceding was more a rhetorical question; you may start by answering the questions the others have posed to you on this thread, and engage mine afterward, if its not beneath your dignity.
  3. Let's try this: A is A. Man is man. So far, we've applied the law of identity to the man. The corollary law of causality states that a thing is a thing and that it may act on its nature. Whether A is A, or man is man, the thing has no choice other than to act within the limits of its nature. It is man's nature to use his mind as his primary tool of survival, or perish. It is man's nature to be free to use his mind. Man, requiring his freewill and rationality as his primary means of survival, must be allowed to act on his own rational judgement in order to achieve his happiness. Man, a being of freewill, naturally will thrive or perish in proportion to his ability to exercise freewill. Let's look at government: Throughout most of human history, government has been a force of oppression, at worst, enslavement. Government must be designed to allow the maximum limits of human freedom. A social system designed to protect man's individual and natural rights is a social system acting to sustain itself. A social system that confines man's freedom, making of him, a sacrificial animal, is a social system designed for man's destruction.
  4. I spent eight of my most impressionable years attending a Catholic elementary school. I understand quite well what they were saying then, as I do now. That's all the reason I needed, when I declined the "holy sacrament" of Confirmation, and assumed the whole of all religions to be a waste of time.
  5. The most important purpose a transcontinental border wall would serve is to meet the desires and expectations of the American electorate. Regardless of any conversation about the popular vote versus the legitimacy of President Trump, it has been my experience that the Americans who voted for Trump want that wall. It has nothing to do with economic or security benefits; it's a matter of democracy. Trump supporters were gleeful at the thought of the wall. Now, as the fog of campaign rhetoric is lifting, and these people are becoming slightly more aware of the fact that this wall will be one more expensive boondoggle for the taxpayers to bear, they continue to cling to the vision. Will the wall and Trump's other isolationist policies lead to economic and security disaster? They don't care: Build the wall. It will make them feel better. Here's a fantasy, although not so crazy: A fortification rivaling the Maginot Line and the Chinese Great Wall spans the roughly 1,954 miles of America's southern border. It does exactly that which it was designed to do. The cost of building, maintenance, and staffing it with troops exceeds anything our budgets could sustain. It would make a perfectly good tourist site; visitors from China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia could have their pictures taken while posing atop or in front of the wall brandishing the Trump logo. The heirs of the Trump dynasty would own and operate the hotels and casinos that punctuates the serpentine structure. As our descendants revert to savagery as a means of survival, they can sit around the campfires, and tell their children of the once powerful American Empire, and how the second coming of the Trump-King will once again make America Great!
  6. Dustin86, The passage you've sited is an excellent choice for summarizing Ayn Rand's position on politics. Politics, however, is more of an outcome, a derivative, of the being point of Objectivism: Existence exists. Here's a quote from Galt's speech: "Do you think they are taking you back to dark ages? They are taking you back to darker ages than your history has known...Their purpose is to deprive you of the concept on which man's mind, his life and his culture depend: the concept of an objective reality." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1040) Building on the foundation of an acceptance of reality, be it to your liking or not, the true nature of man is better understood. Viewed through the context of history, it was philosophy and/or theology that held human progress in check. The modern Attila's merely arrived at the same outcome of subjecting man to the duty of serving anyone other than one's self. In an age when "Might Makes Right," slave-masters maintained domination over illiterate brutes with greater ease than men of a more enlightened age. Even in Christian Europe, serfs were subjected to mind-control; their lives were at the disposal of the aristocracy, and the only reward for their suffering was the promise of an eternal after-life in God's Kingdom. In the 20th century, the populations of industrialized nations were told that they were a small part of a much bigger goal: The Collective, The State, The Proletariat Utopia. Men were truly convinced that, only through personal sacrifice, they could build a better world. Many willingly accepted the burden. The Nazi Third Reich consisted of highly intelligent, educated, and civilized people; many of the nations that came under Nazi rule did so without much opposition, and passively accepted their roles as collaborators. If you were to study the core of their beliefs, you would find the fatal flaw. It is for this reason that each individual must examine as much of the known facts as available, question those in power, and be as intellectually honest to themselves as is possible.
  7. Dadmonson, Persuasion is not an easy task for many of us. In most cases, an individual must come to his/her own senses, and realize that they are an individual. To inform them about Objectivism may not be necessary; it may be best to let people be as they are. I know of people who would be quite naturally inclined to approve of Objectivism, but for the fact that they are weighed down with the conventional challenges of life, and won't take the time to read Ayn Rand. While there are only a few of these people that I know of personally, such people tend to take the necessary actions to achieving their goals and happiness. There is no reason to impress them with any details, when they already follow a rational code of behavior. Generally, I let them know that I support their lifestyle, and I might even ask some question to find out if they've any knowledge of Ayn Rand. Are you sure these things need to be dealt with? In what way? If a greater understanding of history is what you're looking for, there are many books you could read until you become an expert on the subjects. But my experiences with African-Americans is that their metaphysics are firmly rooted in their religious background. Selling Objectivism to such people would be nearly impossible. If you meet anyone openly atheist/agnostic, exudes confidence in their industriousness, and disapproves of the welfare state, you might find an ally regardless as to the person's complexion. Knowledge is power. I hope you find as much knowledge as will inform you about the history of the march to freedom that led to the Declaration of Independence, and the continuing complexity of achieving universal liberty, for your own sake. Don't be disappointed that people resist reason; it's their life. Freeing one's mind is only a start.
  8. Dustin86, Do you suppose the facts as known can be the only determinate of truth? If so, then a great deal of that which science holds as truth today will be regarded as flawed analysis at the point where more facts on the subject are made available. On the subject of homosexuality, very little was know about this condition a half century ago, its psychological facts and physiological facts. The same can be said of cigarette smoke as a carcinogen seventy years ago. Ayn Rand conceded to scientific knowledge after the facts were made indisputable. But finding some particular human anomaly "disgusting" does not necessarily make it immoral, and on that I get your point. Many people find smoking disgusting, but not immoral. The point I'd like to make is that known facts matter. For example, Aristotle claimed that the sun revolved around the earth. Based on that which was know at the time, his explanation was much more true than the explanation that Helios pulled the sun through the cosmos with his chariot, or whatever the Ancients believed. As more research is conducted, more facts are known, and more honest understanding of nature is possible, as with the nature of the human condition. I certainly wouldn't write off Aristotle entirely for a few flaws in his understanding of truth; his reasoning was based on the only known facts of his time. Columbus claimed he'd traveled to India; do we dismiss his actions, accomplishments, and reasoning, because of a few flaws in his facts? Ayn Rand was entitled to her opinions, subjective as they may have been, but in the search for the truth, she has done more to point the way than anyone else in modern times, by my opinion of course. So, I do not see your point. In the pursuit of the truth, the idea of questioning knowledge as currently accepted is the method humans have used down through the ages. And you are entitled to question accepted knowledge as well, but you need a reliable and compelling body of facts to win your argument. Simply because some facts remain disputable and open to amendment, does not necessarily mean that there are no absolutes. In time, perhaps all objective knowledge will be verified, cataloged, and made available. But until that day comes, we are limited to the known facts of our times.
  9. I think it unlikely that Donald Trump has read many books of more than two hundred pages, books without pictures, that is. He may have watched a video of The Fountainhead, starring Gary Cooper. Critics of Ayn Rand are often trying to fit her words into some narrative taken out of context. I think this passage from Atlas Shrugged, covers it: "It is a conspiracy of all those who seek, not to live, but to get away with living, those who seek to cut just one small corner of reality and are drawn, by feeling, to all the others who are busy cutting corners--a conspiracy that unites by links of evasion all those who pursue a zero as a value:...(she lists a series of qualifying prototypes, including the Trump-like:) ...businessman who, to protect his stagnation, takes pleasure in chaining the ability of competitors..."--from, This is John Galt Speaking; p. 1047. Conspiracy, indeed, but not of one inspired out of Objectivism.
  10. I would like to see more well recognized persons speak about the influence of Ayn Rand. Someone with celebrity status is more likely to draw attention among the younger audience. This would make it possible for a victory, whether major or minor, in the cultural battle. Off hand, I can only think of a few that have made mention of Ayn Rand in a positive light: Neil Peart, (drummer for Rush), and Penn Jillette, (Los Vegas illusionist, and media star.) Perhaps there are others, but these are the only ones of which I know. That being said, it would reinforce my optimism to see more people identifying themselves as atheist; I wish to see fewer people assuming that there must be some good in anyone who believes in any form of deity. I wish to see more people acknowledging the rights of the individual, and positively acknowledging their own status as a minority of one, rather than demanding rights for a collective, of which they are a mere percentage. I seek the day when identity politics is consider passe. I wish to see more people say with conviction: "You damn right I'm looking out for myself!" If, one day, more nations develop institutions allowing stability within their borders, it will likely be the result of reforming laws that stifle entrepreneurial activity. Greater economic stability would naturally lead to domestic and military stability. A true meritocracy would emerge, and more prosperity for those who've earned it. While this all seems a bit beyond the scope of my present-day vision, it doesn't do any harm to fantasize. But if this vision of the future does come about, I won't care it is called Objectivism, or merely a revision of good ole common sense. I can only suppose that some intelligent individuals will rediscover the 20th century writer who espoused the philosophy that respected the virtues of intellectual honesty and industrious action. And I hope they'll more than: "She was ahead of her times."
  11. I see a number of problems with Dr Hurd's argument. For starts, Trump claimed we could have all of the benefits of the social welfare state, including a revised national healthcare program. Of course, it is all speculation at this point. But Trump's promises to have all of the entitlements of SSI, education, and tax-cuts all at the same time is pie in the sky. If Obamacare is repealed, good riddance. But the problem of paying for everyone's medical expenses will still fall mostly onto wage earning Americans. Or we could always expand the national debt once again, throwing many more future generations under the proverbial bus. Trump made it all sound as if we could all have our cake and eat it too. I would agree with Dr Hurd's assessment that the number one priority of national leadership should be the protection of rights and the empowerment of the individual. I heard nothing even close to that in Trump's rhetoric; it was largely claims that he was the indispensable man of our times, the ubermensch. The threat of a Trump dictatorship may be overstated, as it seems I've heard that accusation against nearly every US president since Richard Nixon. The threat is not with the celebrity/imperial president, but with a desperate citizenry unable to understand the value of their own personal liberty, and their demand for demagogues.
  12. From one of my favorite episodes of the classic Star Trek series: Spock: Your world was on the verge of a dark ages. This piece of dialog from science fiction was an apt warning to the people of our time in this place in history. Having read the above mentioned article by Okhar Ghate, I am reminded of the significance of every single day in our lives, in which any event or combination of events may shape the future for better or worse. When the history books of the future are written, what will they say of us? Will they suggest that the original ideas of Revolutionary American liberty were too complex for the average individual? Was democracy such a bad idea that no rational society should ever consider entrusting their future to the whims of the common people? Will they write books in any form at all, or will our descendants return to being the illiterate savages from our ancestral past--a past ruled by symbiosis of the mystics of muscle and the mystics of the mind. The ascent of Donald Trump to the highest national public office is at this time a matter of concern and circumspect. His tenure in office will prove to be interest to say the least. But as Mister Ghate points out, the tragedy is not that of Trumps ambition, as formidable as it may be. The greatest danger exists in the fact that so many American voters came to the support of a candidate with little if any credibility in his rhetoric, and no record at all in public office. So many people supported him not for what he championed, but more for what he condemned in the most vulgar and unspecific terms. If the Founders of the United States intended that the people should choose their representatives, literally, what does it say for a generation of Americans that could not choose better a representative than Donald Trump, or for that matter, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I can understand the voting block that chose Barack Obama. He represents a collective coalition who had long considered themselves under-represented. Obama's legacy will be a deepening of the social divisions within the US. A divided society doesn't bother me; what does bother me is the violence resulting from a nation whose best days are history, and has lost the will and understanding to go anywhere but into chaos. If Trump does not transform the US into a Banana Republic, who in our future might have more success in further corrupting and crippling our nation? The stage is set. The people have spoken. We live in interesting times, times ruled, in the words of Mister Spock, "by dozens of petty dictatorships."
  13. Eioul, If you've got a better way, that's just fine. I'll stick to mine. This is my answer to one more subjective critic.
  14. How on Earth could that have happened? You spelled it out so brilliantly. And of course, Spooky Kitty, you never will see the difference between your satirical position and the truth. That's because there is no difference. You've enlightened me to the lameness of Objectivism! Let's see if I got it right: So, the poor, as you've identified them, have a right to an expensive service, for which someone else has the obligation to pay. That expensive service, an opportunity to earn college credits by being permitted to attend the most expensive schools is their entitlement. The underlying morality that makes this so is that the improvident, illiterate, and sometimes foul-smelling poor have needs just as the middle-class and the rich. And while the rich can always afford to pay a mere pittance of their vast and unlimited wealth, the lower middle-class kid, who parents make too much money to qualify for any state supported funding, can go pound sand up his/her ass. Working parents can afford to pay for both their kid's and the kids' of strangers through their tax contribution. Those "poor kids" are so much more deserving, especially if they don't have the time or resources -- the same time and resources made available to the lower middle-class kid, such as public libraries and elementary schools -- to study in preparation for higher education. In the meantime, the kid who did his/her diligence in public schools, scored sufficient grades, but has working parents with an income just above the threshold can be required to pay more for college, when the courses are inflated from the public policy of entitling all to higher education. Screw that lower middle-class kid; let him get a menial job. That kid's been bred to have the kind of work-ethic that makes him/her perfect for unskilled labor or the trades. Maybe he/she will be lucky enough to have offspring who will be poor enough to deserve my sacrifice and the sacrifice of greater society for the greater good. The social safety-net should rightfully be designed, not so much to empower those on the low-end of the economy, but rather to ensnare the taxpayers and keep them in their place! Oh, and of course it should catch some of those rich people; those parasites make for exquisite dining, yum yum. Eat the Rich!
  15. Boystun, I might take issue with your first point: That ideology was the reason Americans rejected and feared the new Soviet Union. I would argue that it was largely a matter of the fact that Communism was foreign; Americans had a sudden and strong dislike of all things international after being drawn into the Great War. While it is true that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was established originally for the purpose for "rooting out" terrorists, usually ideologically Communists or anarchists, the average working man in the industrialized North to miners in the South were becoming increasingly drawn to unions, usually supported through the International Workers of the World, aka, the Wobblies. The Wobblies were an organization unmistakably inspired by Communist ideology. Many intellectuals of this period supported this movement; some even traveled to the newly established Union of Soviet Socialists Republic. Industrialists, such as Fred C. Koch, father to Charles and George Koch, saw opportunity there. It wasn't long before even the most sympathetic Americans were appalled to learn of the atrocities committed by the new regime. From an ideological point of view, what's not to like about a state that puts the needs of its people at the top of the priority list? A state that rations resources for the benefit of all? The unification of a brotherhood of man? (Other than the "Godless" aspect, as you well pointed out.) While the worst of the truth was withheld from the public, diplomat, George Kennan warned US officials of the horrors within the USSR, and later encouraged the isolation policy of the Cold War. The Red Scare of the 1920s was hardly noticed; ignorance and the Great Depression made the Soviet Union seem rational; the post-WW2 era witnessed the dawn of the Atomic Age, and the Red Scare was back in a way that was hard not to notice. But did the ordinary person actually understand the ideology? "Commie" and "pinko," were merely words without meaning to most, but they were derogatory words nonetheless. Trying to remove the ideological threat of socialism in a country that cherishes free-speech is neither easily done, nor even desired for those who see capitalism as the real threat. What can you expect from a nation that teaches its children that America's greatest industrialist were "robber-barrons"? Only in the past year, one politician won unexpected popularity in a major political party running as a socialist. It was only Ayn Rand who understood the threat as no one else could. Only Ayn Rand provided to ideological solution. The military invasion from Stalin and Khrushchev never happened. But Ayn Rand could see the direction of American policy and popular culture being eclipsed by the rise of the New Left--the same old Karl Marx in the emperor's new clothes.