Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Repairman last won the day on December 8 2017

Repairman had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Repairman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • 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)
  • Interested in meeting
    Of course I would be interested in meeting a woman with Objectivist views. Appearances do matter.
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • 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

5151 profile views
  1. Repairman

    Greetings from New York

    Welcome to the forum. I read the other posts you made in the psychology category. I look forward to more. Aside from The Fountainhead, what other works of Ayn Rand have you read?
  2. Repairman

    Technology changing the models of doing business

    Sonic & Knuckles, You're covering a lot of topics; you might consider breaking it down a little, or searching for threads related to each of these areas of discussion. Nonetheless, I'll take a few of your questions and try to answer briefly. work is generally being replaced by machines. Yes, labor intense work is often replaced by machines. Machines increase productivity. Increased productivity results in greater output at a lower cost. Net result: More people will be able to afford the goods and services that, at present, only the higher income market can afford. Services made more efficient through high-speed communications are another improvement. So many jobs are going to be gone in the next decade. I think this is going to make the distortions and socio-economic gaps we already have in society much worse. What you are describing has been a concern since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, especially in mass manufacturing. The blacksmiths and candlestick makers were taking a terrible beating back then, but it certainly wasn't the end of the world. You are right to be concerned about being "left behind." I think every young person, (and for that matter, middle-aged people stuck in jobs of the aging industries) ought to seriously plan for the reality of mechanization in the Digital-Age. Objectivist ethics requires one to face the facts, and to deal with them accordingly. As for society getting worse, I think the worst will affect those at the economic bottom, as it always has. The changing ways of doing business like watching a movie or shopping, and the effects of business like concentration of ownership of media with newspapers and (formerly) locally-managed TV/radio stations is creating a scenario in the private market that can be analogous to centralization or Communism in many ways. If the media outlets are privately owned, it certainly wouldn't qualify as Communism, which means that the media are a monopoly owned and operated by the government; so long as the internet stays relatively unregulated, centralization of information is unlikely. I would say the greater problem is the reaction of the general public to hysteria inflamed by the media. As long as there is a market for entertainment and information products, be they physical or digital on-demand, those products will be produced. Ask anyone with a vinyl record collection. As for your neurological condition, I have no comments. I hope the best for your improvement, and by all means, spend some time reading some of the works of Ayn Rand.
  3. Repairman

    Greetings from Rust Belt Hell, USA

    You're free to choose "junk food," or something more nutritious. I can't see what the contradiction is there. Now, if it's a matter of allowing people to eat nothing but food that meets with your approval, you are lording over the choices of others. Such authority over others interferes with their happiness, and by Objectivist ethics, it's wrong. If a man chooses to harm himself, that's his own affair. From what I see here, you're merely acknowledging reality, the fact that problems have plagued the human race since time in memorial. Indeed, the world is a mess. And no God or super-conscious force is going to correct the problems people have made for themselves. They will not cure their diseases by petitioning any God or government. People, societies, I might even suggest, democracies, are the only ones who can turn their world for the better. It begins with the individual. The individual is the ultimate minority, and when the individual's rights are jeopardized by the "greater good," that is the point at which the minority must take a stand for his rights. As for the agnostic/atheist/kinda-believe-sort-of thing, you will have to come to your own understanding of existence. I've found that it makes the whole messy world more easy to understand as an unapologetic atheist.
  4. Repairman

    Greetings from Rust Belt Hell, USA

    Sonic & Knuckles, I am an old guy who was born too late to appreciate video games. No regrets about that. To the point, I have spent my life in the Rust Belt Zone between Chicago and Milwaukee. I've been watching this thing happen for decades. I've survived many plant-shutdowns. I've visited other towns in the region. The manufacturing industry of yesterday is not coming back, but manufacturing is very likely to make a comeback with the industry of the future, i.e. robotics, biomedical/pharmaceutical, and digital industries. As you explore more of the works of Ayn Rand, you may consider looking into the economic theories supporting free markets. You can find many Youtube videos featuring Milton Friedman, if you don't find the time to read. Don't be frustrated with our current state. Reading Ayn Rand is an excellent decision. Welcome to the forum, and best of luck.
  5. Repairman

    Elon Musk

    It is because of individuals, such as Elon Musk, that I remain an optimist, albeit a cautious optimist. The innovations of today are the conventional and common-place of tomorrow. Modern marvels, such as the 3D printer and genomic mapping, might be enough to persuade any skeptic as to the possibilities of a world such as envisioned in The Jetsons and Star Trek. The fantastic doesn't seem so much like fantasy anymore. Nonetheless, it would only take a misguided movement, or even one psychotic individual to take humanity in the wrong philosophical/ideological direction, and into reverse rather than real progress. One day, there may be more humans living in outer-Terrestrial habitats than on Earth, or the human race could revert to a new dark age, and once again on the verge of extinction. "If men grasp the source of their destruction-if they dedicate themselves to the greatest of all crusades: a crusade for the absolutism of reason-the twenty-first century will have a chance once more."--Ayn Rand from Philosophy: Who Needs It. (p. 111).
  6. Rubal Sher, If I interpret your argument as: There are so many subjective, religious, and in some cases, radically irrational people in the world making it impossible for even the smallest minority of Objectivist to flourish, well I would agree. I hope by now we have the understanding that America is not an Objectivist society, anymore than is India. (I should point out that prostitution is illegal the US, although there is the State of Nevada, where there are only the minimum restrictions, and I understand Canada has decriminalized prostitution.) On the other hand, if you are arguing that chaos would ensue if society were to pursue a body of governmental laws based purely on objective reality, I do not agree. The philosophy of nature, science, can and is a philosophy that not only improved the material standard of living for society in the West, it has also been the bane of religion. Religion is the traditional obstacle impeding the integration of knowledge. There are more modern forms of mysticism, such as socialism, but to the point, Objectivism is as far from socialism and religion as one can get. Through objective research, evidence, and a well-presented argument based on solid evidence, you can prove the the Earth is not the center of the universe, or that microbes exist, or any other absolute truth you deem worthy of governance. With regard to "offensiveness," I believe the others are addressing that question. Also, I believe it is worth mentioning that objectivity does not necessarily equal Objectivism. One may hold a body of evidence, objective evidence, and yet, not arrive at the objective or complete truth. You may closer to it than before the discovery of solid evidence, but Objectivism is a philosophy, presupposing a process by which one lives.
  7. Honestly, I have no opinion with regards to the thread on the subject of nudity. With regards to government, as I've said before, there would be government, albeit, a little as necessary. Citing your example of using the courts as the primary form of government, (a method I would not trust to remain free of corruption), court rulings would serve the same function as legislators passing laws. In any case, it would not in my best interest, nor anyone's best interest to get rid of government. It would be a good idea to read some of Ayn Rand's non-fiction, particularly The Virtue of Selfishness, or Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Both of these collections of essays have a chapter describing the Proper Role of Government. I'd rather not take up specifics, such as the argument over nudity, although I think nude beaches are great to visit, as long as I'm allowed to wear my choice of modesty garment. And "Gentlemen's Clubs" are a perfect affirmation that some form of freedom still endures to these United States. But Rubal Sher, I strongly recommend doing some study into the finer points of the teachings of Ayn Rand before you jump to any conclusions.
  8. You may have overlooked the part about physical force used by government to enforce laws the are unjust. Rubal Sher, which books authored by Ayn Rand have you finished reading?
  9. Rubal Sher, Objectivism may not be a solution to anything such as that could change a nation of over a billion people, especially a nation of people fiercely defensive of their many various religions. Objectivism is a philosophy; it is a comprehensive philosophy, and I might add that you would be hard pressed to find a philosophy more radical than Objectivism. With generations of secular law holding back the forces of Christian fanaticism in America, it is with certainty that the United States is not an Objectivist nation. In fact, I would conjecture that the self-identifying Objectivist society in America is an insignificant minority. I will never live to see the day when an admitted atheist will ever receive the nomination for the office of president, unless the political party were neither Republican or Democrat. A woman president, perhaps, but not an atheist. As long as such institutions as religion guide the moral direction of a society, Objectivism will remain a curiosity to some, a life-style for the few who understand it. If I may take this example: "an Islamic Objectivist world." Simply put, these two terms contradict each other. Such a world would be impossible. As would a Christian-Objectivist world, or a Jewish, or Buddhist, Jain, you may hyphenate any faith you choose, but Objectivism holds no faith, only reality as an absolute. As it relates to government, Objectivism rejects such notions as "a brotherhood of man," or the "common good," or "redistribution of wealth." Certainly, there would be government, but its primary function would be the protection of the rights of the individual, rather than the collective, "the masses," or a term most favored in America politics, "the people." No singular set of cultural values would take precedent over justice for the individual in an Objectivist society. The fact of the reality is that all nations, Western, Eastern, or otherwise, have cultural norms that may trace their origins back more than 10,000 years. (For example: marriage and family.) To overcome such institutions as those that prevent you from conducting normal daily activities in the nude, I really don't know what to tell you, other than, if it should ever come to pass, I would recommend you wear some sort of footwear for the protection of your feet. It would be in your self-interest. Edit: I want to make clear that we, in America, have a faction of religious force at work in our democracy. I substituted "religious" for "Christian" in my post for clarification, as Christian-fundamentalism as a form fanaticism specific to American politics, more so than any other creed. I highlighted to edit. Rubal Sher, we have irrational people here as well.
  10. Rubal Sher, First, welcome to the forum. It's very encouraging the know that Objectivism is gaining interest internationally. Your preceding post covers many topics indeed. I only wish to comment on your interpretation of "self interest" where it relates to government. Ideally, government would hold the monopoly on force, and exert force in the protection of the rights of the individual. Whether theological or ideological, any political system runs the risk of gravitating toward tyranny without the protection of individual rights. The people, or even the ideas that govern society, are not individuals, as they are acting in the interest of society, and not their own interest. While it is true that some people enter public life in democratic systems with the claim that they champion the rights of "the people" and in fact they only wish to gain unearned wealth through a corrupt institution, many in government truly believe they are acting without self interest, rather they believe that it is for the benefit of the people that they force women to wear burqsa and men wear beards and all of the other traditional tyranny. These men in government, whether they govern in the West or the East, lack any legitimate purpose by Objectivist standards; they are living for control over others, and measure their success by the impression they make on others, or for that matter, their impression on history. As I see it, Adolph Hitler truly believed in his mission to lead the Germanic race to "greatness," and vanquish any threat to his cause. Even in the United States, we have politicians that truly believe that they are doing the American people a favor by destroying freedom.
  11. Repairman

    If you could liberate Cuba?

    Interesting indeed. This Diaz-Canel predictably will speak the same ideological rhetoric as his predecessors. But the Mariel Special Economic Development Zone and other developments indicates long-planning for capitalistic reform. Either way, dictatorship is the norm in many countries, and a truly liberated Cuba is a long way off.
  12. Repairman

    Veganism under Objectivism

    Point out the fallacies.
  13. Repairman

    Veganism under Objectivism

    I am doing nothing objectively wrong when I eat. You are attempting to prove otherwise, by suggesting that fish, deer, and all of the four-legged characters of Orwell's Animal Farm qualify as sentient, therefore reasoning beings. Your doing a rather weak job of it. I maintain that moderate consumption of meat is healthy, and only causes guilt among neurotic and cognitive beings.
  14. Repairman

    Veganism under Objectivism

    I don't see this as an argument over whether or not basic survival behavior constitutes reason, so much as an argument over whether or not humans have a right to balance their diets without feeling guilty. "Feeling guilty" is in this case quite subjective.
  15. Repairman

    Veganism under Objectivism

    Human consumption of meat is both healthy and logical, at least until technology provides us with a healthier and more cost-effective substitute that doesn't taste bad. When with only his mind and ten digits, an ape can research and present an argument contrary this this one: http://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/ , I might consider your "animals-reason-and-therefore-must-not-provide-my-nourishment." If necessary, I could "ape" many more articles making basically the same argument. There is overwhelming evidence supporting the benefits of eating meat in moderation. Of course, I limit my choices of animals delicacies to cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, fish, and on rare occasion, lamb. I have not been in a situation where eating dogs, horses, or even apes has been necessary, but my rational life-style has allowed me the luxury of other choices. I might even be convinced of his intelligence with an ape possessing the ability to create a fairly realistic self-portrait or pass a public school first-grade math test. Until then, I am unconvinced that my omnivorous diet violates anyone's rights.