Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Repairman last won the day on May 1

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

4799 profile views
  1. Scott Ostrem, of Colorado, may be added to the rogues gallery of psychopathic mass murderers, whose victims were selected at random. Inasmuch as Ostrem survived, authorities may learn thing about his deranged mental condition. As with so many of the others in that rogues gallery, ranging as far back as Charles Witman, the 1966 Texas Tower Sniper, no one may ever learn exactly what motivated their crimes. I have no doubt that there are professional psychoanalysts with theories. Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbeck immigrant responsible for the mass murders last Tuesday, stated his motive loudly and proudly. He had a support system in the form of ISIS. As more facts become known, the likely conclusion will likely be that Mister Saipov was more than less motivated by his faith. It what be foolish, as well as tragic, to even attempt to regulate peoples' beliefs via government coercion. Immigration regulation is a proper function of government. While there's no reason for hysterics in the form of mass deportations, I see no reason why the government should not be more discriminating with regard to immigration.( I think Trump's proposed wall would be a bit expensive, ineffective, and unnecessary, and Uzbekistan is not on his "banned nationality list.") Domestically raised terror (Islamic or not) has also appeared in recent years to be on the rise. (2046, the sarcasm is noted; government restrictions on infants would not play well in most countries, other than China.) Omar Mateen, the Pulse nightclub shooter, was reported to have had mental problems unrelated to his faith, and yet it seems his faith played a role in his hatred of homosexuals. Dylann Roof was another one strongly motivated by his hatred of African-Americans. While government force may never eliminate the impulse for murder, nor screen out immigrant mass murderers, I advocate for personal support systems for the rational, i.e., lend a little support to those with doubts about their religious and/or ideological beliefs. I've talked with people expressing racist tendencies, and found them to reluctantly admit that their fear of blacks is irrational. It is always my habit to assure anyone who has broken with their religious past that they are right with regard to their doubt. Ask not what your government can do to prevent fanaticism, ask the fanatic why he holds his beliefs. This forum is certainly an example of one such support system.
  2. I believe I covered that in this post: If I'm a collectivist for seeking a more secure, comfortable, and rational society, count me in.
  3. Terrorism certainly qualifies as an act of commission. And while I must agree with everyone (including Nicky and Invictus2017) that there are a great many things more threatening than religion-inspired acts of violence, Islam is a massively popular religion, one that includes verses intended to inspire violence. People practicing Islam peacefully pose no threat; the people practicing Islam violently are very threatening, and yet both groups are being true to their faith. To be sure, I consider an appropriate defense against anything that may threaten me. Nonetheless, it is normal, if not rational, to fear that which threatens me. The automobile accident is far more likely to cost me my life. I fear the event of a head-on collision, and I take appropriate actions to prevent such a tragedy. What prevention can one take against the suicidal/homicidal maniac? Other religions have inspired violence, but could you tell me one that has inspired as much carnage in the past seventeen years as Islam?
  4. No accident? Are you suggesting tetanus victims contract the disease intentionally? Tetanus is preventable with vaccine; death by Jihad warrior is not. In America, tetanus is rare; terrorists or mass murderers, Muslim or non-Muslim, also are rare in the US. Nonetheless, Muslim terrorists act out in part from inspiration derived from their Holy Koran. I find this disturbing, others find it scary, especially when people are being told that Islam is perfectly harmless. The Muslim terrorist is in part motivated by his religion. What motivation does a tetanus virus act upon, other than its nature as a virus? What exactly is your point?
  5. We could make a long list of preventable scary things, including automobile accidents. But the incident that happened in New York yesterday was no accident.
  6. All joking aside, Islam is a scary religion, and the senseless deaths of eight Americans should be regarded with the same sobriety as 3000 deaths. Among Westerners, "Alluah Akbar" has become commonly associated with mayhem, the battle cry of an irrational and deadly Jihad. Nonetheless, it is the faith of choice for millions of people around the world, many living in the United States. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of American Muslims are as rational as their Christian and Jewish counterparts. They are not an organized army. They are individuals, and as their generations are more exposed to our culture, I believe more will abandon their faith, just as many Christians and Jews have abandoned theirs. While you've brought up the subject of Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, after an entire month of analysis, no one is any closer to understanding the motive of his crime. I do not wish to "psychologize" the pathology of any mass murder; I am not qualified for that. However, how do we know that he did not have an inspired revelation from his spiritual friend(s)? Please don't construe this statement as a hypothesis; it is not. I'm merely saying that religions other than Islam have inspired violence. Religion in general can be a catalyst for self-destruction. I wish for a future where religion is a subject studied in history books, as a means of understanding the past. Presently, people no longer have to conceal their atheism as they did in the not-so distant past. Faith versus atheism is a false set of alternatives; the focus needs to be on rationality, a belief in objective reality. We may never know why Stephen Paddock went berserk; we only know that his actions were irrational to the extreme. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that religion has played a role in organized mass murder in America, before as well as after the Colonial Period, from September 11, 2001, to the crimes of the KKK, to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692, to the hanging of Quakers.
  7. We don't that it wasn't an attempt to divert the national media attention from the ongoing Russian-collusion investigation. It's the sort of thing that works for Frank Underwood. (Bad taste, you might say? Yes, but someone told me I should be more fun. Trick or Treat.)
  8. Of course, one can derive satisfaction from day-by-day successes. In the context of the main argument, success, whether major or minor, is for some, the measure of a good life, as opposed to trying to be popular-especially if one compromises one's principles (or lacks principles) in the process of becoming popular. You make a valid point. Perhaps I should have clarified my statement. I suppose for some, popularity would be a major factor contributing to a good life. But as for me, a life of personal accomplishment is much more satisfying than fitting in with a large crowd, most of whom would be mere acquaintances. I have had success in both areas of my life, and I prefer accomplishment. It was not my intent to imply that success must be grandiose or driven by a sense of duty; the knowledge that I earned that which is mine gives me enormous satisfaction. Earning the right sort of companionship (i.e. without compromise of one's values and principles) is a major success that many might never achieve. Until then, successes both minor and major are quite satisfactory. In the quest of expanding the popularity of Objectivism, I maintain that any attempt to impose one's beliefs on an unresponsive audience for any other reason than the cause of justice is a bad idea. Arguing for recreational purposes can be amusing when one has the time, but when challenged, I will defend myself and my beliefs, even when the cost is a loss in public approval ratings.
  9. We can agree, there is no point to "pushing the atheist angle," anymore than pushing anything other than that which matters to our own self-interest. Also I don't really care if someone wants to believe in god, regardless of their rationality. Generally, people are not opposed to rationality, and yet, Americans are careening toward one artificial crisis and then another. People claim to embrace life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Most don't want to be preached to as to how to define their pursuit of happiness. They don't want to be told that they're "no fun." They don't need philosophy, or so they will tell you. There's nothing terrible about such people, and I never said there was. And we can accept these people for who they are, but they are not Objectivists, and they never will be. If your objective is to "push" any sort of agenda, marketing is everything. Catholics, communists, and Nazis used propaganda to their ultimate outcome. The explanation for the ultimate decline and/or demise of these ideas is the fact that people are rational, and these ideas are based on irrational premises. While I couldn't tell from present conditions, we may pull the United States from the descent into the Leviathan/welfare state, but religion will always have a hold on people. This doesn't concern me. What concerns me is that as the United States flounders, religious movements will have the upper hand as people become more demoralized. The religious movements will be more successful, because their followers were introduced to "god" at an early age. Speaking strictly for myself, I wouldn't even raise the subject of Ayn Rand to anyone other than my closest associates, unless they confide with me their disbelief of the supernatural, and their frustration with the current direction of our collective social order. To try to "push" Objectivism on anyone else would be a waste of their time, but more important to me, it would be a waste of my time. I have no criticisms of your parents; I don't know them.
  10. So far, this is the strongest and most simplified argument for NOT proselytizing Objectivism to anyone other than your children. Why bother trying to change the minds of those unwilling to embrace the fundamentals of Objectivism. Why bother probing the minds of people who likely would not be good company. The connection between fun and popularity needs little explanation. But satisfaction does not come from being popular; satisfaction comes from being successful. One can easily attract all the friends one needs after one has achieved success, and it's entirely possible that one, two, or more of your friends will activate their minds enough to reconsidering their views. They might even become Objectivists. But if they don't, there's no reason they couldn't remain one's friends, as long as one wishes them to be. If one is striving for success, I have found that it is of little benefit to strive for fun or popularity, when one's time could be better spent reaching one's next goal. The greatest impediment to Objectivism's popularity is the atheist component. From personal experience, sharing Objectivism with people who plan to retire for eternity with their good buddy, Jesus, is a bad idea. I don't expect such people to be receptive to reason, nor would I expect them to have much in common with me. And while I realize that this is not at all an either-or-proposition, I'd rather be right than popular. No one proselytized to me. I had to discover the works of Ayn Rand after many years almost entirely at random. While I suppose it's better late than never, I am hopeful, that is, I am still able to rise to a higher level of personal success. I am hopeful that one day a franchise of secular private elementary schools may make The Fountainhead part of its required literary studies. I am hopeful that just such an effective learning environment could discover new ways to make philosophy fun, and thereby more popular. Maybe someone will invent a popular video game that promotes reality-based morality. I will leave that task to much younger innovators. Persuasion can yield results, but early indoctrination would work much better. Just look at the results early indoctrination as had for the government and parochial schools.
  11. We Should Be Fun People. We Aren't. Let's Change!

    Let's Change! Exactly what does this declaration mean? If I am to follow my personal interests, the only changes I will focus on are those that advance myself toward my goals. I am one who knows myself, and I suppose a great many people can make the same claim. I know that I am a kill-joy, less interested with style than I am interested in substance. If my purpose were to entertain others, I would be very concerned with broadening my sense of humor. In fact, I would broaden it beyond pointlessness, because that's what comedians do. They want to reach the broadest audience possible. I don't care about the broader audience. But if I were an aspiring entertainer, I would most certainly need to change that attitude. I choose not to change, at least not for the purpose of impressing people whose views will never align with mine. I wish to have meaningful engagements with intelligent people, not twist balloons into representational sculptures of dachshunds. The vast majority of the people I know would be more entertained by the balloon clown than having a discussion about history, global affairs, and/or least of all, philosophy. Regardless as to how you market ideas, it is only through cultural products,i.e. music, movies, literature, or live stage theater that one conveys a theme to a large audience. This is not say that I have never slipped in a bit of humor into my posting on this forum, or in casual personal conversation. To the contrary, people appreciate my humor, as deadpan as it is, when dignified professionalism is all that they've come to expect. Wit must not be conflated with "being fun." If you are a "fun person," wonderful; perhaps you don't need to change anything. If you intend to convey a serious idea with humor, you may find that you need to refine and practice your routine, and prepare for the serious rebuttal. Personally, I find self-styled clowns rather boring. Perhaps no one will ever accuse me of being a fun guy, but the world has enough human whoopy-cushions to keep us all in blissful hysterics. I disagree with the assertion that Ayn Rand lacked humor. Having read her novels, I found the sort of humor I can appreciate in the caricatures of her antagonists. And if I had to defend an unpopular idea in public, I might be just as precise and combative as was she. I want to give a special thanks to StrictlyLogical for the vintage video of Robin Fields. I watched it all the way through. I will pass it along. It is an exceptional piece of entertainment, and never strays from his intended point.
  12. Donald Trump

    Policies do not convey character traits, unless you might include the excessive use of executive powers as a measure of executive self-aggrandizement. Of course, he'll have quite a way to go to catch up with Obama's conceit.
  13. Donald Trump

    Yes, I suppose you could say he is a pragmatist. I suppose there are a great many adjectives one could use to describe Trump. Two that come to mind are, blunt and ambitious. Two adjectives I would not use to describe him are, dignified and intellectual. One could argue that he is rational in the sense that he is WINNING! (with an arm pump), but avarice, conceit, and megalomania are not virtues by Objectivist standards. It is too early to judge his legacy as president. However, if you want to know this Objectivists opinion, there are decades of publicity shedding light on his character and politics, which support my views.
  14. Donald Trump

    At the onset of the 2016 primary season, I would not have believed it possible for Donald Trump to win the nomination. How wrong I was! There are two rhetorical questions to consider when forming an opinion about Trump: 1) Is Trump the most qualified individual for holding the office he now holds?; 2) What has happened to the nation that made his success in politics possible? Is Trump qualified? He meets all of the legal requirements. The legitimacy of his election remains a legal matter to be settled. Was he unlawfully assisted by Russian confederates, or not? I think he stands a good chance of surviving this problem. As others have noted, he gives the appearance of a petulant anti-intellectual bully. If anyone can offer up proof that Trump's threats have actually caused a chilling effect on the press, or direct harm to any American individual or corporation, I'd be willing to look at the evidence. But as far as I can see, he has stayed within the limits of the law in carrying out his agenda. The big question is, just what is Trump's agenda? Is he actually seeking to establish needed reforms, possibly raising his persona to one of a great American historical leader, in his words, "Make America Great Again?" If that is the case, he needs to more clearly define what is the standard of "American Greatness." Is his objective to further enrich himself, and his special friends? Donald Trump is a schemer; there is method to his madness. At this point, Trump has already shown that he never had any principled plan for the economy, but only a plan to seize more control of the economy. His support for minimum wage and trade protection may prove to be smart political moves aimed at assuaging the fears of those in lower wage jobs. More likely, if his policies pass, they will result in greater opportunities to the largest companies, while the smaller competitors struggle even harder, or fold. Many of the Trump supporters I've talked to were totally unaware of the billions of dollars which he had at the start of his enterprises, his abuse of eminent domain, and the allegations of his cheating workers out of their wages. On all of this, I believe Donald Trump's only principle is: WINNING! (with an arm pump.) Were there more qualified candidates? Perhaps. But there is an overwhelming number of Americans who hate anyone who has any association with DC policy-making. Many of these people never vote, and for that very reason. But in 2016, many of them did get out the vote, because they approved of Trump's language, incoherent as it may be. And he could get away with saying these things because he has held no previous office, inside or outside of DC. I believe this was one of the qualifications his blue-collar supporters find most appealing. In a similar way, Barak Obama appealed to many who never voted before, merely because his complexion more closely matches their demographic. This leads to the second rhetorical question: What has happened to the United States, the nation that once led the world in the pursuit of individual liberty and industrial innovation? How could so many voters support a leader who makes no apologies, who openly brags of aspiring to become a strong-man dictator? (I suppose the short answer might be that fewer wished to see a strong-woman dictator. If identity-politics was the only controlling force, 50 percent of the voters would have turned out for Hillary Clinton.) To fully answer this important question, I would encourage you to read, Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff. I'm reading it for the second time. While the US economy has a long way to go before it hits the depth of Germany's in the 1920s, the breakdown of politics is quickly taking the shape of that of the Weimar Republic. While I do not agree with those who claim that Donald Trump is a Nazi, not even a racist, I would contend that his election is proof that a significant number of Americans would favor a dictatorship, provided that that dictatorship enabled them to oppress those of the opposite ideological and/or racial camp. Doctor Peikoff wrote this book 35 years ago, and it has never been so relevant as in our present times. I believe we are on the road to tribalism. I can live with being wrong, but I hope I'm dead before that ever happens. I hold onto the hope that the checks and balances of the US Constitution will prevent this from happening. If not, I believe Ayn Rand would say: "Brother, you asked for it."
  15. Is Colorado a lost cause?

    For better or worse, it seems we're straying quite a way away from the opening topic of Colorado. But for what it's worth, may I offer some constructive criticism: As I've already admitted, I know next to nothing about video games, or how they might be used to convey complex ideological concepts to their participants. "Sonic is cool in universe because he’s the good guy! He’s fast, smart, and has a can-do attitude." While traits such as fast, smart, and possessing a can-do attitude may well be attributes of a hero, they may just as well be the attributes of a villain. "Sonic feels no duty to fight Eggman… he fights Eggman because it’s fun for him! As the good guy, Sonic realizes how competent and excellent he is, and how weak and pathetic Eggman is." Based solely on this description, I would assume Sonic is an evil megalomaniac exacting pleasure by tormenting the retarded Eggman. I find nothing in your description that would define Sonic as a champion of the Good as defined by Objectivist standards. In addition to his sadistic pursuits, Sonic has little to worry about, as his friends, Tails and Knuckles, will back him up if he finds himself out-matched. Those names sound like stereotypes from a list of characters in a 1930s gangster film. None of this sound very sporting to me. Of course, their must be more to your scenario, but I see no distinct Objectivist message here. I am reminded of a little known historical figure, named, Otto Skorzeny, whose claim to fame was as one of Adolf Hitler's personal entourage, a soldier of remarkable prowess and prestige. He is alleged to have rescued Benito Mussolini from captivity single-handedly with the use of a hang-glider. While Otto Skorzeny, KGB officers, and mafia-goombas might justify their violence as a duty to a higher cause than self, they enter those very challenging roles likely because it brings them some sort of sense of superiority over others. It doesn't matter if their opponents may be more formidable or less than a challenge. Robotnik sounds evil, in that he enslaves others. (Are Eggman and Robotnik one in the same entity?) But in the Objectivist ideal, man is not a weakling to be enslaved, waiting despairingly for a hero to rescue him. Maybe I'm confused about all of this, because I have no experience with these interactive videos. If the small woodland creatures of Mobius are enslaved by a "weak and pathetic" nemesis, they are none-the-less small woodland creatures. This all sounds very much like the morality plays presented as children's cartoons where the pet cat preys on the heroic mice, and in their celebration, the mice inhabit your cupboard and eat your food. Generally, the moral to the story is: if enough little guys band together, they can take whatever they want by force.