Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jacob Smith

Regulars
  • Content count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jacob Smith

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • Experience with Objectivism
    All fictional and non fictional works of Ayn Rand
  1. Are we on the edge of the Peter Schiff dollar collapse?

    The wrong part about it is as follows: Woodrow Wilson was the first one to delink dollar from gold, followed by fellow Dem FDR’s note-printing program. It was opposed tooth and nail by GOP as their major political plank. But when the Dems took socialism to the hilt, GOP could not produce good intellectual arguments – means in fact they failed in defending America’s original theory of individualism, which they claim to uphold as Conservatives. So instead they took the other irrationality as their election plank – the Dems’ main plank was “love for the poor” (socialism); the GOP’s became “capitalism” form behind which they perpetrated plutocracy, helping the money-bags via war-mongering, etc. That GOP became a party hand in hand with MNCs is not a causeless myth, it was so after Dems’ massive socialist push. War-mongering was meant to support the MIC (military industrial complex) of MNCs, and to support it, Nixon delinked dollar from gold, shamelessly hanging Woodrow Wilson’s photo in White House so as to pre-empt opposition from Dems. (Reagan continued the line with his famous quote – “Debt does not matter”). There is nothing wrong in some MNCs shifting base to low-tax locations – but as a planned move because of inability to uphold one’s proudly proclaimed philosophy (individualism and opposition to socialism), it is shameful. The other points related with this: China was far beyond mild socialism – it was arch-communism, also projected as a scarecrow by Conzs – but it was on death-bed because of Mao’s actions, and the same Conzs shamelessly resuscitated it – means opposition to socialism, China as a the most evil empire and threat to America and plus bringing China out of grave and strengthening it. To resuscitate China Nixon gave the world one of his three famous shocks – first one was overnight delinking dollar from gold without the world having any idea; for the second shock, Kissinger became unwell in Islamabad and suddenly appeared in Beijing, till then the most evil monster. That was because their MNCs needed to use cheap China labor. The third time Nixon himself too got shocked along with the world – Watergate!! For an appreciable time after the New Deal most MNCs were with GOP – only after the realization that Dems’ doles vote block was solid, they could not be kept away from power for too long, and the need for immigrants to do software etc works (including banking for Wall Street too), a substantial number of money-bags shifted to Dems. Also see contradiction: a major reason for GOP’s opposition to migrants is loss of American jobs – but shifting all factories did not do that? Not merely low tax, they also wanted cheap labor; but for that the solution is not shifting all factories, war-mongering etc, but to defend properly against Dems’ socialism, for which they do not adequate intellectuality. Both the parties are equally cheap and have contributed to the erosion of America, though Dems’ socialistic push is sort of the more harmful blow. While I detest both the parties equally, it was for the first time that Michael Spencer’s blog shed light that they are not doing this purposely so as to destroy America, but that democracy is more of a culprit, the competition being to get more votes – since the majority goes on increasing as we go to the lower side of the social pyramid, their policies are aimed at winning these voters, hence giving in to evil. This is the first time that I saw such good analysis about why America is slowly but surely sliding without breaks. Also: it’s a bit surprising what Spencer has to say about the policies of the two parties – below I am quoting from his website Quote What American politicians have done is not a “first time genius” – they have just repeated a classic and well-documented performance! See how old the original is: A man named Plato wrote, to surprising accuracy, what the Romans would exactly do a few centuries later, to be again repeated by Americans 2400 years after him. I am not an admirer of Plato’s philosophy; rather consider his “Philosopher-Ruler” to be every rational man’s biggest enemy. But Plato has made one of the most important and original studies of the decay of society, Greeks and Romans learnt a lot from it, and Americans improved upon Romans. Yet nobody has been able to bring a solution to the problem of erosion of republic into democracy and then collapse. Plato is describing what I have called above as ‘compulsions of majoritarian democracy’. Unquote I am quoting only a very small part, but I do believe that all those serious about restoring rationality in American society should study this website. The ideas are absolutely unique, nobody has studied democracy the way he has, and are absolutely necessary if we want to stop the slide. Especially for Objectivists who consider Ayn Rand to be infallible goddess and really believe O’ism will conquer the whole world in future: Michael Spencer has dedicated his book to her, but the fact remains that neither Ayn Rand nor any of her followers studied democracy. They wrote extensively on Capitalism and Dictatorship, but democracy is a mixture of these two and also has characteristics of its own, and cannot be stopped without studying those characteristics. See further details on Spencer’s website.
  2. Are we on the edge of the Peter Schiff dollar collapse?

    The wrong part about it is as follows: Woodrow Wilson was the first one to delink dollar from gold, followed by fellow Dem FDR’s note-printing program. It was opposed tooth and nail by GOP as their major political plank. But when the Dems took socialism to the hilt, GOP could not produce good intellectual arguments – means in fact they failed in defending America’s original theory of individualism, which they claim to uphold as Conservatives. So instead they took the other irrationality as their election plank – the Dems’ main plank was “love for the poor” (socialism); the GOP’s became “capitalism” form behind which they perpetrated plutocracy, helping the money-bags via war-mongering, etc. That GOP became a party hand in hand with MNCs is not a causeless myth, it was so after Dems’ massive socialist push. War-mongering was meant to support the MIC (military industrial complex) of MNCs, and to support it, Nixon delinked dollar from gold, shamelessly hanging Woodrow Wilson’s photo in White House so as to pre-empt opposition from Dems. (Reagan continued the line with his famous quote – “Debt does not matter”). There is nothing wrong in some MNCs shifting base to low-tax locations – but as a planned move because of inability to uphold one’s proudly proclaimed philosophy (individualism and opposition to socialism), it is shameful. The other points related with this: China was far beyond mild socialism – it was arch-communism, also projected as a scarecrow by Conzs – but it was on death-bed because of Mao’s actions, and the same Conzs shamelessly resuscitated it – means opposition to socialism, China as a the most evil empire and threat to America and plus bringing China out of grave and strengthening it. To resuscitate China Nixon gave the world one of his three famous shocks – first one was overnight delinking dollar from gold without the world having any idea; for the second shock, Kissinger became unwell in Islamabad and suddenly appeared in Beijing, till then the most evil monster. That was because their MNCs needed to use cheap China labor. The third time Nixon himself too got shocked along with the world – Watergate!! For an appreciable time after the New Deal most MNCs were with GOP – only after the realization that Dems’ doles vote block was solid, they could not be kept away from power for too long, and the need for immigrants to do software etc works (including banking for Wall Street too), a substantial number of money-bags shifted to Dems. Also see contradiction: a major reason for GOP’s opposition to migrants is loss of American jobs – but shifting all factories did not do that? Not merely low tax, they also wanted cheap labor; but for that the solution is not shifting all factories, war-mongering etc, but to defend properly against Dems’ socialism, for which they do not adequate intellectuality. Both the parties are equally cheap and have contributed to the erosion of America, though Dems’ socialistic push is sort of the more harmful blow. While I detest both the parties equally, it was for the first time that Michael Spencer’s blog shed light that they are not doing this purposely so as to destroy America, but that democracy is more of a culprit, the competition being to get more votes – since the majority goes on increasing as we go to the lower side of the social pyramid, their policies are aimed at winning these voters, hence giving in to evil. This is the first time that I saw such good analysis about why America is slowly but surely sliding without breaks. Also: it’s a bit surprising what Spencer has to say about the policies of the two parties – below I am quoting from his website Quote What American politicians have done is not a “first time genius” – they have just repeated a classic and well-documented performance! See how old the original is: A man named Plato wrote, to surprising accuracy, what the Romans would exactly do a few centuries later, to be again repeated by Americans 2400 years after him. I am not an admirer of Plato’s philosophy; rather consider his “Philosopher-Ruler” to be every rational man’s biggest enemy. But Plato has made one of the most important and original studies of the decay of society, Greeks and Romans learnt a lot from it, and Americans improved upon Romans. Yet nobody has been able to bring a solution to the problem of erosion of republic into democracy and then collapse. Plato is describing what I have called above as ‘compulsions of majoritarian democracy’. Unquote I am quoting only a very small part, but I do believe that all those serious about restoring rationality in American society should study this website. The ideas are absolutely unique, nobody has studied democracy the way he has, and are absolutely necessary if we want to stop the slide. Especially for Objectivists who consider Ayn Rand to be infallible goddess and really believe O’ism will conquer the whole world in future: Michael Spencer has dedicated his book to her, but the fact remains that neither Ayn Rand nor any of her followers studied democracy. They wrote extensively on Capitalism and Dictatorship, but democracy is a mixture of these two and also has characteristics of its own, and cannot be stopped without studying those characteristics. See further details on Spencer’s website.
  3. Are we on the edge of the Peter Schiff dollar collapse?

    The original dollar printing program was started by Woodrow Wilson to help BOE in evading rationality (‘Sir’ Alan has written a good article about it in “Capitalism -- The Unknown Ideal”, but later he turned renegade, turn-coat etc -- Why? -- because GOP had taken over the agenda from the Dems and is printing far more dollars for their military-industrial complex (MIC) and plutocracy than the Dems’ welfare state. It is GOP’s MNCs that have driven American factories to China to evade huge taxes, min wages etc while talking nonsense about China and Russia being threats. All those factories were owned by their plutocrats at least when the pushing happened and China was resuscitated, brought out from grave. But now the things have gone too far and mere discussion about dollar’s value, Fed’s printing program, economics etc is not going to help -- discussion can be done for academic purposes, but I don’t think it will help. These Von Mises, Friedman, Ayn Rand -- all may be geniuses, but genius is a liability in the game they call as “Democracy” (see Toohey’s lecture to Dominique after the Stoddard trial); none will get 5% votes while Dame Hillary commands around 50%. What is needed is a fundamental change, viz. going back to Founding Fathers’ (FFs’) constitution, which also involves countering GOP’s MIC and plutocracy, not merely the Dems’ welfare state. The Fed, the power-grab by the Federal Govt, all of it will come under question -- all of it has one single root -- democracy, into which FFs’ Republic has slid decades back. Bretton-Woods was meant to do away the dollar-printing factory because of the experience of the Great Depression. GOP was not that very bad a party, in fact they were opponents of New Deal and dollar printing, etc but the reason why Nixon became Wilson’s son (he hung his photo in White House to justify delinking dollar from gold) because of GOP’s inability to counter Dems’ welfare state. Demo Party Platform of 1960 is a massive downward jump -- the Man’s Rights that they declared therein is as good as a covert civil war, except that it is slow-poisoning by the drop by drop, ml by ml, mm by mm method of the welfare state, therefore not identified as civil war so far. But America is eroded because of the actions of the Dems post Wilson! All these complex issues, how to undo democracy and go back to FFs’ Republic etc are all explained by Michal Spencer in the blog which I visited thanks to Democles. This discussion about dollar collapse has lot of knowledge -- the problem is that knowledge has very low value in the system that is ruling us today, democracy.
  4. Romantic Love and Promiscuity

    I always had this question in mind too. One does not keep changing partners and it is not so easy to fall out in love with a person who is very good already but just because one sees someone better. If you can stop loving a person that easily as women in AR books , I doubt whether you had ever loved them at all
  5. Morality exists where choice exists. In such a case of a desert island, if the man has no choice but to steal, and if it is nothing big, then it is quite understandable and excusable. Circumstances of man have to be taken in view before deciding verdict on him or else it will be like the case of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables
  6. How can we achieve happiness when work requires pain?

    "Struggle" is not necessarily same as "Pain". The whole reason of doing what you like and making it a profession(as Roark had explained in "The Fountainhead") is that you can live a happy life since you spend most of your life working so the work has to be something which gives you happiness. If you are into a profession which you don't like the least, then it becomes painful. But working hard for a thing you are passionate about, may be considered a struggle but not a pain
  7. Do Objectivist Virtues belong to a subcategory of "Value"?

    All virtues belong to the subcategory of 'values'. But Objectivist virtues(or virtues of any philosophy) are not universal values(that is, values for everyone). Objectivists virtues are values for Objectivists but may not be so for Altruists.
  8. Why Victor Hugo

    Rand admired Hugo's sense of life
  9. Poetry and the Romantic Manifesto

    Poetry is one of the form of literature. It is not a different category of art altogether such as music or dance or painting. Romantic Manifesto does not deal with different forms of art within the same category
  10. Are regulations a form of socialism?

    Yes it is Socialism.
  11. Murder and forcing others is out of question. No one is advocating here that if someone's work is considered to be of less value than someone else, they should be forced to do something or their rights can be violated by the individuals that have more value. When we talk about values of an individual, we assume that the only system appropriate to reward them according to their respective values is Capitalism. And in such a system, forcing others to work for yourself(if that was what you meant) or forcing them in any other way is out of question. I was primarily replying to the question of this topic here. Someone had said that he/she doesn't see why an electrician or a plumber can be of any less value than a scientist or a businessmen. So my simple answer was that the work of a plumber cannot stretch beyond range of a moment and can possibly not affect that many people as a work of scientist(which can affect nations even and which is impossible for a plumber to achieve though he may be an honest, rational man who is productive in his own profession) and saying that a scientist is more valuable than an electrician doesn't mean electrician is a moocher. There can be contextual analysis of some specific unique cases but on a general principle, there will be some difference between a productive scientist or a businessman and a productive electrician and both possessing faculty to reason etc is not even the topic here; it is about their relative worth.
  12. Why is Modern Art so Bad?

    It is a good video, though doesn't answer "Why modern are is so bad" but tells that it is bad. Ayn Rand had something very logical to say about this and she attributed the aesthetic principles of modern art to Kant
  13. When we make any abstractions, we cannot look at all the specific cases. We possibly cannot look at every individual doctor, scientist etc to determine their character and then reach to a conclusion. Philosophical analysis cannot be done in that way. When I talked about scientists , businessmen etc , the assumption was that I was talking about productive, self-made ones and not some distorted cases who have reached positions they do not deserve or are not fit for. But by principle, a scientist or a writer has much more value to offer than a bricklayer or a maid. When we talk about value , the question is "of value to whom and for what". Now a work of scientist or a businessman has some value to offer to thousands of people, but same is not true for the work of a maid, whose work is sought by maximum a handful of people and which of which hundreds of substitutes can be found. If not one maid, I will get another tomorrow. But I will not get two Edisons as easily as I will get two maids. And the work of Edison is benefiting even me today, though he himself died long ago; is that true for the work of a maid?. It is simply beyond the scope of his/her work. So there is no reason why thousands of people should consider the work of a maid to be of equal value, but on the other hand, those same thousands would find the work of the scientist valuable because they are benefited from it and even after centuries they continue to be benefited; whereas the work of a maid is more of less range of the moment and does not extend any further. Anyways, this assertion that every human , no matter in what profession, is of equal value, leads to a marxist society at the end. Because if you say that a clerk in a company provides work of equal value as a CEO of that company, then it is only a logical consequence that both should get the same output in terms of same salary etc. And saying that their is no distinction between the skills, intelligence, output etc provided by any of anyone profession(Except totally unemployed ones and as long as all perform their respective works honestly) is same as saying that all men should get equal value in terms of rewards and that is the same thing which Karl Marx, the founder of Communism advocated. He refused to see that there was any difference between a manual worker and an entrepreneur and hence why should an entrepreneur get anything more?
  14. Objectivism never considers electricians or average workers or moochers or parasites. But it is a fact that they are not as 'great' as businessmen, scientists etc. You will have to read Ayn Rand's concept of 'intellectual pyramid' to understand this. The value created by an average manual worker is though productive, does not extend much to anyone except himself and is mostly range of the moment. But the values created by the top most members of the intellectual pyramid extends to all the members below them. Even after centuries, we are benefited by work of a scientist or a philosopher, hence it is of a much greater value than the work of bricklayer which does not extend to that extent and neither does it require the same amount of intelligence, however, that does not mean they are moochers. But they not being moochers is not same as them being equal to great inventors of the world.
  15. Emerging States?

    Such a form of Government depends on the acceptance of Objectivism, or atleast some amount of rationality by citizens. And since it is only in individuals' hands to decide whether they will be rational or not, and if yes, then will they be in a sufficient number to bring about such a change, is a question which hence cannot be predicted just like Ayn Rand said she would not venture to predict if Objectivism will be a widely followed philosophy on earth one day or not
×