Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rubal Sher

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Very well said and all I would point out is that I understand we don't have Objectivist societies yet. I was just trying to visualize how one would look like and the framework it would employ. I am all for a privatized world minus any public money or even governments (maybe minimal) run on the principles of free markets. I am all for people being allowed to choose for themselves (good or bad) and yet I can see how human beings will constantly generate friction among each other and the resolutions may still be muddy. Having said that, I am pretty sure these ideas are the best we got and it is a shame that we don't have people in vast numbers backing this up. Thanks for you time, cheers!
  2. You really got me thinking and I realized even I am not sure on what constitutes physical force. How about a nerve gas like sarin? According to me, my neighbor is free to produce any amount, wear a mask and kill me. Doesn't sound right, isn't right but still got me thinking. In the alternate version, he can still do all of this until he gets caught beyond a reasonable doubt. Honestly, I have no idea how to objectively define force and the harm it causes. All I can say is that I see more and more people claiming psychological trauma and some of them are perhaps even right. I personally know of people that are highly disturbed at the sight of animal cruelty or even trees being cut down. Sooner or later, all of this will count too and maybe rightly so. We have come a long distance from the days of gladiators & public beheading etc that people enjoyed to becoming overtly sensitive about almost everything. I think I am no closer today than when I started. but I do appreciate the time and patience you have shown and the guidance that you provided. Cheers!
  3. Thank You for humoring me so far and I can see your points of view. I do understand your line of reasoning and my natural thought process is inclined in the same direction. I was just trying to brainstorm to see if there is a better solution and maybe there is and maybe there isn't but I can see these issues run much deeper than I had previously thought. Appreciate your inputs and your time. Thanks a lot.
  4. You are correct in understanding what I meant. Words get hijacked and I did not claim that Antifa believes in Objectivism but your paragraph could have been written by Antifa with obviously a very different meaning attributed to those words. Why I am trying to point this out is because even Objectivists do not seem to agree from within on their exact definition, so who gets to decide who has cognitive dissonance? Think of it as a scale, with Antifa on one end and the Objectivists on the other end for let us say defining the word "harm". The Objectivists are clubbed together but still not at a single point on that scale. Over time, this scattering could widen and leaving the door open to interpretation is what worries me. This is how religion and Antifa and the autocrats have played the game so far, constantly shifting goalposts and who is to say that Objectivists wont do it either when the very definition of the word "harm" is up for debate from within, among many others.
  5. You at least have strip clubs, prostitution, nude beaches, casinos for gambling, liquor flows freely etc. Back in India, most of this is non existent or tightly regulated to the point of choking. My point is that all these liberties could disappear too in the US when someone comes along that demonstrates all of this causes harm & rape towards women or something on those lines. There is no dearth of people who can tell you about the harm caused by these activities in the rest of the world. Plus the demographic is changing everywhere and the immigrants in Sweden, Germany and UK have shown that they can make local norms bend to their whims and fancies. Keeping open ended values, in my opinion, is just asking for trouble.
  6. I hear you loud and clear and this would have been my argument some time back too, but you are fortunate to live in the West where current freedom and values are way more liberal than the rest of the world. You have to put yourself in my shoes and understand that your exact argument is used to justify the ban on sale & consumption of beef, among many other outrageous things. And in a few decades, this exact same argument can be used to shut down free speech and the process is already underway. Religion started with this very argument thousands of years back, peppered with a liberal smattering of the divine to make the masses fall in line and the results are for everyone to see. It seemed like a good idea at the time and it was. All I am saying is that if you keep the definitions subjective based on trends, norms & precedents, Objectivism even if it came into effect would be hijacked faster than you could say bazinga and we will be left with the hangover that religion has given us today.
  7. You made me laugh with the footwear comment and I seem very aligned to the entirety of your post. But here is what I have summarized so far from the various discussions in this thread. Objectivism codifies a set of values that are just and prevent harm to individuals and initiation of force is limited to trespass of these values. Everyone seems to be saying this but dig a little deeper, the chaos starts right away. Everyone has a slightly different understanding of the terms I have underlined and I have not seen unity being reached from simple issues like nudity to complex ones like climate change. My interpretation is that the entire dialogue seems subjective because if you keep stripping harm down to molecules, it can easily be shown that literally anything can cause harm, albeit in infinitesimally small levels. So it is only a matter of drawing the lines in sand and I am highly wary of any philosophy that claims it alone knows exactly where the lines should be drawn.
  8. I just read this post and agree with you and this is what I am trying to convey. The dangers of loose definitions that can easily be modified over time. I am mainly looking for a philosophy that lets me live my life in peace and I don't want to bother anyone else either. The moment I am being told by either my neighbors, or the town, or the state or the govt or the courts that I cannot sunbathe in the nude in the open or that I cannot hang a Nazi flag or criticize a religion or eat beef, etc, then I find it highly unjust but to my surprise I get told that I am being shut down because I was being unjust.
  9. I dont read books and havent read any including Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I devour videos on topics instead and have seen many interviews and discussions featuring Ayn Rand and Yaron Brooks. So, if we got rid of governments but anyway used the courts to lay down the same laws, how does it help? How does one reach the conclusion that the laws being enforced (by courts or govt) are unjust? Take the example of nudity. I see a sharp divide among well respected Objectivists in this forum on whether nudity is just or not. If we cant agree on a simple matter like nudity, how do we objectively reach just conclusions on anything else?
  10. I have read the thread on nudity exhaustively but did not see any conclusion being reached. Some advocated it to be acceptable with strong arguments and some did not with their reasoning. So, if we cannot measure harm where nudity is involved, what hope do we have to measure the infinite interactions and reactions human beings generate? My reasoning for nudity to be acceptable is because I define harm as one caused only by physical force. Nothing else equates to harm. Not nudity, not burqas, not 140 dB sounds, not pollution, etc.
  11. But we already have laws that disallow use of physical force against others. What did I miss?
  12. And how does one answer that? You cant have an Objectivist world if measuring offense is the key and we both know humanity will never reach a point where offense can be actually measured. The rest of your post seemed to be driving at this point but hinting that the current Western values are not offensive but what goes on India and the rest of the world is (for the most part, not in entirety). This is a recipe for disaster because even if the entire world converted to Western values right away, we know from History that the values keep changing constantly over time. So, what may be acceptable to you today may get legally banned tomorrow. This is how the older generation feels on the subject of for example, gun controls today, among many others. I do have a problem with laws being defined based on societal conformance. It suppresses those who don't conform for no fault of their own. For example, I see no issue with being naked on my lawn or hanging a Nazi flag and yet I wont be allowed to do that in the supposedly Objective US today. How do you square that with Objectivity? From what I hear, you are perfectly defining subjective offense. Nothing objective about it at all.
  13. I think I was told the opposite of what you are telling me. My question pertained to what I could do let us say in my front lawn visible to all my neighbors. In this regard, I was told that I cannot barbecue beef on my front lawn because it is seen as an initiation of force by me onto their visual and olfactory senses thereby creating a nuisance which is not legally allowed in an Objectivist India but will be allowed in an Objectivist US.
  14. I really dont see what the difference is then between Objectivism and the current system? The one difference I can tell is that we get rid of governments and privatize everything. This has been espoused by economists like Milton Friedman without having to touch Objectivism. It is not going to stop women being forced to wear a burqa outside their homes or for me not being allowed to have a barbecue on my lawn (coz I am cooking beef) and if the latest trends in US colleges is anything to go by, I have to monitor my speech so as not to hurt feelings and so on. You are choosing to define force today that does not include feelings but I can easily see how feelings will get clubbed by the next generation as a means of force. The problem I have with this line of reasoning and the current system is that it works well for those who conform. People like me who like to think and do things differently are always up against a challenge and in most cases, the system and the regulations are so designed so as to even discourage alternate lines of thought and action. I am just confused. Maybe I am looking for a more radical solution than Objectivism.
  15. @2046 Are you suggesting that in an Objectivist world, prevailing culture supersedes individual freedom. For example, would I have to ask my women to wear a burqa in an Objectivist world where Islam is the predominant faith over centuries and highly regarded? Or are you saying that current Western values take precedence in all Objectivist worlds? So my women should be fine wearing a bikini in an Islamic Objectivist world but Muslim women cannot wear a burqa in their own land. From the majority of the posts I have read, it is clear that most of the contributions are from people with a Western upbringing who understand some smattering of Islam now. What I did not see for the most part is let us say the understanding of culture and ethos that is prevalent in India and the rest of the world. It does not only boil down to a burqa vs a bikini but there are infinite variations of culture that many are even unaware of. For example, as I said earlier, eating beef is highly frowned upon in India and India is the only country with such rigid ethos on beef consumption. So, would a Westerner be asked to give up eating beef in an Objectivist India? If this is thrust, then I am afraid there is no Objectivity here. It is the same old stuff packaged in a new bottle and smacks of subjectivity, not otherwise. Cars emit noxious fumes. Why haven't we banned them yet under this interpretation? Somewhere in the future, we will have a device that measures gravitational pull between two objects and fat men will be shown to trespass on leaner folks. There is no end to trespass and the current day regulations in all spheres of life are stemming from interpretations of trespass. I was hoping that Objectivism will do away with taking offense under the guise of nuisance but I don't see any difference at all. I honestly did not understand the difference, more of the same sounds more like it. The current centralized regulations did not appear from thin air. They did come in the form of some feedback from the lowest levels and in part based on generally accepted and known principles. I was hoping that Objectivism does away with legal messes that are costly and time consuming in a simple manner by upholding the rights and self interest of every individual in any given circumstance. So I could be naked or burning greenhouse gases or emitting X-rays and it was up to those affected to figure out a fix for themselves. Practically, if someone was being a genuine nuisance, you could not take him to court but he could be denied access to the private road in front of his house by a collective approach. It already happens in the modern world where neo-Nazis or hate preaching Muslim imams are shunned by the majority of the population without taking them to court. Isolation, rather than illegality is the answer in my opinion combined with technology that should help. Agree with you on these. And thanks a lot for the links as well. Cheers!