colbyduck

"We, the men of the mind, are now on strike against you in the name of a single axiom, which is the root of our moral code, just as the root of yours is the wish to escape it: the axiom that existence exists. "Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. ... "Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two - existence and consciousness - are axioms you cannot escape..."

Dude, chill. I agree with basically all the stuff you just said about the four main branches of objectivism, i was only trying to keep my post somewhat brief. Yes, knowledge attainable only through reason, self-interest only if rational blah blah blah. Trust me, i wouldn't call myself an objectivist if i didn't agree with a single tenant of the philosophy. I may not have read every book by Rand and Peikoff but i think i understand objectivism pretty well. Don't have an aneurism over my not specifying the entire axiomatic foundation and derivation of the philosophy. And why exactly wasn't rand a minarchist? The word has no formal definition so maybe you're mistaking it for something i didn't mean. Among the broader libertarian circle it's usually taken to mean somebody who advocates a minimal state that provides only police, courts, and military. I guess i could be wrong, because as you say i know essentially nothing about objectivism, but this is what rand condoned, correct?

Very well, you don't have to call me an objectivist, i don't call myself one as if it's my official title. I admit that there are several positions and beliefs held by most objectivists that i don't agree with, but by and large i agree with objectivism a whole helluva lot more than any other well-defined philosophy. If objectivism's identity is very specific indeed at what point do you draw the line? Must a person adhere to Rand's every statement to be considered an objectivist? Or must they simply believe that reality is absolute and objective, knowledge is attainable to human beings, people - if they hold their life as valuable - should live in accordance with their own self-interest but respect the right of other people to do the same, and society should be based on a recognition of natural law securing the rights of every individual? If the former, then i'm certainly not an objectivist, if the latter, then i definately am. If it's somewhere in between then it's a muddy issue... but i thought objectivists usually didn't like arbitrary definitions. Oh, and in a sense i'm not really an anarchist anyway, nor a minarchist a la rand, the difference to me is a non sequitor because the only major political difference between the two lies in how crime is dealt with, more specifically who deals with crime. But I believe that with the legalization and deregulation of drugs, lifting of all gun restrictions, and opening up of job oppertunities to virtually everybody from all walks of life that unbounded capitalism is sure to bring, crime will really become a thing of the past. I think the competing, private defense agencies you hear about from anarchists all the time probably won't exist in an anarchist society. So to me the line between us is small and unimportant. But maybe i'm just a bit too optimistic.

Thanks theDude for your responses, they're appreciated (though i don't necessarily agree, except possibly with the issue of causality). As for what Ragnar said, it's at the bottom of page 573. Rearden has just met Ragnar and Ragnar just handed him the bar of gold and says, "It is not a gift, Mr. Rearden. It is your own money. But i have a favor to ask of you. It is a request, not a condition, because there can be no such thing as conditional property..." and then asks him not to use the money on his business. I took this to mean that when somebody trades or gives away property, they cannot stipulate what that person may or may not due with that property, because they have voluntarily given up all rights to it and it's not for them to say anymore. If you apply this to property such as books or CDs, then it stands to reason that you can't sell one of these things to somebody under the stipulation that they don't copy the information on it onto a new substrate, even if they then sell or give that away to somebody else. Also, i defy the claim that you can own an idea. You can own physical things, such as a hardbound book with type on it or a plastic disc with bumps and indents on it. But you cannot own abstractions such as a particular arrangment of words or series of musical tones.

Hi, I'm new here but i don't plan on being a permanant member so i'm not going to formally introduce myself on the introductions board. I consider myself an objectivist, but i don't agree with Rand's and the ARI's position on everything. Most particularly, i'm an anarchist of the Rothbardian style (don't worry, i'm not gonna be a troll). There's a few critical questions i've been meaning to ask the more "fundamentalist" (for lack of a better word) objectivists for a while, so here's my chance. Pardon me if some of my questions don't pertain to you. 1. How do you reconcile the objectivist belief in free will with the objectivist belief in physical determinism? (I know objectivists shy away from that term but if you believe in an absolute, non-miraculous, non-chaotic universe, then it follows that you believe in perfect causality, therefore every action and decision was determined at the conception of the universe. (Let me know if you don’t agree.)) 2. Why don’t you believe artificial intelligence is possible? (I read at ARI once somebody saying that the idea of creating intelligence/consciousness in a computer program was stupid and irrational or something like that. Let me know if this isn’t a particularly popular objectivist stance) Most critiques I’ve read of AI follow from a belief in either some sort of religious or Cartesian duality theory of mind, or something along the lines of Penrose’s quantum indeterminess as necessary for the existence of self. Niether of which objectivists would presumably subscribe to. 3. Do you believe in the blank slate theory of mind? I’ve read some objectivist literature that hints at this position but doesn’t outright say it. If you do, how do you reconcile such a belief with the overwhelming wealth of knowledge available on evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, etc.? 4. While epistemologically I side much more with objectivism than skepticism/solipsism, I’ve always found the objectivist cliché, “saying ‘we know for certain that you can’t know anything for certain’ is a self-defeating contradiction” to be a laughable refutation. How do you respond to the following critique of this line of thinking? • If there's a 10% probability that we can be certain of nothing - say, a 10% probability that no proposition can have greater than a 90% probability - then even if there's a 90% probability that we can be absolutely certain of a proposition, there's still a 10% probability that we can only be 90% certain, and the total probability is ((90% * 100%) + (10% * 90%)) == 99%, which still isn't absolute certainty. In other words, if there's even a small possibility that we can be certain of nothing, then we can be certain of nothing. "If nothing is certain, you can't be certain that nothing is certain; therefore, at least one thing is certain." This logic relies on a confusion between map and territory - between cognition and reality. In reality, everything is certain; it is either true or false. In our minds, nothing is certain; we can only assign probabilities. The fact that I'm only 60% sure of that statement doesn't magically create some specific belief of which I can be certain, much less create some truth about external reality. 5. Why do you eschew the label “libertarian?” While it’s understandable to not adhere to the efforts of the Libertarian Party, that doesn’t mean you can change definitions of words just because you don’t like how they sound on you. The first definition of “libertarian” (note the lower case “L”) at dictionary.com is “One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.” The second is “One who believes in free will.” Both seem to fit objectivists pretty well. So why such animosity towards the word? 6. What exactly is the objectivist position on intellectual property? In Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar, Rand’s self-proclaimed most moral character, said “There is no such thing as conditional property.” This line of thinking rubs against most current copyright laws (if property can’t be conditional, then you can’t say, sell me a CD but tell me not to copy the information on said CD onto my computer hard drive and make it available to all members of any file sharing network I’m on), yet I’ve heard lots of support for copyrights, patents, etc. from the mouths of objectivists. Where exactly do you guys stand? 7. Presumably two different capitalist nations with objectivist influenced constitutions could coexist as neighbors peacefully. If so, then could two different corporations with objectivist influenced company policies coexist peacefully in the same geographic region? I assume any objectivist would say yes. Would that be possible if these two companies offered physical protection from criminals and arbitration as services? If the two companies were in different regions, and had monopolies over those areas, then they’d for all intents and purposes there’d be no difference between them and the capitalist governments objectivists desire and presumably the two companies would be able to get along and secure peace. What if the two companies offered their services within the same geographic region? By what logic would this “anarchy” that now suddenly exists necessarily degrade into chaotic warfare? (Remember, these private protection agencies are operating under a objectivist pretence.) 8. According to objectivists, laissez-faire capitalism follows from the ethical principle of the NAP. So according to the objectivist hierarchy, in the abstract, non-initiation of force is more important than capitalism, even if in reality they amount to the same thing. To keep a monopolized objectivist government in tact, such a state would have to prohibit companies from offering private protection from criminals, arbitration, etc., which is a blatent violation of the NAP, because such private ventures could easily be hypothesized as operating within the confines of the NAP themselves. How do you reconcile this conflict between minimal state and NAP? 9. Why do you support the United States’ military ventures in Iraq, Israel, etc.? While liberating people is noble (though I wouldn’t call what our military is doing in Iraq “liberation”), under objectivist ethics, no person, group, or nation can do “what’s good for society” or whatever at the expense of any individual. Currently our military is funded by hundreds of billions of dollars in stolen funds (taxes) every year. How can you support an agency of force, even if it’s theoretically doing a good thing, if it obtains its funding from armed robbery? 10. I don’t think there’s any objectivist position on this, but I’d like your opinions, what do you think would be better: anarchy (of the free market, Rothbard/Friedman style), or full-on socialism?