dadmonson

I'm not one of those people who think that since some police officers are involved in police brutality that all of them are. It's clear to me, however, that police brutality is a problem and the policemen who are involved in it aren't always held accountable. In addition to this, most of the victims of police brutality are black so this just raises questions of racism. What would an Objectivist tell a person, who says violence and rioting is the only way to get change and eliminate police brutality against blacks? Here is my take on it: "By limiting government and specifically ending the war on drugs you'll subsequently limit police brutality. When you riot you damage property of individuals who have nothing to do with what happened. The best way to convince people to limit government is through persuasion because that's the only way to change a person's mind. " I can picture someone saying to this: "Oh there you go, with that nonviolence crap... Martin Luther King was nonviolent and look where that got him... How come it's only an issue when black people riot?... you guys don't say anything when white people riot when their favorite sports team loses. We don't have time to talk it out when our black people are dying, we need change now!" How would someone respond to that? I might play devil's advocate to some of your replies in this thread, if your posts raises further questions in my mind.

I've read AS, FH, VOS, CTUI, OPAR, and ITOE each one time through. I'm wondering what books it would behoove me to read multiple times in order to get a thorough understanding of O'ism. I'm mainly interested in ethics and politics. I have an interest in metaphysics and epistemology only as to so far they'll help me understand Objectivist ethics and politics. If I want a thorough understanding of ethics and politics what books would it be in my self interest to reread and study? Do I have to read AS and FH again in order to reach my goal? I read AS last year and I read FH in 2009.

Thanks for the reply guys. Those were exactly the replies I needed. I'm currently writing a paper on rational self interest vs altruism for one of my classes. The paper is going to be reviewed by some of my peers, plus I'm supposed to give a presentation on it in front of the whole class. I thought I knew Objectivism but it seems when I write about some of the aspects of the philosophy my arguments are unconvincing, and flat. How exactly does rational self interest lead to a healthy self esteem and altruism leads to a lack of self esteem? I can see that giving up a higher value for a lesser value implies lower self esteem since it basically implies that you aren't worthy of that higher value that you are giving up and another person is. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something, again.

I've read all of Ayn Rand's non-fiction and fiction but I'm not too bright, plus I have adhd. Can someone please explain to me, like you would to a high schooler who knows nothing of Objectivism, why capitalism has a propensity to lead an individual to high self esteem and communism facilitates low self esteem? From what I've read and understand, capitalism leaves you free to act therefore leaves you free to gain confidence in the use of your own mind. Confidence in the use of your own mind and confidence in your ability to deal with reality is by definition self esteem. Under communism this isn't possible because you depend on others for things. You can never gain confidence in your ability to deal with reality because you are dealing with reality through other people. I know there is a lot to add to that and the way I put it isn't that eloquent and I doubt it would convince anybody who knows nothing of Objectivism to look into it any further, so can you please answer my question?

I haven't read the thread, but, there are already private lenders in a free market. You can go to a savings bank for a small business loan or go door to door and ask a neighbor, friend, or somebody else for money. Why should the government do what private agencies already do?

How would an Objectivist respond to the question this guy asks in this video? Do you listen to miserable music because you are miserable or are you miserable because you listen to miserable music? I think that people listen to the music that suit there sense of life, therefore, I think you listen to miserable music because you are miserable. I do, however, remember Peikoff saying in Understanding Objectivism that you can respond to tragedy without having a tragic sense of life, and if you do have a tragic sense of life that isn't necessarily immoral corrupt or evil. Also this reminds me of how some people say certain kinds of rap music make kids do and think irrational things. For instance, it may influence them to gang bang or hate homosexuals. Obviously, not all kids who listen to violent rap music turn to gang banging and become homophobic, so what is the difference between them and the kids that do turn to these things?

Yes, only environmentalists would care about those claims.

Thanks for the reply guys. It would seem that the most effective argument against lying, is that lying(generally) puts you in conflict with reality and in the long run ebbs your self esteem and happiness. However, what about the person who has no guilty conscience? People like that do exist...so what then? Are there ramications to greenwashing that are more palpable?

Egoism is an ethic that says you must be the beneficiary of your own actions. Greenwashing is when a business lies about how green they are so they can gain financially. Some might say that greenwashing is justified under egoism since egoism is all about maximizing your self interest. I do know there is such a thing as subjective egoism and that people should be honest in most situations and act on principle but I'm not sure on how I would go about telling a person, who knows nothing about Objectivism, how greenwashing is not in a company's self interest. This greenwashing that some companies partake in, just gives people who already hate businesses another reason to bash businesses. With my superficial understanding of Objectivism and egoism all I could say is: "A company lying about how green they are, for financial gain, is not acting in accord with their long term self interest because they might be found out one day as a fraud." That's all I got. Here's an example of an ad that has some greenwashing in it:

Question is in the title... I'm asking this because currently I study Objectivism whenever I feel like it but I'm thinking about making it a daily goal to study it as my progress in understanding the philosophy hasn't been to my liking. Sometimes I go 2 weeks without studying. I don't know if that 10,000 hour theory is true but I do know that it is going to take a lifetime for me to get where I want to be at my current pace.

Preferably I'm looking for objectivists vs leftists debates but if you have seen a good one don't hesitate to post a link to it here! They could be from any forum... Even this one!

IMO one of the keys to success in work, school, hobbies, sports etc is doing your work before you play. To help you do this try to get an accountability partner(somebody outside your household) and make it a goal to not get on the internet or watch TV or whatever else until you've completed your other goals for that day. Meet or talk with your accountability partner often. I talk to mine Sundays through Thursdays. I use Fridays and Saturdays as rest days. I highly recommend trying it to see if it works for you. It has reduced the amount of time I spend procrastinating GREATLY... and I have yet to not meet a day's goals. If you want you could also bet something like your fav. shirt or money that you have to give up on the 2nd day in a week that you didn't meet a day's goals. If you can't find an accountability partner give these guys a shot: http://www.personalcheckin.com

I'll go first... If I was going into a debate about morality or the morality of capitalism I would want these guys with me: 1. Yaron Brook 2. Onkar Ghate 3. John Allison *honorable mention: Diana Hsieh You don't have to make up your list based on who you think will do best in a debate on morality you can choose whatever basis you like.

I mean overall... Writing, speaking, debating and their overall understanding of Objectivism... Who are your top 3 alive and who are your top 3 under 60 years old? They could be well known or not so well known. You can't include Leonard Peikoff. Back in the day I think Ayn Rand said that Branden was her best student.

Thank you that was clarifying

Can you help me validate egoism? Egoism means that you should benefit from your actions. The following is my understanding of the validation of egoism: What gives rise to values in your own life is the fact that you are faced with an alternative....your own life or your own death. Therefore your own self preservation can be your only ultimate goal since your own death requires you to do nothing. In order for you to preserve your own life you must achieve values that will help you self preserve via your own action....action that you must be the beneficiary of but here is where I get confused...can't you also achieve your own self preservation through being the beneficiary of actions from other people? What am I missing?

I have read this whole thread but I'm not too bright and I'm not immensely intellectual. Can someone please explain what a principle is, like you would explain it to your average 10 year old? As far as I can tell a principle is a rule that has an explanation of why it is true based on facts of reality. I know this isn't true however because I know some principles aren't true and I can't tell much of a difference between the following statements: "Don't enslave other men" is a rule? But "all men should be free" is a principle? Are they both principles? The first one is a command that must be followed no matter the context and the 2nd one is not commanding us to do something it's just telling us what should be the case based on an observation of some fact of reality? I know there is some essential difference that I'm failing to identify.

You might find this site helpful: http://www.objectivismseminar.com/archives/full

I mean parents who literally don't want their kids to learn. I read it in a fictitious book. A boy's father didn't want him to learn anything because he was afraid his son would grow up to be smarter than him. I'm sure in reality hardly any parents like this actually exist but I was just wondering how this situation would be handled in an O'ist society.

I think we all agree that parents are responsible for the lives they bring into this world but what I'm not so sure on, is whether they are responsible for preparing a child with the basic knowledge his or her mind will need as an adult. What happens in an Objectivist society when a parent doesn't want their child to learn?

The words in bold might be obvious to you but not to me. What do you mean when you say "profiling when it comes to your own thinking"? Part of what attracts me to Objectivism in the first place is the belief that people are to be judged as individuals and not solely based on their race. Zimmerman assumed Trayvon was a thug solely based on his race, evidenced by the fact that he said that "these a-- holes always get away" when referring to Trayvon. This happened around 7:00pm...I don't know about your neighborhood but in my neighborhood I've seen plenty of people walking on the street around that time. Presumably, the only reason he chose to see what Trayvon was up to was because Trayvon was black. Zimmerman isn't the only one who profiled Trayvon. The police did initially as well. When someone shoots someone else they usually run a background check on the person that does the shooting right? Well not in this case they ran a background check on Trayvon and not Zimmerman. They automatically assumed that Trayvon was guilty and let Zimmerman go without even a background check. Zimmerman didn't get arrested until 40+ days later.

A different point of view... So a kid is just walking home when a stranger with a gun stalks him and kills him? You guys think that is okay? I know Zimmerman said that there were a few break-ins in his neighborhood and that he thought the perpetrators of those break-ins "always got away" but Zimmerman never should've followed Trayvon in the first place. If he hadn't then none of this would've happened. I don't know that much about the legal system and I don't think Zimmerman should've been convicted of 2nd degree murder but I don't think he should've been let go scot-free either. Zimmerman essentially provoked a fight and when he realized he was getting bested, pulled out a gun and killed Trayvon.

You should get the Atlas Shrugged audiobook...the narrator is great!

One of them was on a social network not too long ago... https://twitter.com/TheMatthewKeys/status/325211472366014466/photo/1

If you wanted to enter politics and you could only choose one Objectivist book to study which book would that be and why?