Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About 2046

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Previous Fields

  • Country Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation No Answer
  • Copyright Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

6407 profile views
  1. To help fill your gap between the natural law theologians and Locke, try researching the jurists Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf. Both were hugely influential to Locke and Paine and quoted by both.
  2. Yeah are you not familiar with the entire western liberal philosophic tradition? Basically one giant "No" to the pessimistic view of human nature expressed by Hobbes in which the authoritarian right has adopted wholeheartedly.
  3. And what's with this superstitious reverence for the constitution? Don't Objectivists want to subvert the constitution? What's with people sounding more like Rush Limbaugh than Lysander Spooner? So much for "radicals for capitalism"...
  4. What an absolute pile of garbage, who even is this "Dr Hurd" guy? I have a hard time believing an actual PhD could write this.
  5. Free immigration = letting criminals in free speech = making death threats free trade = theft Let's change the name of things, it's fun!
  6. Re: "It's too early" Meanwhile, in the non-objectivist world...
  7. Well that's the thing. You seem to assume "revolution" and "violent change" are the same thing. And, not so explicitly, but perhaps assumed, we have "acts of persuasion" and "working through the political system" as equivalent on the other hand. But why must that be so? I think the point Eiuol is trying to get it is that the choice isn't between working through the political system on one hand, and acts of force. Might there be direct action strategies for political change that are not working through the political system or "educating" (which is the usual broad term) and that don't necessarily involve uses of force? Leftists, as Eiuol mentioned, have been largely successful at using such tactics as sit-ins, strikes, blockades, counter protests, civil disobedience and non violent resistance, boycotts, shaming, community organizing, direct provision of services, ignoring the state, going around the state, etc. And maybe some also legitimate strategies, from this point of view, that do justify uses of force? Most people assume it would be moral to, say, assassinate Hitler. Why sit and wait for him to be voted out? Yes Ayn Rand wrote novels, but what about the character Ragnar Danneskjold? What about sabotage, piracy, hacking, rioting, property destruction? When is that okay versus not okay? Peikoff stated it was, for example, from his point of view moral to hack into statists' servers. And yet Objectivists and Objectivist organizations seem to simply repeat the mantra of personal improvement, learning, and "we need to educate people," and still largely supported voting for the supposedly least offensive candidate. (Rand herself having famously said that it would be hugely immoral for John Hospers to steal a single vote from Nixon.) Could it be that these tactics are stale and it's time to start working outside the political system (nonviolently)?
  8. And before the "you're condoning Dallas" starts, which I guess it already has, and which I certainly do not, one would expect an Objectivist response would include somber minded philosophical question of fundamental ethical issues, something like "Is it ever legitimate, from a point of view of Randian ethics, to kill agents of government?" Surely the creator of Dagny Taggart would answer "yes" and proceed to outline reasons or situations that might be applicable according to her principles. So that might be a more interesting topic to explore than Hurd and his article.
  9. Objectivists are supposed to support radical changes from many societal institutions and question the foundations of many institutions deemed "necessary" for life in a peaceful, prosperous society. But now we are supposed to assume unquestionably that our choice is between supporting modern policing and getting robbed by "ghetto motherfuckers"? (What about white collar motherfuckers? Or the state itself?) A long way from "check your premises" indeed. Instead of the conservative response of emotivist-nationalist support for "our heroic first responders," one would excpect a bold, radical investigation into the institution and history of policing itself to be the favored response of the intellectual inheritors of such as Rand. One would expect that false dichotomies such as "accept this institution as axiomatic or get robbed by criminals!" would not be the first reaction. In fact and in logic, one who opposes modern policing does not also oppose crime prevention, that would be just silly. Modern policing was not the default way to go about preventing crime for the vast majority of human history, and in fact the classical liberals of the industrial revolution heroically opposed merchantilist and socialist attempts to create modern police departments. They knew it was not necessary for crime prevention and they knew that its main function was to protect the state and enforce its laws, not protecting you.
  10. Agreed... Standard Republican sounding echo chamber nonsense. Yawn... One wonders if Hurd would call Bastiat a "fringe left wing thug" for condemning police as instruments of plunder and violence and pointing out their social role in upholding state oppression, a standard viewpoint among many classical liberals.
  11. Can I just not give a s**t? I mean no one sits around and wonders whether everyone at the Adam Smith Institute agrees 100% with everything Adam Smith ever said. In fact, that would be just plain. silly.
  12. If you actually believe any of that, I have some fog to sell you in San Francisco.
  13. It might be a nitpick here, but I don't think Rand ever did attribute the discovery or invention of the LOI to Aristotle. Is there a citation of this? In fact, Peikoff in his history of philosophy attributes the first known formulation that we have today to the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides in his saying "a thing is itself" but the phrase "law of identity" was not used until the Middle Ages.
  14. No one should feel like they "have" to vote for anyone. There is no duty to vote. And if all reasonable candidates do not reflect your values, and all are bad options, defensive voting is not an effective choice either. There is no reason to endorse any of the candidates, least of all Trump.