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.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Pigsaw

Questions. Just that.

Rate this topic

8 posts in this topic

So here s a bunch of questions i have for you guys.

1)

Where does money come from?

Currently, the government prints it, but who will make money in an objectivistic world and leisez fare economy?

You cant simply keep the existing currency, because govs own more than 90 % of it.

The solution would be to allow private banks to print money if they have gold to back it up. The problem would be who would control that, and who would stop someone else from printing the money without something to back it up?

2) Why do most objectivists say that altruism /socialism/communism etc is wrong?

Isn't that equally intellectually dishonest as saying that my religion is right, and yours is wrong.

3)I have seen some threads about free will and they usually start like this:

"I ve heard something about determinism and i dont have a counter argument."

Reading between the lines that would mean that you have some facts and cannot accept them because you dont like them. Isnt that simply not reasonable?

4)Why is Ayn Rands work consideren basically a bible?

Does that mean objectivism cannot improve(because, lets face it, it isn't perfect)?

Edited by Pigsaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)

The problem would be who would control that, and who would stop someone else from printing the money without something to back it up?

I highly doubt anyone would want to use money that isn't backed up by anything. It couldn't possibly even function as money, since it's not actually worth anything; it's just paper. People would be free to print paper and call it money, but that would be a useless endeavor.

Just a side note: the standard would not necessarily be gold, it could be anything which the market decides. There would be no government-mandated gold standard.

2)

Isn't that equally intellectually dishonest as saying that my religion is right, and yours is wrong.

Objectivism is not a religion. It is based off of reason. By virtue of being an Objectivist, one already knows why altruism and socialism are wrong, and would be able to explain his position. Religious people, however, simply accept their ideals on faith. To the point of why Objectivists believe altruism and socialism are wrong. If you don't know the answer to this, you're probably quite new to the philosophy, so I'd recommend The Virtue of Selfishness and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you don't feel like investing in literature right now, you can read Rand's essay The Objectivist Ethics online (the ARI website has quite a few of Rand's essays from TVoS and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). These should leave you with no questions as to why Objectivists believe altruism is wrong.

Here's a short summary: values are that which one acts to gain/keep, and values are necessary because the life of a human is conditional, and it requires the pursuit of certain values (from simple things, like food, to more complex needs, such as purpose). Since values are based off of the condition's for one's survival, life is therefore the standard of value, i.e. the standard by which you judge value. If one's own life is the standard of value, it logically follows that an individual is the proper beneficiary of his own actions. What is in a person's self-interest is good, and what is harmful to a person's self-interest is bad. Therefore, altruism--altruism, being defined as the sacrifice of one's own values for the sake of someone else's interests, with no self-interest involved-- is basically the destruction of one's values for its own sake. That's why it is wrong. Socialism and communism are based off of the principle of altruism.

3)

I don't even understand what the question is here. Sure, if someone does believe in free will based off of faith, and evades any arguments counter to their position, then this is irrational. However, this is not what Objectivism advocates. ''What some Objectivists you've seen do'' does not constitute as something about Objectivism. Although, I know the specific thread you're speaking of; the one where the OP knows man has free will, but sees an argument he cannot counter, so he comes to as this forum about it. There is nothing wrong with this. I'm assuming he understands why free will is axiomatic, and therefore undeniable; however, he simply sees one argument he cannot counter.

4)

There have been many, many threads on this matter. Objectivism is a closed system. This does not mean that, as you seem to be implying, her beliefs should be accepted on faith, or that if someone disagrees with Ayn Rand here and there they need to change their beliefs only for the sake of being called an Objectivist. Objectivism is simply defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and it is nothing more; it is not defined as ''A philosophy advocating objectivity, reason, self-interest, capitalism, and objective art.'' If you have a philosophy which is similar to Objectivism, but changed at some parts, it is simply a philosophy similar to Objectivism. If you feel that Rand's philosophy isn't perfect, or that it is false at some points, you are free to formulate your own philosophical views so long as you do so rationally; however, the crucial distinction is that the philosophy which you just formulated is not Objectivism (perhaps it is ''influenced by Objectivism''). Of course, the members here would believe that no such philosophy is necessary, since Objectivism is correct (since they're Objectivists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question 1: A free market currency would most likely consist of gold, silver, other precious metals minted by private parties and notes issued by banks that would have no government oversight--and no government insurance of depositis. However you'd be free to refuse currency issued by a bank you think is dubious (not having backed their currency with some sort of assets, or having lent their money to bad risks) and there would no doubt be private certification companies for both specie (precious metal coinage) and paper money (banknotes). Also I believe there would be private insurance of deposits and _they_ would certainly give banks a looking-over, especially if the bank is paying for its deposit insurance. But even if the depositors do, their insurance rates will no doubt depend on the insurance company's estimate of the soundness of the bank. Banks in turn could either offer receipts for deposited gold (though they would probably charge a fee for storage), or shares of proceeds of loans they had made (so that they can pay interest on deposits), or they could simply sell bonds (and lend out the proceeds) rather than think in terms of "deposits." Or something I haven't even thought of. Perhaps someone out there will be creative and come up with a better product.

It should be noted that neither the private insurance or inspection companies exist today; that's because government has taken over those roles in the economy. Up until 1857 (I think--don't hold me to that exact year) it was legal in the US for anyone to mint coinage though it had to be clearly not government issue and had to be at least as intrinsically valuable as the US coins. ("Intrinsically valuable" means the value of the metal in the coin--please don't confuse with Objectivist definitions of "intrinsic" or "intrinsicism" in more philosophical realms of endeavor.)

I should note that this is how I think a monetary system would end up working--but it would be free to evolve to changing circumstances, just like any other market. I suspect it wouldn't change very rapidly (at least as far as what most people consider the unit of money) simply because historically speaking people tend to like their money (and also units of measure) to stay the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to go to sleep, so I don't have the time to address the questions, but so far it looks like the existing answers are good anyway. I just wanted to post that I find your thread is not exactly what it says on the tin. The things in #1 fit the title - they're seeking information. However, #2, #3, and #4 are statements in question format - they're insinuations, attempts to put your existing ideas out there, conclusions you have made. They could be amended to actual questions though. #2 is an actual question if the second line is cut or you mention what things exactly it is that remind you of a religious issue and ask how it is that we differentiate ourselves. #3 could be a question if you asked why rather than saying what you believe is the reason and then calling for kudos basically. #4 fails as a question because it is asking for us to support positions we do not hold. You could inquire though about what things are pointing you toward that conclusion. You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1)

Where does money come from?

In a free market, it comes from demand for money.

2) Why do most objectivists say that altruism /socialism/communism etc is wrong?

Because they have examined the arguments in support of those beliefs and determined them to be invalid.

3)I have seen some threads about free will and they usually start like this:

"I ve heard something about determinism and i dont have a counter argument."

I couldn't find any matches for that quote, so you will need to be more specific.

4)Why is Ayn Rands work consideren basically a bible?

In what sense? It shouldn't be accepted on faith, if that is what you mean.

Edited by brian0918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here s a bunch of questions i have for you guys.

1) Where does money come from?

Well enough answered by others.

2) Why do most objectivists say that altruism /socialism/communism etc is wrong?

Isn't that equally intellectually dishonest as saying that my religion is right, and yours is wrong.

If you accept the claim simply on faith, yes. Any religious argument ultimately boils down to, "Someone told me to believe this so I do." Any "objectivist" who believes in Objectivism simply on faith isn't an Objectivist.

Objectivism says, "Here's what we've concluded, here's the arguments we used to reach the conclusions, here's the premises upon which those arguments rest, and here's the arguments showing why those premises are true. Study them, analyze them, and evaluate their accuracy for yourself." To be an Objecivist, you must always check your premises, first and foremost, and never accept anything "on faith" just cause Ayn Rand said it.

3)I have seen some threads about free will and they usually start like this:

"I ve heard something about determinism and i dont have a counter argument."

Reading between the lines that would mean that you have some facts and cannot accept them because you dont like them. Isnt that simply not reasonable?

This is not a question about Objectivism. This is a question about "some posts".

Furthermore, there is a difference between rejecting an argument because one doesn't like it and rejecting it because reason contradicts the argument. A person who is not well versed in Objectivism will likely not have the information necessary to rebuke certain rational sounding arguments posed by those who subscribe to a different philosophy. Coming here to ask for help in understanding 1) if, and 2) why such an argument is wrong is not simply rejecting said argument out of hand. It is checking one's premises. Said person may ultimately conclude that O'ism is actually wrong. We, of course, would disagree, but each person must evaluate their own premises in the end.

4)Why is Ayn Rands work consideren basically a bible?

Does that mean objectivism cannot improve(because, lets face it, it isn't perfect)?

Not a question, a foregone conclusion that begs the question. First, support your claim that Rand's works are considered to be Biblical in nature. Second, support your claim that Objectivism, which is a foundational framework philosophy, is in error in some manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does money come from?

Currently, the government prints it, but who will make money in an objectivistic world and leisez fare economy?

You cant simply keep the existing currency, because govs own more than 90 % of it.

The ability of man to produce makes money possible, and more particularly his technical interest to homogeneously exchange each other's products and save the values he has obtained. It does not, either way, come from the government, since a government is not a productive foundation, which is derived from the fact that its main source of income is all kinds of taxation (et al).

In a free society, the government does not and may not "own" (i.e., steal) anything.

The solution would be to allow private banks to print money if they have gold to back it up.

The problem would be who would control that, and who would stop someone else from printing the money without something to back it up?

That is a concrete. It cannot and will not change a principle.

And, anyway, you don't have to use a currency that is being printed, yet you can't pick out your government (or at lest not under any condition).

The most rational choice regarding that is, of course, the standard of an actual value; not a mystical one. This role can be performed by gold standard.

2) Why do most objectivists say that altruism /socialism/communism etc is wrong?
Because this is the essence of philosophy: having fundamental, clear principles.

Isn't that equally intellectually dishonest as saying that my religion is right, and yours is wrong.
If you defined 'dishonesty,' you would find that this issue has nothing to do with it.

However, most likely, you don't think before you use a certain concept.

Besides, you think that it is negative to do so because this is what your intellectuals taught you: nothing is true, it is unwise to find anything specific to be true.

This is why you made the false comparison of religion and rational philosophy, which is the same reason that makes people regard Objectivism a 'cult': Religion does have ideas somewhat consistent, however irrational they are, whereas anyone who holds the above stance has none of them.

With this absence of distinction (or ability to distinguish) between true, arbitrary and false, it is just a matter of time until science will be considered to be "belief" (and there is no essential difference indeed).

In a more honest period, the philosophers who influenced our current intellectual and emotional atmosphere have stated that they frankly reject Newtonian mechanics and modern math.

3)I have seen some threads about free will and they usually start like this:

"I ve heard something about determinism and i dont have a counter argument."

Reading between the lines that would mean that you have some facts and cannot accept them because you dont like them.

No. What it means is that there are some members of an Objectivist club who do not comprehend the fallacies of determinism or do not explicitly know the way to falsify it, and anything that logically follows.

4)Why is Ayn Rands work consideren basically a bible?
Because her novels are all consistent within the context of her position on man and reality, great in their events as well as comprehensive.

(because, lets face it, it isn't perfect)?
There we encounter this axiomatic truth once again.

"No philosophy is flawless."

You certainly don't have any real argument against it, but it just can't be absolutely true! No one can know something for true, right?

Any premise of Objectivism is proven, and its premises cover almost all fundamental issues. (And any fundamental issue which is not covered may be latter discovered and dealt with, based on former knowledge.)

There is nothing to be 'improved' or 'fixed' about a proper inference.

P.S.

Am I right that your nickname is affected by Saw?

One of the most horrendous and anti-life films of today, though none of them has any form of seriousness so that one cannot determine which is the worst.

And I want to hear anybody say it isn't.

Edited by Tomer Ravid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So here s a bunch of questions i have for you guys.

1)

Where does money come from?

Currently, the government prints it, but who will make money in an objectivistic world and leisez fare economy?

You cant simply keep the existing currency, because govs own more than 90 % of it.

The solution would be to allow private banks to print money if they have gold to back it up. The problem would be who would control that, and who would stop someone else from printing the money without something to back it up?

No one would control it, thats the whole point. Trade and money existed before formulised government. If their are goods to trade people will trade them. If people are trading then it helps to have a common trade method, nothing would be forced on anyone. The common currency would merely evolve, paypal is a private store of money which can be used to pay for goods all over the world for example.

2) Why do most objectivists say that altruism /socialism/communism etc is wrong?

Isn't that equally intellectually dishonest as saying that my religion is right, and yours is wrong.

Why do we say it? Because it's true. To a non-absaloute as you seem to be it is hard to explain, but truth is an absaloute. Objectivism works on a rational basis with all those who 'follow' it using their rational mind. Logicly there can only be one right answer, this can only be found through the procces of a logical mind. Objectivism is based on logic and therefore all premise set down by it are true.

Also comparing Objectivism to religion is incredibly foolish as one is based on faith while the other rationality, see the difference?

3)I have seen some threads about free will and they usually start like this:

"I ve heard something about determinism and i dont have a counter argument."

Reading between the lines that would mean that you have some facts and cannot accept them because you dont like them. Isnt that simply not reasonable?

For a start finding one thread does not classify as 'some'. Reading between the lines does not mean "I cannot accept facts" it means that "I do not know how to word my argument in the correct way to put across my argument."

4)Why is Ayn Rands work consideren basically a bible?

Does that mean objectivism cannot improve(because, lets face it, it isn't perfect)?

It is perfect, if you don't think so you're not an objectivist. It is not a bible, the bible tells you what to belive, Ayn Rands books talk about WHY you should belive some things. It also encourages you to work things out for yourself rather than telling you to dismiss you're own rational judgement in place for faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.