Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
  • °

    Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy

    In the universe, what you see is what you get,

    figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,

    and each person's independence is respected by all

  • Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words

    • "Metaphysics: Objective Reality"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
    • "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
    • "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
    • "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"
  • Objectivism Online Chat

    Why are men's clothing so boring?

    Ifat Glassman
    By Ifat Glassman,
    While women have many types of wear, with varying designs, men only have two types: "sport elegant" (which means a nice pair of pants, or jeans and a nice shirt, ither a T-shirt, tight or loose, or a shirt with a colar...) and for special events (or for some, for work) a suit and a tie. Now, I don't see what's so pretty about that. A tie, other than the fact that it seems to be a device for suffocation, is a boring little stripe of fabric that hung on the clothes and have no apparent purpose. I think the male figure can be better emphasized in other types of clothing, like the ones that (don't laugh) the show "Hercules" has sometimes (and no I am not refering to the shirt of hercules himself !!. more like something of the king of thieves, if anyone knows what I'm talking about...) On the other hand, women have a variety of beautiful clothes to emphasize their figure (and some of them even over-emphasize it...). I wonder what is the cause of this tremendouse difference?

    Reblogged:Regulatory Drag Down 0.07% Under Trump

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Katherin Timpf of National Review reports that Donald Trump's first year of "deregulation" saved a total of $1.3 billion economy-wide over the last year. (That's a YUGE four bucks per person!) Her rather generous conclusion follows:
    Amen! was my first thought, but then cold logic kicked in. I did the math, and remembered further a couple of problems with both the trimming-around-the-edges amount and the President's "a pen and a phone" method. Not only can this tiny amount of progress be undone by the next abuser of executive orders, both of the shortcomings are symptomatic of his -- and his party's -- unprincipled approach to the whole question of regulation.

    Consider the fact that nobody in power even questions the propriety of economic regulation. How much regulation is "too much" to such a person? And if such a person does not see that the government ought to be protecting our right to make our own decisions -- the exact opposite of dictating to us what we ought to do? Why would he adopt the agenda we clearly need, which is a systematic phasing out of regulation altogether, with standards bodies and watchdog groups (for example) taking over those legitimate activities that have been subsumed by government regulators -- and which gives the whole idea of regulation a false credibility it doesn't deserve?

    To be fair, I think both the rollbacks and the perception of a decreasing regulatory burden have helped the economy in other ways. But why stop there? Why not consider the question more deeply and adopt a principled, systematic approach that will truly protect American rights and foster prosperity? Until and unless Trump or a significant political faction adopts a principled, individual rights-based opposition to regulation, we can expect any such effort to bring about small, short-term gains, and ultimately fizzle.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Reblogged:Trump: Closer to Reagan Than You Might Think

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Image via Wikimedia. And that's not a good thing!

    In the process of looking at stories of panicky conservatives supporting Trump early in his term, I found quite the disappointing -- but informative -- piece among my bookmarks. Written by Henry Olsen, author of Ronald Reagan: New Deal Republican, it wasn't quite what I was looking for, but it is worth reading for other reasons.

    Its title? "Trump's Election Is the Last, Best Hope To Re-Reaganize the GOP." Anyone who favors government properly limited to the protection of individual rights should read through this, particularly if they have fond memories or conceptions of Reagan. I would also especially recommend the piece to anyone who imagines that Reagan or his conservative fans favor capitalism. Reagan, and (if Olsen is a gauge) many of his fans, clearly don't. The rest of us could use the clarity. Here's a good sample:
    To get one thing out of the way first: Not especially to defend Goldwater, but being in favor of properly limited government does not equal being anti-government. That said, I am glad Olsen mentions all these things. Reagan, on top of unleashing the religious right, was no capitalist, but a Democrat Lite. Olsen goes on to salivate at the prospect of Trump hastening the process of the Republican Party basically becoming a "permanent majority" party by essentially becoming a Democratic party that appeals more to lower-income, white, Midwesterners and rust-belters. We need much better than that.

    Since Trump's election, much has been made about the "civil war" within the Democratic Party. But if there isn't a civil war I don't know about within the Republican Party, the cause of freedom could certainly use one. Both Reagan's and Trump's terms have been short-term respites from the all-out assault against economic freedom by the Democrats, but that is all they are -- or will be if people like Olsen prevail. Neither man is a champion of individual rights, and we should keep that in mind.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Reblogged:Conservative Squabbles Over WHICH New Tax

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute writes in City Journal about two competing proposals whose Democratic sponsors claim will improve the labor market. One proposal, by Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), is to redistribute $1 trillion over the next decade via the Earned Income Tax Credit to people who earn less than some amount he deems too little. Cass, focusing on the fact that this plan appears to support such workers, labels this measure as the "Support" view of government policy regarding low-paying jobs. The other proposal is deemed the "Penalize" view by Cass for reasons that will soon become obvious. Bernie Sanders wants to "Stop BEZOS", i.e., Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies. Sanders would redistribute money directly looted from corporations for every cent of government benefits any of its employees receive. Khanna supports both plans, but look at what Cass, a conservative, has to say about them:
    Looting money from some Americans to give to others and ... looting money from some Americans to give to others are the two poles of a debate? If so, there is no real debate and we are merely squabbling over details. Unfortunately, Cass apparently mistakes this for a real debate and even chooses a "side":
    If you are a fellow student of Ayn Rand, you may find that the above reminds you of any number of the false dichotomies that run through the most of the philosophies that influence our culture -- and that Rand debunked. But here's a passage from Rand that Cass has helped me recall and that I find particularly troubling:
    This article has been written by a senior member of a highly respected think tank, and there is no mention of the real alternative, which is: for the government to stop looting the productive, indirectly ("support") or directly ("penalize"), because doing so is wrong, and ultimately harms everyone. The only difference between these varieties of poison is that the first comes sugar-coated. At least the second one, envious motivation fully on display, is the more honest.

    -- CAV Link to Original

Portal by DevFuse · Based on IP.Board Portal by IPS
×