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

    Reblogged:A Double Loss for Property Rights Under Trump

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Over the weekend, President Trump incorrectly blasted social media companies for "censorship," threatening them for simply exercising their property rights:
    Regarding "steps" this fool might take, you can ask his lackey, Matt Gaetz (R-FL).

    Here's a hypothetical analogy even a real estate magnate might understand: Consider an occupant of an upscale hotel who -- although he does pay his bills on time -- throws loud parties every night, trashes his suite so thoroughly as to inconvenience his guests with a stench, and might be stockpiling weapons. The proprietor might exercise his property rights by making him leave the hotel. Likewise, the owner of a social media forum is its proprietor: If someone peddling half-baked conspiracy theories is ruining the credibility of that forum or making it less attractive to other customers, that proprietor has an analogous right to boot the conspiracy theorist. Maybe Trump can see that, but it goes further: The owner of a forum doesn't owe anyone a platform for speech he is perfectly free to deliver somewhere else any more than the hotelier owes anyone shelter. In fact, neither owner need offer reasons everyone finds correct, or any explanation at all. If someone who owns a forum discriminates against conservatives, whites, blacks, or even people named Gus, that is his right, as the owner of that forum.

    It would be bad enough if Trump were merely grandstanding, pretending to support freedom of speech by defending the rights of the obnoxious, but he isn't even doing that. Instead, Trump is assaulting property rights in the name of fighting "discrimination" -- and at what is actually a ripe time to defend them, and to draw a much-needed distinction: between freedom of speech (which all men have and it is the President's job to defend) and having a forum and an audience (which all men have the right to pursue, by trading with consenting adults).

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Reblogged:Is Dropbox Doing Linux a Favor?

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Image via Wikimedia. There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth in open source software circles about a recent decision by cloud storage/sync provider Dropbox to confine its Linux support to a single, unencrypted type of file system. As a pro-capitalist user of open-source software, I have found this reaction both annoying and amusing, rooted as it is in a reflexive paranoia, common among open-source enthusiasts, about anything a large company does.

    To get the annoyance out of the way: When the news first came out -- in ample time for us to consider whether we could or should continue using Dropbox, as well as look for alternatives -- many articles about the change outright stated or implied in some way that Dropbox was going to quit supporting Linux altogether. This included even some of those, like the one I'm about to excerpt, that had intelligent things to say about the change. This made it harder than it should have been to evaluate some of those alternatives in cases of genuine confusion.

    In my use case, unless Dropbox is lying through its teeth -- and the reps who keep popping up all over the tech forums to correct misconceptions are just well-paid trolls -- I should be able to carry on after making some changes to my three Linux machines. And the hue and cry over the lack of encryption is particularly silly coming from a group of people who pride themselves on figuring things out: After the change, my entire hard drive will be encrypted, and anything sensitive I want to have in the Cloud will be stored within a large file that looks like a blob to the rest of the world, but is actually its own encrypted file system. And transfers are encrypted end-to-end by Dropbox as they always have been.

    I'll grant that the changes I have to make will be inconvenient, but I have until November 7 to make them and continue researching alternatives. Thanks for the heads-up, Dropbox.

    That said, there may be a silver lining, long-term, to this change, as Jack Wallen of TechRepublic argues:
    Dropbox isn't being nearly as restrictive as Adobe in Wallen's hypothetical example, and people are getting upset. And this is the amusing part, because if some of these people were half as clever as they say using Linux makes them, they'd have already shrugged and gotten to work on finding some combination of file system, cloud storage provider, sync service, and collaboration software that works for them. And -- just as they see the value that Dropbox brings with its amazing services and Linux support -- they'd be receptive to the idea that if this company takes the lead (intentionally or by accident) in herding cats enough to make it easier for companies to support Linux, the door might open for other software vendors to support Linux.

    Dropbox doesn't owe me some absurd, Edenic computational paradise. It's a company full of people who want to make a living. I'm glad they're going to continue supporting Linux, and in a way that will make it easier for other companies to do so. It is not reasonable to expect every company to employ an army of specialists to keep abreast of every single file system in use by a minority of computer users. Adopting (or in this case, essentially proposing) a standard is a good way to serve this minority and those who work with it. Thanks, again, Dropbox; and that includes for getting me to look around: I learned a few interesting things I might be able to use along the way.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Holding an idea without accepting it

    By jonathanconway,
    When encountering critiques of Objectivism, I've found the idea of holding an idea without accepting it both very powerful and very true to life. The following two quotes express it for me: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle "At the root of every significant philosophic theory, there is a legitimate issue." - Ayn Rand I have found this true in work for example. If I encounter difficult systems or difficult interpersonal interactions, rather than trying to escape or deny them, I have found it much more helpful to approach them and work towards understanding them. This isn't quite the same as accepting or resigning myself to them - ultimately I may seek to influence and change them. But it's more about being willing to begin with perceiving and conceptualising them in my own mind, in a way that integrates with the sum of my knowledge. Likewise, in encountering critiques of Objectivism, I've been trying to understand any critique, and the ideas behind it, as clearly as possible. I don't see this as a fruitless exercise, but rather, understanding that there is likely to be some very real and important issue underlying the critique, I try to probe beneath the surface to uncover that issue. The resolution to that issue, if someone has discovered it, might come out of Objectivism, or it might come out of some other school of thought or area of knowledge.  Holding a metaphysics of objective reality, I don't see any ideas as completely groundless, having just arbitrarily arisen out of some kind of 'nothingness'. Unicorns don't exist. But neither are they entirely arbitrary and groundless. Rather, they combine, in an imaginative way, elements of perception, which themselves do come out of reality (horses, horns, etc).

    Feel like being Creative? How would Capitalism, Mixed Economy, Socialism, and Communism act?

    By dadmonson,
    How would Capitalism, Mixed Economy, Socialism, and/or Communism act if they were people?  And why do you say that? You can even throw in a mixed economy moving towards Capitalism/Socialism/Communism   For example since a mixed economy is such a hodgepodge of controls and freedoms I think he would act like a schizo...  I think history has shown that as well.   What do you think... Would Capitalism act like Mark Zuckerberg?

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