Leaderboard

But your own philosophy, which you live by every day, certainly is. And if one must arrive at precisely each conclusion Rand ever put into writing (including, as the OP'er pointed out, homosexuality) then there has only ever been one Objectivist and I doubt there will ever be another one. On a purely personal note I find the "student of Objectivism" or "admirer of Ayn Rand" terminology extremely self-deprecating and sad. It's one thing if you can't bring yourself to actually LIVE the philosophy, but if you're doing everything you can to live up to your own ideals then I think you deserve to say so. As I intend to! No. Fundamentally, each of us has a right to the freedom of movement (including international movement) so long as we're not doing so for any nefarious purpose (such as terrorism). There are no two ways around that. And while it's true that we can't simultaneously have open borders and a welfare state, one of these things is already strangling the West to death regardless of WHAT we do with our borders. This is neither to say that O'ism is a "closed" system (which I don't believe) nor that anyone who advocates for closed borders automatically ceases to be an O'ist; only that certain tenets of the philosophy are more essential than others, and that Rand's conception of individual rights is a rather core component of it. If you remove or alter that part then it ceases to be the philosophy of Howard Roark or John Galt and becomes something tangibly different. That being said... While we should have "open" borders that allow any civilized person to live wherever the Hell they want, it does make sense for us to have some sort of screening process to ensure that potential immigrants are, in fact, civilized people who aren't planning on manufacturing sarin gas or instituting Sharia law as soon as they arrive. And since we should be trying to constrain the welfare state as much as we possibly can, it seems prudent to also say something like no immigrant can ever qualify for any sort of government handout, for example. Once we had something like that in place we could then start trying to talk about whether we should really be giving handouts to anyone at all. The Objectivist position on borders is that they should be open - within reason. Incidentally, I wouldn't say that you can't still call yourself an Objectivist if you disagree with that position - just that you're currently wrong. But that happens to us all. Do we know that, though? I once knew an immigrant couple from Nepal who, despite not speaking the best English, acted like some of the most American people I've ever met. The one time I made the mistake of referring to them as Nepali-Americans I was swiftly told on no uncertain terms that they were full-fledged Americans like myself. That couple took about two years to become almost entirely integrated (with the exception of some slight accents that I'm sure they've ditched by now). I bring them up, not to say that transplantation is quick, but simply to point out that it depends on whom we are talking about transplanting. Some people drag their feet while others are eager to get it out of the way ASAP. And those who drag their feet about it, and set up little miniature versions of their respective homelands - do they actually want to BE American (or British)? If not then what we should really be asking about are their motives for trying to enter our countries in the first place. I also know a number of Somali immigrants to my area who have no intention of ever integrating, learning English or getting a job; they came to America for the handouts. Handouts which should not exist in the first place. And yet children do not automatically inherit their parents' philosophies (as I am living proof of and suspect that you probably are as well). Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? Objectivism doesn't deny the existence of feelings (including hunger, fear, sexual desire, etc). All it really has to say about them is that not all are valid (i.e. some feelings are not worth paying any attention to) and that they aren't a method for decision making. They can be perfectly valid data on which to base your decisions, but the method should consist of rational thought. So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point to. The majority is lucky to inhabit MY world with me! PS: Too much of a focus on politics is not good for you. I know it can be very hard to focus on anything other than politics nowadays (I've been struggling with it quite a bit since the start of the COVID era) but the trajectory of your own life is much more important. If you rationally think that the country you're in will only continue getting worse then you should move. And (although I don't think you've actually said this I'll just mention) what most people accept as their own philosophy should certainly have ZERO relevance to what you accept as your own. Furthermore (as in the above music video) the best way to get others interested in your own philosophy is to actually make something of yourself and show them there's something of practical value to it. Hyperfocusing on the beliefs of the majority is a path to the dark side.

Never you mind about that. But I agree with the point.

You start with yourself and let others manage themselves. It would not be an Objectivist case. It would only be an objective case were I so inclined. Consider, too, the role compulsory education contributes as an obstacle going forward. If you're still intent on changing the world (or even just standing up for America) consider the advice provided in the hidden comment by William McRaven:

Empirical psychology is not exactly a part of philosophy, but the Objectivist writings make several assertions in this field without providing more than intuitive or anecdotal evidence: Personality predicts sexual attraction. Sexual attraction predicts personality. Artistic taste predicts personality. Personality predicts artistic taste. Childhood literary exposure predicts adult character. Philosophical training and belief predict intellectual efficacy. This is not to say that one couldn't test these claims, only that I haven't seen such tests.