Leaderboard

In episode #18 of HBTV, Binswanger quotes Rand as having said "I am in favor of colonialism". This does not come as a shock to me, considering the public arguments that she put forth as to why it was morally just for the colonists to settle in America or for Jewish populations to settle in Palestine. If you're not familiar with her argumentation, she essentially argued that the British colonists and the Jewish settlers represented a beachhead of civilization and progress in places where backwardness and stagnation ran rampant. In the episode, Binswanger himself mentions India under British rule and argues that they benefitted a great deal in terms of Western technology while also conceding that moral wrongs were undoubtedly committed. Rand's statements on colonialism would be decried as reprehensible in today's ugly culture of nihilism where America (and the West as a whole) is supposed to get down on their knees and apologize to everyone on the globe for any perceived injustice. The reason why I wanted to make this thread is because I've found that Objectivists themselves tend to get squeamish on the subject. It's as if it is this elephant in the room which admirers of Rand's philosophy all need to dance around so as to not cast any light on it because it's perceived as an embarrassment. I do wonder if young Objectivists are more prone to feeling uneasy or dismissive in regards to Rand's views on colonialism than those who've been around for decades. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't doubt that's the case. What do you think? Let's discuss it. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRXW58FZ_g&t=1483s 24:09

heh didn't even read this yet but .. https://www.barrons.com/news/getty-images-targets-ai-firm-for-copying-photos-01673961609

It is possible to have trade secrets without the "inevitable disclosure" idea. If you work for a company, learn its trade secrets, and then deliberately disclose them to a competitor, that is properly illegal. But it's another thing if the employer can say that the trade secrets are things that have become habits for you, so that, regardless even of your own desire in the matter, you would inevitably disclose them, if you worked for a competitor -- and then uses that as a basis for preventing you from changing jobs. So if you are a "star player" for a company then maybe some personal habit of yours, such as your handwriting, or your typing style, or your method of composing music or flipping omelets, if the job involved such a thing -- might become a "trade secret" of the company, which they then own (not you). So you can never leave, unless you change careers entirely, or retire, or die. Objectivism (as far as I know) does not support the notion of signing yourself into slavery. But such a thing used to be possible, because your freedom could be regarded as a "property," separate from yourself, which would originally belong to you but could be signed away. "Inevitable disclosure" hearkens back to that sort of idea, because it creates a situation where an aspect of you can become the property of someone else; thus, as I said, the intellect of one person becomes the property of another. Sometimes I sense this notion that "if you disagree with these ideas then you probably think it's okay to rob banks" or something, but that is not the case. What I disagree with is more like the sort of thing like when Hank Rearden was blackmailed into signing over the patent to Rearden Metal. That kind of thing happens not just to the Hank Reardens of the world but to lots of people, all the time, in a corrupt system, and further, the system will be developed in such a way as to make that sort of expropriation easier to commit and harder to resist, to make it look like it's just laws and contracts operating as they should, to make it look like the sort of people who think that sort of expropriation is going on under a cloak of "legality," probably oppose patents and contracts, and think it's okay to rob banks.

I'm sorry should have quoted , I was referring to Harrison's specific reasoning about the jabs. He said he wasn't taking one because freedom.

That statement is way to broad. I assume you are saying that government should not preemptively intervene in a decision that should be left between each and their doctor, or their judgement. Because a policy of non intervention is part of a political philosophy too. The fact that it is right or wrong to give a vaccine to children should not be coerced by any government. Some will argue that at some point (in the emergency) it would be right to use that kind of force. But the "at what point" is not objectively clarified. Or maybe similar to "the age of consent", it will be determined by vote.

I don’t think it is rational to consider politics in making a choice about your health and possible medical interventions.