Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by happiness

  1. The mind is the human tool of survival. If the climate changes adversely, our only chance is to unleash free minds to counteract the threat.
  2. I don’t think RT’s theories are based on rationalism at all. They are induced from facts of nature one can observe, and at least ostensibly vindicated by experience.
  3. Arbitrary: there is an afterlife in Heaven where we will be reunited with our loved ones, or where God will meet our justice. Wild speculation: maybe the huge filaments of galaxies we can see are analogous in scale to what sub atomic particles are to the human brain, tiny fundamental components of some greater superstructure, existing within the universe and still bound by the laws of the nature capable of recording and recreating the fact of an individual human consciousness. Logical conclusion: there is no reason to believe anything other than that your consciousness is extinguished upon your death.
  4. I know little of the background of writing Atlas Shrugged but I would think Rand would have consulted professional physicists for help coming up with a concept of something extremely elusive, but not impossible.
  5. I don’t know enough about physics to know. Not that Ayn Rand’s novels are the standard of truth and falsehood, but would Rand have wanted to base Galt’s motor on a concept so flawed that amateurs know it to be wrong?
  6. If something is impossible in reality, shouldn’t it also be impossible in an Ayn Rand novel?
  7. If the events of Atlas Shrugged are not possible in reality, what is the disconnect between the book and reality?
  8. Not that I am naïve enough to hope to live to see it, but is it possible for a free country to come about by any means other than a multi-generational cultural change that will swallow up the lives of everyone alive at the time of its inception? Could a core group of young Randian geniuses pull off an Atlas Shrugged amidst the chaos?
  9. I’d be more enthused if Musk worked on something like Galt’s motor, Rearden Metal, or life extension technology; something that would enable I and my contemporaries to lead better lives. Of course, he owes me nothing, and I respect his right to work on whatever project he wants. Is Musk’s goal of reaching Mars analogous to Columbus’ activities? The latter wanted to discover better routes for commerce, to make money. I don’t want to constrain a genius like Musk with my own small mind, but I don’t see that he’s Columbus. Is Mars a rational value? Is he going to turn it into a profitable enterprise in his lifetime? Are humans suited to flourish there? Is civilization so irrational that man needs a new planet now that all the good continents are taken? I don’t have the answers to these questions.
  10. Being a radical capitalist means I champion the moral principle of individual rights in economics.
  11. What’s in my self-interest is to live the best life possible in an insane society—that does not entail becoming insane myself.
  12. My brother is a🤢 🤮 person. He turned out this way because my father is a massive enabler. Despite being a very intelligent man, he is too irrational to even grasp the concept of enabling. He believes that he cannot kick my brother out of the house, or cut him off financially, and that there is some invisible hand of the universe putting a gun to his head, forcing him to act for my brother’s sake. It has DESTROYED my brother’s life. I am grateful to him for things he has done for me, and maintain a friendly, but aloof relationship with him. I have accepted that he will never change, he is too old and his mind is too irrational, and he will enable until he dies. I stay out of the way of the situation as much as possible, but when I see what has become of my brother, and am exposed to his lifestyle, I feel borderline total disgust for my father for what he has done, and what he continues to do. If I hate my brother, should I also hate my father, who enabled him into oblivion? Is he any less evil?
  13. Related question—is Dr. Amesh Adalja an Objectivist? I respect and appreciate his medical insights either way.
  14. A virus is an element of nature and an inherent risk of life on Earth, not a weapon that an infected person goes around assaulting people with. If you don’t have symptoms, haven’t tested positive, or knowingly been exposed to an infected person, it’s rational to assume you’re not infected and go about your business. You can’t live if you have to assume you are infected with a deadly virus. Each individual’s health and safety is his own responsibility. The onus to stay home and/or get vaccinated is on those who are at risk. Every medical treatment has benefits and risks. If you fear the risks of vaccination more than you fear the virus, you have an absolute right not to get vaccinated. No one has a duty to sacrifice himself by accepting potential bodily harm for the sake of protecting others. The ardent anti-vaxxer’s assessment of the risks might be incorrect, but it’s his judgment, and he has a right to act on it, even if others disagree.
  15. One my mangers, whom I’ve always liked reasonably well, just changed his signature to include his pronouns. He is the third person in the office to do so. The other two disgust me and I steer clear of them. They are all bad dressers and physically out of shape. I am now uncomfortable with this manager because I believe pronoun people would hate me if they knew what I am; hence, I view it as a confrontational act. Why would you state your pronouns in your work signature if you don’t self-identify as anything other than what people assume? Just to come out of the closet as a huge leftist at work? To gloat that this is society now? I get that this has been going on in for a few years but this is really my first direct confrontation with it. The plan: be completely non-reactive and do absolutely nothing different except be on even higher alert never to touch politics at work or on a work computer than I already am. But am I right to intensely despise this behavior and take it as a form of hostility?
  16. I don’t see a great deal of rational value in reaching Mars at this point; we’ll all be long dead before any kind of industrial civilization is possible there. I’d have more respect for Musk if he focused on improving life on Earth. Then again, maybe a new age of Colonization and Martian revolution is the future counterpart of the American revolution.
  17. I can’t prove that I deserve credit for this, but after months of stating the positive case for health and medical freedom in my replies to Thomas Massie on social media, some of which earned “likes” from him, he is now adopting one of my core arguments—that health mandates are pseudoscience—in posts that reach multitudes of people.
  18. This is my official investment strategy, based on my view of the world. It has a macroeconomic theme. The US government is the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world and has horrible fundamentals, and is deficit spending and printing money like crazy to pander to the masses creating horrible distortions, bubbles that will lead to crashes, and inflation. The world still thinks the USD is a sound currency, but it isn't, and more people are realizing this. All governments are printing money, but the USD has more to lose because it's more overvalued. Neither I nor any of the people I listen to can tell how long this will continue, but it's likely to lead to serious problems worse than the ones we've already had. There is still value being created in the world, but I don't know how to find it, so pay mangement fees to professionals who might be able to. Cash, USD savings (55.5% of net worth) Investments (45.5% of net worth): Mutual fund managed by rational people, broadly diversified in a manner compatible with my view of the world. Includes a strong "hard asset" component, is but not decisively unconventional and USD-bearish. Includes conventional stuff like real estate, financial services, BRK.A, etc. (8.7% of investment account). Decisively USD-bearish funds by Peter Schiff (38.9% of investment account). Blend of four funds, will do great if the USD weakens relative to other currencies, and won't if it doesn't. These have done horribly in the 10 years since inception, but I think he'll be vindicated one day. Natural Resource funds: blend of funds of companies engaged in the exploitation of raw materials, which offer the opportunity to profit from inflation, and, according to many free-market thinkers, are in new secular bull market in themselves. Speculative, but I favor it. (8.7% of investment account) Physical precious metals, including exchange-traded trusts, allocated metals, and physical metals in my possession (50.1% of investment account). Precious metals mining funds are found in all three of the equity categories above and only arbitrarily differentiated from the physical metals and trusts category. That seems to be my leitmotif.
  19. I have no idea how this is going to end, and am heavily invested in gold and not at all in bitcoin. I'm enjoying the debate between Peter Schiff and his son, Spencer, a bitcoin fan, on this. The son reduces it to the false alternative of "intrinsic" vs. "subjective" value, so I think he's the one that's wrong. I don't understand the technology behind bitcoin, and I'm inclined to think it's merely a digital for of fiat captivating irrational people in an nutty society. However, I do grant the possibility that there could be some property or fact of the digital transaction system—the ability to barter things digitally—that does have an objective value in and of itself and therefore overcomes the conventional requirement for "real" money to have a commodity value.
  20. I can appreciate that angle, but also fear the possibility that masses of militant non-thinkers would organize on the grounds that the right-respecting government was violating their god-given right to vote.
  21. I'm far from an expert on this but it seems to me that this situation would be highly unstable. If non-voters came to vastly outnumber Objectivist "citizens," they could revolt and overwhelm the pro-rights government.
  22. I have no "issues" with Objectivism. I use the philosophy to lead the best life possible in an irrational society. I may be an outlier, but I'm better off knowing and acting on the truth than I would be if I were to invest in a bad cultural movement. I focus on tings I can control and enjoy, and limit my exposure to politics except to the extent that I enjoy crafting arguments on issues I'm passionate about as an end in itself, regardless of the likelihood that my views will prevail in my lifetime. I enjoy going online and saying things that are on a totally different wavelength than the mainstream political narrative, things that people have never heard before. It's an art to me. Supporting closed borders in our current situation is not a contradiction of Objectivism. Objectivism doesn't have anything to say about borders, it says that life is the standard of value. If open borders would threaten our lives under the status quo, Objectivism leads to the conclusion that we should keep them closed. Although this scenario is perhaps so unrealistic that it's worthless to consider, in my opinion, if a group of Objectivists somehow founded a free country today, a policy of free immigration would result in an influx of people who would corrupt the government in a short time, so I wouldn't support it.
  • Create New...