Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dániel Boros

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dániel Boros

  1. A minority yes, but a minority that has been growing constantly that last few years. Maybe if there were more objectivists among libertarians they could help libertarians to present Rand's ideas correctly. That's what Yaron Brooks been doing. He has been on Stossel's show (who is a libertarian) and gave lectures to tea party members and he didn't denounce them at all. I am well aware that Rand denounced libertarians, but unless she had a valid objective reason that applies today as well, I don't care. Ron was not a conservative, he became one just so he could be elected in the two party system. If marriage can be considered a deal why can't politics be considered as one as well? Ron Paul became a republican to achieve his goal and it was his philosophical integrity that got him as far as he is now, but if a objectivist were to ally with a libertarian he would loose all credibility. Why? I doubt anyone could find an objectivist liberal. They are socialists in both name and action. Republicans are only socialists in action. I wish you would stop using faulty generalization. When I mention the libertarian party and limited government I wasn't thinking about anarchists who are not part of the party and not for any government. Most libertarians are not pacifists at least I never heard of any libertarian who was. They are no interventionists in other words anti imperialists and anti nation builders. The argument that libertarians are pacifists lacks proof: Yes libertarians don't want to wage war against Iran and Saud Arabia, but there's no guarantee that such wars could help against Alqeda. They would just move to another country... Libertarians aren't anti war they are just not for unnecessary bloodshed. There may be a good case for war but as long as no one is there to say it no one will hear it. I don't see how my theory that suggested that objective laws can be provided by the free market makes me an anti capitalist. Also it's a theory and it's mine, but it doesn't mean I am endorsing such a system. Also in my second theory that I posted later I clearly stated that if force is to be privatized there should be a government that regulates the private police and writes laws in addition to its exclusive military. The point I tried to always make that defining government as "monopoly on force" is in fact an argument from tradition and therefore not necessarily valid. What matters is objective law and monopoly on law and not the monopoly on force. These are hypothetical. I do not claim to know the answer. Maybe that is why I put up topics about them , but I do believe firmly that an argument from tradition is invalid even if Rand herself was the one who made it. I don't think what I suggested was pragmatism. Many countries collapsed due to spending issues related to war. Certainly government has to protect its citizens, but it has to protect itself as well. No money no guns. Again libertarians aren't really pacifists they just disagree with the current foreign policy. What I meant was that government has a tendency to grow and that right now there's a better chance to stop than when the country is called the new USSR. In Atlas Shrugged the government collapsed, but that is fiction. If you look at reality you will see that dictatorships can exists for hundreds of years. I am merely suggesting that defending rights when there is none left may be too late or at least ineffective.
  2. All for one and that one is me. What I said had little to do with the "common good", whatever that might be. If having your rights protected can only be achieved by having others rights protected as well, than so be it. That's how the USA was founded. In the end Classical liberalism is no different from Modern Libertarianism. When I said libertarians are not interested in philosophy I was referring to the average Ron Paul supporter and not to the guys at the top. In Libertarian philosophy the non aggression principle is an axiom and not something that is derived from other axioms. That is the big difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. On a political level libertarians and objectivists stand for the same values. Yes Libertarian is a term used by many, but that is no excuse to look at the people who have the right goals in mind. When you have the strongest military in the World and the question regarding war is either to attack Iran or Saud Arabia or both and when you have 16trilion $ in debt, that increases by one trillion each year and when you have indefinite QE3 and 0% interest rates, than the likelihood of the USA's collapse due to foreign military intervention is rather small. Don't worry about hosing during the flood. Republicans and Democrats will destroy the country faster than any foreign enemy could, or did you not read Atlas Shrugged?
  3. Whether they need our support or not is not the question. The question is do we need theirs and whether we want to wait another 50 years before we decide to do something. Look at Ron Paul. He originally run as a libertarian candidate. When that didn't work out he ran republican and he achieved tremendous success, and he did it without giving up an inch from his ideas. Why would be wrong for us to do the same thing? Yes libertarians don't have much interest in philosophy, but so what? People don't have to be interested. Rand never said that everyone should be a philosopher. She always envisioned change through the opinion moulders of society. Libertarians are for limited government and pro human rights and pro capitalism and that is the most important thing in politics and not wars and whatever else you can think of what libertarians should not support. Metaphysics: Objective Reality Epistemology: Reason Ethics: Self-interest Politics: Capitalism
  4. I did not say to ally with libertarianism. I said ally with libertarians whom we share a common goal with. There has been a group called christian objectivists, but that doesn't mean objectivism or objectivists in general agree with any religion or that objectivism has a double standard. Yes there are lots of different libertarians out there, and we should not befriend all of them the same way not all libertarians befriend each other. There is for example a libertarian party out there that has little to do with the things you described here. They aren't anti war any more than objectivists are. Objectivists don't seem to support the war on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on Lybia and the war on drugs essentially all ward that libertarians are against. Ron Paul who is a libertarian supported the act against the perpetrators of 911, and repeatedly stated that most of them were Saudis. Yes Ron doesn't want a war against Iran and Saud Arabia, because the U.S. is broke and a economic collapse would be far worse than a war you don't start. Anti federal perhaps, but there are lots of things that should not be assessed on the federal level that currently are. Anti-american... no not really, at least not any more than Rand was.
  5. I have been reeding the history of the objectivist movement on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....tivist_movement , and that started me to think about the relationship between objectivism and similar ideologies. It seems that history was not kind to the movement and as far as I can tell the problems came from the inside and not the outside. It seems there was a general hostility by hardcore objectivists towards libertarianism and towards the Academy. That is a little puzzling since both of them seem to be -at least at first glance- to be the natural allies of objectivism. (I doubt Ayn would have ranked a church higher than the Academy.) I myself reached Ayn Rand by first getting interested in Ron Paul and than moved on to Milton Friedman and than finally ended my journey here. I find that neglecting or working against the relationship of like minded thinkers is both irrational and unproductive. In a democratic society change can only come through numbers -that is reality- and discouraging cooperation of the people with common goals but with different ideas won't yield any results, and in fact will stop the possibility of change through legal means. If the system is broken, and if there are other people like us who want it fixed and know how to do it, how can it be wrong to refuse the helping hand they offer? Ayn Rand stated that there can be no compromise in morality, and I agree. I however don't see any compromise in the idea of cooperating with someone as long as our goals are the same and our methods moral. Even if that person is a Christian like Ron Paul or a Utilitarian like Milton Friedman. It's like a business deal. Even if the shopkeeper is a communist I can still cooperate with him or her as long as we both benefit from it. Not cooperating on the other hand would be altruism. There has been a lot of potential in the objectivist movement in the past, and most of it was wasted in the end. I hope the new one will do better and as far as I can tell it actually does. Daniel
  6. According to this article the Universe has zero total energy even though that doesn't mean there is no energy... http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1224-total-energy-universe-zero.html What does that mean? Does that mean anything?
  7. Okay, would methodological naturalism count as metaphysics or as epistemology? According to wikipedia it counts as epistemology, but why? I am curious whether nature can be defined with things related to science like particles and laws. Also what can one use to define the scientific method? Can I use both epistemology and metaphysics?
  8. Where does epistemology end and where does metaphysics start? Also what counts as philosophy of science and what does not, and what can be used to define the scientific method or science and what not? that would be all ty
  9. Just wanted to drop off my recent thoughts on infinity: Infinity is a number that is greater than any number. (according to wikipedia) (You can't say that infinity is a concept, because only concepts that are also numbers can be greater than other numbers) so infinity is a number therefore... infinity is greater than infinity which means that... infinity does not equal infinity and that... infinity is not infinity and so ... infinity would break the law of identity infinity is a bound to boundless concepts, which alone is a contradiction in terms. Infinity is a useful term, but it seems to me that it has been used the wrong way. Like in the multiverse theory or in Religion...
  10. In grade school I was always told that "the one who hits back is just as bad as the one who hits first". Don't children have a right for self defence? I mean it's not like they will carry guns so obviously kicks and punches are what's left. Running isn't always an option and it's not even a good option if you know you will meet the same bullies tomorrow again. You can't run away from school... Aren't teachers making potential victims out of innocent children by telling them to not fight back, so that they the teachers will have to deal with less? It seems to me that teachers are willing to defend bullies just not their victims. I have asked a few people and I have never heard of anyone getting kicked out from school for bullying, even though there were plenty of bullying from where they come... If there are no consequences for bullying and you can't even fight back, what can you do? School is like a heaven for sadists, although most bullies aren't violent outside of school. I wonder why... peace
  11. Lol I knew it Christians invented the term : http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/on-the-origins.html It's like beating a Christian with a Bible. Bizarre...
  12. So I take that for an objectivist methodological naturalism is supernaturalism. Or am I wrong?
  13. There have been many scientists who claimed that only scientifically proven theories can be true, and that philosophy is simply a relic of the past. See Brief History of Time for example. The problem is that if only scientifically verified facts can be true than what could possibly verify the scientific method? Science? That's a circular argument at best.
  14. From Wikipedia: According to objectivism Nature is And I must say I totally agree since one has to define Nature before one can provide a objective scientific method to test it. The Supernatural So Methodological Naturalism states that scientists must look for causes that exist for events that happened and that they should not look for causes that don't exist for events that happened or that they should not look for causes of events that did not happen even though causes that don't exist and events that did not happen may exist. Doe that make sense? I think that's simple nonsense. Methodological naturalism gives credibility to supernatural arguments by asserting that the supernatural exists despite it not being part of scientific research. It is not simply stating the obvious since it does in fact imply the existence of non-existence, which is a contradiction in terms. Am I right?
  15. Individuals are humans. Human rights are the same as individual rights. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not about human rights.
  16. Not exactly In the first film Bruce Wayne became fear itself by becoming batman. He never needed courage. "Like your father, you lack the courage to do all that is necessary. If someone stands in the way of true justice... you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart." Ra's al Ghul In the first film fear is good and courage is bad...
  17. This has been on youtube for a few days now... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-GZKDdjb4k
  18. Agreed, however there will be always a need to counterbalance the force of arms created by the private sector. Private defense companies would operate differently if there was no police to oppose them when they abuse their power.
  19. Not all mystics and faithful belive in God so I'm not sure that is a neccesary requirement. Also I can't imagine anything that could be accepted as evidence for God, even if it was. The word should be defined first so that it could actually have a meaning. By the way Voltaire also said: "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason." Now these tests seem very interesting, but the only thing I can't find is: "how much?". How many more belivers had better results than non-believers? How do they act in their daily lives? Which group is more violent? Which group has more jobs? Which group has a higher living standard? I also think this involves a lot more psichology than philosophy. I mean yeah sure you might be more positive about your surgery, if you were religious, but same is true if I drugged you with cocaine. Religious people may not fear death as much as most people do since they have low self esteem and don't really have much to loose. They might think even if they die Jesus will save them and open the gates of heaven for them "so there's nothing to fear". "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." George Bernard Shaw
  20. I am not confident in my argument. I am curious how you would debunk this theory.
  21. Can the dollar outlive the euro? Make your bets!

  22. I think that the difference between the bad guys in Ayn Rand's books and in reality is that Rand's bad guys are consistent. Unlike many businessman of today who play capitalism while hating it. Well maybe Peter Keating could be an exception since he started thinking at the end. Gail Wynand was a good guy, who started bad and ended worse, but for the most part he was a good guy, but he wasn't consistent. If you think about Hank Rearden a good guy, he was not consistent at the beginning since he applied different morals in his private life and at his job. Or Dominique who had a habit of rational self torture. Of course Roark and Galt were quite consistent all the way.
  • Create New...