Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    1242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. A lot of good stuff here that will take me some time to digest. But let me put my comment about naivete of Objectivism in a nutshell: Galt's Gulch. It is clearly a Utopian ideal. Putting aside technological objections (e.g., where did they get the electricity), Galt's Gulch could not happen in real life because it would be impossible to find 50 or 100 or 500 (or, I believe, even 5 or 10) people who not only are genius movers-and-shakers but also would strictly adhere to Objectivist morality. My point was NOT how capitalism is a corruption of Objectivism, but rather that human beings are inherently corrupt and corruptible and that Objectivism (like Maoism) seems to think humans are perfectible.

    Having rephrased the question, let me take a shot at answering it. Comments here and my own ponderings have led me to see a possible solution. I'd like to know what others think of it. Here it is: Objectivism is not expected to be a natural state of being. Rather, it is intended to be an ideal state that democratic institutions would strive to acheive if the public were to accept Objectivism as the ideal. The goal of those on this forum is to educate people to this end. The fact that nobody acheives Objectivist (or Christian or any other moral system) ideals perfectly does not mean that they should not strive to use them as the basis for institutions (i.e., the law, the police and the courts).

    I agree, was actually formulating a response based on this very idea, thankfully you happen to be more articulate than I.or eh me.

  2. By the way in our current political system , you sure can be against and not particular for as far as the voting is concerned. Its a constitutional republic that democratically elects our representatives/leaders. Non participation even on an individual level does little to change reality either. I doubt we can "vote in " change. To have the type of candidiates I would want to vote for requires a cultural paradigm shift.

  3. The person with a similar post /topic on this site spoke to Peikoff's piece about the election.

    In it she said the Oist voting block was so small that it basically doesn't matter how one votes. True enough in the grand scale of things as they are. But later made a comment to the effect that Oists should not vote until GOP or somesuch put candidates on ballots that would actually support individual rights and capitalism. How could an insignificant block withhold support and yet at the same time exert influence?

  4. There seems to be an idea among Oists that voting in national elections is futile, given the state of today's culture and the near impossibility that either the democrats or the republicans would put forward a rational platform. I wonder if this holds to local elections? School board elections(the ones that directly affect the value of your home), state seats, congressional seats? Is there a point where it becomes mundane or trivial enough that the candidates' irrationality need not be scrutinized?

  5. I want Obama out because of what I understand to be his motivating philosophy, and as evidence his choices for people he put into power in the executive office. To not see their naked socialism and recognize it as such is a little baffling to me. Collectivists of all various ilks seek power in order to further their agendas. While vanilla candidates from other parties may not be ideal, not voting against a known, proven, dedicated collectivist is I think a position I can't wrap my head around so to speak.

    As far as I understand it, to truly cast a ballot against Obama one must cast a ballot for Romney, all other scenarios are equivalent to not changing any advantage an incumbent candidate enjoys

  6. Marx said capitalism was necessary, and that the capitalists should be left alone to complete the work of providing an industrially based society. Then the state would take over and set the workers to establishing a paradise , ..from each.., and then the stage would be set and the state could wither away and mankind would live happily ever after. Equals brotherly love and all that

  7. As I stated in another post , it seems there are four things one can 'do' with their vote: simply not vote, vote for Romney, vote for Obama or vote for a candidate of neither major party( included here are write in votes). I want to see the current administration out of office. I see the only option is to vote for Romney, none of the other three alternatives diminishes the advantages enjoyed by incumbents.

  8. I simply do not understand what the essay writer was trying to say. The line of reasoning employed seems to imply that consciousness is omniscient. That concepts are not the result of mental integrations but 'things' in consciouness that provide meaning to entities. A la inate ideas that point to some platonic universal understanding in a precognitive sense.

    Concepts are mental integrations that have as their referents existents. Words are tags that allow one to focus ones consciousness on specific concepts. i believe the writer does not understand what Rand was 'talking about'.

  9. It seems in a practical sense there are four ways to use your ballot. Simply not vote, vote for Romney, vote for Obama and cast a ballot for a candidate other than one of the major parties(I suppose a frivilous write in vote falls here also). Given the realites of present conditions in regard electoral politics. Only one is a vote against the incumbent. I plan to vote against the current adminstration en toto to the extent that choosing a candidate will result in a change of personnel in their respective administrations.

    I want Obama out because of what I understand to be his motivating philosophy, and as evidence his choices for people he put into power in the executive office. To not see their naked socialism and recognize it as such is a little baffling to me. Collectivists of all various ilks seek power in order to further their agendas. While vanilla candidates from other parties may not be ideal, not voting against a known, proven, dedicated collectivist is I think a position I can't wrap my head around so to speak.

    As far as I understand it, to truly cast a ballot against Obama one must cast a ballot for Romney, all other scenarios are equivalent to not changing any advantage an incumbent candidate enjoys.

  10. In a rational society the voluntary trade of value for value between individuals is capitalism, a quantitative analysis of the units of the store of wealth in an 'advanced' division of labor society would be termed economics with the understanding one was describing an aspect or characteristic of the actions of individuals taken as an aggragate.

  11. Capitalism is in a sense metaphysical, it describes actions of entities that act in the most efficient means possible. Without anthropromorphising one can describe rabbit metabolism as capitalistic in that the calories gained by eating are greater than the amount expended to find food sources. Even if man existed separately on individual isolated habitats the nature of survival is based on efficiency. If one had to physically produce every item needed to sustain their existence the achievment of that goal would be based against how efficient were their actions. There would be no benefit to producing n twice as much food needed for sustenance nor a fourth of that amount.

  12. I'm not clear what you're referring to. Are you saying the OP suggested that these two are separate? That Rand did?

    I meant the OP seemed to me to not understand Rand's philosophy as it concerns the role of integration, as the argument seems to be based on a very loose idea of society. I understand the concept society to refer to the idea that society denotes all the generalities concerned with describing a group of individuals that live in geographic proximity and follow similar laws and customs. Not society as an existencial existent apart from such a description. It then seems the OP also has the same notion of what concepts like capitalism, communism and altruism refer to.

    I think it shows the failure of the understanding of integration in Rand's philosophy and also highlights how revolutionary her ideas are.

  13. The idea that 'politics' or 'economics' are some how separate and malliable is a naive idea. Rand's greatest philosophic accomplishment may well be the extend to which her thinking recognized and integrated human nature throughout her entire philosophy. I think the hardest aspect to recognize in her thinking is the revolutionary theory of concept formation along with how reason 'works'.

  14. as to mdegges

    I think I would agree with that line of reasoning. I think the crux of the arguement is more in line with the idea of what the concept 'right' means. I understand rights as only applicable in a societal context. By that I mean that your example of a regression to the original owner would most likely find a possessor, someone who uses the lake just because it's there. I think the first owner would be the possessor at the time of the development of a division of labor society.

  15. It actually wasn't meant to be a good question it was meant as tongue in cheek rhetoric. I'm new to this forum and have yet to get a sense of the usual bloggers. While I recognize that your,DA, reasoning is very methodic and your grammar, diction, syntax, ect. are also exemplary, it seems that you are applying those capacities to attack floating abstractions.

  16. The point is that not all property owners are rational, thus some consideration towards the ethical justification of a right to claim exclusive ownership of a natural resource is appropriate.

    I'll have to brush up on my Hobbes, but initially I don't see a contradiction with his view, “the true doctrine of the Lawes of Nature is the true Morall philosophie”.

    One of the main criticisms of Oism is that much of what Rand said was tautology.(not a position I hold). That being said, I do not think Oism has in it the concept of an unethical right. And given the Hobbs reference you stated in a sense I would agree that morality is metaphysical , as in the metaphysical nature of man.

  17. As the derivation of ethics as a whole; morality is a set of principles needed to guide man's actions. Morality should be seen as a set of 'rules' that if followed should help man achieve attainment of values. The ultimate value being the happiness of a life lived morally. Ethical arguements should not proceed from the premises of what is not permitted. True ethical behaviour is concerned with actions that are consistent with achieving values.

×
×
  • Create New...