Repairman

"Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs." If this is the founding principle of Marxist theory on labor and distribution, it has been an abject failure in practice. I believe this is the best argument, because it is the shortest and simplest argument.

Eioul, One's counter-force must be appropriate to the initial force. So far, I have not seen enough context in your initiation-of-force scenario. Are we talking about the jerk who stands in my way, preventing me from passing an otherwise unobstructed path, or the jerk who ignores common sense practices such as lowering his loud music, depriving me of my sleep? Are we talking about the state confiscating my property, even my life, as in conscription service? If you could provide some context as to the scale of oppression, an appropriate strategy might be conceived. I am apprehensive toward any revolution. If the ideals merit political action, an evolutionary change is much preferred. The ideals of Objectivism would certainly be worthy of popular support. But at present, the overwhelming majority of voters have no knowledge of those ideals. They don't know of Ayn Rand, nor her philosophy. Many who do misrepresent or distort her ideals. Rational thought is a volitional choice. The only radical strategies I've seen on display as of late are irrational, emotional, and violent. If it were possible to have a rational revolution, I would support it. As for now, questioning irrational conventional wisdom and contributing to this forum will suffice.

Dream_weaver, The link you provided underscores exactly what I meant by changing cultural influences, beginning with public schools. In the event that enough American citizens realize the root cause of the problem, then they might act as a majority in correcting that problem. Whether they take action politically or violently (or both) depends on the form of initiated force. Your brief history of individual liberty underscores the challenge of overcoming established cultural norms,i.e. ideology/religion/philosophy. From 1215 to 1776 is certainly a long time to alter publicly accepted standards of individual rights. Four score and seven years later, violence was the method of choice to enforce and extend that standard of liberty to a group of Americans previously denied their rights. But the gun is not the argument; it is a radical solution to the initiation of force; it may even be political. But if you want "bigger changes faster," you are choosing bullets over ballots, and in most cases, the blood-shed in unnecessary. Once the shooting starts, people tend to forget what they wanted in the first place. Either way, maintaining personal liberty is all the reason one needs for maintaining the radical persuader of the gun.

Sure, lawyer up. If your case gets enough attention, or support through some sort of political action organization, maybe it'll end up in the US Supreme Court. Maybe you need to be more specific as to what sort of force you're referring.

I am less interested in radical means, and more interested in the proper means of achieving a rational society. Public opinion must change before the leadership will. As long as our governing officials are selected through the present democratic process, we can expect more of the same. And their governance will reflect the wishes of the electorate. Americans, as with all people, have the government they deserve. As for actively changing the ideological norms of the electorate, any act of force or destruction will not get the results desired; violating laws, even bad laws, has unnecessarily costs. Especially when violated violently. It's all well and fine to suspend disbelief for the sake of illustrating a point in a work of fiction. (I realize that the opening post does not suggest violence as a proper means, but only as an option.) But if you wish to keep it real, I would begin with, figuratively speaking, tearing at the fringes of political correctness. If people are to be persuaded to governance that allows for more self-governance and the protection of individual rights, the popular wisdom of the left, as well as the right, must be challenged publicly. Public opinion will precede any political change in a democratic society. And the only proper means of changing public opinion is through cultural influences, i.e., primary schools, mass media news analysis, and any form of entertainment. On a personal or individual level, one can engage in argument with those who more obviously oppose individual freedom, as long as one is in an appropriate environment (such as anywhere other than one's place of employment), and as long as one is well-versed in the major supporting ideas behind Objectivism. On a grand scale, one might undertake the establishment of private systems of learning, publish works that oppose and expose the flaws of popular politics, or produce art/literature that reflects the values of Ayn Rand's romantic realism. The Revolution, if one wishes to call it that, will be led by the professional intellectuals. If your desired ends are radical Objectivist reform, the proper means are to change minds, as many as possible. As footnote, I don't expect any active, proactive, or unnecessarily offensive actions will hedge the majority of the American public toward a greater appreciation of Ayn Rand, at least not in my lifetime. I am hopeful of some sort of generation of rational egoists in the future; so, for now, I'll ignore the fact that Americans will be voting for the two most scandalous candidates in my memory. My political action will be to vote for Gary Johnson.

Anirudh Silai, I can't help but to interpret your understanding of campaign contributions as "ransom", at least in this scenario. Contributors contribute of their own volition; so long as the rules are followed, the incumbent, Obama, owes nothing to Brook's contributors. And in any realist scenario, people would continue to be taxed in some way, at least in the short run.

I suppose it matters as to how broadly one wishes to define conspiracy. There is sufficient evidence of secret societies of both the illegal and government sponsored. No need to list the usual suspects. Whether foreign or domestic, national governments have the advantage of operating in secret, by virtue of the fact that they have a police force to use as an obstruction of any investigation. I've known of a person involved in a criminal case that allowed him to sit on dead row, while the FBI sat on evidence that would have freed him, because there were "bigger fish to fry." For this discussion, I will assume the conspiracies in question are of the high-profile sort. When it comes to Roswell Aliens, political assassinations, 911, or Vietnam theories, I will wait for the proof positive before granting them credibility. (I never worried about whether or not President Obama had a US birth certificate.) For a fact, most people have biases, whether they choose to acknowledge them or not, and that does affect their epistemology. One of the phenomenon of our times is the overwhelming amount of information we are offered. Couple this with the tendency of many people to seek out some explanation where none exists. People have long since dismissed the notions that supernatural forces can explain mysterious and/or tragic events. That is, most people have. And yet, everyone loves a mystery. As people begin to lose faith in their institutions of justice, they tend to accepts imaginative explanations. I find that, in countries where corruption in rampant and the media controlled by the state, people tend to rely more on unsubstantiated rumors, conspiracy theories, and superstition. Long ago I grew tired of hearing so many of the boys who cry wolf that I don't even worry if there is a substantial body of truth. (I grew up in the 60s; it seemed that every year there was a new conspiracy to belabor.) And to that, when people hear of Objectivism, as we have seen on this forum, some people hold to idea that Ayn Rand was a cult leader and that her works perpetuate a conspiracy.

I couldn't put any faith in any comprehensive plan for ending Islamic terror. Doctor Hurd suggests: "a military build-up like the world has never seen..." The United States already has the most impressive military the world has ever seen, and still they manage a strike within our borders. And when I say, "they", I am referring to Muslims that have submitted to their religious convictions with no regard to any human life, not even their own, and in some cases, the lives of their children. We are defending ourselves from religious convictions that have taken over the minds of individuals. Omar Marteen was not an immigrant. It is unclear at the time of this writing as to whether he had any genuine connection with foreign terrorists. One thing is for certain: Omar had a screwed-up mind, and no matter how much fire-power we put on display, what happened in the case of this one individual could happen again, and probably will. As mentioned, it would be impractical to "keep Muslims out." We have important Muslim trading partners and military allies with whom we could not likely depend if the US policy were to be openly offensive toward their nations. This is not to say that immigration officials should grant assess to our borders to obviously suspicious persons from any nation. The overwhelming number of Muslims in the US are conducting themselves in a manner not much differently than immigrant groups of the past. The difference with Muslims is that the content of their holy text includes dozens of passages intended to provoke varying forms of violence against, not only unbelievers, but against any who do not agree with the specifics of one's theological interpretation. In addition, Islamic Sharia is a requirement under which the "faithful" will one day rule. I consider it hopeful to note that that majority of Muslims, global or domestic, disregard those Koranic verses inciting violence. Just as with the overwhelming multitudes of Christians in America, it would be accurate (if not complimentary) to view them as hypocrites. Harmless individuals who fail to uphold the ridiculous tenets of their faith don't worry me. But the chance that a perplexed individual may seek redemption through martyrdom very much worries me. Religion is the primary scourge sewing the seeds of irrational thought. While I have no comprehensive plan to "defeat Isamofascism," I would do all I can to promote a more secular social norm. Terms such as "Islamophobia" should be understood as nonsense created by Muslim apologists. There is nothing sick about someone harboring a mistrust of religion. I can be tolerant toward any law-abiding and productive citizen (or for that matter, non-citizen), but don't expect me to respect their religion where it pertains to government or to my own personal conduct. We do ourselves no favors when we sit silently while our leaders pander to the religious-right, or spout pious references assuring us of their devotion to (or conditional respect for) superstition. And certainly we should not shy away from identifying any coercive and/or violent extremism, whether it be religious or altruistic. If there are those among the Muslims in America who question their faith, we would be best served to show them all the support necessary to overcome the grip of terror imposed upon them by their elders' faith; they should know that they have a choice of freedom from religion, just as they have freedom to practice their religion.

You forgot to list self-protection as one of the uses of guns. And, for the record, guns, as well as cars, are regulated, for better or worse.

From what it appears, Alternet is an alternative from reading High Times, or playing video games. Adam Lee, the author of this book review, has analyzed a work of fiction, as if it were a piece of non-fiction. His altruistic perspective would allow for no other conclusion than a general condemnation of Ayn Rand. But is there any merit to his criticisms? If one holds to altruism as a moral standard, then, yes. On this forum, many people have delved into the deeper meaning and various questions provoked by the characters, relationships, and scenarios constructed in Atlas Shrugged. I suppose it does require some suspension of disbelief to accept the idea of an orange grove in the Colorado Rockies. But, the novel is premised on the idea that the greatest technical, medical, scientific, legal, financial, and artistic minds are gathered in one place for the purpose of denying their talents to a world that only seeks to dictate to them, rather than negotiate terms voluntarily. And, of course, they wish most of all to live for their own sake. If it would have really helped to have added a geneticist to the Strikers, one who engineers "mountain grown oranges," then I suppose Ayn Rand would have done so. But I see no point. And I see no point for this book to be interpreted as if it were reality.

Adrian Roberts, Regarding the UK vs EU, I've learned more about the subject from your post than I have from casually listening to BBC broadcasts (which I normally hear everyday). This Objectivist can only offer an opinion based on limited facts and understanding of your problems, especially the sensitive subject of minorities. Overall, anything that improves economic outcomes is best. But trade agreements usually come with controversy, even violent protests from wage-earners effected by job-loss. I found your explanation of the political divisions within the various parties interesting. As you know, we are having an uprising of nativist sentiment here in the US. So, I understand emotional reactions are unavoidable. But most of the immigrant labor in the US are assimilating within reasonable terms for absorbing our Latino newcomers. How would you assess the immigrants and their chances of Anglo-assimilation? In other words, are they learning the language and customs, or segregating into ghettos, or both?

Tom Hess, I'm just north. If you want to chat, there's a Chat Room.

I am honestly glad to know that you're recovering. If I had a medical problem such as yours, I'd do everything possible to recover; it was not a personal attack. If you are an expert on climate science, I might look at your evidence. If not, I'll regard the notion of "climate change" and the popular beliefs associated with it as inconclusive. That, of course, would be your choice. If you have a reasonable argument for blaming the world's problems on Objectivism, come on back any time.

While that may explain your evasion of military training or other physical activities, you seem rather bold in your responses to opposition to your confrontational posts. The majority of your inquiries seem to suggest you have little regard for free-market economic principles, as in this thread and a few others. But rather than frame the question as addressing the principle, (in which case you could do some independent research), you frame the issue as a problem caused by Objectivists. Or, you image some conspiracy of Objectivist design. Either why, I'm just curious to know why you are prone to writing these accusations, when in every case, the participants here pretty well level your argument. Why is that? This assertion, that the world's scarce resources will result in some Mauthusian disaster has been addressed quite nicely in earlier posts, if you cared to read them. But in any event, you are giving Objectivism way too much credit for the state of global affairs. So, in part, your personal attitude explains your reasoning. At that I should remind you that wishing it doesn't make it so. You are entitled to your attitude, but it will not change reality. I'm sure it's just a figment of my imagination.

I couldn't help noticing the lack of response by the initiator of this thread. Dustin86, The question on this, and other threads of your creation, have attempted to put the eventual fall of Western Civilization primarily on the backs of Objectivists. The scarcity of resources and other social-economic-political problems of the world existed long before Ayn Rand, her philosophy, and, for that matter, any persons who may have claimed to have been influenced by her philosophy. What I gather from your other posits, Objectivists should abandon their free-thinking/free-market mentalities, and join your imaginary military junta for the purpose of engaging an apocalyptic Holy War. (Is there any part of this that I got wrong?) Time after time, well-reasoned and factual explanations made by others on this forum are met with either baseless accusations and name-calling, or as in this thread, blank out. Why is this? Given the fact that the problems of the world are centuries old, what proverbial axe have you to grind with Objectivism?

I suppose I am overstepping my purpose here. Megalomania might not necessarily be a disease, but it ain't right. I was getting a too opinionated; I wanted to correct it before anyone else.

Dustin86, Your inquiry into Objective does convey accusations. Naturally, those of us who understand and act accordingly to Objectivist standards of ethics tend to respond defensively, even offensively. The sort of egoism you are charging as the precursor to socialism is a sort that is common among megalomaniacs. Megalomaniacs are an extreme of altruistic ideals; that is, there are people with natural personality characteristics inclined to extending their needs to the point of controlling as many individual members of mankind as they are able. External circumstances may enable such people to fulfill their ambitions. (An example would be the global economic crisis of the 1920s through the 30s, when dictators of all stripe assumed authority over the most affected nations.) Ayn Rand coined a term: second-handers. These are people whose lives are only fulfilled as their lives meet the standards of some majority consensus. Here is the link, check it yourself:http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/second-handers.html Such people are not egotistical, by Objectivist standards. They are not selfish in any rational way. They are concerned with that which others think, with what the majority approves, and at the extreme, they can only be satisfied when the maximum number of people adore them and make monuments in their honor. The truth does not matter to second-handers; all that matters is some vane glorious celebration of their existence. Another term coined by Ayn Rand is the power-luster. Their own personal happiness is far less important than the power they wield over others. The colloquial term I prefer is megalomaniac, as it has more common use, and it sound like a mental disease. Which it is. If your inquiry into Objectivism is earnest, you will find that rational egoism disregards any concern for the opinions of others, and in stead, focuses on truth as based on verifiable evidence, and the pursuit of one's personal happiness without conflicting with the truth. If one relies on opinions, rather than facts, one is only able to draw conclusions that will lead to failure, or worse, destruction. In order to fully comprehend Objectivism, you may consider reading more than bits and pieces, and I found it most helpful to read the non-fiction.

More accurately, the Objectivist ethics are rational egoism. The hazards of democracy were well known to the founders of the United States, and that is the reason Thomas Jefferson insisted on the adaption of the Bill of Rights, intended to prevent an oppressive majority from impinging upon the rights of the individual. Each succeeding generation must decide how those rights are to be implemented and preserved. Once again, Objectivism is not Jeffersonian Democracy, as you keep implying. Edit: The fact that you have "getting theirs" in parenthesis suggests that you need to define the term more exactly. If you wish to do so, it would clarify the intent of this thread. Anyone with any sense of property ownership understands that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours," and any confusion of this concept would lead to theft. Theft by any other name is still theft.

Dustin86, There exists a perception among Muslims that they are victims of Western aggression. I think we can all agree that Islam is a religion that encourages violence against perceived infidels and apostates. This is an easily proven fact. What is also apparent is that the majority of Muslims are content to ignore those provocative passages of the Koran, avoid militant Jihad, and pursue more constructive lives. If the current state of violence in and coming from out of these Muslim states is to abate, it will not happen as a result of perceived Christian nations waging a modern-day Crusade. No single nation, not even a coalition of nations, could force 1.6 billion people to change their minds, especially when that religion proscribes defending that faith at the cost of the true-believer's life. Only they can willingly change their minds and perceptions. It will be a matter of their ever-changing perceptions as to how our freedom threatens them. I am not entirely thrilled by the election of a moderate, even liberal, Muslim as the new mayor of London. Either way, I wish the best for the people of London, and their new civic leader. However, I am somewhat encouraged by the fact that many Muslims in and outside of Great Britain will view this as a sign of change in Western attitudes, a change in perception. (That is to say that the destruction of Muslims is not a part of our general foreign policy.) I disagree with your assertion that moderates enable or empower extremists. The world is suffering from a shortage of moderate Islamic intellectuals. As Dr Hurd pointed out, this Mr Khan has had death threats, most likely from more extreme Muslims. It may require generations of moderate Islamic leadership, intellectual and political, before we will see an end to violence in the name of Islam. In the meantime, the West will need to keep up their guard, and protect the ideals of liberty we claim as the empowering force that drives our greatness. It will be a daunting theological challenge, and at its worst, a bloody internal struggle. Western Civilization endured comparable events. I am referring to the Reformation/Counter Reformation, which resulted in atrocities and wars for nearly a century and a half between 1500 to 1650 throughout Christian Europe. In the end, the idea of freewill and individual liberty emerged. Yet, even today, freedom is a concept so new that few among us really know how to use it to its best results. And I hope we can get past any sense of hostility evoked in earlier posts.

Dustin86, What I find even more revealing about this quote is your sense of urgency for completely ending freedom of expression in the US. It seems to me you will have a fight on your hands every bit as prolonged and intense imposing your dictatorship on American citizens, as you would crusading against Islam.

Dustin86, In this, and other threads, you've claimed that Objectivism is a cause of, in this thread, the expansion of Islam, radical or moderate, and on another thread, a cause of violent revolution. You have failed to make a rational argument for either case. The others posting responses to your assertions have done a more than adequate job of rebuking your ideas. Throughout this discussion, you've held to the notion that to restrain from forceful opposition against Islam is collaboration with Islam. (How am I doing so far?) For a fact, most Muslims living in the United States are more interested in providing a better future for their children, and less interested in changing the world to meet the ideals of Sharia/Islam. The mere fact that so many peoples of other religious faiths have over the generations integrated and assimilated into Western culture gives me enough evidence to believe that most Muslim children will be less devote Muslims one day. The few Muslims I've come to know have little ambition other than pursuing their professions, owning and operating convenience stores, and raising their families in an environment of opportunity. The forces of Western influence are not by any means necessarily our military or missionary powers. Rather, it is the comfort provided through diverse industrial expansion and trade, i.e., capitalism. Objectivism is an extreme philosophy which advocates for capitalism. Objectivism may be interpreted in a variety of ways, as you can see from some of the arguments on this forum, but free-market solutions to complex problems are usually the approved method of the majority of Objectivists. Capitalism, not necessarily Objectivism, best describes the political process with which the West interacts best with predominately Muslim nations. This is a false set of alternatives. Engaging in trade with allies, and improved policing practices and trade embargoes against terrorist threats, is the more likely alternative for the future. The institutions of individualism and free-expression in the West is not always understood in the East. (I get the impression that many in the West, including you, have challenges with understanding individualism.) Yet, the ideas of Western freedom are gradually influencing Muslim societies, but not fast enough. To your claim that Muslim women seek liberation from Islam, the evidence does not support it. Muslim women adamantly reserve their right to wear Muslim clothing in public. And while I have no way of knowing what goes on in their minds, it is most likely they hold to the beliefs of their fathers, husbands, and sons of their own volition. I wish this wasn't so, but I have no control over such things. Neither do you. If reason is to have a place in the shaping of new values in the East, launching a campaign of anti-Islam across the vast expanses of the world would be nothing less than a disaster. I have a question regarding your plan for a collective global anti-Islamic coalition. Have you ever served in any branch of the military? Specifically, do you have any direct experience combating Jihadi militants? (In the spirit of fairness, I will state that I have never been in military service. But neither have I ever accused anyone of being a namby-pamby-Hanoi-Jane.)

Not meaning to cause anyone any "trouble" here, but this is as entertaining as it is enlightening; the exposing of the inner workings of the mind of Dustin86, in a word: fascinating. 1) De-Nazification was never a complete success. Many people, both in Europe and North America, uphold some of the most radical beliefs of Nazism. For some, a less radical belief is preferred. 2) Dustin86, you are indeed advocating genocide. No one gives up their religious or ideological beliefs involuntarily. Draw your own conclusions.

What evidence do you have that Objectivism leads to violent revolution? You have yet to present your reasoned argument. You are merely insisting that Objectivsim, or for that matter, all ideologies are evil by virtue of your belief that all ideologies are destructive. It is a belief that no one else to my knowledge has ever claimed. Jeffersonian democracy is not some "proto-Objectivist" scheme, although both Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand relied on evidence, axiomatic self-evident truth, as a means of making their case for liberty. So, again I ask you, where is your evidence that Objectivism initiates or incites violent revolution?

Dustin86, Rather than "proto-Objectivism," the term most often used is, Manifest Destiny. It was a belief that the North American continent would be colonized and developed by white Anglo-Saxon English-speaking Protestants. It was ordained by God. And I hardly think they were "pacified" with homesteading or any conquest of untitled land. I concur with SoftwareNerd's critique. You have many misunderstandings about Objectivism, and for that matter, American history.

The fact that this dangerous man, or a collective we might call, the Dangerous Classes, is disappointed by any promise and takes to violence is not a flaw of Objectivism, nor for that matter a flaw in the foundation of America. So, let's take a look at some of your assertions about American history: Close perhaps, but no cigar. In fact far from it; assuming Ayn Rand and Yaron Brook made these statements, the context presupposes that no other social order in history comes any closer. If we're comparing other societies, particularly any society prior to the Industrial Revolution, religion, whether in the form of pagan mysticism, or Judeo-Christian theocracy dominated every mode of understanding reality. If you look into For the New Intellectual, you might get a better understanding of this Objectivist hypothesis. Even in the post-Industrial Revolutionary Age, Great Britain was ruled by a constitutional monarchy. It was a theocracy placing Queen Victoria at the head of the Anglican Church. As SoftwareNerd pointed out, they were successful in making the transition to a liberal-democracy. But liberal-democratic societies can still be societies of religious people. Religion in America today is much more popular than in Great Britain. In the 19th Century, religious prejudice existed, as well as a burgeoning Free Thinker's movement in America. Yet, people normally conducted commerce with members of opposing, even "foreign" religions, such as Jews and Catholics. This would been less likely have happened in a medieval European society, where intolerance was the norm. Whether it was pogroms against Jews in Central and Eastern Europe, or rebellion in Ireland, tolerance for religion was the norm and violence the exception in America. And while the overwhelming majority of the Anglo-America post-industrial society were religious, there were growing numbers of atheist/agnostic societies. The age of reason was alive. Scientific discovery and innovation was expanding as never before. The mere fact that tolerance of religion was more widespread in American is largely due to a commerce-driven society, as well as a legal system that respected individual rights. The power of capitalism not only increased output, but helped to create a less prejudice society. So, while I can't tell you the reasons 19th Century America is considered by others as the "most Objectivist" period in history, this would be my case for agreeing with this basic assertion. Regarding the "closing of the frontiers," I believe I explained in an earlier post that we live in an age of new frontiers. If you look at the Progressive Age, (approximately 1880 to 1914), Christians and other social reformers were reacting to the excesses of wealth in contrast to the scandalous poverty of industrial company towns, urban slums, and the general squalor of the living conditions of the poor. Enter the new religion: Socialism. There was no Objectivism in any form available for intellectual distribution; America's leading educational institutions were turning to Pragmatism and various offshoots of German Idealism. Progressive reforms were already in place years before the Great War, 1914-1918. In my opinion, had the newly formed Federal Reserve system performed as J P Morgan had in past banking crisis, the outcome of the Crash of 1929 may have been less tragic. Of course, this would be a matter for a separate debate. To be sure, there were overwhelming numbers of angry men fomenting violent revolution in 1932. Incidentally, Herbert Hoover was one of the progressive Republicans, in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt. Hoover, the Great Engineer, believed he could engineer economies through government policy. Franklin Roosevelt, acting in the fashion of many Western leaders, adopted emergency measures more closely in line with socialism, Keynesian to be more specific. Franklin Roosevelt may not have been a socialist, but I would argue that Eleanor was. So, the world spiraled downward with controlled economies for nations that would have been better served by free-market solutions. Of course, the War was the major event that changed the entire equation. That is with the exception of popularity for faith in socialism. As this socialist trend has begun to accelerate our present downward spiral, some insist more socialism is needed, others insist more religion is needed, and some insist on both. The ideological legacy of the Square Deal, the New Deal, Fair Deal, and the Great Society have brought us to Obama's Big Fucking Deal. It is an ideology of abandonment of personal accountability and initiative. It is an ideology that has gone on for too long unchallenged. People continue to look for leaders, leaders that lead them astray. While the 19th Century was not perfect, it was the prevailing norms of Christian charity and progressive reforms that pushed us onto the wrong path. And economy gets worse, and people expect more from government, and things get worse, etc. Dustin86, I don't know what more I can say about all of this. There are things we can agree on, but the suggestion that Objectivism, a philosophy that promotes capitalism, is to blame for our current problems just doesn't hold up under the facts.