Dustin86

What I want to hear is why Objectivists think that the world has changed from a world where "men were physically unable to survive without clinging to a tribe for leadership and protection against other tribes", especially after the bloodbath that was the 20th Century.

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree with Objectivism. I believe that the world is fundamentally a very dangerous place, and that we are still "unable to survive without clinging to a tribe for leadership and protection against other tribes." One of the fundamental reasons why I am a Conservative is because I believe that Liberalism, and yes also Libertarianism and Objectivism, are dangerously naive in thinking that this fundamental fact has changed.

I'm confused. So you think that these particular blacks are clamoring for their group rights right now because they learned irrational philosophy?

Okay, so what is the Objectivist theory? Because just about everybody else accepts that humans are tribal creatures with a strong ingroup bias. So what is the Objectivist explanation for why this seems to be the case?

Doctor, again you are not understanding. There is a (failed) project that has been going on for quite some time that stretches from left wing communists, socialists, liberals, and U.N. boosters to supposedly right-wing libertarians and Objectivists. That project says, basically, that there is going to be one universal "system of rights" (if you want to call it that) that is supposedly derived from logic and reason that is going to apply to all individual people on this planet on an individual basis. Despite how laudable this may sound, outside of a comparatively tiny group of political intellectuals who comprise a truly miniscule percentage of the globe's population, this is never going to fly. Because of human nature, people just don't think in those terms. People are genetically hardwired to think in terms of groups and group rights, not individuals and individual rights. Right now, blacks are clamoring for what they believe are their group rights. That's the way human beings are, black, white, Asian, or what have you. Objectivism, especially if it claims to have a lock on objective reality, needs to embrace realpolitik when it comes to human ethnic and tribal issues rather than sitting and complaining about what is clearly the objective reality of human nature.

sNerd, the original title of Atlas Shrugged was "The Strike". The book is clearly about what supposedly happens when "the men of the mind" go on strike. The book clearly portrays a societal collapse when "the men of the mind" go on strike. sNerd, now I'm starting to think there's something to this. North Korea produces next to nothing of value. If North Korea stopped receiving aid from China, America, etc., then North Korea would collapse.

Ok but then that begs the question, if Subjectivists are supposedly living in denial of objective reality, which according to Objectivism they are, then a collapse of our society, which is Subjectivist according to Objectivists, would seem to be inevitable. If this collapse never happens, then doesn't that prove that Subjectivism is at least workable if not outright true.

^Nicky, they were not famous, they were regular people.

It seems to be implied in Objectivism that there is going to be this giant catastrophe like in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged that is going to force human society to go from Subjectivism to Objectivism. I can personally remember during the Great Recession, whose worst years were approximately from 2008-10, at least some Objectivists saying "this is it! this is Atlas shrugging!" But that didn't happen. Here we are in 2016, the world got back on its feet and "Subjectivism" has kept on rolling. Also, the "doers" and "makers" according to Objectivism, such as Bill Gates, are not "Going Galt". I cannot even think of one single major entrepreneur who has "Gone Galt" because they're fed up with the "Subjectivist society" (please correct me if I'm wrong). So my question is what happens if this big catastrophe that is supposed to force society to become Objectivist never indeed happens?

Anyway, Repairman, I can see I'm clearly not wanted here, and I think I've said just about all I have to say, so I'm going to take a hint and leave the forum.

Atmospheric greenhouse gas capacity is a resource and a rapidly dwindling one. Really this isn't just an Objectivist problem. There is no country on Earth (not counting non-developed, largely non-industrialized countries such as those in the middle of Africa) that is doing enough to deal with the threat of depletion of this resource. The Kyoto targets, even if countries were serious about keeping is (which they were not), are not nearly enough. Again, what is needed is togetherness and interconnectedness, not selfishness. I'm afraid that some form of military government in many developed countries may be necessary to ensure compliance with strict greenhouse gas reduction targets, much stricter than the Kyoto targets, until the threat of runaway global warming has subsided. The alternative may be the extinction of the human species along with many others.

I think I would call it a mistruth and a personal attack, because from before high school up until I started having medical problems I was more physically active than 99% of the population with marathons, half-marathons, etc. Even now, I am building myself back up starting with my shorter runs (2 mile, 4 mile, up to 6 or 7 mile on some days). I am more physically active even now than 50% of the US population at least, even with medical problems that have never entirely gone away.

What about the world's greenhouse gas capacity? 2015 was a record-breaker in world temperatures. There is a 99% chance that 2016 will be another record-breaker. I hate to quote Al Gore, but the science is settled, and there is no skirting around the issue.

JFTR, I was a distance runner (marathon, half-marathon, 10K, 5K, 2 mile, and many other "physical activities") for many, many years before I began having medical problems. As I am recovering I am restarting my shorter events. Please don't make judgments about my personal life without knowing me.

I have never called others names on this forum, that is just a straight-up mistruth.

But I'm glad you dug this up again because it's an issue that I was thinking about today, actually. I don't think you guys realize how much sway people like you have over Western civilization. It is nigh impossible for a movement such as "Objectivism" to have arisen in any other context, this is basically admitted by Rand and her closest followers such as Peikoff. The truth is that for every person that "makes it", there are at least one or more other people who are equally talented who get stuck in long term unemployment or in dead end McJobs that do not pay enough to live on. I've seen it time and time again. And yet I see Objectivism teaching its followers to scoff at these people when the reality is that there is simply not enough in the world in terms of natural resources and global atmospheric carbon capacity for everybody, no matter how talented, to live the lifestyle of a Hank Rearden or even a contemporary middle class American. As for my personal attitude toward Objectivism, there are parts of it that I really agree with. There are other parts that are clearly just rubbing salt in the world's wounds while scoffing at everybody who is affected by that.

Probably the reason why I didn't respond is that around this time is when I began having severe medical problems, meaning that when I could and couldn't be on the forum around this time became very erratic, although it was unknown to me at this exact time just how severe my situation would become. I am a lot better off now than at that time, but still I never completely conquered my medical problems, although I hope to eventually.

What am I out of touch with, exactly? If you've had experience with these Muslim enclaves, if you've experienced seeing these "covered" women on a near daily basis, unless you're a completely brain-dead liberal, it doesn't take that long to hit you that these women are trapped in this religion, this cult. The penalties for leaving don't have to be governmentally enforced in order to exist.

Because many Fred Kinnans do succeed, through their machinations, in getting ahead in their individual lives from the day they're born until the day they die. Like I said, they know how to "play the game" extremely well. Yes, ultimately they make it worse for the whole of the human race in the long run, but that doesn't necessarily happen during their lifetimes. And that's the big thing that's happening nowadays: mortgaging the future, saddling future generations with enormous debts to pay for the socialism of today. So no, I clearly did not "answer my own question", unless the answer is yes, egoism leads to socialism. Because these people are acting egotistically. These people are acting in such a way that destroys the future for their own profit today. And they're hoping to be able to "cash out" of this life before it all comes crashing down. And many of them, at least the older ones, were able to pull that off. That is their mentality.

Yes, it's very confusing, especially to someone who has had the misfortune to have run across many "Jim Taggarts" and "Fred Kinnans" across his lifetime because let me tell you these types of people are extremely manipulative and psychopathic. Egotistical to the extreme, and also they are often usually almost always some of the biggest socialists and/or phony "altruists" you will ever meet. They know how to "play the game", believe me. But let me tell you something, one thing that keeps me coming back to this forum is I'm so inspired by when Hank Rearden, for instance, refused to be guilt-tripped by them anymore. If that's what you mean by "egoism" and "self-interest", then I'm 100% for it. It's just very confusing because I feel that the terms are being used in two different ways.

No, in fact now that you've accused me of doing that I'm going to reveal that I was encouraged to make this thread by a moderator here whom I was having a private conversation about this issue with, who told me I was "welcome to ask about it in a thread". I will tell you the moderator's name privately if you want.

I was having a conversation with an Objectivist lately about the tenets of Objectivism, and I was directed toward this forum section to try to get answers. Part of Objectivist philosophy is egoism, but as far as I can see, egoism leads to socialism when it is adopted on a societal scale. Here is how I see it: Egotistical people, almost by definition, care greatly about "getting theirs". When there is a critical mass of egotistical people in any society and they aren't "getting theirs", they band together and begin using socialism to take from "the rich" who "already have theirs". And that's how they "get theirs". This is especially true when said society is an electoral democracy where the masses of people, for better or worse, have the authority to choose who governs on the basis of the greatest number of votes. In other words, they clearly turn to socialism as a mechanism to service their egoism. To use an Atlas Shrugged example: Fred Kinnan is an apt example of what most people would consider an egoist. He's a fatcat union boss who blatantly leverages socialism in the service of his egoism. The vast majority of socialists are just like Fred Kinnan. They hate it when they are called on that, but that's what they are.

Don (or would you like me to call you Tyler?), The thing is that the moderates empower the extremists, and in the vast majority of cases not even of their own will. The extremists are empowered by the fact that they are the world's second-largest religion (1.6 billion). This empowerment is secured by penalties up to and including execution in some cases that are meted out against people in many of these parts of the world for leaving Islam. So many, many of these people, indeed I believe a majority, don't even want this religion and they're forced to have it. They are forced to be the heavy spearshaft which provides weight and power to the extremist "speartip" that is stabbing the civilized world.

Should Islamic countries refuse to implement deislamization peacefully, we cannot win the resulting war unless and until the home front is secure. That means a cadre of troops must muzzle the liberal media and quash the student riots that caused our defeat in Vietnam. That means temporary military government until the war is over. I would like to serve in the temporary military cadre that secures the home front while others fight abroad because I know how important the home front is. This was my dream since I was a little boy to serve in this capacity during the "next Vietnam War", to prevent a repeat of what happened during the "old Vietnam War". I will accept nothing less of an assignment.

^This video is the real deal, guys. Now you have three choices. You can be part of our collective, or you can be part of their collective, or you can be trampled underfoot by their collective. Randian individualism is not going to be a choice in the future. I hope you make the right choice, guys. I really do.