Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Anuj last won the day on November 18 2016

Anuj had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    IT Professional. Like Guitar, swimming, Long distance running, cycling.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    We The Living
    The Fountain Head
    The Atlas Shrugged
    The Virtue of Selfishness (reading)
  • School or University
  • Occupation
    Joy of Achievements

Recent Profile Visitors

2756 profile views

Anuj's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Disagree with the above said. I think the concept of evil, does not depend on the concept of good; rather both the concepts, depend on -- the standard of life. I understand when you say there is no such "thing" as nothing. But there are indeed fraudsters, thieves, plunderers, murders, dictators. The concept of "evil" has referents in reality. The concept of "nothing" -- does not.
  2. (Quite hesitant to say but) "Selfishness" ? At an Individual's level, a person may think only of his own immediate profit. Why should he worry about resource depletion, when he has all he needs to make money. What if every other person and every other industry thinks like that ?
  3. First, me and my company may not want to think about rationality involved in irreparably destroying resources. What if we just care about earning immediate money ? Second, how so ? How does property rights get destroyed when you wipe clean a complete grassland not owned by anybody? How does property rights get destroyed when you hunt down all elephants for Ivory ?
  4. No, I haven't yet. Will look into it. The problem is that people don't plan and plant much as it is a freely occurring yet depleting resource; people are generally short sighted and most of the time do not care much about the long term consequences. The area of forest has always been in a decreasing trend, despite the government : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Industrial_era So, I guess companies will be fined and/or prohibited to let out toxic waste into the rivers and lakes that were/are being used by other people. Okay.
  5. Tragedy of the Commons : "A situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource." Common resource being : atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, energy.. Objectivism upholds "Freedom". But does it come with a huge price tag ? 1) Deforestation : Sensing more profitability, companies if need be may wipe out a whole forest region. Every company would be free to do so, unless the forest is owned by somebody. 2) Toxic Industrial Pollution : Would there be no restrictions on letting out pollutants or chemical hazards into the environment : the seas,the oceans and the atmosphere ? 3) Endangered Animals : Would there be no laws prohibiting hunting of certain endangered animals like Bengal Tiger, Whales, Asian and African Elephants for Ivory ? Hunting animals can be of value to humans. And unless governed, I don't see why individual will not want to gain such a value. There can be instances where such animals would go extinct. Above are certain cases where going against the principle of "freedom" and enforcing restrictions, may actually benefit the society in the long run.
  6. I've come across at-least two Objectivists who had argued to support such a ban. Reasons being that they can as a group exert a "force" on the business owners; that politicians would play vote bank politics using labor unions; that they are a collective group. But a "ban" is usage of force, be it on an Individual or a Group. So wouldn't it be morally wrong to ban it ?
  7. I like this quote : “Anyone who fights for the future, LIVES in it today.”, Ayn Rand
  8. The need for transparency arises when there is a possibility of unfair treatment. I don't think transparency would be required if everything went on in a just and objective manner. If the objective of this forum is to maintain very high standards relating to communication/forum etiquette, then am not sure to what extent individuals making their own judgement in choosing whom they should or should not exchange ideas, will contribute. But what will contribute is moderators enforcing strict forum rules in a just manner. And there justification for moderation should be the laid-out "forum rules" itself, that should be quoted when ever questioned for unfairness. And even ban repeat offenders. But by neither having 1.transparency nor 2.strict moderation with respect to adherence of forum rules nor 3.people themselves indulging to discuss in a civilized manners, goes to shows that this forum only wishes to maintain reasonable standards.
  9. An interesting point. This is not related but.. Just a couple of days back, the Government of Maharashtra (India) imposed ban on beef. So as per your logic this would only decrease population of Cows, apart from the income lost by those citizens who rely on meat for trade.
  10. I erred. Yes, that's true. Yet, I don't think "atheism" that is divorced from rationality or morality would have done any good to the world. Though not completely an atheistic movement, I was surprised to learn about Hippie culture and sexual revolution of 1960s, which tried to transcend the limitations of religion. Though they could have manifested some cultural changes but my personal evaluation of them is nothing less than that of unthinking animals.
  11. I have a couple of question and am hoping you could help me with what's Objectivism's view about it. Resources occur naturally. Its is up-to man to make their use in order to survive or make wealth. Therefore any land is up for grabs unless anybody has already claimed it. Same goes with all other natural resources including animals, minerals, oils, woods, etc. Now, If there is total freedom; no restriction on usages of resources by a government like entity, wouldn't some resource become extinct ? Examples for restrictions, I can think of are preserved wildlife sanctuaries, tiger hunting (only ~1000 left in India), elephant killing for Ivory, deforestation, etc. And shouldn't there be a restriction on how much property a person can establish his claim upon ? And if so how ? For example : Let's say there is 20,000 hectares forest area abundant with trees. So can I just walk up there put boards stating private property all around and restrict anybody from using it ?
  12. Check out Luddite Fallacy - "The Luddite fallacy is the simple observation that new technology does not lead to higher overall unemployment in the economy. New technology doesn't destroy jobs – it only changes the composition of jobs in the economy."
  13. Also known as Conviction or Self-Confidence. "Self-esteem is the dual conviction that one is able to live and worthy of happiness. Its two components, self-confidence and self-respect, are objective requirements of human life and happiness. If a person does not develop self-confidence, he will not be able to live successfully, because he will have no psychological motivation to put forth the necessary effort. Why should he try if he cannot succeed? And if a person does not develop self-respect, he will not be able to achieve happiness, because he will lack the positive personal evaluation that is the essence of happiness. How can he be happy if he thinks he is no good?" -- Craig Biddle, Loving Life, Page. 69
  14. Inserting a few missing wrords... ....all the power of both steel and flesh come from one's beliefs. in himself and resolute dedication to the objective."
  15. I was perhaps wrong in my previous post. I guess they would eventually know when they do or commit that which they falsely think is a "crime". What they should know is : "A life without contradictions exists!"
  • Create New...