[Is Colorado a lost cause?]

On 9/28/2017 at 11:45 AM, Repairman said:

 Then I gather that you're perfectly willing to support "Red" evils, as opposed to "Blue" evils. 

Not perfectly willing, no. I have reservations about the Right like the huge military (not a states-level issue), the War on Drugs, etc. I just view them as overall superior to the left on economic policy and immigration. We cannot h

On 9/28/2017 at 11:45 AM, Repairman said:

You've made the point that "Red" ideology denies individual liberty, (with the exception of tobacco and firearms.) Could you be so sure that "Red" government officials would reverse the existing regulations in a manner that wouldn't slant just a little economic advantage to their special friends? Then after they've made their friends richer, the opposition raises the matter of profiteering cronies in campaign advertisements, and they make it back in, so they can help  their special friends. I vote for Republicans far more often than not, but both parties make sure that their friends in the private sector get their grease. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the majority of the voters actually want their government officials to have control over other people's wealth. And as you've pointed out, the people want government intervention into the lives of others. I may vote for Republicans, but I'm not proud of it. Until a persuasive and successful argument can be made to the majority of voters,  exposing the fundamental evil of allowing massive government control over their businesses and their lives, and that they, the people, must respect the rights of others to govern their own flawed lives as they value their own liberty, they merely shift that control back and forth as if power were a basketball. And that argument will never be accepted so long as so many Americans do such a miserable job of managing their own affairs.

If I may assume that you are advocating for the Republican Party, what is your argument that theirs is a "far superior economic policy?" (Emphasis on "far superior.")

Yeah the cronyism that you have talked about is a major impediment to a truly capitalistic economy. How do you propose that we spread our ideology as quickly as possible in order to reverse the course of doom that America is currently on?

Maybe "far" superior was going a little over-the-top. Regular superior is just fine though. The Republicans are the only party that consistently advocates for freedom of choice in healthcare (vs. Democrat socialized medicine), free market coal and oil (vs. Democrat carbon taxes), lowering taxes and regulations across the board. Now do they always consistently do this? No. But the distinction is very clear in my eyes. It must be at least slightly clear in your eyes too or you wouldn't vote R.

[Is this rape? Consent? Something else?]

21 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

 

This difference in understanding facts is the deepest part of the chasm, and far near the top are the other differences in opinion.

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Which facts?

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

The entire example is contrived, and poorly described, and it was probably a mistake to introduce it as a conversation starter (if we want the resulting conversation to be reasonable, at least), but if we're going to discuss it then we have to take it as it is: Sally froze up. No PTSD required, it's simply what she did, plausible or not.

Honestly, what does this discussion accomplish? What goal are any of you hoping to achieve after three pages of debate? Is this really the most productive use of our time as objectivists? Is this discussion enjoyable to any of you? It's just pointless bickering and discord over an edge case that probably never even happened.

No wonder there are no objectivist congressmen, no wonder less than 1% of the population believes our true philosophy. We spend so much time bickering with ourselves when we agree on 99% of what's truly important. Reason, objective reality, selfishness, capitalism, heroic art! That's what we should be talking about, with others who we can reasonably convert. Not some stupid rape/consent case with each other. Our time is too valuable!

[How (And Why) To Fantasize]

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I agree with some of what you say as in Fantasy is necessary and maligned but I don't agree with the place you put it in the hierarchy of values.

I did not assign fantasy a place in the hierarchy of values, and if I appeared to do so I can understand. I apologize that I wasn't clearer. I didn't say that fantasy is more important than any other objectively good, virtuous practices such as starting a business. Fantasy is less important than doing positive things in real life to improve your position. I just said that fantasy is important to enjoy life, in the same way that other recreational activities are important to enjoy life. So it fits in the hierarchy as a component of "recreation," which is under "productivity" in the hierarchy of values.

Quote

Fantasy definition: "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable." (keep in mind, that includes positive and negative fantasies)

"Negative fantasies" are more properly defined as delusions, or catastrophizing. Calling socialism a "negative fantasy" is like calling Adolph Hitler a "negative celebrity" or Jackson Pollock paintings "negative artwork." Hitler is more properly defined as infamous, while Jackson Pollock paintings are more properly defined as garbage.

Quote

Even if Peikoff liked "listening to Michael Jackson, playing Pac Man, and keeping a pet cat" it can be pointless sometimes. In the case of being the beneficiary of his actions, consistently acting in ways that do NOT benefit him personally, eventually, will lead to his nonexistence. Unlike Fantasy, Selfishness is never pointless, it is always necessary.

He did like such things as he mentioned as much in his podcasts. And obviously he didn't do those things all the time. Obviously. He obviously does a lot of real things to sustain himself. And obviously fantasy isn't always necessary. Why are you wasting so much time stating the obvious to me? That's pointless, too.

Quote

Selfishness qua self-interest is moral, it is what ought to be. Rand did not redefine it from what it actually is. She was just waking people up to the fact that it was hijacked to mean something else. Fantasizing qua fantasizing can be good or bad depending on the situation.

Which is exactly what I meant by "objectively good fantasy." The situation in which a fantasy can be good. I hate to keep repeating myself, but an objectively good fantasy should be 1. Enjoyable 2. Not taken to be objective reality and 3. Done in moderation the same as any other recreational activity. What, do I have to add, "Don't try to act out your fantasies of jumping off a cliff and being able to fly" to the list, too? Or how about, "Don't forget to breathe while you're fantasizing?"

Please quit saddling me with the burden of stating the obvious, and more importantly please quit saddling yourself with it. I'm currently on vacation from work so I'll bet that you have less free time than I do. Can we move on from such obviousness? A fantasy is not productive to real life, but at least it is enjoyable. Repeating self-evident, objective things about fantasy is not enjoyable nor is it productive. I'm not having fun wasting time here.

Quote

If you don't do actions that sustain your self, you will die. Angels or star trek replicators will not create your food i.e. that is a fantasy.

"The ultimate value is life. The primary virtue is rationality. The proper beneficiary is oneself."  OPAR (p. 206).

Rand believed that man should be selfish, all time. Do you believe that a person should fantasize all the time?

Fantasy being a fundamental virtue is fantasy.

Fantasy being a fundamental virtue is never what I have said. I don't know who you are arguing against, but it's not me. I said that fantasy has great value in certain situations. And obviously it shouldn't be done all the time. Selfishness should be practiced at all times. I was only making the analogy of "selfishness" to "fantasizing" to state that I was redefining the word in the same way that Rand defined it. I wasn't trying to say that fantasy should be practiced all the time! How could you even think that I'd make an argument that stupid?

We're both Objectivists, neither one of us is that stupid. Have a little faith in your fellow traveler that I wouldn't make such a moronic argument.

[How (And Why) To Fantasize]

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Isn't a fantasy, by nature, a subjective experience? In that sense, a fantasy is something that is not part of objective reality.

Just because the contents of a fantasy are subjective, does not mean that fantasy qua fantasy cannot be judged as objectively good. A fantasy's purpose is to delight the fantasizer. If it succeeds in this purpose, it is an objectively good fantasy. If it fails in this purpose, we can call it an objectively bad fantasy. People have those all the time when they imagine themselves getting in a car wreck and are terrified. Psychologists call that "catastrophizing" and it has objectively measurable negative effects on people, i.e. they are afraid to drive, or they refrain from driving.

Quote

It may seem like you are redefining something. You might have to rename or always use the phrase "True Fantasizing" as opposed to fantasizing. Fantasizing can mean idle daydreaming. As long as you can distinguish truth from fantasy, it could be okay.

I am redefining "fantasizing" in the same way that Ayn Rand re-defined "selfishness." Most people think of "selfishness" as a bad thing but we use that word to mean a good way to live life. In the same way, most people view "fantasizing" as a sexual perversion, or as something that only children do and you "grow out of it." That's ridiculous. I am redefining "fantasizing" as a way in which man can directly and instantly use his mind for his own happiness. I would add "bearing in mind that it isn't actually part of objective reality" to the end of that, but that should be obvious and assumed. Ayn Rand didn't add, "by the way, this isn't real" to her writings on aesthetics, so I shouldn't be saddled with the same burden.

Quote

There is a school of thought in psychology that there is such a thing as "positive illusion" that has psychological benefits. But fantasy is imagination, it is not part of defining what really exists which is the domain of philosophy. So your fantasy will not help you know what the truth is, in fact, it will move you away from it. Although, I admit that it can motivate you ... sometimes.

Emotions are not tools of cognition but they are critical to man's enjoyment of his life. I would add that fantasies, while not critical, should serve the same purpose in Objectivist thought. Not part of defining reality, but can be enjoyed themselves.

Quote

So it is a double-edged sword. Fantasy can have life-enhancing qualities. When to have them, why to have them, how to have them may be a valid research topic but in an objectivist forum, I suspect there will be a lot of pushback. It is more of a question of "how should I manipulate my consciousness". You are free to focus or not to.

Some people seem to have a knee-jerk, "Well it's not real so I refuse to enjoy a good fantasy" reaction.

Imagine if they had that reaction to works of literature. "It's not real, so I refuse to enjoy it."

The "world" of Atlas Shrugged only exists in the minds of its readers. The "world" of my fantasies exists only in my mind.

Why not enjoy both?

Quote

Here you are getting into artistic fantasy. Agreed. It is both enjoyable and it is necessary.

The only difference between artistic and personal fantasy is that one is shared with others, while the other is personal. I've written my fantasies down before and shared them with no one. They were necessary for me because I felt like crap that day and there was nothing in real life I could do to immediately change the facts and circumstances. So my fantasy made me feel immediately better. Even though I knew that my thoughts weren't real, I enjoyed them for what they were.

Quote

The key is that you can't use fantasies to create a business, or a legal system, or a government. The belief in "social justice" is usually based on fantasies. "God will save you" is another fantasy. Or "Socialism works" has been a pretty deadly fantasy.  So how do you propose to deal with those fantasies?

I propose that we call them out as fantasies, but we don't take an intrinsicist view like "all fantasies are bad." We instead say, "this is not based on objective reality, it is a fantasy so it cannot inform us of how to live on earth."

[How (And Why) To Fantasize]

2 hours ago, KevinD said:

I'm all for developing and using one's imaginative powers, but what you've described here seems rather pointless.

Is listening to Michael Jackson, playing Pac Man, and keeping a pet cat pointless? Leonard Peikoff did all three because they gave him joy. They were idle activities that he engaged in while he wasn't helping to "save the world."

2 hours ago, KevinD said:

I might have fantasized about myself flying through the air as a very young child, but as an adult I don't find it appealing.

Might I ask why? When you are waiting in line at the airport, or sitting on a bus, what do you think about? Why not fill your thoughts with joyous things?

2 hours ago, KevinD said:

Using my mind toward an actual, creative goal gives me great pleasure.

Me too. Why not do both, like I do?

2 hours ago, KevinD said:

This sort of fantasy strikes me at best as a waste of time, at worst a dubious use of one's mental faculties.

Please define what you mean by "dubious use"?

[Would Objectivists ever come together and settle in one place?]

9 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

hat do you base that on? Not that I disagree.

It implies a flaw, a problem. Is it the people? The Philosophy? Isn't Pursuing a better understanding of Objectivism a part of the quest for happiness?

I think that it's because most objectivists fail to replicate the rapture and ecstasy felt by religious people in the presence of "god." But since God doesn't exist, really all those people are doing is fantasizing. There is no reason why we can't, though, so long as we acknowledge that the fantasy is not reality. In fact we should advocate fantasizing just as heavily as we advocate getting a good job.

I'm one of the happiest people I know. A good fantasy gets so many endorphins rushing in my brain that I can literally elevate myself out of depression, as happened most recently when I was depressed.

[Is Colorado a lost cause?]

55 minutes ago, JASKN said:

Do you think this is what "Solid Red" champions today?

Not entirely, no. The War On Drugs and unreasonable abortion restrictions come to mind. However, given the far superior economic policy, and the Republicans' better position on cigarette smoking and guns, I'd far rather live in a red state than a blue one.

[Is Colorado a lost cause?]

1 hour ago, Repairman said:

How would you define the ideology and/or policies of a "solid red" state?

I would define a solid red state as that in which there are minimal regulations and government intrusions into business and personal affairs.

[Would Objectivists ever come together and settle in one place?]

11 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

I believe JASKN's point was that there's no reason to believe such a place would do particularly well economically -- at least compared to a western country like the U.S. 

In aggregate, no. The US has 300m+ people. Per capita is what matters when comparing nations. The lack of endless regulations and high taxes alone would probably add north of $10,000 per year to GDP per capita to Objectivist Land vs. the USA.

11 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

Another way to look at it is that the richest 100 people in the U.S. probably don't include too many Objectivists. Why not? Clearly,  cronyism and connections aren't an adequate explanation, so what is?

It's not required to have an objectivist philosophy in order to be wealthy. However, it is required to have a capitalist economy in order to maximize the amount of wealth that a person can obtain within a given country. Culture controls the economy so there must be a culture of selfish ethics in order to maintain a capitalist system. Otherwise we see endless assaults on it as we do in the USA. We fare better than others, though. How rich are the 100 richest people in Uganda, Yemen, or other such tribal societies, compared to our 100 richest? How much richer would these men be if US corporate tax rates weren't 39% on the highest earning corporations? The United States is far from a purely capitalist country and we haven't been since before Roosevelt.

[Would Objectivists ever come together and settle in one place?]

We can only do it if we are a sovereign nation and we have secure borders and limited immigration like Israel does. No open borders like Binswanger and Brook advocate for America. Otherwise, non-objectivists would move in and contaminate the culture, just like Mexicans and Muslims have done to the United States.

On 9/25/2017 at 8:46 PM, JASKN said:

If the billions(!) of people on the planet were so bad, so far from any value to be traded so as to require fleeing, they wouldn’t stand for a band of 100,000 individualists, and would loot and kill us all. Otherwise, there would be value to be traded, and the more people, the more value.

Most people are generally good and won't commit murder. Even most Muslims are good and don't want to go around killing the infidel. Only a small minority practice violence. If there were 100,000 of us, and we were all armed to the teeth, we could carve out our own independent nation, and the only resistance we'd face would be from the country whose land we are claiming as our own nation. This would be a highly desirable outcome as we would soon excel the rest of the world in GDP per capita, technology, science, artwork, and overall happiness.

6 hours ago, JASKN said:

The world will never, ever present itself to you as the polar choice illustrated in Atlas Shrugged. People are fluid, choosing to change or not change. Atlas Shrugged is meant to crystalize principles, allowing you to make better day to day choices for yourself. It's an exaggeration which will never be a reality, because people have the ability to choose and change, and few of them are all evil or all good. Even more so today, a "band together and separate" fantasy shouldn't be given a fleeting thought, when everyone carries around pocket computers representing perfectly all the value the world has to offer to trade, the world's largest country is heading in the right direction, poverty is low, etc. etc. Why would anyone want to run from that? The world's never been better.

Agree that most people aren't all evil or all good. However a country of pure capitalism and objectivism would be desirable if only because it could be a shining beacon to the rest of the world, even more so than America is today. By world's largest country I don't know who you mean, Russia is the largest by land area and is generally headed in the right direction, while China is the largest by population and is a huge problem because of their aggressive ally North Korea. The USA is the largest economy and yes we are headed in the right direction under Trump but we have a long ways to go. Repealing the endless regulations and freedom-killing laws take time. Plus there is no political will to do things like repeal the so-called "Civil Rights Act," or legalize all drugs and sell them at the convenience store, or legalize prostitution, all of which would need to be done for freedom to truly reign. A new country with no existing laws on the book is our chance for a fresh start.

[Is this rape? Consent? Something else?]

Sally never consented, in fact had said "no penetration, no sex" before. Rape is sex without consent. Her passivity or lack of action after the penetration or the initial "no" is irrelevant, although it's demonstrably imprudent. If I leave my door unlocked, I might be seen as imprudent, but that doesn't mean that I've consented for neighbors or the public to come and sit down in my house or gaze through my family photo albums. Unless I deliberately invite them over, they cannot come in. Even if I have a welcome mat, they can't argue that the welcome applies to them. They are trespassing. Even if I'm sitting there and I don't tell them to leave, they're still trespassing. In the same way, this is rape. It's not even an edge case like it would be if they'd had consensual sex a bunch of times before under similar circumstances.

Also, time is valuable. Think of all the time that we've spent arguing this point that we could've spent recruiting further Objectivists to our cause. I will not comment on this further, sorry. I always ask before I have sex. It's the right thing to do and it avoids any legal trouble. It's not that hard to ask, "Hey, you wanna f***?"

[California's minimum wage will go to $15]

I live in Colorado which just raised the minimum wage and it's terrible. The cost of everything from hamburgers to cigarettes has gone up. I earn well above the minimum wage so I didn't get a raise. Add that to the skyrocketing cost of living due to all the freaking people moving here from failed California (but voting for the same socialist policies) and I'm not a happy camper.

That being said, how can we relate this to non-objectivists? We can sit here and grouse about how bad it is, but we're all just preaching to the choir. We can't grow our numbers if all we do is post here, because no one will see it who didn't already know what Objectivism is and Google us.

[How near are we to socialized medicine?]

On 9/22/2017 at 4:45 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

Unless a principled right rises in popularity and power, it is inevitable.

Nothing in politics is inevitable. Hillary as president was supposed to be inevitable. Even Peikoff and Binswanger supported that socialist scoundrel. Thank goodness we got a president like Trump who, while not always a principled capitalist, is definitely more on the side of freedom than she was. Gun rights, repealing Obamacare, ending the NATO international altruism, the list goes on.

On 9/22/2017 at 2:27 PM, Easy Truth said:

There are licensing and anti-competitive issues that are supported by groups using scare tactics. The licensing and regulations regarding educating doctors and approving treatments have artificially driven prices up. For instance, nurses could do many things a doctor does which could bring the price down but legally are prevented. A doctor from another country is prevented from practicing if there are willing clients etc. etc. 

Bingo. Most of those things were pushed by corporate lobbyists and donors (AKA bribes) to weed out their competition. I try explaining this to people but then they tell me that socialized medicine is the only choice because it removes the motive for crony capitalism. No, socialized medicine is not the only choice. Removing the corrupt politicians and repealing their laws is another choice.

[Reblogged:There Is Always Room for Creativity]

As I always say, "Obvious things are not always obvious."

Arabic numerals and the zero might be obvious to us today, but the Romans didn't figure out a good number system for centuries. Same deal with the metric system. Same deal with fantasizing... most people don't do it, even though they'll use their minds to dream up worst-case scenarios.

[Is Colorado a lost cause?]

The state voted for socialist Hillary over (admittedly flawed, but a self-proclaimed capitalist) Trump when even Michigan and Pennsylvania went red. Legalized marijuana might be a good law but since it was implemented sooner than the other states, this has led to a giant influx of Californians. They flee their failed socialist state to come to another state but then they keep voting for the same failed policies. I live in the conservative Springs but I hate Denver with a passion because they enforce their socialist edicts on us. Everything from the state smoking ban in bars in 2006, all the way up to this ridiculous pro-transgender "civil rights" antidiscrimination law a couple years ago. The raise in minimum wage has raised the cost of living for me and millions of other middle class people who make well above minimum wage and didn't get a raise. Hickenlooper wouldn't even execute that mass murderer who killed five people at Chuck-e-cheeses. Thank god for TABOR or else we'd have some of the highest taxes in the country, too. Colorado Springs should really be its own state, I think. Northern Colorado had the right idea to secede, but they didn't have the population. Maybe someday we can contain Denver and Boulder like a cyst and the rest of the state can secede and be solid red.

[How (And Why) To Fantasize]

Fantasizing is the most selfish practice possible. It's a deliberate creation of an ideal world in one’s thoughts. Put simply, it's a great way of getting to “experience” joyful things that are impossible in real life. Fantasizing releases endorphins in the brain roughly equal to or greater than that of physical exercise, or reading a thrilling novel. Most Objectivists, however, do not know how to make an objectively good fantasy. This is a shame, because fantasies can be about literally anything you want.

So how do you fantasize? True fantasizing is not idle daydreaming. It needs your focus and attention to detail. That said, fantasizing is an art more than a science. When fantasizing, you are basically telling a real-time story about yourself in your mind. It may be with images in your minds’ eye, or words, preferably both.

Detail is key. If you wanted to fantasize about yourself flying through the air, you can’t just shout “flying” to your mind and expect your fantasy to be at all enjoyable. Our minds aren't platonic and we don't deal with forms well. Picture it in your minds’ eye, be descriptive with thoughts. Where are you flying? Over the mountains? Across the ocean? Through space? What’s below or around you? Billy goats and pine trees? Dolphins or schools of tropical fish? Other planets passing by? What are you using to fly? Wings? Superpowers? A spaceship? Make a mental motion picture and flesh it out as much as possible.

Another important lesson is to imagine your emotions, really feel yourself into your fantasy. Forget for just a moment that your fantasy isn’t real life. The important thing in enjoyment is to lose yourself in the moment, just as you did while reading Atlas Shrugged. That’s not real either. Rearden metal and force fields don’t really exist. But fantasy, both the written word or just in our own heads, is the closest that we humans have. It is one of life’s most enjoyable experiences.

If all of this seem overwhelming, don’t worry. The art of fantasizing takes practice, just like writing, painting, or playing an instrument. Your mind is your canvas. If you’ve fleshed out your fantasy, or started to do so, and it doesn’t strike your interest, you needn’t continue it. If you aren’t satisfied, “clear the canvas” by imagining yourself popping out of existence and into another place. If your fantasy is only mildly enjoyable, but not ecstatic or blissful, don’t give up! There’s no limit to the ecstatic feeling besides your dedication to realizing your own happiness. Sometimes it can take up to 30 minutes to really get into a fantasy and feel that emotional thrill, but it might just be one of the best things you ever do.