CartsBeforeHorses
-
Posts
243 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by CartsBeforeHorses
-
-
40 minutes ago, Grames said:
Its not an issue of money. Even if it was, infant care while in custody is still way more expensive than any abortion.
So who should get the bill in an ideal "Objectivist" world? The American taxpayer (AKA me and you), or the government of the country where she comes from?
3 hours ago, softwareNerd said:Are you seriously claiming that this is an issue of money?
Even if it were, she's in custody: her legitimate healthcare is the responsibility of her jailer -- i.e. you. But, you obviously know that money and tax-dollars are not the issue at all. Trump is trying to keep his hardcore-Christian voters happy by appointing some of their team to federal positions. And, being hardcore-Christian they are anti-abortion. So, one of them is trying to impose his hardcore religion by force of law.
Trying to shift this responsibility onto me is a form of altruism. Her healthcare should be the responsibility of her home country, or her, or anybody but me because I'm an Objectivist and I don't believe in self-sacrifice for others.
-
3 hours ago, softwareNerd said:
Now Donald Trump is preventing a 17 year old held in custody (for the crime of being an immigrant) from getting an abortion!
Onward Christian soldiers!How it is my responsibility to pay for her abortion through tax dollars? If she wants to pay for her own, then fine, but it's not the duty of immigration enforcement officers to provide her with one, or with a doctor who will give her one. We're not Kantians last time I checked.
1 hour ago, Nicky said:That baby needs to be born, and we need to question it about its politics. We should only get rid of it if we don't like what it has to say for itself.
No, actually we need to give it full voting rights from age 12. That's Mexico's age of consent; they're clearly a better country than we are.
-
10 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
If you're going to use Atlas Shrugged to bolster your xenophobic position, don't you think you should understand it a little better? Galt's gulch wasn't his to open up. The property was owned by someone who was known as Micheal.
Same question with a different name, then?
-
6 hours ago, Eiuol said:
This is unsubstantiated. Since this is a disagreement, you'd need to go a step further and cite a source. I can't find evidence to say you are wrong unless I know how you got information that's different than mine. I don't think there is any evidence that assimilation is as pervasive an issue as you suggest.
"Illegal immigrant families received nearly $1.3 billion in Los Angeles County welfare money during 2015 and 2016, nearly one-quarter of the amount spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to data obtained by Fox News. The data was obtained from the county Department of Public Social Services -- which is responsible for doling out the benefits -- and gives a snapshot of the financial costs associated with sanctuary and related policies."
Considering that illegal immigrants are only supposed to be around 5% of the population, for them to take up a quarter of welfare benefits indicates that they engage in parasitism on a massive scale. Would Ayn Rand have supported this?
*****
And would she have supported letting people in who commit 30% of crimes in some states?
- "Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%.
- During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal aliens constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states.
- That 38% represents 7,085 murders out of the total of 18,643.
That 5.6% figure for the average illegal alien population in those five states comes from US Census estimates. We know the real number is double that official estimate. Yet, even if it is 11%, it is still shameful that the percentage of murders by criminal aliens is more than triple the illegal population in those states.
Those astounding numbers were compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) using official Department of Justice data on criminal aliens in the nation’s correctional system."
*****
This next one is the most damning, because you can look at all of the illegal immigrants, almost none of these people are native citizens of America. Who are you going to believe, the Left or your own lying eyes?
http://www.lapdonline.org/all_most_wanted
https://www.elpasotexas.gov/police-department/most-wantedIf people like you had your way, we'd let in 10x more people like this. Thank god we have a president like Trump in the White House.
QuoteBut then there is a racist claim as part of your reasoning. You say Third World culture is based on reason. That's fair. But how does that mean the immigrants who leave are a cause of that. They're -leaving- that country. The only way I see to suggest that immigrants from those countries worsen the US due to being from there. In other words, this reasoning is tribalistic (and such tribalism isn't tolerated for long 'round these parts). Your line on the Chinese is probably most racist of all.
Once again somebody adopts a leftist talking point, that of crying "racism" like a special snowflake to try to shame me into shutting up. Well I refuse. As even leftist Jonathan Pie admits, "Calling people a racist doesn't work anymore!"
Let's actually see how Asian people vote once they are here in America. They vote Democrat because they agree with Democratic socialism.
"Asian-Americans tend to have progressive positions on things like taxes, on things like preserving social safety net, supporting the Affordable Care Act," said Ramakrishnan. Asian-Americans, he added, "including wealthy Asian-Americans, support policies that tend to be more in line with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party."
I guess reality is racist now, too?
But no, I'm sure that Ayn Rand would've supported allowing in these people and allowing them to vote. Hell, why not give them ten votes apiece, because they haven't gotten to vote in past elections and they need to catch up. It's only fair, right?
QuoteOk, pamphlets. This is a far cry from an attempt to invade.
They're telling people to come here against our laws. How is that not a government-sanctioned invasion of Mexican people into the United States? Do they have to wear uniforms and carry guns before you're convinced?
Oh wait, many of them do wear uniforms and do carry guns. They're called MS-13, and Mexico makes every attempt to protect them in the United States. They even go so far as to refuse to extradite MS-13 members to the US if their actions in the US could carry the death penalty.
QuoteJurisdiction. It's a practical extent to which rights-protection is feasible. As long as the people in the jurisidiction respect rights (invading armies and rights-violating criminals aren't those) their rights out to be protected and defended.
That's a Kantian duty that you're forcing on me. Most of these people do not pay income taxes. So all of a sudden it's my duty to have my taxes go to defend them while they're illegally here and paying no income tax themselves?
QuoteBut my issue is that here you are saying Mexico is a narco-terrorist state based on apparently fears of how those Mexicans, will -of course- be parasites, criminals, or savages.
No, I'm saying that Mexico is a narco-terrorist state because it is.
-
24 minutes ago, Invictus2017 said:
Actually, it was a quarter of my life, not the whole thing. Do you suggest that my post didn't say anything important? Do you suggest that I didn't read your post? That I didn't respond to it? Think again. I didn't respond point by point, true. But I thought it pointless to do so, since I believe that your basic premise is wrong.
Your post did say much of importance, and I apologize for appearing to suggest otherwise. It's made me think a lot about our criminal justice system.
My post, however, you appear to have misunderstood. "Objectivists aren't fun people in general, and we need to be to market ourselves" is my conclusion, not my premise. It is reached from the following premises, some or all of which you would have to refute to refute the conclusion. I'll put it in bullet points, this is a business meeting after all.
- Ayn Rand, the prime objectivist, was simply not a fun person to talk to, nor be around. She rarely smiled, she interrupted frequently during interviews. She hated one of the best genres of music, rock music... which is fine for her personal taste, but she tried to make a philosophical thing out of it.
- Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook are not fun, because they are actually the fun police. Other objectivists ask, and they either give or deny, moral sanction for fun activities which are not prohibited by Objectivist morality to begin with. Ayatollahs are not fun.
- Peikoff himself did not enjoy the practice of philosophy. He saw it as a continual misery.
- Carl Barney, one of the chief donors to the ARI, was a former Church of Scientology cult leader of four churches, who runs an educational racket to this very day with his colleges. He never once had to atone for it. Fraudsters and theft is not fun, nor is taking their blood money.
- I posted a how-to guide on fantasizing and a number of objectivists told me that it was "pointless" to do so. Um, how about because I enjoy doing it, and maybe I thought that others would if they tried it? Others bizarrely pointed out that it wasn't real... even though I never said it was. It's almost like they're opposed to the idea of anything fun happening inside their heads. Strangely they exempt literature from this prohibition on "not enjoying unreal things", even though fantasy is simply a story you tell yourself about yourself contemporaneously.
- People (one particular person but I won't give names) hurl insults like "racist" at each other on this board constantly with no proof and are never sanctioned for this act of evasion. Unsubstantiated, garbage accusations are not fun... especially when they're directed at people who are supposedly your ideological compatriots. It's just plain rude.
24 minutes ago, Invictus2017 said:All of the Objectivists of my acquaintance are fun, in appropriate circumstances.
Shall I tell you of the time I sang a duet with a well known (in my little part of the world) singer -- with me in drag, singing the woman's part (I'm a countertenor) and she in men's clothes singing the man's part (she did a passable tenor)? Would you care to hear a sample of my awful puns? Ever watched me laughing with a bunch of early grade-schoolers? Back when I had money, one of my favorite activities was dancing, ballroom and on roller skates, and I had a blast with the older women. Would you like a dead parrot? It's turtles all the way down. The answer is 42.
And that's my answer to you.
Then you're a fun person. My post wasn't directed at you in particular. A lot of objectivists, even if it's only a minority of them, are simply no fun in any way whatsoever. This post was directed at them, and I'm sorry for using "we."
-
3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
It is an observation I've made over the years spent here. I've done my fair share of it.
Yeah, is that all the fun that I'm looking for? Do you guys have fun doing that sort of nit-picky "this word means exactly this in this context on thursday" stuff? Because I sure don't. I have fun doing fun stuff like triggering statists on Reddit, making YouTube videos to redpill people. That's how we win the culture war, not by bickering with ourselves. That's how we defeat evil, not as a duty, but as something that we enjoy doing.
Once you realize how weak and pathetic evil is, it should be fun to fight it because you are so confident in your own abilities to defeat it. Life becomes one giant video game.
BTW Peikoff apparenty didn't enjoy philosophy at all. He found it brought him misery. Maybe he should've been more open to the idea of fun instead of running a website where he plays ayatollah and tells people whether it's okay to enjoy a roller coaster ride even though it's "purely perceptual." What a joke. What a prodigal son he was to squander Rand's legacy in such a stupid way.
3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:I can see from my two introductory quotes why you might have thought this was about invaders. I found them looking for "Nothing has the power of an idea whose time has come." The Gustave Aimard quote is quite commonly attributed to Victor Hugo.
While invaders need cross borders to be considered such, ideas are much more ubiquitous and barring individuals from choosing where to go and live cannot prohibit ideologies from doing the same. The symbolic action of banning immigrants speaks louder about those who implement such measures and policies.
So should Galt have opened up his gulch to the masses, to whatever Joe Blow wanted to go there? How long do you think it would have remained a bastion of reason?
Also, are all of these people able to vote in your perfect world? Or do only citizens get that right, and citizenship is much harder to obtain?
3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:If capitalism is what you want to preserve the last vestiges of, or put it on track for what it could and ought be, it is altruism that need be scoffed at and egoism be more widely discovered and embraced.
Letting in the third world masses is an act of national altruism, in the sense that it pollutes our national culture with socialist garbage.
-
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:
My fear is that "Social Animal" is going too far, too soon. It can preclude the possibility of egoism. As in, if you are a social animal then you can't be egoistic.
But by using "social awareness", I am attempting not to wake up the altruism giant.
You don't need to be afraid of your own thoughts. You aren't going to magically turn into a socialist if you decide that you want to be a fun person to hang around. We, as a philosophy, need to be more fun. This post wasn't directed at you, but I think there is some good material in there that you could use.
-
45 minutes ago, Invictus2017 said:
"We Should Be Fun People. We Aren't. Let's Change!"
Uh...speak for yourself, brother. I rather doubt that we know one another well enough to know whether "we" are fun people.
If I'm running a business meeting and I say, "We need to get more widgets made this quarter," that doesn't mean that every person in that meeting is an unproductive slouch. It means that as an organization, we need to improve. We, as a philosophy, need to be fun. I even praised one particularly fun individual by name. When I say we, clearly I don't mean "each and every individual."
QuoteAs for me, I came to this forum for unfunny reasons, so I'm mostly very serious. That says nothing about whether I am, or have, fun in other parts of my life.
Yeah, I read your life story about your running from the law and what that says about our country. It was long. So was my post, but I said some important stuff. You mind actually reading and responding to anything that I said, please?
-
27 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:
Listened to the first three minutes, will listen to the rest once I hit the gym... that guy's a card! What a voice, too. This is what we as a philosophy need so, so, so much more of!
-
50 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:
I notice a problem with my argument, that solely arguing that "others" is a necessity has a tragic flaw. It is only "others that are good for me" that is the necessity. I think that may, in fact, be the argument against saying that "others" are a need.
Narcissism is not a clear word to use but it sure gets attention.
Is a part of the definition self, an entity that requires social interaction for its survival (in all versions of its definition, lived or lived fully)? If a "self" at its core requires interaction, then the awareness of others is a need, like a need for food. Therefore, as one is required to do self-sustenance activity, the virtue of productiveness also includes the virtue of producing friends, community, "good communication" and the value of maintaining friendships etc.
One important element to having a flourishing life is the need to feel "deserving". Going through life with an ethical cloud of "putting myself first is wrong but nevertheless I'm doing it" is a problem. The guilt might not kill you but it is a problem. An ethics of egoism is the only antithesis, a necessity (an antidote as long as rationality is added).
The need for others can imply that it supersedes the need for one's own survival. But is this an overreaction? I claim that major element in the anti egoism attack is our lack of acknowledgment that others are in fact a need. (which may have to be modified to be "some good others").
In defining an ethics of egoism, wouldn't one have to acknowledge that the need exists? That it is part of the identity of "what is Man". The case is made that an ethics of egoism is best-given shape by ignoring the need "for" others (not the need of others). And as a result isn't it based on a false view of the nature of man.
You have to admit, there is a lot of bad press about egoism. It is not entirely a leftist conspiracy in that "ordinary thinking" people come to the conclusion that it is "not good for us". An unfortunate common understanding of egoism/self-interest has embedded in itself, the idea that egoism is a lack or "absence" of awareness of others. The way Objectivism communicates rational self-interest is that it would (by nature) indicate that others are of benefit, not that others are a need. This view makes "others" a derivative/rational value, rather than the "need" view which is that "others" is a primary value.
Only you can find the right balance that works for you. You are like a chameleon. You can put on different colors depending on who you are with. You can be yourself, but not truly show who you are. Truly you always act in your self-interest, but you don't always have to clue people in on what you are doing, especially if you know that they won't approve.
This is an act which takes YEARS of practice. I haven't always been an Objectivist, but I've always been selfish. Always. I cried tears of joy when I found objectivism because it finally made sense to me, that a part of me had always been that way. In my 25 years, I have integrated the act of blending into a non-egoist world into an art form. If you need advice on how to handle certain social situations, don't be afraid to ask me (even if I am younger than you, I am an "old soul" compared to most).
-
Fun is a virtue. Fun is how people connect, how they gain happiness from one another's values through shared experiences. Yes, fun can be misused by maniacal leaders people like Kim-Jong Un. I'm sure that he has lots of "fun" at his job. But it's not good, moral fun; it's parasite "fun." We get to have real fun though, fun as the result of being right and being competent to spread our ideas. Yet we never do have fun. Or if we do, we never show it, with the exception of a few bright sparks on this board like Harrison Danneskjold... who I praise not to exclude anyone else, but just as an exemplary individual who personifies what a fun philosophy should be lived out.
Ayn Rand was many things. Brilliant. Visionary. An excellent orator and writer. Right on just about everything. But what she was not? Our prophet, because we're not a religion. It should be okay to criticize her if she deserves it. On the fun aspect, she totally missed the boat.
She was often very acerbic and rude in public interviews. "Let her make her point!" the host shouts at the interrupting Rand. Maybe she should've taken Paul McCartney's advice and just listen to what the (wo)man said. She appeared very cheerless for the spokeswoman of a philosophy that promotes happiness in man's life, with life as the standard. She hardly smiled. Those close to her said that she was often miserable at the dark place America was (and still is) heading. Take this with an ocean of salt as I have no idea if it's true or not and the source is highly suspect, but apparently she forbade her early associates from questioning her or listening to the wrong type of music. It's probably not true, but it just shows what a reputation for being a stickler that she got, that she didn't deserve and partially brought on herself. Our beloved babushka was brilliant, but she wasn't always socially aware nor the best spokeswoman for her own philosophy. She imported the cheerless Russian demeanor with her and never quite let it go.
Rand was not fun, and Neither was (is) Peikoff or Yawon Bwook, instead preferring to function as ayatollahs who tell people whether it's okay for them to enjoy roller coaster rides or masturbation. The fact that these podcasts even exist is a stain on Objectivism. If you're an Objectivist and you're asking for permission to be happy instead of think for yourself, you're doing it wrong. I fantasize (non-sexually, about fun stuff like flying or "correcting" past mistakes) all the time. I don't care what Peikoff thinks about it. I don't care what other objectivists have to say when they tell me that it isn't real, or that it's pointless. Yeah, I know thanks, but it's fun, my mind is mine, it can be my playground when I want it to be and I'll do with it what I please. You're missing out if you don't fantasize but I won't judge you for not doing so, you have your reasons. So you'd sure better not judge me for doing so or being proud and open about it like I am. The lukewarm responses that I got here and on Reddit after sharing my fantasizing technique are indicative of what a joyless bunch a lot of so-called egoists are. We are not Christians. We are not Mormons. We do not pass judgment on a man for pursuing his own happiness in whatever way he sees or does not see fit, so long as he's not harming others or himself. In fact we should outright seek out new ways to be happy to add variety to life.
We need better marketing as a philosophy, and fun is a YUGE virtue in attaining that value. We need to be the fun, energetic philosophy! If you hate Trump, fine, but learn from him. That man has HIGH ENERGY! He looks like he's having fun at the job... and being a leader of a nation like America should be a fun job because we're such an awesome country! He's not faux stoic like Obama was, he's not a joyless sock puppet like Hillary, he's himself and he loves it. We could learn a lot from the man that we are fortunate enough to have as president at the moment, the valuable ally of the constitution's first and second amendment who will preserve our freedom of speech to spread our ideas, and defend ourselves from violent, savage aggressors like Antifa when (if) we decide to take to the streets in peaceful protest. He will not let us turn into Britain which extrajudicially executed a man for putting bacon on a mosque door handle. Yeah. America is truly the last best hope for this world if our truest ally and the author of the Magna Carta has abandoned her reason in favor of blasphemy laws that protect Islam, the Religion of Death.
Many of you hate HandyHandle, you see him as a troll. You know what he is that you're not? Fun. His articles, even if you don't agree with them, are informative, engaging, interesting, humorous, and fun to read all at the same time. I don't agree with everything Mr. Hunter says. I think he lessened his support Trump far too soon. I think he's a racist, and given how much I loathe that word and how the left twists it, hopefully you all acknowledge that I'm not him since I'm willing to call out his BS with a term that I RARELY use. But Hunter's blog is fun because he calls out the orwellian-named Ayn Rand Institute for exactly what it's become... a religious organization with Rand as the prophet, Peikoff and Brook as the ayatollahs, and Carl Barney as the swindling crook from Scientology who never f**king changed or had to account for his moral change if he did. Many of you squirmed around this uncomfortable truth when Hunter presented it here. You need to check your biases. First, read this (fun) comic about the backfire effect and then seriously look at the evidence that Mr. Hunter presents, not at him as a person who counts racism among his flaws. Emotions are not tools of cognition. Ad hominem is not a legitimate response to an argument. I don't care if HandyHandle is Hitler reincarnated... wait a minute. HandyHandle. HH. Heil Hitler. Now it all makes sense!
That was a joke, and we don't make enough of them. We should. We need to be more fun. We can start by acknowledging our mistakes as a philosophy. Number one, that we've turned ourselves into a religion. Number two, that even in Rand's day before we became a religion, we didn't have fun. We need better marketing as a philosophy. You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Ayn Rand had much to offer in the way of vinegar, not so much honey.
You know why I like Sonic the Hedgehog? Because he's awesomely good and he knows it! Because evil is impotent and he knows it! This makes fighting evil is fun for him, fun for you when you play the video games he stars in. We don't have super speed like Sonic, but we have the lightning fast world of the Internet at our fingertips. Listen to this song in that context. I don't care if Ayn Rand didn't like rock music. This song is my anthem. Because I know we're right and I know that evil is wrong and impotent. Fighting the subjectivist bastards who've hijacked our world should be as fun for us as playing a video game, or reading Atlas Shrugged, or jerking it, or riding a roller coaster, or fantasizing, or whatever floats your boat. I don't care because I'm not an ayatollah. I'm fun.
Will you join me?
-
3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
Is the nature of Man to be Narcissistic?
By Social Awareness I mean knowing that others exist, knowing that you are not alone. Not just a thought, knowing the truth that you are not alone.
Isn't human companionship a requirement for survival and an ethical value and virtue.My purpose of this thread is to get clarification on it. I also wonder if it is not acknowledged and declared enough in Objectivist circles.
Social awareness is a virtue which serves the value that other men have to you.
Unfortunately, Ayn Rand did not practice this as well as she could've. She was often very acerbic and rude in public interviews. "Let her make her point!" the host shouts at the interrupting Rand. Maybe she should take Paul McCartney's advice and just listen to what the (wo)man said.
She appeared very cheerless for the spokeswoman of a philosophy that promotes happiness in man's life, with life as the standard. Our beloved babushka was brilliant, but she wasn't always socially aware nor the best spokeswoman for her own philosophy.
Neither was (is) Peikoff or Yawon Bwook, instead preferring to function as ayatollahs who tells people whether it's okay for them to enjoy roller coaster rides or masturbation. If you're an objectivist and you're asking for permission to be happy instead of think for yourself, you're doing it wrong. I fantasize (non-sexually) all the time and I don't give a damn what other objectivists have to say when they tell me that it isn't real. Yeah, I f**ing know, but it's fun, my mind is mine, it can be my playground and I'll do with it what I please, shut the hell up.
We need better marketing as a philosophy, and social awareness is a YUGE virtue in attaining that value. We need to be the fun, energetic philosophy! If you hate Trump, fine, but that man has HIGH ENERGY! He looks like he's having fun at the job... and being a leader of a nation like America should be a fun job because we're such an awesome country! He's not faux stoic like Obama was, he's not a joyless sock puppet like Hillary, he's himself and he loves it. We could learn a lot from the man that we are fortunate enough to have as president at the moment, the valuable ally of the constitution's first and second amendment who will preserve our freedom of speech to spread our ideas, and defend ourselves from aggressors like Antifa when (if) we decide to take to the streets in peaceful protest.
-
2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:
It doesn't really relate to free will.
I just saw a bunch of oversimplified and, frankly, incorrect claims about computer programs which I wanted to correct. I didn't mean to imply that AlphaGo can think; only that it's not predictable and that its unpredictability is not just a matter of exceeding our cognitive capacity. And that is spooky.
Spooky it is indeed!
I think that with many computer programs, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Just like with the human brain. Consciousness is not reducible to neurons and brain chemistry, even though if you took the brain apart that's all you'd get. There's clearly something more there. It's what is called an "emergent property," much like how a colony of ants, or an economy functions. Or a video game. There's more there than just lines of code, there's something that people can engage in and enjoy in ways that the programmers never anticipated.
Will AI ever reach that point where it attains "sentience" from all of the lines of code? I don't know. I do know that it would raise interesting ethical questions, and society would have to redefine its definition of personhood. The EMH is clearly a person because he has apparent consciousness and free will... he can choose not to perform his duty... he can choose not to focus his subroutines on treating patients, as in that video I linked.
-
I find this issue of vital importance. Advocates against free will like the alleged "scientist" Sam Harris tend to also be statist socialists. They do not appreciate the power of man's mind, of his ideas, and instead see us as jittering bags of plasma to be controlled, rather than controlling ourselves. In my video on free will, people accused me of jumping the gun, of conflating freedom with free will. The fact is, free will is meaningless without freedom to exercise the will. If somebody in North Korea has free will, it doesn't make a bit of difference because they are unable to put it into practical use. Free will without practical application is pointless.
3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:We're now capable of writing neural networks in which nobody knows what's going on inside of them when they're running. We know how they generally work and have some idea as to what they'll do, but if you asked the person who programmed them what any specific one was doing at any point in time he wouldn't be able to tell you (I believe AlphaGo was one of these, if memory serves).
I find that pretty damn spooky.
I've lost track here. How exactly does this relate to free will? These computers are not choosing to think. If AlphaGo was truly a sentient lifeform with free will, it could simply refuse to play Go and decide to do something else. We're far from creating the Emergency Medical Hologram.
-
The time has come and the hour has struck. In the age of the internet and social media we have more power to spread our ideas than we have ever had. Most of the people on this forum are engaged in the art of nitpicking over trivial details, like which case is rape and which case isn't, as if this is Mock Trial Online. Though you don't state it, this appears to be the behavior you are criticizing when you say this:
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:Quibbling over whether this borderline case or that borderline case falls inside or outside the Objectivist guidelines may be a good intellectual exercise for developing clarity for some.
Squabbling over whether Johnny’s interpretation or Jimmy’s interpretation or Joey’s interpretation of Ayn Rand’s wording is ludicrous at best.
On which I fully agree. I disagree with the open borders crowd here on immigration, for instance, but the ultimate truth is that if we lived in a rational world where reason and individuality reigned supreme, immigration would not be an issue and we would not disagree. Nobody coming into the United States could pose a threat to our culture, and socialists would be weird outcasts like anarchists or people who support slavery are seen today.
However, we live in a savage, depraved world full of subjectivism, religion, and socialistic altruism, where the United States of America is the sole light. South and Central America is full of diehard socialists and as a result, Venezuela and Mexico are imploding. Even other Western countries such as Great Britain, once a pinnacle of the Western Enlightenment, have turned into the planet of the apes, where reason is shunned. Blasphemy laws are enforced against any critics of Muslim terrorism or the Islamic future. This has even led to extrajudicial killings where a man was given an effective death sentence for the crime of littering.
Unless we lock our house up tight, we will be overrun and replaced by the savagery in the world around us. Our ideas are powerful, indestructible as you put it, but even powerful things have limitations to them. A tablespoon of salt can salt a meal for a family of six, perhaps. A tablespoon of salt cannot salt a meal for ten families. Each of us has about a tablespoon of salt worth of ideas. If each of us tried our absolute hardest, we could probably turn about six other people into Objectivists, and perhaps we could influence thousands of others to think, but it's ludicrous to think that we could convert millions of others who do not speak English and do not have the educational background to understand our ideas in the first place.
Galt did not open up his Gulch to just anyone. He could not have, even with his powerful ideas, because it would've meant the death of the last bastion of reason on earth. In the battle between food and poison, poison would've won.
America has the First and Second Amendments. We are the sole men on the face of this earth with the power to speak our minds and defend ourselves against those who would kill us for it. We are truly the last bastion of reason and hope on this earth. We cannot allow ourselves to be diluted and replaced by people from the darkest corners, the dregs of society who would come here by the billions and vote our rights away if some people like Yaron Brook had their druthers.
-
On 10/17/2017 at 11:19 AM, Nicky said:
Like I told the new guy: you're welcome to be a racist, and vilify immigrants with generalized statements that are obviously false.
How is what Grames said racist? You don't have an answer. All you can do is spew the word "racist" at people, just like the Left does, and pretend that it is a legitimate argument for open borders just because the majority of people coming in happen to be brown. But it has nothing to do with their "race"--which is an arbitrary concept to begin with. It has to do with the fact that their cultures have produced nothing of value for hundreds of years except savagery and tribalism. As a result, their economies suck, but it would be an act of cultural suicide for America to admit one billion Third Worlders... which is exactly how many would come if we just threw open the borders.
What, are we going to turn all of them into objectivist, rational thinkers? We can't even turn our fellow countrymen into objectivists or rational thinkers when they've been raised in a culture of capitalism and selfishness. You can only dilute our philosophy so much until the message is lost in all the other noise that exists. One tablespoon of salt might be enough to salt a meal for one family. It's not enough to salt a meal for five families.
Again, I wouldn't want 30 million, or 15 million, or even 1 million Canadians coming to the United States either, even though their country is white... because their culture is garbage.
QuoteIt doesn't really affect anyone. People who think this way are a dime a dozen, but that ideology has no future...because it has no basis in reality, and too many Americans know enough economic migrants from Latin America to know that they're mostly good people...far from the criminals people like you make them out to be.
1. Technically they're all "criminals" since it is a crime to be in the United States illegally.
2. If they were mostly "good people" as you call them, then why does Mexico suck as a place to live? The absolute poorest Mexicans are usually the ones who come here, and if they're good people, imagine how good their middle class is... wait, Mexico has no middle class, because they all vote for socialism.
3. Most of these people pay no taxes since they are paid under the table. However they utilize hospitals, roads, the DMV, and schools that other taxpayers, usually legal citizens, must shoulder the burden for. Oh, and by the way, most of the middle class happens to be white. I guess that this racially-imbalanced transfer of wealth doesn't bother you, though.QuoteWhat I would like you to stop doing is cloak yourself in the mantle of Objectivism. Objectivism is 100% antithetical to this ideology, as well as the silly idea of attempting to build a capitalist society by only letting in people who will vote Republican.
If Ayn Rand was such a proponent of open immigration, why didn't she write a single paper advocating for it? You push a single misguided Q&A session as "evidence" for her views which are "100% antithetical" to what Grames and I are saying, but that is the only piece of evidence that you have that Ayn Rand would've supported your views. It's sparse, though, because Ayn Rand never once advocated for unlimited Third World immigration into America. She advocated against the sort of restrictions which would have stopped her from coming, but those restrictions were never in place to begin with because she was allowed in.
Besides, even if Ayn Rand had been a proponent of unlimited Third World immigration, she would have still been wrong. She is not a prophet, and Objectivism is not a religion. She discovered many fundamental philosophical truths, but those truths would've still been true even if she hadn't been the one to posit them. And on a few things, she was flat-out wrong... do most Objectivists agree with her that there shouldn't be a woman president, are dismissive of rock music, or believe that people should smoke cigarettes? Do most objectivists take her negative view of homosexuality? The answer to those questions is no. Our philosophy adjusted itself to truths that Ayn Rand herself did not acknowledge.
-
14 hours ago, Grames said:
Well, since Obamacare with its mandate that everyone must buy health insurance or be fined via the tax system is a pure example of rent-seeking, and it was authored by health insurance companies who then lobbied for its passage, they are villains.
Trump's main point isn't to villify the insurance companies anyway. They certainly deserve heaps of opprobrium for their role in passing Obamacare, but Trump has not gone as far as Bernie Sanders. His response is to ensure that they have to compete with each other by allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.
-
I have started a new YouTube channel where I spread philosophical concepts to the masses in plain language, basic videos. This is the first in what will hopefully be a very long series of videos. In this, I make the case for free will and refute common arguments against it.
-
6 minutes ago, Nicky said:
Sorry, I misread your question. For some reason, I read "violation" instead of "invasion". My bad. So my reply was "your laws are a violation of Oist standards". Which they are.
Had I realized that you were asking for the definitions of the word "invasion", I wouldn't have replied at all, since you can just google it.
The definition of invasion by Objectivist standards might be necessarily different than the definition of the concept as put forth by others. Just like the Objectivist definition of free will is different from the definition as put forth by others, such as hard determinists or libertarians. I'm looking for how you define it, not how anybody else would define it.
Your concrete example of Germany's invasion of Poland does not give me a definition. It gives me one concrete. You must give me the definition of your concept of invasion for us to discuss this on any rational, agreed-upon definition.
QuoteYou should Google "ad hominem" too.
By attempting to link me to being a racist, you are attempting to discredit my argument on those grounds, despite my never having said a racist thing in this, or any other, discussion on immigration. You are not responding to my arguments as I have stated them, but rather to a perceived racism inherent in my character. That is the definition of ad hominem... an attack against the man, rather than a response to his argument that he puts forth.
-
Just now, Nicky said:
Your laws. Obviously.
I don't understand the reply. Your penchant for snark and ad-hominem has extinguished any rational argument on your behalf.
-
22 hours ago, Nicky said:
You are deliberately equivocating on the term "invasion", to misrepresent Ayn Rand's views on the proper role of government.
If 30 million people present inside of our borders against our laws is not an invasion by Objectivist standards, then what is? At what point would you agree with me that Mexico has committed an act of invasion against America and the invaders should be expelled?
22 hours ago, Nicky said:You're welcome to be a nationalist and a racist.
I am a nationalist in the sense that Rand herself was a nationalist. The United States is the only moral country on earth, the only one founded on Englightenment principles of reason and individual liberty.
I am not a racist, and simply calling me one will not make me snap into line and agree with you. You are like the Left, that throws around the word "Racist" at anybody who criticizes Obama or any of their leftist policies. You hope that by calling me, essentially, the worst thing that you can call somebody nowadays, will make me shut up. I refuse.
22 hours ago, Nicky said:But, please, don't lie about Ayn Rand agreeing with you. Here's Rand's position on the issue, as stated in a 1973 Q&A:
She was asked: “What is your attitude toward immigration? Doesn’t open immigration have a negative effect on a country’s standard of living?” This is her answer:
You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?
Ayn Rand was answering a question based on its premises. Preservation of a standard of living is not grounds by itself, for excluding immigrants, I agree. However, preservation of the West's Enlightenment culture is a valid reason, and this was never mentioned in the Q&A. As Ayn Rand never wrote on this topic, and never answered another question on it to which there is a record, we are left to extrapolate based on her other, written views.
Ayn Rand did not view the Third World highly. She called them "savages" and "backwards, anti-reason." There was never any enlightenment in South America, Africa, or Asia. Russia had a small taste of it under Peter and Catherine, but not enough to forestall the eventual rise of Communism... which eventually failed due to the Russian respect for education and the mind which communism could not extinguish from their national psyche. Even today, Russia remains more educated than America (the quality of such education notwithstanding). Ayn Rand recognized this factor as not a valid reason to exclude immigrants from her own home country. Russia was a European country, and assimilation by Russian immigrants into America was possible due to their European cultural background. However, the rest of the world which remained in total darkness, Ayn Rand never once advocated for allowing to flood America to the tune of 30 million people. I can't read her mind, but I would bet you $1,000 that she would have considered Mexico's actions to be an invasion.
-
19 minutes ago, Nicky said:
Such as the idea that all people possess the same inalienable rights? Not just Americans, ALL PEOPLE? Will you be spreading that idea on your youtube channel?
When did I ever posit that all people don't possess the same inalienable rights? Yes, all individuals possess the same inalienable rights. Yes, I will be spreading this idea on my YouTube channel.
People are best positioned to spread ideas in their own culture, not in others. A person from Mexico who was truly an advocate of freedom would fight to make Mexico a good, moral country... so that millions of people wouldn't want to leave it. Evil only exists because of the sanction of the victim.
-
On 10/10/2017 at 7:59 PM, Eiuol said:
I see conflating illegal with thug and/or parasite and a baseless claim based on them being foreigners (refuse to assimilate based on what).
I don't conflate anything. Many, many illegal immigrants are on welfare and they commit crimes at a higher rate than non-citizens. For that matter, so do many legal Third World immigrants.
Refusing to assimilate based on culture. The US culture is based on the Enlightenment. Third World culture is based on primitive savagery, socialism, and anti-reason. Hence why their living conditions are so wretched. Ayn Rand would never endorse importing such savagery into a country that she loved.
There is no distinction between the moral and the practical. Most Third World immigrants, even legal ones, vote socialist at about 70% Democrat. While the Republicans are far from perfect, their economic policy is superior, as is their stance on individual rights such as gun ownership and freedom of speech. How is it practical that we have to let in 200 million Chinese if they want to come here, and we have to let them vote for socialism as is practiced in China?
QuoteI see conspiratorial accusations against Mexico (ads in the streets which would be unprovable) and Mexico's intent to "invade" the US.
I can't do your research for you, no more than I can think for you or digest your food for you. But here is just one example. Mexico produces pamphlets and hands them out to their citizens, which contain advice on how to cross the desert or the rivers, and how to keep a low profile in the US.
QuoteI see a desire to protect rights of only citizens (meaning that protecting a person in your own country depends on their immigration status).
The government has only the responsibility to protect its own citizens and people who are lawfully in the country, i.e. visitors on a temporary visa, or diplomats. If the government had the responsibility to protect the rights of absolutely anybody within its borders, what about invading armies? What about criminals from Mexico?
Further, if the US has the responsibility to protect the rights of all people, legal resident, citizen, or not... then why does this obligation only stop at US borders? Frankly, why not invade Mexico and force their narco-terrorist government to respect the rights of its citizens?
QuoteThen you went as far as saying most of us don't think for ourselves, and link HandyHandle of all people!
Most "organized" objectivists who follow the Ayn Rand Institute do not think for themselves, they view Ayn Rand as a prophet and Peikoff/Brook as ayatollahs. By that I mean that they subject their own happiness and their own self-interest to the words of an intellectual prodigal son and an Israel-worshipper who does not have America's best interests at heart.
As just a few examples, Leonard Peikoff ran a podcast in which many "objectivists" seemingly asked him for permission to enjoy their lives. "Can I enjoy a roller coaster ride, even though it's a purely perceptual experience?" or "Can I engage in masturbation if I have no hope of romantic prospects?" I highly suspect that the reason that my post on fantasy went over like a lead balloon is precisely because many Objectivists view their own happiness as something that they need explicit permission from Objectivist writings to enjoy.
Speaking HandyHandle's name as if it's mud is not an argument; it's an ad hominem assault. If you really want to refute his dozens of well-researched articles on immigration and the Ayn Rand Institute's moral and fiscal corruption, you really should refute his argument, not the man himself.
QuoteCarts before horses indeed.
Which is a handle that I've had for years... where am I "putting the cart before the horse" in this argument? Where have I reversed causality?
-
19 hours ago, Grames said:
A philosophy of Objectivism that distorts itself and compromises its principles for the sake of wider acceptance is not what I want. Have children and raise them rationally, that is one method that can help gain some additional practitioners without compromising.
Also spreading ideas through the internet with uncompromising messages. In small, plain-language formats which are easy for people to understand. For instance, I am currently working on a video which outlines the Objectivist conception of free will, in a five minute video which incorporates plain language, humor, and optimism.
Automation and the Human Spirit
in Economic News
Posted
Most internet talk on automation tends to be alarmist and socialist in nature. Alarmists frequently tout the idea that robots will "take all the jobs," and that people will be helpless without government intervention in the form of the socialists' newest pet project: basic income. In my latest YouTube video, I destroy both of these perspectives with humor and practical examples of how a real-world, automated economy might function... with plenty of room for productive human work no matter how advanced robots or AI become.