Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Outlaw289

Regulars
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    George
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    CNHS
  • Occupation
    Soon to be employed at target

Outlaw289's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. The government we have invaded or our government for going to war. If it is the former, what kind of excuse is "He did it, so we should do it too!" Wouldn't that be collectivism?
  2. Ok, from most Objectivist essays I've read, in war, its ok to kill a lot of civillians to defeat a tyrant or whatnot. Ok, I sorta agree with this. I'd have have Joe Schmoe die than a US Marine. However, I saw this article on lew rockwell, and (ok bear with me please) http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html No matter with the rest of the article for now, thats what made me curious. Is it ok to kill civillians in an attempt to depose a dictator? I mean, the reason we are deposing a tyrant is because he does not represent the will of his people, but his interests, and he oppresses others through collectivism. So, to liberate people from collectivity and to bring them individual rights, its ok to bomb them (thus nullifying the individual rights cause) to save the lives of our soldiers?
  3. I would say the band "The Postal Service" has objectivist leanings. They seem to have individualist lyrics, and tend to invoke the image of an individual character in all their songs.
  4. The people on that board generally are very vague in what they say. If I was to ask what the rights of criminals were, I'd get a response saying "laws that benefit criminals at the expense of society", and then nothing more specific than that As for my purpose there, it was to defend capitalism against people saying communism was a "superior" and "noble" system that is impractical in practice. My primary purpose was to show that capitalism is the more moral and effective system, but I have a trouble explaining this to people left of center, and an easier time "converting" some of my centrist (they dont call themselves that though) or republican friends to pure capitalism I figure I should at least finish Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism:The Unknown ideal before I start butting heads though
  5. This is my response to some socialists on another forum. Please tell me if you think I hit the nail on the head or not. My name is ^Guardsman^, btw Okay, society is comprised of many many indiciduals, correct? How can something be good for "the public" while still conflicting with an individual's rights? This individual is part of the public. Personal rights of "criminals" are there for the wrongfully accused. You are innocent until proven guilty, and to treat otherwise is to assume, and to assume makes an ass out of you and me (hahaha play on words). With that assumption, you are saying that rights are granted to you by the government, which violates the concept of rights. Rights are absolutes. You have a right to Life (to prolong and enhance by your own effort), Liberty (to have your freedoms protected from those who would take 'em away) and Property (a right to keep what you earn). JFK's quote assumes that government grants you your freedom, which is wrong, ESPECIALLY from a president that should be abiding by the US Constitution which contradicts directly with that quote Whats to stop such a person? This is where a responsible government comes in. First, understand that capitalism is a system of contracts. You give me A, I give you B, and we stay loyal to this agreement or mutually withdraw. If such a person were to attempt to screw everyone over, the government must pursue legal action against such a person, as he violated the property rights of the other individuals. Gov't controlled markets make sure the little guy has a chance at the expense of the big guys. The big guys, who make our skyscrapers, our planes, our electricity, our defenses, our food and our factories, these are the people who are extorted by the government so Joe Schmoe can get a university education, based on the assumption that since he could not achieve his own moral value on his own (which would be gaining a good education), others must be extorted to provide for him. Thats slavery. Remember Pol Pot's communist regime? He started by killing all the "big guys", all the people taking the country into a progressive future. The scientists, the literate, the inventors, all felled by the muscle of the almighty worker Such a statement you said above would be circumvented by a government that protects property rights. You assume a capitalist system would defraud people, but fraud is a violation of property rights and should be punished by the government. "they who have the most gold makes the rules" wouldn't apply in a minarchist state. A government should have 3 primary responsibilites: To provide a police and military to protect the property rights of the individual, to provide a court system for which to handle disputes in a rational matter, and a government to lay down the law and punish violations of law (preferably a system based on a strictly interpreted form of the US Constitution, IMHO) Answerable to the collective. The collective is a majority, correct? Using that definition, the 51% would be allowed to utterly exploit the other 49% because more people, the collective, said so. If I'm not correct in that analysis, what is to say the "collective" is fit to run everything. People with no formal education working as janitors and whatnot are allowed to say how whole factory chains should be run? People who cannot provide food even for themselves when free are supposed to be able to ration food wisely to everyone else? A collectivist government would end only in a miasma of short sightied decisions intent on catering to he who shouts the loudest. A republic, which abides by an Objective code of laws, would be obliged to protect the rights of those 49% or those people who go against or would not benefit from the collective. And if thats not the case, people should be allowed to bear arms as to protect their property that others have unrightfully claimed the privellege to seize. Its not capitalism that breeds elitism. Its he who has the most force. Elitism can be bread in a total slave society, a society of giant government, or an anarchist region, just because the uppermost class wields all the force. When you have a government that intervenes against the INIAITION (not the retaliation against) of force, this elitism cannot be bred. (The current version of the forum software does not properly format posts that have more than 10 quotations. So, I have split the post into two. That has made it easier to read. The second part is below. - SoftwareNerd)
  6. I don't see whats wrong with it. I mean, its all about why you do the drugs or smoke or drink caffeine or whatnot. If t is a means to escape the reality of your situation in a bid to "get away from it all" and to drown yourself into a "reality" created by the use of drugs, then that isnt a value I would subscirbe to However, if you feel this is beneficial to your life based on a cost-benefit analysis, like "It is more beneficial to me to get a good feeling, even though I run the risk of dying", I dont see whats wrong. You own yourself, no? Then you can do whatever you want and put whatever you want into your system to increase the enjoyment of your life.
  7. But it increased the enjoyment of her life. Many people bungie jump or join the military or do other dangerous things because they feel it makes their life better and they know its in their own personal self interest to do such things There is more to life than living, Geoff
  8. I think the movie Total Recall makes a good point, in the sense that air was a commodity to be bought and sold. So say something like that happens on earth. Air is highly caustic from pollution (just for argument's sake) and is now actually harmful to people who breathe it. Some people can buy filtered air for comfortable living, but other people have to breathe the caustic air. So, since this pollution was caused by industrial companies (not that I advocate environmentalism, just for argument's sake), does industry have an obligation to maintain the environment so its in a survivable condition as it was when people were born into it?
  9. Think its hard explaining it to adults? Try explaining Objectivism to a class of high school sophmores who are backed up by a Left wing Democrat teacher I am familiar with most basic ideas of Objectivism, and I hope to read Anthem and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand so I can get a more concrete basis to explain my ideas to others. Since Objectivism compromises so many different ideas, I have been called an extremist from every side of the political perspective, from a "jingoistic Repugnican" to a "immoral leftard".
  10. I have heard that Ms. Rand stated that America's removal of the Native Americans from "their" land was moral. How so? What reasons did she state, and how was it justified? Just curious, I hope I am not sounding incredulous in ym query.
  11. Wow, thanks for the warm welcome As for myself, I've only recently become aware of Objectivism, and I'm up to "Anti-Life" in Atlas Shrugged. It is easily one of the finest books I have read, and since then I've looked up the philosopy (via ARI) and inquiring to people whom I know to be Objectivists. I find Objectivism to be a very compelling and intellectually sound philosophy, and, since I've been aware of its point of view, I now see daily examples of illogic and self destruction in current American society. I for one am grateful that Objectivists are such a friendly bunch and that I've found a positive philosophy, rather than being sucked into the angst ridden teen political-hobbies like anarchy and neo-liberalism. As to my interests personally, I am into history and English, and I also have an keen interest in the military. Im a sophmore in Clts Neck High School and enrolled in a Navy Junior Recruit Officer Training Corps, and I hold the rank of Cadet Petty Officer Second Class. Im rather embarassed now that I haven't read as much of Ms. Rand's works as some of you have, I have some cathing up to do. Again, thanks for the warm reception
  12. Hi, I'm a relatively young kid (16 years of age), and I have read a little about Objectivism via Atlas Shrugged and articles from the ARI. I'm here to learn more about Objectivism and just in general to be around intelligent people.
×
×
  • Create New...