Whoisjohngalt
-
Posts
128 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Whoisjohngalt
-
-
I was thinking about the concept of private property. The institution of private property is no doubt the beginning of civilization. The idea of "public property" is a primitive one.
- However, on the concept of individual rights: The idea of individual rights assumes that there is someone to "enforce" it (say, the government). Why make this assumption? Why assume an enforcer? Can individual rights exist without a government?
- Also, on private property, the private owners can make their own "rules" as to who enters and who stays on his property. If this is the case, there is no guarantee that individual rights will be in force for whoever that enters that property. So, "individual rights" will not be in force on that property. Sorry if I sound like a Marxist, but this is something fundamental and needs to be answered. I could not think of any answer for this.
- However, on the concept of individual rights: The idea of individual rights assumes that there is someone to "enforce" it (say, the government). Why make this assumption? Why assume an enforcer? Can individual rights exist without a government?
-
In what way?No, but surely you understand that disrespect will be dealt with.
What is the difference between intellectual acceptance and recognition?Acceptance is not the goal: recognition of reality is.
Ok.It's bad if you're wrong, it's good if you're right. If you have identified what you think is an error in her philosophy, you can explain your argument and there's a 50% chance that through reason, we can show you your error
.
I was talking about not accepting anything unquestioningly.Why the 50% chance though?
In what way is respecting Rand different in forum posts compared to outside forum posts? Again, I am wondering about this whole thing about "repect" and in what way is it philosophically relevant especially when repect is demanded.Well, we're talking about forum posts here. So, the question is not whether one respects Rand, but whether one shows such respect in forum posts. There's a huge difference. -
This is a big doubt for me: is repecting Ayn Rand as a person more important than intellectually accepting the tenets of her philosophy. For instance, if I think that she may have done some 'X' thing wrongly, is that bad? After all, I like her philosophy.You should if and only if you respect her contributions to philosophy. However, if you feel an urge to express disrespect, you should do so somewhere else.Also, where exactly do you draw the line between personality clashes and philosophical disagreements? If they are equated, then I would say that there is something wrong with the whole situation.
-
Why is there a police force here that strictly enforces objectivism and ayn rand as Objectivism and Ayn Rand? Reminds me of "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."
Personally, I don't think in informal discussions, it is "evil" to not use capitals by mistake.
One question I have is: Why should I give my respect to Ayn Rand?Loaded question aside, all proper names are capitalized. That's a basic rule in all languages I know. Writing a name in lower case is disrespectful.If I do not give my respect, what is wrong in it?
-
That's okay, except for three missing parts. First, you have to get the government started somehow, by selecting an initial Board of Rulers. Random selection, or elections? Second, they haven't perfected immortality, so at some point one or more of these Rulers will die, and then eventually we will descend into anarchy because the government died. So we need a method for getting replacements. Random selection, or elections? Finally, there needs to be a means of removing officials who go bad (indeed, "permanent" suggests to me "a life's sentence", the job from hell, from which you cannot resign). Permanent should at least be "permanent, subject to conditions". Then there needs to be a method for getting replacements. Random selection, or elections?
I agree that elections are a way to
- elect for the first time
- elect after term expires
- check the power of the state
However, the problem, as pointed out by the above posters, is that a "bad" ruler(s) can take control of the country and even change the very rules that allowed them to be elected (see Hitler, for example). This is a fundamental problem with the idea of a democracy. Indeed, the elected rulers are changing the laws and creating new "rights" etc in some democracies.
I don't particularly like term limits if a constitutional republic is functioning properly. Once the people elect someone who has a proven record of not messing things up (which should be sufficient), why risk electing new, power-hungry people? Keeping someone in office longer gives them time to build experience and maintain international and domestic contacts. I do think the possibility of recall at any time, initiated by a ballot signed by a certain % of the citizenry and carried out through majority vote, should be in place.In a system like ours, where there is the possibility of a populist (or other) leader who will make too many radical changes, term limits are important.
Also, the problem with "term limits" is that an elected thug can easily change those limits if he has enough power.
Any ideas what Ayn Rand says about elections? I have not come across any reference in the Rand books that I have read. Nevertheless, democracy seems to me to be a basic form of collectivism suited for Socialist thinkers.
In a dictatorship, a minority (or a single person) has control over the entire country; in a democracy, the majority have control over the country. There is every chance of a dictatorship taking root in a "people's state" (which is what a democracy is).
For some examples of what I am saying, see: Liberal autocracy and Illiberal democracy
- elect for the first time
-
If a government is to be at the "minimum", as Ayn Rand and the Minarchists say, I don't see the point of elections. If truth is not a matter of consensus, why do we need elections? Why do we need to elect a government?
Why not have no elections and an unelected permanent "minimum government" that does not interfere in peoples' lives but only has monopoly over use of force and other proper functions of a minimum government?
-
-
I say we owe it to the victims of 9/11. We should have done it five years ago!
Five reason, go ahead.
Brandon
No reasons! Go right ahead with the human sacrifice! On a mega-scale too!
[/sarcasm]
[Edit: spelling]
-
Thanks for this! It is too funny!
-
Thanks all for your replies. I would define a successful businessman as one who has made a profit over some investment. But I guess, "successful" can be defined with respect to many other aspects too.
Me!Ok, well I'm a middle manager so I'm not sure that means too much, but my colleagues know I'm a full lasseiz faire type. I aspire to prominence some day.
Depends on what you define as successful businessperson, but I consider myself one.KendallJ and bobsponge, nice to hear of your successes!
-
Hi all,
I want to know if any businessperson has claimed to follow Objectivism and has conducted his business successfully. I know of Jimmy Wales of wikipedia.org, who is an Objectivist, but is he the only one or are there other successful Objectivist businesspersons?
Thanks,
-
Wrong. For the atheist, you cannot generally ascribe a particular belief about the beginning of the world. Atheism is just the lack of belief in God. However, for the scientist, theories like the Big Bang try to explain the beginning of the universe.It depends on your perception of reality. For the atheist, in the beginning there was only material existence. -
May you be touched by his noodly appendage. His "meaty" blessings works all the time.
On a more serious note, it is human nature to be rational. If anyone finds "strength" or "courage" by being irrational, he is going against his own nature and it is likely that such irrational beliefs as believing in supernatural entities will be more destructive in the long run.
-
Thanks for all your replies. softwareNerd, aeuquelsa has given the example given in the CM.
I really got the idea of some Muslim preacher preaching Jihad when I read the CM.
Ultimately, the social dogmas that socialists believe are as nebulous as theistic beliefs.
-
I was reading "Communist Manifesto" the other day. I recognised the fundamental errors made in that document, like, the tribal premise that leads to the denial of freedom and in general, dehumanisation.
However, I could not get over the claim that the entire history of the world is filled with class struggles. What does that mean and, nevertheless, is there any refutation for this claim?
On the whole, I felt the this document was a total "twisting of history" to suit the Communist Parties' hunger for power over common human beings.
[edit: added link to gutenberg edition]
-
Very funny!
Communism should be laughed at, but also taken seriously as a threat to humanity.
-
-
I don't know if this is relevant, but such a siuation can arise only when a person has no choice but to "cheat, steal, and bribe". This happens only in socialist countries like India, where all this is part of nearly everyone's life.I understand that "greed" is necessary for human survival, for in order for man to make any rational decision to advance his life he must first be "greedy" for his own life.Many people then say:
"Suppose a man wanted cars, books, houses, etc. so much that he was willing to cheat, steal, and bribe his way to them (ie, violate rights)?"
How would I tell someone that living this way is in fact not greedy, since it doesn't advance one's life or happiness?
The concept of freedom in capitalism allows for man's greed, which is necessary for his survival, to be fulfilled. The protectionism in non-free countries requires people to violate rights, as their own rights are being violated anyway.
-
I think it is based on a choice. Either one chooses to think for himself or to "follow the herd". That is what I have discovered. BTW, my father (whose father was a communist) keeps asking me what "changes in my environment" made me become an Objectivist. I don't know what to tell him.
-
Intelligent design asumes that there is an "intelligence" that has created the physical universe.
I have read (in Ayn Rand's "Capitalism", most likely) that "the physical proceeds from the spiritual". Of course, she has also mentioned that she is not a dualist and does not believe that the consciousness is diffrent from the physical body. I have some doubt what she meant by saying "the physical proceeds from the spiritual". Most likely it means that the individual (who is conscious) is in control of the physical world.
Also, when Objectivists mention "spiritual", they must mean something different from the conventional mystical irrationalism that it usually means. Am I right?
However, collectivists most likely try to say that O'ism and ID have "the same conceptualisation of things", to make human beings look as part of the collective and subtract the consciousness from the individual.
-
Thanks, I got some good replies, but I have discovered more about objectivism on my own since.Hey whois! Welcome to the forum. I saw that you have posted a few posts earlier with some questions. I hope someone gave some good information.What part of India are you from?
I am from South India.
-
Hi!
I have been hanging around for a few months in this forum now.I am from India and I am reading Fountainhead now.
-
The videos were really great and gave me an opportunity to see Miss Rand in action. I don't know how people like that woman who made the "cult" accusation think they can slander and get away with it.
-
True...and you should understand that whether it is good, and whether it violates rights, are two separate questions. ...But I detect you might be discovering that right now. If given a choice, I would not be a polygamist.
Individual rights and private property
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
Thanks, Mrocktor and others, for your cogent replies.
Ok. I get this. But, then, why does Ayn Rand insist on a "minimum government"? If the laws are natural, why should any external, man-made agency like the government exist? (also see my earlier topic)
I see. Does the same concept of sovereignty apply for business too? If this applies to private business too, the socialist confounding of economics and politics would be effectually nullified.
So you are saying that just like schools teach children science, the government should act as a "teacher". But is the concept of ethics similar to the concept of science? Can ethics and rights be as "natural" and real as science itself? I know this is a pretty important question and I want to know your/the Objectivist position on this.