Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

chuff

Regulars
  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About chuff

  • Birthday 08/28/1990

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    America

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Maryland
  • Chat Nick
    chuff
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    Chris
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • School or University
    Maryland
  • Occupation
    Law

chuff's Achievements

Member

Member (4/7)

1

Reputation

  1. I would steer clear of the 'oppressor' language, both because it has other political connotations, and because there is no real power dynamic in either of the situations OP raises. Sacrificing others to oneself seems like the best description. (Thanks @Doug Morris) Maybe there are even other ways of seeing these kinds of actions as wrong?: > The woman is not paying attention to the task at hand, she is making others dependent on her, she is blocking their freedom of movement unnecessarily, she is placing the lower value of applying makeup above the higher value of getting where she's going, she is endangering herself and the rights of others by stopping her car on an open motorway... (there may also be things leading up to this situation that were irrational/unethical: Why is she doing her makeup in the car?)
  2. Sadly this group appears to be defunct. Is Fred reachable on this site or on another social media site perhaps?
  3. In the area too. A bit late on this, but there does appear to be a local forum for DC now.
  4. @Candida I would like to meet and make a claim on his extensive library, it's still available. Happy to come and meet you for pick up. (I'm in DC area). Sent you a direct message.
  5. Glad to see the forum is still here. Haven't kept up much with where the movement has gone in the intervening time. Moved abroad and back and got a law degree. Hello again, everybody.
  6. Ever since No-Build came along, been playing Fortnite with friends these days: lingui5t
  7. Hey-- long time no talk. We used to play Halo together on Xbox Live around 2011-12. You told me about the Electric Universe and we had a lot of great chats about Rand. Send me a message sometime.

  8. Sorry to double-post. An interesting article by Elan Journo related to the recent diplomatic history of the USA and North Korea has the reader concluding that withdrawing foreign aid is a huge step in the right direction, especially to unsavory characters. Indeed, it looks like the ARI's criticism (and Rand's own, actually) of the UN involves primarily its acceptance of anyone and moral failings in not standing up or any kind of principle and conceding to bullying behaviors, essentially begging would-be aggressors not to do so and offering to pay them not to. The response that seems more appropriate to such is to simply work to remove the offenders from the relationship, withdraw one's support, or even one's membership in an organization that accepts such behavior. Such a context makes withdrawal from the UN an attractive option for America's interests.
  9. For instance: on the question of whether our government has the "right" to depose foreign governments, and presumably the right also to subsequently install those we consider sympathetic to us (viz. Allende, Mossadegh, historical examples abound), is there a cogent way to approach this question within the Objectivist framework? My first thought is that an Objectivist-based argument would have us deliberating over whether it is in the "national interest" or not, which is nothing more than the composition of the individual interests of American individuals...? How is that measured, and where does that get us? My second is that it may instead sound like this: the American government, since it can do nothing other than that which is prescribed as proper, should just voice opposition or support but commit nothing apart from our verbal sanction (in either sense of the word, respectively) except in the case that Americans' lives, liberty, or property are in peril or threatened. (I understand that the lack of privately owned land renders this somewhat less straightforward a question in terms of property being invaded). I am confused about the proper method to even go about answering these sorts of questions (intergovernmental relations), much less the answers themselves!
  10. I'm interested to hear more about the limits on government as it pertains to interactions with other states. Have any members read The Ominous Parallels? Does Peikoff address international relations in it, even in a non-normative context?
  11. I want to open a discussion among the members of this forum about international relations. The Peikoff.com podcasts have a category for foreign policy, but it is currently empty. Aside from the published work of John David Lewis in the Objective Standard, I have not seen much about an approach to international relations that reflects the philosophy of Objectivism. Rand elaborated on some current events of the time, and her general attitude toward the UN (similar to her approach to the Libertarian Party, her critique being their philosophically groundless nature) is evident. (A separate forum for "international politics" has more to do with events in other countries than with theory of how a country's government should act in the international system). Most of the contemporary theory I've seen, including that of Lewis, has almost always to do with the right that our government has to protect its citizens or defend it from foreign invasion or attack (an extrapolation, it seems, from the individual's right to self-defense). I am interested, however, as a student of IR, in the other ways in which nations can interact. It seems that an Objectivist theory would be nearer to Liberalism than anything else, although I would like to see this developed further. Thus I would like to incorporate or see incorporated the philosophical grounding of Objectivism in international affairs and diplomacy between nations (by nations, I of course mean governments). In order to do this, I have tried to apply the more fundamental branch of ethics, and have only found a way to do so by comparing countries' governments to relations between individuals. So the central question of this thread is, is it proper to extrapolate relations between individuals to relations between governments?
  12. Sorry to dig up this thread, but I didn't want to start a new one only to be referred here. I don't think this question was answered properly. If contradictions do not exist, does this mean my contradictory ideas do not exist? They are still mental units after all. This seems like it leads to a separation of consciousness from reality.
  13. Short answer: No. The key word here I think is proud. My being American is not an achievement of my own, therefore I have neither right nor reason to take pride in it. To say sincerely that "I am proud to be an American," what I would really mean is "I am pleased to live here" or "I am proud to be associated with the achievements of America's founders," for example. But no, even with the common dictionary definition I don't think it fits for my context. I can only imagine that a refugee from under a much more authoritarian state who gained censorship could be proud of becoming an American. I've been an American since day one, by no effort of my own.
  14. I think what will help you here, Meghan, is this: Consciousness exists. To consider (any!) consciousness to be outside of existence, is equivalent to considering consciousness non-existence. This is what gives existence primacy over consciousness. Existence is not dependent on consciousness.
  15. Another useful point to ponder in this is that your senses are informing you of the words you are reading now, and of what words you typed when you questioned them. This is the nature of self-refuting claims.
×
×
  • Create New...