Ivan Raszl

I just watched part 1 and loved it. I think they made a great decision to place it in 2016. Well done. They made the best of the book I can imagine. I recommend it to all my friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pVvpv2Peu4 After watching this show I must say I'm pretty surprised by the shallow arguments against objectivism presented by these otherwise intelligent folks. On this show they demonstrate lack of knowledge about objectivism because they ask quite basic questions about it. And this lack of knowledge is the source of their arguments. To me the way they patronisingly joke around as if they had superior knowledge makes them look a bit silly. Let me address the arguments one by one and please correct me wherever I'm wrong. 1. - 2. They agree on these points. 3. Russell reads a statement about "man being an end in himself..." then he complains that he mainly have a problem with the way this is presented. He objects that this idea is put forward as a basic undeniable fact. He then concludes that most of stuff that people value are in our heads and it is not part of objective reality. Matt says that the whole statement is not true at all and goes on to defend his argument by making a parallel between Christian doctrines and Objectivist statements both presented as unquestionable truths. Russell takes over and says the his problem is that Ayn Rand's statements about what man must do and what not do are mixing in values into objective reality. Matt takes over saying this almost dogmatic assertion is a huge flaw. Also, they point out a supposed logical contradiction saying what if an objectivist wants to sacrifice himself. They go on complaining and chuckling about who is Ayn Rand to tell people what to do. The argument is very hard to make out, but I think what they are basically saying is that Ayn Rand should not tell other people what to do and she should not be so certain about her values. I think they don't understand that her statement is a protection against the very thing they are afraid of. Ayn Rand with her statement says that each man should have the right to pursue his own self interests whatever they may be. She doesn't force her ideas on anyone, quite the contrary. Self interests can include self sacrifice if somebody decides so. She didn't assert that a man can not self sacrifice himself, she said he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to be sacrificed. There is no logical contradiction to chuckle about, but only lack of understanding from Russell's and Matt's part. 4. Russell reads a statement about "capitalism being the ideal system..." Here he again objects that this is asserted as absolute fact. And questions who is this system ideal for? They make extreme examples saying somebody could equally well state that communism or monarchy is the ideal system depending whose perspective we're taking and what the goal is. And they also argue that the goal should be discussed way before what is the ideal system is. Then they say there is no proof for capitalism being the best system because there is no control group or demonstration. Then Russell chuckles that Ayn Rand could only provide a fictional demonstration in support of capitalism. Matt brings up that Ayn Rand ignores the necessity of a cooperative and structured society and the benefits to the individual and the group that come from this. They seem to act as if there was no support to substantiate the statement about capitalism being the ideal system. In fact Ayn Rand explains it in detail why is it the ideal system. I won't reiterate it here as it would be too long. They obviously ignorant about this and thus bring it up as an argument against the statement. It is true other people could state that monarchy is the best, but they would not be able to substantiate it. In case of capitalism it can done without any logical fallacies and all based in reality. That's what makes it a valid claim and not a revelation Ayn Rand had from somewhere that we must accept as they assert. Regarding the goals not being discussed, it's untrue. The goals are stated in point 3 and point 4 is the means to achieve them. Finally I want to address the part of Ayn Rand not having experimental evidence. Well of course not, she's a philosopher. How do they expect her to prove her theories on a country wide level? It's stupid to bring this up as an argument against the idea regardless if we have or have no experimental evidence. But in fact we do have very good experiments. Most notable are East and West Germany or North and South Korea. In both cases collectivism and capitalism is tested on the same type of people and after several decades we can see the collectivists going down in quality of life, while the capitalists steadily growing. It must be said that true capitalism has not yet been tried anywhere in the world, but even partial capitalism proved to be more efficient in making individuals happy within the society.

Thanks, I will have to re-read this with a clear head in the morning.

Thanks mate!

Good point.

This came up on Facebook with my friends. Seems like an interesting interview. Did Greenspan found a flaw in Objectivism? REP. HENRY WAXMAN: The question I have for you is, you had an ideology, you had a belief that free, competitive — and this is your statement — “I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We’ve tried regulation. None meaningfully worked.” That was your quote. You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying its price. Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made? ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to — to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I’m saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact. REP. HENRY WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality… ALAN GREENSPAN: Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak. REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working? ALAN GREENSPAN: That is — precisely. No, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

Thank you so much. My questions are answered.

Thanks for the replies. Let me focus the questions more: Is there anything that will prevent us running out of oil in our current market based economy? Are we going to reach peak oil? If yes, is this not a grave danger that everyone will suffer from?

I'm an objectivist and I have a question that is not totally clear to me. Anyone seen the Zeigeist movies? What do you think about the idea that the current monetary system is killing our planet because there is no incentive in the capitalist system to protect non-renewable resources and nature in general. You guys helped me with the issues of the ocean pollutions saying that if the oceans would owned by individuals there would be a good reason to protect them by those who own them and governments would protect these private properties as well. But this doesn't really work with non-renewable resources, does it? If somebody owns a land like Saudi Arabia it's in their interest to extract all the oil, sell it and let it burn. They are not really interested in keeping it in the ground for future generations. Any guidance on how to think about these issues would be helpful!

I'm confused about whether he's doing the right or wrong thing? If it was private stolen info it would be clearly wrong to publish right? But this is government info which is supposed to be owned by Americans or something... Please help!

Thanks all. Much appreciated.

I have another issue that bugs me. If a democratic government through an election decides to give a certain free social service for example healthcare. An let's say 75% voted for it. Is it immoral to do this government based healthcare because the rest 25% didn't want it, yet they will be forced to pay for the 75% as well? If that's the case, what if in a hypothetical situation 100% would vote for such a free social service? It can happen in a small community with only a few hundred people. They may decide to have free ER care or other service. Is it moral to do such a service for free (payed with tax)? And if somebody grows into the age of voting does he have to agree as well in order for the free service to continue? Am I misunderstanding any part of this issue?

Thanks for your full answer. I fully agree with you and the other members. And I now have a clearer understanding of how such an issue should be broken down. I thought you're hostile because you didn't specifically answer the question, but prompted me to think my own question over. I now realize that this wasn't meant to be a rude, retrospectively it makes sense. At the time however it didn't answer any questions I had, it posed even more. Sorry for saying that. Thanks for your help guys.

I agree. What if the child dies because they can't provide emergency care at home. Is the woman responsible for the death as negligence?

I've read that environmental issues can be solved by privatising all available land and oceans. Therefore giving each area an owner who will protect because it's in his own interest. I think this may actually work. Presumably this is a good solution how can this be accomplished? How can we decide who gets what? Also, in a related question. What if I own a huge piece of rain forest that gives air not just to me but many other property owners in the world and I decided to cut it all off because I want to spend the money. Does that mean I violate other people's property rights as I remove natural flow of oxygen, therefore I should not be allowed to cut off the forest?

What's the hint here? Is this not the place to ask such questions? Tx

I don't thin this question has been settled yet. There are several studies pro and contra. And whatever the outcome it only applies to an average, individual cases can deviate significantly. There are some homes and hospitals with very bad and very good conditions.

You are very hostile and condescending, why is that? You're telling me I have to do a lot of learning? That's exactly why I asked the question. Honestly, I find your answer unhelpful and unreasonable. In eastern europe you do get better chances of survival in a hospital compared to mid-wife assisted delivery at home. Green is green. And, the very first study I found with google doesn't prove you correct even in the western world. So the question is legitimate green=green. You suggest there is no "we" when it comes to allowing certain things to women. Yet, there is a "we". We as a society create laws that we through the state do not allow to be broken, right? There is a we who doesn't allow taking another person's life, right? If the baby dies of negligence that will that be the women's fault? Or does she own the baby and therefore she can do whatever with it? Where do you draw the line? Or do you even have to draw the line? Again, I'm asking, I would appreciate an answer. Is the question too simplistic? I don't think it's over simplified. It's a question from the real world with real conditions. What's simplistic about it? Maybe it's too simple for you but it's a very real question to me.

On one hand you have to respect the rights of the women to her own body, on the other hand we have a newborn with rights for proper healthcare. What is the right policy here? Shall we allow women to give birth at home even if it means there is a higher risk of infant and mother death compared to giving birth in the hospital?

I'm familiar enough with Objectivism to know that any healthcare including inoculation is a personal choice and none of government's business. However there is a special case with vaccinations, which can be best explained with an example. Let's say person A decides against vaccines and therefore takes a risk of getting the disease. Person B vaccinated himself and wants to have his newborn vaccinated too, but the vaccination can only be done at a certain age. Until then the baby is vulnerable to catching the disease from person A. If the baby catches the disease and dies person A is not responsible because he didn't do it on purpose. Person A doesn't have to sacrifice himself for the baby. Yet this is fucked up, because we have a dead baby and it could've been avoided by forcing person A to get vaccinated. Do we accept the baby death as a negative side-effect of higher values or am I missing something?

Is this a good law? What's the objectivist view on such legislation please? Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10461048.stm

Found it: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1222...ee_Society.aspx Thanks! Basically Ayn didn't provide a specific method, because she thought it's a technical issue. And provided one example. Contractors could pay the government a contract enforcement fee if they wanted to.

I've read all available literature on Objectivism and I have a very specific question. I've read in one of the topics that in an objectivist system the government would be set up in a way that it pays for itself and there is no need for taxes. How would this work? Or if it's too complicated to explain in this thread, where can I read about it? Thanks a lot!

Thank you All! I understand now.

Ayn says: Everybody experiences reality slightly differently thanks to our biological differences. So our view of reality is subjective, nobody can perceive it objectively. How can we be sure there is an objective reality? Thanks!