determinist

I do not necessarily agree with this video but find it interesting and think that anyone who puts a lot of thought into capitalism will too (even if you disagree).

I was just reading this Wikipedia entry and began to wonder if Objectivism is narcissistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder Do you think Objectivism is narcissistic but that being narcissistic should not be stigmatized or considered a bad thing? Is Objectivism not narcissistic? If you self-identify as an Objectivist, do you consider yourself narcissistic?

If a person can not afford private school and no public education system is available (or an insufficient number of volunteers), and the individual is consequently illiterate, might he or she be too ignorant to realize why learning is important to compete in a capitalist system?

1. Are you a self-labeled "Objectivist"? (If yes, the following questions are intended for you.) 2. For secondary education, did you graduate from a public secondary education institution? 3. If you graduated from a private institution for secondary education, did you pay for all of the tuition (or almost all of it) with money you personally earned from your own labor at a job? 4. Did you earn your diploma for secondary education from being home-schooled? If so, what would you have done (with respect to secondary education) if your parents were too uneducated and stupid to home-school you? 5. Who taught you the English language that you understand well enough to read this post? Did you teach yourself?

If you self-identify as an Objectivist, then according to Objectivism, do you believe the existence of private prisons is immoral? Ayn Rand stated that she believes in the complete separation of economics and state. Does the idea of private prisons jibe with that idea of separation?

I intentionally avoided using the phrase "empirical evidence" to allow for any evidence. OK. So what is the philsophic evidence that religion is never in any individual's self-interest? I concede there are plenty of contexts where mentally modeling reality allows an organism to avoid threats to survival. If this is a basis, then whether or not abstract principles are integrated with this basis or not, the argument rests on an empirical/biological argument. As distasteful as I find theists who preach about Hell, there is a related example that challenges the belief that truth is (or even likely is) in the interest of survival; the false belief that someone will go to Hell can (at least in some situtations) clearly drive that individual to strive for survival and consequently lead to a higher likelihood of proagating his or her alleles. Now, you could reasonably object that it is still not in the self-interest of a person because it would make him or her less happy (or otherwise not in the interest of survival yet in the person's interest in another sense). But if you do, I would think you can not have your cake and eat it at the same time. You would be conceding that mere survivial is not your basis for "self-interest." What, specifically, is the argument or evidence that honesty or logic is always in one's self-interest? I do not know about your view, but the self-labeled Objectivists on this forums strike me as having above average intelligence. So check this out if you agree. I read a few of her books. While they have some of the most badass arguments I ever heard, and efinitely shaped my perspective for life, I am left with too much cognitive dissnoance when I try to take every last point seriously. Like Christianity, I am just not capable of believing things without evidence. Faith has never been my thing. Without evidence that true beliefs are always in one's self-interest.

Assuming that socialism itself is not in the person's interest, the act of campaigning itself might be. How can anyone here know that nobody could possibly benefit from it? What evidence is there to back up the assertion that it is never, ever in anyone's self-interest to campaign for socialism? Again, I am not asking for evidence that socialism is not in their self-interest. I am asking for evidence that the act of campaigning is. The odds of a random protester making or breaking the difference between socialism existing is a tiny decimal. If someone just assumes that religion and protesting for socialism is never in the self-interest of anyone, and has no proof, then they have blind faith just like a Christian. What is the evidence? Nathaniel Branden's psychology argument?

The probability of one individual (who is not a politician or great philosopher) actually causing a socialist system to exist is less probable than being struck by lightning. If they experience a pleasant sense of acceptance from participating in the Occupy Movement, I do not see why it is against self-interest. If you honestly believe the myth that never stealing is in everyone's self-interest, or that religion is universally against everyone's self-interest, then why even bother with philosophy? You are more interested in supporting your preconception than logical reasoning. (I am not religious.) I am sorry. I am with people on so much, but I think there is pretending going on with this self-interest thing. I do not believe for one second that it is always in the self-interest of a dictator to step down from power. I have read some great posts on these forums from people who think outside of the box. How can you guys buy into these myths?

If semi-socialist campaigning is a satisfying, healthy, and fulfilling way to live life and have fun, should one campaign for semi-socialism? Is it ethical because it is in an individual's self-interest?

Awww man. You guys ruined my game plan. Everyone saw my "nation/group pride vs individualism" idea from a mile away.

Are you proud to be an American? (By American, I mean the United States of America rather than North America and South America together.) A yes or no question is preferred, but I understand that things aren't always simple to think about. Stay tuned because I will use your answers as a basis for my follow-up (and the follow-up is the purpose of me asking). Thanks.

I read your response about how a definition is the way to try to express something and it is not a definition itself that makes the philosophy. Yet, Ayn Rand herself heavily pushed taking words for exactly what they say and seeing what follows. So, I was discontent to ignore Ayn Rand's advice from Philosophy: Who Needs It? Just like she suggested her readers do, I want to take the assertions of people literally and see what follows.

CapitalistSwine, I know you are right that Ayn Rand listed those areas of government. I am wondering how all of these things can be consistent with her selected definition of capitalism. Here is her selected definition of capitalism. According to her definition, all property is privately owned in capitalism. So if nuclear bombs are not privately owned, then she was not a capitalist by her own definition; was she?

So, all of the resources the government uses are bought and owned by business owners/employees and individual buyers? And that is considered a separation of economics and state? Also, can anyone freely compete with the buyers, sellers, and/or shareholders of the nuclear bombs if those individuals have not initiated physical force against anyone else? Morality is not the means to an end, right? Therefore, it be wrong to PREEMPTIVELY steal from someone developing a nuclear bomb before he or she actually violated someone else's rights, no?

To introduce this topic, I will begin by introducing how it came up. I quoted Ayn Rand's selected definition of capitalism as follows. Based on this definition, I claimed that Ayn Rand would have to advocate that all property is private to be a capitalist: nuclear bombs, B-52s, and firearms. I questioned whether or not Rand is a capitalist by her own definition. In repsonse, someone posted a link yo a Leonard Peikoff podcast that addresses this very question. Here is what the person posted. The response held me over for a bit but raised new questions as I began thinking about it. If everything, including machine guns (not just some, but all), nuclear bombs, grenades (not just some, but all)... then how is that separation of economics and state? Ayn Rand explicitly stated in this video that she is for the separation of economics and state. If all military equipment and nuclear bombs are privately owned, honestly, do you think that is separation of economics and state?