Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Minarchist

Regulars
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Minarchist

  1. One interesting thing to note in the Elder Scrolls is the more metaphysical battle between the elves and the humans. The elves believe that in order to be free of the "Material Prison" they must destroy the spirit of man, and Talos is the symbol of man as god. The humans are fighting for their right to survive. The Imperials are cowards who wished to deal with the Thalmor by concession. What they conceded was the right of man to worship man. The Nords know that this "practical concession" is a devastating spiritual defeat. Perhaps it is largely wishful projection on my part, but the Stor
  2. I actually posted this elsewhere, but while there it was primarily intended to educate, here the intention is to subject my writing form (and, if a flaw is found, by explanation itself) to critique. Obviously if I teach anyone here something that certainly wouldn't be a downside. So, here it is: Keynesianism has certainly found it's place among academic economists today. No, they might not all call themselves Keynesians, and they might disagree with Keynes on nearly every issue, but not many of them object to what I call "Keynes' fundamental flaw." My purpose here is to expose and de
  3. Absolutely. I can only listen to her recorded speeches and read her books so many times.
  4. I wasn't aware of the distinction. But even if it exists the primary problem here remains the same: I fear that I'm justifying my actions with reference to my emotions rather than reason.
  5. Trying to be an Objectivist is alot of work. It's a hard standard to hold yourself to. So is the justification for having friends "Havings friends makes me happy"? What's bothering me here is that I can't really justify these desires rationally. Let's put it another way: Having a fulfilling romantic relationship based on the virtues of both my partner and myself makes me happy. Is that the justification for it? Given my metaphysical premises it just seems kind of given that I would value such a relationship, but I can't seem to explain why in intellectual terms. Does that m
  6. So is emotion (happiness) the standard of value here? If so, am I mistaken for seeing that as a problem?
  7. 2046: Thank you, I'm still thinking. No I didn't. That is most certainly not a summary of the Objectivist ethics, not at all. It's an aspect of the code as it pertains to social relationships, but even then it is only an indication.
  8. The personal views of many (or even most) Objectivists on homosexuality have nothing to do with the validity of the philosophy itself. You should accept or reject the philosophy on it's merits, not the unrelated personal views of it's followers or even it's original philosopher.
  9. I got asked a question today that I wasn't able to answer. I was asked, what precisely is the code an Objectivist must follow? I wasn't asked to prove the Objectivist ethics, I wasn't asked a specific question about a specific scenario, just, "What is the Objectivist code of ethics, summarized?" Let me summarize and we'll see if I have it right so far: An individual man's life qua man is his ultimate standard of value. His nature demands that he adheres strictly to reason, and that he applies it to the problem of survival (which means, he ought to produce.) But it's here that I start to fee
  10. I understand what you're saying, but not how it applies here. In the same manner that all Objectivists are capitalists though most capitalists aren't Objectivists, all Objectivists are libertarians though most libertarians aren't Objectivists. Libertarianism is a set of specific beliefs. As I understand these beliefs, all Objectivists accept them. If a man accepts libertarian beliefs, he is a libertarian.
  11. Diplomacy is a proper means of protecting the rights of the citizens, both by doing what one can to prevent aggression AND to secure free trade. I go a step furter than most Objectivists (as far as I know), and believe that the government should take CAUTIOUS steps to include a larger geographical area under it's authority. Why? Because I think that freedom won't be perfect until there is a single PROPER government. Again, this must be an incredibly cautious process. For obvious reasons, it would be foolish currently for the US to annex China (as an example), even IF it were a plausible
  12. How so? What I'm saying is that I don't see how Objectvists AREN'T libertarians, under this definition. I think Objectivists fit under a number of definitions: Minarchists, libertarians, capitalists. That said, I know that most Objectivists don't believe this. I don't understand why. Before I was explicitly an Objectivist I was incredibly close to it. I accepted the following: Ethics: Man's proper state is that of freedom. Not as consistent as Objectivism (it was a non sequitur in the context of my knowledge). However, Objectivists DO share that particular belief, and in my opinion
  13. I never really understood the Objectivist attitude towards libertarianism, in some regards. Obviously, I'm very against anarchists and "utilitarian libertarians" (which I believe is a contradiction). See, before I even heard of Objectivism I was a libertarian, and the definition I accepted of the term was "one who believes that every person has an ethical right to be free from coercion". Is this where the split exists? Do most Objectivists not accept this definition?
  14. Simply, what constitutes harassment should be defined in plain language, and free of arbitrary numbers such as these.
  15. Yes... Ayn Rand didn't make the distinction, and neither do I. It's completely useless.
  16. I don't think such conditions (300 feet / for an hour before and an hour after the funeral) are proper. As much as I'd like to keep things in objective measurements where possible, this is just one of those cases where a more broad anti-harassment law will have to suffice. I haven't put much thought into the specifics of enforcement, though. I just believe that it's immoral to harass people, and should be illegal as well.
  17. I don't think it's really "teleportation" as you seem to envision it, just the instant change in one particle caused by change in another. I think this idea was looked at in Mass Effect 2, where they are capable of communicating across the galaxy in the manner described here. Or I could be completely wrong.
  18. For the same reason stalking should properly be held as illegal. It's forceful intrusion on the life of another. Holding a protest near a funeral with the intention of disturbing and upsetting the attendees is nothing more than that. Not to harass people. I don't know the most widely accepted Objectivist view regarding harassment, only Peikoff's statement regarding telemarketers in a podcast (saying that he considered telemarketing a "physical intrusion" and "harassment"). I agree, though I'm not sure if he'd hold the same view in regard to protesting at funerals. I most certa
  19. It was meant to establish the double standard of leftists, I believe.
  20. Correct, but this should properly be held as illegal.
  21. I'm inclined to say it should be, but that the government should attempt to stop ANY coercion if it has the ability to, necessary or otherwise.
  22. I truly don't see the need to make a distinction. "Ethics" or "morality" both encompassing all matters of choice seems perfectly valid to me.
  23. Thanks for the answer Dante. With all of this said, is it always proper for the government to keep men from alienating the rights of one another, even in emergencies? I want to say "yes", the government should never step outside of it's role of protecting individual rights.
  24. I'm not saying that it means that, simply that it means that "rights" aren't inalienable (if my conclusion is correct) and that we shouldn't always act without forcing others to serve our interests. This is CLEARLY contradictory with what Rand said, and I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something.
  25. This is a discussion of proper legality, not legality as it is. What you're saying is that these contracts wouldn't be enforced in modern law, so they're not "contracts". Just plain ridiculous. That is one usage of the term. The other, a voluntary agreement, is valid and more commonly used.
×
×
  • Create New...