WeDontNeedGod
-
Posts
77 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by WeDontNeedGod
-
-
Hello everyone!
I used to participate in this forum quite a while ago: Long enough that many users have probably come and gone. With that in mind I thought I would reintroduce myself before participating again.
I am 31, a US Army veteran, and am currently pursuing a degree in finance (1 year till graduation!).
I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand and have read all of her books, as well as two of Leonard Peikoffs: The Ominous Parallels and OPAR.
I celebrate life, productivity, and achievement on my blog http://templeofthehumanspirit.wordpress.com
i look forward to having profitable interactions with you all!
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchobjectivism a collection of links regarding Objectivism, anarchism, and free markets.
-
http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com New Blog, more posts coming soon!
-
In atlas shrugged, some of the heros are presented as scabs to a strike (whose memebers are also presented as heros) which is presented as ultimately the right course of actions. What do you think are the differences between rearden and dagny vs Galt, frisco, and ragnar?
-
Hi everyone. So, I was in a discuasion with some Liberarian friends of mine about Atpas Shrugged when one of them chimed in statong that Ayn Rand actually created a voluntarist/agorist utopia in Galt's Gulch as it had no government. I disagreed with this person and then another person said they did not rwmember it having any government either. I do not currently have the book in my posession and it uas been some time since I last read it. Could someone verify or otherwise refute this claim for me please? I find it unlikely that Ayn Rand would make sucu a mistake but I would like to be able to prive it Apparently this guy named Stefan Molyneux, who I have seen a number of other things from him I disagree with (he is an anarchist libertarian) made a youtube video stating this and this claim has since exploded into online communities. As a side note, someone also made this xokment to me when I said it had a government:
Your libertarian friend is right.
-
" It does mean you can't call Blackwater and have them track down and imprison the guy who stole your car last week."
Why not? Neither of us are initiating the use of force against anyone else, we are violating no ones rights, so any action the government takes violates the basic principle.
"A government holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (i.e. the legal use of retaliatory force)." The line I used was a quote from Ayn Rand.
"You don't have a right to start a "defense" business which would compete with the government, because you don't have a right to arrest or imprison people." Why not?
"We give that authority to the government in order to protect individual rights via an objective rule of law. " I don't consent. I'd prefer to give my business to a private company if that company can provide the service cheaper, faster, or more efficiently. Im not initiating the use of force against anyone so any action the government takes against me violates my rights. If it doesnt take action against me it doesn't have a monopoly.
-
Thank you for taking the time to reply, 2046.
But the entire question revolves around whether or not a government monopoly on security is in fact justified, which this argument does absolutely nothing to address. It's useless by itself. The poster should attempt to prove premise (2) if he wants to actually show anything.
What about this paragraph:
"If a government holds a monopoly on the use of force, it initiates the use of force against those whom would seek to start businesses in the arbitration and defense services industries, as well as all those who seek to do business such persons. If a defense service is not allowed to exist or operate, yet has not initiated the use of force against anyone, and only retaliates against those who have initiated the use of force, those individuals rights have been violated."
-
http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/
"An AnarchObjectivist is one who accepts the basic principles of Ayn Rands philosophy, but rejects her advocacy of minarchism as inconsistent with those basic positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics."
I haven't seen this particular argument before, so I'd like to see what you have to say about it.
-
Http://templeofthehumanspirit.wordpress.com
It was a great year, and I really enjoyed working on this project. I think it did really well for such a niche blog. There were 51 posts, each celebrating some aspect of life on earth, which met my goal of 1 post per week. It ended up 14,798 view for the year. I received a lot of inspiration and encouragement from a few people on this forum, thank you for that.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expletive
I consider the use of purposefully meaningless words to be anti-objective.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/31/technology/att_tmobile_antitrust/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
"The U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T on Wednesday to block its $39 billion merger with T-Mobile."
Horrible.
-
The Rational Life Center is an initiative I have created to promote rational living. It mainly deals with the application of rational thought to the special sciences such as nutrition, health, time management, education. Links to such information can be found on the blog. In addition the blog has a special focus on rational thinking methods, correct thinking habits (psycho-epistemology) and general cognitive enhancement to include memory, intelligence, motivation, attention, and concentration.
While almost none of this material can be considered Objectivism (however there are links to philosophy, after all a rational philosophy is integral to a rational way of life), it is consistent with Objectivist principles.
"The Rational Life Center is a division of the Temple of the Human Spirit.
The Purpose of the RLC is to encourage reason-based living.
The Temple of the Human Spirit is an organization founded on the movement began by Ayn Rand in 1943 with the publication of “The Fountainhead.” It is dedicated on the principles exemplified by Howard Roark; rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productivity, purpose, pride and self-esteem: which we perceive to be the highest form of the human spirit. It is the human spirit, the spirit of reason, which has lifted man out of the dark ages and into the heavens. The skyscraper, the airplane, and the space shuttle are all monuments to the awe inspiring power of the human spirit, a power which no mystical belief can rival in its ability to achieve health, happiness and success.
The Temple promotes a rational worldview which, in addition to basic philosophy, encompasses ideological positions the fields of the special sciences that we identify as congruent with our fundamental premises."
-
" It does not for instance prove that time is literally dilating / contracting ( which is nonsense anyway, time is a relational concept, it makes no sense to claim it dilates/contracts). "
Except that the data shows that it does. Screw the evidence though!
I'll take the fact that you answer my objection to your poorly written paper with hyperbole and ad hom as evidence that it is indefensible.
"apparently out of some personal prejudice. "
Isnt this a bit disingenuous, especially given
and
http://wedontneedgod.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/a-funny-conversation/ ?
Once again, the data trumps the blah blah blah.
-
[First of all : I would like to point out that I am not interested if you disagree with my conception of space. I am absolutely convinced that I am correct and I am not interested in debating this issue in this thread. If you do not agree, that is fine, I do not want to hear about it. Second of all : I do not care if anyone wishes to link/share this around, as long as I am attributed as the author).
Fortunately, you do not have the privilege of dictating who can reply to what post.
Your conception of space is totally wrong.
"In 1905, Albert Einstein published a paper on a special theory of relativity, in which he proposed that space and time be combined into a single construct known as spacetime. In this theory, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers—which has the result that two events that appear simultaneous to one particular observer will not be simultaneous to another observer if the observers are moving with respect to one another. Moreover, an observer will measure a moving clock to tick more slowly than one that is stationary with respect to them; and objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
Over the following ten years Einstein worked on a general theory of relativity, which is a theory of how gravity interacts with spacetime. Instead of viewing gravity as a force field acting in spacetime, Einstein suggested that it modifies the geometric structure of spacetime itself.[19] According to the general theory, time goes more slowly at places with lower gravitational potentials and rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field. Scientists have studied the behaviour of binary pulsars, confirming the predictions of Einstein's theories and non-Euclidean geometry is usually used to describe spacetime." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space
-
The Temple of the Human Spirit's 50th Post!
A celebration of Life-Affirming values!
http://templeofthehumanspirit.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/the-three-graces/
-
-
"And what is left of the rose is only its name." Seems to imply that LP is Rands "intellectual heir" in name only. Thats probably why he said it is false and hateful. It implies that LP has departed from Objectivism philosopically.
-
louie you lulzkiller
-
As far as I know, from my experience with OO.net, OL, and SOLOhq, no major (published books, articles, PhD, working for ARI/TAS, etc) Objectivist participates in these online forums. Does anyone have any idea why not? At a glance it seems like any one of them would have an immensely positive effect on the community they choose to be active in, since these forums are populated mostly by students.
-
It is helpful to purge yourself of incorrect information.
Here is an exercise. Go through this list and see how many of these common misconceptions you thought were true:
-
@WeDontNeedGod, I will most-definitely be adding a link to your blog from mine. Thank you for your input, and I do readily think that we could be valuable assets for the growth of each other's websites.
Thank you! I will link to you as well
-
Good luck with your project, but don't expect any support from here. Judgement goes one way here. Its a tool used to condemn. When there is something to praise, there has consistently been silence.
Elsewhere, I've heard the type called "Objectionists."
I apologize for this post. It was made out of anger at a non-related issue. The reasoning used is fallacious, guilty of hasty generalization.
-
Dmastt, I like your blog! The design is different and interesting. I will keep it in mind and check it for content in the future.
Consider the fact that you have been proven wrong already in this thread.
Consider, perhaps, that people that give respect get respect. You make a regular habit out of insulting the Objectivist philosophy and Objectivists. Cynicism, ridicule, and sarcasm seem to be a highlight of your activity here. When you post things like this on your profile, clearly suggesting that we make up excuses to justify whatever actions we feel like, "brb, gone to snort coke off an enslaved sexworkers ass. all within the proper context of course." that is not something that gives you positive attention, nor should you expect it.
Consider, perhaps, that people are likely to react better and be more supportive of an Objectivist-centric blog that posts actual content, rather than simply posting pictures with little quotes under them, essentially making it a website full of nothing but motivational posters of which there are billions and contribute little to nothing to the advancement of Objectivism or the knowledge of it. Show us something praiseworthy and we will "praise it."
Maybe the judgement goes one way in your mind because the negativity is directed at you because you deserve it for being such a tool.
Its likely getting posts because of what I said
thats why i waited a full day before saying thing about it. If i hadn't said anything, would people still be commenting? Who knows, there is no way to objectively test that hypothesis now, but i doubt it, just based on the statistical probability, referenced from the number of responses to ANY thread in this section.I really don't know who you are, but you are very assumptive. It is a cognitive bias that Objectivists are prone to.
And its fine, if you don't like my work, (God forbid anyone makes a website that JUST praises the good; to be a real Objectivist website it has condemn, criticize, and complain. lol) but I know for a fact that many do. My posts do get a lot of positive comments, on other forums, and hundreds of views per day. Its just this board that has a negative atmosphere...
Oh, well. I will keep posting my work and those who find it valuable will continue to look at it. Detractors and nay-sayers are less than nothing to me.
-
Yaron Brook to answer questions about his book "Equal is Unfair"
in Intellectuals and the Media
Posted
Yaron Brook is holding an AMA on Reddit tomorrow at 12pm EST. The thread will be linked here when it is posted: