Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

phareign

Regulars
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

phareign last won the day on February 13 2011

phareign had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Austin, TX

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Texas
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Lorraine D.
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    Raised in a Northern Chicago Suburb, attended Columbia College Chicago and majored in Theater and Film. Very exposed to Soviet history through my film classes. Mainly directed films and stage managed for the theater. Then September 11th happened, and I joined Americorps and they sent me to Texas, where I taught 4th graders. I ended up taking to Texas and I stayed. Made my way to Austin, and I now I am currently attending Texas State University. On the way I got involved with politics and public access in 2006, and I help out on several shows.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I have been involved with the Libertarian Party since 2006, I have problems with it now because of the lack of morality and the attacks by anarchist libertarians who think their brand of libertarianism is the only brand. Mises libertarians. I like that Ayn Rand actively spoke out against these types while she was alive. I know David Nolan respected Ayn Rand, and I respected his views. But I really don't agree with a lot of libertarians. They have their philosophy, well now I have mine. Objectivism, and apparently this one came first.
  • School or University
    Texas State University
  • Occupation
    Sudent

phareign's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I thought it was general knowledge. She studied Aristotle in college. He was her favorite philosopher. I read it in one of the bibliographies written about her. However, it also says so in the Wikipedia.
  2. I don't think what Ayn Rand means by Atheism is the exact same definition a lot of self-proclaimed Atheists use. A lot of Atheists I know are anti-god or against anything that preaches morality. Ayn Rand herself disagreed with the libertarians of her time because she believed they were amoral. Aristotle does have some religious aspects to it, and that is where she derives her ideas of morality from. I don't find this to be in any way shape or form contradictory to my own personal religious beliefs, and in fact they enforce them. We can't exactly prove man has a soul or a conscience, but one does and a lot of being your own person is being in align with your conscience. The reason why some religions are bad is that they actually expect you to disobey or go against your conscience to follow the rules. They expect you to ignore whom you really are. They also make you feel like a good person for simply following the rules when you may not be true to your heart. Of course those versed well in Christianity know Jesus was against this way of thinking, but unfortunately this idea doesn't come across in many organized religions. The "good" people are the ones that go to church a lot and do what they are told, and often these individuals tend to chastise individuality. If you are a person that chastises individuality you cannot be an Objectivist. There are a some of religions, even Christian ones, that do support and praise the individual.
  3. Economic Left/Right: 2.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31 According to this quiz I am a slightly right leaning moderate Libertarian. On the Nolan Quiz, I am a slightly left leaning strong Libertarian.
  4. I was just wondering what people thought of this. Prior to the interview, Bill Moyers makes a lot of comments a lot about Ayn Rand. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10242008/watch2.html The man he is interviewing teaches at Texas State and he is scheduled to give a speech, and that's how I know about this. I can't believe someone wrote a book titled, "THE PREDATOR STATE: HOW CONSERVATIVES ABANDONED THE FREE MARKET AND WHY LIBERALS SHOULD TOO." And they threw Ayn Rand in there as well. This is part of the transcript that refers to Ayn Rand if you are unable to watch it: October 24, 2008 BILL MOYERS: Watching Alan Greenspan testify before Congress this week, I tried, I tried very hard not to keep thinking of Ayn Rand. I failed. The philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand was Alan Greenspan's ideological guru, his intellectual mentor. She was also one of the most amazing fantasists of the last century, the author of two of the most influential books of my generation THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED, both timeless best-sellers. Rand was a hedonist, an exponent of radical self-interest, who so believed in unfettered, unbridled capitalism that she advocated the abolition of all state regulations except those dealing with crime. In the gospel according to Rand, the business community was constantly beleaguered by evil forces practicing, are you ready for this? Altruism! Yes, the unselfish regard for the welfare of others was a menace to greed, and Rand would have none of it. Alan Greenspan met her as a much younger man in New York and, like so many blossoming capitalists, was smitten. He has since downplayed her influence on him, but as Chairman of the Fed for nearly 19 years he seemed quite Rand-like as he watched Wall Street run wild. Yesterday, like an old warrior still in a fog after his armies have been routed from the field of battle, he expressed shock at how his ideology has failed him. He didn't see it coming, he told the House Oversight Committee. The extent of the meltdown is, "Much broader than anything that I could have imagined," a "Once-in-a-century credit tsunami." The wondrous glories of a free market with no need of pesky oversight had somehow gone wrong. Now you tell us. ALAN GREENSPAN: I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms… CHAIRMAN WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working. ALAN GREENSPAN: Absolutely, precisely. You know, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well. BILL MOYERS: With his ideological blinders stripped away by reality, Alan Greenspan might well do penance by curling up this weekend not with THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED but with James K. Galbraith's new book THE PREDATOR STATE: HOW CONSERVATIVES ABANDONED THE FREE MARKET AND WHY LIBERALS SHOULD TOO. In it, the author asks: "Why not build a new economic policy based on what is really happening?" A fundamental question that surely has Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman spinning in their graves. James K. Galbraith is with me now. Professor Galbraith once served as Executive Director of Congress' Joint Economic Committee. He teaches economics at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas, where he also directs the University's Inequality Project, analyzing wages and earnings and patterns of industrial change around the world.
  5. Since a lot of the responses are directed towards me, I will attempt to answer all of them. The contradiction does not bother me because I am new to Objectivism (not really the ideas but new to Rand)and I do like her books. Before reading her books, she was just a face to me that Libertarians liked to use to say they have a female philosopher who "agrees" with them. I have met other self-proclaimed Objectivists through YAL who feel the same way. They found the article on their own, and it doesn't bother them. I also initially stated why in my first post, because I educated myself on her background and I wouldn't blame her. I think people are entitled to their own opinions for grounded reasons, and that it doesn't tarnish the work they have done. She has grounded reasons. Regardless, this does pose a contradiction, and I can see why this would bother Objectivists. But it also would bother Rand if people think that is what she meant and they don't take the time to figure out what really meant and speak for her, regardless of what stance they take. For this, I am grateful for all the explanations because it has made me more grounded in my own understanding. Rand said that Nations have no rights, she didn't say that the people of such nations have no rights. In fact, her point was that the people are the ones with the rights, not the nation. A holy war is a war over morals. This is regardless of Religion. To invade a country for no other reason then that you believe you are more right than they are is for moral reasons, and therefore a holy war. If such a nation is threatening the rights of the individual citizens (by declaring war), then that is a different story. Even in that case, representatives of citizens need to vote for such intervention on their behalf. Not only did citizens not vote for Vietnam, but they also did not vote when it came to intervention with Afghanistan. I mean the 1980's intervention, not the 2001 invasion. Our own CIA trained Osama Bin Laden, so Afghanistan could win their freedom war against the Soviet Union. Not even 10 years later, Osama Bin Laden waged a terrorist attack against the United States which killed many innocent civilians. Could he have pulled this off without the 1980's intervention? There are some who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I know Osama Bin Laden is a real person who was in charge of the Freedom Fighters who waged a war against the Soviet Union during the 80's and our own CIA trained him. I have seen videos and the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" is based off of this. If we left things alone, there is no way Osama Bin Laden would have had the resources or training to pull of a terrorist attack against the US. That is the thanks we get. They come and try to blow us up. Who pays for wars and aid to foreign countries? How does the US get this money? The same way they get it to pay out welfare checks and social security. By borrowing from other countries and charging taxes. At least the welfare laws passed a vote through congress, even though it was a bad idea. Representatives of citizens did not vote on these wars. They did not vote for many of the agencies and programs either. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is the biggest welfare recipient of American money in the world! 70 BILLION DOLLARS! He may not be the leader anymore, but he is a very rich man and your children are going to pay the interest on money given to him by the US government for a long time. Who helped set Egypt free? Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. American Innovations. Not money stolen from the future children of America. I just saw the Facebook movie too, and I don't know if the real Mark is like that, but fictional Mark is such a great example of an Objectivist that he could have been a character in an Ayn Rand novel. But she did not write that story, that is a true story. The lone guy with an attitude problem with this great idea for a social network and second handers thinking that they deserve something from him. It revolves around a court case, and they used the transcript. He wrote the code, and he kept control of his company. He stood up for himself in court, making comments like, "If you invented Facebook, then you would have invented Facebook." Maybe not as long winded as Roark, but the same idea. He lost, but he still won because kept control of his company. And the Egyptions won too, not because of money stolen from American Citizens, but because of innovations from specific "self-centered" American Citizens like Mark. Facebook was created for entirely selfish reasons, but this is what helped set Egypt free. Our foreign aid is an act of altruism on the belief that Democracy is best and it is our responsibility to free the world. The brotherhood may not be the best leaders, but they only supported the revolution. They did not start it. The kids started it. The whole situation is against anything Rand might have stood for anyway, even when only taking the article in consideration, because our money and intervention did not establish a free nation for them. She said in her article that was the only way such intervention could be justified. Innovations by so called "selfish" Americans is what helped set them free, not interventions. It is happening. I have never seen people so happy. Thousands of people on the streets lighting off fireworks. A young man said, "Our revolution, our Facebook." Freedom earned is freedom wanted. <object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc11d7c2" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=41540624&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc11d7c2" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=41540624&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p> <object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc476c58" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=41540477&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc476c58" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=41540477&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
  6. I am breaking a part the article itself. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_collectivized_rights The reason why Communist Nations do not have national rights according to Rand's article is because only individuals have rights, not a government. Since people in Communist Nations have no rights, a Communist Nation cannot use that as an excuse to not be invaded. There are no such thing as national rights. If governments do not have rights in the first place, and only people, then governments cannot be used as tools to advance the interests of some of the people regarding liberation invasions either, on this principle. This is especially true if the people did not even vote on it, like with Vietnam. This is the definition of a holy war, and it is not the government's place to engage in holy wars. Even if it is the good thing to do. Welfare is something that advances the interests of some of the people, and liberals use government as a tool to enforce it. Liberals think government has a right to do this, like how interventionalists think the government has a right to carry out freedom wars. A liberal minded person cannot simply provide for all the poor people on their own personal income, so they use government as a tool to provide. Don't you see how this is flawed? A freedom minded person cannot possibly free countries on their own, so they use the government as a tool just like liberals do. I bring up that example because it is clear that in Rand's books she does not support the use of government as a tool to advance altruistic interests of some of the people no matter how decent their intentions are. She even believes it to be evil. They are second handers because they personally cannot do this on their own, so they use the government. There is a contradiction here, but I think it has been cleared up already quite nicely. This is not what she meant. We need to read everything in context before we decide. There are two different conversations here, and I am attempting to cover both. The first conversation being that IF Rand was implying that it is OK for nations to be a tool when it comes to international policy but not regarding domestic policy for altruistic reasons, then there is a contradiction in the core philosophy of Objectivism. That implication has bothered some people. It did not bother me so much, because I still like Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. But unfortunately the newbie has been put in the middle of this great online debate. This has since been explained to me that this is not what she meant regarding international policy, and the explanation makes sense to me because of her actions and stances on Vietnam. My further point is that regardless of what Rand may have meant, this is not what people including other Objectivists on the forum seem to understand. So is there anything else that Rand wrote further clarifying what she meant? That's because if it is OK for government to be a tool in international relations on the behalf of some then there is a contradiction. I thought this was supposed to be a philosophy of selfishness, and why selfishness is actually more humane. The best way to help others is to create and innovate. Like how Equality 7-2521 reinvented electricity in Anthem. Not use the government as a tool to force others to promote your interests and using altruism as a justification. I agree, and I think this should be true regarding international policy as well. We did a lot more for the advancement for freedom by "inventing" the internet and even Facebook than dropping bombs or giving aid. The Egyptions rebelled on their own, because of American innovations. Our foreign aid actually held back their freedom, because their leader pocketed the money. Our innovations by so called "selfish people" set them free. The internet is even setting other oppressed countries free. We can't preach altruism when it comes to international issues and then trash it in the Domestic sector. It needs to be consistent. If it isn't, that's OK too. But if is not consistent then one can morally object to some points of Objectivism and still be an Objectivist.
  7. Can I edit my posts? I just realized I spelled Peter Keating's name wrong. Sorry. I also wanted to clarify the male promiscuity thing, because today's world is much different than the time setting of Fountainhead. This is not the 1920's, and a lot of the statements in the book were against society standards of the 1920's. If men are promiscuous because of today's standards telling them they should be or because of personal feelings of insecurity about their own sexual orientation, then that is not in line with the book. Gail, another character in the book, was very promiscuous prior to meeting Dominique. He pretty much could have any woman he wanted, and he took advantage of it. He went against 1920's society standards to do this. It did not make him happy though, and these encounters had no meaning for him. The point is that even though there are some men who honestly love a lot of women and every romantic encounter has great meaning for them, that is more a myth than reality. These men feel secure with themselves because they meet society's standards of a heterosexual male, and they feel confident to be outspoken about it because it is acceptable. I am a woman, and I happen to know that most of the men I know have some standards. They are just not outspoken about it and they tend to keep those feelings to themselves, out of fear of being persecuted by other men who don't have any standards. If they were really in the line of Howard Roarke, they would be brutally honest and not care what society thinks.
  8. I agree with this statement Dante. I think this is exactly what she meant. I believe this because it is congruent with her stances on Vietnam, WWII, and other statements she publically made after she wrote the article in question. However, from reading this thread and looking at the world in general one can only assume that this is not what people understand. Quotes from the article: It is saying that a free nation has the right (if they so choose) to liberate nations. It does not say "only if" those leaders pose a threat to our freedom, but to purely liberate if we as a nation choose to do so because it is our right. She does say it is not a duty, but that it is a nation's right. This can be taken the wrong way. The right is the condition. Not the threat of loosing rights. This is saying it is OK to invade a slave country only if we establish a free social system. They do not need to pose a threat to us, or be doing anything to us at all. This is completly alturistic. All they need to do is violate the rights of their citizens, and if we choose to liberate them (not because it is a duty, but because it is our right) it is OK if we establish a free system. This is an important quote just because it fully explains her audience and why she wrote this article. She is debasing the liberal argument of national rights. She does not feel that communist and socialist countries have rights, because they violate the rights of citizens. Her argument is that nations in of themselves do not have rights, but only individuals have rights. I will paste that next. I do have a problem with this statement though in the context of this article, because if nations do not have rights and only individuals have rights, then why do some nations have a right to invade just because it is their right? Meaning, that nations themselves should not have the right to invade other nations just because other nations are evil. It may be true that nations that rob individuals of rights have no rights, but then again that doesn't grant rights to other nations to invade them when they pose no threat. I am OK with saying that if such nations are invading us or pose a serious threat to our individual freedom, then abolishing their government is OK because the nation in question has no national rights, but only if such a nation is attacking our individual freedoms. But that is not the point of this article. This needs clarification. I agree with this, but I agree with this both ways. I do not believe that by being a free nation all of a sudden the nation collective rights that citizens do not have, only the citizens have rights. There are no collective rights. By saying a nation has a right to invade, one is imposing collective rights on a nation. Perhaps the representatives of citizens have a right to pass a vote in congress to invade another country if their individual rights are threatened, but this is not clarified. This was not Vietnam. There was no vote in cogress, and it was not an act of war. The nation in of itself did not pose a threat to our own personal individual rights.
  9. This is fun. I appreciate all the feedback by the way. Police in our country usually do not outright use force. They handcuff criminals, read them their rights, and take them to jail. Then they wait for a trial where they are proven guilty by a jury and if they are they are sentenced to prison. Or at least that is the way it should work. I am not denying that some police use excessive force, but this is against the constitution and our laws. That is exactly my point, she probably did not mean this at all. Regardless, this is what happened. Politicians, specifically the GOP, twisted around her words and they are engaging in a holy war for morality. They will not stop until we are all free, whether the nations or the people in the nations want freedom or not. She was very outspoken against Libertarians twisting her words around, so I don't think she would have appreciated this if she had lived to see it. If anything, I am defending her. Regardless, it is still not OK to use collective forces to enforce non-collective rights. The early Christians believed that they too were enforcing non-collective rights. In fact, these rights were holy and ordained from God. Christians are the firmest believers of rights, and they will give you God and Jesus whether you want Him or not. To come to God has to be something an individual wants to do, it shouldn't be forced on a nation. It needs to be from the ground up. The individuals in a nation need to want it. Rights are the same way. There is nothing wrong with inspiring other nations to want to fight for their rights by providing an excellent example of what rights are. Until our policies of interventionalism, the US did this quite well. We spread Democracy through selfishness. We completely changed the face of Europe. The United States was the first Classical Liberal Democratic nation, and now nearly all first world countries are. We did not go over to France and liberate them, we just provided a great example and they liberated themselves because the people saw how great freedom is. The same is true for all the European Nations. We even changed the country that owned us at one time, Great Britain. We are great producers and we provided goods and services other nations needed, and by seeing what we were doing they decided to do this for themselves. This was done all through selfishness. Sometimes, being selfish is more kind. It is a paradox, true. It is not supposed to be that way, but shoving your wealth in other nation's faces is the kindest way to spread Democracy. They will naturally want that wealth and freedom for themselves. We were so much more kind when we were selfish. To me, I thought that was the object of Objectivism. Also, our nation became a super power because states wanted to be a part of the Union. The Union offered a lot of great benefits and the states chose to join. If freedom is so great, people will want it and they themselves will choose to fight for it. They do not need a liberator. All they need is a reason to be liberated. If we worry about ourselves, then we are providing the world with an excellent reason for liberation. This is not what Ayn Rand wrote. She wrote we have a moral right to invade other nations because their home nations are not honoring the rights of individuals, so they as a nation do not have rights. Of course we have a right to defend ourselves, but that's not the philosophy in question here. If these nations are attacking us, then we should defend ourselves. Vietnam posed no threat to our national security, and I believe that is one of the reasons Ayn Rand was against the intervention. Of course we were fighting that war for freedom, to free Vietnam. So why would she be against that? I really just think she didn't have enough time to think this through, and because she went against herself regarding Vietnam later on that shows me that she would have liked the opportunity to further clarify what she meant. She shouldn't be damned for writing a paragraph, especially when she never really had the chance to fully explain herself in the first place. From what I know of her, I am sure she would have. I think this article in particular was in retaliation against anarchist libertarian hippies who were twisting around her words. They took one thing she said and ran with it. She was writing for that audience. Not the GOP. She would be just as upset if the GOP twisted her words. I know what audience this was intended for, and I understand why she wrote it. For the most part, it is a great article. We do need objective rules and courts. It is the only way we can function as a free society. All in all the best and kindest way to spread Democracy is through selfishness. It works quite well. We as a nation need to be more like Howard Roarke and less like Ellsworth Toohey. To be like Howard Roarke as an individual but not a nation does not make sense to me. We need to change the world through making the best products, building the best buildings, having the brightest innovations, and establishing a sound system of Democracy for ourselves that other nations want to employ. America is just much kinder when we are selfish. We inspire other nations to be like us. We give individual people dreams and goals. They need to fight the wars and lead the revolutions against their rulers, not us. That way is just much better. I heard Ayn Rand was inspired to come to the US because she watched Metropolis, and this later inspired her to write Fountainhead. We need to keep building great buildings, and keep showing the world what freedom is so they will want it for themselves. We need to keep making movies, and writing books. And lay off the bombings.
  10. If this is part of the Objectivist philosophy is really true, then Spain had every right to invade the Americas and decimate the native population. The Aztecs were brutal, cruel leaders who sacrificed their own citizens to their gods in massive quantities. The temples ran with blood. According to Ayn Rand, they did not have rights. The Spanish empire felt justified to do this because of the way they interpreted the bible. I went to Spain, and I don't speak Spanish well but you don't need to be fluent to understand the paintings and the symbols. They are very graphic. It seems to me the Spanish took a very literal interpretation of Revelations and applied it to themselves. They represented the lady with the 12 stars. It is quite clear, you see that crown almost in every church. Is it moral and right to decimate an entire population because their leaders are immoral and you are moral? Is the GOP not using philosophy Ayn Rand wrote to justify our own actions? Sort of like how the Spanish twisted Christian philosophy to suit themselves? Is that what she really meant? But in fact, our invasions have absolutely nothing to do with morality, we just say it does, and has everything to do with economics. The same goes with Spain. They just wanted the gold. I just think making such statements and applying them to the entire collective is very dangerous, and not unlike collective religion. I read the books, and I saw the you tube videos. I read Jeff Britting's book, and watched the documentary he worked on. I went to see Anthem at the Long Center, and I listened to experts there. I have a right to believe that this aspect is not congruent. With everything else she writes and says, she seems to be against mixing morality with politics as far as a collective goes. Collective enforcement of religion is bad. It stifles creativity and science. It limits the human mind. I agree. Freedom is just something people need to want for themselves, and the best way to spread freedom is through education and being concerned with our own nation so other nations have something to shoot for. People want to be free. People who live in un-free nations will naturally want to be free after seeing all the benefits a free nation provides, and just by being a great example we can inspire them to fight for it or for leaders reform their constitutions. Just like how Roarke was an example in of himself, the same with John Galt. Roarke inspired others by producing and worrying about himself. It is Toohey who wanted to use the collective to enforce his interests, not Roarke. The EU is a great example of being a great example, they are just doing what they are doing and nations are becoming Democratic so they can reap those great benefits. Unjust nations reform their national policy to join the EU because they want to. The people in these nations chose to do this because the EU is setting a great example, like Roarke did in Fountainhead. There are no wars, and no one is forcing anyone to join the EU. They want to. Isn't that a better way?
  11. No, it would not be amoral for me to do so. But to give my country moral justification to do so on my behalf is amoral. That's religion. That is mixing politics with religion, and I do not agree with that. Objectivism is supposed to be about the individual, not forcing the collective to enforce my beliefs. Philosophy for the individual is OK. Mixing philosophy with politics is not OK. Taking a philosophy and perverting it to serve a political purpose is also not OK, and I don't think Rand would have agreed with that. That is exactly what the GOP did, after she died.
  12. This is true. This is a great paraphrase of exactly what I was referring to. I initially was responding to a topic where someone posed a question that if someone disagreed with Rand could they still be considered moral. I said yes, and this was my example. I have moral reasons for not agreeing. That's because this is like religion. I do agree with everything else. I really like Objectivism. I also think Politicians pick and choose from philosophy, and unfortunately Rand did not have enough time to refine or defend this statement before it was too late. If she was upset that Libertarians picked and chose from her philosophy, I am sure she would have been just as upset if the GOP did such a thing as well. That is what happened. It's pretty much what George W. said over and over again. That really is not what the war was about, but since he said that over and over it made it OK. I looked up to see her stance on the Vietnam war, and she opposed it because of the draft. If she just followed the core of the statement, she would have been all for it. She did have clauses, but she did not have enough time to fully refine and define what she wrote because she died in 1982. She has personal cause, because she did live through the Bolshevik Revolution. How can anyone just stand by and watch a government kill all those people? It is a personal cause though, and it just doesn't fit with everything else in my mind. You can agree to disagree. That's fine. There are some holes though, and if she herself is switching stances then that tells me she wanted to put more thought into herself.
  13. How is that different from the Spanish Explorations or the Holy War? Am I still not imposing my own moral beliefs on others through political force? Am I not using moral beliefs to justify violence, like religion? I just don't see how this point fits with the whole philosophy. I thought she hated Libertarians because politics was not the way to spread beliefs, education is. I agree with that. Using your government's force is using the political machine. I don't blame her for thinking this, I think she is completely entitled considering her background. I just don't see how it ties in with the philosophy.
  14. Oh wow. This is a new topic. Didn't expect that. I was responding to another thread. This is where I got my information from. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_collectivized_rights It came directly from an article she wrote. This is a specific quote from the letter: "A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights." Hope this helps! Please, take the time to read the whole thing.
  15. @ TLD. If this was about her being an interventionalist, I got that from here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_collectivized_rights

    A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justi...

×
×
  • Create New...