Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Need" is not a legitimate moral claim on the lives and proper

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A little background on me:

I was a 60's liberal, brought up by my parents that way, until the early 90's when some powerful personal events changed me and shocked my life. ( "crashed and burned" was more like it, at the time. )

I suddenly realized that government couldn't possibly guarantee me that life would be fair and easy, nor was it their purpose to.

I gradually evolved, rereading "Atlas Shrugged", which my parents had given me as a teen, but only appreciated as a novel back then. But this time the reading was seen differently.

I read some more of Rand's works, and by 2000, considered myself a Libertarian, then by about 2008, a full fledged Objectivist. And yes, I now realize the differences. Objectivism is the only philosophy I've found that has objective definitions. For example, a Republican can mean almost anything, from liberal to conservative, to Libertarian, as can "Libertarian". I even found a site years ago, for Libertarian Green Party Nazis. (w00t)

It's like religion - it means anything anyone wants it to mean at the time.

At some point along the way, I also realized that forced-collectivism was in fact slavery, and I've always been against slavery. Only forced-collectivism doesn't enslave people based on race, nationality or religion, it enslaves people fairly equally, except of course for the rulers. The true "Road To Serfdom".

But Y'ron Brook made a statement along the lines of what I used in my subject line, and it's very true.

The big challenge politically is getting people to understand the principles and the philosophy of freedom and capitalism, which led me to write a little book about it, in late 2010. My forte has never been marketing though, and unfortunately it sits beneath 2.5 million some others, at Amazon.com. Some have told me that it might be a good manual for resetting things, after the coming Collapse, which Rand pretty much predicted as far back as the 50's.

But the biggest obstacle that I see is this:

"We have allowed our constitutional republic to deteriorate into a virtually unchecked direct democracy. Today's political process is nothing more than a street fight between various groups seeking to vote themselves other people's money. ( and freedoms? ) Individual voters tend to support the candidate that promises them the most federal loot in whatever form, rather than the candidate who will uphold the rule of law." --Rep. Ron Paul

Forced-collectivism involves people voting themselves the money and liberty of others, therefore it's immensely popular... at least until it collapses and people start seeing death camps and all that.

I think they figured that forced-collectivism ( they said "socialism", but I think that forced-collectivism is really a better term for it ) led to the deaths of at least 100 million people in the last century.

So it seems like getting from point A ( where things are now ) to point B ( a theoretically Objectivist capitalis free world ) involves education of the masses, something they're not really inclined to be receptive to, unless and until they reach the point of utter desperation, like the founders of this country did under the tyranny of England in their time.

So I greatly admire Y'ron Brook and the ARI, and all others like them, but what a herculean task we have before us, eh?

Melissa Brookstone

Author and Founder of "The Planetary Bill of Rights Project"

http://www.PlanetaryBillOfRights.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't talk to people about politics anymore. Just about everyone is entirely incapable of understanding why I think the way I do. It seems chaotic, random and arrogant because they share none of my fundemental beliefs or values.

Leading by example is all you can really do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little background on me:

I was a 60's liberal, brought up by my parents that way, until the early 90's when some powerful personal events changed me and shocked my life. ( "crashed and burned" was more like it, at the time. )

I suddenly realized that government couldn't possibly guarantee me that life would be fair and easy, nor was it their purpose to.

I gradually evolved, rereading "Atlas Shrugged", which my parents had given me as a teen, but only appreciated as a novel back then. But this time the reading was seen differently.

I read some more of Rand's works, and by 2000, considered myself a Libertarian, then by about 2008, a full fledged Objectivist. And yes, I now realize the differences. Objectivism is the only philosophy I've found that has objective definitions. For example, a Republican can mean almost anything, from liberal to conservative, to Libertarian, as can "Libertarian". I even found a site years ago, for Libertarian Green Party Nazis. (w00t)

It's like religion - it means anything anyone wants it to mean at the time.

At some point along the way, I also realized that forced-collectivism was in fact slavery, and I've always been against slavery. Only forced-collectivism doesn't enslave people based on race, nationality or religion, it enslaves people fairly equally, except of course for the rulers. The true "Road To Serfdom".

But Y'ron Brook made a statement along the lines of what I used in my subject line, and it's very true.

The big challenge politically is getting people to understand the principles and the philosophy of freedom and capitalism, which led me to write a little book about it, in late 2010. My forte has never been marketing though, and unfortunately it sits beneath 2.5 million some others, at Amazon.com. Some have told me that it might be a good manual for resetting things, after the coming Collapse, which Rand pretty much predicted as far back as the 50's.

But the biggest obstacle that I see is this:

"We have allowed our constitutional republic to deteriorate into a virtually unchecked direct democracy. Today's political process is nothing more than a street fight between various groups seeking to vote themselves other people's money. ( and freedoms? ) Individual voters tend to support the candidate that promises them the most federal loot in whatever form, rather than the candidate who will uphold the rule of law." --Rep. Ron Paul

Forced-collectivism involves people voting themselves the money and liberty of others, therefore it's immensely popular... at least until it collapses and people start seeing death camps and all that.

I think they figured that forced-collectivism ( they said "socialism", but I think that forced-collectivism is really a better term for it ) led to the deaths of at least 100 million people in the last century.

So it seems like getting from point A ( where things are now ) to point B ( a theoretically Objectivist capitalis free world ) involves education of the masses, something they're not really inclined to be receptive to, unless and until they reach the point of utter desperation, like the founders of this country did under the tyranny of England in their time.

So I greatly admire Y'ron Brook and the ARI, and all others like them, but what a herculean task we have before us, eh?

Melissa Brookstone

Author and Founder of "The Planetary Bill of Rights Project"

http://www.PlanetaryBillOfRights.org/

Well put!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more active. I'll tell them that I don't like slavery, and that usually stimulates discussion.

If things keep going the way they are, there will be economic collapse and I don't have enough money to find decent refuge.

Do you just talk about these things with strangers? (Like in real life, not the internet, which is a terrible place to talk abotu politics)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me naive but I talk to whoever I feel, like whenever I feel like. :stuart:

So yeah...

Its not naive. Being outgoing is perfectly acceptable. I talk to people all the time, but not to talk about politics (usually just work). However talking about something as abstract as politics is usually out of the question for me.

Usually I have to figure out what exactly their religion is before I can even approach the topic of politics with someone. It takes weeks to sift through all the bs (identification vs actual belief) while remaining polite. Then once you figure our where they really stand I feel like I can have a meaingful conversation about politics.

Some topics are easier than others though .Commons sense shows the War on Drugs is moronic. So I could have a conversation about that with anyone and probably come across as convincing. However advocating total war on iran goes against most people's fundemental morals. I might as well debate their morals instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...