Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How to Join the Strike!

Rate this topic


JamesShrugged
 Share

Recommended Posts

Peaceful Duplication

Since the IP debate has been settled for sometime, another way to not spend money so as to keep resources out of the hands of the State and corporations that benefit from state enforced intellectual poverty (in this case, media, broadcasting, film, and music industries, and patent war profiteers Apple and Microsoft) is to use bittorrent or other file sharing networks to download content. Almost any digital information can be acquired; music, films, ebooks, and computer programs.

 

Great. The way to be an "Anarch"-Objectivist is to produce as little as possible, and steal from the great producers of the world because they dare try and profit from their creations.

 

While you're at it, steal the name Ayn Rand chose for her philosophy, tag it on to the end of everything she hated, and then have the gall to show up here and expect us to listen to what you have to say.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. The way to be an "Anarch"-Objectivist is to produce as little as possible, 

 

Produce as little as possible in the state run economy as a means of depriving the state of resource it uses to violate individual rights, yes. Produce as much as possible in the infomal economy (the free market) to promote voluntary trade between individual.

 

 

and steal from the great producers of the world 

 

Peaceful duplication (called piracy by the regime and its allies) benefits artists and software companies.

 

http://disinfo.com/2011/12/swiss-government-study-online-piracy-benefits-artists/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/18/research-paper-finds-music-piracy-benefits-album-sales/

http://www.techpowerup.com/45295/independent-artists-benefit-from-piracy.html

http://phys.org/news124984600.html

 

 

steal the name Ayn Rand chose for her philosophy

 

"Objectivism" is a proper noun denoting the philsophy of Ayn Rand. "AnarchObjectivism" is also a proper noun, denoting the logical integration of the philosophy's of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, George H. Smith, David Friedman, Bob Murphy, The Tannehills, and of course, myself.

 

Genus: Objectivism. Differentia: Anarchism

 

 

 

 

have the gall to show up here and expect us to listen to what you have to say.

 

Catholicism and Protestantism are often very different, but despite all those differences they are both still branches of the Christian religion AnarchObjectivism, whether you like it or not is a branch of Randian thought, that includes agreement with 

 

BTW, "Us" has an awfully collectivist connotation in the context of your sentence.

 

Whom do you propose to speak for? Orthodox Objectivists? This boards members? I understand that this boards members tend to be orthodox, I know there are several heterodox members as well.

 

The forum administration? I know that David Veksler is a fan of Murray Rothbard and is the webmaster for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which promotes anarcho-capitalism.

Edited by JamesShrugged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catholicism and Protestantism are often very different, but despite all those differences they are both still branches of the Christian religion AnarchObjectivism, whether you like it or not is a branch of Randian thought, that includes agreement with 

 

BTW, "Us" has an awfully collectivist connotation in the context of your sentence.

Board members probably. The whole anti-IP stuff and anarchism ruined the Objectivism subreddit basically, so I think it's safe to say that posting in this manner is unproductive to this site's stated objective. You can hold any idea, but it's rather dishonest to say that you're just fixing Rand's own inconsistencies. If it's different, keep it as such - saying "Genus: Objectivism, Differentia: Anarchism" doesn't even make sense. Bottom line, the "us" here is not different than saying people here would not think well of someone who would just spout all of it as authority rather than discussion. Any person who does that isn't just let off the hook. No collectivist connotation need be implied by Nicky's post.

 

AnarchNonObjectivism isn't an offshoot of Objectivism any more than Paul Ryan's belief in god as "TheistObjectivism" is just an offshoot of Objectivism. Inspiration is insufficient to claim there is logical entailment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked on the IP issue because it's so obviously anti-Objectivist, but the biggest problem with your ideas is that you're encouraging people to self-destruct in the name of throwing a temper tantrum. And, in the process, you're completely misrepresenting the ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged.

 

There's no rational justification for not being productive in the world we live in. And that's exactly what you're preaching. "producing as much as possible in the informal economy" is the equivalent of producing almost nothing. The "informal economy" consists of the bottom rungs of the job market (mostly illegal immigrants working for scrums), drug dealers, prostitution, and piracy. That's not productive, that's the refusal to be productive. 

 

Productive people seeking to minimize their tax burden don't operate in bitcoins, they just register their companies in the Caymans or Luxembourg. Or they move to Singapore. They don't stop working, just because the world isn't perfect. They realize that we still live in a world where working hard allows you to profit handsomely, live in luxury and fulfill your dreams, whereas "going on strike" gets you nothing except misery and self-pity.

BTW, "Us" has an awfully collectivist connotation in the context of your sentence.

 

 I guess you're adding an eighth step: don't use the pronoun "us", because it sounds collectivist?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't make any sense. The differentia is supposed to fall under the category of the genus. How can anarchism fall under a philosophy that is pro monopolist government?

 

I make my argument here.

 

 

the biggest problem with your ideas is that you're encouraging people to self-destruct in the name of throwing a temper tantrum. And, in the process, you're completely misrepresenting the ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged.

 

Throwing a temper tantrum? Having a deliberate plan to undermine the state by denying it resources is not a temper tantrum.

 

As I show here, agorism is exactly what "The Strike" in Atlas Shrugged was:

 

  • Alternate currency: “That’s the money we use here,” he said. “It’s minted by Midas Mulligan… We don’t accept any other currency in this valley.”
  • Autarky: Most of the strikers, formerly leading high class lifestyles as industrial CEO’s, became farmers. Energy independence achieved through decentralized use of Galt’s Motor. Midas Mulligan: “The valley is almost self-supporting.”
  • Black markets: As opposed to state markets, the strikers go out of their way to avoid material support of the state. Midas Mulligan: “And as to the goods that we can’t yet produce, I purchase them from the outside through a pipe line of my own. It’s a special agent, a man who does not let my money reach the looters.”
  • Disregard of illegitimate law: Wherever the state is blind and relies on voluntary adherence to its demands, the strikers are oblivious to it. In their secret Galt within the geographical boundaries of Colorado and the United States, nobody volunteers taxes or submission to regulatory bodies.

The heroes of Atlas Shrugged also employed direct action against the state and its allies. Examples include:

  • Ellis Wyatt’s destruction of state-appropriated “Wyatt Oil” fields.
  • Francisco D’Anconia’s sabotage of D’Anconia Copper and manipulation of the stock market to intentionally destroy the profits through political graft of American crony capitalists as well as his destruction of D’Anconia Copper on the day it was nationalized.
  • Ragnor Danneskjold’s destruction of state-owned cargo vessels and the factory of crony capitalist Orren Boyle of Associated Steel.
  • Midas Mulligan’s theft of state property and redistribution of funds to the taxpayers.
  • John Galt’s takeover of public broadcasting for dissemination of an anti-statist message.
  • The anarchists’ assault on the government facility, the “State Science Institute,” involving the execution of a government employee, for the purpose of liberating John Galt who was being held as a political prisoner.

 

"producing as much as possible in the informal economy" is the equivalent of producing almost nothing. The "informal economy" consists of the bottom rungs of the job market (mostly illegal immigrants working for scrums), drug dealers, prostitution, and piracy. That's not productive, that's the refusal to be productive. 

 

Thats very uninformed. 

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/28/black_market_global_economy?wp_login_redirect=0

 

 

 

It used to be that System D was small -- a handful of market women selling a handful of shriveled carrots to earn a handful of pennies. It was the economy of desperation. But as trade has expanded and globalized, System D has scaled up too. Today, System D is the economy of aspiration. It is where the jobs are. In 2009, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a think tank sponsored by the governments of 30 of the most powerful capitalist countries and dedicated to promoting free-market institutions, concluded that half the workers of the world -- close to 1.8 billion people -- were working in System D: off the books, in jobs that were neither registered nor regulated, getting paid in cash, and, most often, avoiding income taxes.

 

This entire article is very enlightening, I would definitely suggest reading it.

 

 

Board members probably. The whole anti-IP stuff and anarchism ruined the Objectivism subreddit basically, so I think it's safe to say that posting in this manner is unproductive to this site's stated objective. You can hold any idea, but it's rather dishonest to say that you're just fixing Rand's own inconsistencies. If it's different, keep it as such - saying "Genus: Objectivism, Differentia: Anarchism" doesn't even make sense. Bottom line, the "us" here is not different than saying people here would not think well of someone who would just spout all of it as authority rather than discussion. Any person who does that isn't just let off the hook. No collectivist connotation need be implied by Nicky's post.

 

AnarchNonObjectivism isn't an offshoot of Objectivism any more than Paul Ryan's belief in god as "TheistObjectivism" is just an offshoot of Objectivism. Inspiration is insufficient to claim there is logical entailment.

 

Hey Louie, I havent heard from you in a while, how have you been?

 

I'm sure you know that I am one of the most active members of /r/objectivism, and an active proponent for anarchism there. So I guess you have me to blame for "ruining" it. I like to think of it as more of a heterodox alternative to objectivist forums like this and "the forum for ayn rand fans" which tend to be more orthodox. Hit me up on Skype and I'll fill you in on what I've been up to lately.

 

 

I think Stalin made the same argument: he'll do stuff to you even if you object, for your own good.

 

Even the owner of this forum is anti-IP. Its not an uncommon position among Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the owner of this forum is anti-IP. Its not an uncommon position among Objectivists.

Now, a logical fallacy?

Listen, if you want to argue that everyone should always have had the right to copy Rand's books, do so. But, to use "it is good for Rand -- even if she objects strenuously" as an argument, or to say that "Mr. X thinks like I do" simply undercuts any real argument you might make.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, a logical fallacy?

Listen, if you want to argue that everyone should always have had the right to copy Rand's books, do so. But, to use "it is good for Rand -- even if she objects strenuously" as an argument, or to say that "Mr. X thinks like I do" simply undercuts any real argument you might make.

 

I wasn't making an argument, it was just an observation. In the original article I link to an actual argument against IP rights. 

 

Obviously, you believe in IP, and I don't, so we are going to have a hard time not talking past each other. I've always had good interactions with you, SoftwareNerd, so I would prefer to agree to disagree than battle this one out.(also, I recently spent a lot of time and energy arguing about IP on reddit and am a bit drain on the topic, TBH)

Edited by JamesShrugged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you know that I am one of the most active members of /r/objectivism, and an active proponent for anarchism there. So I guess you have me to blame for "ruining" it. I like to think of it as more of a heterodox alternative to objectivist forums like this and "the forum for ayn rand fans" which tend to be more orthodox. Hit me up on Skype and I'll fill you in on what I've been up to lately.

 

I don't blame one specific person, it's several (well, actually,  it's more on ParahSalin/Bogomolist/Ropoctl/whatever-his-name-is-now largely), and I acknowledge that it's more open, but there were not quality discussions by and large. But frankly it was just too much of not-Objectivist stuff that I lost interest - I'm more into epistemology, and there's not much of it there. It's a variety of reasons, yet part of subreddits is common basis of ideas (and hopefully people don't take it to be insulation from other ideas). Just understand your own perspective and know that it is in fact quite different than Objectivism broadly construed. 

 

As to your topic, I think it's counter-productive to advocate striking. What are you getting out of it? Is it really true that your productivity is wholly leeched away? I truly don't think it's that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't making an argument, it was just an observation.

I see that all the time. It doesn't matter if you call it an argument or an observation. A logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy. Replying "it's OK if it's not in a formal argument", just betrays that the person never bothered understanding what's wrong with logical fallacies. You shouldn't even be uttering logical fallacies in your sleep.

 

P.S. If you think David approves of just ignoring several chapters in Rand's philosophy and calling opposition to intellectual property Objectivism, or of quitting your job and letting your family starve in the name of sticking it to Obama (or, in his case, PM Li) get him to come defend that position. You're not doing the job.

 

I don't have a problem with someone taking a position different than Ayn Rand's on an issue. I do it all the time. I have a problem with that person calling it Objectivism. Does David do that? If not, your observation is irrelevant as well as fallacious.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...so I would prefer to agree to disagree than battle this one out...

Sure. I didn't intend to respond to any linked content anyway, just to the two "observations" posted directly in this thread. I would not even post this, except that I want to add that you're probably misrepresenting David's views. I hesitate to say this because it can bring forth a response that goes: "David said X-Y-Z here, and here and here..." and that's a dead end since David probably won't notice this thread. Still, I think it is fair to point out that you're probably misrepresenting him, but that I do not intend to argue that you're doing so... just an observation.

So, I hope not to post to this thread again.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

denoting the logical integration of the philosophy's of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, George H. Smith, David Friedman, Bob Murphy, The Tannehills, and of course, myself.

 

There isn't a "logical integration" of objectivism and anarcho-capitalism. Both are advocates of capitalism, but that's about it. At core, they have differences that cannot be integrated. Anarcho-capitalism views government as evil and wants to do away with any and all government, and put the use of force on the marketplace. And Objectivism believes government is a necessary good. 

 

Using the term "anarchobjectivism" is like using the term "athesisttheism." The two are mutually exclusive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James: the IP debate is most definitely not settled, at least on this forum (where you are making such arguments).

Nicky: Are you serious about AS?

Ayn Rand would never have advocated piracy, but the essence of his suggestion is EXACTLY what Atlas Shrugged depicted- right down to "quit your job!"

How can you say that AS is about anything other than refusing to help perpetuate the status quo, by quitting your job and preventing the moochers from having anything you've produced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could almost be considered a double edge sword. The best way to help the poor is to not be one of them. On the other tray of that scale are those who would penalize the productive for being so.

When the penalties for producing become great enough, the rewards for not producing will become self-fulfilling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To take someone else's property, without their consent, is theft. Whether this ultimately helps or harms the owners of intellectual property is completely irrelevant and, it seems to me, a crudely attempted shortcut.

I agree that IP rights are improper and antithetical to Capitalism, BTW. But you seem to be trying to sidestep the issue and that simply isn't possible; it has to be shown for what it is, in full, before we assume it in any subsequent discussion. The only alternative is to agree to disagree and try to OMIT it from the primary issue.

---

"You shouldn't even be uttering logical fallacies in your sleep" is, itself, an equivocation of conscious statements with involuntary muttering.

Which isn't something that would even be worth mentioning, except in the context of the rest of the post.

Formal logical fallacies; flaws in the structure and referents of an argument (contradiction, conflation, reification) are worth studying, in order to avoid them.

Informal fallacies, in general, seem to have a rational element behind them.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc constitutes a large portion of our commonsense, causal inferences- far more than some would like to realize. Even ad hominem can be logical, when certain hominems demonstrate a propensity to spout blatant falsehoods.

The defense of a fallacy as "just an observation" is dishonest and equally as wrong as attacking a fallacy for being such, REGARDLESS of content.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anarchobjectivism would perfectly describe a philosophy that accepts Reality, Reason and Selfishness while rejecting some details to Rand's concept of Capitalism.

The disputes over semantics are getting very old and, if purer Oists than I are offended by this one, then they should pick a more tolerable name and be done with it, already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondhander: Which is closer to Objectivism; Islam or Anarcho-Capitalism?

If you deny any basis for comparison then you're asserting a form of Tawhid which, as one can observe, has worked wonders for all those logically individualistic Muslim philosophers. *cough cough*

Politics is only one fifth of any philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make my argument here.

 

 If a government holds a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, it necessarily 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 with 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.

 

Rand's philosophy (Objectivism) doesn't agree with you. When you claimed Objectivism to be the genus, you necessarily claimed every part of the philosophy to be included. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of Objectivism are really Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondhander: Which is closer to Objectivism; Islam or Anarcho-Capitalism?

If you deny any basis for comparison then you're asserting a form of Tawhid which, as one can observe, has worked wonders for all those logically individualistic Muslim philosophers. *cough cough*

Politics is only one fifth of any philosophy.

 

Anarcho-Capitalism is closer to Objectivism. ... I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at by asking that.

 

I'm not denying that you could compare (or contrast) the two philosophies. I am saying, however, that certain philosophies have necessary attributes that are contradictory to the necessary attributes of other philosophies, and it is nonsensical then to try to combine the two, because you would be forced to throw out one or more of the necessary attributes from at least one of the philosophies, and you would no longer have that philosophy, because you need all the necessary attributes in order to constitute said philosophy.

 

That's why I brought up the idea of "atheistic-theism." It's nonsensical for the same reason mentioned above. 

 

Objectivism has as one of its necessary attributes the idea of a single government for a given society with a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force directed by objectivist-ethics based laws. If you discard that in favor of anarchism, then you discard a necessary attribute of objectivism and no longer have objectivism.

 

I believe the philosophy of objectivism is (or should be if it isn't already) holistic, not piecemeal. It's not as if various ideas were culled from the universe of ideas and then thrown together with no rhyme or reason. There's a reason why objectivism holds to a monopoly on the use of force. It's deducted from the axioms and core principles of objectivism. You can't just remove some pieces and put in others as though they were Legos and still claim to have objectivism. 

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole idea of open Objectivism is so stupid I 'don't see how it persist. If someone took a Nike shoe and put another symbol behind it and then called it their own product, that would be ludicrous. How do people not see this the same way?

Nicky said:

"

I don't have a problem with someone taking a position different than Ayn Rand's on an issue. I do it all the time. I have a problem with that person calling it Objectivism. Does David do that? If not, your observation is irrelevant as well as fallacious."

Perfect.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky: Are you serious about AS?

Ayn Rand would never have advocated piracy, but the essence of his suggestion is EXACTLY what Atlas Shrugged depicted- right down to "quit your job!"

No, it's not. AS isn't telling readers to quit their jobs anymore than 1984 is telling them to ignore everything on television because it's just a fabrication by the Party. They're both works of fiction set in dystopias. A dystopia is a fictional future, very different from the author's and his readers' present.

While we're on the subject, works of fiction in general aren't literal to-do lists. They create a fictional context, not to be a perfect copy of reality, but to suit the purpose of illustrating the application of abstract ideas.

It is the reader's job, as a thinking individual, to abstract the context and understand the ideas. Then, apply them to their own context accordingly. If you don't feel like doing that, I suggest you stick with Ayn Rand's non-fiction work. That, you can take literally.

There is nothing in the ideas presented in AS that, applied to our current context, would lead a rational individual to quit their job and withdraw from the overt economy. And there is irrefutable evidence of that: the fact that Ayn Rand never withdrew from the American economy, nor did she ever shun the US government. Far from it: she CHOSE the US as her country.

She filed her taxes by every April 15, just like everyone else. Not because she refused to live by her own advice, but because there is nothing in any of her works to suggest that anyone should do otherwise.

Yes, she was an idealist. So am I. But an idealist is someone who believes in right and wrong, and believes that ideals are achievable. And more importantly, an idealist believes that developing and talking about ideals is a positive act even when they aren't achieved (not just in Politics, but in every facet of life). But an idealist isn't someone who refuses to interact with anything except their ideal reality. That's a recluse, not an idealist.

P.S. I would be curious to find out how OP goes about following his own advice. A brief inspection of his site showed nothing about that. It's important to note that John Galt, Rand's fictional hero, lead by example. He didn't show up at Rearden's house with the speech "There's a fictional novel in which several characters transform their lives. Your should do the same.". His speech started with "Hi, my name is John Galt, here's what I did and why. If you agree, you're welcome to join me.".

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...