Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Living for the state

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

That is the reason I bailed at the beginning of his other thread.  It would be tolerable if he was simply getting our opinion or help understand our position, but that is obviously not the case.  You have to play logic deuces wild (which is why that fallacy is so alluring) in order to quote a  a system whose best propoents killed 140 million dead “workers” that were murdered through peace time polices building the “worker” paradise.  Idealism will do that to you.   

Also, your last words. "Idealism will do that to you." You probably meant "would," right? Otherwise, any idealism will lead to violence. I do not believe in violence even if you prove me wrong. Even if my model will be destroyed by your criticisms. This is not my first model, neither is it my last. My ideology survives through crisis. It is always developing, always evolving. Now, can you prove that Objectivism is not an idealism? Otherwise, your statement says that Objectivists will embrace violence if they are forced to live under collectivism, for instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My goal, for the moment, is clarifying any misconceptions you, or anyone reading this, may have regarding my outlook on globalization. I have no other goal.   An individual is the ultimate minority

Don't worry - I only got it after a lot of reading and lectures too, and actually some very thoughtful posts here too.  Some of that is really deep and outside of my interest points (ethics and politi

Your tribalistic thinking is for savages.

Spiral Architect:

Thank for the technical clarity. I am not as well versed on Objectivist Lexicon, however I am reading Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Perhaps one day I'll be able to identify and diagram psycho-babble in proper terms.

 

It was not my original intent to stifle a contributing writer, but that was a bit too much. If I said I didn't take some satisfaction from it, I would be lying.

 

 

Don't worry - I only got it after a lot of reading and lectures too, and actually some very thoughtful posts here too.  Some of that is really deep and outside of my interest points (ethics and politics/economics) so it took some work for the light bulb to go on. 

 

I'm just trying to save you some frustration.  I have gotten into some pretty drawn out conversations here too (it can be quite fun and self clarifying which is cool).  To each his own :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we assume that you interpret this equation as true, [A=(non)A]?

 

It is faith in a meaningless state. How can there be proof for something without meaning? Also, do not forget that my logic supports faith, and vice versa. In other words, meaninglessness is attained through meanings. Hence Faith-Logic.

More non-logic, really?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk of ideals, of idealism. In your ideal world, would individuals be the conduit of one singular mind? through some fantastic science of your design? Would that form "Society"? Would we not be reduced to automatons, forming a singular work force, with the most creative bouncing off the faces of the below-average performers, as if we were ants preparing for some goal no one seems to be able to explain? That would be meaningless; that would be your ideal. Ask an Objectivist what an ideal world would look like, and he'll tell you: A world where a person has the freedom to exchange a value for a value with mutual consent. What part did I get wrong?

Edited by Repairman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many people already live for the state. We toil at our chosen professions to support lazy administrators, whose only function seems to be creating more lazy government-dependent people, and charging the ones who produce to pay for it all. Or if they don't have the money, they elect to borrow against a future generation of producers, so the children can "live for the state." How wonderful, enslaving children, while claiming to be their benefactors. Insidious. You really ought to do your homework, and quit worrying about how much work you're going to face when you find your career is spent, with 50% or more of your earnings going to "the state." Oh, perhaps you'll become one of those dead-beat administrators, gorging himself on the earnings of producers. Ask yourself: Where does wealth come from? Do presidents create wealth? Or do they merely consume it, spend it, and destroy it?

Edited by Repairman
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be sure, idealism can make one blind to reason, unless one has the right ideal. That is, one needs an ideal epistemological grounding in reason; one needs to acknowledge one reality. This seems to be a problem for you, Ilya. When one is certain of one's premises, one can be confidant in one's assertions, rather than flip-flopping in mental convulsion. You have an inquisitive mind, but it is wrapped around a delusional conviction that the world, the individuals that comprise our world, need to be rescued from their own sense of fulfillment. Granted, the average person may not have a genuine conviction explaining their behavior, but is it your duty to rescued them? Who appointed you? Objectivism merely exists; it has existed for over fifty years, and I've only become aware of in the past seven. You are aware of it, and you haven't even bothered to make a serious study of it, yet you feel duty-bound to rescue self-identified Objectivists from themselves! Greed is a sense of entitlement to the unearned. You have not earned the right to claim the omniscience and the omnipotence of a Nietchean Overman. You are intellectually greedy. You claim authority over others, when you have not earned it. But idealism can do that to an individual.

 

Also, your last words. "Idealism will do that to you." You probably meant "would," right? Otherwise, any idealism will lead to violence. I do not believe in violence even if you prove me wrong. Even if my model will be destroyed by your criticisms. This is not my first model, neither is it my last. My ideology survives through crisis. It is always developing, always evolving. Now, can you prove that Objectivism is not an idealism? Otherwise, your statement says that Objectivists will embrace violence if they are forced to live under collectivism, for instance.

And make no mistake, Objectivists would use any means necessary to avoid living under a collectivist state. But we prefer constructive engagement as a first measure. One more thing: no one has to "prove you wrong," you're doing a fine job of that on your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk of ideals, of idealism. In your ideal world, would individuals be the conduit of one singular mind? through some fantastic science of your design? Would that form "Society"? Would we not be reduced to automatons, forming a singular work force, with the most creative bouncing off the faces of the below-average performers, as if we were ants preparing for some goal no one seems to be able to explain? That would be meaningless; that would be your ideal. Ask an Objectivist what an ideal world would look like, and he'll tell you: A world where a person has the freedom to exchange a value for a value with mutual consent. What part did I get wrong?

First of all, Society in the model is undefined. I want us to come up with a society that suits both of us. You want a society that will allow you a freedom of greed. Ok, that's fine with me. I want a global society that will lead to world peace and harmony with nature because I want to avoid a World War III and the death of humans from natural forces. The level of your fears of the automatization of individuals is the same as my global fears. I also want to note that I am against nationalization of creative faculties of individuals.

Also, please, do not regress my ideology into meaninglessness. I know that it's easy to do because Objectivism is lacking this area (in other words, it is incomplete), but we will never live in it since it will differentiate into Society and thus attain meaning that neither of us, seemingly, currently possesses. This is a thread for this kind of search for new ideas. Right now, we are in the meaningless state, and that's what you are afraid of, although I am comfortable with it (does not mean that I want you to be comfortable with it, although I am uncomfortable with your black & white state). Our objective reality (outside of Objectivism and outside of these threads) is the meaningless state that we are trying to differentiate. So far it is somewhere between Body--Environment and Society--Nature. It is a vertical conflict.

Do presidents create wealth? Or do they merely consume it, spend it, and destroy it?

Putin created a lot of wealth with the Sochi Olympics. If you haven't seen their opening ceremony, I highly recommend it to you. It is wonderful!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilya, You are never, ever going to bridge the gap between what you think and what Objectivists think. The bottom line is that you expound evil, and it is not just some petty evil, but the evil that has led to the death of millions.

A simple example is your idea that when people immigrate to the U.S. from other countries, it is a form of "vampirism". This says it all. You hold the collective as primary, not the individual. So, when the individual escapes the collective in which he is born, and seeks freedom elsewhere, you see it as the free collective bleeding the communist collective. This is the thinking that put up the Berlin wall and killed and imprisoned millions.

The blood is not on the hands of the country offering more freedom. The blood is on your hands, and the hands of every person like you, expounding evil ideas and trying to lord it over others.

Have you ever produced anything of value in your entire life, or is it your plan to suck the blood out of others until you die? It is you who are the bloody vampire.

Earlier you spoke of the hate you get. Huh! it is well deserved hate: and you should wear your evil honestly.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilya, You are never, ever going to bridge the gap between what you think and what Objectivists think. The bottom line is that you expound evil, and it is not just some petty evil, but the evil that has led to the death of millions.

A simple example is your idea that when people immigrate to the U.S. from other countries, it is a form of "vampirism". This says it all. You hold the collective as primary, not the individual. So, when the individual escapes the collective in which he is born, and seeks freedom elsewhere, you see it as the free collective bleeding the communist collective. This is the thinking that put up the Berlin wall and killed and imprisoned millions.

The blood is not on the hands of the country offering more freedom. The blood is on your hands, and the hands of every person like you, expounding evil ideas and trying to lord it over others.

Have you ever produced anything of value in your entire life, or is it your plan to suck the blood out of others until you die? It is you who are the bloody vampire.

Earlier you spoke of the hate you get. Huh! it is well deserved hate: and you should wear your evil honestly.

<sigh> You misunderstand me, sNerd. I believe that people should not abandon their homelands, cultures, and traditions at least in their hearts. I am coming closer and closer to fully understanding your view, Objectivists, so thank you for that. But I also want to stress that a person is a nobody without the history of his own race or nation. Please do not separate yourselves from your contexts, whether they are environmental, social, or racial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<sigh> You misunderstand me, sNerd. I believe that people should not abandon their homelands, cultures, and traditions at least in their hearts.

That is a nationalistic and racist view. In an ideal world, people are closer to being "citizens of the world". Obviously one has memories and fondness for things associated with your life. That's good. There are some foods I eat that you will think smell like shit. That's just fine.

However, when it comes to essentials, rational men should take the exact opposite of the view you espouse. Just because you stay in the same country I do, or even in the same neighborhood, does not make me nearer you on its own. Many people living across a border considered hostile are closer to each other, intellectually, than they are to their fellow citizens. And, this is a good thing.

There's the common parable told in third-world countries, saying the country is like a jar full of worms, and if any worm tries to rise above its station and get out, the others will pull him back. Pride in things they have not done -- things that preceded their first thought and action -- like country and community, is for worms, not for human beings.

Nobody should be proud of America by the mere fact that they are born here. As juveniles, fine; but, as adults, a country has to earn their pride.

 

I also want to stress that a person is a nobody without the history of his own race or nation. Please do not separate yourselves from your contexts, whether they are environmental, social, or racial.

This is a racist view that is commonly held, but at its root is the same false ideology that drove the Nazis.

I am proud of the human race for coming out of Africa. If some of them went on to Phonecia and invented an alphabet, I am proud of those cousins, even though some of my closer cousins missed that. If others went to South America and invented a calendar, I am proud of those cousins, even though my closer cousins missed that. If some went to China and invented paper, I am proud of those cousins, and so on.

 

Do not shatter your world with narrow domestic walls. That is the basis for all racism and war. A country and a community is a good thing, but not a primary, and it must earn respect. Respect must never be given it automatically. The idea that the community is primary, and your notion of vampire that flows form that is evil. Abandon it, for it is the creed of leeches who want an unearned love and an unearned respect.

 

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high

Where knowledge is free

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments

By narrow domestic walls

Where words come out from the depth of truth

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way

Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit

Where the mind is led forward by thee

Into ever-widening thought and action

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

- Rabindranath Tagore

 

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't speak for all Objectivists, but clearly many agree with me. Ilya, you not only "don't get it," but I doubt if you ever will. You seem to be pretty sure of yourself that you understand more about us than we do about ourselves, judging by this statement:

 

First of all, Society in the model is undefined. I want us to come up with a society that suits both of us. You want a society that will allow you a freedom of greed. Ok, that's fine with me. I want a global society that will lead to world peace and harmony with nature because I want to avoid a World War III and the death of humans from natural forces. The level of your fears of the automatization of individuals is the same as my global fears. I also want to note that I am against nationalization of creative faculties of individuals.
 

As I've stated before, yours is greed of an abstract nature. And it's legal. It's wrong. It's very wrong. You may continue to delude yourself that you have a superior world view, as long as that delusion remains an abstract problem in your own head. You have the freedom to be deluded. But if you think you can write on this forum with accusations of "greed" directed at people who've worked hard for many more years than you've been alive, you will receive the proverbial lashing that you deserve.

 

The "society" you seek is exactly the same "model" resulting in the mid-Twentieth Century crisis, spawning both economically devastation and racist-nationalist populism. Thankfully, you are harmless and inept. No chance you'll be another Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, or Hitler.

 

OK, you are what you are. It is an existence of your own making. If others regard you with astonishment and contempt, let's say it has something to do with your desire to "feel happiness with equal intensity as sadness," or whatever you seem to wish upon yourself. If you are the forsaken martyr of your Faith-Logic, prove your commitment, and take your last $300 from your savings, and give it to someone with less. Demonstrate to us your sense of economic egalitarian ethics. I dare you. I have a saying, maybe you've heard it before: Money may not be the most important thing to me, but I put it right up there with oxygen. You bet, greed is legal, but don't accuse any of us of greed, until you know whether we've earned our wealth honestly or not. How did you earn your wealth? God Almighty, it occurs to me that you can't even define wealth, only point your hypocritical finger at others with $301 or more. Have you even taken a course on economics? I understand political science majors aren't require either. It's no wonder the redistribution of the wealth in the US is handed over to those who did not earn it. Statists, like you, believe it is preferred that way.

 

Well, get a clue, Count Startsev. Some Objectivists are on to you. Maybe more so than you're on to yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be frank, Russia has been the birth place and home to many highly regarded mathematicians, physicists, scientists, and an array of academics, as well as pioneers of space exploration. While I have no interest in the Olympics, I have an interest in the history of technology and science. I have an interest in Russian history. And while Russia may claim Vladimir Zworkin, and Igor Stravinsky as great emigres to the West, they may not claim Albert Einstein. The point of this note is that the three previously mentioned individuals were, for a fact, individuals before any nation is allowed to claim credit for their creativity. Among the many themes explored in this thread, the individual and his relationship to the state/nation where they were born is a theme of primacy. The United States of America is as guilty as any nation for promoting the type of nationalism that infects the societies of other nations, be they industrially advanced or not. The achievement of the individual should be celebrated. (The achievements of the state may be weighed against that nation's errors.) This is especially obvious when viewing technical advances. Technical and academic achievements are usually the works of a small group or individual. Instead, politicians create absurd "nation holidays" out of such myths as Saint Patrick, for the specific purpose of pandering to ethnic groups as means of winning elections. Chicago is the only place where Casmir Polaski Day is celebrated, because city politicians have to market that Polish vote. The idea that a person is defined by their ancestry is preposterous. The public school history courses that promote nationalism in every nation are designed to ensure that their citizens will remain loyal to the tribe, sacrifice for the tribe, and if the state demands it, die for the tribe. It is a tradition that must come to an end if humankind is to move forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may add to my previous comment, identity-politics in America has been a recent trend. It presents an ever more degenerate conundrum: Which is worse, people psyched into believing their nation is superior merely for the virtue of being "our team", or breaking down American society into even more fragmented tribes of hyphenated American? I realize children do not have the cognitive faculties to understand much of than stories about people dead long ago. But nationalistic and tribal perceptions of historical events and personalities carries over into popular belief, and ultimately warps the truth into myth. The most twisted concept in American mythology is the notion of "equality." The Declaration of Independence stated "all men were created equal," and many people believe this meant, "all people must be allowed to an equal share of the wealth." Am I the only person who has met people who believe this myth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While this might be a great exercise to clerify thinking I really think you guys should just stop feeding the bears at this point.  Someone who has traveled so far down this path might be worth it if we were saving him like the Prisoner from the proverbial Villiage but he is trying to have his freedom and eat it too.  He wants his collectivism and our support, which is not going to happen since we want to live.

 

Look - Ilya - You want a compromise place for both?  This is how you do it:

 

You accept a proper Objectivist system of Government which is Capitalism (i.e. a government whose sole job it is to protect rights and no interference in society outside of self defence and courts). 

 

Stop.

 

You find some like minded people and buy some land legally and establish your collectivist village that allows people to enter it voluntary.  It has to be voluntary otherwise you've obliterated our stance, but within it you can organize all you want.  It's your land so under our system of Government you can dispose your property as you desire. 

 

Stop.  That is it.

 

We both then win.  We have a free society so we can live and you have your collectivist center that can live without violating the rights of others.  You can live your life that way for as long as you can. 

 

As a bonus, when everyone has to face the reality that collectivism, faith, and force are evil aspects of the same parasitic fantasy  and even Number 2 realizes he's dying in 5 year instalments you will have a free society to run to.  You can start a real life without the centuries of Dark Ages to overcome.  Again. 

 

There you go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We as Americans have a high standard to live up to, a legacy built on the promise of justice. For many years, I believed in "American Exceptionalism." Then it occurred to me: This nation could wash away just as easily as empires of the past. We are not exceptional in that we are immune from bankruptcy.

 

Achievement should be celebrated by all means, and national pride can certainly be misplaced. But I will take all the  jingoistic propaganda you can muster whose nationalism is found in a nation of "laws not men." USA! USA!

Indeed, we pride ourselves as a nation of laws, rather than plutocrats. But look at the reality. I did. And suddenly, I wasn't so proud. I don't believe in a conspiratorial cabal gathering in a star-chamber. But our laws are putting the future generations in jeopardy. It is morally wrong to expect them to pay for our good times. Statism is growing in America. People seem to think we can recover from any economic disaster by virtue of merely being the United States. The United States of America needs to return to its capitalist roots. The ground work has been laid; the crisis created by socialism has been identified. We can kid ourselves about our superiority, as other empires have. Look at them now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect: Thank you for that very helpful suggestion. That communal village you suggested is the opening subject of a documentary called Heaven on Earth: the Rise and Fall of Socialism. I provided a link to Youtube on the corresponding thread, "Integrating Objectivism with Marxism." In the presentation, the roots of communism are traced to a somewhat forgotten tourist site called New Harmony, Indiana. There, in 1826, a Welch industrialist, Robert Owen, purchased a village in order to conduct his social experiment, with disappointing results only a few years into it. I would have provided a link on this post, but I figured Youtube links take up a lot of space on these posts. Anyway, there are communes in Wisconsin and other rural locations. If one doesn't mind intense physical labor and the bare minimum of comfort, one might take pride in substance farming. I can assure you, it's not for me. I'll take the life of modern man with all of the stress, politics, and pay that comes with it.

Edited by Repairman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I want us to come up with a society that suits both of us. You want a society that will allow you a freedom of greed. . .

I want a global society that will lead to world peace and harmony with nature. . .

For posterity's sake, don't bother attempting to understand the rest of the nonsense.  If you understand this statement you'll understand the entire convoluted mechanism.

And the only thing to grasp about this statement is the difference between "love of life" and "fear of death".

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
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...