Newbie From Arizona

[BroncoBobby]

I was so excited when I found this place. I just couldn't believe that there was such a forum for people who felt as I do.

I began reading Ayn Rand after an aunt introduced me to the Fountainhead about 15 years ago. She was shocked that someone who had graduated architecture school hadn't even heard of it. After the first chapter, so was I.

I finished the Fountainhead in two days, and for the first time in my life felt like my eyes were open. I found a copy of Atlas Shrugged as soon as I could. To be honest I found the reading itself ponderous, but the material offered a great deal of clarity to Objectivism.

I have for years called myself libertarian, I suppose philosophically I am in many ways. I believe that in the very long run man will no longer need governments and individuals will be capable of true self-determination. Pragmatically however, I am clearly objectivist, as mankind is not within a hundred generations of my vision.

I hope to learn more and gain more clarity, thanks.

[Nxixcxk]

Hi Bobby and welcome to the forum.

Have you had the opportunity to read any Objectivist non-fiction? If so, which ones?

I believe that in the very long run man will no longer need governments and individuals will be capable of true self-determination.

Ahh if only we didn't have choice . There are some interesting threads on this forum regarding the need for government even in a society replete with Objectivists. I'd suggest you take a look at them and see what you think. Who knows, maybe you'll change your mind about the role government plays even in a society of rational individuals.

Welcome aboard

Nick

[BroncoBobby]

Thanks for the welcome.

I understand that even moral, rational people can have disagreements. But, still couldn't those problems be solved through mutual arbitration rather than by having a government in place for that service?

I must admit that it is difficult for me to visualize a non-oppressive government. From my research every government in history has turned into an oppressor. That piece of evidence is hard for me to get beyond. I understand though, that in a society of Objectivists, that cycle should theoretically be broken.

I still believe that we as heroic beings will one day evolve to the extent that government is extraneous.

[Nxixcxk]

I understand that even moral, rational people can have disagreements. But, still couldn't those problems be solved through mutual arbitration rather than by having a government in place for that service?

Since rational people still have the capability to "go postal" so to speak, a government is needed to protect against this possibility. And of course, there will always be a need to protect against foreign invasion.

I don't think mutual arbitration is feasible since there would need to be some principles or laws that everyone would operate off of in order for the mutual arbitrartion to work properly. The only institution that could do this would be some form of government.

Our discussion here also leads us to define the term 'rational person.' There are people who I consider to be rational even though they may not agree entirely with Objectivism--in which case (since our principles may differ), we'd definitely need a government to resolve rational disputes.

[BroncoBobby]

Since rational people still have the capability to "go postal" so to speak, a government is needed to protect against this possibility. You are absolutely right unless we as a species evolve beyond this. And of course, there will always be a need to protect against foreign invasion. My thinking requires that there would be no national boundaries.

I don't think mutual arbitration is feasible since there would need to be some principles or laws that everyone would operate off of in order for the mutual arbitrartion to work properly. The only institution that could do this would be some form of government. My thinking is that people should be capable of finding mutually beneficial solutions without requiring a formal standard.

Our discussion here also leads us to define the term 'rational person.' There are people who I consider to be rational even though they may not agree entirely with Objectivism--in which case (since our principles may differ), we'd definitely need a government to resolve rational disputes. You are right, my thinking is not reasonable in the near or even distant future, it is more of a conclusionary hope for mankind.

[JMeganSnow]

BroncoBobby, please use the quote function when quoting the statements of another poster. It is necessary to make it clear who said what.

[realitycheck44]

Since rational people still have the capability to "go postal" so to speak, a government is needed to protect against this possibility. <strong> You are absolutely right unless we as a species evolve beyond this.</strong>

You think that we will evolve to lose free will? We will just become animals without volition?

[BroncoBobby]

You think that we will evolve to lose free will? We will just become animals without volition?

Not at all, I think that we will evolve to the point where we can seperate emotion from disagreement with others. Too many people today react angrily due to ignorance of the other persons point of view.

Free will does not require us to react with irrational emotion.