Hello from England

[iouswuoibev]

Hi, my name is Rob and I am from Derbyshire in the UK. I discovered objectivism through the terrygoodkind.com forum.

I find this philosophy to have a non-contradictory sense of rationality, and a code of ethics that is based on demonstrable principles. This sets it apart from all other philosophies that I am aware of, and gives it a credibility and self-supporting integrity that the others lack. Objectivism has given me much clarity in my course through life for the relatively short time I have been aware of and understood it (approx. 1.5 years).

My current collection of books I own based around objectivism is:

Anthem

We The Living

Atlas Shrugged

The Fountainhead

The Virtue of Selfishness

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Ayn Rand and Business

Despite my apparent enthusiasm for all things objectivism, the only book of these that I have read all the way through is Anthem. I've made some progress on The Virtue of Selfishness, and read a couple of hundred pages of Atlas Shrugged before getting bored and weary from finding the irrational world depicted in it hard to bear! Maybe I will read it some day, but only if I think there is a chance of me enjoying it. I don't believe it is necessary for me to read the literature that started it all in order to understand the principles involved.

I am 19 years old and computer programming is my passion, and eventually it will be my trade. I am currently working on a project on my own time. This is made easier by the fact that I am disabled and out of work, and receive benefits.

Maybe that is something to contemplate, that; benefits are demanded and validated by the socialist doctrine, are they not? My take on it is this: I think an objectivist government (insofar as objectivism has something to say towards politics) would neither condemn or condone the provision of benefits towards disabled people, and regard it as a matter of free will on behalf of the government as a body of individuals.

I read elsewhere on this forum that Ayn Rand said: "If you wish to help them, you will not be stopped." (forgive me if I mis-quoted). I think this speaks well for what objectivism has to say on the morality of benefits, i.e. nothing. I would regard a government that provides benefits to disabled people as a benevolent government - a compassionate government, but I think that a government should do it out of a personal interest as being human beings with a conscience, not because it is demanded of them by their philosophical precepts regardless of whether they wish to or can afford to.

This brings me to ponder another matter, that of the government being composed of human beings. Ayn Rand often discusses government as serving to protect people's rights. From what I have read she has not commented on a government's capacity or permissibility to perform functions and acts based on human feeling (although from what I have read, I could easily be wrong). This leaves the matter open to interpretion and guessing. I would guess that Ayn Rand would advocate, or at least not condemn, the government acting on it's personal ethics, so long as it did not reject the fundamental objectivist ethics or abdicate reason in its conduct.

I would be interested to hear what you all think. These ideas have only come to my mind as I've been typing, and I have not given time to stew them.

Useless fact: I have asperger's syndrome, or as I like to call it, "nerd-disease". No offense intended to anyone else who has it.

I'm sure you all have heard the phrase "randroid" before. This slur against objectivism, Rand and its followers has potency because of its use of the word "droid", which implies that said followers have the mentality of an automaton, and are devoid of emotion.

That this is blatantly false is without question to those who truly understand this philosophy (I will expand on that if anyone wishes me to, but I don't think it is necessary). However, I have considered that the philosophy is more attractive from the outset to those who are of a more logical mind. Case in point, my asperger's syndrome (people who have this generally think more logically and think in terms of logical merit) and my interest in computer's.

I am sure it would be unfair to say that most objectivists are of that disposition, but I do wonder if the knee-jerk reaction of lazy thinkers towards objectivism is less likely to occur if someone is already more pre-disposed to a logical, rational thought process, and therefore more likely to embrace the philosophy. What do you think?

And yes, I do like the Sword of Truth series, although the last two books were below the standard of his earlier writings.

Anyway, I could go on, but I think I should save something for another thread.

I've attached a picture of myself.

[AwakeAndFree]

Hi Rob,

Welcome to OO!

I highly recommend you read The Fountainhead and then Atlas Shrugged. The world may seem irrational and hopeless in the beginning - but you will discover true greatness. I assure you - you WILL enjoy it if you read it till the end. It IS definitely worth it.

Besides, don't you want to know Who is John Galt?

If you've read Terry Goodkind, and survived through the horrors - you can certainly survive AS and TF.

I recommend TF before AS because it is easier, and is in a sense a foundation for AS.

Good luck!

[iouswuoibev]

Hi Rob,

Welcome to OO!

Cheers.

I highly recommend you read The Fountainhead and then Atlas Shrugged. The world may seem irrational and hopeless in the beginning - but you will discover true greatness. I assure you - you WILL enjoy it if you read it till the end. It IS definitely worth it.

Besides, don't you want to know Who is John Galt? 

If you've read Terry Goodkind, and survived through the horrors - you can certainly survive AS and TF.

I recommend TF before AS because it is easier, and is in a sense a foundation for AS.

Good luck!

Tragically, I spoiled this for myself by looking it up online. Your recommendations have inspired me to take a look at The Fountainhead and if I can digest that, Atlas will be next. I see your point in regards to Goodkind, but I think I was able to endure the grueling perils faced in those books simply because it was fantasy (not the best of reasons I know). I'm not saying Atlas Shrugged is shallow or lacking in something other than the philosophical ideas it illustrates, since I have not read it, but reading isn't really a big hobby of mine anymore. In other words, I probably won't enjoy it in a general sense, even if the philosophical ideas are uplifting and inspiring (I already know of and understand them).

[AwakeAndFree]

Believe me: Ayn Rand will bring you back from the cold. You will fall in love with reading again. If you don't truly enjoy The Fountainhead and then Atlas Shrugged I will eat my nonexisting hat.

BTW - I think this is the first time I meet or hear about a British Objectivist... is it just me - or are there fewer Objectivists in Great Britain than there are in Small Israel? And if this IS the case - would you venture to guess why?

[Betsy]

BTW - I think this is the first time I meet or hear about a British Objectivist... is it just me - or are there fewer Objectivists in Great Britain than there are in Small Israel? And if this IS the case - would you venture to guess why?

I know about a half-dozen Objectivists in the UK personally, and they have a community group there and a Yahoo group too. As a matter of fact, this year's European Conference will be in London.

From my CyberNet:

SEPTEMBER 24-27TH - EUROPEAN CONFERENCE - LONDON

The European Objectivist conference will be held September 24-27, 2004

in the heart of London, UK. The 3-day program will include lectures

from JOHN RIDPATH, JOHN LEWIS, ROBERT TRACINSKI, SCOTT McCONNELL,

KLAUS NORDBY, and TORE BOECKMANN.

See the European Conference Web Site or e-mail MERLIJN SLUIS

([email protected]) for more information.

[iouswuoibev]

Believe me: Ayn Rand will bring you back from the cold. You will fall in love with reading again. If you don't truly enjoy The Fountainhead and then Atlas Shrugged I will eat my nonexisting hat.

Then I guess we'll see.

BTW - I think this is the first time I meet or hear about a British Objectivist... is it just me - or are there fewer Objectivists in Great Britain than there are in Small Israel? And if this IS the case - would you venture to guess why?

I wish I could guess, but I don't have the faintest idea. I don't know anything about Israel. I know objectivist Brits are around - I've seen a handful on hotornot.com, of all places! But I have never met an objectivist in real life, at least, not that I'm aware of...

I do believe though that Ayn Rand and objectivism is much less heard in this country than America, and America isn't exactly rampant with it (sadly). Over here it's more a case of 'never heard of Ayn Rand' than 'don't like Ayn Rand'. I would never have heard of her if I hadn't read Goodkind and then wandered over to the official website.

Are there any other british residents on this forum?

[iouswuoibev]

From my CyberNet:

SEPTEMBER 24-27TH - EUROPEAN CONFERENCE - LONDON

The European Objectivist conference will be held September 24-27, 2004

in the heart of London, UK.  The 3-day program will include lectures

from JOHN RIDPATH, JOHN LEWIS, ROBERT TRACINSKI, SCOTT McCONNELL,

KLAUS NORDBY, and TORE BOECKMANN.

See the European Conference Web Site or e-mail MERLIJN SLUIS

([email protected]) for more information.

Interesting, however I wouldn't care to go all the way to London unless accompanied by someone who understood my views. That's not going to happen. * sigh *

[stephen_speicher]

Despite my apparent enthusiasm for all things objectivism, the only book of these that I have read all the way through is Anthem.... Maybe that is something to contemplate, that; benefits are demanded and validated by the socialist doctrine, are they not? My take on it is this: I think an objectivist government (insofar as objectivism has something to say towards politics) would neither condemn or condone the provision of benefits towards disabled people, and regard it as a matter of free will on behalf of the government as a body of individuals.

When you study more of Objectivist philosophy, you will see the precision with which Ayn Rand specified the proper functions of government, as well as learn more of the moral principles upon which this is based. Essentially the only moral justification of government is the protection of individual rights, which fact necessitates an army to protect from foreign invaders, a police force to protect from internal criminals, and a court system to implement objective law for protection of property and contractual arrangements.

The government can only properly act in those areas outlined above, and is expressly forbidden to act outside of this realm. It is solely the province of private individuals, or groups composed of private individuals, to provide charity of any kind to those in need. This is a personal decision, not a proper function of a government.

[iouswuoibev]

The government can only properly act in those areas outlined above, and is expressly forbidden to act outside of this realm. It is solely the province of private individuals, or groups composed of private individuals, to provide charity of any kind to those in need. This is a personal decision, not a proper function of a government.

When you say "It is solely the province of private individuals", this implies that the government is a public entity, and therefore there is no individuality in it's members. I think that this is false, and that if a government wants to be charitable, and does it in a way that does not violate the rights of individuals, and is founded on objectivist principles, then it should be free to do that. To say it cannot is to deny the members of the government their individuality. I do not see why a government cannot function as a "group of private individuals".

Another observation, is that it appears to be like 'inverted communism': the government is to be the enslaved, collective entity with no rights, as opposed to the people. The bondage of a collective government is a pre-requisite of objectivist society, just as the bondage of a collective people is the pre-requisite of a communist society. I think this is contradictory to the objectivist assertion that man is a rational, thinking being, because it assumes that a government can only do it's job if it is severely tied in what it can and cannot do. What objectivist would want to be a member, a willing slave if you like, of such a government?

Of course, when I speak of a government doing it's job, I am talking about what Rand states is the proper function of a government. However, for the aforementioned reasons, I ask why this must be it's sole function.

[stephen_speicher]

When you say "It is solely the province of private individuals", this implies that the government is a public entity, and therefore there is no individuality in it's members.

Of course government employees are individuals. But, regarding their actions as representatives of the government they are severely restricted in what they can do. Private citizens have no restrictions on their actions as long as they do not violate the rights of others. But those who act in the name of the government can only do what they are expressly permitted to do. The permission to act is granted to the government by the citizens, and the only moral principle which defines and delimits governmental action is the protection of individual rights.

I think that this is false, and that if a government wants to be charitable, and does it in a way that does not violate the rights of individuals, and is founded on objectivist principles, then it should be free to do that.

But the only justification for the existence of a government is the protection of individual rights, and that is the Objectivist principle upon which a proper government is founded. Charity is a private matter for individuals, not a proper function for the government.

To say it cannot is to deny the members of the government their individuality. I do not see why a government cannot function as a "group of private individuals".

A "group of private individuals" properly describes an association such as a club. But the government is unique in that it is granted the sole right to use retaliatory force, and that power is, of necessity, severely restricted by objective law. The government is not a "group of private individuals" free to act together as individuals, but rather a group of employees who can only act as is prescribed for their proper governmental function.

Another observation, is that it appears to be like 'inverted communism': the government is to be the enslaved, collective entity with no rights, as opposed to the people. The bondage of a collective government is a pre-requisite of objectivist society, just as the bondage of a collective people is the pre-requisite of a communist society.

Your terminology is not precise, but in a sense that actually captures the overall idea. Most socialist systems are based on the premise that citizens only have whatever rights are graciously granted to it by the government. By contrast, according to Objectivism, the government has no rights at all, except those that are delegated to it by its citizens.

I think this is contradictory to the objectivist assertion that man is a rational, thinking being, because it assumes that a government can only do it's job if it is severely tied in what it can and cannot do. What objectivist would want to be a member, a willing slave if you like, of such a government?

You mean a judge who is bound to administering objective law considers himself to be a "willing slave?" You mean a policeman who acts within the realm prescribed by law is also a "willing slave?" And the soldier who chooses to defend his country while being subject to military command, is a "willing slave?"

Of course, when I speak of a government doing it's job, I am talking about what Rand states is the proper function of a government. However, for the aforementioned reasons, I ask why this must be it's sole function.

In my answers above I have sketched out the reasons. For a detailed presentation of all of these issues I refer you to the many writings of Ayn Rand. A good place to start is with the collection of essays in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." I would start with the essays titled "Mans Rights" and "The Nature of Government," and branch out from there.

[Ed from OC]

Welcome to the forum.

I first read The Fountainhead in 1990, in my first year of college. It was like throwing a switch: new questions I hadn't considered came up; ideas I had thought but not heard elsewhere appeared before me. It took about six months, though, before I found someone else I could talk with about these things. I wish a forum like this (or other online resources) had been available at the time.

As you read, you'll probably have lots of questions, as I did. This place can be a good resource for discussion, so feel free to fire away.

And by the way: happy reading!

[RationalBiker]

What objectivist would want to be a member, a willing slave if you like, of such a government?

First welcome to the forum! I hope you enjoy this place as much as I have so far.

Now, to answer your above question, from one who is learning objectivism, I would be a member of such government. Why? As a person who values protection from criminal force for not only me, but my family, I get value in being part of providing that protection. It is an obligation that I choose willingly, that I indeed benefit from as an individual. I value the ability to walk around on the street with a lessened concern about getting mugged or killed. I recognize that in some specific cases, I have to provide for others in order to provide for my own self interest. Willing service is not slavery, it is a value provided for a value gained. Additionally, I get monetary compensation for my effort (read more value). No, I don't think I'm a slave since I can choose to leave this job at any time.

VES

[AshRyan]

I read elsewhere on this forum that Ayn Rand said: "If you wish to help them, you will not be stopped." (forgive me if I mis-quoted).

That is from an essay by Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness, but she is actually quoting Barbara Branden there.

Now, Stephen has already addressed why your idea about the government being involved in charitable causes is wrong, but let me throw in my two cents.

You say that to restrict the government from doing so violates the right of the individual members of whom the government is composed to do so. That drops the context. As representatives of the government, they are not free to do anything that private citizens may do (just as you aren't free as an employee of some company to give away your employer's money without their permission); but as private citizens, they are (just as you are free to do whatever you want with the money you are paid by your employer). That is, they cannot use governmental power to contribute in whatever way they wish to whatever cause they wish, but as individuals, they are certainly free to give to private charities if they wish--so their right to do so is in no way infringed.

You say that the government should be allowed to give disability benefits as long as they don't infringe anyone's rights in so doing. But how is that supposed to be done? I submit to you that it is not possible for the government to engage in such activities without violating the rights of at least some of its citizens. Your disability benefits, for example, are a violation of my rights--whether or not you are aware of or understand it. Where does the money they give you come from? From the taxation of people like me. That money was taken from me against my will and put to a use of which I did not approve.

The meaning of the quote you mentioned is not that the government will not be stopped from acting in one way or the other, but that private individuals will not be. But the corollary of that is that they will not be forced to ("stopped from" simply means "forced not to") either, and that is what you are proposing.

If you really want to understand Objectivism, you will need to read the works of Ayn Rand--including her novels, which are an important part of the philosophy. You cannot be taught the philosophy as a system on a message board like this.

[iouswuoibev]

If you really want to understand Objectivism, you will need to read the works of Ayn Rand--including her novels, which are an important part of the philosophy.  You cannot be taught the philosophy as a system on a message board like this.

I will do that, and what you have said seems all fair and good. I think in the case of my country, the DLA (Disability Living Allowance, the government-funded organisation responsible for benefits) should be turned into a private charity. I still find this hard to approve of, as a disabled person, because there is no guarrantee of this safety net, it depends on the free will of the public. I could easily be screwed and without money, if people choosed to turn the other cheek. As an objectivist, I see that this is perfectly within their rights to do, and I cannot argue with it, but I still would be compelled to disagree with it. Objectivism has nothing to say for human sympathy. If everyone turned the other cheek, as Objectivism permits, disabled people would die, almost instantly, and every sick person would die, almost instantly.

I appreciate the moral standpoint (that people should be free to do what they want with their money, as any other property) and I somewhat stand by it. But I also see where people are coming from when they say objectivism is a callous philosophy. It has nothing to say for compassion. I think charities are valid because they do not initiate the use of force in order to accomplish their means, but I wonder if charities only work because society instills an alrtuistic mentality within its members.

In other words, would an objectivist who has rational self-interest as their moral standard, and who grew up in a society of objectivists, be inclined to spare a single penny for a charity? I think most would not, but I guess that is neither here or there...

[RationalBiker]

In other words, would an objectivist who has rational self-interest as their moral standard, and who grew up in a society of objectivists, be inclined to spare a single penny for a charity? I think most would not, but I guess that is neither here or there...

I think as you read more, you may find that that is the wrong question. The question is, can an objectivist find value in helping other people, (i.e. disabled, sick, injured, etc)? I also think you will find the answer to be yes. Not everyone will, but someone will. Think trade and value, not charity and sacrifice.

VES

[AshRyan]

...there is no guarrantee of this safety net, it depends on the free will of the public.

Which is exactly as it should be.

I think you will find, contrary to the idea that Objectivism is a "callous" philosophy, that Objectivists are some of the only genuinely benevolent people you will ever meet. Many of them give to legitimate charities--if they can afford it and it doesn't constitute a financial sacrifice on their part, and if that charity does not violate the principle of justice by giving free hand-outs to people who were able to support themselves but simply unwilling to do so. I think in an Objectivist society, there would not only be much less need for charity, but the culture as a whole would be much more charitable, and whatever legitimate need for charity existed would be more than fulfilled privately.

(By the way, I think you are misusing the phrase "turn the other cheek" which is a Christian slogan that means to refrain from retaliating when you have been harmed--kind of the opposite of how you used it in your last post.)

[iouswuoibev]

Which is exactly as it should be.

I think you will find, contrary to the idea that Objectivism is a "callous" philosophy, that Objectivists are some of the only genuinely benevolent people you will ever meet.  Many of them give to legitimate charities--if they can afford it and it doesn't constitute a financial sacrifice on their part, and if that charity does not violate the principle of justice by giving free hand-outs to people who were able to support themselves but simply unwilling to do so.  I think in an Objectivist society, there would not only be much less need for charity, but the culture as a whole would be much more charitable, and whatever legitimate need for charity existed would be more than fulfilled privately.

I guess it has yet to be put to the test.

(By the way, I think you are misusing the phrase "turn the other cheek" which is a Christian slogan that means to refrain from retaliating when you have been harmed--kind of the opposite of how you used it in your last post.)

Yeah, I meant to say "turn a blind eye".

[iouswuoibev]

I think I've discovered the UK group that Betsy was refering to: www.ukoa.org. The yahoo group can be found if you click on the "GROUP" link.

[AshRyan]

I guess it has yet to be put to the test.

I think that you can see the general benevolence of Objectivists already on an everyday level. For instance, this winter I was walking to class when another student whom I didn't know slipped and fell on the icy sidewalks on campus. There were dozens of other people around, but I--the campus Objectivist Club president--was the only person who helped her up, helped her pick up her things, made sure she was okay, etc. It really struck me. It wasn't an act of self-sacrifice on my part to help her out, but sheer benevolence. It wouldn't have been a sacrifice for anyone else to do so either, but they didn't, because they believed it would be a sacrifice--that everything is "me or them," because that's what the morality of altruism that they've all accepted preaches. They think that their only choices are to sacrifice themselves to others, or others to themselves--kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. It's no wonder that they're not benevolent, even on such a small scale, when they've accepted such a vicious (though false) alternative. Just generalize this attitude out to the larger-scale culture, and you see why most people advocate the government forcing people to "help" those in need, but won't do so voluntarily themselves, and why an Objectivist society would be the most benevolent (within the context of justice, of course) place on Earth, where government handouts wouldn't be wanted, tolerated, or needed.

Yeah, I meant to say "turn a blind eye".

Yes, that makes more sense.

[iouswuoibev]

I think that you can see the general benevolence of Objectivists already on an everyday level.  For instance, this winter I was walking to class when another student whom I didn't know slipped and fell on the icy sidewalks on campus.  There were dozens of other people around, but I--the campus Objectivist Club president--was the only person who helped her up, helped her pick up her things, made sure she was okay, etc.  It really struck me.  It wasn't an act of self-sacrifice on my part to help her out, but sheer benevolence.  It wouldn't have been a sacrifice for anyone else to do so either, but they didn't, because they believed it would be a sacrifice--that everything is "me or them," because that's what the morality of altruism that they've all accepted preaches.  They think that their only choices are to sacrifice themselves to others, or others to themselves--kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.  It's no wonder that they're not benevolent, even on such a small scale, when they've accepted such a vicious (though false) alternative.  Just generalize this attitude out to the larger-scale culture, and you see why most people advocate the government forcing people to "help" those in need, but won't do so voluntarily themselves, and why an Objectivist society would be the most benevolent (within the context of justice, of course) place on Earth, where government handouts wouldn't be wanted, tolerated, or needed

Ah, I get a sense of what you mean now. When someone abandons the concept of selflessness, it permits them to have a genuine, selfish interest in the welfare of others.

[stephen_speicher]

If everyone turned the other cheek, as Objectivism permits, disabled people would die, almost instantly, and every sick person would die, almost instantly.

Actually, even if only a proper government were to be implemented, the value which would acrue to those in need of charity would increase immensely. The current government, with its confiscatory tax programs and incredibly inefficient benefit programs, saps both wealth and value from all of its citizens. In a true capitalist society the standard of living would increase so greatly that even the lowest rungs on the economic ladder would be carried along with the growth. The average citizen who now currently donates to charity would himself become so much more wealthy as to enable him to increase his donations manyfold. Current private charities, religious or otherwise, remain light years ahead of the government in terms of their efficiency in dealing with "need." Those private charities would acquire an enormous amount of wealth when the citizens are no taxed and regulated to death.

[stephen_speicher]

In other words, would an objectivist who has rational self-interest as their moral standard, and who grew up in a society of objectivists, be inclined to spare a single penny for a charity? I think most would not, but I guess that is neither here or there...

The Ayn Rand Institute functions solely on charitable contributions, presumably all from Objectivists.

[AshRyan]

Ah, I get a sense of what you mean now. When someone abandons the concept of selflessness, it permits them to have a genuine, selfish interest in the welfare of others.

Yes, I think that is basically correct.