More annoying questions

[volco]

Yeah. Well that’s what’s so interesting about this forum.

I have another question. What is the Objectivist take on government led disaster relief efforts? Say the response to Hurricane Katrina or the recent tornadoes in the south. Or even the cleanup and evacuation efforts of the Soviet government after Chernobyl. Would a proper Objectivist state have something along the lines of FEMA or would disaster victims pretty much be left to fend for themselves or rely on private charity?

what is an objectivist state? a state staffed by students of objectivism or objectivists? should we call the canadian state a relativistic state and the saudi state a mystic one? well i guess, but my point is that objectivism is not a political movement, but a cultural one - the political ramifications of that are just as important in shaping how we live as other ramifications, like aesthetics, or more importantly metaphysics.

ayn rand wrote extensive warnings about the ethics of emergencies not to be confused with the ethics or every day life, and you can search for that.

as for regional disasters and how would be handled, she said that the government is there to provide security, I assume part of that security can be against the elements.

humans are able to organize ourselves in many ways and different cultures deal with disasters different ways. You may remember haiti and its dependence on foreign aid and the local population making things worse. You may also remember Japan, more recently, and how criminal organizations openly, spontaneously, collaborated with other civilians and with government agencies to bring relief. as in a spontaneous unspoken agreement in which every party would be better off.

In new orleans, city government prevented reconstruction because of too much french red tape, while there are cases of americans driving by the city and voluntarily helping locals rebuild without regulations or organization (there’s a penn and teller episode showing jsut a case)

in an objectivist culture, people would act according to individual, unforced, value judgments, I can assume that such a culture wouldn’t allow much value to be lost.

An additional question: Can you point out a historical example of a society that more or less followed Objectivist principles pretty closely?

Finally: What do you think would happen if the world suddenly “turned Objectivist”, that is if all the people in the world realized the Objectivist position was right? Sudden technological and industrial renaissance or something along those lines?

Objectivism doesn’t strive for world dominance, it does for cultural change, at first within the United states and western culture (of course it’s not exclusive, atlas shrugged has just been recently translated to mandarin). That said, you are pretty much correct in your assumption of an industrial, technological and cultural renaissance but terribly wrong about the “sudden” part.

If you take a look back the last 500 years out of the last 5,000 years of human history you’ll be able to see by yourself how drastic and utterly unexpected changes have been. no hunter gatherer expected or could conceive the agricultural revolution, and to this day there are semi/contacted tribes in the amazon, new guinea and most interestingly in the andaman islands, that reject it. Try and extrapolate that change of the way people live to a next stage.

Unrestricted mutually beneficial individual achievement and heroism (for lack of a better antonym to fear and submission) for anyone who cares to is just as unthinkable for most of the world population as it was growing your own food instead of gathering it.

Just see how long (and well) people live now, 50 years ago, 500 years ago and before the agricultural revolution.

[VcatoV]

Mustang 19,

There never will be a time when the world is quantitatively Objectivist. We are not missionaries. But there can be a time when the world operates under the basic principles (politically at least) of Objectivism, in which case it makes no difference whether someone is a Christian or an Objectivist. Under such a society, the merits of one’s actions will correlate to their success in life. We are not here to win by numbers–we win by principles.

[mustang19]

Great posts, Volco and VcatoV.

So I guess you don’t expect remarkable changes right away after a transition to an Objectivist cultural or political system. Wouldn’t the transition be difficult though? A lot of roads going unmaintained until someone got around to fixing them, another Savings and Loans type financial crisis, public schools being shut down in neighborhoods where people can’t afford to pay for private school? What do you think would be the immediate effects of this kind of economic policy (which as was mentioned has never really existed in a modern, industrialized country since the 19th century if ever)?

I have some other questions for you guys. What did Ayn Rand think about gender roles? Women should stay in the kitchen and not have a career and so forth, or was she some kind of feminist? Are women just as qualified to be CEOs and presidents and so forth?

Are Objectivists okay with the phrase “contributing to society”? Or is that concept too collectivist for y’all?

What’s the Objectivist take on nationalism? Is it okay to be proud of being an American or a Russian or whatever? Is it okay to burn the flag to protest statism?

What do O’ists think of cyborgs, androids, and transhumanism, stuff like that? When does an artificial intelligence become human enough to have the sort of rights Objectivists think humans should have?

Finally, VcatoV used the word “win”. What do you expect for the future? You think it’s pretty much inevitable that Objectivism will “win” and at some point humankind will mostly live in an Objectivist society?

[Dante]

I’ll try to comment on a few of these things.

So I guess you don’t expect remarkable changes right away after a transition to an Objectivist cultural or political system. Wouldn’t the transition be difficult though? …

Yes, parts of the transition could be quite difficult. Large chunks of modern society have been built upon the premise that the government is and will continue to be involved in activities that, fundamentally, the government shouldn’t be doing. It’s a very complicated question as to how, with any particular area, to get the government out with the least amount of transitional damage, and rational people can easily disagree about those things. Nevertheless, we know from fundamental principles which activities we should be attempting to, ultimately, get government out of.

What did Ayn Rand think about gender roles? Women should stay in the kitchen and not have a career and so forth, or was she some kind of feminist? Are women just as qualified to be CEOs and presidents and so forth?

She most certainly did not maintain that women should not have careers; one need only to look at the character of Dagny Taggart, one of the strongest female characters in modern fiction, to see Ayn Rand’s vision of female productive potential. She championed the virtue of productiveness as a general human virtue, to be incorporated deeply into the life of any person. In fact, she stated in a 1968 article in The Objectivist, “whether married or single, women need and should have careers, for the same reasons as men.” She did have some unique views concerning what it means to be masculine or feminine, leading to (for example) her statement that a truly feminine woman wouldn’t want to be President. I don’t have a particularly good understanding of her views in this area, and what I do know leads me to disagree with her entirely, so I’ll let someone else flesh this out if they want.

Are Objectivists okay with the phrase “contributing to society”? Or is that concept too collectivist for y’all?

It depends on what sense the phrase is used. The way that first comes to my mind, to be a “contributing member of society” is to be someone who takes responsibility for supporting his or her own life, someone who understands that he or she must produce; basically synonymous with a “productive member of society.” This obviously jives with Objectivism; an individual should not expect or strive to be ‘taken care of’ by society. You should not attempt to mooch off of others, but rather support yourself by producing values and trading with other people, offering them values in exchange for what you need to further your life. In this sense, a “contributing member of society” is contrasted against a parasitic member of society.

However, one should not attempt to make oneself a sacrificial lamb for the sake of others. Your goal in life should not be to produce as much value as you possibly can for as many people as you possibly can, and your own life be damned. In short, one should not hold “contributing to society” as one’s primary and motivating goal in life.

[volco]

Great posts, Volco and VcatoV.

So I guess you don’t expect remarkable changes right away after a transition to an Objectivist cultural or political system. Wouldn’t the transition be difficult though? A lot of roads going unmaintained until someone got around to fixing them, another Savings and Loans type financial crisis, public schools being shut down in neighborhoods where people can’t afford to pay for private school? What do you think would be the immediate effects of this kind of economic policy (which as was mentioned has never really existed in a modern, industrialized country since the 19th century if ever)?

I expect to continue seeing remarkable changes some enabling a world resembling a little bit more the one ayn Rand anticipated and I also expect ayn rand becoming more popular or at least known. most voices of dissent are not popular.

You are basically describing the shock and awe policies we experienced around the world beginning in the early 80s, culminating with the collapse of the soviet union and the liberalization of china, se asia and latin america. yes in all those cases, including in america and britain, there were some backlashes but it is undeniable that the level of quality of life has risen impressively in a lot less years than expected. In any case the chicago boys, reagan and thatcher, and lee kwan yew were not objectivists, far from it there is a rather offensive sounding term that describes both Pinochet’s and Lee Kwan Yew’s politics.

I have some other questions for you guys. What did Ayn Rand think about gender roles? Women should stay in the kitchen and not have a career and so forth, or was she some kind of feminist? Are women just as qualified to be CEOs and presidents and so forth?

Read her novels and you’ll see. she was not a stay in the kitchen woman it’s obvious, she had novels instead of children. but she didn’t allow social movements to control an individual’s choice and nature. Just become feminism was sweeping during her age that didn’t mean a woman had to bear the mandate to do other than she had planned to prove a social point.

Are Objectivists okay with the phrase “contributing to society”? Or is that concept too collectivist for y’all?

What’s the Objectivist take on nationalism? Is it okay to be proud of being an American or a Russian or whatever? Is it okay to burn the flag to protest statism?

What do O’ists think of cyborgs, androids, and transhumanism, stuff like that? When does an artificial intelligence become human enough to have the sort of rights Objectivists think humans should have?

i’d say most o’ists love how technology has advanced to the point where an effective search engine can be embedded into a forum like this.

[Greebo]

Are Objectivists okay with the phrase “contributing to society”? Or is that concept too collectivist for y’all?

Absolutely.

Just pay us for it.

[Ninth_Doctor]

Yes, parts of the transition could be quite difficult. Large chunks of modern society have been built upon the premise that the government is and will continue to be involved in activities that, fundamentally, the government shouldn’t be doing. It’s a very complicated question as to how, with any particular area, to get the government out with the least amount of transitional damage, and rational people can easily disagree about those things. Nevertheless, we know from fundamental principles which activities we should be attempting to, ultimately, get government out of.

Consider the 1680’s, when John Locke was writing (but unable to publish) his most influential works, in exile from the Catholic James II, while Louis XIV was revoking the Edict of Nantes, and witches were swinging in the Massachusetts of Cotton Mather. Fast forward 100 years and it’s unthinkable that you have the founding of the United States, where freedom of religion and the press are part of the founding principles. The point is that big changes can happen, ideas are vital to those changes, and history is very unpredictable. As is the future.

[mustang19]

Interesting responses. So it seems like Rand was okay with women doing anything besides, for some reason, being President.

So what kind of political system would a Objectivist state have? I always assumed some kind of constitutionally limited democracy. What about a constitutionally limited nondemocracy, assuming it worked efficiently and followed Objectivist ethics pretty well? Are Objectivists supporters of democracy, and are they opposed to all other forms of government?

I’d really like to see an answer to my nationalism question. What do you guys think? Are you proud to be an American or Australian or whatever else?

[volco]

Interesting responses. So it seems like Rand was okay with women doing anything besides, for some reason, being President.

I’d really like to see an answer to my nationalism question. What do you guys think? Are you proud to be an American or Australian or whatever else?

I speak only for myself, and I have to reiterate that when answering about nationalism, as I am not an american citizen or resident but rather hail from the land of francisco.

my answer is a categorical no. If I had proper caps I would have capitalized the no.

It’s the same as in the feminism/females issue. she was born in russia, you can see

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8

what her opinion of that rosy country is. she objectively, coldly, chose america as the best country for her (and probably anyone at the time) to develop. In the context of the years she was alive, the Usa was also one of the very few countries worth living in, as well as the one that kept some others safeguarded. from that Objectivism does seem to have a very strong link with the United states of america and no other government, but only because it’s the country that (used to) defend citizen’s rights the best, and particularly because it’s the only country that enunciated those rights properly.

no she would not have condoned being a proud australian, that is a subject to the divinely appointed majesty of australia, papua new guinea, fiji, england, etc. however since australia ironically looks like the future america, in fact, it might make sense for an aussie to be proud to be a citizen of an over all very decent country.

Objectivism is not nationalist, at all. But I’d love to hear what everybody else says.

[mustang19]

What’s the Objectivist take on handicapped and disabled people? If someone develops or is born with a severe mental disorder, paralysis, ALS, Alzheimer’s, or any other condition that makes them unable to live on their own, should they be left to die?

[volco]

What’s the Objectivist take on handicapped and disabled people? If someone develops or is born with a severe mental disorder, paralysis, ALS, Alzheimer’s, or any other condition that makes them unable to live on their own, should they be left to die?

I was going to say that Objectivism take on babies born with Alzheimer’s is similar to the Objectivist take on god, then I found this.

[Greebo]

I was going to say that Objectivism take on babies born with Alzheimer’s is similar to the Objectivist take on god

You would have been extremely wrong if you had.

[Greebo]

What’s the Objectivist take on handicapped and disabled people? If someone develops or is born with a severe mental disorder, paralysis, ALS, Alzheimer’s, or any other condition that makes them unable to live on their own, should they be left to die?

In such cases, the person is still a Human Being - they are essentially “broken” in some sense, but they still have the same basic rights any other human being possesses.

A child is entitled to care, feeding and protection from their parents because the parents engaged in an action which resulted in the creation of a child and chose to bring that child into the world. At some point, that child would normally grow into an adult, at which time parental obligation ends, but there is never any guarantee that a child will be born healthy or with the potential to achieve independence. Nevertheless, they continue to be human beings, and continue to have a human beings rights.

So if a child is born with a life long disability, the parents are responsible for the long term welfare of that child INCLUDING beyond their death (and there are plenty of mechanisms to support that need such as life insurance and trust funds).

That responsibility, however, STOPS with the parents. If the parents are unwilling to provide, the rights of the child should be protected - enter Government. But Justice cannot be carried out by committing an injustice against others, so if parents cannot provide for the child, Government *can* help but morally they can only do so with funds collected voluntarily by a society that rationally believes Government is necessary for the protection of individual rights.

[mustang19]

In such cases, the person is still a Human Being - they are essentially “broken” in some sense, but they still have the same basic rights any other human being possesses.

A child is entitled to care, feeding and protection from their parents because the parents engaged in an action which resulted in the creation of a child and chose to bring that child into the world. At some point, that child would normally grow into an adult, at which time parental obligation ends, but there is never any guarantee that a child will be born healthy or with the potential to achieve independence. Nevertheless, they continue to be human beings, and continue to have a human beings rights.

So if a child is born with a life long disability, the parents are responsible for the long term welfare of that child INCLUDING beyond their death (and there are plenty of mechanisms to support that need such as life insurance and trust funds).

That responsibility, however, STOPS with the parents. If the parents are unwilling to provide, the rights of the child should be protected - enter Government. But Justice cannot be carried out by committing an injustice against others, so if parents cannot provide for the child, Government *can* help but morally they can only do so with funds collected voluntarily by a society that rationally believes Government is necessary for the protection of individual rights.

So I understand what you said thusly: It is morally okay to help a child who is disabled for the rest of their life. However, if there isn’t enough voluntary donations to support the person they should be left to die.

What if it’s an adult that becomes disabled later in life? Is it morally okay to help someone who develops Alzheimers at age 50? How far does this adult/child distinction go?

[themadkat]

So I understand what you said thusly: It is morally okay to help a child who is disabled for the rest of their life. However, if there isn’t enough voluntary donations to support the person they should be left to die.

What if it’s an adult that becomes disabled later in life? Is it morally okay to help someone who develops Alzheimers at age 50? How far does this adult/child distinction go?

I think you have a real fundamental misunderstanding of Objectivism here. Of COURSE it is morally OK to help someone who develops Alzheimers - in fact, if it is someone like your mother or father (assuming they were good parents or even decent parents to you) it’s pretty much immoral not to. What Objectivism is against is UNCHOSEN obligation, not freely chosen aid to people you value. It’s absolutely moral for me to care for and assist, for example, my autistic sister because she may never be fully independent. I love my sister, I value her, and to fail to help her would be inconsistent with my values, thus harmful to my life. It is also moral for a stranger to help my sister IF that person chooses to do so (say, through a charity dedicated to autistic people). What is NOT moral is for me to force a stranger to care for my sister whether they want to or not, because I can’t or won’t, and using government as an intermediary vehicle for that force makes it even more immoral.

It’s been said before but you really, REALLY need to read Rand before you come in here and ask stuff like this. You would have a lot better sense of the philosophy. You are far too focused on what Objectivism is against and not at all focused enough on what it is FOR. Objectivism is pro-values. Other people are frequently values.

[mustang19]

It’s been said before but you really, REALLY need to read Rand before you come in here and ask stuff like this. You would have a lot better sense of the philosophy. You are far too focused on what Objectivism is against and not at all focused enough on what it is FOR. Objectivism is pro-values. Other people are frequently values.

Okay. Well I really don’t like reading through Atlas Shrugged but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that Objectivism is for a lot of things.

Thank you for your response, though. It cleared things up for me a bit.

[themadkat]

Okay. Well I really don’t like reading through Atlas Shrugged but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that Objectivism is for a lot of things.

Thank you for your response, though. It cleared things up for me a bit.

You’re welcome. You know that there’s no law you have to read AS to understand Rand. Honestly, if you’re interested in the philosophy, her copious amounts of non-fiction might be a better start and you could skip over her fiction entirely if it’s not your cup of tea (some people don’t care for her style).

[Tenderlysharp]

Objectivism is a hero worshiping, man valuing philosophy. Man is a standard of value. A rational, conscious, individual man.

Obligation poisons a relationship by negating mutual respect, inspiration, and the effort necessary to keep a rational consciousness interested in the relationship; obligated relationships are taken for granted. Relationships are valuable when they are the result of your own volition; choosing to help the disabled man has more value than if you are forced. When men are forced into an impersonal system, care for the disabled man diminishes because the ‘system’ that cares for them is taken for granted. Force insinuates that man is not capable of valuing another man unless he is forced to do so.

[Greebo]

Okay. Well I really don’t like reading through Atlas Shrugged but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that Objectivism is for a lot of things.

Thank you for your response, though. It cleared things up for me a bit.

You should be aware that Rand wrote a hell of a lot more than Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. Those are simply her fictional works. Her philosophical essays are what you really should be reading, as well as “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Peikoff.

[Greebo]

So I understand what you said thusly: It is morally okay to help a child who is disabled for the rest of their life. However, if there isn’t enough voluntary donations to support the person they should be left to die.

Yeah, uh, no. Go back, read it again, and try to read every word this time.