@@tommroy If you can't see her intellectual achievements from reading (and understanding) her, nothing I can say will get through to you. Have you read and understood "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Come back when you want to ask a question after doing that.
The founding fathers wrote what they wanted they debated it and disagreed like take jefferson he wanted everyone to be a farmer because the thought the life style was virtuous he didn't like industry and thought it created a dependency that took away mens freedom and virtue his ideal world would be an America were everyone was a farmer producing most of their own goods a with anything they couldn't make on their own imported
Kimobren. You don't know what you are talking about. There are two forms of capitalism. State capitalism and free market capitalism. State capitalism is causing the problems. It goes with socialism and communism. Free market capitalism goes with freedom and liberty. The Federal Reserve and fiat money are an example of state capitalism. You communist always confuse these two types and you end up wanting more state capitalism which leads to communism. No the difference idiot. Communism is a dictator ship. Why don't you just move to North Korea. They are 100 percent communist buttercup.
No! The Constitution was sabotaged by the regressive Fabian Progressives with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. There is no such thing as Free Markets under the 2nd Pillar of The Communist Manifesto, a"highly graduated progressive income tax". There is no such thing as "Checks and Balances" in the legislative branch of government with the 17th Amendment neither can Federalism work to restrain overreacting power grabs by the State.
*"all we have to do is pass a 28th amendment, "Government coercion is prohibited.""* So you wish to 'prohibit' the "government" from saying "Stop that r@pe or I'll chute!"? (yt doesn't like the actual spelling)
@@bleigh3369 In the Objectivist scheme of things, there is a place for government coercion. The role of government is to "prohibit the initiation of force or fraud without intiationg either or both". In doing so, the government may need to use coercion, such as forced confinement; i.e. dragging the offender of to prison. Otherwise, you would not need a constitution to define when, where and how the government sould be let to do this kind of thing
@@SpacePatrollerLaser *"In the Objectivist scheme of things, there is a place for government coercion."* Exactly the point I was trying to make with my question to dogg about his 28th Amendment. As such, your post is properly directed at him, not me, since his principle is the one which contradicts "the Objectivist scheme of things" *"prohibit the initiation of force or fraud without initiatiing [sic] either or both"* You put this phrase in quotation marks. Which "Objectivist" are you supposedly quoting here? *"Otherwise, you would not need a constitution to define when, where and how the government sould [sic] be let to do this kind of thing"* Plenty of governments are not "Objectivist" and do not hold that "the role of government is to "prohibit the initiation of force or fraud without initiationg [sic] either or both". Yet they feel the "need" of a "constitution" to define when they WISH for the government to "do this kind of thing" and when they WISH for it NOT to "do this kind of thing". So this claim about constitutions is not a valid one. In other words, like governments, constitutions are not limited only to "Objectivist" ones. They include ALL forms, including those which deliberately violate rights - regardless of the justifications provided for them.
This woman had very little awareness. Here are my top 5 reasons why: 1. Denial of Interconnectedness Objectivism’s staunch individualism ignores the undeniable truth of interconnectedness in nature and humanity. Humans don’t exist in isolation; we thrive through relationships, ecosystems, and cooperative structures. Dismissing this reality in favor of a hyper-focus on self-interest seems shortsighted and, arguably, unrealistic. 2. The Flawed Premise of Rationality Rand assumes that humans are-or should always strive to be-rational actors, guided solely by logic. But we’re not just thinking beings; we’re feeling, sensing, and intuitive creatures, shaped by experiences, culture, and biology. The expectation of pure rationality is not only unrealistic but also reductive of what makes us human. 3. Glorification of Selfishness The idea that selfishness is inherently virtuous ignores the complexities of moral and ethical behavior. It’s true that self-care and self-respect are important, but Objectivism takes it to an extreme, often devaluing empathy, compassion, and collective responsibility-qualities that are essential for long-term survival and harmony. 4. The Problem of Idealized Capitalism Rand’s unshakable faith in laissez-faire capitalism assumes a perfect world where all actors are honest, rational, and moral. History has repeatedly shown that unchecked capitalism often leads to exploitation, inequality, and environmental destruction. Her philosophy seems to lack practical grounding in real-world economics and human behavior. 5. A Philosophy of Disconnection Ultimately, Objectivism feels like a philosophy of separation-separation of the individual from the collective, reason from emotion, and humans from their shared responsibilities. Such a philosophy might appeal to those looking for simplistic answers to complex problems, but it struggles to hold water in a nuanced, interconnected world.
I have studied Objectivism for over 50 years, and have no idea how you could draw the above conclusions without basing them on incorrect assumptions. Every one of your points includes false conclusions on what she wrote, which makes them mistaken. 1 She NEVER said humans live in isolation. Capitalism depends on interconnectedness. 2 She wrote a whole book on art and emotion "The Romantic Manifesto" 3 Quote: Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” 4 Capitalism makes no assumption about everyone being honest. She very much believed we needed Police and Law courts. 5 She wrote of emotions "There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards."
1.) Being independent minded does not separate you from other people. 2.) Rational thought is the means of identifying reality. I see that you are including Kant's categorical imperatives (MBTI, or Socionics, etc). Anyone who is cognitively competent can perceive emotions (evaluate), think logically, perceive sensations, and process intuition (abstraction?). None of this stops you from thinking rationally. Emotions and sensations are perceptions that still require logic to process correctly. 3.) Apparently you haven't read any Objectivist materiel in depth. 4.) Rand doesn't make any of those assumptions. 5.) Facts don't care about your feelings. Just because a group of people agree on something, doesn't mean they share the same consciousness
tommroy has very little awareness. Here are my top 5 reasons why: 1. Invalid definition of individualism Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism doesn't define individualism as 'Humans existing in isolation'. The fact that Objectivism explicitly states that rights are necessary ONLY because "humans don't exist in isolation" is proof of tomm's complete LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the philosophy he WISHES to attack. 2. Invalid Premise about Rationality Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism doesn't declare "humans are-or should always strive to be-guided SOLELY by logic". Objectivism simply identifies the FACT that reason is man's means and method of identifying the facts of reality. The fact that tomm *feels* the two statements mean the same thing is proof of tomm's LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the epistemology of the philosophy he WISHES to attack. 3. Invalid grasp of Selfishness Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism doesn't declare ANY act is "inherently" good or evil. Objectivism rejects BOTH Intrinsicism ('inherent' good and evil) and Subjectivism (whim-based good and evil). The fact that tomm treats Intrinsicism as if it were Objectivism is proof of tomm's complete LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the moral philosophy he WISHES to attack. 4. Invalid conception of Capitalism Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism's morality, politics, and economics (aka Capitalism) does NOT 'assume a perfect world where all actors are honest, rational, and moral.' The fact that Objectivism DEMANDS the existence of a State to defend the individual AGAINST the initiation of force - ie against those who would VIOLATE other human beings (ie those who are NOT "honest, rational, and moral") - is proof of tomm's complete LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the philosophy he WISHES to attack. 5. Invalid understanding of Objectivism Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism is the only philosophy which doesn't practice the dichotomies he (and all other philosophies) have INVENTED. Unlike tomm's (and everyone else's) philosophy, Objectivism identifies the FACTS of REALITY about how the individual VALIDLY exists in association with other individuals, and identifies the FACTS of REALITY about how reason VALIDLY exists in association with emotions. That tomm "feels" (rather than *thinks*) Objectivism separates, rather than integrates, these FACTS of REALITY about human beings is proof of tomm's complete LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the entirety of the philosophy he WISHES to attack. Put simply, the ONLY "simplistic" - aka FALSE - things here are tommroy's *feelings* and *intuitions* about Objectivism itself. That is WHY tomm has attacked NOTHING here but a series of STRAW MEN.
There's no such thing as a set value to an item for sale. Prices are determined by how much the seller values your money at the time, relative to how much he values what he's selling. If the seller's demand for your money goes up, his prices will go down. If you think about it, this proves that reality is not objective. If reality is objective, the item should have a set price not adjusted according to the seller's subjective demand for the buyer's money.
That is true in creator retail marketing where you deal directly with the maker. In most transactions you are dealing with a reseller who stocks many of the same item. He sets his price based on what he thinks it will cost to restock the items at what the whoesale or job lot price WILL be at that time
*"If reality is objective, the item should have a set price"* That's the same as declaring reality isn't objective because there isn't a set temp at which water boils regardless of context (ie altitude etc). The term for that concept is "intrinsic", not "objective". It is the idea that every fact of reality should have absolutely no bearing or impact on any other fact of reality. In other words, you've mistaken the concept "intrinsic" for "objective". They are not at all the same.
@@bleigh3369 Actually, there is a rather long calculation that is done to figure out the price, but that is in a more organized business environment. Western markets are implemented by organized retail bodies like Walmart or Tartget. In other parts of the world, buyers and sellers actually do haggle over price. Price is arrived at in two contexts; one for the producer/seller and one for the buyer. They saying goes "a thing is worht what someone will pay for it". That has many factors, including sentimental value to the buyer or seller. Also "objective" does not necessarily mean "known at the start of the transaction". They may or may not be true. Also, I may be willing to pay more for a 1967 Hagstrom electric 12-string guitar than someon born after 1980. "Peri Farctic" of RETRO RECIPES would pay far more for a Commodore 64 than I would. Price is a function of value, Values are held by individuals. Even in Objectivism the price of an item is "set" at what a willing seller and willing buy agree on
Not exactly. Reality has more than one buyer and seller. In your example yes the one seller could set any price he pleased. In a competitive free market however one seller could not set a price whereto every other seller is bound.
@@galacticgufus Not only that but most producers are not direct sellers. The overwhelming bulk of sales are made by retailers who stock many similar items from different sellers. Hence the "shelf space wars" in markets. In fact, the phusical location has acquired the name of the activity; "market" is short for "marketplace". The market is socially what the wheel is technolgocally. In fact when my ex-besti or I wanted to know if the other was interest in something, be it an item oractivity we would ask "Are you in the market for...."
Communism and China are playing chess. Capitalism and 'Murica are playing corn hole. Don't you find it curious capitalists and libertarians only have one author/philosopher? And she's an academic loser joke?
China is not communist anymore. It switched to a form of state capitalism after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That is what has allowed China to grow at almost 6% a year since the 1990s. It's also what has empowered the state to become a military threat to its neighbors, Taiwan in particular.
A brilliant mind that is unappreciated by too many.
Can you articulate further why you believe this woman is brilliant?
@@tommroy If you can't see her intellectual achievements from reading (and understanding) her, nothing I can say will get through to you.
Have you read and understood "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Come back when you want to ask a question after doing that.
well spoken, as always
Well, it WAS Rand. What do you expect?
Smart lady.
dead right and inexorably worse today.
This topic of contradictions in the interpretation of the Constitution interests me.
The founding fathers wrote what they wanted they debated it and disagreed like take jefferson he wanted everyone to be a farmer because the thought the life style was virtuous he didn't like industry and thought it created a dependency that took away mens freedom and virtue his ideal world would be an America were everyone was a farmer producing most of their own goods a with anything they couldn't make on their own imported
Divorced from the real world is the best way to describe this diatribe to capitalism and its state power.
Kimobren. You don't know what you are talking about. There are two forms of capitalism. State capitalism and free market capitalism. State capitalism is causing the problems. It goes with socialism and communism. Free market capitalism goes with freedom and liberty. The Federal Reserve and fiat money are an example of state capitalism. You communist always confuse these two types and you end up wanting more state capitalism which leads to communism. No the difference idiot. Communism is a dictator ship. Why don't you just move to North Korea. They are 100 percent communist buttercup.
Yes all we have to do is pass a 28th amendment, "Government coercion is prohibited."
No! The Constitution was sabotaged by the regressive Fabian Progressives with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. There is no such thing as Free Markets under the 2nd Pillar of The Communist Manifesto, a"highly graduated progressive income tax". There is no such thing as "Checks and Balances" in the legislative branch of government with the 17th Amendment neither can Federalism work to restrain overreacting power grabs by the State.
Well, at least we know what Judge Narragansett was doing at the end of ATLAS SHRUGGED
*"all we have to do is pass a 28th amendment, "Government coercion is prohibited.""*
So you wish to 'prohibit' the "government" from saying "Stop that r@pe or I'll chute!"? (yt doesn't like the actual spelling)
@@bleigh3369 In the Objectivist scheme of things, there is a place for government coercion. The role of government is to "prohibit the initiation of force or fraud without intiationg either or both". In doing so, the government may need to use coercion, such as forced confinement; i.e. dragging the offender of to prison. Otherwise, you would not need a constitution to define when, where and how the government sould be let to do this kind of thing
@@SpacePatrollerLaser *"In the Objectivist scheme of things, there is a place for government coercion."*
Exactly the point I was trying to make with my question to dogg about his 28th Amendment. As such, your post is properly directed at him, not me, since his principle is the one which contradicts "the Objectivist scheme of things"
*"prohibit the initiation of force or fraud without initiatiing [sic] either or both"*
You put this phrase in quotation marks. Which "Objectivist" are you supposedly quoting here?
*"Otherwise, you would not need a constitution to define when, where and how the government sould [sic] be let to do this kind of thing"*
Plenty of governments are not "Objectivist" and do not hold that "the role of government is to "prohibit the initiation of force or fraud without initiationg [sic] either or both". Yet they feel the "need" of a "constitution" to define when they WISH for the government to "do this kind of thing" and when they WISH for it NOT to "do this kind of thing". So this claim about constitutions is not a valid one.
In other words, like governments, constitutions are not limited only to "Objectivist" ones. They include ALL forms, including those which deliberately violate rights - regardless of the justifications provided for them.
This woman had very little awareness. Here are my top 5 reasons why:
1. Denial of Interconnectedness
Objectivism’s staunch individualism ignores the undeniable truth of interconnectedness in nature and humanity. Humans don’t exist in isolation; we thrive through relationships, ecosystems, and cooperative structures. Dismissing this reality in favor of a hyper-focus on self-interest seems shortsighted and, arguably, unrealistic.
2. The Flawed Premise of Rationality
Rand assumes that humans are-or should always strive to be-rational actors, guided solely by logic. But we’re not just thinking beings; we’re feeling, sensing, and intuitive creatures, shaped by experiences, culture, and biology. The expectation of pure rationality is not only unrealistic but also reductive of what makes us human.
3. Glorification of Selfishness
The idea that selfishness is inherently virtuous ignores the complexities of moral and ethical behavior. It’s true that self-care and self-respect are important, but Objectivism takes it to an extreme, often devaluing empathy, compassion, and collective responsibility-qualities that are essential for long-term survival and harmony.
4. The Problem of Idealized Capitalism
Rand’s unshakable faith in laissez-faire capitalism assumes a perfect world where all actors are honest, rational, and moral. History has repeatedly shown that unchecked capitalism often leads to exploitation, inequality, and environmental destruction. Her philosophy seems to lack practical grounding in real-world economics and human behavior.
5. A Philosophy of Disconnection
Ultimately, Objectivism feels like a philosophy of separation-separation of the individual from the collective, reason from emotion, and humans from their shared responsibilities. Such a philosophy might appeal to those looking for simplistic answers to complex problems, but it struggles to hold water in a nuanced, interconnected world.
I have studied Objectivism for over 50 years, and have no idea how you could draw the above conclusions without basing them on incorrect assumptions.
Every one of your points includes false conclusions on what she wrote, which makes them mistaken.
1 She NEVER said humans live in isolation. Capitalism depends on interconnectedness.
2 She wrote a whole book on art and emotion "The Romantic Manifesto"
3 Quote: Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
4 Capitalism makes no assumption about everyone being honest. She very much believed we needed Police and Law courts.
5 She wrote of emotions "There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards."
1.) Being independent minded does not separate you from other people.
2.) Rational thought is the means of identifying reality. I see that you are including Kant's categorical imperatives (MBTI, or Socionics, etc). Anyone who is cognitively competent can perceive emotions (evaluate), think logically, perceive sensations, and process intuition (abstraction?). None of this stops you from thinking rationally. Emotions and sensations are perceptions that still require logic to process correctly.
3.) Apparently you haven't read any Objectivist materiel in depth.
4.) Rand doesn't make any of those assumptions.
5.) Facts don't care about your feelings. Just because a group of people agree on something, doesn't mean they share the same consciousness
tommroy has very little awareness. Here are my top 5 reasons why:
1. Invalid definition of individualism
Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism doesn't define individualism as 'Humans existing in isolation'. The fact that Objectivism explicitly states that rights are necessary ONLY because "humans don't exist in isolation" is proof of tomm's complete LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the philosophy he WISHES to attack.
2. Invalid Premise about Rationality
Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism doesn't declare "humans are-or should always strive to be-guided SOLELY by logic". Objectivism simply identifies the FACT that reason is man's means and method of identifying the facts of reality. The fact that tomm *feels* the two statements mean the same thing is proof of tomm's LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the epistemology of the philosophy he WISHES to attack.
3. Invalid grasp of Selfishness
Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism doesn't declare ANY act is "inherently" good or evil. Objectivism rejects BOTH Intrinsicism ('inherent' good and evil) and Subjectivism (whim-based good and evil). The fact that tomm treats Intrinsicism as if it were Objectivism is proof of tomm's complete LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the moral philosophy he WISHES to attack.
4. Invalid conception of Capitalism
Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism's morality, politics, and economics (aka Capitalism) does NOT 'assume a perfect world where all actors are honest, rational, and moral.' The fact that Objectivism DEMANDS the existence of a State to defend the individual AGAINST the initiation of force - ie against those who would VIOLATE other human beings (ie those who are NOT "honest, rational, and moral") - is proof of tomm's complete LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the philosophy he WISHES to attack.
5. Invalid understanding of Objectivism
Contrary to tomm's straw man here, Objectivism is the only philosophy which doesn't practice the dichotomies he (and all other philosophies) have INVENTED. Unlike tomm's (and everyone else's) philosophy, Objectivism identifies the FACTS of REALITY about how the individual VALIDLY exists in association with other individuals, and identifies the FACTS of REALITY about how reason VALIDLY exists in association with emotions. That tomm "feels" (rather than *thinks*) Objectivism separates, rather than integrates, these FACTS of REALITY about human beings is proof of tomm's complete LACK of "awareness" when it comes to the entirety of the philosophy he WISHES to attack.
Put simply, the ONLY "simplistic" - aka FALSE - things here are tommroy's *feelings* and *intuitions* about Objectivism itself. That is WHY tomm has attacked NOTHING here but a series of STRAW MEN.
There's no such thing as a set value to an item for sale. Prices are determined by how much the seller values your money at the time, relative to how much he values what he's selling. If the seller's demand for your money goes up, his prices will go down. If you think about it, this proves that reality is not objective. If reality is objective, the item should have a set price not adjusted according to the seller's subjective demand for the buyer's money.
That is true in creator retail marketing where you deal directly with the maker. In most transactions you are dealing with a reseller who stocks many of the same item. He sets his price based on what he thinks it will cost to restock the items at what the whoesale or job lot price WILL be at that time
*"If reality is objective, the item should have a set price"*
That's the same as declaring reality isn't objective because there isn't a set temp at which water boils regardless of context (ie altitude etc). The term for that concept is "intrinsic", not "objective". It is the idea that every fact of reality should have absolutely no bearing or impact on any other fact of reality.
In other words, you've mistaken the concept "intrinsic" for "objective". They are not at all the same.
@@bleigh3369 Actually, there is a rather long calculation that is done to figure out the price, but that is in a more organized business environment. Western markets are implemented by organized retail bodies like Walmart or Tartget. In other parts of the world, buyers and sellers actually do haggle over price. Price is arrived at in two contexts; one for the producer/seller and one for the buyer. They saying goes "a thing is worht what someone will pay for it". That has many factors, including sentimental value to the buyer or seller. Also "objective" does not necessarily mean "known at the start of the transaction". They may or may not be true. Also, I may be willing to pay more for a 1967 Hagstrom electric 12-string guitar than someon born after 1980. "Peri Farctic" of RETRO RECIPES would pay far more for a Commodore 64 than I would. Price is a function of value, Values are held by individuals. Even in Objectivism the price of an item is "set" at what a willing seller and willing buy agree on
Not exactly. Reality has more than one buyer and seller. In your example yes the one seller could set any price he pleased. In a competitive free market however one seller could not set a price whereto every other seller is bound.
@@galacticgufus Not only that but most producers are not direct sellers. The overwhelming bulk of sales are made by retailers who stock many similar items from different sellers. Hence the "shelf space wars" in markets. In fact, the phusical location has acquired the name of the activity; "market" is short for "marketplace". The market is socially what the wheel is technolgocally. In fact when my ex-besti or I wanted to know if the other was interest in something, be it an item oractivity we would ask "Are you in the market for...."
Communism and China are playing chess. Capitalism and 'Murica are playing corn hole. Don't you find it curious capitalists and libertarians only have one author/philosopher? And she's an academic loser joke?
Actually, the bad guys; China, Russia, N Korea and Iran are playing Rollerball. we are playing Tiny Tina's Tiara Teaparty
So your argument is... "ad hominem, yada yada" basically...
Mises, Rothbard, Murray.
Nice! The incel posse! Tell me, why is it so difficult for libertarians to get laid?
China is not communist anymore. It switched to a form of state capitalism after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That is what has allowed China to grow at almost 6% a year since the 1990s. It's also what has empowered the state to become a military threat to its neighbors, Taiwan in particular.