There are some relevant topics on our website:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3951/is-ayn-rand-a-philosopher/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1632/what-did-ayn-rand-actually-say/p1

"I do not see it, or I refuse to see it. Therefore it doesn't". I guarantee you, others can and do, requiring no explanation. So what does that tell you? — S

I'm continuing the discussion on this thread...

Anyway, I don't understand why you're not giving me an explanation. Isn't that the whole point of having a debate or discussion. If you disagree with someone you should or want to explain to people how it is they are wrong – no matter how obvious you think it is.

I often find myself in discussions where people ask questions that seem to be quite obvious, but I'm always eager to explain it to them. I don't just walk away telling them that it's obvious. That doesn't help.

I also think that people who say that something doesn't need explaining, are people who actually don't have an explanation, so they want to avoid the argument altogether. It's a clever way to avoid being wrong.

Being a trader, as I've said, is someone who gives up something he values to the person he's trading with in exchange for something that he values more from that same person. And that same person is also giving up something they value for something of greater value. When people trade, they are creating win-win situations. They are making both lives better. In order to do this, one must recognize property rights. One must recognize people as independent, responsible, and capable of making their own decisions. This is why Ayn Rand says that traders are the most moral. To not be a trader is to be a master or a slave. To be a criminal and parasite. Someone who just takes from people without giving anything back. To be a slave is to be sacrificial. To give up your life and things you value for nothing back. To let people use and abuse you because you cannot take care of yourself.

So I ask you, what is wrong with traders?

Continuing the discussion here...

And you are so bold as to say I haven’t read and don’t understand Rand, when you don't know I haven’t and I don’t? Because we disagree means I’m wrong? Wouldn’t it be better if you showed me how I was wrong, instead of claiming it despite the demonstration of a particular passage appearing to lack as much consensual philosophical merit as the entire message? — Mww

I did tell you how you were wrong. I explained how you missed the point.

It has been long established that Rand both follows Kant is some regards, and demonizes him in others. But either way, the chances of her even being remembered as anything but a half-way decent fiction author, is directly related to her attacks on Kant, but hardly for a successful refutation of him. — Mww

This paragraph is just your opinion, so nothing to debate.

The fact you don’t understand my use of the trades I chose, shows a distinct lack of understanding of the denial of a categorical assertion, which should have no exceptions, with a mere viable possibility. I summarily reject any philosophy that tells me what, who, and even why......but make no effort to tell me how, either from itself or from its proponents. — Mww

Okay, I'll be more specific.

Let's take the salesman.

Ayn Rand and an Objectivst wouldn't consider a scummy car salesman as moral, and yet you talked as if she did. When she clearly does not. That's why I accused you of not reading her work because anyone who understands her work would know this. No good philosophy supports people who lie, cheat, or steal. That's pretty obvious. A salesman that rips people off isn't really a trader. Certainly not the trader that Ayn Rand held as moral. Salesman in general are good people though. They are selling people stuff that they want. That is a good thing.

A salesman that rips people off isn't really a trader. Certainly not the trader that Ayn Rand held as moral. Salesman in general are good people though. They are selling people stuff that they want. That is a good thing. — AppLeo

Some people want things that are clearly not good for them, such as cigarettes, junk foods, drugs, etc. What moral reasoning would Rand use to praise or condemn those who sell such products?

Some people want things that are clearly not good for them, such as cigarettes, junk foods, drugs, etc. What moral reasoning would Rand use to praise or condemn those who sell such products? — praxis

She would say that it is perfectly moral and good for creating a product and selling it. The creator of the product is rewarded for his efforts, and the buyers are happy because they payed for something that they wanted.

Responding to what you said earlier today...

Yeah, some of it really isn't your fault. If you go back through the forum over the years, we get about a few Randians per year. They usually come, having solved all the problems of philosophy, preaching the virtues of freedom and the market (is there really any difference?) and of non-aggression (people should relate to each other as individuals and form contracts thereby, rather than having them interposed by a government which has monopoly over force). They also usually come with the attitude that everyone's an idiot. — fdrake

I don't blame them for having that attitude...

I do feel genuinely surprised that people identify with Galt more than the dregs of society though, considering that seeing yourself as a hero like Galt or the captains of industry and innovation should require feeling like you have a lot of power and influence and that you're a self made person. It's frustrating to me to see people who have the freedom and opportunity to study, typically students at universities, biting the hand that feeds them; as if they were not benefitting from what society (at least attempts to treat) as a common good. — fdrake

Alright, well first of all I don't see myself like Galt at all. I am not a hero versus the world. I am not gifted, nor rich, nor an engineer. I'm studying software engineering, so kind of similar actually... But I do plan on being self-made and independent and being confident for it. No one benefits from society as a common good. There is no society or common good. There are only individuals. And your life is determined by your own efforts and choices (if you live in a free country of course).

Of course the usual Randian rejoinder is that all the ills of the university system, like our current debt peonage, is as a result of government intervention ensuring education monopolies or power concentration, so they start charging through the roof for a premium good. This follows the general pattern of economic power concentration being equated to 'crony capitalism' - which is where capitalists are allowed regulatory capture by governments. In the ideal Randian world, such regulatory capture would not be possible as it requires a state to represent the interests of powerful capitalists rather than the interests of general people (which, apparently, is always aggressive and thus immoral). — fdrake

Well yes, government intervention always leads to socialism and crony capitalism. That's not what we want. But in the "Randian" world, the state doesn't represent the powerful capitalists. That couldn't be further from the truth... The state represents everyone's individual rights. Rand was an individualist. Everyone matters individually, not what group they belong to. In Atlas Shrugged, the rich were not being treated as individuals with their own rights. They had their rights stolen by everybody else and that is why they fled.

However, Rand does not draw much of a distinction between the interests of powerful capitalists and the interests of general people. Her ethics focuses on heroic individuals associating freely with each other, and a state is ethical just when it enforces individual contracts between them - if the state oversteps those bounds it is forcing people to do things, which goes against a non-aggression principle that's central to Randian ethics. What this misses is that political negotiation doesn't actually occur in a sphere of individuals freely associating with each other, there are power differentials everywhere, and what's needed to get a good deal in the presence of a big power differential is collective bargaining strategies; an inverse of regulatory capture where the government is forced to serve the interest of its people. — fdrake

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... I'll answer the beginning of the paragraph. She doesn't draw a distinction between capitalists and everybody else because everyone's interests is their individual self-interest. There are no interests for groups.

The weakest point of Randian political theory in my view is precisely that it explains political and economic phenomena with reference to deficiencies from an ideal state, an unregulated free market system, which would emerge save the interventions of corrupt government officials. — fdrake

I have no idea what you are trying to say in this paragraph.

A not-so minor point here is that the capitalists are not being corrupt by attempting regulatory capture, propagandising and so on, they're actually acting in their own best interests. They are acting in their own best interests when say an oil company propagandises against the existence of climate change while lobbying government for construction of levees to protect low altitude oil fields, or when a spice manufacturer does something more minor by replacing content of spices at supermarkets with cheaply available salt, or when leveraging a rent gap and making long term denizens homeless. They were acting in their own best interests when opposing the creation of the NHS in Britain.[/quote]

It's debatable if what they're doing is actually in their self-interest and whether or not they're doing a good things. If the spice manufacturer replaces the content of his spices to cheap salt, he's being a liar. If his customers find out, he'll probably go out of business. Or maybe it simply doesn't matter and the customers won't care.

Lobbying to a government is not a thing in the Randian world. The government would have no power. And this example doesn't work anyway because climate change is a bunch of nonsense to take down capitalism.

The beauty of capitalism and business is that people choose what they want to buy. If a business does something selfish in a negative sense, in other words, not doing a good job at running their company, they'll lose customers.

Really what this shows is a big misalignment between the short term profit motive that makes good business and the long term welfare motive that makes good politics. There's no special emphasis in Randian theory on protecting the commons from powerful corporate interests or the requirements of collective bargaining strategies for those subject to power differentials to get a fair deal; it's a theory tailored to the short-term interest of capitalists and shareholders rather than the long-term interest of humanity and stakeholders. The world it speaks about doesn't exist, and the closest historical analogues we have to capitalism without regulation took a huge toll on the people and, eventually, the planet. — fdrake

Protecting the commons?

The only way to protect the people is to limit the government.

What makes you think that by giving the government more power it's going to benefit the people? It just gives corporations the green light to use the government to their advantage. That's one thing I've never understood about socialists. They think that a large government would serve their interests, but it never does. A larger government just destroys the middle class, stagnates the poor and inflates the rich.

Capitalism without regulation is what we need. Capitalism without regulation is capitalism that is for the individual. For everrybody. As soon as you add government you start picking winners and losers; it becomes an unfair game. When state and church was the same, one religion controlled everything and made the state unfair and unjustified in its actions. When church and state were separated you had a free coexistence of religions. The same applies in economics. Want people to be free and prosperous economically? You get the government out.

Want an example of capitalism with minimal to no regulation? 19th century America. Largest increase in quality of life that ever happened. True economic freedom. There were no wars, the government wasn't in the way, people were free to buy and sell what they wanted. That is what America needs to return to. Because the government respected the individual. It didn't pick winners and losers like it does today in our economy.

Alright, well first of all I don't see myself like Galt at all. I am not a hero versus the world. I am not gifted, nor rich, nor an engineer. I'm studying software engineering, so kind of similar actually... But I do plan on being self-made and independent and being confident for it. No one benefits from society as a common good. There is no society or common good. There are only individuals. And your life is determined by your own efforts and choices (if you live in a free country of course). — AppLeo

Well I'm glad you're not that deluded, and being determined to succeed is usually a good thing, so grats. This idea that there are only individuals is rather silly though.

If we take the statement that there are only individuals literally, this would mean that no aggregates of individuals exist - which is quickly undermined by group nouns like people, sheep and so on. So we definitely have the capacity to refer to groups, and it's useful to be able to do so.

If you strengthen the idea to a more metaphysical principle, that there are no groups except for the individuals which constitute them, this is true in a literal extensional sense; the posters on this philosophy forum now, say, applies to each and every poster, and without each poster the collective would be different. What this highlights though is that aggregates don't have to markedly change their properties with the addition or subtraction of members.

Take another example of a group, a football team, what would the claim that there are no groups except for the individuals which constitute them say about the team? Well, it could only say that the football team is equivalent to its constitutive members. This misses a lot though, because changing members can change team dynamics. What this highlights is that aggregates can markedly change with the addition or subtraction of members, and moreover that the playstyle of the team is a property of the aggregate, the group of players, and not a property of the individuals. IE, there are groups, and they can have distinct properties or even types of properties from their members.

A more mathematical example, certain concepts like median wage, GDP, and so on; statistical properties; apply first and foremost to aggregates/populations.

So, what remains of the concept that there are no groups except for the individuals that constitute them? What about these things that look like groups of people, say innovative capitalists, captains of industry, the poor, charity workers and so on. In what sense are they not groups? Why of course because the group doesn't exist, only the individuals do!

Except this misses a lot, a lot of our social reality is founded on inter group relations and laws which concern groups. EG, treaties between countries, affirmative action in hiring. Current legal systems adjoined to capitalism actually treat things on the level of the aggregate - we can have interventions to bring needle exchanges into heroin addled areas, increase literacy in poor areas, confine immigrant children to cages and so on. This is to say nothing of corporate personhood, in which a corporation itself has certain rights and responsibilities similar to but distinct from its constituent members. Even the idea of regulatory capture which Randians are so against still requires two groups - corrupt capitalists and corrupt government workers - to get going.

It's debatable if what they're doing is actually in their self-interest and whether or not they're doing a good things. If the spice manufacturer replaces the content of his spices to cheap salt, he's being a liar. If his customers find out, he'll probably go out of business. Or maybe it simply doesn't matter and the customers won't care. — AppLeo

I certainly trust that these people know how to maximise their profits and run their businesses over you, after all, you are not a skilled captain of industry, you're a parasite like I am. The oil company and the spice company I mentioned still function with impunity by the way. They show no signs of going out of business, even though it absolutely matters that an oil company acknowledges that climate change is likely to raise sea levels and seeks to cover the cost to minimise their exposure on the back of the taxpayer in one breath, then propagandises against climate change's existence in another. It also matters that when people buy something, they know what they're getting and what's involved in it. Let no one ever squander the opportunities of deceit.

Lobbying to a government is not a thing in the Randian world. The government would have no power. And this example doesn't work anyway because climate change is a bunch of nonsense to take down capitalism. — AppLeo

Oh dear oh dear. Please watch this series through.

The only way to protect the people is to limit the government. — AppLeo

Firstly, please note that nowhere in my previous post did I speak about giving governments more power, or less power, what I specifically stated was that collective bargaining strategies are required to make governments (and other institutions like corporations) serve the interests of the people. A people without a government that represents their interests are vulnerable to opportunism on the part of corporations and special interest groups; just as with regulatory capture and tax evasion. You want to benefit from the commons of education, family rearing and health care? Pay those taxes you greedy corporate cunt.

Well yes, government intervention always leads to socialism and crony capitalism. That's not what we want. But in the "Randian" world, the state doesn't represent the powerful capitalists. That couldn't be further from the truth... The state represents everyone's individual rights. Rand was an individualist. Everyone matters individually, not what group they belong to. In Atlas Shrugged, the rich were not being treated as individuals with their own rights. They had their rights stolen by everybody else and that is why they fled. — AppLeo

Except when it leads to fascism, public revolt or increased prosperity. And yes, I know Rand is an individualist, this is precisely why I said the only possible legitimate function Rand imagines for a government is to enforce the contracts made between individuals, and even then preferably not have that power granted to a state.

Anyway, let's take an example of people who actually did have their rights stolen - slaves in the Atlantic slave trade. The trade of slaves wasn't regulated by a government, it was rich colonialists with guns stealing people and rich collaborators corralling candidate slaves, the slaves were traded for profit and were extremely efficient in producing returns for their owners. Laws allowed slavery at the time of course, and when the laws changed through the work of rebels in the colonies and the work of humanitarians at home, history rejoiced. This is a good example of a government changing their tune for justice, and is strikingly opposed to the unfettered capitalism of the slave trade.

You will probably say; a true Randian doesn't believe in the slave trade! Yes, maybe so, but a true Randian wouldn't believe in legislation to end it either - a wrong government cannot legislate rightly, so to speak. Will you join me, against Rand, and say that sometimes governments can do right? And sometimes unfettered capitalism can be systemically wrong?

Want an example of capitalism with minimal to no regulation? 19th century America. Largest increase in quality of life that ever happened. True economic freedom. There were no wars, the government wasn't in the way, people were free to buy and sell what they wanted. That is what America needs to return to. Because the government respected the individual. It didn't pick winners and losers like it does today in our economy. — AppLeo

Lastly, your example of 19th century America as a time of prosperity and opportunity for all is incredibly misguided and historically inaccurate. Most factory workers did not make enough to live on, worked impossibly long hours, children worked in the factories, and the working conditions lead to long term sickness and death - with no sick pay or medical insurance of course. It was only under pressure from disgruntled factory workers that eventually child labour laws were put in place, with similar humanitarian developments on workplace safety and an attempt to provide a living wage following from later efforts of unified workers.

Don't complain about the length of my response, you've read Atlas Shrugged for Christ's sake.

From your reply, I think I can see why Ayn Rand receives such strong criticism.

First of all, I agree that it's unhelpful in a sense for me not to explain it, and to say instead that it's obvious. However, is it helpful for me to be putting effort into something which shouldn't need explaining? Is it helpful for you to be letting other people spoon feed you rather than putting more effort in to understanding what the objections could be, and why they're considered obvious?

I'll just mention a single thing. Traders were responsible for the financial crisis of 2007–2008.

A salesman that rips people off isn't really a trader. — AppLeo

Of course he is!

Certainly not the trader that Ayn Rand held as moral. — AppLeo

I see. So, it's not that traders are good, it's that good traders are good. Sure. And lots of traders aren't good traders.

And this example doesn't work anyway because climate change is a bunch of nonsense to take down capitalism. — AppLeo

Oh dear. That's another big red flag right there. The prognosis doesn't look good for you if you continue down this path.

Going off the information provided in the link:

Reality: "Facts are facts". Okay, but what does man really know about facts or reality? Great thinkers have tried and got no further than "I think, therefore I am" and "I know that I know nothing". But the underlying idea seems to be to accept the laws of nature that one is confronted with, which is reasonable.

Reason: A repetition of the first. To follow reason and to accept reality are one and the same. There is a curious line, though: "To choose to follow reason, Rand argues, is to reject emotions, faith or any form of authoritarianism as guides in life." Rejecting emotions is a terrible idea for any human being. Perhaps "controlling" was the intended meaning here, but to deny one's feelings is a road to guaranteed unhappiness. Emotions are a great guide in life if one seeks happiness (one might even argue they are the guide to happiness), just not a great guide for one's immediate course of action.

Self-interest: Do whatever you want, there are no rules? That's a choice, but to pretend that this is a road to happiness, let alone a functioning society, is a dubious claim at best.

Capitalism: Laissez-faire capitalism? That has only one outcome, oligarchy. The idea that state and economics can be split is naive, because politics are greatly dependent on economics. Large economical powers will always gain political power, and uncontrolled capitalism will eventually lead to several (or even a single) huge firms controlling everything, which will inevitably come to control politics. Hasn't the industrial revolution already warned us enough of the dangers of uncontrolled capitalism?

Ayn Rand said that it is a philosophy for living on Earth — AppLeo

First, I'm not interested in philosophy in that sense of the term. That's the sense of the term in which you're looking for some overarching guiding set of principles (or just a single principle) to help you live your life. I have zero interest in that.

I'm interested in philosophy as an alternate methodological approach to what the sciences are doing. Philosophy, for me, is a means to discovering what sorts of things there are (and are not) in the world, what those things are like, how they work, etc.

In other words, I'm purely interested in philosophy as a descriptive tool--a knowledge acquisition tool. I have no need for and no interest in it as a prescriptive tool--a guidance tool..

Descriptively, Rand's Objectivism gets a number of things wrong, particularly when it comes to axiological (value-oriented) claims. Ethics and aesthetics, for example, are not objective. They're subjective. Same with meaning (both in the semantic sense and the "purpose" sense) and many other things.

Let's take the salesman. — AppLeo

The salesman is nothing but a particular member in the general set of traders. Galt, and therefore Rand, defines trader as this moral symbol of respect, implying that he who is of this kind is the epitome of some moral disposition of her announcement. Practical experience, on the other hand, shows some traders are of some other, diametrically opposed, moral disposition. Therefore, either the Randian characterization of trader, or the moral symbol which describes him, is catastrophically false.

Or, to be fair, possibly the instances of practical experience are false, insofar as a customer knows he’s getting taken to the cleaners in the name of “buyer beware”, and doesn’t bargain or walk away, which makes him morally deficient in objectivist theory. Even so, such theory makes no allowance for the altogether feasible circumstance, wherein the customer has no alternative, and the trader recognizes it and takes advantage, rather than abstaining from the capitalist mantra of “seller’s market”.

Be that as it may, I think taking a logical law and making a theory out of it, is very far less philosophically satisfying than having a theory and using a logical law to justify it.

This is ok, slightly incomplete, but nevertheless acceptable:
“...Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind...”

Then comes this:
“...Centuries ago, the man who was-no matter what his errors-the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too....”

Now I grasp the subtlety here....a cake sits in front of you as an A, as soon as you take a bite out of it, it is no longer the A it once was. I’d like to know, if reason is the power of knowledge, how is it the identity of “cake” wouldn’t remain even with a bite out of it? Even if it is true A is no longer A in the absolute strictest sense, it does not follow from that, that reason is prohibited from a practical position in favor of maintaining a pure one, such that cake and cake - bite is not a contradiction of either reason or knowledge. And if that wasn’t enough, while it is true a leaf cannot be a stone, would a leaf be any less a leaf to a caterpillar munching on it? I think not, kemo-sabe.

A further subtlety: if A is a cake is a cake, then a cake with a bite out of it is just B. In this state modified from A, B is B, law of identity obtained. Big deal; the cake is still both had and eaten.

Which makes the entire Objectivist philosophy nothing short of a 1000-word lament over the failure of a More-ish Utopia.....the world sucks because it’s inhabitants are unworthy of it, being of improper moral or even natural disposition (never mind the intrinsic nature of them), which makes any form Shanghai-La, DaTong, e.g., mere fantasies.

Finally, it is hardly my opinion. Research will show that Rand’s moral philosophy, personified in Galt’s speech, is a direct condemnation of continental Enlightenment metaphysics in general and you-know-who in particular.

Ayn Rand has been mentioned, and so I'm obliged to repeat:

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.

My work is done, here.

Some people want things that are clearly not good for them, such as cigarettes, junk foods, drugs, etc. What moral reasoning would Rand use to praise or condemn those who sell such products?
— praxis

She would say that it is perfectly moral and good for creating a product and selling it. The creator of the product is rewarded for his efforts, and the buyers are happy because they payed for something that they wanted. — AppLeo

Not sure that I get the difference here between a salesperson who sells products that harm buyers and a salesperson who cheats buyers. In both cases the buyer is being taken advantage of and harmed in some way, though in the case of cheating the buyer is only taking a financial hit.

The moral model appears to be libertarian, valuing personal liberty above all other moral dimensions (including harm/care). I assume Rand was libertarian?

That's almost word for word what I was going to come here to say. :)

There are only individuals. And your life is determined by your own efforts and choices — AppLeo

That tends to not work out so well when one has to move a sofa or a piano, let alone a household.

Well I'm glad you're not that deluded, and being determined to succeed is usually a good thing, so grats. This idea that there are only individuals is rather silly though. — fdrake

I’m not deluded at all. And assuming that I’m already deluded makes me think that whatever I have to say will fall flat to you. Why listen to a deluded person? And the idea of there only being individuals is not silly at all. It’s an idea that should be taken seriously.

If we take the statement that there are only individuals literally, this would mean that no aggregates of individuals exist - which is quickly undermined by group nouns like people, sheep and so on. So we definitely have the capacity to refer to groups, and it's useful to be able to do so.


If you strengthen the idea to a more metaphysical principle, that there are no groups except for the individuals which constitute them, this is true in a literal extensional sense; the posters on this philosophy forum now, say, applies to each and every poster, and without each poster the collective would be different. What this highlights though is that aggregates don't have to markedly change their properties with the addition or subtraction of members.


Take another example of a group, a football team, what would the claim that there are no groups except for the individuals which constitute them say about the team? Well, it could only say that the football team is equivalent to its constitutive members. This misses a lot though, because changing members can change team dynamics. What this highlights is that aggregates can markedly change with the addition or subtraction of members, and moreover that the playstyle of the team is a property of the aggregate, the group of players, and not a property of the individuals. IE, there are groups, and they can have distinct properties or even types of properties from their members.


A more mathematical example, certain concepts like median wage, GDP, and so on; statistical properties; apply first and foremost to aggregates/populations.


So, what remains of the concept that there are no groups except for the individuals that constitute them? What about these things that look like groups of people, say innovative capitalists, captains of industry, the poor, charity workers and so on. In what sense are they not groups? Why of course because the group doesn't exist, only the individuals do!


Except this misses a lot, a lot of our social reality is founded on inter group relations and laws which concern groups. EG, treaties between countries, affirmative action in hiring. Current legal systems adjoined to capitalism actually treat things on the level of the aggregate - we can have interventions to bring needle exchanges into heroin addled areas, increase literacy in poor areas, confine immigrant children to cages and so on. This is to say nothing of corporate personhood, in which a corporation itself has certain rights and responsibilities similar to but distinct from its constituent members. Even the idea of regulatory capture which Randians are so against still requires two groups - corrupt capitalists and corrupt government workers - to get going. — fdrake

Well I understand that there are groups of people and that we have words for these groups of people, and that laws and treaties depend on acknowledging people in groups rather than as individuals. What I don’t like about it is that these groups have taken on identities of their own when they shouldn’t have. There is no collective stomach. There is no collective mind. The groups that form together form based on individuals and their values. But even if you have a group of like-minded individuals in a group, all those individual minds are still very very different with their own goals and are their own person.

And the people that over identify with their groups are essentially sacrificing their own individuality and livelihood for a group or cause that will only fulfill the one interest they have that even made them join or be apart of the group in the first place. A black person’s blackness is one small and very pointless detail to everything about them. A poor person’s bank account is a small and pointless detail compared to everything else that makes them an individual.

Caring about these groups It creates identity politics. It’s not about your responsibility, your work ethic, or who you are as a person. It’s about what group you belong to and who’s group beats the others. Your group defines your identity, not you. If you are in a group that is perceived to be good, you are a good person regardless if you are actually good. If you are in a group that is perceived as bad, you are a bad person regardless if you are actually bad. And the worst part about it is when the government sees these groups as actual entities with rights of their own – that groups of people can have rights that trump individual rights… You will get an unfair and unjustly system. The government can pick winners and losers among individuals depending on which individuals are in which groups. The government is a giant gun. And every group wants control over it. Republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, gays, straights, christians, atheists, environmentalists, women, men, the rich, the poor, employer, employee.. it goes on and on…. All these groups are minorities in a sense.

Ayn Rand said, the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

This means that if you want to care for the common good, if you actually care for anybody at all, If you want to be good and decent, you must unite everybody under one common interest – their individuality. And you must defends everyone’s individuality as everybody defends yours.

There is no gay rights. There is no women’s rights. There is no corporations rights. There are only individual rights.

It’s one of the reasons why I don’t like blanket statistics. It lumps individuals together based on one characteristic or interest, and completely ignores everything else about the individuals that belong to that group. When feminists shout, “females only make 75 cents for every dollar a man makes!,” they are ignoring all other interests and characteristics of the individual women that are in the women population. They boil everyone’s individuality down into a zombie-like mob that mindlessly and pathetically fights for one interest. It strips people of their individuality, their humanity, their personality, their own interests and desires. If you are a woman who makes 100,000 dollars a year, which is a very high salary, somehow, men still make more than you and that you are victimized. If you are a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mom, you’re doing yourself a disservice because you’re not going into the science fields because "more men are in engineering than women and that’s wrong.”

So that’s what I mean when there is no society and only individuals. I think it’s evident that people who understand this concept are people who value freedom. People who don’t understand or disagree are authoritarian and want to enslave and be enslaved. They want to be a part of a mindless mob, or control a mindless mob.

Oh dear oh dear. Please watch this series through. — fdrake

Climate change is fear mongering and left-wing religion if you ask me. And I’ve heard enough in the public schools on the worries of climate change.

There are important questions to ask when it comes to climate change.

First of all, is it actually happening?

Most likely, I would agree that we are experiencing climate change.

What does climate change mean for us?

Whatever problems that arises from it, we should take steps to fix it. If rising sea levels are a problem, for example, then we need to figure out ways to counter the sea levels. I don’t that will really be a problem.

Did we cause climate change?

Maybe. If we didn’t, then who cares, let’s just start working on countering the problems with climate change. If we did create climate change with fossil fuel usage, does that mean we should stop using fossil fuels? Well no, because our economy and livelihood depends on fossil fuels. So it wouldn’t make any sense to stop using fossil fuels. Abandoning fossil fuels for other energy alternatives isn’t cost effective or productive.

Can we prevent climate change?

No, I don’t think we can, so whatever is going to happen is going to happen. Let’s not worry about it and prepare for it.j

Anyway, let's take an example of people who actually did have their rights stolen - slaves in the Atlantic slave trade. The trade of slaves wasn't regulated by a government, it was rich colonialists with guns stealing people and rich collaborators corralling candidate slaves, the slaves were traded for profit and were extremely efficient in producing returns for their owners. Laws allowed slavery at the time of course, and when the laws changed through the work of rebels in the colonies and the work of humanitarians at home, history rejoiced. This is a good example of a government changing their tune for justice, and is strikingly opposed to the unfettered capitalism of the slave trade. — fdrake

Blaming capitalism or finding faults in capitalism for people having slaves is ridiculous.

In socialism, the antithesis to capitalism, everybody is a slave to everybody.

You will probably say; a true Randian doesn't believe in the slave trade! Yes, maybe so, but a true Randian wouldn't believe in legislation to end it either - a wrong government cannot legislate rightly, so to speak. Will you join me, against Rand, and say that sometimes governments can do right? And sometimes unfettered capitalism can be systemically wrong? — fdrake

First of all, objectivists do not advocate for anarchy, they advocate for a limited government that protects individual rights. Second, Rand's philosophy preaches rational self-interest. A slave owner isn’t rationally self-interested, and neither is a slave. Why would Ayn Rand tell slaves to continue being slaves? Her entire message was to fight for your life and happiness and to treat others as desiring their own life and happiness as well.

I find it quite annoying how much people twist her words and ideas into something that she clearly and consistently disagreed with fundamentally.

Lastly, your example of 19th century America as a time of prosperity and opportunity for all is incredibly misguided and historically inaccurate. Most factory workers did not make enough to live on, worked impossibly long hours, children worked in the factories, and the working conditions lead to long term sickness and death - with no sick pay or medical insurance of course. It was only under pressure from disgruntled factory workers that eventually child labour laws were put in place, with similar humanitarian developments on workplace safety and an attempt to provide a living wage following from later efforts of unified workers. — fdrake

No, it’s the most historically accurate.

Have you forgotten the time period? This was a time when people had to create wealth from the bottom up and they did create the wealth from the bottom up because there were no “living wages” or welfare benefits. It’s welfare that keeps poor and immobile. And it was the 19th century when actual real people, not just elites, were able to pursue leisure for the first time.

Why do you think people worked those factory jobs? There was no better alternative for them. And thank god for the business owner who had the idea to create a product for people to work those jobs and to make money. And because he created a product, and because he hired people, he was able to mass produce his product, which made his product cheap and sellable to everybody in the public, which increased the standard of living for everybody.

The 19th century also had the 2nd industrial revolution. Which had inventions like electricity and heating, skyscrapers, and the washing machine. These were big inventions that changed the quality of life for people significantly, but most people today look back on that time period and don’t see the freedom, economic production and the beauty of capitalism.

Also, when child labor laws were in place, the majority of children weren’t working anyway because everyone in the economy became wealthy enough that children no longer had to work, but had the opportunity to go to school. And thank god the child labor laws didn’t come before because children needed to be able to work to have money for their families.

Lastly, those who fight for a “living wage” or money benefits for the poor and other things along that nature…. You are basically advocating for feudalism. You are asking a wealthy man to be held responsible for those below him. He must have power and authority over them. You believe that those below him cannot take care or be responsible for themselves without this authority. The wealthy businessman cannot live on his own terms, and is shackled and enslaved by the burden of taking care of the people he has power over. Do you realize how evil this is? That you are advocating for feudalism and authoritarianism. Not freedom.

I'll just mention a single thing. Traders were responsible for the financial crisis of 2007–2008. — S

No, it was government interference. But of course, you won't explain why it was traders because having to explain to anyone who disagrees is just someone asking to be "spoon fed", not because they want to counter your argument or anything...

Oh dear. That's another big red flag right there. The prognosis doesn't look good for you if you continue down this path. — S

What you're saying is equivalent to a christian to an atheist that denies God.

I don't think I'm going to debate you anymore. You've clearly made up your mind and don't care to learn anything new from me because an unwillingness to propel the discussion, but closing it down with your minimized, condescending comments.

Climate change is fear mongering and left-wing religion if you ask me

[...]

Whatever problems that arises from it, we should take steps to fix it. If rising sea levels are a problem, for example, then we need to figure out ways to counter the sea levels. I don’t that will really be a problem.

[...]

Maybe. If we didn’t, then who cares, let’s just start working on countering the problems with climate change. If we did create climate change with fossil fuel usage, does that mean we should stop using fossil fuels? Well no, because our economy and livelihood depends on fossil fuels. So it wouldn’t make any sense to stop using fossil fuels. Abandoning fossil fuels for other energy alternatives isn’t cost effective or productive.
— AppLeo

Good thing we ask the community of climatologists and not you then. You are an expert on nothing relevant here, while those who are your betters and mine on the matter say in near uniformity that all current models project a very near future deadline (technically 12 years, but since this escalates the later they're addressed, it's likely more like 5 or 6 years if we don't act now) within which to actto avoid catastrophic climate damage in the coming decades (if you think the Middle East is a shitshow now, just wait until it's uninhabitable).

It's this kind of nonsensical, even idiotic, response to the dangers of climate change that makes so many people even consider socialism in the first place. There will be an obvious problem presented (e.g. climate change) which is in large part caused or made worse by the behavior and operations certain sectors of the economy. People like you will show up, complain about faults being pointed out about the economic system worsening the issue because the negative effects not a market force, and then either do what you're just short of doing (denying climate science as a lefty religion... Great argument) or will just say a variation of "Nothing we can do in practice cause we need fossil fuels". And so these people conclude that, well, if that's capitalism and it requires such mental gymnastics to avoid admitting any fault or failure with it, then I'm against that. You are you're own worst enemy.

Because of the very well established problem between capitalism and market externalities that can't be easily (if at all) be made monetizable, we know there is more keeping civilization going than this ridiculous idea that "Well herp de derp, since we require fossil fuels right now we can't even bother weaning ourselves off them". It's exactly this unthinking response that got us stuck in this rut. We've known for certain that climate change had a huge man made component to it for decades. Large areas of business knew it existed even longer and some even buried their research regarding it in the 50s and 60s (again, if it's not profitable capitalism will deny it or fight it even if it's self destructive).

The suggestion that we can combat these issues individually because you have a nakedly unjustified view that groups don't exist is laughable. I mean yeah, sure my dude, show me the obvious and feasible solution to global sea level rising. You can't put up a seawall around the entire world landmasses, it's friggin huge. We can't even put a border wall on the southern border of the U.S. because it's both incredibly impractical, stupidly expensive and it doesn't solve the problem. And you know what that means? People will inevitably flee inland and boy doesn't that bring with ita host of other enormous problems to solve? It's almost like some problems are a result of others

It would be many orders of magnitude larger to try and "individually" target sea level rising caused by CC in any case. You know what would slow down sea level rise? Attempting to end climate change. It's like the textbook example of many giant problems having a narrow range of causes that we can attempt to alleviate. But the peddlers of economic magic that you are part of (note I am not a socialist) have made this impossible because underneath every out they give themselves is just one fundamental view.

What's good for me won't hurt anyone else. The individual is supreme.

But, hey, I'm sure you just have the inside knowledge on why leftists are just trumpeting up climate change despite it being the case that massive captains of industry are directly funding campaigns and politicians to fight any non trivial attempt at diminishing the impact of CC because it would mean they couldn't make all the money in the world. This is your brain on Objectivism.

Reality: "Facts are facts". Okay, but what does man really know about facts or reality? Great thinkers have tried and got no further than "I think, therefore I am" and "I know that I know nothing". But the underlying idea seems to be to accept the laws of nature that one is confronted with, which is reasonable. — Tzeentch

Ayn Rand would say something like, "I am, therefore I think." Not, I think therefore I am.

But yes, reality is reality.

Reason: A repetition of the first. To follow reason and to accept reality are one and the same. There is a curious line, though: "To choose to follow reason, Rand argues, is to reject emotions, faith or any form of authoritarianism as guides in life." Rejecting emotions is a terrible idea for any human being. Perhaps "controlling" was the intended meaning here, but to deny one's feelings is a road to guaranteed unhappiness. Emotions are a great guide in life if one seeks happiness (one might even argue they are the guide to happiness), just not a great guide for one's immediate course of action. — Tzeentch

She says to reject emotions as guides to life. She's not saying to deny your feelings. She's saying that you shouldn't place your emotions above reality or what you know to be true. You need to look at things objectively so that you make proper choices. Emotions are poor guides to life. What you feel doesn't tell what reality actually is. Reason tells you what reality actually is. It's not just emotions either. Faith is accepting something as truth without evidence. What people say in authority positions should not be accepted as truths either. Being in a position of authority doesn't mean what you say dictates reality or the truth.

Self-interest: Do whatever you want, there are no rules? That's a choice, but to pretend that this is a road to happiness, let alone a functioning society, is a dubious claim at best. — Tzeentch

Does self-interest mean do whatever you want? No. It means to be in your own self-interest. And don't forget that Rand advocated for reason, so that means being rationally self-interest. Just because you feel like doing something doesn't mean you should. Being rationally self-interested is good for you and everybody else.

Capitalism: Laissez-faire capitalism? That has only one outcome, oligarchy. The idea that state and economics can be split is naive, because politics are greatly dependent on economics. — Tzeentch

How is politics greatly dependent on economics? In the 19th century, the government did perfectly well being separated.

Large economical powers will always gain political power, and uncontrolled capitalism will eventually lead to several (or even a single) huge firms controlling everything, which will inevitably come to control politics. Hasn't the industrial revolution already warned us enough of the dangers of uncontrolled capitalism? — Tzeentch

What's wrong is a bunch of large firms controlling everything? If they bought all the other small businesses, they did it out of free trade. They didn't steal anything.

And one company isn't going to control everything anyway.

If you separate state and economics, money cannot buy political power.

The industrial revolution was perfectly fine just the way it was. The government is what's ruining our economy today.

What's wrong is a bunch of large firms controlling everything? If they bought all the other small businesses, they did it out of free trade. They didn't steal anything. — AppLeo

I'll never understand how a capitalist of all people could argue that one or a handful of firms controlling everything is good for the economy. It's one of the most diametrically opposed things to that kind of economic system working well. It stifles creativity because the bar to entering the market skyrockets to impossible levels for newcomers (goodbye competition) and it gives those firms the incredible ability to manipulate the government (campaign contributions, threats of moving some significant portion of their business out the country, and just general fear of politicians at upsetting crucial parts of their economy). Further, the idea that all business, or even most, is just them winning at free trade is so laughable a statement that its a near guarantee that the person has never taken a few economics courses. Theft isn't the only way to cheat in an economy, though businesses do lots of theft anyway.

It's not even debatable at this point. These are pure ideological affirmations you're giving us. Gubment sucks, monopolies are great (what is capitalism???), individuals exist not groups, etc etc. This is supposed to be the stereotype of Randians and other right wingers who go full weird. Anyway, I'm being rude so I'll duck out before the mods come down on me. Heh.

The salesman is nothing but a particular member in the general set of traders. Galt, and therefore Rand, defines trader as this moral symbol of respect, implying that he who is of this kind is the epitome of some moral disposition of her announcement. Practical experience, on the other hand, shows some traders are of some other, diametrically opposed, moral disposition. Therefore, either the Randian characterization of trader, or the moral symbol which describes him, is catastrophically false. — Mww

Either you live in a world of traders, or a world of masters and slaves?

Which world do you want to live in?

Or, to be fair, possibly the instances of practical experience are false, insofar as a customer knows he’s getting taken to the cleaners in the name of “buyer beware”, and doesn’t bargain or walk away, which makes him morally deficient in objectivist theory. Even so, such theory makes no allowance for the altogether feasible circumstance, wherein the customer has no alternative, and the trader recognizes it and takes advantage, rather than abstaining from the capitalist mantra of “seller’s market”. — Mww

what?

Be that as it may, I think taking a logical law and making a theory out of it, is very far less philosophically satisfying than having a theory and using a logical law to justify it. — Mww

I don't even know what to say to this...

Now I grasp the subtlety here....a cake sits in front of you as an A, as soon as you take a bite out of it, it is no longer the A it once was. I’d like to know, if reason is the power of knowledge, how is it the identity of “cake” wouldn’t remain even with a bite out of it? Even if it is true A is no longer A in the absolute strictest sense, it does not follow from that, that reason is prohibited from a practical position in favor of maintaining a pure one, such that cake and cake - bite is not a contradiction of either reason or knowledge. And if that wasn’t enough, while it is true a leaf cannot be a stone, would a leaf be any less a leaf to a caterpillar munching on it? I think not, kemo-sabe.

A further subtlety: if A is a cake is a cake, then a cake with a bite out of it is just B. In this state modified from A, B is B, law of identity obtained. Big deal; the cake is still both had and eaten. — Mww

I don't understand.

Which makes the entire Objectivist philosophy nothing short of a 1000-word lament over the failure of a More-ish Utopia.....the world sucks because it’s inhabitants are unworthy of it, being of improper moral or even natural disposition (never mind the intrinsic nature of them), which makes any form Shanghai-La, DaTong, e.g., mere fantasies.

Finally, it is hardly my opinion. Research will show that Rand’s moral philosophy, personified in Galt’s speech, is a direct condemnation of continental Enlightenment metaphysics in general and you-know-who in particular. — Mww

I guess you proved her philosophy wrong I guess...

Not sure that I get the difference here between a salesperson who sells products that harm buyers and a salesperson who cheats buyers. In both cases the buyer is being taken advantage of and harmed in some way, though in the case of cheating the buyer is only taking a financial hit.

The moral model appears to be libertarian, valuing personal liberty above all other moral dimensions (including harm/care). I assume Rand was libertarian? — praxis

It is a matter of personal opinion whether or not a product is harming the buyer. The buyer is buying it because he values it more than the money that it costs to buy it. The buyer determines the values in his life. Nobody else does and nobody should. To say otherwise would mean that a the man isn’t free to make his own choices. That he must answer to another man to make his own choices. This is immoral because the man is not free to live life as he wants. She considers traders to be the most moral because they recognize and respect one another as responsible, independent individuals with their own personal values. Since traders understand this concept, they trade values with one another and thus increase the quality of everybody’s life as a whole. Consider the opposite, where people don’t deal with one another as traders, but as masters and slaves. That is a world I do not want to live in and that is why I try very hard to defend my position because that is where the world is going. It would be a world of brute force and control, destruction, and no freedom.

As an Objectivist, I would say that one must hold rationality as his absolute while pursuing his self-interest. You should not buy things on your whims or desires, only if it’s rational. But we cannot force people to be rational. They have to decide to be rational on their own. Those that are most rational in their choices will be the most prosperous.

Libertarians contain a very large range of people, so labeling Ayn Rand as libertarian hardly gives clarity to her position. Ayn Rand is a libertarian, but she only agrees with libertarians on one thing and that is liberty should trump authority. She disagrees with all libertarians who aren't objectivists. There are plenty of libertarian conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, socialists, capitalists, etc… She fundamentally disagrees with all of them though because they are not objectivists. A libertarian could be a christian and a socialist, and of course Ayn Rand would not approve of such a person.

In 'Enemies of an Open Society' (1947) Karl Popper warns that science as truth leads to tyranny. It seems to me that Rand is skirting this problem in a deliberate, but unsuccessful manner. The argument that there are no groups, only individuals - is an absurd notion, but necessary to maintain objectivism construed as "reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism" - because, the natural implication from objectivist philosophical proscription, is an objectivist state - in which political and personal freedom, individuality, creativity and so forth - would be crushed out of existence by the need to 'make our representations conform' to an unarguable objective truth.

Rand's conceit - that people can live as individuals, without forming any kind of organisational structures - is necessary to avoid the implication that objective truth is unarguable - and thus, tyrannical. But individualism is contrary to the natural order of human evolution, our psychology and the entire history of society and civilization. That's a massive abdication from reality; and thus a contradiction of objectivism's own supposed values.

I say this as a philosopher who argues that we need to recognize the significance of scientific truth in order to meet challenges such as climate change, deforestation, overfishing, pollution and so on; but I do not ignore vast swathes of reality in order to do so. The larger part of my arguments are concerned with how to integrate scientific truth politically and economically - while avoiding these negative social implications. And I dislike intensely the impression formed from reading this thread - that objective truth should be used as an excuse to shirk all such responsibilities.

Good thing we ask the community of climatologists and not you then. You are an expert on nothing relevant here, while those who are your betters and mine on the matter say in near uniformity that all current models project a very near future deadline (technically 12 years, but since this escalates the later they're addressed, it's likely more like 5 or 6 years if we don't act now) within which to actto avoid catastrophic climate damage in the coming decades (if you think the Middle East is a shitshow now, just wait until it's uninhabitable). — MindForged

No one here is an expert on anything. But that doesn't mean we can't argue about it and determine what is actually true about the subject.

A deadline of what? The world will end like it should've in 2012?

It's this kind of nonsensical, even idiotic, response to the dangers of climate change that makes so many people even consider socialism in the first place. — MindForged

Well yeah, people resort to socialism and government control over the economy when they want other people's money and don't want people to be free. And they'll use things like climate change as an excuse to force people to participate in economic transactions that they do not agree to.

There will be an obvious problem presented (e.g. climate change) which is in large part caused or made worse by the behavior and operations certain sectors of the economy. People like you will show up, complain about faults being pointed out about the economic system worsening the issue because the negative effects not a market force, and then either do what you're just short of doing (denying climate science as a lefty religion... Great argument) or will just say a variation of "Nothing we can do in practice cause we need fossil fuels". And so these people conclude that, well, if that's capitalism and it requires such mental gymnastics to avoid admitting any fault or failure with it, then I'm against that. You are you're own worst enemy. — MindForged

Can you imagine a world without running on fossil fuels? If we even quit using fossil fuels would that stop climate change?

Our best hope of stopping climate change is with capitalism. Capitalism encourages growth and rewards people who come up with ideas that solves our problems. The engineers that can create clean energy sources less expensive than fossil fuels, or create something to protect cities from rising sea levels, or engineer floating cities, or basically create anything to solve whatever problem climate change throws at us. People are motivated when they can make a profit and can take pride in their own achievements. Not by an over powering government that collects everyone's money and spends that money on an idea that they hope works that the people would have never paid for in the first place. Capitalism is our best shot of handling climate change.

That is if it's an actual problem...

Because of the very well established problem between capitalism and market externalities that can't be easily (if at all) be made monetizable, we know there is more keeping civilization going than this ridiculous idea that "Well herp de derp, since we require fossil fuels right now we can't even bother weaning ourselves off them". It's exactly this unthinking response that got us stuck in this rut. We've known for certain that climate change had a huge man made component to it for decades. Large areas of business knew it existed even longer and some even buried their research regarding it in the 50s and 60s (again, if it's not profitable capitalism will deny it or fight it even if it's self destructive). — MindForged

We have no viable alternatives to climate change. And as I've said, I disagree that fossil fuels have been responsible for it. I think the earth goes through shifts.

And I've always found it strange because... if fossil fuels create green house gasses, isn't that good because it creates a greenhouse. Which is good for plants.

The suggestion that we can combat these issues individually because you have a nakedly unjustified view that groups don't exist is laughable. I mean yeah, sure my dude, show me the obvious and feasible solution to global sea level rising. You can't put up a seawall around the entire world landmasses, it's friggin huge. We can't even put a border wall on the southern border of the U.S. because it's both incredibly impractical, stupidly expensive and it doesn't solve the problem. And you know what that means? People will inevitably flee inland and boy doesn't that bring with ita host of other enormous problems to solve? It's almost like some problems are a result of others — MindForged

Individuals in a free society will solve it (capitalism). Not mindless groups of people who use government force (socialism).

It would be many orders of magnitude larger to try and "individually" target sea level rising caused by CC in any case. You know what would slow down sea level rise? Attempting to end climate change. — MindForged

How do you end and reverse climate change? Especially if there is the possibility that humans didn't create climate change, and especially if climate change isn't even a real problem.

It's like the textbook example of many giant problems having a narrow range of causes that we can attempt to alleviate. But the peddlers of economic magic that you are part of (note I am not a socialist) have made this impossible because underneath every out they give themselves is just one fundamental view. — MindForged

Capitalism is economic magic. Everything we could ever want and need was with the help of capitalism, businessmen and our fellow traders.

What's good for me won't hurt anyone else. The individual is supreme.

But, hey, I'm sure you just have the inside knowledge on why leftists are just trumpeting up climate change despite it being the case that massive captains of industry are directly funding campaigns and politicians to fight any non trivial attempt at diminishing the impact of CC because it would mean they couldn't make all the money in the world. This is your brain on Objectivism. — MindForged

Blah blah blah...

You think people like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos just want the world to burn while they get rich. Give me a break. And I don't know why wanting to get rich means opposing climate change.

Making money in all the world is a good thing. People get wealthy because the things they sell are making the world a better place. I want rich people to be rich as they possibly can. As long as they care about a profit, they will always be making products to make the world a better place. If you take that away, say goodbye to all the future Steve Jobs's that could've actually changed the world for the better.

I’m not deluded at all. And assuming that I’m already deluded makes me think that whatever I have to say will fall flat to you. Why listen to a deluded person? And the idea of there only being individuals is not silly at all. It’s an idea that should be taken seriously. — AppLeo

I take silly ideas seriously all the time. That's part of why I enjoy philosophy and learning more generally. I would not have attempted to rebut your ideas if I didn't think they were worth rebutting - see the difference in approaches in my response to your different claims: On the one hand I put a bit of effort in explaining why I thought you were wrong during most of the post, but just linked you to a introduction to climate change video course for your climate change denial. I was hoping that since you've enjoyed studying objectivism so much you'd spend some time, maybe in the future, actually looking into climate change analysis from reputable/well cited climatological sources.

Well I understand that there are groups of people and that we have words for these groups of people, and that laws and treaties depend on acknowledging people in groups rather than as individuals. — AppLeo

Good, then you believe in the constitutive entities of politics, and the claim 'There are only individuals' is reduced to nothing more than a metaphor.

What I don’t like about it is that these groups have taken on identities of their own when they shouldn’t have. There is no collective stomach. There is no collective mind. The groups that form together form based on individuals and their values. But even if you have a group of like-minded individuals in a group, all those individual minds are still very very different with their own goals and are their own person.

And the people that over identify with their groups are essentially sacrificing their own individuality and livelihood for a group or cause that will only fulfill the one interest they have that even made them join or be apart of the group in the first place. A black person’s blackness is one small and very pointless detail to everything about them. A poor person’s bank account is a small and pointless detail compared to everything else that makes them an individual.

Firstly, differences of opinion over what to do, or differences in taste, still do usually persist within political subjects. For example, citizens of Britain that own passports and have no criminal record have (at least nominally) the same rights for travel within Europe. That there is no collective mind for all of Britain does absolutely nothing to change how the political subjectivity works. That pseudoproblems such as 'it is problematic that political actions are done by and effect groups' and 'since individuals are not a hive mind politics done along group lines is problematic' arise is a function of your flawed framing rather than a problem of the world.

Note that in spite of this you are actually conceding the point that political actions are done by and effect groups. Your claim has now morphed into the claim that political actions should not concern groups, something much different from the original descriptive claim of 'there are only individuals'.

Caring about these groups It creates identity politics. It’s not about your responsibility, your work ethic, or who you are as a person. It’s about what group you belong to and who’s group beats the others. Your group defines your identity, not you. If you are in a group that is perceived to be good, you are a good person regardless if you are actually good. If you are in a group that is perceived as bad, you are a bad person regardless if you are actually bad. And the worst part about it is when the government sees these groups as actual entities with rights of their own – that groups of people can have rights that trump individual rights… You will get an unfair and unjustly system. The government can pick winners and losers among individuals depending on which individuals are in which groups. The government is a giant gun. And every group wants control over it. Republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, gays, straights, christians, atheists, environmentalists, women, men, the rich, the poor, employer, employee.. it goes on and on…. All these groups are minorities in a sense.

This is quite strange. You seem to be under the impression, at least for the purposes of your post, that people choose their political subjectivity like they choose what they have for dinner or what bars they go to. A wheelchair bound person does not identify as a wheelchair bound person because they want to park closer to the supermarket, they get to park closer to the supermarket because they need a wheelchair. Now imagine that the supermarket has steep steps, and you have one supermarket within range of access. Now this poor sod has to get someone else to do their shopping for them. The thing about this that induces a group identity is that for some people, they need to enter the shop but can't because of the steps. Then it makes sense to organise along those lines to exert political or economic pressure to get such things changed, for the betterment of your group. This 'betters the group' because they were already aligned by an identity that was ascribed to them usually without their volition.

The same thing applies to what country you're born in, whether you're LGBT, whether you're white or black or hispanic or Asian, male, female, trans, whether you're a steel worker or a telephone salesperson and so on. People do not choose the effects of these things, it just so happens that they have common life problems to organise around. The same thing even applies for big businesses, they want to make lots of money and so organise around issues that either prevent them from losing money or allow them to get more money. It's really simple: alliances of people form from shared problems, not through arbitrary associations. Groups of people form alliances to attempt to solve common problems for the individuals which constitute them. You get all of this out of the effective application of self interest, you don't even have to be a nice person, just pragmatic.

On top of these coalitions of common problems, we also can also add empathy and solidarity; an attempt to aid those who suffer from problems we might not for the betterment of everyone.

So, why shouldn't individuals organise to tackle problems common to them?

Blaming capitalism or finding faults in capitalism for people having slaves is ridiculous. — AppLeo

So you're quite happy to admit that slavery is perfectly consistent with unregulated capitalism? Great! We have some common ground.

First of all, objectivists do not advocate for anarchy, they advocate for a limited government that protects individual rights. Second, Rand's philosophy preaches rational self-interest. A slave owner isn’t rationally self-interested, and neither is a slave. Why would Ayn Rand tell slaves to continue being slaves? Her entire message was to fight for your life and happiness and to treat others as desiring their own life and happiness as well. — AppLeo

Please note that I never said Ayn Rand was an anarchist, and also note that in the original post you quoted I said Ayn Rand reserves a place for government in her political theory; it protects the sanctity of freeform contracts, which is taken to be as equivalent to protecting the trader principle.

The issue isn't whether Ayn Rand would tell the slaves to be slaves; for all her failings she did have some human dignity, the issue is whether unregulated capitalism is consistent with its idealisation. Since we already have that unregulated capitalism is consistent with slavery, surely you must see that it isn't.

I do however find this a bit sickening:

A slave owner isn’t rationally self-interested, and neither is a slave.

The slave owner doesn't give a damn about the slave, they're an asset. All that matters is maximising the return from them; perfectly calculated, just immoral. If the slave doesn't want to be tortured to death, if they want to survive (remember Rand's ethics has survival as a cornerstone) they will usually benefit most from behaving like a slave.

Unless of course they banded together to break their chains, but we wouldn't want any identity politics coming in here would we.

I take silly ideas seriously all the time. That's part of why I enjoy philosophy and learning more generally. I would not have attempted to rebut your ideas if I didn't think they were worth rebutting - see the difference in approaches in my response to your different claims: On the one hand I put a bit of effort in explaining why I thought you were wrong during most of the post, but just linked you to a introduction to climate change video course for your climate change denial. I was hoping that since you've enjoyed studying objectivism so much you'd spend some time, maybe in the future, actually looking into climate change analysis from reputable/well cited climatological sources. — fdrake

No, I think climate change is a boring and a fear-mongering subject. And in a free society, climate change won't stand a chance against free-thinking, productive and prosperous people.

Note that in spite of this you are actually conceding the point that political actions are done by and effect groups. Your claim has now morphed into the claim that political actions should not concern groups, something much different from the original descriptive claim of 'there are only individuals'. — fdrake

They shouldn't concern groups. Only individuals. That's why I said there are only individuals because there are only individuals and to act in a way that doesn't is bad.

This is quite strange. You seem to be under the impression, at least for the purposes of your post, that people choose their political subjectivity like they choose what they have for dinner or what bars they go to. A wheelchair bound person does not identify as a wheelchair bound person because they want to park closer to the supermarket, they get to park closer to the supermarket because they need a wheelchair. Now imagine that the supermarket has steep steps, and you have one supermarket within range of access. Now this poor sod has to get someone else to do their shopping for them. The thing about this that induces a group identity is that for some people, they need to enter the shop but can't because of the steps. Then it makes sense to organise along those lines to exert political or economic pressure to get such things changed, for the betterment of your group. This 'betters the group' because they were already aligned by an identity that was ascribed to them usually without their volition.

The same thing applies to what country you're born in, whether you're LGBT, whether you're white or black or hispanic or Asian, male, female, trans, whether you're a steel worker or a telephone salesperson and so on. People do not choose the effects of these things, it just so happens that they have common life problems to organise around. The same thing even applies for big businesses, they want to make lots of money and so organise around issues that either prevent them from losing money or allow them to get more money. It's really simple: alliances of people form from shared problems, not through arbitrary associations. Groups of people form alliances to attempt to solve common problems for the individuals which constitute them. You get all of this out of the effective application of self interest, you don't even have to be a nice person, just pragmatic.

On top of these coalitions of common problems, we also can also add empathy and solidarity; an attempt to aid those who suffer from problems we might not for the betterment of everyone.

So, why shouldn't individuals organise to tackle problems common to them? — fdrake

Being disabled shouldn't grant you extra privileges or handouts. Just like being gay, black, woman or a rich white man doesn't. I don't care who you are, you are treated equally under the law like everybody else. To say otherwise creates a sense of tribalism where everyone wants a piece of the government (the giant gun) to force people to obey to their standards. It is not empathy. It's using empathy to mask victimhood and then to use that victimhood as an excuse to use force against free people. I utterly disapprove.

As what Ayn Rand said, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

Which basically means, if you take a group of people like LGBT. You can break that group up into two groups. And break those two groups in two 4 groups. And then 8. Until you're left with every gay person standing as an island. If you want to help gay people, you help them according to individual rights. This is fair and just because everybody else from every other group, even groups that have nothing to do with gay people, is an individual, so you'll also be helping them, the gays, and basically everybody as a whole by standing for individual rights.

Please note that I never said Ayn Rand was an anarchist, and also note that in the original post you quoted that I said Ayn Rand reserves a place for government in her political theory; it protects the sanctity of freeform contracts, which is taken to be as equivalent to protecting the trader principle.

The issue isn't whether Ayn Rand would tell the slaves to be slaves; for all her failings she did have some human dignity, the issue is whether unregulated capitalism is consistent with its idealisation. Since we already have that unregulated capitalism is consistent with slavery, surely you must see that it isn't. — fdrake

She means unregulated in the sense that individuals are free to make whatever transactions they want to make. This doesn't mean that people are allowed to force people to be slaves. If that were the case, people wouldn't be free to make the transactions they wanted.

The slave owner doesn't give a damn about the slave, they're an asset. All that matters is maximising the return from them; perfectly calculated, just immoral. If the slave doesn't want to be tortured to death, if they want to survive (remember Rand's ethics has survival as a cornerstone) they will usually benefit most from behaving like a slave. — fdrake

It's irrational to want to have a slave. You want people to be free and prosperous because their freedom benefits you.

Also, objectivism applies to everyone. Everyone is rationally self-interest. Maybe a slave does make your life better rationally speaking, but it's irrational and selfless for the slave.

Unless of course they banded together to break their chains, but we wouldn't want any identity politics coming in here would we. — fdrake

That's not identity politics. Fighting for your freedom is something that all individuals agree on.

No one here is an expert on anything. But that doesn't mean we can't argue about it and determine what is actually true about the subject.

A deadline of what? The world will end like it should've in 2012? — AppLeo

You claimed, on no basis, that climate changes was a leftist religion. You literally have nothing that even comes close to a fraction of what would be required to overcome the agreement of nearly every climatologist with respect to the facts about climate change. That was my point.

No one said the world would end in 2012 due to climate change, don't be a juvenile right winger. If we do not act within the next couple of years to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions, in about 12 years we will not be able to avoid the 1.5 degree increase in temperature. The effects of that alone are terrible, and worse if we can't even avoid that it's likely we'll hit 2 degrees change in which case that's catastrophic for the climate and life on Earth. As I said, imagine the Middle East but as an uninhabitable zone. That's the kind of ridiculous fallout of your false view of things applied to reality.

Well yeah, people resort to socialism and government control over the economy when they want other people's money and don't want people to be free. And they'll use things like climate change as an excuse to force people to participate in economic transactions that they do not agree to. — AppLeo

You are not arguing here, you are parroting conservative talking points and jumping into hilariously idealized scenarios that don't represent how people actually engage in the world. It's not my choice to participate in an economic transaction that ruins the climate for future generations, and yet that is the inevitable, known result of reliance in fossil fuels.

Can you imagine a world without running on fossil fuels? If we even quit using fossil fuels would that stop climate change?

That is, if it's an actual problem... — AppLeo

Again, idealizations that don't represent reality. Yes, I can imagine a world with greatly reduced fossil fuel. Plant based plastics, nuclear energy (fission and fusion based), solar energy, electrical cars, large scale public transportation fueled by the previous methods, etc. That you think capitalism can solve the issue despite having completely failed to have done so *in reality* is telling. It's exactly the mindset like yours that has made it virtually impossible to fight. You deny it exists and then fight tooth and nail to prevent changes that would actually alleviate it. Yes, dropping fossil fuels would be the number 1 way of combatting CC. How is this a mystery? Go watch the climate change video someone linked earlier.

We have no viable alternatives to climate change. And as I've said, I disagree that fossil fuels have been responsible for it. I think the earth goes through shifts. — AppLeo

Then I'm done. I don't care if you disagree. No one cares if the random fool on the street thinks engineering is bunk. Buildings, Bridges and homes generally stand upright (when they abide by government regulations anyway!) regardless. Climate change is based on decades of empirical research and is based on some well understood physics. That you had the audacity to say "But greenhouses are good for plants" shows the childlike mindset at play.

You know what else greenhouses do? They warm things up. Writ large in a planetary scale, that distorts ecosystems (hooray, even more rapid extinction of many species), melts the ice caps (hooray, hundreds of millions must flee inland causing untold disasters as people pile into each other and kill because of resource shortages), and rapidly distorts weather patterns resulting in an increase of even worse storms at a greater frequency.

You are seriously a living parody of how people say conservatives misrepresent and desperately try to deny climate change because they want to perpetually continue their own selfish lifestyles irrespective of what damage it does to other people. I mean it's bad enough to have the nearly untenable view that groups don't exist, but to relegate hundred of millions to death because you baldly refuse well attested science on grounds of greed? Props, that takes mountain sizes balls.

328
In 'Enemies of an Open Society' (1947) Karl Popper warns that science as truth leads to tyranny. It seems to me that Rand is skirting this problem in a deliberate, but unsuccessful manner. The argument that there are no groups, only individuals - is an absurd notion, but necessary to maintain objectivism construed as "reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism" - because, the natural implication from objectivist philosophical proscription, is an objectivist state - in which political and personal freedom, individuality, creativity and so forth - would be crushed out of existence by the need to 'make our representations conform' to an unarguable objective truth. — karl stone

Do we have a collective mind? Do we have a collective stomach?
Everyone is an individual with their mind and their own stomach.

It's not an absurd claim at all. And I don't understand how it's objective that groups matter more than individuals.

Rand's conceit - that people can live as individuals, without forming any kind of organisational structures - is necessary to avoid the implication that objective truth is unarguable - and thus, tyrannical. But individualism is contrary to the natural order of human evolution, our psychology and the entire history of society and civilization. That's a massive abdication from reality; and thus a contradiction of objectivism's own supposed values. — karl stone

How is it contrary?

in order to meet challenges such as climate change, deforestation, overfishing, pollution and so on; but I do not ignore vast swathes of reality in order to do so. The larger part of my arguments are concerned with how to integrate scientific truth politically and economically - while avoiding these negative social implications. And I dislike intensely the impression formed from reading this thread - that objective truth should be used as an excuse to shirk all such responsibilities. — karl stone

Why are these anyone's responsibilities? Why should these responsibilities matter? Who cares if we over fish, or deforest, or pollute the earth? Can someone give me a reason why these are problems and why anyone should be responsible for preventing these problems?

You claimed, on no basis, that climate changes was a leftist religion. You literally have nothing that even comes close to a fraction of what would be required to overcome the agreement of nearly every climatologist with respect to the facts about climate change. That was my point. — MindForged

Most lefties believe it and they sound like Christians when they talk about it. That's just my opinion, but I'm not saying it's the truth for all of them.

No one said the world would end in 2012 due to climate change, don't be a juvenile right winger. If we do not act within the next couple of years to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions, in about 12 years we will not be able to avoid the 1.5 degree increase in temperature. The effects of that alone are terrible, and worse if we can't even avoid that it's likely we'll hit 2 degrees change in which case that's catastrophic for the climate and life on Earth. As I said, imagine the Middle East but as an uninhabitable zone. That's the kind of ridiculous fallout of your false view of things applied to reality. — MindForged

Like I said, can we stop this from happening? No.

Also, using the internet and your phone doesn't really help with the CO2 emissions, so you better get off this forum right now. But I forgot all environmentalists/CC's are hypocrites. They still drive their pollutive cars, flush their toilets, buy houses and furniture that was from the amazon rain forest, and ignore clean energy because why buy something at a higher price?

Then I'm done. I don't care if you disagree. No one cares if the random fool on the street thinks engineering is bunk. Buildings, Bridges and homes generally stand upright (when they abide by government regulations anyway!) — MindForged

Right, because government regulations make buildings stand right, not the people who were hired to come up the ideas to build the buildings.

regardless. Climate change is based on decades of empirical research and is based on some well understood physics. That you had the audacity to say "But greenhouses are good for plants" shows the childlike mindset at play. — karl stone

Lol well sorry for being childlike. I just think that if the earth is warming up it's probably a good thing.

You know what else greenhouses do? They warm things up. Writ large in a planetary scale, that distorts ecosystems (hooray, even more rapid extinction of many species), melts the ice caps (hooray, hundreds of millions must flee inland causing until disasters as people pile into each other and kill because of resource shortages), and rapidly distorts weather patterns resulting in an increase of even worse storms at a greater frequency. — karl stone

Well did you expect the Earth to be the exact same forever? Of course the climate is going to change at some point and humans are going to have to deal with it. But thinking that we can stop it is just silly to me.

Will it the climate change dramatically in the near future? Maybe. Or it might not change that much at all and there's nothing to worry about. Whatever happens we can't stop it and we shouldn't try to stop it because capitalism and fossil fuels are good. We just need to find solutions to the problems that arise from climate change.

You are seriously a living parody of how people say conservatives misrepresent and desperately try to deny climate change because they want to perpetually continue their own selfish lifestyles irrespective of what damage it does to other people. — karl stone

Right, because wanting to live my own life and to be happy is such a bad thing...

I also don't see how not caring about climate change damages other people. Wouldn't it damage everyone if climate change is a real problem.

I mean it's bad enough to have the nearly untenable view that groups exist, but to relegate hundred of millions to death because you baldly refuse well attested science on grounds of greed? Props, that takes mountain sizes balls. — karl stone

Greed is what propels people to have the things they want. You think greedy people want to see climate change destroy their life? I doubt it. Greedy people will do what it takes to make the world better for themselves.

You are not arguing here, you are parroting conservative talking points and jumping into hilariously idealized scenarios that don't represent how people actually engage in the world. It's not my choice to participate in an economic transaction that ruins the climate for future generations, and yet that is the inevitable, known result of reliance in fossil fuels. — MindForged

Those evil fossil fuels. Allowing trucks to deliver food across the country to keep people from starving to death. Evil coal powering our electricity to talk on this forum.

Again, idealizations that don't represent reality. — MindForged

So you're just complaining that people use fossil fuels to make their lives better while providing no solutions to climate change. Just use fossil fuels less. Using fossil fuels isn't going to stop climate change, and it's a poor solution.

Yes, I can imagine a world with greatly reduced fossil fuel. Plant based plastics, nuclear energy (fission and fusion based), solar energy, electrical cars, large scale public transportation fueled by the previous methods, etc. That you think capitalism can solve the issue despite having completely failed to have done so *in reality* is telling. It's exactly the mindset like yours that has made it virtually impossible to fight. You deny it exists and then fight tooth and nail to change the things that would actually alleviate it. Yes, dropping fossil fuels would be the number 1 way of combatting CC. — karl stone

Isn't electricity made with coal anyway? So electrical cars are a sham.

Capitalism has increased our quality of life tenfold and is our best shot at handling climate change, but you're too blinded by climate change to see it. There will be a Steve Jobs that will be able to fix these problems, but only if we live in a free country will he be able to fix it.