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

Yes and yes. There's something called the collective consciousness that makes it very difficult to be an individual in an absolute sense. The language you use, the concepts from which your arguments are built - and the fact that I can understand what you're saying, are all the consequence of societies, and cultures. Then there's food production, which is - necessarily achieved by the division of labour, and the trade of goods and services.

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

One reason the group is more important than the individual is that the group can protect individual rights, whereas the individual often can't.

How is it contrary? — AppLeo

To my mind, objectivism means objective truth. It's a matter of fact that human beings evolved as tribal animals, and later, tribes joined together to form societies and civilizations. Furthermore, natural and sexual selection craft the individual - in relation to the social and natural environment, giving them psychological characteristics, pre-dispositions and aptitudes - including an innate moral sense, built upon by experience. There is no self made man, no Robinson Crusoe, no individual as such. To ignore this is a contradiction of objectivism - if by objectivism you mean objective truth.

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? — AppLeo

There are two reasons - I would argue. First is the question, what is my existence if there's no future? Why should I have children, or build a business, or write a book, if I have no genetic, economic or intellectual legacy? To please myself? A mere masturbation then? I'd go out of my way to deny a conception of myself as an empty issue.

Second, is the fact that previous generations struggled endlessly to build all this, which I inherit. My body and mind, crafted by evolution, my language and culture, the physical and ideological infrastructure of society, the house I live in, this computer. I didn't invent, or build any of that. Receiving all these gifts, I think there's a natural moral obligation to use what others struggled to build, and I inherited, to provide as well as possible for subsequent generations.

p.s. in your previous post, you attributed several quotes to me that are not mine.

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. — AppLeo

The two claims are inequivalent. "There are only individuals" vs "politics (in some vague sense) should concern only individuals.". This is the same difference as the difference between "the dog is in his box" and "the dog should be in his box" - see? Huge. Biiig difference. That you're not particularly attuned to the distinction between normative and descriptive claims isn't really your fault though, Rand herself notoriously has a deaf ear for it - google Ayn Rand 'is ought problem' and you'll find loads of literature. Some of it supportive of her, of course, so you can maybe learn your way out of this objection for the next time someone highlights it to you.

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. — AppLeo

You're being dense here. Not being able to get in the shop isn't a right or a privilege for the wheelchair user, what they actually want is equal standing with other people who can enter the shop. They want to remove an arbitrary limitation on their lives placed there due to planning oversights. They want to enter the shop. They can't. They need to buy shit. What to do? Maybe try to change it so that in the future people who need to use wheelchairs can access shops. Simple.

The same thing applies to your gay rights example, collectively organising to exert political pressure is how they got their rights. These are rights for individuals, the collective organisation concerned obtaining and then ensuring the rights of gay individuals.

The wheelchair users and the gay people already have a giant gun pointed at their heads all the time, it's called being a wheelchair user in a world designed for walkers or a gay in a world designed for straights. They're forced to act in ways healthy/straight people don't, and can't act in ways healthy/straight people do. What they want is to be able to go in the shops or have civil partnerships (for example). How should they go about getting it?

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. — AppLeo

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

Not as much as having a free worker, sex slave, and tradeable asset. If all you care about is your profits, you don't give a damn... What world are we talking about again?

We're not talking about a world that resembles Ayn Rand's fantasy claptrap at all. Whether some Russian bint threw a book at the slave owner and the slave has no fucking relevance here. Nothing in this entire fantasy of how things should be is telling us anything about the real world. As soon as you switched to how the world should be, you switched to a realm of your imagination. Now the world is being measured by how it fails to live up to your imagination, and phenomena within it are being predicted with respect to deviations from your imaginary fantasy land.

You suggest organisation along group lines is bad because it's not individual, but it demonstrably advances individual freedoms and can bring a more just, equitable and free world. You switched the discussion explicitly to a normative one, how things should be, then gave this amateur hour horse shit to justify it as a principle:

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. — AppLeo

So, right, I take 8 individuals, and they pair themselves in groups of 2 voluntarily, then the pairs pair, giving groups of 4, then the groups of 4 pair and look! We have constructed the number 8 out of 8 copies of the number one! Amazing. Yes. The ability to group a collection of people together into different sub groups which sum to the original number is totally something related to how politics works.

You're doing this instead of focussing on the easy reality that people organise along group lines to address common problems, that this organisation is done to attempt to give the individuals in the organisations a life without those problems, and that this is how political actions are taken.

You're doing this instead of focussing on how people are effected by stuff, like the wheelchair user and the stairs, and forming groups based on the stuff people have to suffer.

You remember in my first post to you when I said:

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

when you noticed that Rand's account of unregulated capitalism and the ideas about how things work are easily refuted; descriptive claims about how reality is; you shifted ground to defend her ideas as how reality should work; normative claims about how reality should be. Don't treat what should be as what is, nor shift between these two registers, because this means you're changing the point of the conversation.

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

I forgot to respond to this bit, sorry. People want themselves to be free, people don't always want other people to be free. We don't agree on this. Slaves, prisons etc. We don't want the prisoners to fight for their freedom from prison.

Yes and yes. There's something called the collective consciousness that makes it very difficult to be an individual in an absolute sense. The language you use, the concepts from which your arguments are built - and the fact that I can understand what you're saying, are all the consequence of societies, and cultures. Then there's food production, which is - necessarily achieved by the division of labour, and the trade of goods and services. — karl stone

That is not a justification for a collective mind. All of that is from individuals working harmoniously together.

One reason the group is more important than the individual is that the group can protect individual rights, whereas the individual often can't. — karl stone

If a group is placed above the individuals, then people will do whatever is best for the group at the expense of the individuals, which means not caring about individual rights. So I don't understand.

No.

To my mind, objectivism means objective truth. It's a matter of fact that human beings evolved as tribal animals, and later, tribes joined together to form societies and civilizations. Furthermore, natural and sexual selection craft the individual - in relation to the social and natural environment, giving them psychological characteristics, pre-dispositions and aptitudes - including an innate moral sense, built upon by experience. There is no self made man, no Robinson Crusoe, no individual as such. To ignore this is a contradiction of objectivism - if by objectivism you mean objective truth. — karl stone

The best societies and civilizations are individualistic. America is individualistic. We live as individuals and not in tribes.

Saying there is no self-made man is so wrong. Jeff Bezos built Amazon. Steve Jobs built Apple. To say otherwise means you can't take credit for anything you've done. It means you can't take responsibility for the good things you've done, or the bad things you've done. And it also means that you're responsible for the things that other people have done good or bad. How is that good for anybody?

The best examples of societies that place the group above the individual are communist societies and look where that got them. Also, people in the past who lived in tribes were primitive and dumb.

I also think that because humans are tribal animals doesn't mean we should live in tribes.. We have the ability to live beyond our natures because we can think. We evolved to have a prefrontal cortex.

There are two reasons - I would argue. First, is the question, what is my existence, if there's no future? Why should I have children, or build a business, or write a book, if I have no genetic, economic or intellectual legacy? To please myself? A mere masturbation then? I'd go out of way to deny a conception of myself as an empty issue. — karl stone

I don't understand what you meant. What do you mean no future? Are you going to die tomorrow or something?

Second, is the fact that previous generations struggled endlessly to build all this, which I inherit. My body and mind, crafted by evolution, my language and culture, the infrastructure, the house I live in, this computer. I didn't invent, or build any of that. Receiving all these gifts, I think there's a natural moral obligation to use what others struggled to build, and I inherited, to provide as well as possible for subsequent generations. — karl stone

I think what you're saying is contradictory. The house was created by deforestation. The computer that you're using is "polluting" the environment. Your gifts and the people in the past didn't create this stuff because they cared about the environment. Not cutting down trees and fishing less doesn't make it better for future generations.

The two claims are inequivalent. "There are only individuals" vs "politics (in some vague sense) should concern only individuals.". This is the same difference as the difference between "the dog is in his box" and "the dog should be in his box" - see? Huge. Biiig difference. That you're not particularly attuned to the distinction between normative and descriptive claims isn't really your fault though, Rand herself notoriously has a deaf ear for it - google Ayn Rand 'is ought problem' and you'll find loads of literature. Some of it supportive of her, of course, so you can maybe learn your way out of this objection for the next time someone highlights it to you. — fdrake

Well I agree with both the dog is in the box and the dog should be in the box. I think Ayn Rand is right, anyway.

You're being dense here. Not being able to get in the shop isn't a right or a privilege for the wheelchair user, what they actually want is equal standing with other people who can enter the shop. They want to enter the shop. They can't. They need to buy shit. What to do? Maybe try to change it so that in the future people who need to use wheelchairs can access shops. Simple. — fdrake

The shop owners can build an alternative route the wheelchair user. If not, then the wheelchair user can find a shop that will build an alternative route.

If you need buy stuff, then order through amazon, why even bother going to the store in the first place if you're disabled. Find businesses to do the moving for you. Don't play victim to the government. That's part of being responsible and independent individual.

The same thing applies to your gay rights example, collectively organising to exert political pressure is how they got their rights. These are rights for individuals, the collective organisation concerned ensuring and then vouchsafing the rights of gay individuals.
— fdrake

The wheelchair users and the gay people already have a giant gun pointed at their heads all the time, — fdrake

AHAHAHA

In a free country people have guns pointed to their heads. Unbelievable.

With your logic, anyone would have a gun pointed to their head for anything. And then of course, everyone would have the ability to get government privileges because everyone's a poor little victim of their own lives. And then of course authoritarianism and feudalism will skyrocket because everyone is so weak and feeble to take responsibility of their own lives, that they give responsibility to the government to fix their problems.

I don't know about you, but I want to live in a free country with productive, hard-working, independent, and responsible people. Not a mindless mob ruled by a Hitler or Stalin.

it's called being a wheelchair user in a world designed for walkers or a gay in a world designed for straights. They're forced to act in ways healthy/straight people don't, and can't act in ways healthy/straight people do. What they want is to be able to go in the shops or have civil partnerships. How should they go about getting it? — fdrake

Fat people are expected to be thin. Better get the government to give fat people special privileges.
Introverts are people expected to be extraverted. Better get the government to give introverts special privileges.
List goes on and on and on...

Everyone's forced to act in a world that's not designed for them because everyone has their own individual problems.

You clearly don't understand Ayn Rand's quote:

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

If you want to help people, fairly and properly, the best way to do it is with individual rights.

Not as much as having a free worker, sex slave, and tradeable asset. If all you care about is your profits, you don't give a damn... What world are we talking about again? — fdrake

What's wrong with profits?

We're not talking about a world that resembles Ayn Rand's fantasy claptrap at all. Whether some Russian bint threw a book at the slave owner and the slave has no fucking relevance here. Nothing in this entire fantasy of how things should be is telling us anything about the real world. As soon as you switched to how the world should be, you switched to a realm of your imagination. Now the world is being measured by how it fails to live up to your imagination, and phenomena within it are being predicted with respect to deviations from your imaginary fantasy land. — fdrake

Objectivism is a philosophy on Earth, I didn't say people were going to live by it. And that's why the world is messed up. Rand provided an ideal and a solution. Now it's just getting people to start applying the solution.

You suggest organisation along group lines is bad because it's not individual, but it demonstrably advances individual freedoms and can bring a more just, equitable and free world. You switched the discussion explicitly to a normative one, how things should be, then gave this amateur hour horse shit to justify it as a principle: — fdrake

Placing the group above the individual is good for the individual? Makes perfect sense. Wow, Ayn Rand is so dumb for point out the opposite.

So, right, I take 8 individuals, and they pair themselves in groups of 2 voluntarily, then the pairs pair, giving groups of 4, then the groups of 4 pair and look! We have constructed the number 8 out of 8 copies of the number one! Amazing. Yes. The ability to group a collection of people together into different sub groups which sum to the original number is totally something related to how politics works. — fdrake

*sighs* you're not understanding where I'm coming from

The smallest group is the individual. So if you want to help minority groups, you did it with individual rights. When you support a group that consists of more than one individual, you are picking a winner group and shunning all the loser groups.

And that's not fair. That's wrong.

You're doing this instead of focussing on the easy reality that people organise along group lines to address common problems, that this organisation is done to attempt to give the individuals in the organisations a life without those problems, and that this is how political actions are taken. — fdrake

Women's rights just want their lives to be easier than men's lives. Black lives matter just want their lives to be easier than white people's. Gays just want their lives to easier

All these groups perceive themselves as victims, but they're not they're just being victims by choice.

You're doing this instead of focussing on how people are effected by stuff, like the wheelchair user and the stairs, and forming groups based on the stuff people have to suffer. — fdrake

I'm a victim because I'm a nerd and I struggle with socializing with people. Does that mean I should join a group of nerds and demand special treatment?

Or does that mean I should suck it up and learn how to socialize like a real man.

I think it's the latter, but whatever, I guess I can't convince you.

I chose to learn to how to socialize rather whining and complaining about how no one around me cares to help me.

when you noticed that Rand's system of unregulated capitalism and the ideas about how things work are quickly refuted; descriptive claims about how reality is; you shifted ground to defend her ideas as how reality should work; normative claims about how reality should be. Don't treat what should be as what is, nor shift between these two registers, because this means you're changing the point of the conversation. — fdrake

Pfft... Misinterpreting her idea of laissez-faire capitalism with a meaning that you can have slaves doesn't mean anything. She obviously never advocated for slavery. And when she says unregulated capitalism, she obviously meant that people are free to make the transactions she wants, not force people to be slaves.

Well I agree with both the dog is in the box and the dog should be in the box. I think Ayn Rand is right, anyway — AppLeo

The dog being in the box would be that we're already in a state of unregulated capitalism. The dog should be in the box would be that we should be in a state of unregulated capitalism. You clearly believe that we are not in a state of unregulated capitalism, but you also believe that we should be in a state of unregulated capitalism. Should $\neq$ is

AHAHAHA

In a free country people have guns pointed to their heads. Unbelievable. — AppLeo

You actually introduced the metaphor in the thread.

The government is a giant gun — AppLeo

and there are governments in countries you consider free. This is very inconsistent.

With your logic, anyone would have a gun pointed to their head for anything. And then of course, everyone would have the ability to get government privileges because everyone's a poor little victim of their own lives.

Why do you believe that a law which requires disabled access ramps for building access if at all possible is a special privilege? It's actually a special privilege to enter the building without using a wheelchair - it is a capacity which some humans lack.

Though, I'm glad that you picked up on that I was trivialising the gun metaphor. It is very silly. But, there was a good reason for me applying it out of the context. The logic of the gun metaphor is that people are prohibited from doing things due to threat of force, this applied to black people who were caught disobeying white people being punished, gay people who were caught having sex and so on. I would prefer if the metaphor were more generalised, that a person has a gun to their head whenever the norms of the actions of others impinge upon their freedoms - just like when construction norms for buildings did not require disabled access ramps or elevators. These are all limitations on freedom that people deserve.

I thought you'd be down with things that improve the freedoms of individuals, but apparently you don't write as many blank cheques in this area as you say you do.

I don't know about you, but I want to live in a free country with productive, hard-working, independent, and responsible people. Not a mindless mob ruled by a Hitler or Stalin. — AppLeo

You know, at some point I'd have thought someone equating the claim that there should be laws which require buildings to have disabled access with being a Nazi or Stalinist was ridiculous. Unfortunately I've been having this kind of conversation for too long for me to skip a beat whenever someone does it. Though I will repeat this for special emphasis:

Your world view has lead you to equate the approval of laws which require the construction of disabled access ramps with Naziism.

What's wrong with profits? — AppLeo

Nothing has to be wrong with profits in general. What I'm against is profiting from slavery, because I think slavery is wrong. What unsettles me is that slavery, the slave trade as it was called, is consistent with unregulated capitalism. It's part of what makes me suspicious of unregulated capitalism.

Women's rights just want their lives to be easier than men's lives. Black lives matter just want their lives to be easier than white people's. Gays just want their lives to easier

All these groups perceive themselves as victims, but they're not they're just being victims by choice. — AppLeo

Would you extend this to the slaves? Who had literal guns and other weapons pointed to their heads. And if they disobeyed their masters they would be tortured, sometimes to death.

Were the black towns in the US after abolition victims of the KKK and other hate groups by choice?

Were the Jews victims of the Holocaust by choice?

Are veterans who have their legs blown off due to mines privileged whiners who want their life to be easier than others'?

Placing the group above the individual is good for the individual? Makes perfect sense. Wow, Ayn Rand is so dumb for point out the opposite. — AppLeo

The Haitian rebels did not want to be slaves. So they banded together so that no person would have to be a slave, fighting their masters. This improved the rights of individual slaves. The motive for banding together was so that no one had to be a slave - improving the lot of the individual. Please explain to me how this is placing the group above the individual, when its goal is literally the freedom of all individuals in the group.

The smallest group is the individual. So if you want to help minority groups, you did it with individual rights. When you support a group that consists of more than one individual, you are picking a winner group and shunning all the loser groups. — AppLeo

Actually it doesn't always pan out like this. If you pick the default, you often pick a winner by default. The default position in the time of slavery was more slavery, the default position before disabled access legislation was no disabled access, the default position for treating acute depression in women was confinement to an asylum. You pick a winner by picking the default. What collective action attempts to address is that a winner has already been picked, and it isn't fair. Life already shuns all the loser groups, that's why there are differential advantages and specific problems that groups organise to tackle.

I chose to learn to how to socialize rather whining and complaining about how no one around me cares to help me. — AppLeo

You are equating having your legs blown off by a landmine with being socially awkward. The veteran can't magic their legs back on, they can try to organise politically to receive equal priority to people who can walk. They're going to be more of a man than you, they've been to war and not let it fuck them up for life, they want to make life better for veterans.

Isn't electricity made with coal anyway? — AppLeo

Not necessarily. And for technical reasons, electric cars are much more amenable to being charged with electricity from renewable energy than most other electrically-powered devices.

It is advisable to learn a little science or engineering before trying to build political arguments based on your preconceptions about them.

The dog being in the box would be that we're already in a state of unregulated capitalism. The dog should be in the box would be that we should be in a state of unregulated capitalism. You clearly believe that we are not in a state of unregulated capitalism, but you also believe that we should be in a state of unregulated capitalism. Should — fdrake

Yes, I agree.

Why do you believe that a law which requires disabled access ramps for building access if at all possible is a special privilege? It's actually a special privilege to enter the building without using a wheelchair - it is a capacity which some humans lack. — fdrake

Because the government is giving you something for free and forcing all shop-owners to cater to your needs. How is that not a privilege?

Though, I'm glad that you picked up on that I was trivialising the gun metaphor. It is very silly. — fdrake

It is.

But, there was a good reason for me applying it out of the context. The logic of the gun metaphor is that people are prohibited from doing things due to threat of force, this applied to black people who were caught using white people fighting, gay people who were caught having sex and so on. I would prefer if the metaphor were more generalised, that a person has a gun to their head whenever the norms of the actions of others impinge upon their freedoms - just like when construction norms for buildings did not require disabled access ramps or elevators. These are all limitations on freedom that people deserve. — fdrake

I agree, people are prohibited by the government when they should be allowed to do that. Which means shop-owners shouldn't be forced to create routes for disabled people because it's their shop. I wouldn't consider these problems groups rights issues, but an individual rights issue. Any groups that form around individual rights are fair and just and I have no problem with such groups because they are not asking for special privileges or handouts. Gay people who can't have sex have had their individual rights stolen.

I thought you'd be down with things that improve the freedoms of individuals, but apparently you don't write as many blank cheques in this area as you say you do. — fdrake

I thought you were talking about groups that weren't interested in individual rights, but propelling their own groups at the expense of everybody else.

Your world view has lead you to equate the approval of laws which require the construction of disabled access ramps with Naziism. — fdrake

It's all the same. There is no difference between them except time. When you start giving out privileges, eventually people will want and expect more until the government will have all the power.

I'm a big believer in fixing your own problems first before turning to the government especially if your problems are easily fixable like shopping at a store and being disabled when you can just order off amazon, or find someone you love to do it for you.

Nothing has to be wrong with profits in general. What I'm against is profiting from slavery, because I think slavery is wrong. What unsettles me is that slavery, the slave trade as it was called, is consistent with unregulated capitalism. It's part of what makes me suspicious of unregulated capitalism. — fdrake

In capitalism that Ayn Rand is referring to, is that all transactions are voluntary. There is no slavery. Warp it however you want, but she would never advocate for slavery.

Would you extend this to the slaves? Who had literal guns and other weapons pointed to their heads. And if they disobeyed their masters they would be tortured, sometimes to death.

Were the black towns in the US after abolition victims of the KKK and other hate groups by choice?

Were the Jews victims of the Holocaust by choice?

Are veterans who have their legs blown off due to mines privileged whiners who want their life to be easier than others'? — fdrake

No, these people had their individual rights stolen. And they have every right to fight for those rights.

The Haitian rebels did not want to be slaves. So they banded together so that no person would have to be a slave, fighting their masters. This improved the rights of individual slaves. The motive for banding together was so that no one had to be a slave - improving the lot of the individual. Please explain to me how this is placing the group above the individual, when its goal is literally the freedom of all individuals in the group. — fdrake

It's not. It's placing the individual above the group. Individuals banding together for individual rights is fine because fighting for individual rights is equal and just. It's the groups that are creating by mindless individuals that sacrifice their individuality, for a group interest that demands special privileges from the government.

Actually it doesn't always pan out like this. If you pick the default, you often pick a winner by default. The default position in the time of slavery was more slavery, the default position before disabled access legislation was no disabled access, the default position for treating acute depression in women was confinement to an asylum. You pick a winner by picking the default. What collective action attempts to address is that a winner has already been picked, and it isn't fair. Life already shuns all the loser groups, that's why there are differential advantages and specific problems that groups organise to tackle. — fdrake

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. There are no loser groups. There are only individuals and what matters is that all individuals have human rights.

You are equating having your legs blown off by a landmine with being socially awkward. The veteran can't magic their legs back on, they can try to organise politically to receive equal priority to people who can walk. They're going to be more of a man than you, they've been to war and not let it fuck them up for life, they want to make life better for veterans. — fdrake

What's the difference. Not being able to walk and not being able to socialize are both hard things to deal with. The question is, are you going to turn the government to give you special privileges or are you going to solve your own problems?

Having individual rights means that the government stays out of your way, not fulfilling your needs or wants.

What's the difference. Not being able to walk and not being able to socialize are both hard things to deal with. The question is, are you going to turn the government to give you special privileges or are you going to solve your own problems? — AppLeo

Because the government is giving you something for free and forcing all shop-owners to cater to your needs. How is that not a privilege? — AppLeo

It isn't a privilege to be able to access the shop. This is because non-disabled people have access to the shop. It's a limitation to be unable to access the shop. Now, the disabled person has their freedom limited; they can't go in the shop, they can't live up stairs easily or without disabled access; so what do you have to do to enhance their freedom to the level of a non-disabled person? Ensure that places have disabled access whenever possible.

It is. — AppLeo

It frightens me that you'd employ a metaphor to score rhetorical points when not actually believing in it, then. It makes me believe you're not actually being sincere or caring about the truth of what you say, it makes me suspect that we're in a pointless pissing match and I'm wasting my time trying to show you what I think are errors.

No, these people had their individual rights stolen. And they have every right to fight for those rights. — AppLeo

Do you support that they banded together to fight for those rights? That they... made a group... to ...force society... to ...treat them fairly.

What about... Vietnam veterans with post traumatic stress disorder banding together for healthcare aid?

It's not. It's placing the individual above the group. Individuals banding together for individual rights is fine because fighting for individual rights is equal and just. It's the groups that are creating by mindless individuals that sacrifice their individuality, for a group interest that demands special privileges from the government. — AppLeo

Right. Ok. So you agree that gay people banding together for equal treatment, the Haitians, slaves and so on banding together for their individual rights are fine. I'm curious what you think remains of your original position at this point. All the examples I gave of people banding together were for their individual rights, and seemingly you thought towards the start of the thread that they were banding together for special privilege. They were not, it's mostly for an expansion of individual freedom; a removal of unfair limitations on their conduct.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. There are no loser groups. There are only individuals and what matters is that all individuals have human rights. — AppLeo

There are no loser groups? This is crazy talk man. You actually introduced this talk of winning and loser groups into the thread, I was only borrowing your vocabulary. Look here:

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. — AppLeo

There is a default state assumed by a society. This default state consists of norms of conduct and expectations of capacities. If we live in a world where the default state is considered to be a human who can walk, this limits the freedom of people who cannot. If we live in a world where the default state is considered to be a human who can hear, this limits the freedoms of the deaf. What we can do, in such a world, is to try and accommodate these differences by placing requirements on society that allow these people to function as normally as possible. How you could possibly do this without a legal interface or some amount of legislative power is beyond me. I have no idea how this works in your Randian paradise. I don't think you do either, I don't think you know how people resolve disputes, ensure freedoms long term, and grow freedoms by tackling common problems in your ideal world. I think you stopped thinking at everyone freely associates and obeys the trader principle, I don't think you got your hands dirty by interfacing your abstraction with the real world.

Your world view has lead you to equate the approval of laws which require the construction of disabled access ramps with Naziism. — fdrake

you respond with:

It's all the same. There is no difference between them except time. When you start giving out privileges, eventually people will want and expect more until the government will have all the power. — AppLeo

It was at this point that Appleo explicitly endorsed the idea that requiring disabled access ramps is Naziism. So entrenched in his position while beginning to realise its sheer absurdity and underdevelopment, he decided that behaving as if disabled access ramps were Naziism was the optimal face saving play. Disabled access ramps are a slippery slope to Naziism.

Though I do commend you for your steadfastness, usually people with the same talking points as you don't actually bite the bullet when they call such societal adjustments Naziism; they backtrack because they know how fucking absurd it is, and how bad it looks to any onlooker for their position.

And immediately after you give us this gem:

You are equating having your legs blown off by a landmine with being socially awkward. The veteran can't magic their legs back on, they can try to organise politically to receive equal priority to people who can walk. They're going to be more of a man than you, they've been to war and not let it fuck them up for life, they want to make life better for veterans. — fdrake

you respond with:

What's the difference. Not being able to walk and not being able to socialize are both hard things to deal with. The question is, are you going to turn the government to give you special privileges or are you going to solve your own problems? — AppLeo

You actually believe that having your legs blown off in a minefield is equivalent to having mild social anxiety.* You actually believe that the poor veteran shouldn't attempt to lobby for the introduction of disabled access ramps - what, should they have just gone up to the owners in the shop they couldn't get inside and asked them to fit something? How would that solve the problem in general? It wouldn't! That's the point. The only way you're going to be able to solve this problem is through collective action, and it's easiest to achieve by influencing the creation of a law which binds the construction of buildings. I think you're starting to realise this though, since you say:

I thought you were talking about groups that weren't interested in individual rights, but propelling their own groups at the expense of everybody else. — AppLeo

you're starting to realise that people organise precisely to ensure individual rights; to remove limitations society itself places on them through its structure; not to ask to be brought above the people, but to take their place beside them.

*I don't mean to say your social anxiety is easy to deal with, that's a low blow. What I'm stressing is that the kind of options available to you to try and fix it just aren't available to the vet with no fucking legs - they need to address things at the level of building regulations, not at the level of themselves, they can't get their legs back. Though, I'm sure if they could get those cybernetic lower leg implants that are possible nowadays they would, but they're probably way too pricy to get esp. if you're out of work due to the disability of having no fucking legs. You can address social anxiety by doing normal people stuff, there are free counsellors online and so on, no amount of personal change will get the vets their legs back.

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

This really lacks an understanding of what makes up a sound moral argument.

Morality should be grounded on what is longterm good for everyone, or least possible bad option, not shortterm satisfaction for a single person or two persons.

It's not morally justified to give drugs to someone because the will be happy in the shortterm if it means they run the risk of runing their life or other peoples life in the longterm.

Morality is all about holistically evaluating both short and longterm consequences for everyone.

This really lacks an understanding of what makes up a sound moral argument.

Morality should be grounded on what is longterm good for everyone, or least possible bad option, not shortterm satisfaction for a single person or two persons.

It's not morally justified to give drugs to someone because the will be happy in the shortterm if it means they run the risk of runing their life or other peoples life in the longterm.

Morality is all about holistically evaluating both short and longterm consequences for everyone. — xyz-zyx

I agree entirely. I think the problem stems from what is meant by objectivism. It's not objective truth. Rather, it seems to be about isolating the individual from all moral implication and responsibility. It is the objective self - not the objective reality; a philosophy attractive to adolescents seeking to establish an identity independent of their parents, and those who would seek to benefit from feeding this crap to kids!

I dunno... I claim no detailed knowledge of Rand or Objectivism, so this is more of an instinct reaction.

First, for any philosopher selling any philosophy, we might tune out the analytical mind for a bit and just observe the person most invested in the philosophy. Are we drawn to that person? Do we want to be with them? Do we want to be like them? What kind of atmosphere has their philosophy created on their face?

Personally, I'm most drawn to those philosophers who mostly just sit there sharing a deep sincere smile, and who have no compelling need to sell you their ideas. I'm obviously not like that myself, but such a philosopher seems a worthy goal to shoot for, imho.

Capitalism? Again, I dunno. I'm wary of all "one true way" economic theories. Personally I favor capitalism in the middle of the income range (most people) and socialism at the extremes, with the goal to create a middle class society. My sense is that Rand is too dogmatic to accept such compromises. I'd be equally wary of anyone being dogmatic from the other direction. Neither pure capitalism or socialism has been shown to work.

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. — AppLeo

I pray to the Mother Earth that she with drop a natural disasters on your head while you make an exchange totally divorced from outside influence.

More seriously, that was an excellent Dodge of my main point. You are a climate change denier of the worst sort. We know climate change is real and largely made worse by humanity.

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

YES, yes we can. The possibility is there, especially with nuclear energy being workable and scalable, not to mention improvements in solar. What's stopping it? Mindsets like yours where "Well, we're making profit off it and what's good for me just has to be good for everyone. I exist in a vacuum, as do the choices I make." Climate change denier and their useful sycophants have made the situation so dire.

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

As it happens it's the government that figures out these sorts of things and sets them as regulations that private businesses have to follow on pain of fines or losing their ability to build. People Don't come up with these ideas alone, and even on the rare occasion that they do, they don't follow them out of the good of their heart because often doing things right means making less money. You don't seem to have been involved in or knowledgeable of just normal issues that come up with building homes due to contractor and worker malfeasance.

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

A philosophy cannot be proven wrong; its empirical tenets can only be shown to be in conflict with practical experience, and its logical tenets shown to be in conflict with themselves. In the case at hand, the world as it is is infinitely different than the philosophy in question requires, and human reason does not necessarily abide by that philosophy’s fundamental rules.

There may have been a time in human history when a pure trader mentality or a pure individual paradigm may have been possible, back when animal skins were used to ward off cold and women were dragged to the cave by their hair. Nowadays......not so much.

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. — AppLeo

I agree that emotions shouldn't shape your conception of reality. I disagree that emotions make a bad guide in life. Objectively proper choices can be completely wrong if a person does not agree with them emotionally, or subjectively.

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. — AppLeo

I can't find the "and everybody else"-part anywhere in the description that is provided in the link you shared, and if that was the intended meaning behind the principle the term 'self-interest' is a poor choice of words.

Coupled with Rand's thoughts on how the economy should work, I think her intended meaning is "As long as people do what they think is best for them, things will work out okay", and I don't think that is the case at all, because a lot of people have not the slightest idea of what is best for them.

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

Politics is about power, and power is about wealth. But what situation are you referring to? Wasn't the beginning of the 19th century the shining example how horrible unregulated capitalism was? The modern world eventually universally agreed (under much pressure) that the capitalists had to be regulated in order to avoid people, including children, working 16 hour days in the factories.

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

What's wrong with that? Well, what if the interest of the large firms doesn't match with the interests of everyone else in the country? They would be free to exploit anyone as much as they wanted, because they own and control everything.

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

That is an unsubstantiated assumption.

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

As long as food costs money, and as long as money can buy armies, money can buy political power.

The industrial revolution was perfectly fine just the way it was. — AppLeo

How do you account for the fact that virtually every country in the modern world disagreed that it was functioning 'perfectly fine', which is why the appalling conditions of the industrial revolution eventually changed. I'm honestly surprised that anyone holds such a viewpoint.

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 — AppLeo

I agree with you that, at this point, we can not prevent climate change. Whatever is going to happen is making itself manifest already.

Can we make it worse? Yes.

Are we going to stop using fossil fuels? Not today. But wind/solar power have become competitive with coal-fired electrical generation. Is there enough wind and solar power to go around? Yes; the sun is generous. Where the winds blow regularly, there is enough wind -- but there are places where the prevailing winds are insufficient.

You are quite right about fossil fuels: they are inextricably part of the world technology and economy.

I used to be a climate optimist but I have been pushed to the climate pessimist position: we're screwed. We're screwed because individually we can not see our common interests with sufficient clarity and force to act upon them effectively. Hell, we can't even see our own interests clearly half the time.

I also decided to start this discussion because all discussions I speak in resort to Objectivism and Ayn Rand, so we'll just have those discussions here so we don't derail any other discussions. — AppLeo

Monomania is tiresome. Comparing thinking to a phonograph record... "Are you in the groove? You mean ever diminishing circles?" (quoting Marshal McLuhan)

There is no society or common good. There are only individuals. — AppLeo

That is an extreme statement; one could flip it and say there is no such thing as individuals: everything belongs to a group of some kind. It seems to me we are both individuals and members of groups. This is so biologically, socially, economically, politically, existentially--any way one thinks of it.

We simply can not be only individuals. We don't arrive as fully formed individual adult economic operators. We start out with two parents and are born into a culture composed of complex configurations of groups. And individuals, of course. And as we progress through life we get more complicated and at once more group-invested and individuated.

You might continue following objectivism and Ayn Rand as your guiding light till the end of a long life, but it is quite possible that you will abandon it and her somewhere along the line--maybe this year, even. This may happen several times -- different philosophies will seem like the brightest light on the horizon, until they don't anymore. If you, a 20 year old, did abandon a love affair with Rand, or Sartre, or Aristotle, or whoever, that would be 100% normal. I fully understand that seems impossible right now and you are not going to entertain the notion that next year you might not be interested in Rand.

I'm speaking as a 72 year old who has gone through a whole bunch of enthusiasms, and watched a whole bunch of other people doing the same thing. Today it's Buddha, tomorrow it's Lenin, or Esperanto, or virtual reality, or ...

The enthusiasm of today always seems like the last stop on the railroad. Until it doesn't.

On a different note, are you familiar with Frank Lloyd Wright, the architect? Rand was deeply impressed with Wright. I love Wright's architecture. Wright himself was a difficult prick, to be blunt about it. Asshole of the year, some times. None the less, he designed some gorgeous buildings. I don't have to love FLW to admire his buildings, fortunately. Here's a picture of Falling Water, a house he built in SW Pennsylvania for a department store magnate. A "summer house".

I'm speaking as a 72 year old who has gone through a whole bunch of enthusiasms, and watched a whole bunch of other people doing the same thing. Today it's Buddha, tomorrow it's somebody else. — Bitter Crank

These things are like sign posts: they guide you one way or another. You don't cling to the signpost.

Good way of putting it.

Right. Ok. So you agree that gay people banding together for equal treatment, the Haitians, slaves and so on banding together for their individual rights are fine. I'm curious what you think remains of your original position at this point. All the examples I gave of people banding together were for their individual rights, and seemingly you thought towards the start of the thread that they were banding together for special privilege. They were not, it's mostly for an expansion of individual freedom; a removal of unfair limitations on their conduct. — fdrake

No, you just misinterpret what I say and disagree with me with what counts as an individual right.

Minorities who have affirmative action. The poor who demand welfare benefits. Employees who use government to force businesses to give them "living" wages. Employers who use government to pass unfair regulations against their competitors. Gays who use government to make a christian baker bake a cake he doesn't want to bake. Christians using the state to enforce their religious policies on people who don't believe in Christianity.

These are groups that that try to win at the expense of other groups. And it completely ignores the individual.

There is a default state assumed by a society. This default state consists of norms of conduct and expectations of capacities. If we live in a world where the default state is considered to be a human who can walk, this limits the freedom of people who cannot.

If we live in a world where the default state is considered to be a human who can hear, this limits the freedoms of the deaf. What we can do, in such a world, is to try and accommodate these differences by placing requirements on society that allow these people to function as normally as possible.

Fine, whatever. Give these people equal "states" with the use of government force.
— fdrake

You actually believe that having your legs blown off in a minefield is equivalent to having mild social anxiety.* You actually believe that the poor veteran shouldn't attempt to lobby for the introduction of disabled access ramps - what, should they have just gone up to the owners in the shop they couldn't get inside and asked them to fit something? How would that solve the problem in general? It wouldn't! That's the point. The only way you're going to be able to solve this problem is through collective action, and it's easiest to achieve by influencing the creation of a law which binds the construction of buildings. I think you're starting to realise this though, since you say: — fdrake

You see it as a problem, but I don't.

And we're talking about veterans now, not people in general who can't walk?

I think shop owners should be free to set up their shop however they like. If they make it easier for the disabled to get into the shop fine. If not, that's fine too. The shop owner may lose money for not making his shop incompatible for the disabled.

*I don't mean to say your social anxiety is easy to deal with, that's a low blow. What I'm stressing is that the kind of options available to you to try and fix it just aren't available to the vet with no fucking legs - they need to address things at the level of building regulations, not at the level of themselves, they can't get their legs back. Though, I'm sure if they could get those cybernetic lower leg implants that are possible nowadays they would, but they're probably way too pricy to get esp. if you're out of work due to the disability of having no fucking legs. You can address social anxiety by doing normal people stuff, there are free counsellors online and so on, no amount of personal change will get the vets their legs back. — fdrake

If they're too pricey, save the money to buy them? There's plenty of work you can do that doesn't require your legs.

If you're so concerned about the veterans, start your own charitable group for them.

I agree entirely. I think the problem stems from what is meant by objectivism. It's not objective truth. Rather, it seems to be about isolating the individual from all moral implication and responsibility — karl stone

What moral implications and responsibilities?

One of the most succinct rebuttals to Objectivism as a socio-political philosophy that I've heard is it has no place for children, as it distills all relationships down to subjective value: at best as an abstract affective, and at worst as a commoditized value, rendering it, at least in theory, infecund. In the fantasy worlds that Ayn Rand constructed, the protagonists have no children, they do not discuss having children. They are simply excluded. A socio-political philosophy without children is a philosophy without a future.

I dunno... I claim no detailed knowledge of Rand or Objectivism, so this is more of an instinct reaction.

First, for any philosopher selling any philosophy, we might tune out the analytical mind for a bit and just observe the person most invested in the philosophy. Are we drawn to that person? Do we want to be with them? Do we want to be like them? What kind of atmosphere has their philosophy created on their face?

Personally, I'm most drawn to those philosophers who mostly just sit there sharing a deep sincere smile, and who have no compelling need to sell you their ideas. I'm obviously not like that myself, but such a philosopher seems a worthy goal to shoot for, imho.

Capitalism? Again, I dunno. I'm wary of all "one true way" economic theories. Personally I favor capitalism in the middle of the income range (most people) and socialism at the extremes, with the goal to create a middle class society. My sense is that Rand is too dogmatic to accept such compromises. I'd be equally wary of anyone being dogmatic from the other direction. Neither pure capitalism or socialism has been shown to work. — Jake

I "dunno" - who you're responding to there Jake - maybe me? I haven't read Atlas Shrugged either. I have read this thread, and responded - in my usual fashion, to 'objectivism' as it is presented here. It seems to me that it's about the objective self - as opposed to the objective truth; and I find that false and reprehensible, and I said so. I do that. I don't much care what kind of atmosphere it creates - particularly when Alcopops would use this philosophy to dismiss any responsibility for polluting the actual atmosphere.

There is a role for objective knowledge that benefits humankind, but it's not personal and social philosophy. Let me provide an example to explain. Every time I put clothes in the tumble dryer I say, out loud "It could be renewable energy. It's not, but it could be!" And that illustrates the problem. I have a need that I must meet - and no ability to do so in a manner that's responsible to the objective truth. It's possible that need might be met responsibly - but only if government and industry are responsible to objective truth. But they're not.

My philosophy argues they should be - and describes means in which that can be achieved while maintaining economic, political and social stability, and promoting high levels of human welfare. That so, it saddens me somewhat that Rand saw fit to take a giant dump and call it objectivism. At least, so far as I can tell from reading this thread.

I agree that emotions shouldn't shape your conception of reality. I disagree that emotions make a bad guide in life. Objectively proper choices can be completely wrong if a person does not agree with them emotionally, or subjectively. — Tzeentch

Give an example of someone not choosing the objective choice and using their emotions instead...

I can't find the "and everybody else"-part anywhere in the description that is provided in the link you shared, and if that was the intended meaning behind the principle the term 'self-interest' is a poor choice of words. — Tzeentch

Not really..

Coupled with Rand's thoughts on how the economy should work, I think her intended meaning is "As long as people do what they think is best for them, things will work out okay", and I don't think that is the case at all, because a lot of people have not the slightest idea of what is best for them. — Tzeentch

That's why they should use reason to figure it out. Not their emotions.

Politics is about power, and power is about wealth. But what situation are you referring to? Wasn't the beginning of the 19th century the shining example how horrible unregulated capitalism was? The modern world eventually universally agreed (under much pressure) that the capitalists had to be regulated in order to avoid people, including children, working 16 hour days in the factories. — Tzeentch

19th century capitalism and a third of the 20th century was the best and most free economics the world has ever seen.

What's wrong with working 16 hours a day in factories if what you want is money?

I agree with you that, at this point, we can not prevent climate change. Whatever is going to happen is making itself manifest already.

Can we make it worse? Yes.

Are we going to stop using fossil fuels? Not today. But wind/solar power have become competitive with coal-fired electrical generation. Is there enough wind and solar power to go around? Yes; the sun is generous. Where the winds blow regularly, there is enough wind -- but there are places where the prevailing winds are insufficient.

You are quite right about fossil fuels: they are inextricably part of the world technology and economy.

I used to be a climate optimist but I have been pushed to the climate pessimist position: we're screwed. We're screwed because individually we can not see our common interests with sufficient clarity and force to act upon them effectively. Hell, we can't even see our own interests clearly half the time. — Bitter Crank

So you don't think individualism and freedom can solve the world's problems? You think an all powerful government that forces people to act in a way that the government thinks is the best at stopping climate change is good?

That is an extreme statement; one could flip it and say there is no such thing as individuals: everything belongs to a group of some kind. It seems to me we are both individuals and members of groups. This is so biologically, socially, economically, politically, existentially--any way one thinks of it.

We simply can not be only individuals. We don't arrive as fully formed individual adult economic operators. We start out with two parents and are born into a culture composed of complex configurations of groups. And individuals, of course. And as we progress through life we get more complicated and at once more group-invested and individuated. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, but it's my belief that individuals are way more important than any group.

You might continue following objectivism and Ayn Rand as your guiding light till the end of a long life, but it is quite possible that you will abandon it and her somewhere along the line--maybe this year, even. This may happen several times -- different philosophies will seem like the brightest light on the horizon, until they don't anymore. If you, a 20 year old, did abandon a love affair with Rand, or Sartre, or Aristotle, or whoever, that would be 100% normal. I fully understand that seems impossible right now and you are not going to entertain the notion that next year you might not be interested in Rand. — Bitter Crank

I'm not going ever abandon Rand. Her entire philosophy is an antithesis to a totalitarian dictatorship. If I ever disagree with her, it will be on very minor details. I agree with her fundamentally though and that will never change.

I'm speaking as a 72 year old who has gone through a whole bunch of enthusiasms, and watched a whole bunch of other people doing the same thing. Today it's Buddha, tomorrow it's somebody else.

The enthusiasm of today always seems like the last stop on the railroad. Until it doesn't. — Bitter Crank

Well maybe your enthusiasms are fleeting because you haven't found any real value in anyone. I've found great value in Ayn Rand though, so she'll always hold a place in my heart.

On a different note, are you familiar with Frank Lloyd Wright, the architect? Rand was deeply impressed with Wright. I love Wright's architecture. Wright himself was a difficult prick, to be blunt about it. Asshole of the year, some times. None the less, he designed some gorgeous buildings. I don't have to love FLW to admire his buildings, fortunately. Here's a picture of Falling Water, a house he built in SW Pennsylvania for a department store magnate. A "summer house".[/quote]

No, I don't know who Frank Lloyd Wright is.

One of the most succinct rebuttals to Objectivism as a socio-political philosophy that I've heard is it has no place for children, as it distills all relationships down to subjective value: at best as an abstract affective, and at worst as a commoditized value, rendering it, at least in theory, infecund. In the fantasy worlds that Ayn Rand constructed, the protagonists have no children, they do not discuss having children. They are simply excluded. A socio-political philosophy without children is a philosophy without a future. — Maw

I agree that Ayn Rand should've spoken more on children. Mostly on what would happen to a child when their parents died? A child can't pursue their rational self-interest because they haven't developed, so they must rely on some kind of authority figure to take care of them. The question is who if the parents are gone?

But she did say that to procreate as a responsibility or moral obligation is evil. Your purpose in life isn't to reproduce. It's selfish to not have children, and for good reason because children are incredibly time consuming and expensive. Some people might enjoy having children though, and that's totally fine. But choosing not to have children is also fine.

Give an example of someone not choosing the objective choice and using their emotions instead... — AppLeo

Someone may quit a well-paying and stable job because they feel unhappy there.

That's why they should use reason to figure it out. Not their emotions. — AppLeo

Who defines what reasonable is, then?

What's wrong with working 16 hours a day in factories if what you want is money? — AppLeo

People in those factories didn't work sixteen hours a day because they wanted to. They did so because they had to in order to feed themselves. I'm getting an impression you don't quite realize how appalling the conditions were during these 'best and most free times'. Children had to work in order to keep families fed. For someone who holds reason as one of the highest ideals that sure is a strange definition of a utopia.

Someone may quit a well-paying and stable job because they feel unhappy there. — Tzeentch

That can be considered a rational reason for quitting. Ayn Rand isn’t saying it ignore your emotions, they just shouldn’t be placed above your interpretation of reality. Making a choice be happier is just choosing to be happy. You’re not denying reality so it’s okay.

Who defines what reasonable is, then? — Tzeentch

The individual does. Everyone decides for themselves. Those that live the most rationally will the most happy and prosperous.

People in those factories didn't work sixteen hours a day because they wanted to. They did so because they had to in order to feed themselves. I'm getting an impression you don't quite realize how appalling the conditions were during these 'best and most free times'. Children had to work in order to keep families fed. For someone who holds reason as one of the highest ideals that sure is a strange definition of a utopia. — Tzeentch

If they didn’t want to, why did they work for 16 hours a day? No one forced them to do it. They chose to do it given their circumstances.

I don’t see why working 16 hours a day to feed yourself and your family is a bad thing. I think it’s great that people had opportunity to work for long periods of time and make enough money to feed themselves.

Consider the opposite of people prohibited you from working 16 hours a day, and prohibited you to work altogether just because you’re a child. You wouldn’t have the opportunity to work, which means you couldn’t make your life better.

Minorities who have affirmative action. The poor who demand welfare benefits. Employees who use government to force businesses to give them "living" wages. Employers who use government to pass unfair regulations against their competitors. Gays who use government to make a christian baker bake a cake he doesn't want to bake. Christians using the state to enforce their religious policies on people who don't believe in Christianity. — AppLeo

So you agree that disabled people organising together to push the introduction of disabled access ramps is fine? And that it secures their individual rights? If not, why? And why does it go against individual rights?

And you agree that slave revolts and humanitarians back home organising to push the abolishing slaving was good? And that it secures individual rights? If not, why does the abolition of slavery go in the face of individual rights?

Why is group of disabled people needing to intervene on the level of building construction norms to allow wheelchair access to shops against individual rights?

What in hell is the difference between what disability activists did to procure access to places and the procurement of some individual rights for disabled people?

These are groups that that try to win at the expense of other groups. And it completely ignores the individual. — AppLeo

Do you think disabled people wanting disabled access groups are 'trying to win at the expense' of non disabled people? Slaves revolting and humanitarians back home also definitely were 'trying to win at the expense of other people' - they wanted the fucking slave owners not to remain in possession of some of their assets. This is completely incoherent, and I believe you know this because you're always presenting more trivial reasons people might organised to solve their collective problems.

In this is the incredible equivocation that the abolition of slavery was the same as forcing a baker to make a gay couple a wedding cake.

You see it as a problem, but I don't. — AppLeo

You see disabled people not having access to the same places as people who can walk as not a problem. Of course you don't, you don't have to care about the problem[/u]. You're a bloke who doesn't need a wheelchair. People who need wheelchair access see it as a problem because it is a problem for them.

Also, why should what you see as a problem matter? Lack of disabled access really is a problem for people who need wheelchairs! You would deny them access to spaces because you believe them raising their voices together to gain access is disabled people 'winning' over the non-disabled. The reason they would want to do this is because non-disabled people already win over disabled people due to the established norms and expectations of society.

Even this whole framing of winners vs losers is stupid, what you should be considering is a cost/benefit trade off. Cost - people who generally have enough money to do this must spend some money to introduce a ramp (which through a quick google apparently costs about 1900 dollars). Benefit - everybody can come in and spend money, the architecture is no longer exclusive. The right approach is to assess whether the benefit is worth the cost, rather than declare all collective action wrong by fiat.

A move which does not allow you any purchase on any real world issue, by and by. This fiat declaration of the immorality of all collective action does not allow you to distinguish between just movements and unjust ones. ISIS starts to look like Amnesty International.

If you're so concerned about the veterans, start your own charitable group for them. — AppLeo

Red herring. Nothing about whether I'm engaged in charitable activity for US war vets has any bearing on this argument.

You're getting really lazy now.

It is a matter of personal opinion whether or not a product is harming the buyer. — AppLeo

Rather, it's a matter of moral intuition first and then may be a matter of opinion or rationalization. For example, it would be a typical human intuition that selling organic vegetables is more morally 'good' than selling cigarets. Provided that we know about the unhealthy effects of smoking, we should have an intuitive sense that selling them generally does harm to some degree. We might reason that in this case personal liberty or the liberty to buy and sell cigarets is more important than the harmful effects, but the intuition is still experienced regardless of whatever moral reasoning is employed.

The buyer determines the values in his life.

Perhaps to some extent but not completely. Our values are strongly shaped by our upbringing and the culture we live in.

Nobody else does and nobody should. To say otherwise would mean that a the man isn’t free to make his own choices.

In the case of cigarets, we may be heavily influenced by our peers to smoke and also by advertising. Cigarets are addicting and by inhaling second hand smoke we might be more inclined to be influenced by a physical compulsion.

Point is that we don't make choices by pure reason.

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.

No one is free to live anyway that they want, at least not if they want to live in society. Morals are for living in society.

She considers traders to be the most moral because they recognize and respect one another as responsible, independent individuals with their own personal values.

To the extent that a trader may recognize, respect, and be responsible towards other traders they must have shared 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.

You're skipping over other possible ways to organize a cooperative society. It's possible to give freely without a return on investment. Indeed that would be an expression of true 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.

You said yourself in a different topic that people are not rational. In any case, is being materially prosperous the best way to live? The evidence suggests that materialism leads to a shallow, meaningless, and not particularly happy life.

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...

What? of course it does. If we know someones moral values we can reasonably predict the position they'll take on policy decisions, etc.

... but she only agrees with libertarians on one thing and that is liberty should trump authority.

No, as a libertarian she would also value individual liberty over care (unconcerned with selling cigarets, drugs, etc., as we discussed), and other less 'rational' aspects of morality like loyalty and sanctity.

There are plenty of libertarian conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, socialists, capitalists, etc…

I don't know what you're trying to say here. It's as though you don't understand what distinguishes these positions.