Maybe it's just me but I think it's clear this is just someone puking out bog-standard conservative and libertarian talking points. The poor are bad because the social safety net (I wonder why Rand used SS then???), affirmative action is bad because who knows why those uppity blacks couldn't get into university (what is racism???), and the gubment is bad because not free.

This feels like someone who hasn't engaged in any broader political discourse, has no knowledge of any non-trivial aspects of sociopolitical history (race relations, ideological developments and shifts) and is not at all familiar with the underlying philosophy and consequences of their own views.

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? — fdrake

It goes against individual rights because the government is forcing shop owners, people who have hurt no one or forced anyone, to abide to these disability entitlements. Just because someone is disabled does not mean that they are entitled to a wheelchair system. If a disabled person wishes to have a wheelchair system built for them, they must acquire it through trade, charity, or voluntary consent. But they cannot use government force.

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? — fdrake

Abolishing slavery is necessary if a country is to have individual rights and freedom for all.

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. — fdrake

Having individual rights means that one is free from human force. Which means that in order for slaves to have their rights, they must revolt against their slave owners. Disabled people are already free from human force. They already have individual rights.

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. — fdrake

I'm an egoist. Why would I care about other people's problems? And why should anyone else care?

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. — fdrake

Right, and gay people who can't get a baker to bake a cake for them is a problem.
And women who don't major enough in engineering is a problem.
And poor people who don't have a enough money is a problem.
Fat people, who have too much weight is a problem.
Introverted people, who are surrounded by extraverts, is a problem.
Depressed people, who are sad about everything, is a problem.

When I refer to "winning" what I'm saying is that the winners have the government on their side. The government shouldn't be on anyone's side.

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. — praxis

Liberty trumps "moral intuition."

If witnessing people who buy and sell cigarettes triggers your "moral intuition" you can talk about the dangers of cigarettes and encourage people to quit smoking. But you have no right to force people to buy and sell what you think they should buy or sell.

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? — AppLeo

Those of us who are turned off by Rand's views might be just as disturbed by "all powerful governments" as you are; value the individual and individualism as much as you do; might value freedom as much as you do; be as enthusiastic about capitalism as you are. The individual, individualism, love of freedom, and capitalism were all in place by the time she was born in 1905--and before then, even, but at least several weeks.

Most of us are not suffering from monomania, and we have varied, even contradictory views, beliefs, and practices.

Maybe it's just me but I think it's clear this is just someone puking out bog-standard conservative and libertarian talking points. The poor are bad because the social safety net (I wonder why Rand used SS then???), affirmative action is bad because who knows why those uppity blacks couldn't get into university (what is racism???), and the gubment is bad because not free. — MindForged

Well do you know why I'm saying what I'm saying? I have good and valid reasons for my points.

This feels like someone who hasn't engaged in any broader political discourse, has no knowledge of any non-trivial aspects of sociopolitical history (race relations, ideological developments and shifts) and is not at all familiar with the underlying philosophy and consequences of their own views. — MindForged

Pffft...

Oh that's right, Randian's don't believe in intuition.

Do you know why?

It might be interesting to hear your explanation.

Well do you know why I'm saying what I'm saying? I have good and valid reasons for my points. — AppLeo

Your reasons thus far have boiled down to their terrible "Climate change is a leftist religion and we can't mitigate it", claims that groups don't exist (though thankfully a more patient user has tried to walk you through the absurd and untenable consequences of that view, and (as I said) the usual conservative and libertarian complaints about anyone who isn't a straight white guy wanting the "privilege" "forced" down your throat to be treated as equals under the rule of law.

Pffft... — AppLeo

Buddy, you compared the disabled being given easier access to entering a business location to the Nazi regime, you had such brilliant insights as "Can't try to save the world by weaning off fossil fuels because it might 'hurt' the economy" (I don't think you understand the multiple absurdities of this claim of yours) and have betrayed a lack of understanding of how capitalism works and when it works best. You thought it was OK for monopolies or near monopolies to exist because "It only happened through free exchange, which makes it good". I mean it's not like capitalism's main selling points and fertile ground is when there are high levels of competition which is the antithesis of monopolies (which, not coincidentally, use their power to control the government through means I mentioned earlier).

You could not have shown your own ignorance on these matters more. It betrays every sign of someone who got into a political ideology with little understanding of where that ideology came from, how it has functioned in reality when implemented (take a look at Kansas under Republican control, for instance) and shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about competing political philosophies. You are almost entirely spewing talking points and giving your ideological affirmations instead of arguing for your view.

Your reasons thus far have boiled down to their terrible "Climate change is a leftist religion and we can't mitigate it", claims that groups don't exist — MindForged

Well I just don't understand why you're so upset about the world changing climate. So what the world rises a few degrees.

I heard a funny comment from another objectivist, "Canada will become more inhabitable because it won't be so cold in the north."

I guess you could throw in Russia or Antarctica, I don't know...

You provide no real solutions for dealing with climate change, but to wain off fossil fuels. That's well and fine, I'm just saying that people should have the freedom to choose to wain off fossil fuels. Otherwise you're coming off as some kind of authoritarian and anybody else who disagrees is an idiot. And it's like no, there's still plenty of room for debate in this subject.

Buddy, you compared the disabled being given easier access to entering a business location to the Nazi regime, — MindForged

Well you have obviously failed to notice why I made that comparison... and it demonstrates just how much people really do not listen to me at all. And you don't like what I'm saying, so of course you're going to make me out to be some kind of ridiculous libertarian who doesn't know what he's talking about.

And if that's the case, why even bother discussing or talking in this discussion at all. Clearly, you've already made your mind and you have nothing more to learn from me.

you had such brilliant insights as "Can't try to save the world by weaning off fossil fuels because it might 'hurt' the economy" (I don't think you understand the multiple absurdities of this claim of yours) — MindForged

The economy is what makes people's lives better. Regulating it and controlling doesn't help anybody. As clearly demonstrated in history. And climate change isn't an excuse to start regulating it. You can explain to people why they shouldn't use fossil fuels, but I'm also trying to explain that climate change is fear mongering. Climate change and environmental issues have been around since like the 80's.... and I always hear how bad things are, but nothing bad actually happens.

and have betrayed a lack of understanding of how capitalism works and when it works best. — MindForged

HAH

It's because I understand capitalism, you have no clue what I'm talking about. Your knowledge of capitalism is basic like everyone else's.

You thought it was OK for monopolies or near monopolies to exist because "It only happened through free exchange, which makes it good". — MindForged

In free market capitalism, there has never been a monopoly in history. The only monopolies that have been created were through government interference. The government nationalizes a company, and bars other companies from competing against that nationalized company.

If a monopoly is created in the free market, it is because there are no other competitors in the same field. You could even argue, that all businessmen are monopolists, because every businessman has a monopoly on their own unique product and no one else will create a product exactly like theirs.

Regardless if there are monopolies in a free market, that does not mean other competitors cannot compete if they want to compete. They have every right and freedom to, so any monopoly would not last long. And if a monopoly does last long, then we should praise and congratulate the monopolist for creating a product that no other competitor can compete against.

To say otherwise, and to help competitors compete against a monopolist who has a superior product, is not only unfair because the competitor without the help could not stand on his own because of his inferior product to the monopolist. But it doesn't make sense because you want the best products to stay in the market, and the inferior products to go away even if it leaves a monopoly.

I mean it's not like capitalism's main selling points and fertile ground is when there are high levels of competition which is the antithesis of monopolies (which, not coincidentally, use their power to control the government through means I mentioned earlier). — MindForged

In free market capitalism a monopoly cannot control the government. It's the government that creates monopolies.

Review of boring novel, Leo, Slayer of Socialistic Super Machines, Dead Chicken Press, 2019 $19.95 Summary: After @AppLeo read a novel by Ayn Rand he found in the garbage at the College Library, he knew he could stop at nothing until he saved the Galaxy from mindless Big Government robots who were programmed to impose a gentle regime of rationality and utopian Marxism on intelligent species throughout the Galaxy. "Fools!" he screamed. "You are victims of a monstrous hoax!" as he boarded his coal-fired rocket ship.

Meanwhile, 372 planets with intelligent species had already achieved peace and happiness, all watched over by the socialistic machines of loving grace.

When I refer to "winning" what I'm saying is that the winners have the government on their side. The government shouldn't be on anyone's side. — AppLeo

Hey, you're right, that's why people take up progressive politics.

I'm going to stop responding to you now. If you take that as a victory, hurrah for you, you win!

I will take it as a victory.

We mock what we don't understand.

@AppLeo

I liked Ayn Rand back in the day. As I got older, it became clear to me that what I found appealing in her was her valorization of a life of excellence lived alone. And it became to clear to me that I found that appealing precisely because I was alone. The less alone I was, the more her appeal wore off.

I don't know where you're at in your life, and how alone, or non-alone, you feel. But I do know the thing of setting something up, in order to draw out antagonists, in order to defend it.

Considering Rand's philosophy is called 'objectivism', and it is explicitly stated that emotions make for poor guides in life, I think you are not staying true to her point by saying emotional choices can be rational.

Those that live the most rationally will the most happy and prosperous. — AppLeo

What does such a rational life look like?

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. — AppLeo

Help yourself to this book:

The Conditions of the Working Class in England by Friedrich Engels

You'll find that the working conditions in Industrial-era England were nearly as appalling as those in Soviet Gulags. In some sense it was even worse considering the Gulags generally did not force children to labor.

If we cannot agree that de facto enslavement of the working class is a bad thing, I doubt we will be able to agree on anything.

I liked Ayn Rand back in the day. As I got older, it became clear to me that what I found appealing in her was her valorization of a life of excellence lived alone. And it became to clear to me that I found that appealing precisely because I was alone. The less alone I was, the more her appeal wore off. — csalisbury

So you're low-key saying that I'm a lonely person? Who do you like now since Ayn Rand no longer appeals to you?

don't know where you're at in your life, and how alone, or non-alone, you feel. But I do know the thing of setting something up, in order to draw out antagonists, in order to defend it. — csalisbury

What do you mean? You think I'm drawing out antagonists?

So you're low-key saying that I'm a lonely person? Who do you like now since Ayn Rand no longer appeals to you? — AppLeo

I don't know if you're lonely. I'm saying I liked her when I was. If you're not lonely, mine is a case to pass over quickly, noting how its particulars are inapplicable to your case.

I like the philosophers in my bio - Sloterdjik, Lyotard, Sellars, and Hegel.

What do you mean? You think I'm drawing out antagonists? — AppLeo

It seems that way, but I may be wrong. What were you looking for in posting?

Considering Rand's philosophy is called 'objectivism', and it is explicitly stated that emotions make for poor guides in life, I think you are not staying true to her point by saying emotional choices can be rational. — Tzeentch

Well the link I posted was supposed to give you a brief overview. Ayn Rand said that you should pursue your happiness because that's the ultimate goal, but the process to attain that goal is with reason. You can have sex with hookers and snort cocaine, but that's an irrational aim for happiness. A rational person values productive achievement and has a purpose, which is better for happiness.

What does such a rational life look like? — Tzeentch

A rational life is a person who makes the conscious decision to think, reason, and use logic as much as he can.

If we cannot agree that de facto enslavement of the working class is a bad thing, I doubt we will be able to agree on anything. — Tzeentch

Then fine we don't have to agree on anything. If you observe history, capitalism has lead to economic prosperity and is the most moral system because people are treated equally under the law.

I don't know if you're lonely. I'm saying I liked her when I was. If you're not lonely, mine is a case to pass over quickly, noting how its particulars are inapplicable to your case. — csalisbury

I mean maybe I'm a bit lonely from time to time, but loneliness is independent when it comes to the validity of a philosophy or ideology.

I like the philosophers in my bio - Sloterdjik, Lyotard, Sellars, and Hegel. — csalisbury

Oh I see...

It seems that way, but I may be wrong. What were you looking for in posting? — csalisbury

Well I don't know. I like to argue with people and see how wrong they are when they make their arguments. I also like discovering a greater truth from discussions. It's fun. And if I can convince someone of my beliefs then I think I'm making the world a better place.

A rational life is a person who makes the conscious decision to think, reason, and use logic as much as he can. — AppLeo

That's no life. That's an attempt to reduce from life the elements and qualities you dislike.

That's no life. That's an attempt to reduce from life the elements and qualities you dislike. — emancipate

What? Can you give a better explanation?

What? Can you give a better explanation? — AppLeo

Life doesn't exist in a vacuum. You cannot treat life as some science experiment, whereby you reject some experiences in favour of others. Life without regard for the emotions or intuitions is inauthentic life. It is a life that is missing something. You, whether you like it or not, are an emotional being. You are driven by your emotions, desires, fears. Most of which is unconscious. These things are not something you can simply choose to switch off in the name of objectivism. Ask yourself why you are so inclined towards this position.

Life includes the irrational, the absurd the mysterious..

You cannot have only one side of a coin. Objectivism is an exercise in ignorance.

You can have sex with hookers and snort cocaine, but that's an irrational aim for happiness. A rational person values productive achievement and has a purpose, which is better for happiness. — AppLeo

Why? To both assertions.

A rational life is a person who makes the conscious decision to think, reason, and use logic as much as he can. — AppLeo

So how does listening to one's emotions fit into this?

If you observe history, capitalism has lead to economic prosperity and is the most moral system because people are treated equally under the law. — AppLeo

Even though I don't agree with the general sentiment of this statement, it should be noted that it was not unrestricted capitalism that created a moral system. It was in fact the balance between economic freedom and individual rights. In practice these are often juxtaposed, which is why Rand's assertion that total economic freedom is 'the' system of individual rights is quite simply wrong.

I mean maybe I'm a bit lonely from time to time, but loneliness is independent when it comes to the validity of a philosophy or ideology. — AppLeo

I don't disagree. I guess I'm thinking in terms of valuation. I think independent types tend to think in terms that valorize the worldview which accommodates the type of life they're living. There's a natural, rational drive to create an ideology that fits one's own circumstances. It's hard to separate that kind of valorization from the ideology itself.

Well I don't know. I like to argue with people and see how wrong they are when they make their arguments — AppLeo

Arguing is fun. But when you talk about seeing how wrong others are - how could that be anything but antagonistic? Not that that's a bad thing. But it seems like it would be good practice to admit the antagonistic nature of it.

Why? To both assertions. — Tzeentch

Because it's evident. Or maybe it's just opinion, I guess. Every man can decide for himself what the best of action is for happiness. He just needs to have logical reasons for it.

So how does listening to one's emotions fit into this? — Tzeentch

It just means that you shouldn't place them above reality. For example, just because you love someone doesn't mean you should be blinded by love, and just because you hate someone doesn't mean you should see them in a negative light. You want to see people for who they actually are regardless of your emotions. Which is a hard thing to do. No one said being rational was easy.

Even though I don't agree with the general sentiment of this statement, it should be noted that it was not unrestricted capitalism that created a moral system. It was in fact the balance between economic freedom and individual rights. In practice these are often juxtaposed, which is why Rand's assertion that total economic freedom is 'the' system of individual rights is quite simply wrong. — Tzeentch

I mean sure, I agree.

Article in lates Philosophy Now.

A bit too sympathetic for my taste.

I don't disagree. I guess I'm thinking in terms of valuation. I think independent types tend to think in terms that valorize the worldview which accommodates the type of life they're living. It's hard to separate the valorization from the ideology itself. — csalisbury

I agree that I value, or likely value, Ayn Rand because she speaks to my independence. And others value Karl Marx because they see themselves as victims when they have to work. And others value Immanuel Kant because they want to be able to still believe in religion, or whatever mystical nonsense, and still live in accordance to the facts. And others value Nietzsche because they think or act like Hitler.

Arguing is fun. But when you talk about seeing how wrong others are - how could that be anything but antagonistic? — csalisbury

I mean yes, I'm antagonistic in the sense that I disagree or oppose the people I'm arguing with. There's hardly anything that I agree with when it comes to the people in this discussion.

Just because someone is disabled does not mean that they are entitled to a wheelchair system. If a disabled person wishes to have a wheelchair system built for them, they must acquire it through trade, charity, or voluntary consent. But they cannot use government force. — AppLeo

And here in a nutshell is the poverty of Objectivism.

And here in a nutshell is the poverty of Objectivism. — Banno

Disagree. Also, you didn't explain how this is the "poverty" of objectivism.