The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on August 22, 2009, 11:09:04 PM

Title: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on August 22, 2009, 11:09:04 PM
   Ian's statement that objectivism's tenants are a leap of faith; what do you think?  Can you smart kids discuss this so that I can wrap my head around the different opinions on the matter.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Evil Muppet on August 22, 2009, 11:12:29 PM
Ayn Rand was a butt ugly baboon. 
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on August 22, 2009, 11:28:45 PM
Ian's off base since he's never been able to make a single sentence of his own ideas stick. First and foremost, Randism is based on Aristotleanism, so it can be said to be more or less in league with Thomism and other Aristotle-based philosophical traditions. Sadly, like most it fails to grasp the keen difference between governance and the State, so it assumes a coercive system must be necessary for the propagation of human rights. Which is why I call myself a Post-Randian/Objectivist
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Rob from AR on August 23, 2009, 01:37:25 AM
Sadly, like most it fails to grasp the keen difference between governance and the State, so it assumes a coercive system must be necessary for the propagation of human rights.

I am really pretty new to liberty but I would like to take a stab at the "keen difference between governance and the state" Please, tell me if I am missing something here.

I can see a distinction where a single individual can 'govern' his own personal life, liberty and property to not be exceeded by real opportunities and limitations. I think it is impossible for one individual to inflict coercive action against oneself.

The opposite is true in reference to collectives, 'the state' or 'governance' is by definition an outside force (outside of you personally).  If 'it' acts upon your life, liberty or property against your will, you are being coerced against.

Otherwise you are 'with the force' or a 'voluntary member of the collective' and you are not necessarily being governed but are actually acting in concert with others, these others being referred to as 'state' or 'government.' This applies even if you have arranged to have a directorship over some aspect of your life, liberty or property.  

The moment any collective acts against your life, liberty or property without your consent, you are being coerced against.  

I do not see that human rights are more inherently propagated by collectives than by individuals. In fact, I would argue that on the whole, collectives are historically the greatest enemy of life, liberty and property.  In part, due to their multiplied ability to amass violent power.

~~~My Take~~~

A coercive system destroys rights inherently and therefore cannot possibly cause the propagation of rights.

I think the best we can arrive at is a non-compulsorily (freely opt-in only) collective of individuals protecting their own and collectively the lives, liberty and property of others.

The only distinction being that this collective must be a collective that you can opt-in or out of without violent force from the other collective members to join or for retribution for leaving the collective.  

An obligatory, compulsorily collective is a group you did not or cannot opt-in or out of.

A "coercive system" cannot possibly be necessary for propagating human rights because a 'coercive system' would be a obligatory collective by it's very definition. Because if the collective dictates that "reality will be this way" and you are forced to reflect that reality, your conformity with the collective makes you a obligatory, compulsorily member and "part of the system."  

Thus, a coercive system destroys rights inherently and therefore cannot possibly cause the propagation of rights.

Or, maybe I am just sleepy and my mind is fuddled..going to bed...=-)

P. S. I am going to listen to the podcast tomorrow...hehe.

Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Alex Libman 15 on August 23, 2009, 04:37:43 AM
Objectivism is based on proven economic observations.

Anarcho-Capitalism isn't.  Yet.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Terror Australis on August 23, 2009, 07:23:21 AM
Self government ceases to exist the moment two people or more decide they want your money for themselves.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on August 23, 2009, 07:32:20 AM
ayn rand was a self-righteous cunt
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Manuel_OKelly on August 23, 2009, 10:50:44 AM
Ian's argument that Objectivism requires a leap of faith, and therefore isn't true by it's own philosophy simply isn't true. I think he was reacting to the atheism that tends to go along with Objectivism. He says that trusting in only what you perceive around you is a leap of faith. However comparing this to the leap of faith required to believe that an invisible man in the sky created us from his beneficent will, and how do we know this? A feeling, a feeling that we have in all places, our hearts, is a kind of cast iron pot calling the shiny kettle black. In fact objectivists don't even have that much faith in our perception, or rather we realize it has limits. Otherwise why would we use scientific instruments, computers, and other items that enhance our senses? Instead we start on a scale that's much more intellectual then just our perception, we start with logic, that identity A is identity A and if it is True, then it will always be true in context of all of our other concepts, identities, and perceptions (natural or technological). Holding illogical conflicting concepts and wrong precepts (truths that seem self evident) is the ultimate sin morally in Objectivism. If you believe an invisible man lives in the sky forever, that he is beneficent, and that he is all-powerful and all-knowing, then there better not be any unhappiness in the world and no mistakes on his part.

So yes, Ian's argument does not represent an attack on Objectivism, because it would entirely miss the point. It's instead an argument against atheism. (Hopefully without putting words in his mouth) He is saying that because atheists can't prove there isn't a creator, that religions are just as valid as atheism. However, he is not a Christian, Muslim, or even a buddhist. He doesn't believe in any of the thousands of faiths he probably hasn't even had contact with. He fails to realize that he is already an atheist on so many different religions, but true atheists just go one more. If anything that argument only holds for the binary question of whether there is a creator spirit (Yes or No). So I would say Atheism holds 50% of that probability sphere because it doesn't assume a complex set of behavior pleases a diety only that there isn't one, and all the religions share the other 50%. Imagine a gigantic venn diagram, not just three dimensional but multi-dimensional.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: mikehz on August 23, 2009, 01:16:31 PM
Ian was simply taking a conclusion (reality exists) from a brief article and then ignoring all of the comprehensive arguments leading up to that conclusion. If you do NOT subscribe to the notion of objective reality, then you are a subjectivist, believing instead that realty changes to suit the beliefs of the individual. Once this happens, no further philosophical discussion becomes possible, since anything goes!

An objective reality exists. However, our interpretation of that reality is subjective, and open to many errors. Rand held that reason was the best tool for distinguishing what was true from what was false when describing reality.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on August 23, 2009, 01:56:29 PM
I still want Ian to stand in front of a truck and say it's not real while it runs him over. :lol:
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Evil Muppet on August 23, 2009, 04:05:42 PM
ayn rand was a self-righteous cunt

Yes.  So true. 
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: fatcat on August 23, 2009, 05:55:13 PM
Which is why I call myself a Post-Randian/Objectivist

this
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Manuel_OKelly on August 23, 2009, 09:31:34 PM
ayn rand was a self-righteous cunt

Yes.  So true. 

The philosophy she followed strove to be the opposite of that though. She should have had a logical reason for every personal judgement she made. Each judgement should have been morally good in that it was beneficial to her and those she loved. Someone who is self righteous is an asshole because their morality operates outside the norm, often illogically hurting people. However if she was tearing someone down, I think that if you listened to her arguments you might agree with her.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: John Shaw on August 23, 2009, 10:04:42 PM
Objectivism -

Core
          Metaphysics - Awesome

          Epistemology - Awesome


Secondary
         Ethics - Not the best

         Politics - Kind broken

         Aesthetics - Not too shabby.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on August 23, 2009, 10:10:17 PM
ayn rand was a self-righteous cunt

Yes.  So true. 

The philosophy she followed strove to be the opposite of that though. She should have had a logical reason for every personal judgement she made. Each judgement should have been morally good in that it was beneficial to her and those she loved. Someone who is self righteous is an asshole because their morality operates outside the norm, often illogically hurting people. However if she was tearing someone down, I think that if you listened to her arguments you might agree with her.

she and nathaniel branden were the two most moral people on the planet so it was right for her to have an affair with him

totally not like it was all a justification for her to get some young cock
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Evil Muppet on August 23, 2009, 10:36:50 PM
How dare you say such things like Ayn Rand was the paragon of logic and reason.  Everything she said was gospel, except it was better.  It was pure unadulterated reason.  She was like Mr Spock on steroids.  

Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Manuel_OKelly on August 23, 2009, 11:05:41 PM
How dare you say such things like Ayn Rand was the paragon of logic and reason.  Everything she said was gospel, except it was better.  It was pure unadulterated reason.  She was like Mr Spock on steroids. 



No but she is the most famous objectivist. Some refer to her the same way some refer to Kant, Niche, or any other philosopher. Maybe there are better Objectivists with books ready to open up young minds, but she got a lot of things right and history remembers her for it. Mr. Spock had some failings too, let's not forget the whole Amok thing where he illogically tried to kill his best friend Captain Kirk.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on August 23, 2009, 11:12:52 PM
How dare you say such things like Ayn Rand was the paragon of logic and reason.  Everything she said was gospel, except it was better.  It was pure unadulterated reason.  She was like Mr Spock on steroids. 



No but she is the most famous objectivist. Some refer to her the same way some refer to Kant, Niche, or any other philosopher. Maybe there are better Objectivists with books ready to open up young minds, but she got a lot of things right and history remembers her for it. Mr. Spock had some failings too, let's not forget the whole Amok thing where he illogically tried to kill his best friend Captain Kirk.

so does this mean you know you were fucked when ayn started calling you jim!?
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Evil Muppet on August 23, 2009, 11:21:43 PM
Amok?   What the fuck are you talking about?  Ayn Rand tried to kill Captain Kirk?   What a fucking whore.  

The most obnoxious thing about Ayn Rand is her followers.  
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Manuel_OKelly on August 24, 2009, 08:03:46 AM
You know what? Perhaps your resorting to Ad hominem attacks because you can't argue against objectivist philosophy. Try me when you want a real debate. Right now your just trolling and I don't have time for it.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: markuzick on August 24, 2009, 09:34:19 AM
Ian's off base since he's never been able to make a single sentence of his own ideas stick. First and foremost, Randism is based on Aristotleanism, so it can be said to be more or less in league with Thomism and other Aristotle-based philosophical traditions. Sadly, like most it fails to grasp the keen difference between governance and the State, so it assumes a coercive system must be necessary for the propagation of human rights. Which is why I call myself a Post-Randian/Objectivist


I agree with the above, except for the word "coercive" which should be replaced with "aggressive" as all governance is inherently dependent upon force and coercion for legitimate defense.

Any government that can rightfully claim moral legitimacy must, as a minimum requirement, base this legitimacy on the right to self government and so it must be an extension of self government.

This is the idea that the government of organizations is based upon contract. This is not the collectivist concept of the "social contract", but a contract that's based upon the consent of the individual - the only form of binding contract that is morally legitimate.

The state, by its aggressive nature, must of necessity, destroy legitimate government, replacing it with government by decree, the governance of bullies and tyrants, representing an anarchy of sorts, as it institutes the unlawful "laws" of the whims of the powerful, dressing itself in the "emperors new clothes" of false legitimacy. Ultimately, the corrupting incentives of fiat rule cause the state to degenerate into a mob of all against all, inventing enemies to scapegoat for its own failings, both at home and abroad, culminating in its collapse into civil war and anarchy.

A principled minarchy is a contradiction in terms. Minarchy represents the substitution of moral principle with the"pragmatic rule of thumb", that liberty is desirable, as long as it is administered by a "benevolent tyrant". We may as well be talking about a monarchy run by a "benevolent king", as it would probably be more practical.

There is a virtue to minarchy though, in that it represents the final stage of the state before, not ceasing to exist, but its transformation into legitimate government.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on August 24, 2009, 09:45:07 AM
You know what? Perhaps your resorting to Ad hominem attacks because you can't argue against objectivist philosophy. Try me when you want a real debate. Right now your just trolling and I don't have time for it.

except ayn rand was the woman who formulated objectivism

therefore an attack on her is literally an attack on objectivism

same with someone attacking aristotle, kant, kierkegaard, etc.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Evil Muppet on August 24, 2009, 10:19:06 AM
Its always funny how a movement based upon logic and reason deifies one individual. 
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: markuzick on August 24, 2009, 10:40:12 AM
Sadly, like most it fails to grasp the keen difference between governance and the State, so it assumes a coercive system must be necessary for the propagation of human rights.

I am really pretty new to liberty but I would like to take a stab at the "keen difference between governance and the state" Please, tell me if I am missing something here.

I can see a distinction where a single individual can 'govern' his own personal life, liberty and property to not be exceeded by real opportunities and limitations. I think it is impossible for one individual to inflict coercive action against oneself.

Actually, you could, by contract, agree to rules and their enforcement by a governing entity, of which you are a consenting client or principle, by forceful or coercive means.

You can also, as an individual, voluntarily place yourself into a situation where the actions required for your survival are coerced by the circumstances purposely created by yourself: e.g., jumping into deep water or climbing part way down a rock-face.

Quote
The opposite is true in reference to collectives, 'the state' or 'governance' is by definition an outside force (outside of you personally).  If 'it' acts upon your life, liberty or property against your will, you are being coerced against.


You're conflating the state with governance. The state is only a type of governace; one without moral legitimacy.

Quote
Otherwise you are 'with the force' or a 'voluntary member of the collective' and you are not necessarily being governed but are actually acting in concert with others, these others being referred to as 'state' or 'government.' This applies even if you have arranged to have a directorship over some aspect of your life, liberty or property.
 

Well - you are being governed - as in controlled - either with or without your consent. If it's by your consent, then it's government by the consent of the governed.

Quote
The moment any collective acts against your life, liberty or property without your consent, you are being coerced against.  

Actually, if they act, then they are using aggressive force. Coercion is using the threat of force to cause you to behave in some manner.

Quote
A coercive system destroys rights inherently and therefore cannot possibly cause the propagation of rights.

Force and coercion are necessary for the defense of rights, whether used by individuals or groups. It's only their aggressive application that violates rights.

Quote
I think the best we can arrive at is a  (freely opt-in only) collective of individuals protecting their own and collectively the lives, liberty and property of others.

That's right.






Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Rob from AR on August 25, 2009, 10:30:10 PM
Markuzick,

I really appreciate your detailed reply. In my circle, I don't really have many people to talk with these things about. I am studying your comments.

Thanks,
Rob from Arkansas
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: markuzick on August 26, 2009, 05:02:45 AM
Markuzick,

I really appreciate your detailed reply. In my circle, I don't really have many people to talk with these things about. I am studying your comments.

Thanks,
Rob from Arkansas

Please ask or argue about anything you wish, if you don't mind an unconventional perspective. It's my pleasure to engage in dialogue.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: Rob from AR on August 26, 2009, 10:03:16 AM
As for Ayn Rand, I have read 2 of her books but I don't know enough to comment about her Objectivism philosophy.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: markuzick on August 26, 2009, 06:54:21 PM
As for Ayn Rand, I have read 2 of her books but I don't know enough to comment about her Objectivism philosophy.

Atlas Shrugged is the best guide to Objectivism. I highly recommend it. Her nonfiction, with the exception of An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, are inconsistent with respect to the Objectivist moral prohibition of the initiation of the use of force.

Many of her followers have made a dogmatic religion of her every utterance and have a slavish devotion to the state, as long as it's what they interpret as minarchy - I'm not sure if it can really be called true minarchy, as it often involves extensive foreign intervention. - , mimicking her style in expressing their moral outrage at the slightest deviation from doctrine. They can get a bit creepy.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: fatcat on August 26, 2009, 07:01:09 PM
Objectivism -

Core
          Metaphysics - Awesome

          Epistemology - Awesome


Secondary
         Ethics - Not the best

         Politics - Kind broken

         Aesthetics - Not too shabby.

Also this.

It's a damn shame there were only jerk offs like Peikoff following up after Rand, who essentially cemented Rands mistep of Objectivist dogma.
Title: Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
Post by: markuzick on August 27, 2009, 02:55:59 AM

It's a damn shame there were only jerk offs like Peikoff following up after Rand, who essentially cemented Rands mistep of Objectivist dogma.

This is an example from my debate with a typical dogmatic "Objectivist:

Quote
Victimless crimes do not constitute a violation of individual rights and there should be no laws of that sort - I suspect that you already know that - so why do you throw it out there? To paint me as a supporter of violating the rights of others... an ad hominem attack?

Are you serious? Do you mean to say that you cannot recognise an argument by analogy? The only implication here is that we agree about victimless crimes in general, but that the minarchists make exceptions to this principle to support their belief in the necessity of the state. It's this idea of a "necessary evil" that I take exception to.

Interpreting an attack on one's beliefs as a personal attack is the litmus test of dogmatism.


Quote
I also do not believe that such a wrong act creates any obligation upon the state to do anything but cease its interference.
So when the state expropriates our means to feed ourselves, it has no obligation to keep us from starvation while we wait for it to cease its interference?

Quote
Your attempt to equate the initiation of violence and absence of a single set of laws for a given jurisdiction with a way to protect individual rights is absurd. A valid state's defense of individual rights is never in conflict with an individual's self-defense of individual rights.


So an enterprise that monopolizes a market by means of threats and violence, as opposed to the consent of its clients, is morally valid, so long as it protects the remaining rights of its subjects? This is the old "The end justifies the means." argument.


Quote
Advocates of anarchy will always attempt to pretend that there can be a market place for violence and see no difference between that and markets for voluntary exchange. They will continue to pretend that it makes sense to say you can have a FREE market without a set of laws protecting individual rights. They will forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy self-protection agencies and such, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that minarchy could never be possible.
The advocacy of legitimate government does not make me an anarchist.

"The reality is that the state, as it limits or destroys the legitimate government of a civilized society, substituting government by the consent of the individuals that are governed with fiat law, creates chaos, destruction of businesses and people's dreams, violence, terrorism and war, culminating in its own failure and collapse, is the essence of anarchy."

To socialists, the idea that the complexities of the production and distribution of necessities could be accomplished without regulatory supervision of the state must seem to them as much a fantasy as free market civil government does to minarchists.

Your arguments are the classic statist dismissal of the free market. If I make them broader, they go like this:

"Free market advocates forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy enterprises and their infinitely intricate relationships between themselves and the final consumer, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that successful socialism could never be possible."