NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a strange thought and I don't know what made me think of it.

But I figured what the hell, let's post something different then the usual religion/country bashing/religion bashing/abortion/evolution/US history/US party bashing posts..

To start I don't know if I would want one by my side. Just from the couple I have seen here, it seems the philsophy is "me, me, me"

But I have to admit I don't know that much about the whole philosophy.

Discuss.....

I would if I was fighting for my own, as well as their liberty. It would be quite advantages to have one such as them by your side if that were the case.
Fighting in some random, almost pointless, war in the Mid-East, no.

I'm glad to see I'm raising some questions here. :D

At any rate, if my opinion should happen to mean anything, I would [naturally, as I'm sure anyone would be hardly surprised] argue that it would be an advantage in most circumstances because generally in a combat situation my survival depends on the survival and competent function of the people around me. Ironic, because I just got done watching Platoon.

EDIT: Undelia, if I may nitpick: one's performance in combat shouldn't be judged necessarily by the circumstances of the conflict that forced it: whether you're fighting for a just cause or for to satisfy some crazy Texan's wild itch it doesn't change the fact that if you die, you fuck up. An Objectivist [or, properly speaking, one that knows his shit] would be well aware of the possible conflicts ahead of him when he enlisted and has no logical reason to perform poorly because he doesn't like it.

The rest might depend on whether he was conscripted or not, especially considering that conscripts often lack the necessary skills for battle. Private 'Gomer Pyle' in Full Metal Jacket is a great argument against the draft.

I'm glad to see I'm raising some questions here. :D

At any rate, if my opinion should happen to mean anything, I would [naturally, as I'm sure anyone would be hardly surprised] argue that it would be an advantage in most circumstances because generally in a combat situation my survival depends on the survival and competent function of the people around me. Ironic, because I just got done watching Platoon.
lol, well, if it was you, Melkor..Yeah, I'd go in fighting. Though I suppose I'd be more of an objectivist, too.

EDIT: Undelia, if I may nitpick: one's performance in combat shouldn't be judged necessarily by the circumstances of the conflict that forced it: whether you're fighting for a just cause or for to satisfy some crazy Texan's wild itch it doesn't change the fact that if you die, you fuck up. An Objectivist [or, properly speaking, one that knows his shit] would be well aware of the possible conflicts ahead of him when he enlisted and has no logical reason to perform poorly because he doesn't like it.

Yeah, but I would prefer a neo-con at my side in Iraq over an Objectivist. They, at least, believe the garbage.

Well guys, when you fight, you don't do it for some lofty set of ideals, or for some dark political objective. You do it to ensure the safety of your brothers to the left and right of you. The guys that you have trained with, comforted after reading Dear John letters, and have grown to love for the imperfect human beings that they are. You operate and cooperate to ensure that you and your buddies come home safely. Fuck the other guy.

I'm actually a pacifist and even if I wasn't, the kind of fighting I would be doing wouldn't bring an objectivist into my group. However, if for some reason, I did have to fight along side an objectivist, I wouldn't want to. I would not want someone who follows a philosophy based on selfishness (and possibly my least favorite philosophy ever) around when risking my life.

If it were a battle being fought on our own soil to protect our liberty and economic well-being, I'd sure as hell rather fight next to an objectivist as opposed to, say, a liberal.

If it's for some fucked up foreign war that's none of our business anyways, I'll stay with the objectivists here as well, and conscientously object. ;)

To start I don't know if I would want one by my side. Just from the couple I have seen here, it seems the philsophy is "me, me, me"

But I have to admit I don't know that much about the whole philosophy.

Discuss.....
MELKOR!!!! UNCHAIN THYSELF!!!

(He just called you selfish after all!)

MELKOR!!!! UNCHAIN THYSELF!!!

(He just called you selfish after all!)
I don't have a problem with that. I am selfish. I don't happen to regard that as an insult, really. If you wanna see me at the end of my rope, check out that Rwanda thread and the Material Possesions discussion started by Oxwana :p

At any rate, if my opinion should happen to mean anything, I would [naturally, as I'm sure anyone would be hardly surprised] argue that it would be an advantage in most circumstances because generally in a combat situation my survival depends on the survival and competent function of the people around me. Ironic, because I just got done watching Platoon.


Does this mean that if I were serving with objectivsts by my side, and I went lame, they would be more likely to shoot me like a horse compared to others with different philosophical outlooks?

Secondary question: Given the objectivist's love of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, would all objectivists in war tend towards the Milo Minderbinder model?

Does this mean that if I were serving with objectivsts by my side, and I went lame, they would be more likely to shoot me like a horse compared to others with different philosophical outlooks?
Not as such, no. I think you may have misread my comment: I was trying to point out that in order to stay alive we sort of need to make sure that the people around us are functioning properly. This means [i]not running/cowering/hiding or pissing off your platoon like the trademark asshole in a lot of war movies.

It's a bit dicey for me to talk like this, since I'm sure twenty socialists will jump down my throat, but group dynamics are very important in a combat situation: going vigilante only works in movies. A proper Objectivist adheres to reality and refuses to rewrite it, and thus, would be more interested in earning the admiration of his peers rather than their derision, especially in a combat situation. Typically, if you shoot an unfortunate member of your platoon without letting the medic look at him first, that derision is a-comin'.

Typically, if you shoot an unfortunate member of your platoon without letting the medic look at him first, that derision is a-comin'.

Yes, but when the medic has looked at my horribly mangled limb and said 'this boy is going to slow us down to a crawl', then would I be more likely to be shot or abandoned by objectivists compared to say... logical-positivists?


I'll repost this here, in case it got missed in the edit-
"Secondary question: Given the objectivist's love of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, would all objectivists in war tend towards the Milo Minderbinder model?"

Someone who actually practices this belief would find it next to impossible to make it through the most basic training. As training becomes more advanced it would be even more difficult to fake your way though. So difficult one would have to abandon the practice completely. Combat is definately the wrong place to be ostracized, which would be a best case scenario. Friendly fire would be the worst case, but most likely in some types of units.

As Ayn Rand once put it, she might not save a stranger, but her husband has value to her so she would risk her life to save him. Likewise I expect the generic objectivist would be willing to risk their lives for their fellow soldiers.

As Ayn Rand once put it, she might not save a stranger, but her husband has value to her so she would risk her life to save him. Likewise I expect the generic objectivist would be willing to risk their lives for their fellow soldiers.

...but not for a random column of refugees?

To start I don't know if I would want one by my side. Just from the couple I have seen here, it seems the philsophy is "me, me, me"
Sorry if this sounds like a flame, but if the philosophy is that selfish, would an objectivist even join the army?

Sorry if this sounds like a flame, but if the philosophy is that selfish, would an objectivist even join the army?

I assume they would only do so if it was in their own best interests to do so - it might be the only way to improve their lot or remove themselves from the troublesome situation that they might currently be in. I am sure that if we picked any random non-conscript army a great deal of people in it would have joined not out of a desire to serve but because of the wages, excitement, chances for advancement or even comradeship - all of which could be reasons for an objectivist.

Yes, but when the medic has looked at my horribly mangled limb and said 'this boy is going to slow us down to a crawl', then would I be more likely to be shot or abandoned by objectivists compared to say... logical-positivists?
To tell you the truth, the soldier's reaction isn't prone to vary wildly regardless of his philosophy in a situation like this, particularly when death is a certainty if the wounded party is taken along. They don't say "War is Hell" for no reason. Generally, if it's too bad to fix on the spot and too dangerous to stay, the wounded guy is fucked.

I'll repost this here, in case it got missed in the edit-
"Secondary question: Given the objectivist's love of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, would all objectivists in war tend towards the Milo Minderbinder model?"
Is that the guy from Catch-22?

Swimmingpool: In most cases, probably not [at least, I wouldn't], unless an invasion was imminent.

In the Koyogunkan one person said, "When facing the enemy, I feel as if I have just entered darkness. Because of this I am heavily wounded. Although you have fought with many famous men, you have never been wounded. Why is that?"
The other man answered, "When I have faced the enemy, of course it is like being in the dark. But if at that time I tranquilize my mind, it becomes like a night lit by a pale moon. If I begin my attack from that point, I feel as though I will not be wounded." This is the situation at the moment of Truth.
-Hagakure

...but not for a random column of refugees?

Eh... probably not.

...but not for a random column of refugees?

Not unless the Objectivist has a strong belief that the army command structure will save him or her and the CO orders him or her to save it.

Objectivists in battle? Eh...I always decide who I want to fight with on a case-by-case basis. Most people scare when faced with death, regardless of ideology. Objectivists are no different.