NationStates Jolt Archive

I am doing a research project on how the philosophy of Ayn Rand affected the public's perception of libertarianism. I have begun by reacquainting myself with her major works, then it's off to the library. What books or papers do you suggest would be helpful?

*prays for Melkor to find this thread*

~Alan Smithee
Puppet of [Censored]~

I am doing a research project on how the philosophy of Ayn Rand affected the public's perception of libertarianism. I have begun by reacquainting myself with her major works, then it's off to the library. What books or papers do you suggest would be helpful?

*prays for Melkor to find this thread*

~Alan Smithee
Puppet of [Censored]~
You can go to the Ayn Rand Institute, it's online and they'd probably have a good reading list there.

*Um... if you wanted the Dark Lord's attention, why didn't you just TG him?

You can go to the Ayn Rand Institute, it's online and they'd probably have a good reading list there.

*Um... if you wanted the Dark Lord's attention, why didn't you just TG him?
This wasn'y made just for him, anyone with a good idea of where to look. The Ayn Rand Institute is more of a place to learn about her philosophy and current applications, but I will goover it again.

~Alan Smithee
Puppet of [Censored]~

I just bought a book buy her; In Defence of Global Capitalism. Sounds good. :)

Melkor isn't a full Randy.

Take a look at his sig. It has a link talking about Objectism.....

Melkor isn't a full Randy.AFAIK, NO real Libertarian is a full Randy. Rand's work forms a philosophical framework within which Libertarianisim has developed, but Objectivisim is not Libertarianisim.

AFAIK, NO real Libertarian is a full Randy. Rand's work forms a philosophical framework within which Libertarianisim has developed, but Objectivisim is not Libertarianisim.
Ttrue, but it's about how Objectivism changed the public's view of libertarianism, it' just finding the relavent papers.

~Alan Smithee
Puppet of [Censored]~

Ttrue, but it's about how Objectivism changed the public's view of libertarianism, it' just finding the relavent papers.

~Alan Smithee
Puppet of [Censored]~
Go gravedigging for Melkor's posts. IIRC he posted a screed about this a couple of months ago.

You could also Google "Libertarian Objectivisim" and its cognates, as well as checking Reason.org

I am doing a research project on how the philosophy of Ayn Rand affected the public's perception of libertarianism. I have begun by reacquainting myself with her major works, then it's off to the library. What books or papers do you suggest would be helpful?

*prays for Melkor to find this thread*

~Alan Smithee
Puppet of [Censored]~

Are you talking "big L" Libertarian or "little l" libertarian?

Because Rand/Objectivism predates Libertarianism in America.

If you want an example in film, the 80's chick flick Dirty Dancing has a reference where an elitist preppy guy tells a girl that "some people matter, and some don't", and hands her a copy of The Fountainhead.

AFAIK, NO real Libertarian is a full Randy. Rand's work forms a philosophical framework within which Libertarianisim has developed, but Objectivisim is not Libertarianisim.

No real Scotsman fallacy. ;)

That aside, Rand despised Libertarianism.

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to "do something." By "ideological" (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the "libertarian" hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail.

...I am profoundly opposed to today's so-called libertarian movement and to the theories of Dr. Murray Rothbard. So-called libertarians are my avowed enemies, yet I've heard many reports on their attempts to cash in on my name and mislead readers into the exact opposite of my views.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.7

I've answered the OP in private, as he did in fact TG me as suggested.

That said, Rand's hostility towards Libertarianism might be puzzling on the surface, but it makes a bit of sense when you consider that the LP's stated goal is an "amoral" government; i.e. one that doesn't favor one morality over another. Rand's problem with this, I surmise, stems from the fact that that concept is a morality whether or not the crusaders of Libertarianism are willing to call it one; my understanding of the relationship has it that Objectivism contends that Libertarianism just isn't being honest with itself.

In more than a few instances, I happen to think Rand overreacted a bit [especially in her claim that Libertarianism would seek to supplant capitalism with "anarchy"--the two entities in fact have nearly identical views on what ought to be the size and scope of our government], but a bit of that is understandable. Rand, being the über individualist that she was, probably would not have taken kindly to any following that had arisen in the wake of the publication of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.

Peter Schwartz, presumably one of Ayn Rand's cohorts, wrote an essay that appears at the very end of The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought entitled Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty. I've only read the opening bits so far, but the cheif complaint levelled against Libertarianism is that it is philosophically bankrupt, having no real, observable roots in philosophy. Objectivism essentially regards American Libertarianism as whim-worship.

Incidentally, any die-hard anti-Libertarian leftists out there might actually want to read that essay [whether you agree with it or not], as it may prove an interesting viewpoint: indeed the two camps are often perceived as being rather close to one another.

That aside, Rand despised Libertarianism.

that's cause they weren't all part of her cult and therefore objectively insane

that's cause they weren't all part of her cult and therefore objectively insane

LOL :p

that's cause they weren't all part of her cult and therefore objectively insane
Upon reading this, I am forced to admit that my eyes rolled heavenward with such vigorous intensity that I feared my optic nerves would sever, and the aforementioned ocular organs would burst from their crevices and roll about aimlessly on my floor.

Think before you type. The post immediately before yours contained an infinately more accurate discourse about why Objectivism is often hostile towards Libertarianism.

Upon reading this, I am forced to admit that my eyes rolled heavenward with such vigorous intensity that I feared my optic nerves would sever, and the aforementioned ocular organs would burst from their crevices and roll about aimlessly on my floor.

Think before you type. The post immediately before yours contained an infinately more accurate discourse about why Objectivism is often hostile towards Libertarianism.

Melky, I think it was what is commonly referred to in language discourse as a "joke".

Melky, I think it was what is commonly referred to in language discourse as a "joke".
I've previously seen Free Soviets type more ridiculous things than that--and mean it. You'll pardon me if I'm not quite prepared to put anything past him.

Check out a movie by Canadian Director Atom Egoyan: The Passion of Ayn Rand.
It profiles the adulterous love affair she had with her main disciple.

Check out a movie by Canadian Director Atom Egoyan: The Passion of Ayn Rand.
It profiles the adulterous love affair she had with her main disciple.
Nathaniel Branden?

To the extent of my decidely limited knowledge, Rand consulted her husband before initiating that particular relationship. O'Connor and Rand remained married until his death in 1979. Given that Branden and Rand's relationship was over by 1970, I would venture to guess that the relationship was a well-known one by that point. Every source I've consulted suggests that both Rand and Branden sought their spouse's approval.

I suppose technically it's still "adulterous" but I figured I'd clarify.

Check out a movie by Canadian Director Atom Egoyan: The Passion of Ayn Rand.
It profiles the adulterous love affair she had with her main disciple.
Anyone read Two Girls, Fat And Thin by Mary Gaitskill? It has a very pointed hatchet job on a political cult leader who seems to be based on Rand.

Think before you type. The post immediately before yours contained an infinately more accurate discourse about why Objectivism is often hostile towards Libertarianism.

yup. libertarians don't toe the exact line she and her cult of followers put forward as the absolute and final objective truth. this sort of thing got members of the cult excommunicated, publicly shamed, and repeatedly denounced as irrational or psychotic.

my way is shorter and funnier

yup. libertarians don't toe the exact line she and her cult of followers put forward as the absolute and final objective truth. this sort of thing got members of the cult excommunicated, publicly shamed, and repeatedly denounced as irrational or psychotic.

my way is shorter and funnier

It's a lot like Scientology, actually. Funny stuff all around. :D

It's a lot like Scientology, actually. Funny stuff all around. :D
Personality cults centred around people who think they're infallible often are, unfortunately.

Personality cults centred around people who think they're infallible often are, unfortunately.

and not just infallible - mere popes are infallible. ayn rand was the single greatest human being ever to have lived and the sole arbitrater of reason, rationality, and right and wrong.

and not just infallible - mere popes are infallible. ayn rand was the single greatest human being ever to have lived and the sole arbitrater of reason, rationality, and right and wrong.

Heheh.

"Be reasonable: Randian thought is the only way."

Is there a phrase in Russian for peer reviewed journal? That must have been lost in translation with good 'ole Ayn 'cause last time I checked works of fiction filled with anti-soviet propoganda are not considered philosophy ... Dan Brown (famous historian who has unlocked the secrets to our world) may have reviewed her works but I tend to be biased towards professors at Schlock University.

and not just infallible - mere popes are infallible. ayn rand was the single greatest human being ever to have lived and the sole arbitrater of reason, rationality, and right and wrong.
A good point: there have after all been dozens of Popes and only one Ayn Rand. (Though Robert Heinlein tried his very best to be Ayn Rand as well, he never quite managed it.)

yup. libertarians don't toe the exact line she and her cult of followers put forward as the absolute and final objective truth. this sort of thing got members of the cult excommunicated, publicly shamed, and repeatedly denounced as irrational or psychotic.

my way is shorter and funnier
I love how, since it's impossible to discredit Objectivism from a rational standpoint, it's opponents invariably resort to calling it a "cult" and denouncing it primarily on that status alone rather than its shortcomings as a philosophy. Somehow, I don't think the lot of you would be anything less than exasperated if I had accused you of, say, being in the "cult of Marx" or the "cult of Kant" or what-have you. Strictly speaking, a philosophy ought to succeed or fail on the merits [or flaws] of its ideas rather than the characteristics of its creator or its following.

Told you it wasn't a joke Kanabia.

I love how, since it's impossible to discredit Objectivism from a rational standpoint, it's opponents invariably resort to calling it a "cult" and denouncing it primarily on that status alone rather than its shortcomings as a philosophy. Somehow, I don't think the lot of you would be anything less than exasperated if I had accused you of, say, being in the "cult of Marx" or the "cult of Kant" or what-have you. Strictly speaking, a philosophy ought to succeed or fail on the merits [or flaws] of its ideas rather than the characteristics of its creator or its following.
It ought to, but Objectivism doesn't. That's why the libertarians started editing it in the first place, I'd imagine.

It ought to, but Objectivism doesn't. That's why the libertarians started editing it in the first place, I'd imagine.
Depends entirely on whether you are talking to an Objectivist or a Randian.

The Libertarans started modifying it because at the time Libertarianisim was creating its framework, Ayn was still alive and preaching.

Since her death, there are decidedly 2 schools of Objectivist thought.

I love how, since it's impossible to discredit Objectivism from a rational standpoint, it's opponents invariably resort to calling it a "cult" and denouncing it primarily on that status alone rather than its shortcomings as a philosophy. Somehow, I don't think the lot of you would be anything less than exasperated if I had accused you of, say, being in the "cult of Marx" or the "cult of Kant" or what-have you. Strictly speaking, a philosophy ought to succeed or fail on the merits [or flaws] of its ideas rather than the characteristics of its creator or its following.

Told you it wasn't a joke Kanabia.

actually, it is easily argued against from a rational standpoint too. but that's not what i'm talking about. rand was a downright irrational person in many regards. her hissy fits about libertarians certainly show that side of her. and the cultishness of 'the collective' is well known and documented.

Depends entirely on whether you are talking to an Objectivist or a Randian.

The Libertarans started modifying it because at the time Libertarianisim was creating its framework, Ayn was still alive and preaching.

Since her death, there are decidedly 2 schools of Objectivist thought.
Thank you! That's interesting. I never knew that. They aren't all rigorously adhering to Rand's principles, then?

I love how, since it's impossible to discredit Objectivism from a rational standpoint, it's opponents invariably resort to calling it a "cult" and denouncing it primarily on that status alone rather than its shortcomings as a philosophy. Somehow, I don't think the lot of you would be anything less than exasperated if I had accused you of, say, being in the "cult of Marx" or the "cult of Kant" or what-have you. Strictly speaking, a philosophy ought to succeed or fail on the merits [or flaws] of its ideas rather than the characteristics of its creator or its following.

Told you it wasn't a joke Kanabia.

Are you kidding? Rand goes wrong from the very first premise in her philosophical treatment of society, namely by saying that there was, strictly speaking, no such thing as society, only a collection of egoistic individuals. This has never in the history of humanity ever been true, and it is not true now: humans have always depended upon group solidarity and group cohesion to survive and prosper. In point of fact, if you take the connection that biologists have made between meat-eating and increased brain size in homonids seriously, and you remember that a single hominid would be virtually incapable of taking down big game, our very rationality depended on our social organization; in effect, we are rational because in Aristotle's words "Man is by nature a political [i.e. social] animal.".

Are you kidding? Rand goes wrong from the very first premise in her philosophical treatment of society, namely by saying that there was, strictly speaking, no such thing as society, only a collection of egoistic individuals. This has never in the history of humanity ever been true, and it is not true now: humans have always depended upon group solidarity and group cohesion to survive and prosper. In point of fact, if you take the connection that biologists have made between meat-eating and increased brain size in homonids seriously, and you remember that a single hominid would be virtually incapable of taking down big game, our very rationality depended on our social organization; in effect, we are rational because in Aristotle's words "Man is by nature a political [i.e. social] animal.".
Yes, but libertarians aren't having Aristotle because they have guns and can shoot big game.
And they can cast bullets and load powder into the cartridges for their assualt rifles all by themselves (extracting the saltpetre they need from their own shit) as well.

actually, it is easily argued against from a rational standpoint too. but that's not what i'm talking about.
Obviously. I'd put money on the fact that you know nothing about Objectivism beyond its endorsement of individualism and Capitalism [and any discourse you offer here will probably have been Googled immediately prior to your response]. Starting from these premises, you work backwards from that to arrive at your predetermined conclusion that it's a Bad Thing [tm].

rand was a downright irrational person in many regards. her hissy fits about libertarians certainly show that side of her.
In many regards, yes, I'm sure she was [since most of us are prone to such errors]. Philosophically, however, this would appear not to be the case.

and the cultishness of 'the collective' is well known and documented.
....by Objectivism's more vocal opponents. This is like saying "Oh, well the Democrats say the GOP is corrupt, so it must be true."

Now, the GOP probably is corrupt [as are the Democrats, more likely than not] so this comparison has its faults, but the underlying point remains. You're taking the "cultishness" of the movement for granted, ignoring the fact that it was probably devised in order to avoid being forced to discredit Objectivism as a philosophy.

Still, I suppose I can't complain--yet. Most philosophers aren't taken seriously until some time after their death. It's only been a little over 20 years in Rand's case; possibly not enough time for the ideas to sink in and be considered for what they actually are.

Since her death, there are decidedly 2 schools of Objectivist thought.

interestingly, two of the factions split precisely over the question of whether libertarians are evil and should be shunned, or if it is acceptable to work with them. though both of them hold that theirs is the 'true' interpretation of the holy writ.

Are you kidding? Rand goes wrong from the very first premise in her philosophical treatment of society, namely by saying that there was, strictly speaking, no such thing as society, only a collection of egoistic individuals. This has never in the history of humanity ever been true, and it is not true now: humans have always depended upon group solidarity and group cohesion to survive and prosper. In point of fact, if you take the connection that biologists have made between meat-eating and increased brain size in homonids seriously, and you remember that a single hominid would be virtually incapable of taking down big game, our very rationality depended on our social organization; in effect, we are rational because in Aristotle's words "Man is by nature a political [i.e. social] animal.".
This is addressed breifly in a passage of Atlas Shrugged, and dammit if I can't look it up offhand because that book is so damn monstrous I wouldn't even know where to begin. Objectivism does in fact concede that man is a "social animal," but it doesn't take this as carte blanche to allow institutions to subsidize property for the "greater good." In essence, she states that "Man is a social animal, but not in the sense the looters would have you believe," or something along those lines.

Regardless of man's social tendancies, one would have a difficult time in overlooking the fact that such gatherings are and always have been mutually beneficial to it's members: i.e. no man [be it a modern man or one of the earlier iterations] would have been very likely to join such a gathering if there was nothing in it for him. If you joina hunting tribe, it's easier to eat. If you share your knowledge with others, it's easier to live. We all know how much easier it would be to build a barn with 20 people instead of one, but this doesn't mean that man's "social" nature justifies the horrid atrocities that have been carried out under these auspices.

Rand may have been a bit hasty in her dismissal of "society" as such, it seems to me like she was, in fact, trying to define it as a "collection of individuals" rather than to replace the concept entirely. If she were planning on ignoring the term altogether, she probably wouldn't have used it to any observable extent in her later essays.

I'd put money on the fact that you know nothing about Objectivism

how much?

....by Objectivism's more vocal opponents.

as long as what you mean by that is "people who were excommunicated from the cult back in the day, or broke with peikoff over some point of dogma more recently, or have ever had a conversation with objectivists, etc".

....by Objectivism's more vocal opponents. This is like saying "Oh, well the Democrats say the GOP is corrupt, so it must be true."

Now, the GOP probably is corrupt [as are the Democrats, more likely than not] so this comparison has its faults, but the underlying point remains. You're taking the "cultishness" of the movement for granted, ignoring the fact that it was probably devised in order to avoid being forced to discredit Objectivism as a philosophy.
Except that Rand's philosophy seemed to have been secondary to her expectation that everybody should kiss her arse her arse until their lips bleed because she's right and anybody who says otherwise is just plain wrong. That's definitely the impression her fiction gives. Roark's adversaries don't even qualify as strawmen, to be honest.

interestingly, two of the factions split precisely over the question of whether libertarians are evil and should be shunned, or if it is acceptable to work with them. though both of them hold that theirs is the 'true' interpretation of the holy writ.
...and every other philosophy doesn't?

If, for example, you hold to the notion that man should be open-minded and consider other ideas, shunning those who don't, isn't that taken as a "true" interpretation of "holy writ" also? If you attempt to avoid the responsibility of acknowledging absolutes [while deploying one yourself] stating "There are no moral absolutes," isn't that what you [or anyone else] holds as a "true interpretation?"

Philosophy is [as a general rule] all about what the true interpretation actually is, leaving aside the Positivist and Nihilist schools of thought that don't even pretend to have all the answers. You're basically condemning Objectivism for doing the exact same thing every other philosophy does: having certain ideas about reality and regarding them as true.

It's not my fault we're more honest about it.

Except that Rand's philosophy seemed to have been secondary to her expectation that everybody should kiss her arse her arse until their lips bleed because she's right and anybody who says otherwise is just plain I]wrong[/I]. That's definitely the impression her fiction gives. Roark's adversaries don't even qualify as strawmen, to be honest.
For the most part, I'm less interested in defending Rand personally than I am interested in defending Objectivism. Not being her biographer, it's difficult for me to make evaluations of her character.

I'll grant that she was unusually dogmatic and was, by all accounts, an austere, generally difficult woman. She even went so far as to disallow her followers to call themselves "Objectivists," insisting that she was, in fact, the only one and that everyone else was a "student of Objectivism;" a phrase which appears quite frequently in her writings in The New Intellectual and elsewhere.

I haven't gotten very far in The Fountainhead yet so I can't answer to your allegations concerning that work, to be perfectly honest. I have a few problems with her fiction as well, but that's moot when it comes to any meaningful discussion of the philosophy itself, since it's clarified at length elsewhere in her later non-fiction.

Yes, but libertarians aren't having Aristotle because they have guns and can shoot big game.
And they can cast bullets and load powder into the cartridges for their assualt rifles all by themselves (extracting the saltpetre they need from their own shit) as well.
I wouldn't think of using my home-brew in an assault rifle. A 1911 .45, maybe. An Ingram MAC 10 in .45ACP, certainly (it was made to accept it).

Most likely though, I would simply ise it in one of my black-powder firearms.

Oh, and BTW, human shit doesn't work so well... unless you are a vegitarian... however piss is quite useful.

The general conditions necessary to the formation of saltpetre are: 1st, the presence of decaying organic matter, animal or vegetable, especially the former; 2d, an alkaline or earthy base, as potash or lime; 3d, sufficient moisture; 4th, free exposure to the oxygen of the air; and 5th, shelter from sun and rain.

These conditions are often found in nature, as in the soil of all caves, but particularly those in limestone countries; and still more frequently under a concurrence of circumstances which, though not strictly natural, is at least accidental, so far as the formation of nitre is concerned, as in cellars, stables, manure-heaps, etc.

The same salt may be found in the soil beneath stables of several years' standing, particularly if lime or ashes have been used to hasten the decomposition of the manure; also in the earth of sheep and cattle pens, if these have remained several years in the same position; also in the soil beneath manure-heaps, particularly if lime or ashes have been added to them, as is common among farmers in making compost.

JOSEPH LECONTE,
PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY AND GEOLOGY IN SOUTH CAROLINA COLLEGE 1862

http://docsouth.unc.edu/lecontesalt/leconte.html

Read it sometime.

As for the rest:

Black powder is made by mixing, by weight, 75:15:10 saltpeter:sulfur:charcoal/sugar. Willow is most often used as the source for the charcoal. Though I prefer confectioners sugar.

...and every other philosophy doesn't?

honestly, no

This is addressed breifly in a passage of Atlas Shrugged, and dammit if I can't look it up offhand because that book is so damn monstrous I wouldn't even know where to begin. Objectivism does in fact concede that man is a "social animal," but it doesn't take this as carte blanche to allow institutions to subsidize property for the "greater good." In essence, she states that "Man is a social animal, but not in the sense the looters would have you believe," or something along those lines.

Regardless of man's social tendancies, one would have a difficult time in overlooking the fact that such gatherings are and always have been mutually beneficial to it's members: i.e. no man [be it a modern man or one of the earlier iterations] would have been very likely to join such a gathering if there was nothing in it for him. If you joina hunting tribe, it's easier to eat. If you share your knowledge with others, it's easier to live. We all know how much easier it would be to build a barn with 20 people instead of one, but this doesn't mean that man's "social" nature justifies the horrid atrocities that have been carried out under these auspices.

Rand may have been a bit hasty in her dismissal of "society" as such, it seems to me like she was, in fact, trying to define it as a "collection of individuals" rather than to replace the concept entirely. If she were planning on ignoring the term altogether, she probably wouldn't have used it to any observable extent in her later essays.

That's part of the problem: the whole idea that society has carte blanche to loot its citizens property unless it adopts the most rigorous form of capitalism is nothing more than a strawman and false dichotomy. I don't deny what you say about man's needing to look out for his own interests in some sense, nor do I deny the fact that a society that never looks out for the interests of its citizens is a tyranny. But I do deny that a society that regulates its citizens use of property is one that never looks out for its citizens interests, and I also deny that capitalism always looks out for the interests of citizens. To use an example, a society that mandates that people allow city workers onto their property to install a sewer hookup, and asks for taxes to pay for it, is one that is looking out for the well-being of its citizens, because now not only are the narrow interests of the property holders served by not having to dispose of their own crap, but the larger interests of maintaining a clean and disease-free city are served as well. But this is nevertheless an abrogation of capitalism and property rights that Rand's system suggests is categorically unnacceptable, and moreover suggests that the larger social good produced by said sewer system doesn't exist or can be defined in terms of the sum total of goods that "citizen x who would have died of cholera didn't". That isn't a different definition; it's just foolish.

In short, if you want a good account of how society should work, and you believe in concepts like the common good in any sense, then Locke and Rawls are still the way to go, because Locke and Rawls can account for what makes a society in a way that Rand can't, can account for how to define the social good in a way that Rand can't, can account for a correct definition of tyranny in a way that Rand can't, and can recommend when society ought to be dissolved in favor of a new one or return to the state of nature in a way that Rand can't.

For the most part, I'm less interested in defending Rand personally than I am interested in defending Objectivism. Not being her biographer, it's difficult for me to make evaluations of her character.

I'll grant that she was unusually dogmatic and was, by all accounts, an austere, generally difficult woman. She even went so far as to disallow her followers to call themselves "Objectivists," insisting that she was, in fact, the only one and that everyone else was a "student of Objectivism;" a phrase which appears quite frequently in her writings in The New Intellectual and elsewhere.

I haven't gotten very far in The Fountainhead yet so I can't answer to your allegations concerning that work, to be perfectly honest. I have a few problems with her fiction as well, but that's moot when it comes to any meaningful discussion of the philosophy itself, since it's clarified at length elsewhere in her later non-fiction.
Fair enough, but I'm assuming that her fiction is supposed to be a honey trap to lure readers into her other work (this would have worked better if she could do characterisation, but I suppose that would have involved a sympathy for differing viewpoints that was beyond her).
And really, her arguments about objectivism sound like the worst kind of solipsism. I feel that taking arguments about how society should be run (she may have claimed to be anti-society, but she had no problem surrounding herself with brown nosers and yes men from what I've read) from somebody who feels that they are more real than the rest of the human race is probably a bad idea.

I wouldn't think of using my home-brew in an assault rifle. A 1911 .45, maybe. An Ingram MAC 10 in .45ACP, certainly (it was made to accept it).

Most likely though, I would simply ise it in one of my black-powder firearms.

Oh, and BTW, human shit doesn't work so well... unless you are a vegitarian... however piss is quite useful.



http://docsouth.unc.edu/lecontesalt/leconte.html

Read it sometime.

As for the rest:

Black powder is made by mixing, by weight, 75:15:10 saltpeter:sulfur:charcoal/sugar. Willow is most often used as the source for the charcoal. Though I prefer confectioners sugar.
I'm not that wellk up on the chemistry of gunpowder, to be honest. You can extract sulphur from urine, then?

Before anything else I'd like to say that I'm new to NationStates, this is the first post I've made on the forums, and honestly my highest goal for this post is not that it proves anything but that it even goes through and doesn't unintentionally contain some massive breech of etiquette.

Mostly I wanted to say that I'm truly impressed by the sheer number of people here who have heard of Objectivism. That in itself is better than my peers can generally offer.

On top of that, several (well, at least three) of these having-heard-of-Objectivism people also seem to know what they're talking about! It's stunning, it really is.

My especial thanks to Melkor for both knowing things about Objectivism and being able to discuss them in a dispassionate and intelligent manner. You, sir, are incredibly cool.

Again my apologies for being a bit off topic.

I'm not that wellk up on the chemistry of gunpowder, to be honest. You can extract sulphur from urine, then?
It is used to accelerate the nitrating process in nitre beds.

Sulfur can be obtained a number of (other) ways.

honestly, no
Stunning argument.

That's part of the problem: the whole idea that society has carte blanche to loot its citizens property unless it adopts the most rigorous form of capitalism is nothing more than a strawman and false dichotomy. I don't deny what you say about man's needing to look out for his own interests in some sense, nor do I deny the fact that a society that never looks out for the interests of its citizens is a tyranny. But I do deny that a society that regulates its citizens use of property is one that never looks out for its citizens interests, and I also deny that capitalism always looks out for the interests of citizens. To use an example, a society that mandates that people allow city workers onto their property to install a sewer hookup, and asks for taxes to pay for it, is one that is looking out for the well-being of its citizens, because now not only are the narrow interests of the property holders served by not having to dispose of their own crap, but the larger interests of maintaining a clean and disease-free city are served as well. But this is nevertheless an abrogation of capitalism and property rights that Rand's system suggests is categorically unnacceptable, and moreover suggests that the larger social good produced by said sewer system doesn't exist or can be defined in terms of the sum total of goods that "citizen x who would have died of cholera didn't". That isn't a different definition; it's just foolish.
I suppose, then, we must address what we consider to be the fundamental purpose of Government: neither I nor Rand would ever be prepared to suggest that it's the Government's responsibility to protect its citizens from nature i.e. cholera or any other phenomenon that might be prevented by the use of subsidized sewers.


In short, if you want a good account of how society should work, and you believe in concepts like the common good in any sense, then Locke and Rawls are still the way to go, because Locke and Rawls can account for what makes a society in a way that Rand can't, can account for how to define the social good in a way that Rand can't, can account for a correct definition of tyranny in a way that Rand can't, and can recommend when society ought to be dissolved in favor of a new one or return to the state of nature in a way that Rand can't.
Rand pretty clearly defines what "makes a society:" a collection of Individuals. Rand has defined [albeit implicitly] the "social good" as being a system that allows people ot act on their own rational desires without harming other men, even though she didn't use the term. Rand accounts for a correct definition of tyranny in the sense that it's generally a matter of degrees: tyranny is any system that permits man no control over his rational action, his thought, or the product of either [the extent to which said control is restricted varies from government to government]. On the latter I can only note that a "return to nature" would presuppose that we should destroy every tool which brought us out of it, which is a fairly ridiculous proposition since we're a lot better off today than we were 20,000 years ago.

Locke I can understand for the most part, but Rawls just makes me retch.

I suppose, then, we must address what we consider to be the fundamental purpose of Government: neither I nor Rand would ever be prepared to suggest that it's the Government's responsibility to protect its citizens from nature i.e. cholera or any other phenomenon that might be prevented by the use of subsidized sewers.
No, it's the function of government to protect its citizens from those capitalist interests who'd like to see the citizenry doing shitwork for terrible wages: Rand wouldn't have given a fuck about that if she got cheap trainers out of it, though.



Rand pretty clearly defines what "makes a society:" a collection of Individuals. Rand has defined [albeit implicitly] the "social good" as being a system that allows people ot act on their own rational desires without harming other men, even though she didn't use the term. Rand accounts for a correct definition of tyranny in the sense that it's generally a matter of degrees: tyranny is any system that permits man no control over his rational action, his thought, or the product of either [the extent to which said control is restricted varies from government to government]. On the latter I can only note that a "return to nature" would presuppose that we should destroy every tool which brought us out of it, which is a fairly ridiculous proposition since we're a lot better off today than we were 20,000 years ago.

Locke I can understand for the most part, but Rawls just makes me retch.
This system doesn't work when Rand is the only person who is allowed to define what is and isn't rational, and she spent a lot of time arguing that she was, iirc.

Stunning argument.

the assertion was so absurd that argument is not needed. what other philosophies exist which have a god-figure whose works and personal oddities are used as a basis to denounce heretics? the closest thing you'll get are the various marxist sects, which themselves are quite cultish - especially when they add extra dieties to the pantheon.

Locke I can understand for the most part, but Rawls just makes me retch. :D

I do like the extended premise of "Just & Unjust Wars" though... ;)

the assertion was so absurd that argument is not needed.
How quaint. Did you even read the rest of the post? Whether or not you did, you clearly didn't understand it. Give me a call when you graduate.

what other philosophies exist which have a god-figure whose works and personal oddities are used as a basis to denounce heretics? the closest thing you'll get are the various marxist sects, which themselves are quite cultish - especially when they add extra dieties to the pantheon.
I don't regard Rand as a "god-figure" by any stretch, I simply acknowledge that she came to a lot of the same conclusions I did. I didn't read Rand with a gaping mouth saying "Gee, I never thought of it that way;" I read Rand with an almost perpetual nod and a "Damn right." Rand didn't change my mind about anything, she simply gave a name to a philosophy I had been following for my entire life without knowing it. I don't owe her any debt of worship for revealing reality to me: my mind did that itself long before I even knew who Ayn Rand was. I can't speak for other Objectivists of course, but this argument--when taken in the context of my character, my knowledge and values--is nothing short of ridiculous.

the assertion was so absurd that argument is not needed. what other philosophies exist which have a god-figure whose works and personal oddities are used as a basis to denounce heretics? the closest thing you'll get are the various marxist sects, which themselves are quite cultish - especially when they add extra dieties to the pantheon.
Stalinism bothers me: I find it astonishing that anybody still defends that nonsense now that the bugger isn't around to send them to a gulag.

...Mostly I wanted to say that I'm truly impressed by the sheer number of people here who have heard of Objectivism. That in itself is better than my peers can generally offer.
It's a relatively new phenomenon here. I like to think I've brought Objectivism into the NS mainstream, since people seldom discussed it before my arrival [from what I can tell] but do so regularly now. I'm pretty proud of that.

Capitalism always looks out for it’s citizens, because true capitalism is market driven. It doesn’t get more basic than that, because capitalism mirrors what they people want. More so than any other system alive. This is because a free market caters to the whim of the people, not the whim of a government, however “socially minded” it may be. People complain about organizations such as Wal-Mart that has no union, and Nike who uses child workers. Yet individuals still buy those products. I can promise you that the instant the people in large numbers decide to stop buying Nike shoes, or stop shopping at
Wal-Mart, is the instant in which those two companies start providing more benefits. Yet people don’t want to pay high prices, so hence people suffer. It is due to mans inherently selfish nature, that things like this happen. Thus people who want low prices and want to be “socially minded” have the government intervene, a classic case of having your cake and eating it too.

Any government that is not forbidden from intervening in the economy, will always do so in some small way or manner. For those of you who say capitalism has failed, it has never been given a pure chance. It has always had clinging loafers since the beginning.

Now about the sewer system, I think that it’s great that there is a sewer system, I also think that same would happen under a government that id nothing. Why? Because people wouldn’t want to walk around in there own fecal matter, people would want in door plumbing, people would want sewer systems. Enter Entrepreneur 1#. He makes the system manages it for a profit, and people use it. If he doesn’t do a good job, or if people think he costs to much, than Entrepreneur 2# can do it for less and better quality, or people can go back to chamber pots.

Now you say having the sewer system fueled by taxes being negated is foolish. And I say not so. Perhaps the lives saved in this instant will be for the best. However the government, having seen it can stick its grubby fingers in this portion of peoples lives will then begin to stick them in others. Yes if there were no sewer system people would die. But at least I wouldn’t have the government with a chokehold around my lively hood and my freedom.

On response to Objectivism being a cult, I would like to wonder how it got out so fast. I mean I had to give my arm away for the membership card. Did you guys see one of hidden rituals where we chant naked around a burn effigy of Aristotle?

In all seriousness cults involve a lack of reality. Something that objectivism generally frowns upon.

And Melkor, as always I am overawed by your sense of right and wrong.

And wow do people reply fast here

Capitalism always looks out for it’s citizens, because true capitalism is market driven. It doesn’t get more basic than that, because capitalism mirrors what they people want. More so than any other system alive. This is because a free market caters to the whim of the people, not the whim of a government, however “socially minded” it may be. People complain about organizations such as Wal-Mart that has no union, and Nike who uses child workers. Yet individuals still buy those products. I can promise you that the instant the people in large numbers decide to stop buying Nike shoes, or stop shopping at
Wal-Mart, is the instant in which those two companies start providing more benefits. Yet people don’t want to pay high prices, so hence people suffer. It is due to mans inherently selfish nature, that things like this happen. Thus people who want low prices and want to be “socially minded” have the government intervene, a classic case of having your cake and eating it too.
I wouldn't have any problem paying higher prices for products that don't involve a ten year old working a fifty or sixty hour week for less than I get paid for a couple of hours, but then I'm not an American.

I don't regard Rand as a "god-figure" by any stretch

that's nice, but we're talking about the rand cult. you might honestly not be part of it, but it most definitely exists and acts in exactly the ways i've been talking about. in fact, that is all i've been talking about in this whole thread.

In all seriousness cults involve a lack of reality. Something that objectivism generally frowns upon.

dude, smoking cigarettes was considered a moral obligation.

that's nice, but we're talking about the rand cult. you might honestly not be part of it, but it most definitely exists and acts in exactly the ways i've been talking about. in fact, that is all i've been talking about in this whole thread.
And my argument is that your definition of "cult" is a spurious one, since "cult" typically presupposes a religion to follow or some sort of other spiritual [rather than intellectual] equivalent. I wouldn't, for example, go so far as to call Marxism a "cult" simply because its adherants follow the ideas of Marx anymore than you ought to call Objectivism a "cult" for following the ideas of Rand. Communism and Objectivism are decidedly secular philosophies, not religions, which prevents them from being "cults" as such.

The "cult" attack, as I have mentioned earlier, is a poorly conceived attempt to avoid reconciling Objectivism's actual philosophy, which I've noticed you've not bothered to attack, despite the professed ease with which it can be done. Xenophobialand made a much better show of it, and he even had the intellectual fortitude to avoid discrediting the entire movement simply because it's supposedly a "cult."

Again, if you're going to attack a philosophy, attack the philosophy, not its following. By your rationale, I could discredit Marxism by pointing out that a large number of its adherants are youthful, and haven't been forced yet to provide for themselves.

While this may be a valid point to make under certain circumstances [as your comments on the nature of Rand's following may be], neither the above supposition or yours is a satisfactory endictment of the ideas upon which either philosophy rests.

If your argument is that Rand's followers regard her as ultimately correct or "infallible" , the onus is on you to explain why students of [i]other schools of thought aren't falling into the same trap by endorsing the ideas of any other philosopher as being ultimately true and valid.

the assertion was so absurd that argument is not needed. what other philosophies exist which have a god-figure whose works and personal oddities are used as a basis to denounce heretics? the closest thing you'll get are the various marxist sects, which themselves are quite cultish - especially when they add extra dieties to the pantheon.
Not that you would care to read somthing from a non-anarchist/indymedia site, but perhaps you should take a bit of time to research:

http://www.reason.com/0503/fe.cy.ayn.shtml

In recent years, at last, some analysis of Rand has appeared that is neither uncritical adulation nor unrelenting bashing. Some of it has come from unorthodox neo-Objectivists, such as the feminist scholar Mimi Gladstein or the political philosopher Chris Matthew Sciabarra. (The two edited the 1999 book Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, and Sciabarra wrote 1996’s controversial Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical.) The five-year-old Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, co-founded by Sciabarra, often features essays by mainstream intellectuals that treat Rand’s legacy in a non-hagiographic way. Two controversial books about Rand the person remain a good place to start for an understanding, but not adulatory, look at her life and work: The Passion of Ayn Rand (1986) by Barbara Branden, no doubt the first-ever sympathetic biography whose subject slept with the biographer’s husband, and Judgment Day: My Years With Ayn Rand (1989) by Nathaniel Branden, the husband in question.

... In the 21st century, as we face Islamist terrorism abroad and when public discourse at home often seems dominated by religious conservatism on the right and politically correct pieties on the left, Rand’s message of reason and liberty, if it’s stripped of its odder features, could be a rallying point for what the neo-Objectivist philosopher David Kelley, who runs the Objectivist Center, calls “Enlightenment-based values.”

The Objectivist Center ( http://www.objectivistcenter.org ) and its study wing ( http://www.objectivistcenter.org/obj-studies/ ) are explicitly anti-Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) and the/her cult of personality. See TOC vs ARI: A question of objectivity and independence. (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-558-The_Objectivist_Center_Objectivity_Independence.aspx)

It's a relatively new phenomenon here. I like to think I've brought Objectivism into the NS mainstream, since people seldom discussed it before my arrival [from what I can tell] but do so regularly now. I'm pretty proud of that.
Yay Melkor! ;)

Again, if you're going to attack a philosophy, attack the philosophy, not its following.

but what about if you want to make fun of the leader of said philosophy's irrational attacks on what by any reasonable standard would make close allies?

i know you like to read what you wish had been said, but this whole affair is rather sad. the cultishness isn't really disputable, and it made for the context of my original one-liner. that was the entirety of my interest in this topic.

Not that you would care to read somthing from a non-anarchist/indymedia site, but perhaps you should take a bit of time to research

yeah, because i only read anarchist lit...

what would i need to research exactly? that it is possible to like rand's ideas without falling into the cult? why would that take research? and what would that have to do with anything i've said in this thread?

May I ask a question of any Objectivists here?

What do you think of the Ayn Rand Institute? To me, it seems like they're doing quite a few things that don't seem like what Rand was supporting. For instance, their support of the war in Iraq and comparisions to WWII, when Rand was against most of the wars in her time, I had thought, and how they've talked about dying for freedom(other people's, that is), when Rand wasn't so big on that sort of thing.
It sounds to me like the ARI is twisting Rand's words, am I misinterpreting them?

I suppose, then, we must address what we consider to be the fundamental purpose of Government: neither I nor Rand would ever be prepared to suggest that it's the Government's responsibility to protect its citizens from nature i.e. cholera or any other phenomenon that might be prevented by the use of subsidized sewers.

To which I would reply that such a response is completely goofy, and ought in normal circumstances to send warning bells off in your head. A government that does not help it's citizens deal with the elements, disease, the weather, etc. is a government that does not uphold it's obligation to serve the general welfare, the first obligation of government, and ought to be abolished in favor of one that does. Moreover, capitalism cannot function properly in such a society, as capitalism depends upon a heathy, stable workforce and healthy, stable consumers.


Rand pretty clearly defines what "makes a society:" a collection of Individuals. Rand has defined [albeit implicitly] the "social good" as being a system that allows people ot act on their own rational desires without harming other men, even though she didn't use the term. Rand accounts for a correct definition of tyranny in the sense that it's generally a matter of degrees: tyranny is any system that permits man no control over his rational action, his thought, or the product of either [the extent to which said control is restricted varies from government to government]. On the latter I can only note that a "return to nature" would presuppose that we should destroy every tool which brought us out of it, which is a fairly ridiculous proposition since we're a lot better off today than we were 20,000 years ago.

Just a quick note before I go to the meat of the quote: there would be tool use in the state of nature, and man could use whatever he could procure and defend. A return to the state of nature refers not to a return to caveman living, but a return to an anarchical state.

The real problem, however, with that quote is that under that definition of tyranny, capitalism is a severely tyrannical system. Capitalism doesn't allow the masses control over their rational action, because they are compelled by threat of starvation to bow to the wish of those who control the means of production. That's a good description of duress if ever I heard it. It allows man no control over the products of his labor, ideological, material, or otherwise. That is precisely why we need government intervention into the market system: to prevent unequal distribution of the means of production to lead to the enslavement of the greater number of men by those who have control over the system, not to mention preventing the forcible revolt of said working class. Historically we have seen that given such government intervention results in just the sort of "social good" that you are talking about.


Locke I can understand for the most part, but Rawls just makes me retch.

That's a pity. Rawls is an absolutely brilliant read.

And my argument is that your definition of "cult" is a spurious one, since "cult" typically presupposes a religion to follow or some sort of other spiritual [rather than intellectual] equivalent.

what do you make of the term "cult of personality"?

May I ask a question of any Objectivists here?

What do you think of the Ayn Rand Institute? To me, it seems like they're doing quite a few things that don't seem like what Rand was supporting. For instance, their support of the war in Iraq and comparisions to WWII, when Rand was against most of the wars in her time, I had thought, and how they've talked about dying for freedom(other people's, that is), when Rand wasn't so big on that sort of thing.
It sounds to me like the ARI is twisting Rand's words, am I misinterpreting them?
See above. While I am not a member of TOC, I take their "side" in the ARI "debate".

what do you make of the term "cult of personality"?
Which is not a requirement to be an Objectivist - though its existence at ARI certainly seems to be your excuse to dismiss the entire philosophy. :rolleyes:

Which is not a requirement to be an Objectivist - though its existence at ARI certainly seems to be your excuse to dismiss the entire philosophy. :rolleyes:

if i were to get into an argument about objectivism itself, rather than merely making fun of its cult as has been my sole intention here, i would probably talk about is and ought and the gap between.

if i were to get into an argument about objectivism itself, rather than merely making fun of its cult as has been my sole intention here, i would probably talk about is and ought and the gap between.
Well, at least you've admitted you are Trolling.

Well, at least you've admitted you are Trolling.
Zing!

Well, at least you've admitted you are Trolling.

nah. not under a normal definition of trolling anyway. merely mocking the rightfully mocked. and then looking on is amazement as melky once again apparently reads words that i can't find written anywhere in the thread.

bit of backtracking:

Philosophy is [as a general rule] all about what the true interpretation actually is

'true' interpretation of what, exactly?

The Objectivist Center is amazing - I just followed the link posted somewhere above, and it's a great site. I like it much better than ARI. More rich, interesting, and dynamic.

'true' interpretation of what, exactly?
Metaphysics. Ethics. Epistemology.

EDIT:

nah. not under a normal definition of trolling anyway. merely mocking the rightfully mocked.
Actually, yes. If you post in the thread without any intention of contributing in a meaningful capacity [which, incidentally, doesn't include "making fun" of people] and simply to get a rise out of folks, presumably myself and anyone else who should happen to agree with Rand, you are trolling. If you're this unfamiliar with the definition, you may want to brush up on the terminology again, lest you commit a more egregious breach. I mean, warning you for this would be pretty silly [not to mention illegal, as it probably constitutes self-moderation], but this is the kind of thing people get banned for all the time, albeit in more serious degrees. Granted, you're not going around saying things like "Lets kill all homosexuals" or some other, more blatant form of trolling, but what you are doing here clearly qualifies, so long as you're not interested in actual discussion, which seems to be the case.

and then looking on is amazement as melky once again apparently reads words that i can't find written anywhere in the thread.
Perhaps I was hasty in assuming that you actually intended for a meaningful discourse on the philosophy; your attack on Rand's "cult" seemed to be a primative attempt to discredit the philosophy, and I probably ascribed nobler motives to you than you actually deserved. Silly me.

The Objectivist Center is amazing - I just followed the link posted somewhere above, and it's a great site. I like it much better than ARI. More rich, interesting, and dynamic.
And it's not a cult center. Go figure. ;)

And it's not a cult center. Go figure. ;)
It is so a cult center.
Remember, the definition of cult is: "Any philosophical/religious/cultural group that disputes with your personally held philosophical/religious/cultural values."
So, Catholicism, cult; I Love Alpacas, cult; Oprah's Book of the Month Club, cult; etc.

Metaphysics. Ethics. Epistemology.

see, in my experience, philosophers don't argue about the 'true interpretation' of epistemology or ethics or whatever. we argue about whether some particular position is logically valid, whether it fits with other knowledge and beliefs we hold, etc. but not whether hume, blessing be upon him, in his laying out of everything there is to know actually meant a or really meant b, and then severing ties with and denouncing those that choose 'wrong'.

the closest you'll get to 'true interpretation' are those arguing for what they consider the 'correct interpretation' of a work by some other philosopher (by which they mean 'what philosopher x meant to hold'), or 'better interpretations' that allow the framework to be used despite problems or in slightly different ways. but truth, if it exists, is not typically taken to be something that we uncover already written down in the works of a single person. philosophy is a several thousand year old conversation, not a pronouncement from on high. especially since any such pronouncement is invariably shot full of holes; it's the one thing philosophy can actually claim to have accomplished - we're very good at figuring out where things go wrong.

Actually, yes. If you post in the thread...simply to get a rise out of folks...

it's hardly my fault that you rose when presented with a humorous reference to the objective fact that rand was the leader of a cult as an explanation for why she despised libertarians. now you can argue that there are solid philosophical reasons why the cult hated libertarians, i guess. but then one quickly runs into the small problem of rand openly endorsing authoritarian republicans.

the whole thing looks to me exactly like whacked-out fundie denounciations of mainstream christians, or the various purges the tiny little commie groups keep performing. sure, some sort of justification can be found within the beliefs of the group. but the behavior itself is suspect, and to an outsider, funny.

"whatever happened to the popular front, reg?"
"he's over there"
"splitter!"

Perhaps I was hasty in assuming that you actually intended for a meaningful discourse on the philosophy; your attack on Rand's "cult" seemed to be a primative attempt to discredit the philosophy, and I probably ascribed nobler motives to you than you actually deserved. Silly me.

why would i use fallacious reasoning to attack a philosophy that both gets so many premises wrong and then invalidly uses some of them to conclude an ought from a (false) is? at best, parts of objectivist conclusions are philosophically defendable, but often the reasoning that lead to them isn't or was done better by others.

when an opening for a one-liner (found to be funny by others, no less) appears, you take it. it's not a big mystery.

also, assuming me to be using a fallacious argument is not the charitable way to start a discussion, nor is it an example of ascribing nobler motives. especially when no argument was presented and none required. in fact, it's rather bad form.

I Love Alpacas

everyone knows that vicuñas are the one true camel of south america. you are clearly irrational and must never be spoken to again.

everyone knows that vicuñas are the one true camel of south america. you are clearly irrational and must never be spoken to again.
I don't love alpacas (that is why I Love Alpacas is a cult): me and alpacas had a short, tumultuos relationship, and then agreed to see other people.

me and alpacas had a...relationship

so you admit it! burn the heretic!

so you admit it! burn the heretic!
Alpacalover . . . ophobe . . . thingy . . . person! You cannot oppress the one true South American Ungulate! The pathetic vicuñas will all fall before the mighty master alpaca race!
Raise the black flag, brothers, this crusade is on!