Ayn Rand is right. There is no higher state than

[Neotrotsky]

Who the fuck didn't? Seriously, the negroid was selling there own people and even some of them owned slave there selfs. It is always the white man being blamed, but he is the one that done everything in his power for over 200 fucking years to end it. NOT blacks, Arabs, Indians or any one of you mother fuckers. .

You represent conservatives well.

The state is BS.

But without it, how do we preserve our rights? Without a state strong enough to enforce them, we have none.

Correct.

Indeed, the ‘state,’ the ‘government’ are made up of people, fellow Americans who work, pay taxes, and raise families. The notion that the ‘state’ is some sort of adversarial entity is idiotic.

The Framers were aware that men could not rule other men justly, hence they created a Republic whose governments, institutions, and people were subject to the rule of law. A legal document – a contract, the Constitution – was drawn up to codify our inalienable rights and acknowledge the fact that these rights could not be abrogated.

The Federal courts were established as the venue for the people to ‘petition the Government for a redress of grievances,’ as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The petitioner would have his complaint reviewed by a judge in the context of Constitutional case law to determine if the state’s action was legal.

It is troubling and telling that many on the right are ignorant of these facts, or if aware of these facts, have contempt for the rule of law.

More troubling is that many on the Left are ignorant of the fact
that the social contract people have with gov't should be limited and controlled
so as to preserve individual liberties

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree with NeoTrotsky that he recognizes the social compact. His major concern, as is that of all libertarians, is that he can be forced to share in the social compact, which the Founders fully expected him to do but which he would refuse if he could.

NT simply fails to understand classical liberalism.

 

[editec]

What is the social contract?

It is the fetters of civilization.

Some of us get golden chains, some of us iron, but all of us, except outright criminals, are beholden to that contract.

And the vexing thing about that contract is that we were BORN into it and few of us are even asked if we're really willing to play the game by the rules imposed on us by the THREAT of retribution if we don't play by the rules.


Why do Americans LOVE movies about the wild west and the Supranos?

Because those are fantasies about people who are FREE.

 

[bripat9643]

Who the fuck didn't? Seriously, the negroid was selling there own people and even some of them owned slave there selfs. It is always the white man being blamed

It was New World slavery that brought the concept of race into the picture however, making one set of people a permanent underclass. Slavery in the past and in other parts of the world was based on social conditions like debt, criminality, war, NOT race.

That's also bullshit. The Arabs were buying black slaves for centuries before the white man ever got involved in it. Also, the Arabs enslaved white Europeans. Have you ever heard of the Barbary pirates? Do you know why European countries paid them ransom money every year?

The left is always trying to demonize America for slavery. All it shows is how ignorant they are and how much they hate America.

 

[Greenbeard]

Wow. Liberals cannot stand this discussion and keep trying to derail it into their pet fetishes. I guess being completely unable to debunk the point of Objectivism being a codified descriptor of 'freedom to and from' drives them fucking buggy.

Are you an Objectivist? I don't know that I've ever really encountered one. Certainly I've encountered right-leaning folks who embrace Rand's political conclusions and some of her pronouncements, but those people haven't fully actually subscribed to Objectivism's metaphysics or the ethical foundation on which Rand builds her support for "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism."

I've found that most of them instead subscribe to what Rand called the "mystic theory of ethics"--that is, they're usually at least nominally people of faith and not outright atheists.

"The mystic theory of ethics is explicitly based on the premise that the standard of value of man's ethics is set beyond the grave, by the laws or requirements of another, supernatural dimension, that ethics is impossible for man to practice, that it is unsuited for and opposed to man's life on earth, and that man must take the blame for it and suffer through the whole of his earthly existence, to atone for the guilt of being unable to practice the impracticable."​

I think that Objectivism has a lot of positive things to it's philosophy. But like all philosophies of man, it has flaws and is not perfect and can be abused. The OP is wrong in the dogmatic purity test he tried to apply.

I'm not really sure what you mean. Objectivism is predicated on the notion that death is the dividing line between existence and nonexistence--everything else follows from this. Rand is very clear that this fact (if you accept it as fact) is the source of all value and, indeed, that an immortal god could not have any values, no sense of good and evil. Only a living being faced with that sharp distinction and choice between existence and non-existence can have values and live by the ethical tenets she outlines. That's how she gets to fundamental conclusions like:

"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose."​

In other words, she gets to where she gets because there is no god, there is no afterlife, there is no purpose or end other than to live. That's how she arrives at her hyper-rational, hyper-literal-Darwinian view of existence and that's how she arrives at her political philosophy.

Like I said, most of the people I've seen tout Rand simply like what she says about markets and rational self-interest, they're not Objectivists and don't buy into the philosophical premises underlying her conclusions. So when you say it "has a lot of positive things to it's philosophy," what I'm hearing is "I like what Rand concludes about markets and self-interest."

Plenty of folks want to live as if there's no god and nothing beyond themselves, even though they tell themselves they believe otherwise. Rand admirers who aren't actually Objectivists tend to fall into this category.

 

[editec]

The basic premise of Objectivism as I understand it is that man is the measure of all things, and that all morality is based on the notion that how behavior impacts man determines whether it is moral or not.

I actually have no problem with that philosophy.

I have a LOT of problem with Randianism, however.

For one thing it denies what I consider an apodictic truth.

It denies the reality that mankind is first and foremost a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

It elevates the concept of the rights of the individual to absurd heights, too.

 

[bripat9643]

Correct.

Indeed, the ‘state,’ the ‘government’ are made up of people, fellow Americans who work, pay taxes, and raise families. The notion that the ‘state’ is some sort of adversarial entity is idiotic.

The Mafia is made up of people who work, pay taxes and raise families. Does that mean they aren't criminals?

In reality, government workers do not pay taxes. They merely perform a bookkeeping operation where they deduct a specified amount from the tax money they receive from the state.

The Framers were aware that men could not rule other men justly, hence they created a Republic whose governments, institutions, and people were subject to the rule of law. A legal document – a contract, the Constitution – was drawn up to codify our inalienable rights and acknowledge the fact that these rights could not be abrogated.

The Federal courts were established as the venue for the people to ‘petition the Government for a redress of grievances,’ as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The petitioner would have his complaint reviewed by a judge in the context of Constitutional case law to determine if the state’s action was legal.

It is troubling and telling that many on the right are ignorant of these facts, or if aware of these facts, have contempt for the rule of law.

Whatever the intentions of the Founders, the reality is that the state is indistinguishable from a gang of criminals who rob us and mulct us to the maximum extent possible.

It takes the ultimate in gullibility to believe the courts, staffed with flunkies beholden to the government, can give an unbiased judgement to cases before it in which the government is a party.

 

[bripat9643]

Without a state your only right, if I'm stronger than you, is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I'll leave you some scraps. Libertarians/Randists fall into two groups, those that assume they'll be in the "stronger" group and those that are blinded by talk of "liberty", not realizing that most of them will fall into the "weaker" group.

The doesn't make the state something inherently good and a good solution to all the problems of the world. Government is force. As such, it's a poor solution to any problem.

Libertarians or "Randists" do not want to abolish the state. They just want it keep in it's proper place. Your understanding of their position is based entirely on ignorance and bigotry. But then, what else can you expect from a bootlicking statist toad?

 

[kaz]

I have a LOT of problem with Randianism, however.

For one thing it denies what I consider an apodictic truth.

It denies the reality that mankind is first and foremost a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

True man is a social animal, but that doesn't contradict Rand. Rand is for personal choice, liberalism is for removal of choice. Rand leaves you to chose your social interactions, Liberalism leaves the collective to chose for you. We are not social in the same way.

It elevates the concept of the rights of the individual to absurd heights, too.

You can do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's right to do that same. That's "absurd?" How?

 

[bripat9643]

The basic premise of Objectivism as I understand it is that man is the measure of all things, and that all morality is based on the notion that how behavior impacts man determines whether it is moral or not.

I actually have no problem with that philosophy.

I have a LOT of problem with Randianism, however.

For one thing it denies what I consider an apodictic truth.

It denies the reality that mankind is first and foremost a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

It elevates the concept of the rights of the individual to absurd heights, too.

It does nothing of the sort. Government is not society. The two things are separate and distinct. It takes a special kind of servile mentality to believe they are synonymous.

 

[Intense]

The basic premise of Objectivism as I understand it is that man is the measure of all things, and that all morality is based on the notion that how behavior impacts man determines whether it is moral or not.

I actually have no problem with that philosophy.

I have a LOT of problem with Randianism, however.

For one thing it denies what I consider an apodictic truth.

It denies the reality that mankind is first and foremost a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

It elevates the concept of the rights of the individual to absurd heights, too.

I can understand how you might get those impressions, though I don't agree with them.
She did have what would appear to be contradictions, like we all do. For example, for an Atheist to believe in Conscience or Unalienable Rights.

I don't see her as anti social, as much as being a scared survivor of a Communist Revolution. The message of Anthem is in all of her writings. A read you should check out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It elevates the concept of the rights of the individual to absurd heights, too.

Or it jeopardizes the rights of the individual, by subjecting him to the capricious policy of Social Darwinism: one’s rights are predicated on his ability to successfully compete against others, not the intrinsic nature of one’s rights.

 

[Intense]

The basic premise of Objectivism as I understand it is that man is the measure of all things, and that all morality is based on the notion that how behavior impacts man determines whether it is moral or not.

I actually have no problem with that philosophy.

I have a LOT of problem with Randianism, however.

For one thing it denies what I consider an apodictic truth.

It denies the reality that mankind is first and foremost a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

It elevates the concept of the rights of the individual to absurd heights, too.

It does nothing of the sort. Government is not society. The two things are separate and distinct. It takes a special kind of servile mentality to believe they are synonymous.

Good point, if anything she was Anti-Collective, not Anti Society.

 

[Intense]

It elevates the concept of the rights of the individual to absurd heights, too.

Or it jeopardizes the rights of the individual, by subjecting him to the capricious policy of Social Darwinism: one’s rights are predicated on his ability to successfully compete against others, not the intrinsic nature of one’s rights.

I think the Board Rules include both.

 

[Big Fitz]

By 1740, the American standard of living had surpassed Europe's, and the Colonies, with only 32% the population of Great Britain, reached 50% her productivity.

Based on killing and stealing rich land and resources from Native Americans and using black slave labor.

Slavery in Britain and Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basic overview. Educate yo' dumb ass.

William Wilberforce’s Slave Trade Act 1807 abolished the slave trade in the British Empire. It was not until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that the institution finally was abolished.

 

[konradv]

Without a state your only right, if I'm stronger than you, is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I'll leave you some scraps. Libertarians/Randists fall into two groups, those that assume they'll be in the "stronger" group and those that are blinded by talk of "liberty", not realizing that most of them will fall into the "weaker" group.

The doesn't make the state something inherently good and a good solution to all the problems of the world. Government is force. As such, it's a poor solution to any problem.

Libertarians or "Randists" do not want to abolish the state. They just want it keep in it's proper place. Your understanding of their position is based entirely on ignorance and bigotry. But then, what else can you expect from a bootlicking statist toad?

So you don't want to completely do away with the state? Like I said earlier, that makes us both whores and we're just dickering over the price. That being so, I don't automatically cede to your claim of what knowing what is best for us. Libertarianism, like Marxism, has as at its core the problem of requiring a basic change in human nature to work.

 

[konradv]

The basic premise of Objectivism as I understand it is that man is the measure of all things, and that all morality is based on the notion that how behavior impacts man determines whether it is moral or not.

I actually have no problem with that philosophy.

I have a LOT of problem with Randianism, however.

For one thing it denies what I consider an apodictic truth.

It denies the reality that mankind is first and foremost a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

It elevates the concept of the rights of the individual to absurd heights, too.

It does nothing of the sort. Government is not society. The two things are separate and distinct. It takes a special kind of servile mentality to believe they are synonymous.

Government is a part of society, like religious organizations, families, corporations, academia, fraternal organizations, etc. To say its seperate and distinct is ridiculous.

 

[sparky]

can separation of truth and state be far away?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The doesn't make the state something inherently good and a good solution to all the problems of the world. Government is force. As such, it's a poor solution to any problem.

Nonsense. The ‘government’ or the ‘state’ are no more or less than what the people will either to be, government can be good or bad per the will of the people. The idiocy of perceiving the ‘government’ as some sort of separate, alien entity is delusional.

The people aren’t ruled by the ‘government,’ they’re ruled by law – which the government is subject to.

Libertarianism, like Marxism, has as at its core the problem of requiring a basic change in human nature to work.

The common denominator of all political dogma.

 

[Intense]

can separation of truth and state be far away?

Hello!