This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Trying to identify with what "ism" I can best connect with....Objectivism/Fascism/Etc

23 posts in this topic

As hard as it may be to believe, I actually read and consider what folks are trying to say in their posts in this subforum.


Trying to grow/etc.


Something I have wanted to do for awhile is determine what "ism" I best Identify with.


So far this is one of my favorites. (but I have some issues with it)



Rand's defense of individual liberty integrates elements from her entire philosophy.[57] Since reason is the means of human knowledge, it is therefore each person's most fundamental means of survival and is necessary to the achievement of values.[58] The use or threat of force neutralizes the practical effect of an individual's reason, whether the force originates from the state or from a criminal. According to Rand, "man's mind will not function at the point of a gun."[59] Therefore, the only type of organized human behavior consistent with the operation of reason is that of voluntary cooperation. Persuasion is the method of reason. By its nature, the overtly irrational cannot rely on the use of persuasion and must ultimately resort to force to prevail.[60] Thus, Rand saw reason and freedom as correlates, just as she saw mysticism and force as corollaries.[61] Based on this understanding of the role of reason, Objectivists hold that the initiation of physical force against the will of another is immoral,[62] as are indirect initiations of force through threats,[63] fraud,[64] or breach of contract.[65] The use of defensive or retaliatory force, on the other hand, is appropriate.[66]




Objectivism holds that because the opportunity to use reason without the initiation of force is necessary to achieve moral values, each individual has an inalienable moral right to act as his own judgment directs and to keep the product of his effort. Peikoff, explaining the basis of rights, stated, "In content, as the founding fathers recognized, there is one fundamental right, which has several major derivatives. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its major derivatives are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness."[67] "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."[68] These rights are specifically understood to be rights to action, not to specific results or objects, and the obligations created by rights are negative in nature: each individual must refrain from violating the rights of others.[69] Objectivists reject alternative notions of rights, such as positive rights,[70] collective rights, or animal rights.[71] Objectivism holds that the only social system which fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism,[72] specifically what Rand described as "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism."[73] Objectivism regards capitalism as the social system which is most beneficial to the poor, but that this isn't its primary justification.[74] Rather, it is the only moral social system. Objectivism maintains that only societies seeking to establish freedom (or free nations) have a right to self-determination.[75]




Sadly it starts to fall apart here. Sure if everyone was moral, regulation would be unneeded in Capitalism, we all know that everyone isn't bound by the same morals.

Objectivism views government as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws;" thus, government is both legitimate and critically important[76] in order to protect individual rights.[77] Rand opposed so-called "anarchism," because she saw putting police and courts on the market as an inherent miscarriage of justice.."[78] Objectivism holds that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws," the executive, and legislatures.[79] Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens"[80] and it must act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.[81] Prominent Objectivists Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook have since expressed support for other government functions.[82][83]




I wish it would get into "common good" projects (roads/mail/etc). 

the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens"[80] and it must act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws 

Love that.




Rand argued that limited intellectual property monopolies being granted to certain inventors and artists on a first-to-file basis are moral because she viewed all property as fundamentally intellectual. Furthermore, the value of a commercial product comes in part from the necessary work of its inventors. However, Rand viewed limits on patents and copyrights as important and held that if they were granted in perpetuity, it would necessarily lead to de facto collectivism.



I understand this as patent right is protected for a time limit then open to the public? I could actually get behind that as well. 




Rand opposed racism and any legal application of racism. She considered affirmative action to be an example of legal racism.[84] Rand advocated the right to legal abortion.[85]Rand believed capital punishment is morally justified as retribution against a murderer, but dangerous due to the risk of mistakenly executing innocent people and opening the door to state murder. She therefore said she opposed capital punishment "on epistemological, not moral, grounds."[86] She opposed involuntary military conscription, but also thought those who avoided being drafted should be held criminally liable.[87] She opposed any form of censorship, including legal restrictions on pornographyopinion or worship, famousy quipping; "In the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners".[88][89]




Like most of that too.


Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly supported by both liberals and conservatives, including antitrust laws,[90] the minimum wagepublic education,[91] and existing child labor laws.[92] Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives,[93] displaying religious symbols in government facilities,[94] and the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools.[95] Maintaining that it should be phased out gradually, Rand opposed taxation as she considered it theft and an endorsement of force over reason.[96][97]





It loses me here a great deal. Anti-Trust laws should be there to protect the market, min wage fights exploitation, pub ed gets peoples learns on, I'm "meh" on religous symbols unless they are state funded with would be wrong (sep church and state), some Taxation is needed. 




I wanted to link the thread we had on Facism (mmmmBeans and PhillyB added some cool stuff to it I'll see if I can find.


It's been very enlightening to find the real meaning behind some of the boogieman words like Facism, Socialism, Communism, etc.

3 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm a big fan of liberalism.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you're at home a lot now days with the baby. Yale classes online are awesome in figuring out where you stand.  I'm watching one on Philosophy and science of human nature. It's really pushing me on moral issues.



I think MIT and Harvard offer free courses as well.


2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the notable reasons for people's resistance to looking more into Objectivism.

If one thinks that Objectivism is some kind of "voluntary niceness" program then he misses the point.


Objectivism supports a free system which includes protections from those who would "force" others.

As long as individuals are left free to deal with one and other by voluntary choice, then no harm

can be done and the best conditions possible for human existance are created. 


This is a simplification of the whole system, but it is a fair simplification.


It takes a sharp thinker to understand the whole set of ideas,,,,,, and it's work to think.


[email protected]

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites