Objectivism?

[Travis Retriever]

I once read a post from Shane saying that he agreed with The Atheist Experience's evaluation of Objectivism/Objectivists, despite being about as Libertarian as you can get.
I've tried getting through that episode at least twice, but can never seen to last as little as 30 minutes through it.

So can you give me the short version of what they said that you agreed with, despite being a Libertarian?

[Gumba Masta]

Objectivism, LOL?

[MrBogosity]

I'd have to listen to it again; it's been a long time.

[Gumba Masta]

As it happens I've been rewatching the archive again!
And guess which episode?!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8584428047418862218#

YOU'RE WELCOME! *falls over, foaming from the mouth*

[Virgil0211]

As it happens I've been rewatching the archive again!
And guess which episode?!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8584428047418862218#

YOU'RE WELCOME! *falls over foaming from the mouth*

[yt]qJQwHwP0ojI&feature=related[/yt]

[MrBogosity]

Just on the first half hour so far, it seems that there are really only two points to discuss. Their response to Point #3 is valid in that there's an inherent contradiction: the principle that I think Rand was trying to bring forward was that people shouldn't be obligated to sacrifice themselves for others, but as the hosts said, she took it to far and ended up HERSELF telling people that they must behave in a certain way. Compare that to Harry Browne's book, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.

Their response to Point #4 was also valid: capitalism is ideal for whom? Apparently not Barack Obama or George W. Bush; not for the MPAA or RIAA or OPEC or any of these other cartels that wouldn't exist without government inhibiting the free market. The idea that everyone will just gravitate towards capitalism just through their own rational self-interest is wishful thinking at best.

More later.

[Travis Retriever]

Thanks for the feedback.
Well, I do agree on your first point.  However, I haven't read that book by Harry Browne, so I can't say for that.
(I will someday though).

Actually for your second point, free market capitalism IS better for everyone (remembering that individual people make up these institutions), as Mary J. Ruwart explained, in so much as people, even those who would prefer to pillage, would end up with far more wealth in the long run (you can't use money to buy wealth that hasn't been created, or inventions that haven't been invented).
However, I DO agree that just because it is better for them, doesn't mean they (people like Obama and them) will follow this "rational self interest" (as is plainly evident today), and this is a huge problem for those of us who are robbed...

[Virgil0211]

Actually for your second point, free market capitalism IS better for everyone (remembering that individual people make up these institutions), as Mary J. Ruwart explained, in so much as people, even those who would prefer to pillage, would end up with far more wealth in the long run (you can't use money to buy wealth that hasn't been created, or inventions that haven't been invented).
However, I DO agree that just because it is better for them, doesn't mean they (people like Obama and them) will follow this "rational self interest" (as is plainly evident today), and this is a huge problem for those of us who are robbed...

It also may have something to do with the more tangible short-run as opposed to the less tangible long-run. It's alot harder to see the long run, much easier to see the short run. I can taste the delicious cake right now, but I can't easily see/feel the benefits of not eating that cake in order to lose weight.

[Travis Retriever]

@Virgil0211:  That may very well be.

@Shane:  Another comment you once made was that Objectivists take things too far and make it into a moral/ethnics code.
If you remember what you meant by that, elaborating on that would be great.

Also, something that FlowCell has pointed out is that Objectivists seem to think that people shouldn't donate to charity, whether voluntary or not and that people who didn't earn the money (well, assuming by earn, she means, "worked for"), shouldn't get it.
This was also evident in a quiz about Objectivism I took on OKCupid.
That would be something I take issue with.
That is nothing wrong with charity so long as it is voluntary for all involved parties.

[Virgil0211]

Also, something that FlowCell has pointed out is that Objectivists seem to think that people shouldn't donate to charity, whether voluntary or not and that people who didn't earn the money (well, assuming by earn, she means, "worked for"), shouldn't get it.
This was also evident in a quiz about Objectivism I took on OKCupid.
That would be something I take issue with.
That is nothing wrong with charity so long as it is voluntary for all involved parties.

It's also a bit hypocritical. Rand's husband (if I remember correctly) was a starving artist who basically lived off of a stipend she gave him. She justified it by saying that she had a selfish desire to see him succeed and to make him happy, but how's that different from voluntary charity? Is she saying that one should just come to terms with their own personal motivations for performing charitable acts rather than justifying it via altruistic ethics?

[AHPMB]

Well, they're right on the score that Atlas Shrugged is a horribly written book.

[Travis Retriever]

Well, they're right on the score that Atlas Shrugged is a horribly written book.

Objectivist philosophy/ethics/economics/axioms, not Objectivist literature.

[MrBogosity]

Actually for your second point, free market capitalism IS better for everyone (remembering that individual people make up these institutions)

Not for the goons that make up those organizations. They miss out on getting a LOT of your money.

[Travis Retriever]

Not for the goons that make up those organizations. They miss out on getting a LOT of your money.

Not in the long run.
See Mary J. Ruwart's book.
The one YOU told me to read.

[MrBogosity]

Another comment you once made was that Objectivists take things too far and make it into a moral/ethnics code.
If you remember what you meant by that, elaborating on that would be great.

I'd have to remember the context of that conversation. Personally, I think Lao Tzu did a MUCH better job of making a code of ethics out of that concept.

Well, they're right on the score that Atlas Shrugged is a horribly written book.

Man, is it horrible! I'm trying to make it through it; I'm on Chapter 7, but that insipid, rambling, disjointed narrative is just too painful!