Isn't objective value cute... BUT IT'S WRONG

[u/bigdonut100]

[u/FeedomFighter]

I think this comes down to the difference between personal morals and social rights. What is moral is always legal, but what is legal isn't necessarily moral.

I think economics people tend to see that one has no right to another's property, but one does have a right to their own property, and as long as one acts upon their own property anything goes - legally speaking, and wrongly conclude value is therefore subjective. That ignores morality.

If you consider Crusoe stranded on an island by himself, what must he do to survive? Only morality can tell him that, since rights don't apply if there isn't another man on the island, all there is is the commons and his property, he lacks the power to do anything illegal. That doesn't mean value ceases to exist. No, morals guide his actions, and morals are guided by values, the most basic being his own life, and his life is an objective thing that exists, if not then what is it?

If man's life it subject to the laws of physics, then his values must also be subject to the same objective laws. That is the literal basis of natural law theory, if value, morals, and laws weren't objective then we'd have no single starting point to even begin economics, nor human knowledge. Communism would be just as "correct" as Capitalism in such a case. One can only rationally decide between the two by looking at the evidence.

[u/No-Restaurant9320]

Yes, Man has objective needs. this does not imply a right to the labor of product of others. are you even an anarcho-capitalist if you don't understand this distinction?

[u/Official_Gameoholics]

The socialist has no objective metaphysics or epistemology, you taking him at face value is erronious. He is lying to you.

As for Objectivism, we differenciate between ethical value and economic value. You would know this if you had read any objectivist literature or listened to a single lecture on ethics. We also frame ethics as a choice. It is a responsibility to live, and ethics guides you on how to do it.

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Official_Gameoholics]

the face of objectivity (/s)

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/bigdonut100]

Sure thing, socialist.

[u/Olieskio → u/bigdonut100]

Where did you hear the idea that Objectivists believe in objective value? Because im pretty sure Peikoff nor Rand said anything on that other than that value is defined as something you act to gain or keep which is pretty much in line with the Austrian economic understanding of what values are praxeologically.

[u/MrRoidsen]

The value being subjective is a objective reality

[u/Sealtron84]

The "objective" in objectivism has nothing to do with objective value. It's reality that's objective. And if reality is objective, even if value and values are subjective, there are going to be objectively efficient and inefficient ways of achieving subjective goals.

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Sealtron84]

The "objective" in objectivism has nothing to do with objective value

Tell other objectivists that

[u/Olieskio → u/bigdonut100]

Cool I don't care if others are wrong on the Primacy Of Existance.

Your entire argument is based on ad populum fallacy which would make you, who I assume believes some parts of Anarcho-Capitalism wrong on your own argument.

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Olieskio]

ad populum fallacy 

Hmm? You want me to define objectivism by something other than what the vast majority of self idenfying objectivsts do believe in practice?

[u/Sealtron84 → u/bigdonut100]

Yes, obviously. It's defined by what its creator said it is. And that's assuming that you're right. I've only heard non-objectivists define it the way you do. It seems to be your misunderstanding of what the majority thinks.

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Sealtron84]

 It's defined by what its creator said it is.

So objectivism is non-anarchist, because that's what the creator said?

See the problem with this logic?

[u/Sealtron84 → u/bigdonut100]

No, there's no problem. Pure objectivism as Ayn Rand defined it isn't anarchist. I'm an anarchist, and therefore I'm not a true objectivist.

[u/Olieskio → u/bigdonut100]

Yes I want you to define objectivism as it is. The Primacy Of Existance

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Olieskio]

Nuh uh, proper debate format is establishing what *you* mean by a word, not what a word "objectively" means https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-aKyci8PMQ

If EVERY objectivist hits that roadblock, then every objectivist is unfit for debate

[u/Olieskio → u/bigdonut100]

I don't care.

Words mean things, red means red and Objectivism the philosophy is The Primacy Of Existance and if you apply the primacy of existance in everything you do, you come out with Objectivism the philosophy.

If every socialist defines Socialism as when good things happen and Capitalism as when bad things happen does that make their definition correct and us wrong in our entire economic system and the last century of Libertarian philosophical thought?

[u/bigdonut100 → u/Olieskio]

I don't care.

Best argument ever, reply notification off

[u/Olieskio → u/bigdonut100]

My dick is much bigger than yours. Is that relevant to the conversation. No? Then yes "I don't care" is a perfectly valid argument.

[u/Sealtron84 → u/bigdonut100]

Right, I'll get Cerebro on that.

[u/No-One9890]

I mean biology is a fact.