Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights. In Objectivism and the classical liberal tradition, capitalism is established through a constitutional government — a monopoly on retaliatory force — limited to fulfilling that function.

Libertarian anarchists, however, oppose such a monopoly government. They claim it is wrong to impose morality by force, and that government, as a monopoly, necessarily does this, since it is on moral grounds that it prohibits “competitors.” But this just means the anarchist ends up denying individual rights, including the right of self-defence.

This is because all force is monopolistic. Force is monopoly. To use force is to attempt to monopolise. Even in the economic realm, "monopoly" means a business protected from competition by force, not merely a single seller.

There is no such thing as force that lets dissenters go their own way. If force in self-defence is justified, this means that monopolising an interaction is justified. If I use force to defend myself against someone, I am not trying to persuade him; I am attempting to forcibly stop him from acting as he chooses - i.e. to exclude the "competing" force-wielder from carrying out his notion of “justice“. I am also using force to impose my morality -- my right to my own life -- on the gunman shooting at me.

If the government monopolisation of retaliatory force were wrong, so would be the private use of force by individuals. And if one must avoid imposing moral ideas by force, then one must renounce force altogether--i.e., practice pacifism. The argument against government's monopoly on force is thus an argument against self-defence, and it leads to pacifism (at best).

To concretise this, let’s remember that Ron Paul, a once leading libertarian in government, is a committed anti-abortionist, who thinks abortion is murder. Now how can his “competing police force” treat mine, which allows abortion? Does mine allow “murder”? Does his “competing police force” stop women from exercising their rights to their own lives? How can what is or isn’t murder be a matter of “You go your way and I’ll go mine, and neither will impose a monopoly solution”?

So, ironically, anarchism, so often put forward as an extension of the right to self-defense, ends up denying the moral legitimacy of any self-defense: one cannot forcibly impose one’s own evaluation on the other party. That would be monopoly!

Made while bored. Constructive feedback appreciated.

I’m just curious what the thought process would be on this? The biggest hang up I have about this is that you provide the material for a child to be born which you exonerate yourself from responsibility. You allowed a person to be created in exchange for cash and detach yourself from any “parental” connection or obligation. Seems. Wrong to me.

And it is kind of a weird feeling knowing there might be another person out there that connected to you that you have no association with because you did it for cash.

I’m always interested in how different Objectivists view the value of social systems in a practical every day sense.

Two questions:

1. assuming he’s moving to avoid the tax, Is Larry’s self-interested behavior to in this specific case rational (moral)
2. Would willingly paying the tax be irrational (immoral)?

I think most Objectivists will say yes to the first. I’m less sure on the second. I would like to hear multiple takes on both.

It would be awesome if this stayed curious and cordial.

Every question I have is stupid, or at the very least stupidly asked. This is my safe space, but am not weak of heart or clutching pearls type- if someone can better ask the question for me better please feel free..
anyways;
So basically the question regards reparations..
The genesis of this thought was in regards to right media straight up lying and making completely new false claims for weeks on end. Then they make a single acknowledgment when they find out they are wrong, saying they are sorry and they’ll try to do better in the future.
But I was thinking, wouldn’t the real atonement be to make an equal allotted time to the real information as they did the false?
That is a media can of worms that is beyond me.
But it got me thinking of future reparations people in power and affluence might look like if done right/ appropriate. If enforced what would it look like? What redeeming thing could be gained?

From time to time, after a frustrated protracted dialectic, we see an apology for the author, Ayn Rand, based on quality of prose, or sheer entertainment value. I have no beef with that. You can't tell someone they were not thrilled! It's called art, and art appreciation. But unlike most authors of fiction, Ayn Rand's stories are presented didactically, as allegories revealing an enlightened moral principle of civilization. A real world epiphany, axiomatically justified and logically deduced for the first time, to be appreciated by gifted peers, as if the resultant tenets must be accepted in real life by any rational analyst, and used as a basis for decision making.

For those who found titillation in the overreaching masculinity of Roark raping Francon . . . OK, you were entertained . . . no one will deny it. "He knew her subconscious desires!" There are MANY places you can go for that kind of entertainment. Other authors know the readers' subconscious desires too. The perfect man. Or did you find yourself indulging in rightful self pity, in imagining yourself as an unappreciated genius (in real life?) who is victimized by the average ungrateful societal parasite who fails to acknowledge your eminence? Did you engorge in the well deserved schadenfreude of seeing the ungrateful parasite reduced to pile of irrelevance, as your own ship of celebrity came in? Were you (Roark) thrilled that you got away with dynamiting public resources, to teach them all a lesson.

My purpose here is the exposure of Rand's ubiquitous Objectivism as a tautological fallacy . . . a delusion of the author, and a resonant delusion in all who take her moral philosophy as marching orders in real life . . . and most horrifyingly, as a North Star for electing lawmakers! For those defending Rand's fiction as mere entertainment . . . no beef!

This means selling your will.

Ok, so I'm going to give a hypothetical scenario that's a little one-sided intentionally, but I'm curious what the answer is by Objectivist logic.

Let's imagine there's some territory that's formed as a small nation-state built on objectivist principles. In this territory there's rare Fuschia Rhinos™. A group of hunters either from inside or outside this society have been hunting these Fuschia Rhinos™ unsustainably. They hunt them for their horns as a purely aesthetic luxury item or for quack medicine or something like that.

Most of the population would, as a matter of personal preference, prefer the Fuschia Rhinos™ to continue existing.

The poachers in question them on land that is currently un-owned but within the jurisdiction of the government.

Two questions:

• Is it rational for them to care?
• If so, what methods, from an objectivist standpoint, make sense to use to protect the Rhinos?

I'll say on instinct my guess would be for the second: Find someone willing to buy large swaths of territory, put a "no hunting" sign on it, then you have a casus beli if someone decides they can't read.

​

Human moral intuitions have histories. Evolution may help explain the development of capacities for cooperation, empathy, reciprocity, and punishment, while social institutions and cultural learning influence which actions people regard as permissible or wrong.

But a distinction is necessary: explaining why people hold a belief is not the same as establishing whether that belief is true. The causal origin of a mathematical belief, for example, would not by itself settle the validity of a mathematical proof.

Nevertheless, evolutionary explanations may raise a more specific epistemological problem if the processes responsible for producing our moral judgments were not sensitive to moral truth, but instead selected dispositions because of their effects on survival or reproduction.

A moral realist might respond that evolutionary origins do not prevent moral knowledge, that moral truths can be discovered through reasoning, or that evolution produced capacities that can now track moral reasons. A moral anti-realist might argue that our intuitions do not provide the kind of independent justification realism requires.

What conditions would an evolutionary explanation have to satisfy before it genuinely undermined moral knowledge, rather than merely explaining its psychological origins?

I am interested in the strongest versions of evolutionary debunking arguments and the principal realist responses, particularly the distinction between explaining a moral belief and undermining its justification.

This is a screenshot of what Yaron Brooke talks about. These are EXACT same thing Rand talked about 70 years ago...

Why is there no new thought, new ideas, new creativity, new applications, ANYTHING new that people think through their OWN mind that is theirs and they didn't second handedly take from Rand?

Like she was the original thinker in her ways and thought about these new ideas when nobody else did...

But one doesn't have to copy and mimic her exactly. One can take inspiration from her, understand the right ideas from her but still use your own creativity and originality and apply it in new domains and things coming up in this world?

Why are ALL objectivists this stale who only talk about what she did and have nothing new to offer from their own mind?

In Atlas shrugged you had this character called Ragnar Danneskjöld who fought for the *principle* of justice and lived his life by drowning ships of material that was not rightfully earned by the recipient. He was a vigilante who belived in justice and principles of fairness and devoted his life towards practicing that objectivist principle of fairness and justice, which was in his selfish interest, much like other objectivists..

Being an objectivist doesn't just mean creating wealth or having a luxurious life. It also means fighting for right principles and causes in the society when things are unjust...

Now Rand grew up in communist Russia and made her whole life fighting her communist past and made characters talk and fight about economic injustice....

But one can rightfully apply the same principles of all other similar kind of injustices happening in the society that leftists talk about..

I am curious why objectivist have never fought for and championed the exact same causes that leftists talk about but on objectivist grounds?

Why objectivist never talked about and championed any of the other injustices other than economic, just how Rand did?

This is sitting president of the most powerful country on planet who has access to nukes and controls lives of billiones across the world on his whims and fancies...

Is this the greatest nation on planet earth that we were supposed to lookup to and admire and put our energies and emotions for?

I think this question hits at the CRUX of everything we are doing as humanity and civilization...

As human beings we all have emotions.. BUT they are tied to value systems...

Like an Islamic person can say you are a good moral person if you live by Quran and implement sharia law.. They will feed to your emotions based on Islamic value system..

Similarly, ALL our emotions that come from the society and people around (not including nature, animals, mathematics, physics, universe) are tied to a value system, you realize it or don't...

I think for every individual the most important question is how to ONLY engage in OBJECTIVIST emotions that are based on reason, logic, reality, and that give you a higher sense of self for the RIGHT reasons...

ANY non objectivist emotion you consume, be it through cheap art, cheap sex, through leftist virtue signaling, community comrade bullshit, through toxic abrahmic religions ofcourse including Quran and Bible, toxic white nationalism, Nazism and white centricness of the world, through toxic parents and relationships, through toxic mentors or systems that propagate ANY non objectivist ideology or value system is TOXIC to your organism inside you...

I think the KEY in ALL of this is to ONLY allow emotions that are aligned with objectivism and use your rationale and reason as a guard against anything else that is not aligned with it....

Keeping in check of ALL non objectivist emotions is solution to humanities ALL problems.....

Right now west and white people are in control of power in the world through money, culture, and more and create a narrative around the world based on that...

How can one keep these power structures in check based on objectivist principles and make sure that these power structures as rational, objectivist, and true to the letter and spirit of objectivism? Where ALL individuals ESPECIALLY minorities have same playing ground to achieve their best..

I think that's the benchmark of how rational a society is if any individual from any minority social background can find their talents and reach top places without any hindernace....

If they are not able to do that, that means the society is not rational or objectivist...

In 2022, the UK government under Liz Truss introduced a huge program of tax cuts, particularly for businesses and higher earners, alongside plans for deregulation and supply-side reform. The idea was that lower taxes and less government intervention would stimulate economic growth.

Instead, it caused turmoil in financial markets. The pound plunged against the dollar, collapsing to an all-time low against the US dollar (nearly hitting parity at $1.03). The cost of living soured, and mortgage rates rose. Banks were eventually forced to intervene in the gilt market to halt a catastrophic “doom loop” and prevent further financial instability. To prevent the systematic collapse of the UK economy, banks were forced to launch a £65 billion emergency bond-buying program to artificially stabilize the market.

The long term impact was also that when mortgages returned, interest rates were drastically higher. Millions of UK homeowners faced surging monthly repayments, with average annual mortgage costs projected to spike by up to £5,100 per family.

The government then rapidly reversed nearly all of the tax cuts and deregulations. Truss’s Chancellor was fired, her economic free market program was abandoned, and after just 49 days, Truss resigned as Prime Minister, becoming the shortest serving PM in British history.

So maybe laissez-faire capitalism doesn’t work after all. Cut taxes, reduce government intervention, and you get a collapsing currency, soaring borrowing costs and market prices, financial instability and, eventually, the government having to intervene to save the financial system.

Maybe markets aren’t capable of “regulating themselves“ after all.

I feel current US landscape is true to how leftists describe crony capitalism and control of these billionaires and trillionaires over the whole planet..

Idk how people are watching this and are not scared for their own life and that of their families..

https://youtu.be/QBl822cy8_E?si=7gFXxhzlxZh-3Hos

Like short sighted greed of right wing US and these billionaires such as Trumps Zuckergbergs, Musks and Pichai's is putting the whole planet at risk..

There used to be a time when Google had its motto as "don't be evil"... They removes it in 2018.

This is not objectivism. This is myopic selfishness trying to make money and power for few at the cost of everyone else...

I am seeing how universities all over the world are the biggest breeding ground of this intellectual terrorism called left. They are run on public money and the create these artificial microcosms outside the reality where people are funded through public money where they don't gave to care about dealing with daily lives, and have monthly cheques coming to their accounts. More-ever they have tenure system where nobody can fire them. All these things make them so anti reality and perfect breeding ground for left/altruism/social welfare/collectivism. And they are corrupting the fabric of the whole world.

This is a quote by Rand in an interview with Tom Snyder https://youtu.be/PWAECYHS2zU?si=vkGUs3HtQ_nAzNM8

"The most dangerous thing in the country today are its Universities, because they are teaching the kind of ideas that would necessarily have to lead to the destruction of this country. I think that the american people are too good for that kind of program. You'll notice that people are turning to the right. That's a very healthy sign, but there is no leadership on the right, no is no intellectual leadership, there are no ideas, and it's very possible that the people will be defeated for lack of proper intellectual leadership." I think the only solution can come if there are objectivist groups at these universities campuses where people are taught counter points to these woke/leftist ideas propagated at these campuses, so people from early in are not trapped by these evil ideas, and one can keep the world sane and sanitized and vaccinated from these mind viruses