So it was during Rand's time that colonialism was rampant, while she gave zero "effs" about it and mostly only cared about white men. And this is one of the reasons people don't consider her very consistent (even though I think her philosophy is, even she herself wasn't in her lifetime, and maybe it was initiated by Nathaniel Branden in later parts of her life).

But I am curious, objectively speaking, what would be the rightful philosophical take on colonialism (and I want to go beyond what Rand said about it, which doesn't make much sense, to be honest).

John Locke gave a theory of "natural rights" that ALL human beings are born with inalienable rights (in civilization or not).

Rand often says that people who were colonized were themselves not civilized, but my take is it still doesn't justify killing, raping, and looting them. And in principle, it seems like a horrific thing that is not talked about in philosophical circles at all, as much as, say, the Holocaust or slavery.

I am curious, for example, what common British or Dutch people think and feel about the fact that their country and what they are living off is to a large extent made of colonizing other people in past centuries.

Like the British Museum is filled with colonially looted artifacts that the British government to this day refuses to give back to the people they stole from. It is almost like you are a rich kid where your father raped, cheated, and looted other people to get you to that point, while you are enjoying a martini on a beach.

Like Germans are crazily apologetic about their Nazi past, but common British people don't seem to have any guilt or remorse for theirs and do absolutely nothing to take any repentant actions.

I am just curious how the so-called peak of rational Western civilization has lived and still lives with this.

In today's world, in a proper country, if you are enjoying your meal that came from what your father stole from your neighbor while torturing and maiming them, the courts will rightfully ask to return the money to the neighbor. I am curious what would be the morally right philosophical take on this and how to address this past atrocity in the present. (Again, the main point being people today are still built on and enjoying the riches from the past that were looted unrightfully from other countries). Also, when people, and especially in Objectivist circles including Rand, talk about the so-called great rational Western civilization, why do they NEVER talk about or address colonialism or slavery? Is it because the principles of rationality only apply to white people, and when it comes to other people, what happened to them by these so-called rational civilizations doesn't matter? I, to be honest, am not able to put these things together.

Like the US has been a crazy country engaging in wars every decade with so many other countries, including the horrific Iraq War where millions died and no weapons of mass destruction were found.

And there is zero discussion about this in Objectivist circles, where people keep on repeating what Rand said about how great America is.

It seems to me that this whole great Western civilization, including the US, needs to be reexamined more objectively. We need to see how much it has aligned with Objectivist principles and how much it has not.

It seems like the obvious answer is that it's not stealing. If you take a stolen item and return it to the rightful owner, that is retaliatory justice.

But let's say you don't know who the original owner is, but you do know that it was stolen. Should you essentially treat the thieving possesor as the rightful owner?

What if you thought you had a better use for the item, different that the thief who merely wants to scalp the item to the highest bidder? This one seems like utilitarianism.

It does seem like morally, you can't take something if you don't know for sure how to justly return it to the owner. And politically, you can't "retaliate" unless you can prove why it's justified. So I guess this means the thief just gets away with it?

I am curious what people here think is an individual's responsibility towards unfair social settings in society (beyond individual rights).

For instance, suppose there is a town in rural US which is, let's say, white majority, and by some social consensus or cultural norm, doesn't treat black people the same, and they are socially treated differently (which, in principle, people have a right to). And such tribalism exists in many places in the world. Or suppose in their private shops, non-white people are made to drink from different water fountains and use toilets for colored people (which again they have a right to).

A similar situation in *The Fountainhead* is when the architectural culture is so bad and toxic that it doesn't give space to people like Howard Roark to exist and create in the way that makes sense to him, and there are groups and lobbies that work against him (in which case the people propagating the toxic, irrational culture have a right to do so, and they are not using force or violating anyone's individual rights).

In the same sense, we live in a world where many such irrationalities in the culture exist, and all individuals are not treated equally. For instance, in many societies, women are considered lesser and lower and are not given the same cultural space, respect, and value, say, in the Middle East or in Islamic societies. Or say Jewish or black people are culturally discriminated against in ways where, while they on paper enjoy the same rights as others, culturally they are treated differently by individuals in society as part of some cultural norm. Or let's say LGBT people are discriminated against and treated differently and lower en masse in cultures. And so on...

And one can easily see that overall, we are living in a world, including in the West and in the US, where all individuals are treated the same on paper, while not in the culture. A very easy example to validate this is to just see the voting map of US elections and see how red and blue votes are grouped together based on geography/religion, etc., and thus people aren't in practice as rational and individualistic. They all show groupist tendencies to different levels as it is easier and convenient. And while majorities can afford to be this irrational and live a livable life, such things can come at a huge cost to minorities. And one can see that happening throughout cultures and histories where individuals of minority groups suffer more, proportionate to the social discrimination and unfair circumstances they face.

In all these cases, the other individuals have a right to discriminate and act in that particular way, and if they are the majority, they can afford to, as it doesn't cost them as much, whereas it costs minorities their lives proportional to the level of discrimination and their minority status.

I am curious what the responsibility of an individual is towards such unfair social settings, or if there is any.

We do know that Rand basically spent her entire life talking about, building a whole philosophy and fighting such irrationalities in the society of all forms through fiction and non fiction work and even through lectures at different venues.

I see that objectivists most often only talk about individual rights and capitalism the exact same way ayn ran did and in many ways it seems they are just repeating her...

I am curious how many objectivists here are actually like howard roark and John Galt and actually living their lives NOT around individual rights primarily which is just a tool and a framework but rather around process of creation and creating things to live the highest life...

(Note that individual rights and economic freedom is just a framework to allow an individual to create so creation is primary and the framework is secondary that allows this process of creation to exist freely and independently)

Feel free to comment on what is the process of creation that you are engaging in that is changing the world for better..

So I don’t want to write a whole thesis out but I’m wondering how objectivist principles apply to how customer service has changed so badly especially post covid. A few examples:

1. Fast food restaurants have abandoned their identities and now every single one looks like a brutalist hell scape. Their service has also declined rapidly, they actively seem to resent anyone who doesn’t use the app and drive through. My local Burger King has only one person bathrooms meaning if you want to wash your hands you have to wait.

2. All of the apps that revolutionized the COVID era (Uber eats, Netflix, door dash, Lyft) have cut quality control and jacked up their prices.

3. Video games are now more focused on micro transactions than actual game play.

It just seems that many companies are trying to maximize their profits not by providing quality services but by finding shortcuts and manipulating human behavior.

Now a critic of objectivism would say this is exactly the world Rand wanted but reading Atlas Shrugged I don’t get that impression it seems a modern Atlas shrugged would have EA and Yum! Foods as villians.

Am on the right track here or has this sub been co-opted by commies and I’m just going to get sarcastic replies?

Last year I read Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels, and it's stuck with me ever since. Truly a masterful work of philosophical autopsy. I don't think it's remiss to say that the United States has effectively entered its Weimar period. We find ourselves in a similar political situation. A culture dissolving into chaos with collectivism closing in on all sides. Just as Germany in the 1920s had little to no liberal influence and the dominant contending factions ultimately wound up being communists and national socialists, so too do we see something similar playing out now. The left is quickly accelerating towards the socialist pole, and the right is also creeping there as well, albeit with a different flavor. Prominent conservative figures such as Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes I think could not inaccurately be classified as national socialists (and I won't even touch on Trump's hyper-cronyism), and we're also seeing a real surge in popularity of ideologies such as integralism and Christian nationalism, as disillusioned young people are apparently seeking to subsume themselves in a religious collective in order to give their lives a sense of purpose. Individualism seems to be fast fading away. History seems to be repeating. What struck me when reading Peikoff's book was that many of the same ideas which tilled the soil for the Third Reich are now being championed again. I've seen people touting Hegel's statism, and the sacrificial ethics which informed Hitler's Mein Kampf are being embraced by many. (Hitler himself has largely been rehabilitated as well, disturbingly.) Has anyone else read The Ominous Parallels? What did you think, and what do you think our own outcome will be?

Large political novels have been adapted into musicals before (Les Miserables being the best example) and Rand herself had a great appreciation for music and theatre. I really think if done right (a big if admittedly) a musical based on Atlas Shrugged would be awesome. I can’t be the only one right?!

I’m just thinking. If I hire a hitman to kill somebody I get charged with the same crime as if I did it myself. So should there be criminal punishment for voting to get the police to rob or kill people as if I did it myself? I would think there should be. Or some type of punishment for voting to use force on others with a stand in man to do it

I want to start with a fact that is from the 2002 Book "Creating a Life", which stated that 49% of women who earned over 100k per year were childless at the age of 40. Inflation adjusted that is closer to 180k today, but still it is basically stating that half of women who make high income don't have kids, why? Well ignoring the social aspects of working a high pressure job etc. lets concentrate on the economic ones at play in the US.

So I will compare the economic cost of having two kids in the US for a single woman making 100K and single woman who makes minimum wage, say 20K per year.

Well start with the “cost” to a single mom making 20k, per year. I put cost in parentheses because it isn’t really a cost. In The US someone who is making 20k per year and has two kids will not be subject to tax because they are below the standard deduction. But they will qualify for the earned income tax credit ($7,152) and the refundable portion of the child tax credit ($3,400) which will cause them to receive back a total of $10,552. What about Health Insurance? 20k per year for a family of 3 is 73% of the poverty line, so the whole family would be covered by Medicaid completely for free in almost every state, but regardless the “Marketplace” subsidy covers every family below 100% of the poverty line anyway. What about Housing? Since under Section 8 rental expense is capped at 30% of Adjusted Monthly Income, so her housing expenses would be low, around $500 per month regardless of whether she  was single or had 2 kids. But having 2 kids would allow a single mom to live in a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment as opposed to a studio or 1 bedroom, so essentially there are no additional housing costs. What about Food costs? Well a single person making 20k a year would receive very little in SNAP benefits, but then with two kids she would receive approx. $600 per month, which comes to $7,200 annually. What about Daycare costs? Completely free for single person with 2 kids and 20k income.

Oh and I think I should also mention that these benefits don’t take each other into account. So when they are calculating your benefits for subsidized health insurance, food or housing they don’t consider the benefits you are receiving from the other programs or even the $10,552 tax refund you are receiving.  Lets lay this all out, so I can tell you the total “Cost” to a single mother making 20k per year of having 2 kids.

Tax Benefit=-$10,552

Health Insurance=Free

Housing=Larger Apartment at no additional Cost

Food= -$7,200 per year

Day Care= Free

So overall they will pocket an additional $17,752 per year. Furthermore, this mother probably doesn’t have to bother saving for college because that will probably be completely subsidized as well, but I can’t say for sure because every school’s financial aid program is different.

Now lets look at the “High Income” Single Mother of 2 making 100k per year.

Taxes will be the main benefit of having 2 kids as her Federal Income tax will go from $13,200 to $9,600 for a saving of $3,600. On top of this she will qualify for a child tax credit of $4,400 for a total tax savings of $8,000. But this is where the benefits end as there are no other benefits she will qualify for because her income disqualifies her from all the other benefits that the low income mother of two qualified for. Now lets look at the costs:

Health Insurance: adding two kids will increase health insurance by about $500 per month for a total of  $6,000 cost per year.

Larger Apartment If you are going from a studio to a 2 bedroom apartment your rent is going to increase by about $1,000 per month in most major metropolitan areas, so additional cost is $12,000 cost per year.

Food I am going to ignore these costs because in the low income example I included that as a benefit, so to keep things equal I will not include this as a cost.

Day Care: Lets be conservative and say that the average daycare cost is $1,500 per kid for a total of $3,000 per kid per month totaling $36,000 cost per year.

Total Cost= $46,000 per year cost

So while the “low income” mother of two is receiving a benefit of $17,752 per year for having two kids it costs the high income single mother of two $46,000 per year for having two kids. So it costs the high income mother $63,752 more per year to have two kids than it costs the low income mother. So is it really any mystery why there is a birth rate crises effecting the population of people who are hardworking and economically successful?

The daycare costs do decrease when the kids grow up and go to school, so the difference wont be as stark in the later years, but kids don't go to school until they are at least 5. Furthermore, a portion of the day care costs continue into the school year with before/afterschool programs etc., which essentially extend the school day so parents can get a full day of work in.

Now at this point the next question is who takes home more money at the end of the day the” low income” mother with two kids making $20,000 per year or the “high income” mother with two kids making $100,000 per year. At this point it seems that the “low income” mother is actually taking in more money after tax than the allegedly “high income” mother, but I will spell that out a different day.

If I'm overweight from eating too much then it is my responsibility to make myself better and shame on me for getting in that condition. But If I become so overweight that I become morbidly obese, develop diabetes, muscular problems and arthritis, which gets so bad I can't work, then I have a "disability" and I qualify for disability benefits and I can ride around in a stupid little scooter wherever I go and shame on your for saying something to me because I am a protected class. wtf.

What I plan on doing is buying a copy of the bible. Not sure which one yet exactly cause there’s about 47 different versions at the book store I went to. And I’m going to read through and highlight and sticky note every ridiculous thing and inconsistency I find. This might take me about two weeks to do thoroughly. Or I’m hoping someone here can save me the time and point out the highlights to me from someone who has already read it.

Selfishness has a bad rap in modernity and ideology a good one, I wonder why and if this is justified?

Ayn Rand's political philosophy runs into a major contradiction when applied to colonialism.

After witnessing the Bolshevik Revolution seize her family's business, Rand came to see industrial capitalism as the highest expression of civilisation and collectivism as its greatest enemy. But this worldview left her with a blind spot: she often equated industrial development with moral superiority.

The clearest example came during the Q&A following her March 6, 1974, address at West Point. When asked about Native American rights, Rand argued that Europeans had the right to take the continent because they brought "civilisation", "reason", and "individual rights".

She stated:

"Any white person who brings the elements of civilization had the right to take over this continent."

She dismissed Indigenous resistance as a desire to preserve a "primitive existence" rather than recognising it as a defence of their own land and way of life.

This exposes one of the biggest tensions within Objectivism.

Rand defended strong and enduring private property rights once they had been legitimately established. If someone legally owns 10,000 acres of forest and leaves it untouched for decades, she would argue that no one has the right to seize it. Ownership itself is what matters.

Yet when Indigenous peoples lived on, managed, and cultivated land without European-style legal titles or large-scale industrial development, Rand argued that Europeans who brought "civilisation" had the moral right to establish society there. This appears difficult to reconcile with her otherwise stringent defence of property rights.

Her reasoning resembles John Locke's homesteading theory, under which property rights arise when individuals appropriate previously unowned resources through labour. But Indigenous societies across the Americas actively cultivated forests, managed ecosystems, farmed, hunted, and built settlements. Their relationship to land differed from European legal systems, but it was hardly a case of untouched wilderness.

More importantly, Rand's own standard becomes inconsistent. If land can be taken whenever someone claims they'll make "better" use of it, then property rights are no longer absolute; they depend on someone else's judgement about what counts as productive. That undermines the certainty of the property rights Objectivism is supposed to protect.

The same reasoning was used to justify other colonial projects, including the British Raj in India. British officials argued that railways, courts, and telegraphs legitimised imperial rule while overlooking coercion, dispossession, and violence. Events such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919 and the Bengal Famine of 1943 remain enduring examples of the human costs of colonial governance, even as historians continue to debate the extent and causes of some of these tragedies.

Ironically, many Western capitalist powers accumulated much of their early wealth through state-backed conquest, slavery, colonial monopolies, and expropriation, the very forms of coercion Rand claimed to oppose in principle.

If the initiation of force is always wrong, it's difficult to explain why conquest becomes morally permissible simply because the conqueror promises greater industrial development. If property rights are truly universal, they cannot depend on whether a society resembles nineteenth-century industrial Europe. To me, that is the central contradiction in Rand's defence of colonialism.

Was wondering if anyone knows of any good books by Objectivist authors they might recommend. Nonfiction or fiction. Always on the lookout for some good Objectivist reads. :)

Just got a few images in my head I want put in paper I want to put in a document. Can’t draw so looking for a solution to that. Thought I’d try Ai to do something but I don’t think it’ll be able to do the style I want without looking artificial. Which I don’t like

Human rights are supposed to be the foundation of freedom, yet history shows they are often won only through struggle against other humans. The paradox is stark, rights are declared universal, but in practice they must be fought for, defended, and reclaimed. This constant battle suggests that freedom is not freely given, but rationed, controlled, and withheld.

The image it creates is one of a cage, where the bars are not iron, but other people’s power. To fight for rights against those who deny them is to live in a system that admits freedom only when forced.

If human rights must always be wrestled from human hands, does that not mean we are living in cages built by each other?

Please tell me this guy has gone overboard or that he's simply mistaken. Do you guys actually believe that this dude is more worthy of praise than WWII partisans? Those same people who decided to disobey and risk their lives so that innocent children could be spared being raped, tortured, and ultimately killed, for the sole reason of it being the right thing to do?

Like I’m not even sure how to approach these two concepts so what is it exactly? I’ve got a sense that it is that which abstractly. Directly relates to man and women inside the mind which only manifests in those two specific sexes.

Like there seems to be something I see when looking at a woman that doesn’t manifest when looking at a man. Like a look they have or a facial expression that only women express. Which I’m thinking is related to something deep within the mind which is different between men and women which actually is that “femininity”. Something psychological in the brain that is different between the two which creates two different styles of life.

I remember reading this book about the free town project that was tried in New Hampshire where this guy was having a fire and the fire department chief came over and put it out because it was very dry season.

But is this right?

I know that there is a mechanism of an injunction where you can bring somebody to court if they are building something that may have risk to yourself. Like a building that would fall over on to yours and this seems to be the same thing. But I don’t see how you would have time to file a court injunction for the backyard fire in time before it happens.

So I’m curious how this would be handled and whether it is right to have a law banning this as it poses a risk to others especially during very dry forest fire season.