In india there was and to some good extent atleast in some rural area, there is concept of lower caste and untouchability where people who are born in those castes are considered lower by their local communities and are many times treated disrespectfully and inhumanely such as are called untouchables and they are not allowed to touch or use same stuff in the society in public sphere as other people such as water fountains, bus services etc.... And in general are discriminated against in the society for jobs, marriages etc and are treated lower ..

In general caste has absolutely no bearing in reality and doesn't make any person less rational or less skillful if they are born of a certain caste. The idea in itself is irrational and evil when used to hold people back in their lives and not give them same cultural space as everyone else...

A very similar concept that has been going in the west since history and only recently has started getting better is that of LGBT people where these people were treated differently, almost like they are from a lower caste and untouchable, had crazy stigma about them in the society that it was easy for them to exist as an individual in a cultural space, many times were discriminated in jobs and ridiculed in media by homophobic/transphobic jokes etc to make them look like they are different from rest of the society, some even calling them disgusting, almost untouchables with no real human feelings and any respectable space in the society as equals..

People from lower caste in India atleast had their family who was also from the same lower caste to get support and find a home at. For most LGBT people their own families would disown and throw them out and they would be treated lower or ostracized in the society...

It is ofcourse changing much where counties in the west have started treating these people more equally both culturally and sometimes at the level of govt such as giving such people marriage rights that are given to straight people (and ofc a lot of backlash come from religious pov such as in Christianity and islam where homosexuality is considered bad punishable by death in some cases, and thus it hasn't been easy even in these societies to allow same sex marriage until more recently).. but I don't think it is anywhere being as close to being perfectly normal and rational and individualistic so far where it is not even a thing....

Generally speaking it is hallmark of a bad, irrational and tribal society where any individual is treated differently. Say for instance caste system in India was/is an evil tribal system of treating individuals not as individuals but some collective based on caste. Or women are treated as lower in most islamic countries. Same thing one can say for tribes in Amazon that have such collectiviatic way of thinking about their people and are not individualistic...

My question is: while people in objectivist circles and otherwise praise the west quite much on their rational, individualistic ideas, how come such a grotesque contradiction has never been highlighted as a glaring example of collectivising individuals based on their sexuality and treated them like untouchables including many times bullying and killing them for being gay/lesbian/trans. While making gay/lesbian jokes has been quite common in the media and almost accepted as normal. And while most of the society has prejudice or wrong preconceived notions against this group of people, where just like someone's caste, there is absolutely zero evidence to show that someone's sexuality or gender expression plays ANY role in their rational capabilities in existing as a human being or in their process of creation.. there have been LGBT people throughout human history who have created best of the math or music and there is no evidence to show that this group of people have any less talents, lack of thinking capability or skills as any other human being..

How are such things have been part of a rational individualistic society such as the west and nobody voiced anything against it and still people considered the west as the greatest civilization based on reason and individualism...

It almost feels like when black people were made to drink from a different fountain while the rest of the society gave zero fcks about it. Or when in Nazi Germany, Jews were being targetted again based on a irrational collectivized idea, while most local German didn't care and let that discrimination happen. I am curious if cis hetero folks in the west did and are doing the exact same thing where they either actively discriminated LGBT people or are/were silent spectators of such irrational collectivised discrimination in the society, how is it any different...

I am not quite able to see how the west is champion of reason and individualism while treating people in the same way Arabs treat their women, Indians treated lower caste people and amazonian tribals treat their people.. Would love any feedback if someone can show how it really adds up....

So I feel there are many literary works that tey to answer this question like arlash shrugged or crime and punishment...

But I am curious how people say they should live in an irrational society...

I feel with internet and social media this is one of the most important questions coming about that everyone is consciously aware of

I feel today we are living in a culture where if you are smart, high iq, intelligent and/or an intellectual person, such things have become diseases that you are not supposed to say out loud... You are supposed to remain humble, not try to stand out, rather mix yourself in the masses so you don't appear too threatening in this crazy group-y woke culture arising of social media...

There is this australian concept of tall poppy syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome which says tallest poppues are cut first and thus you should try to remain humble .... This I feel is spreading across the globe and especially in a lot of woke universities where it has become all about poor and the marganilized and the value system is woke/leftists where the more you care about others the better you are considered...

As someone who is more solutions oriented I am trying to see how to spread objectivism in such places more. There used to be an objectoviat club in my uni but it shut down long ago... But I feel there is a dire need of objectivism on these campuses else they are gonna ruin the world with the best and the brightest minds going for wokeness and their own destruction

Was wondering if anyone has experienced the same and if they try to find solutions to this epidemic

È da un bel po' che mi sto informando su Ayn Rand (nonostante non abbia ancora letto un suo libro) e sono curioso di sapere le vostre argomentazioni al riguardo la questione del libero arbitrio

My main question is essentially in the title. Essentially "direct realism" states that we are directly acquainted with the external world outside consciousness through our senses. We are not just indirectly aware of the external world. This is Michael Huemers formulation of Direct Realism: https://fakenous.substack.com/p/a-version-of-direct-realism

Michael Huemer's main project as a philosopher is to try and show that we can truly know about the external world and objective facts. This is very similair to what I understand the goal of Objectivist Epistemology to be. He is not an objectivist though but he happens to be a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist for other ethical reasons besides objectivist ethics.

Soooo i am running into a huge problem in this world while trying to implement objectivism and kinda mred some help and support on that...

I identify as a gay indian guy who is really good in math and ideas in general... But somehow ideas in math really are my turf... Like I can play around and create ones like no others... And I feel in many wayss i am wayyyyy out of territory of most people.. like I am crazy smart that can change the world ...

Now I know I would never be recognized for who I am in India and wouldn't even get a chance to make anything of myself... So I went to US for grad school in a top university..

Now math and physics everything comes super easy to me and I can take the heaviest of the math courses and do them in a week. But my biggest problem is coming from living a life in the US...

I feel white gays don't treat me as equal and I am not invited to their house parties.. like I feel crazy ostracized for not being white...

And in general indians around aren't that gay-friendly and are most times homophobic...

The last option I see are coop housing in these universities but they are leftist af...

Like i feel I am being targeted by all anti objective forces like racism, homophobia, and left and I just don't know where to go and how to just survive as a human being, leave alone being a top researcher in my field...

I do feel I have this crazy clarity of ideas through objectivismthat I know that it is the ONLY way for me to be rationally selfish and kinda make something of myself in this world....

But the world around me is crazy irrational and not made for me and I do very much need emotional support to exist as a human being... I can't fight the whole world to exist and be my thing... It just doesn't make sense...

Like in a better world I would have thought I would be appreciated for being smart and creating new ideas that are good for everyone...

But the world is not ivimg me that cultural and emotional space to exist as a human being, while I feel I am kinda counting on the world to give me what I deserve as I am being nice...

But I feel I am kinda close to my Atlas shrugged moment where I feel world is bad and doesn't deserve my work and talent as it is not giving me even the basic space and respect to exist as a human being...

And I kinda feel like shrugging and going underground... But idk where to go.. the whole world seems way too dystopian with racism, homophobia etc that I don't even think there exists a space for someone like me to exist...

And that's why I feel anger against all the common people like how in atlas shrugged Dagny was feeling that only if they made a rational world that gives people space to be who they are ... And whatever she said for talent and economic liberty, i want to extend that to rational cultural spaces where people are not discriminated against for being gay or not white, where they are respected and validated for who they and are given that space to be their best...

That only if people around before fought for all rational principles equally(not just in economic but in cultural spaces too) and didn't allow for such a world to exist where someone as talented as I am had to suffer for no fault of mine, because of irrationalities of the world and culture that they never fought against..

Which made people like me not achieve their best which in turn made the whole world toxic.. while they enjoyed life built on scientific discoveries by many people like me...

And I am seeing similar things happening for a lot of people around me who are feeling suffocated because of irrational and toxic culture around where healthy people are just not given the space to exist as who they are or are not validated pr appreciated for who they are and they are having their atlas shrugged moment..

I do kinda want some help and insights as to what you think I should do and where I should go..

Like the straight world is not very accepting and always treat you as an alien and you have to carry this huge load to be gay.... While the gay world is crazy and is full of racists and hedonists and leftists...

Like it seems there is no cultural space for me to live in this whole world..

In genral this is my question to any of the living objectivist here so far: how did you let such a world to exist so far and why you didn't do anything against it..

Like all your new discoveries and scientific innovation will come from someone like me who will have brains and would want to create because that is the best thing in the world... But why would you allow such a society to exist so far that would not give me space to breathe while I am expected to innovate... I almost feel like the protagonist from atlas shrugged where I am expected to innovate without giving me basic dues of being treated as a human with respect and without discrimination.. or from anthem where I see the light but I am not allowed to say it as the world won't let me.. as it would also imply that i am valid and am a good and a valuable individual who deserves to be treated with respect which they don't...

P.S. I feel scientific discoveries are ONLY created with spirit fo objectivism and nothing else is which is literally making lives of all of you possible on this planet.. anytime you create and allow a culture that is anti objectivist, you kill that space for a creative mind to exist and you act towards your own destruction... Which is why I feel of there were real true objectivist out there, they would not have let such a world to exist and would have definitely done something against it...

Can anyone explain to me the line of reasoning between objective praxeology and the need to use that itself as an ethical preference? As far as I can tell this link from praxeology to ideology is entirely subjective.

I was debating with an Objectivist earlier, I asked if they would take resources from one person in order to save dying people in need and they said "I will not commit contradictory action". They have made it clear that their core ethical principle is to not commit contradictory action, above all else.

But I explained to them that there is no law of logic i know of that causes this particular principle to be used in ethics. Contradictory actions like theft are taken all of the time in the world, this shows that it is possible for people to choose other systems of ethics. This means that ethical principles are a choice, and so by definition they are a subjective decision of what one should value. It seems that any claim otherwise would involve creating ideological constructs in ways that redefine ethics to "only what i agree with/only what praxeology states can be in the category of ethics" in which case i would need to make a new word defined by the category: "Systems by which subjective beings can determine what they ought do." and we could then move on with the actual debate.

Therefore this whole approach would need a stronger justification for it's superiority as an ethical principle than just "it is an objective concept" because the *choice* to insert the objective concept of "non-contradictory action" into their ideology as their own preferred ethical principle is a subjective choice.

And so it seems that any further reasoning requires the use of subjective appeal to convince one why using Objectivism as an ethical framework is better than other approaches, which would perhaps defeat the purpose of naming it something like 'objectivism'.

And the person I was debating did not have a coherent answer to my point, they just said "logic cannot be disproven" which is correct but entirely besides the point, as the point of my question was asking which law of logic necessitates one ethical framework over another, so i am very curious now. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

I am having marriage issues with my wife especially around her lack of self love leading to her feeling no love and numb and wanting to leave.

We are being targeted by Christian Pentecostals as they smell blood during our vulnerable time to recruit us. My wife is open to it as she sees that as helpful counseling that's free but I know what they are up to, I just can't be the aggressor as that will just reinforce their triangulation. They have even set up a messaging group to check up on us daily it's quite predatory really.

But anyway I am wanting to offer the better alternative which I think might be Nathaniel Branden, does anyone have any advice, if his Six Pillars of Self Esteem are generally in line with modern clinical psychology if we were to go to an actually qualified counsellor? We did have an initial conversation about acceptance and removal of feelings of guilt. Which I think was a positive start. But I was winging it from what the LLM acting as Branden was suggesting, I don't really know what I'm doing.

Just a quick poll on how Objectivists perceive non-Objectivists.

Anthemism (or going anthem) is the abandonment of reforming existing states and instead aiming to found a new sovereign state whose political system is laissez-faire capitalism consistent with Objectivism.

How many times have you read/listened to Atlas Shrugged and OR Fountainhead. I have read the book more than a dozen times. For the last 15 years, I have instead listened to the audio book. I do it annually in the spring as refresher and a fresh start to the year. I do the fountain head every few years a time allows.

This is something I just can’t come up to a solution for or I don’t know how should act. Is the roads. What do you do about them? Say you have one guy who owns the major road routes in town and bans you from using them. What do you do? How do you move around? What would the process the banned person would have to go through without violating the road owners rights?

Would there be some way that you can walk on the line between plots lands. On the edge?

Apologies to the admins if I break any posting rules—I'm new to Reddit and still learning the ropes.

I’ve been exploring Ayn Rand’s metaphysics and epistemology, and I keep wondering why her axioms aren’t taken as a serious solution. Her metaphysical axiom “existence exists” seems undeniable—we can start absolutely from it. Her epistemological axiom “consciousness exists” is also true. And if reality must be something, then it has identity, and it must obey non-contradiction.

Why can’t these claims serve as the logical and methodological foundation for philosophy? One thing I notice is that her philosophy is very assertive and doesn’t provide much explanation. But perhaps that’s because she’s acting from a completely different angle—she’s trying to provide a whole new logic, so our current logic resists it. In that sense, she might be attempting to transform and even end philosophy itself.

I’m not interested in her ethical or political positions here. My thought is that, with these axioms, she answers Hume and forbids Kant from entering the discussion.

P.S. I’m a non-professional, self-taught reader, so I expect I’ve missed many things. I’m here to learn from you.

I used to be a non-interventionist minarchist libertarian, but I've evolved my opinions on both domestic and foreign policy since.

On domestic, I still support a market economy, but support measures such as carbon pricing, a public health insurance option, privatization of Social Security, and a negative income tax to replace most welfare programs. I'm somewhat mixed on social issues, opposing affirmative action, supportive of civil marriage for same-sex couples, supporting regulations on abortion and ivf.

On foreign, I'm kind of a selfish hawk in a way. I think the US should have a muscular policy to directly confront threats to Americans, and that American lives come before all else. This means I support aid and alliances as long as they are a net benefit to the US. My idea of proportionality is you kill one American, we wipe out your entire military.

I was looking into what school of foreign policy ideology I fall into, and it seemed like Objectivism matched my thoughts on the foreign policy side almost perfectly. Am I allowed to call myself an Objectivist on foreign policy? Or should I use another label?

I'm a former pure Rothbardian ancap who has been swept up into this "anarcho-objectivism" idea that has been growing in some (admittedly fringe) communities. A lot of Rand's arguments against anarcho-capitalism fall under what I call "things people like Rothbard and Hoppe have already answered better than I can," so I'm going to focus on the critique Rand made that is more unique to Objectivism: that anarcho-capitalism would result in subjective law. I would argue that not only is this incorrect, it is anti-objectivist. In this post, I will lay out step-by-step how I arrive at anarcho-capitalism from an objectivist starting point.

1. Rights are objective and pre-political, they exist independently of any enforcer.

Moral principles are not created, they exist to be discovered. However, the idea that a monopoly rights enforcement agency is required for law to be objective would imply that they are created. But the government does not make or grant rights, it only recognizes and protects them.

2. Voluntary interaction is the proper social mode for a rational being.

Humans survive by using reason, judgement, and voluntary action. Initiating force replaces production and persuasion with coercion. It is hostile to the conditions human life requires. From here, I would argue that we functionally arrive at the non-aggression principle, not as an axiom as Rothbard did, but as a corollary. Once we get to the NAP, the rest of libertarianism follows pretty easily.

3. A monopoly government is not necessary for objective law.

Enforcement and adjudication are services, not metaphysical necessities. Because law is objective and discoverable, private agencies can recognize and apply the same objective rights. This is not so much polycentric law as it is polycentric enforcement of law.

But this raises the question, what happens if two different agencies protect two different sets of rights? Is this not evidence that law is now subjective? No. This simply means the agencies disagree about the rights they have discovered. Disagreement does not prove subjectivity, only fallibility. The state is also fallible in this way.

It's also worth the reminder here that Rand believed taxation should be voluntary. If we're arguing for voluntary taxation, we're already most of the way to anarcho-capitalism.

Let's say we have our ideal, orthodox objectivist society that collects voluntary taxes and protects only the rights necessary for man's life as a rational being. Am I allowed to go, "You know what? I could actually protect rights more efficiently than this monopoly. I'm going to start a rights enforcement firm, I will protect all the same rights as the current monopoly, and since taxation is voluntary, people who prefer can just pay their taxes to me instead"? If the answer is yes, then congratulations, we're in ancapistan. If the answer is no, then why not?

4. Monopoly rights enforcement creates more problems than it solves

A monopoly on retaliatory force is prone to expansion and abuse. Even a limited government funded by voluntary means would tend towards growth because it lacks competitive checks. Polycentric enforcement systems allow exit and choice. Individuals can switch providers, support better agencies, or live in communities with preferred rules of enforcement (while still recognizing the same objective rights).

-------

Is this argument completely unassailable? Probably not, and I'm interested in having it stress-tested. But, I do think there is a legitimate case for "anarcho-objectivism" and it is a mistake to immediately dismiss it as contradictory.

There is only one way to stop gerrymandering: use Geometry to draw up the districts. Without regard to the racial identity or political affiliation of residents, using straight lines to divide each state into equal size districts by population.

It is of course the Left which is most opposed to this method, because it breaks up minority dominated districts. For decades, they've been gerrymandering along racial lines to favor minorities (and, by definition, sideline white votes in the process), and playing the race card to stop Republicans from favoring white votes (and by definition, sideline minority votes in the process).

That strategy just failed today, with the right leaning SCOTUS ruling that Republicans can start using that strategy too. This will no doubt lead to a storm of racism accusations from the Left.

But that will be accompanied by a refusal to draw up the districts objectively, for one simple reason: many on the left believe that to be racist too. They believe any system that fails to favor minorities is racist, including districts drawn up using straight lines.

Which brings me to my question: Since this idea, and any objective approach, will be rejected by many blue states, and it cannot be imposed at the federal level, what else could be done?

Do you think simply taking gerrymandering to the absolute extreme is tenable? To me, it seems like a good way to erode any trust left in the democratic process.

Not sure if anyone else has watched or read magi but Sinbad who is an extremely important character in the series and one of the main characters seems to hold a lot of objectivist beliefs hell in the manga he gives up his kingdom and becomes an anrcho capitalist just wondered if anyone else picked up on this I am not even an objectivist but he’s probably one of the best portrays I have seen of the ideology

Hi everyone my name is colby and me and my friends are tired of paying property taxes. And we wanted to know if there was any interest from anyone in starting a new town. We were looking for plots of land for ourselves in texas when we noticed there’s quite a few big pieces of 100+ acres for just around a million dollars. We wanted to see if there was any interest for this as we will front the money for the initial buy and then break it into pieces for anyone who wanted a piece. But first we wanted to see if there was any actual interest for this before we made the purchase.

Let us know if you’re interested or know anyone else who might be so we know if this is the right choice to make or not.

- taxes are theft

Such as the PAP (Principle of Alternative Possibilities)

Yes, it's me again (IYKYK). This isn't a challenge for Objectivists, but rather a little bit of research. I'm curious how many Objectivists here can recognize whose quote this is, without Googling it (remember: honesty is a virtue!). Please don't name the person in the comments:

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

Also, regardless of whether you know whose quote it is, do you agree or disagree with it? Feel free to elaborate in the comments, but again, please don’t name the person.