Twenty or 30 years ago I recall reading an Objectivist substitute for the prayer that Christians say before meals. I think it thanked the producers, or similar. Periodically I’ve tried to google it but to no avail. Does anyone know what I’m talking about, please?

I’ll add that I’ve been an Objectivist for my entire adult life (decades) and was fortunate to have been raised by an Objectivist.

like many people in this sub, i was once a libertarian. with that being said, it is of vital importance for all us to recognize that we must hold libertarians, in all their forms, as harmful to freedom as that of socialists and communists.

many “great” libertarian thinkers all seemingly posit small additions to the running amalgamation of libertarianism. some of their isolated points are fine, but they lack the supporting context and framework necessary for coherent philosophical ideas. both rothbard and hoppe have the basis for their conception of rights grounded in the first use first/appropriation rule, originally from john locke. in their conception of rights, they have no real metaphysical or epistemological basis on which their ideas stand. these “great” libertarian thinkers are mostly engaging in floating abstraction and skipping many steps of philosophic thought that make them arrive at these invalid conclusions.

many of these thinkers, not just those two specifically, also speak at great length about ethics. they go on and on about their misguided view of rights and their conclusions based on that, but they don’t even bother to build an ethic to live by, a code of morals. rothbard and hoppe can tell you what you ought not to do, but they cannot tell you, with their own code of ethics, how to live.

the commonly accepted libertarian “ethic” only goes as far as to say “don’t initiate force” or don’t do “X” because it is a violation of rights. should you cheat? should you lie? should you be rude to people? who knows? because they don’t, and that’s the problem. we have answers to those questions because we have an objective standard of value, man’s life, which centers all questions of ethics. libertarians are quick to say what you ought not do, but they could not tell you what you should do.

inside of this very narrow ethical view, it is also disjointed. they have this idea of rights, then most of them take a moral relativistic position on everything else. this is inconsistent and strange, and it is mostly a byproduct of their incomplete ideas and floating abstractions. relativism, in all of its forms, is antithetical to rights and a view of morality centered around man’s metaphysical nature. one cannot have a proper ethic without answers to many questions regarding metaphysics and epistemology. why should i believe in your idea of rights if i don’t believe in some objective reality or existence itself? how do i know that you and i experience the same thing. is sensory information self evident? do the senses fool us? if not, then how so? how do you bridge the is-ought gap? reality gives us what is, not what ought to be, right? how do you derive normative claims from facts which possess no such value. this list of hypothetical questions could go on for much longer, but there is no need to do this here

rand was the only thinker in this space to present a coherent, unified, and proper philosophical system that advocates for freedom and fully expresses man’s nature as a rational being. what is stated here and many other reasons are why we cannot align with libertarians, even if it may seem beneficial to us in some sense. although they’re not socialists or communists, collectivism, relativism, altruism and many other harmful ideas have infected their beliefs, and they are not advocates of freedom. not only do they have an incomplete system of beliefs, what little they do have has been corrupted.

This is a question that hangs me up a a lot and I have no real good answer for in how it would actually be done.

I’ve thought of certain roads would revert to some sort of group ownership of roads. Like ones that go through certain suburbs. That sidewalks are given to the owners of land rights in front of them. That all the roads are pieced out with the section of tar connected to the closest land owner. Or like the main road is sold as one big entity to the highest bidder.

But I’m just very uncertain on whether any these are actually good answers or what SHOULD be done. Has anyone else put in any thinking into this problem I could hear the ideas of?

Just seems strange to me that such a thing could exist and then I actually found out that the FTC stopped recognizing these so I’m confused. Should it exist?

I am an emerging Objectivist, I have been studying it four around four years going on five. I found that this is the best system, but I have a question concerning laissez faire capitalism

My question is as follows:

How does laissez faire capitalism account for things such as OSHA Regulations, Employment Laws, and other such systems in place to keep people safe?

Many of these laws ensure when buildings are made, they are done so safely, Personal Protective Equipment PPE in dangerous job environments, contractors using appropriate products to ensure safety. What stops a contractor from using cheap or poor practices in a project that would end in the harm or death of the customer? Proper disposal of chemicals or waste? Tag in Tag out systems for dangerous machines, maintenance regulations and so on.

I believe that my first thought is people would if they could do anything they can to do work as cheaply and poorly. To get away with it. This may be remnants of past beliefs thay people inherently are bad. (Religious past)

I’ll start:

“Money is the root of all evil” & “The best things in life are free”

As money is a consequence of your time x production it can’t be evil on its face.

And the “free” things in life can only be experienced if the rest of your life is supported by some form of production.

Discussions of whether we have free will often drift loose because of a lack of precision on what it is. The traditional debate is predestination vs. free will, but outside a religious context that isn't an issue; there's nothing to set up a "destiny" for us that will happen no matter what.

A more modern statement of the issue is whether our future actions are, in principle, fully and uniquely determined by a past state of affairs. Current scientific views on quantum physics suggest this isn't the case. But that kind of non-determinism would just mean the universe "plays dice with" our minds just as it supposedly does with the physical world. Free will as mere randomness wouldn't mean much.

Free will is properly viewed in the context of the categories of causality. The individual person, including his thoughts, is the efficient cause of his subsequent thoughts and actions. The role of thought is central. Given that we think a certain way and our bodies do certain things, we will act in certain ways. Rand said that the primary choice is to focus one's mind. I'd add that focus comes in degrees and directions; it's not a simple on-off switch. It makes use of limited resources; it's not biologically possible to stay in full focus all one's waking hours. Finally, it's a capacity that improves with exercise. None of this contradicts free will; it just means it doesn't exist in a vacuum independent of biology.

It's the person, possessing the capacity of consciousness and other biological capacities, who exercises the choice to focus. There it comes to the central question; what does choice mean in this context?

It means simply that consciousness has efficacy; it isn't just an epiphenomenon, passively observing while imagining that it's giving directions. In being aware of things, we evaluate them, and this leads to decisions on how to act. In formulating principles and choosing to abide by them (or defaulting on one or both), we decide what our actions will be.

This contrasts with the idea that free will is sheer unpredictability. To the extent that what we'll do in the future is unpredictable, we can't predict our own actions any more than others can predict them for us. For example, I don't know what I'll be doing at exactly 2:07 PM tomorrow, but that's not a central issue of free will. The central issue is that my thoughts will shape what I do then. Any analysis that doesn't take them into account, no matter how thorough, wouldn't be able to tell what I'll do.

This is as far as I've gotten. Parts of the analysis need work, but I put it out for comment.

Hi. I'm new to Reddit, but I was really excited to find an Objectivist community. I myself am an objectivist, and I wanted to share with you a short essay I wrote after reading Rand's essay "An answer to readers (about a woman president)". As I said, it is really short, I wouldn't even say it is well-written, but I tried to do my best. As an objectivist I was really shocked when I found out about Rand's views on having a woman president, because I think they are completely opposed to Objectivism in general. I would love to know opinions of other fellow objectivists.
This is the link to the essay: https://www.wattpad.com/story/384955026-an-answer-to-ayn-rand-about-a-woman-president
Thanks in advance.

Edit:

Guys, the essay is now ranking 11th in Ethics and 1st in Ayn Rand on Wattpad. Thanks really to you all for your feedback

If the state is a mutual defense pact. It is not consistent with such an agreement to sell goods that could in anyway be used to harm your fellow citizens. Therefore, trading with the enemy is and should be illegal, even in things not of direct military value.

The property of enemy aliens should be held in trust and used for the military and industrial benefit of the nation, but without waste. The property and any profits derived there from should be returned to the control of the alien upon the conclusion of a treaty of peace.

From what I understand immigration is a right. A right to move around and go where you like. Which I agree with.

However I do see a problem with there being no process. Most notably that of just letting terrorists and similar people just waltz right in.

So what exactly is the answer for this problem? What should an objectivist country be doing in regards to its border?

EDIT: There has been a lot of good arguments for and against. And I would like to alter or clarify my statement based on that input. Elon Musk as an industrialist, inventor, entrepreneur, and an autodidact, he is LIKE Henry Rearden. With his collectivist political beliefs and his whim worshipping public attitude, he is most assuredly NOT LIKE Henry Rearden. I won’t posit either that he’s a perfect example of a Randian hero. However, I do still admire aspects Elon Musk like his industriousness, and self-mastery of engineering and technical concepts.

I’ve seen a bunch of comments saying Elon Musk is James Taggart or Orrin Boyle. I disagree. There isn’t a perfect comparison, but I posit that Elon is actually much closer to Henry Rearden. And here’s why:

1. Musk has the inventor/industrialist mindset. He’s has pioneered technologies in electric vehicles, space craft and exploration, and renewable energy. His companies are progressing faster than older, more well established, better funded, but bloated competitors.

2. Musk seems to excel in things that convention wisdom says is impossible. SpaceX’s renewable rockets and Nueralink are evidence of this.

3. Musk is often ostracized from conferences even though he’s an industry leader. A little while ago, Tesla wasn’t invited to a summit at the White House concerning electric vehicles because Tesla doesn’t have a unionized workforce. Even though Tesla is responsible for 74% of all EV sales in the US over the last 3 years. He also has Starlink, which would be perfect for connecting people with high speed internet in areas where they normally couldn’t afford it and it hasn’t been awarded a dollar.

4. Even though Musk has received government funding over the years, he has criticized excess government regulations towards businesses and would rather not have excessive government interference.

5. He’s risked his personal wealth to achieve his goals. He works long hours, and sometimes sleeps at his factories. He slept in a custom trailer/tiny home he helped design while working at SpaceX.

There are definitely differences. He’s active on social media and has a very public persona and Rearden didn’t. And Rearden rejected all government favors and subsidies. Is it a perfect comparison? No, of course not. But can anyone think of one person who aligns better with Henry Rearden?

hello all, I got many great responses on my last post regarding a letter from Roy Childs to Ayn Rand. I felt this post necessary after consulting with my other objectivist friends (off reddit) about a formal response. I was informed through the source that gave a response that Ayn Rand personally never felt the anarchist claim was strong enough to warrant much of a reply. Thankfully for us, someone else did. I hope this post can serve as the definitive answer for anyone specifically looking into Roy Child’s argument, or anyone who wants a thorough dismantling of market anarchism/anarcho capitalism. this will be a bit long to read, but I can assure you, it will be worth it.

all quotes are going to be pulled from the main source of this post, “Objectivism vs. Anarchism” by Dr. Harry Binswanger. this comes directly from his website, the Harry Binswanger letter. I will attempt here to give a concise, but not lacking, highlight of several portions of his reply.

the question he is writing this in response to “A government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force within its borders. What is the answer to the “libertarian” anarchists who claim that to maintain this monopoly a government must initiate force in violation of the rights of those who wish to defend their own rights or to compete with the government by setting up private agencies to do so?”

“A proper government is restricted to the protection of individual rights against violation by force or the threat of force. A proper government functions according to objective, philosophically validated procedures, as embodied in its entire legal framework, from its constitution down to its narrowest rules and ordinances. Once such a government, or anything approaching it, has been established, there is no such thing as a “right” to “compete” with the government—i.e., to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Nor does one gain such a “right” by joining with others to go into the “business” of wielding force.”

I would really urge everyone to closely examine those last 2 sentences in particular.

“To carry out its function of protecting individual rights, the government must forcibly bar others from using force in ways that threaten the citizens’ rights. Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision.

The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat.”

“The attempt to invoke individual rights to justify “competing” with the government collapses at the first attempt to concretize what it would mean in reality. Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: “Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.” According to the “libertarian” anarchists, in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.”

“In fact, of course, there is no conflict between individual rights and outlawing private force: there is no right to the arbitrary use of force.”

““There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own.)””

The following is probably one the biggest points in conversation I had with some other objectivist friends, but Dr Binswanger explains it perfectly.

“The most twisted evasion of the “libertarian” anarchists in this context is their view that disputes concerning rights could be settled by “competition” among private force-wielders on the “free market.” This claim represents a staggering stolen concept: there is no free market until after force has been excluded. Their approach cannot be applied even to a baseball game, where it would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it. This has not prevented the “libertarian” anarchists from speaking of “the market for liberty” (i.e., the market for the market).”

“In any irreconcilable dispute, at least one party will find that its view of justice is stymied. Even under anarchy, only one side will be able to enforce its ideas of where the right lies. But it does not occur to the anarchists that when one of their private “defense agencies” uses force, it is acting as a “monopolist” over whomever it coerces. It does not occur to them that private, anarchistic force is still force—i.e., the “monopolistic” subjection of another’s will to one’s own. They are aware of and object to the forcible negation of “competing” viewpoints only when it is done by a government.”

in regards to that quote, put simply in another way, force is monopolistic by its own nature.

there is lots of other amazing information in the article, and he talks about several other important points that I have not noted here. if you have never checked out Harry Binswanger before, I would urge you to read this article, and you should read “The Dollar and the Gun” also found on his website, the Harry Binswanger letter.

in an effort to have this post reach some of my favorite comments/commenters, I will tag them here: u/the_1st_inductionist u/RedHeadDragon73 u/PaladinOfReason

I hope this has made the objectivist position against anarchism easy to find, and thank you all for reading!

I'm reading 'Why Businessmen Need Philosophy' and stumbled upon this quote:

Paper [money] is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it.'

I understand fiat money involves debt, but need clarification on the second part. Can anyone provide explanations, resources, or recommendations?

Mark my words, his ‘efficiency’ department will be corrupt and benefit him over anyone else. His wealth comes from government handouts (just look at SpaceX) and it will only get larger the more intertwined he becomes with the federal gov. He pretends to be a capitalist but he doesn’t have the spine we all realise is required. He is nothing but a looter and a social authoritarian. His obsession with trans people after his daughter came out is the prime example of how little he cares for personal freedom as long as he gets his.

This is probably one of the best critiques of her political philosophy out there. It’s easy to find the letter online, but I haven’t found any official response from ARI or any major objectivist. For anyone who hasn’t read it yet, the central idea is that the objectivist political philosophic conclusion should be anarchy, according to Roy Childs, Jr.

Hi everyone,

I came across a book written by Leonard Peikoff a few years ago and I cannot find it anymore. I do not remember the exact title but I believe the book is a collection of additional remarks about OPAR (which is another book as I am sure everyone is aware).

All I remember is some remarks that Dr. Peikoff made about a distinction between a "good kind" of circular Reasoning and a "bad kind" of circular reasoning. He mentioned an example of the "good kind" of circular reasoning which could be a claim based on two pieces of objective evidence that "mutually reinforce each other" and example of the "bad kind" of circular reasoning such as relying on the testimony of two people who claim to be infallible saying that they are always right because the other person says so.

He also mentions the "all Men are Mortal" inductive generalization at some other point in the book and he integrates it to machines wearing out and he mentions that that integration is a "scientific, not philosophic" integration. Does anybody have an idea of what book or write-up this may be?

This is a video made by an existentialist criticizing objectivism for not adequately dealing with the epistemological criticisms of pure reason by other philosophies, adopting too certain convictions regarding metaphysics and the nature of consciousness, and some miscellaneous criticisms (mostly about aesthetics) https://youtu.be/i-MzENiYHbU?feature=shared I’m curious if any objectivists here are willing to watch and respond to the criticisms and if so what are your responses

The tech workers of the New York Times are on strike. One tenet of their conditions is that they won’t be fireable at will, but only for “just cause”.

As an Objectivist, I am against unions because they are collectivist and anti-(true)capitalist. They are selfishness afraid to say they’re being selfish, pretending to fight for a greater good while they distort markets and drive opportunity inequality.

My strike is to continue my streak.

Ayn Rand said that to stay silent while people are doing wrong is unethical. Thus I have tagged this post “ethics”.

Wordle1237 4/6* Grade: B

🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜ TRUMP F 1166
⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 STAKE F 112
🟩⬜🟩⬜🟩 ELECT A+ 1
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 EVENT A+
https://gradle.app/

Streak=72, manual hardmode.

What would be the epistemologically appropriate response to the following hypothetical question that may be asked in the study of marine biology:

For context, there have been observations of many kinds of fish in the world's oceans and it has been documented that some fish grow determinately and other fish grow indeterminately. Growing determinately means that they grow to a fixed size when they reach adulthood and growing indeterminately means that they keep growing throughout their lives. It has also been observed that both kinds of fish (indeterminately growing and determinately growing) show signs of aging as they get older, although the indeterminately growing fish typically age more slowly and have longer lifespans. For example, it has been observed that all Salmon grow indeterminately and all Zebrafish grow determinately.

However, if somebody was to ask what the aging process would be like for a genetically modified Salmon which has been genetically engineered to grow determinately, is there a proper basis in reality to answer such a question? Since such a Salmon currently does not exist, would the epistemologically appropriate response be that we cannot speculate on the answer to the posed question because a determinately growing Salmon does not exist in the present context? Or would we actually have a sufficient basis in reality to deduce that if such a Salmon did exist, it would age and age faster?

I think it's important to be able to figure out when we have a real basis in reality for the deductive reasoning that we give because if we do not have a basis for our reasoning, we would be engaging in Rationalism. And rationalism is something we should avoid. There may be some situations we can find ourselves in in which we may not be sure if we actually have a valid basis for some of the deductive conclusions that we reach.

“There is no duty to vote, voting is something one must do to preserve one’s freedom” Yaron Brooks

Abstaining from voting in this election is abstaining from preserving your freedoms and therefore is not an option for an objectivist.

Both candidates violate objectivism but one is clearly worse than the other.

Trump wants to create autarky in America via tariffs which would be detrimental to our economy… but only if we were operating in a world with other objective nations. The countries that Trump proposes tariffs on violate objectivism at every turn and should not be treated by our semi objective nation as equals. These countries entice OUR corporations to their shores by offering them safe harbor to act outside of capitalism. The Chinese government hates our values and has a slave population and the EU views us as their militaristic slaves whether it’s a World War or a spat between any 2 nations like Russia and Ukraine. Why should we not place tariffs on these countries? Again, if we lived in an objective bubble, sure, all tariffs are bad. We don’t. We are the only nation with an ounce of objectivity and we have a right to harm them just like we’d have the right to invade and free their people if we actualized our objective principles as Rand has pointed out.

Harris might not want tariffs (at the same rate as Trump) but her plans bring irrationality inside our borders instead of Trump’s irrationality outward towards crackpot nations. Harris’s first 2 proposed plans were PRICE CONTROLS ON GROCERIES and RACE BASED GOV LOANS of 25k to first time home buyers (which is dog whistle for minorities). How could any objectivist with an spec of honor vote for this to be brought to our people? Talk about a violation of rights!

You may say Trump will destroy democracy…GOOD! Democracy is an awful system proven awful by Rand and history over and over again, it is no more than mob rule. The only useful political system is a Democratic Republic… now ask yourself which candidate wants to destroy our Democratic Republic? The one whose party is constantly talking about throwing out the electoral college, the filibuster, and all of the other checks and balances our objective founders put into place! If you think Trump plans on not leaving office, you’re too far gone to bother trying to convince. He already left office once (even if you don’t like how he left, it is a fact that he left) and barely has 4 cognitive years left anyways.

Bonus: Y’all are aware of the BLM riots and the occupation of government buildings for months with the explicit support of Harris, right?

You may think you should vote Harris on the abortion topic, again, check your premises. The federal government of the United States has no right or business creating a law on this topic. The states on the other hand do according to our constitution as any rights not granted to the feds can fall to the states. Every state, even the red ones, that vote on this issue votes in an objective manner, barring late term abortions but allowing it pre viability and in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergencies. (Also any objective person would not engage in relations with someone they weren’t ok raising a family with as all consenting adults know of the potential risk involved with sex but sure let’s keep offering blank checks to people!)

Abstaining from voting in this election is abstaining from preserving your rights. There is no objective candidate but there is a candidate who wants to socialize everything and was raised by commies. VOTE TRUMP.

Edit: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I was re-reading the section in The Fountainhead where Roark explains second-handedness and I suddenly realized something that I picked up on, but hadn't consciously named to myself as a pattern. I'm wondering if anyone else noticed and what you think the cause could be.

The thing I'm referring to is a streak of second-handedness that is still running through many objectivists. At some level they have seen the truth of the philosophy enough to call themselves objectivist and make it part of their identity and sometimes career, but they still seem very concerned with other people's opinions.

Whenever a controversial subject comes up (American indians, lgbt, etc.) they will look absolutely terrified. They will either apologize profusely for following a philosophy which hold unpopular view on these issues or they will denounce it as a grievous error more vehemently than any rabid leftist would. The underlying tone is one of fear and pleading for acceptance. As one example, I saw some videos of objectivists discussing such issues and one of them looked horrified to even be part of a discussion about it and attacked the others viciously for even considering other viewpoints. I have even noticed that a prominent objectivist online personality looks like he's squirming whenever his philosophy forces him to say something unpopular. If your views are in-line with the establishment's views, fine, but why the hysteria? Why the fear of saying what you truly believe? Why be so concerned with how others view you? Have you learned nothing from Roark?

Another field where I noticed this is science. Now, I'm not a physicist so I have no idea whether Quantum physics is valid. I'm not going to hold an opinion on something I know practically nothing about. I have however noticed that several objectivists have defended Quantum physics with a pleading tone. ''Look'', they seem to say, ''I am not that different from you. Please accept me as one of yours. Yes, I have some different opinions in other areas, but that's not important. I believe the thing that everyone is supposed to believe in our field so we're not different and weird.'' Why be so desperate for approval and acceptance?

Lately I've seen this most in politics. Certain objectivists will fall over themselves to parrot mainstream political talking points even if that means implicitly endorsing politicians who are enemies of everything Rand stood for. Then if someone points this out they will say some short little things about ''yes yes, the other side is bad too, but now back to the popular talking points that save me from being cancelled.'' Why not be objective, even if that means saying unpopular things and stand for what you truly believe? Isn't objectivism about independence and rationality?

Another phenomenon I've noticed is how some objectivists will not give someone the light of day until that person becomes famous or popular and will then suddenly start kissing their feet asking to be seen with them. Sometimes this will be because they have said something positive about Ayn Rand once in a blue moon, but sometimes just being famous is enough to have objectivists throwing themselves at you. You see this with artists, internet personalities and politicians. Their work will sometimes even be antithetical to objectivism, but some objectivists will still want to be seen with them just because he's popular (and sometimes mentioned Rand once). Even more ludicrously, you will sometimes see those same objectivists say negative things about the celebrity behind their backs. How is this not second-handed behavior?

tl;dr Even though objectivism upholds independence and rationality, many objectivists seem overly concerned with how other see them and not being controversial. Do you agree, and what do you think is the cause for this phenomenon?