Ayn Rand's Ideas: An Introduction (Excerpt)

[@Georgiavr-1]

this speech always reminds me so much of the original idea of the U.S. it's kinda sad to see how out of whack capitalism is now. goodbye individualist rights, hello government control.

[@Youhavethebody]

The concept is objective, because we can observe certain facts about man, about the requirements for his survival, and induce principles to serve as guides for future action, such as respecting the rights of others. If the facts didn't exist, the principles wouldn't hold: for example, if men were in fact determined, there would be no need to contemplate whether other men deserve to be left alone; you simply act as the determining factors dictate.

[@Youhavethebody]

My concept of "individualism" is informed by my philosophy, especially its theory of concepts. My meaning of "individual" is no different than "person" or "human," it's just that I'm contrasting one person from a group (collective). Barring psychological problems, a person can self-regulate by checking his own ideas, and changing them if necessary--not necessarily an easy process, but I did it regarding my Christianity (I'm atheist now). Social regulation comes through laws and ostracizing.

[@chachieb]

may I suggest reading up on the subject, it is not a sacrifice if a mother chooses to feed her child instead of buying a hat, in the case that she loves her child more than a hat. It is however a sacrifice if she values the hat over the life of her child.

[@Iisdabest889]

@ElCangri137 I agree, and I kind of thought that too. I'm a Christian and a huge fan of Ayn Rand, and do think that morally and politcally, Objectivism is the way to go. Sure, there are a few motives I disagree with, but the fact that its a system that allows me to disagree, to choose to follow God with no 'legal' barriers is why I support it so much.

[@TheButlerism]

@platinum014 Is that an answer? I cant see how suppression is limited purely to government forces. Sure it is coercive instrument but what prevents an individual from usurping that power? Especially when economic wealth is a factor. I think it's quite naive to think that government is totally the problem. Yes government is problematic but isn't the removal of private property a more steadfast way of securing individual rights?

[@deinse81]

Value is not a physical, concrete concept. As a result we do not own value. The things we own (physical things, such as cars and land) happen to have a subjective value to us. That's what makes trade possible: object A is worth more to me than to you, as a result you are willing to trade it, and I am willing to buy it for set amount. As far as slavery: it's wrong because you are using force to take away someone's inalienable right to liberty. It has nothing to do with property rights.

[@Iisdabest889]

@Rayosun4 100% WRONG. A government is required for private property rights, which Libertarians, Objectivists etc advocate. To see a good place where their ideas work are Hong Kong, Puerto rico, etc. Anarchists are almost the opposite of libertarians.

[@TheButlerism]

@platinum014 Is there an explanation in that? Socialism has nothing to do with it were talking about objectivism as a valid system/ ideology. How does objectivism deal with the suppression of the individual rights of others which seems unfortunately a consequence of it?

[@strav12]

I couldn't possibly do that. You're obviously too clever and superior to me. So I'd be grateful, seriously, if you could give me some examples of what you call philosophy that merits serious discussion. Thanks.

[@badvariance]

What countries in the world are closest to the objectivist political philosophy? I am unwilling to accept my governments wealth distribution any more. I can earn my living from any country. Where do i go?

[@Youhavethebody]

It's a chore to explain how individualism applies to rights in youtube comments, so I suggest you pick up "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" to get a better understanding of this from my philosophy's perspective. Who knows, you might find something you like. Good discussion though.

[@deinse81]

Millions died because of property rights? You're getting really irrational buddy, so bye.

[@shovelcharge]

I meant, Feelings AREN'T inherently irrational, but believing in the supernatural is.

[@deinse81]

So your big idea of deciding who should use land is by force? Which gang("community") can kill the others faster? You really don't think a strong government to protect property rights is a better solution? As far as the Indians claiming land, they certainly did not: they had no notion of individual liberty, let alone property rights. However, now they can own land, just like the rest of us, so it all worked out.(except for some atrocities that were committed, which are regrettable)

[@KeithMcElwain]

Raise your hand if your sick of speaking ignorance. Let's get together : ) yea yea yea.

[@nanabijou62]

But her philosophy is too idealistic. Societies are a complex organism. What of the individuals who cannot "produce" because of mental or physical deficiencies? And how do we place a value on specific "production". What is of more value? Someone who invents various derived vehicles in the stock market that will produce wealth for "high rollers" compared to someone who flushes the sewer pipes when they are clogged and backed up with our waste. Why does one have more value?

[@Iisdabest889]

@Rayosun4 Her definition of Altruism is different from mine. When you help someone, the reward is doing what they and God wants without hurting another. She might not have followed God, but she was still a smart woman. The same way atheists might adore Dr Martin Luther King, or Gandhi, or Malcolm X even.

[@Merryjest]

The whole point, my friend, is to allow people to do as they want as long as they are not infringing the rights of others. Let them say what they wish, we have no right to order silence on them, or do you wish for us objectivists become policemen of ideas?

[@bammbamm12]

Wow! If there were no God, this would be a really orderly philosophy. But if there is no God, isn't "morality" a ridiculous word; a deracinated concept?

[@nanabijou62]

But starting and maintaining a civilization are one and the same. You can still be an individual within a society. Jesus of Nazareth taught that we are our brother's keeper. We either ALL get through this, or none of us will.

[@chopsky]

I'm shocked you'd make such a ridiculous statement. Objectivism is based on a system of complete personal freedom (that includes speech). They aren't imposing their views on you. This is an open forum.

[@proffesor02]

Agreed. We need a strong highly intelligent fascist dictator to get the economy back on track. The sheeple need herding they can't think for themselves.

[@deinse81]

I don't need to look it up. My business is to know these data, and I know my business. Such a rise in CEO pay is impossible. Your study was doctored. If you look at all Fortune 500 companies, and what they pay their current CEO's, the rise is significantly less than tenfold, compared to 2001. Also, the size of the american companies considered was much bigger than the size of japanese and canadian companies, that's why the difference is so striking. Compare 200 random, equal size companies.

[@TheButlerism]

What I don't seem to understand is the inherent contradiction within objectivism and its arguably less radical cousin, right libertarianism, and the suppression of individual liberty. As I have heard objectivists say that the goal is to gain the maximum amount of rights for a human being without impeding radically on the rights of others. Wouldn't objectivism though lead to the suppression of individual rights? When I imagine an objectivists world it is one where people are slaves to the few

[@Rayosun4]

@Iisdabest889, When this lecturer says “In her books Ayn Rand exposes the false and pernicious ideas destroying America and the West, a set of ideas she often labels ‘the axis of collectivism, altruism, and mysticism the true axis of evil, the axis of evil responsible for all the other evils in the world.’ he is talking about her HATRED of Christ's love of God and love of neighbors. Conservative Republicans and "Christians" love Rand because they don't know or follow Jesus. Rev, R,D,

[@IRn101]

@Furrymonkey: Government can physically give or take any RIGHTS from the law, but there are right RIGHTS and wrong RIGHTS, just as a person can physically act to produce or steal, but there is a difference of right and wrong between the actions. Right RIGHTS are derived from the human nature. If you give RIGHTS arbitrarily, like what most government do now days, you'll end up with the wrong ones. Freedom of speech is a RIGHT that's derived from human nature. RIGHT to reputation is not.

[@IRn101]

The government does not have the right to abrogate the freedom of speech, even through they can. And for private individuals, it's not so much as abrogating your freedom of speech as utilizing their own right of property. You can say what you want on their forum, they have their right to ban you off their property. Freedom means free to act, not free from the consequence of your action.

[@deinse81]

I'm fine with not using public property if it means I wouldn't be forced to pay taxes. However, I certainly have a right to life, liberty and property, and we have to have a voluntarily funded government to protect those rights. As far as "the community" goes, let me repeat: that's a stolen concept, used trying to evade the fact that you are talking about a gang which relies on force to achieve its goals. "When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty."--Confucius

[@deinse81]

Two separate points: ownership and sovereignty. 1. I did not suggest ownership is claim. I said ownership is claim of something not in use, and the ability to put it to use. (and I listed the way that was practiced by early settlers) The indians did not own land: I doubt they even claimed it(other than to try and keep europeans out), and they didn't use it, certainly not the whole cont. 2. I am sovereign on my land: don't test me on that, because I'm also armed. You have no right to my land.

[@deinse81]

That's not true, but sell the shares if you feel that way. Start your own business. This is how a real study on an economic trend looks like:(It's a PDF file) Turns out CEO pay for DOW companies didn't even double in your time period, despite huge profits for the shareholders. (note how worker's salaries rose at the same pace-it's all in there): Sorry, google "CEO pay data DOW", click the fifth link I can't seem to be able to post a link here.

[@deinse81]

Of course it is reasonable to do so. Most things have value because people live close together and trade with each other: if I made a thousand hats, they would only have value because of the people willing to buy them. Does that mean I can't own them? Did a person make the atoms in that hat? No, he just put them to use. The same is true with land: the person who owns it is the person who could first claim it and put it to use: now it's his, just like the atoms in the hat.

[@lifegiver36]

In a free society no one would be able to monopolize something that is needed for life's existence, like food, water or natural resources. Its always with governments help that companies are able to monopolize these things. You mentioned oligarchs and slaves, two things that are the opposite of a free society where the power lies with the individuals. Nothing prevents people from getting a piece of the pie except themselves. You can either sit and complain or stand up and take action.

[@strav12]

Good God in Heaven! Even more serious discussion and zero rhetoric! Well, I'm sure you've really scared all the Randists now with your hellfire and brimstone. But I thought 'vengeance is mine, sez the Lawd...so pray for your enemies and bless them'. What's the matter Mr Foxy? A bit short on the love thing these days? Better read yer Bible a bit mo - or maybe even start to love yourself - else how the devil can you ever get to love your neighbour, especially the Randist enemy type neighbour?

[@strav12]

So you're not demonising the enemy now? No rhetoric in what you are saying here? Thanks for the attempt at serious discussion and your 'charity of interpretation'. If you do have something to discuss, can get over your fear of difference and other people, then please bless us all with your wisdom - until then...? Here's another sound bite: judge not lest you be judged for as you judge others so shall you be judged. You become the very thing you judge and hate - because it lives buried in you.

[@strav12]

Not sure why you are talking about objectivism. For me, subjectivism is not about freedom to do what you wanna but realising that you are a subject influenced by your past - and that past informs your choices. Sex and aggression in individuals need to be self and socially regulated - don't understand how you do that in your belief about 'individualism'? What do you mean by an 'individual'?

[@Youhavethebody]

Individualism only arises in social issues, so there's no need for the phrase "social individualism." If there were only one individual on the planet, he wouldn't need the concept "individualism." Within Objectivism, individualism as a concept rests on observations about man, including that he's sovereign (capable of choosing his own thoughts and actions), and is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. So there's nothing "subjective" about it. [continued]

[@Youhavethebody]

An "individualist" places the emphasis on individuals in social issues. Politically, this leads to respect for individuals in terms of rights, for example, the right to pursue *one's own* happiness. The Subjectivist "individualism" leads to doing whatever he wants, individual rights or not, respect for individuals or not. He regards himself as the only "individual." The contradiction is that he tramples on other individuals, while upholding "individualism." The "why" is evasion or ignorance.

[@Eudaemon1]

Altruism is not merely providing for others, rather it demands that man sacrifice himself for others. The only true value would be where by providing to others, you receive something in return. Providing for the care of your children is not altruism, because you receive a great deal in return. Altruism is the demand that government makes of you to provide for the care of others' children. It's the collectivists that demand of individuals to provide for others while receiving nothing in return.

[@spaceplayer]

"My comments are "subject for approval"? Wow, that's very respectful of my individualism and the freedom of speech! " Objectivism upholds the right of free speech, but it does not provide you with a platform, or oblige others to santion that speech. If an individual or organization does not wish to do so, you are free to seek out another forum or start your own. Your right to free speech is not abrogated.

[@parispeter2]

Individual rights are important and should be protected, but individuals do not flourish outside a community. Altruism is the fruit of a mature human being who has become productive and can thus give to others. And reason is only a part of our natures: we are more fundamentally emotional beings. Ask yourself what's more important to you: your family or friends or doing maths or logic?

[@ElCangri137]

Ayn Rand's philosophy comes from God...she just doesnt realize or acknowledge it...but much of her views would be more willingly accepted if she was able to recognize that and had known 'better' words or the 'correct' words to use to rationally explain her views. Because she used negative senses of a two-sided word...to express her ideals....

[@rbilkie]

Objectivism advocates personal freedom, the freedom of individuals from force, politically, and the right to private property. This means that they have the right, in contract with KZbin, to turn off comments on their video. I can't believe I had to explain that to you. This public is really dumber than I thought.

[@rbilkie]

Objectivism advocates personal freedom, the freedom of individuals from force, politically, and the right to private property. This means that they have the right, in contract with KZbin, to turn off comments on their video. I can't believe I had to explain that to you. This public is really dumber than I thought.

[@Youhavethebody]

And therefore collectivism is somehow "not fragile" and somehow so evident that it doesn't require explanation? The people who violate rights in a free society simply aren't individualists--not in principle. It's that simple. I'll point out the contradiction in being an individualist *and* violating rights, if you wish.

[@cjwynes]

I agree. James Taggart's actions at the end of Atlas Shrugged are demonstrably "selfless" in the sense that they are clearly self-destructive. He is willing to destroy himself if in so doing he also destroys the good (embodied by Galt) that he so strongly fears to recognize.

[@deinse81]

Well, if you feel that way, that's fine. You don't have to own any, but you also can't prevent the rest of us from trying - I at least, with great succes. I hope you're not siggesting the community should be allowed to own my land: you just said it cannot be owned.

[@deinse81]

In fact if you look at the history of America, that's how land (and natural resources, i.e. gold) became soemone's property: the land one person found unclaimed, that he could, objectively, put to good use, became his land (that amount was objectively pre-determined, by law)

[@7mak1]

I agree with a lot of what Ayn Rand has to say. But I think she is wrong to disregad man's social tendancies. Man evolved as a social creature and many psychological and physiological studies suggest it is quite possible there is an evolutionary basis for altruism.

[@furrymonkey23]

the government does have the right to abrograte the freedom of speech, if the people (who are the government) decide that they place a value on ones right to reputation and make defamation laws to protect peoples rights and freedom!

[@OrlandoClarkson]

This is unbelievably arrogant. She was the first thinker to say that reason is what keeps man alive??? Ever heard of ancient Greece?? Aristotle? It's a direct reaction afainst Marx's ideas which were in fact much more original.

[@strav12]

There's a guy on UTube called Pyrrho and his position highlights some of what I was thinking - but thanks for enquiring about my thinking - unlike the enlightened others. Would be happy to hear your elaboration of 'the contradiction' ;)

[@Youhavethebody]

Which arguments fall apart? In what way? Who has shown her arguments to be faulty? You? If so, please send your counter-arguments to me in a message sometime, I need the intellectual work-out. Otherwise, stop posting unsubstantiated non-sense.

[@shovelcharge]

Individuals are helped by other individuals, for example, mother and child, teacher and student. But only individuals exist, there is no such entity as society that exists in reality. The concept of a society is dependent upon individuals.

[@shovelcharge]

You don't understand. Being rational doesn't mean not feeling emotion. According to Objectivism, you should feel emotion, and your emotions must be based on reason, if you want to live a life proper to a rational being. Logic and friends go together.

[@strav12]

So I see your distinction between social and subjectivist individualism, yeah? In the former, which you advocate, how do you, or who, regulates the subjectivity that goes on in the name of social individualism?

[@xelenty]

philosophically speaking, when someone has turned a plot of land into something productive then it belongs to him.. He has earned the right of ownership because of his labour.. However, these days it's almost impossible to know who did this with current ownership, as much land has been stolen from its original owners throughout the ages. So some form of reparations would have to put in place. Not a perfect answer, but its close.

[@lostinthelandoflies]

All her ideas ripped off from a Mr A Crowley.. do what THOU wilt is the whole of the law. But as an individual can I accept the reasoning behind reciprocal altruism? (a la the Prisoners Dilemma?)

[@shovelcharge]

Feelings are inherently irrational, but believing in the supernatural is. Exercise, relaxation, and mystic hippie activities do not go in the category. They have entirely different natures.

[@rjbonacolta]

You won't get an answer for two reasons, one Randians have no argument, two Randians think that they're the uber-men and therefore above things like explaination and logic

[@shovelcharge]

A corporation is a collection of individuals defined by a contract, and formed voluntarily. Yaron Brook has a course on corporations FYI. Go to the aynrandbookstoreDOTcom.

[@kittenclaws5775]

hypnolinks--The Objectivist must accept the right of others to speak in public even when their words are foolish.

[@TimPQF]

So the individual is this cherished entity...fine. How does an infant/child survive if not with the help of groups (i.e. parents or extended social environment)?

[@HMSPolychrest]

Noticed that a good amount of this is lifted from the Rand website. Good, nonetheless.

[@proffesor02]

Yeah, just trying a little sarcasm on jnycnuk. Hopefully that changed his mind, lol.

[@mindlessnick]

Bull, Rand was an atheist not an occultist. She stood on logic to defend her ideas, not some unfounded proclamation.

[@strav12]

Can you give me some examples of something that is philosophy and merits serious discussion on the issues raised here?

[@blujesus]

Dr. Onkar Ghate have you so little confidence in rand's ideas that you need to censor comments? how sad you are.

[@shovelcharge]

Ayn Rand said that there are indeed selfless acts. Read "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in the Virtue of Selfishness.

[@chopsky]

How was I arguing with that? That is completely irrelevant to what I said.

[@deinse81]

A politician on the other hand gets payed by taxpayers, and the voters are the one's ultimately deciding his pay and whether he gets to keep his job. If voters wanted to pay someone important more money, I'd be fine with that. The fact is they don't. Shareholders on the other hand obviously do, since they get a bigger return on their investement from a good CEO, than from a cheap one. As owners of a company, it is their right to determine such wages, not yours, or the employees' and customers'.

[@jcomd]

reason IS supreme. All else follows. But FAITH is as important. Nether is exclusive. THINK about it.

[@rjbonacolta]

That's because she never read any of Plato or Aristotle, or even Nietzsche all "heros" of hers.

[@shovelcharge]

There is an evolutionary basis for giving up human values (things that are needed to survive)?

[@strav12]

'Each man is free to go his own way. He must simply refrain from violating the rights of others.' If only! How psychologically naive is that! Nothing simple about this proposition - its complex - we do violate - the question is why? Individuality is a fragile construct.

[@shovelcharge]

How do you know Dr. Ghate posted this himself? Well, the user obviously didn't censor you.

[@shovelcharge]

What the hell is a drive? Can you give me an example. Sounds like Freudian nonsense.

[@shovelcharge]

Using reason to show that reason doesn't work. What power you have!

[@drummergrl225]

Leonard Peikoff is Ayn Rand's intellectual heir.

[@Georgiavr-1]

omg can u imagine a global laissez faire capitalist system.... one word.. prosperity.

[@Georgiavr-1]

@TheButlerism only when socialism is brought into the game.

[@TheButlerism]

@platinum014 With just a touch slavery and oppression hahah

[@DonMeaker]

Civilization must be recreated every day within each of us,

[@xiala1980]

We are not a cult and I'm rather insulted by that notion.

[@edidpro]

I don't remember the context of my remark.

[@blujesus]

umm isn't a corporation a "collective"?

[@Bigmartinno1]

Jehova's witnesses > objectivists

[@rjbonacolta]

Way to not make an argument and admit defeat.

[@Bigmartinno1]

Secular jehova's witnesses......

[@partydoll222]

Maybe you should ask Nathanial Brandon?

[@Rayosun4]

@Iisdabest889, When Onkar says “In her books Ayn Rand exposes the false and pernicious ideas destroying America and the West, a set of ideas she often labels ‘the axis of collectivism, altruism, and mysticism the true axis of evil, the axis of evil responsible for all the other evils in the world.’ he is talking about her HATRED of the Bible's love of God and love of neighbors. Conservative Republicans and "Christians" love Rand because they don't know God or follow Christ. Rev, R,D,

[@Radeo]

@HOLYdpsBATMAN Holy Marxism Batman!

[@Xdrakemanx]

Uh, do you know how to read?

[@shovelcharge]

1. Hmm, how is it a cult? 2. Why is it not philosophy?

[@rjbonacolta]

Dude, high five.

[@Xdrakemanx]

Amen, brother!

[@isabelly2000]

Amen to that.

[@Xdrakemanx]

Fail.

[@shovelcharge]

Maybe you should actually read Ayn Rand.

[@piplableful]

Who needs a fucking Ayn Rand Center?

[@davidblankenau]

The entire f*****g world...