violet Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 What is the difference between libertarian philosophy and Ayn Rand’s ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 Idealism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 Hi @violet I'm not sure that's an answerable question. Which ideas? Could you provide context? Could you be more specific? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 (edited) It would be unfair to say Ayn Rands "ideas" as such. She herself said that Objectivism was an update of Aristotlianism. As well as that Objectivism was "a complete philosophy". More it would be akin to Classical Liberalism. Left Libertarians (Communism). Right Libertarians (Anarcho-Capitalism). A mixture of both; Voluntarism. (based on morality). With the distinction it is defined independent of the state, and I would say independent of a collective human nature. A criticism Ayn Rand leveled at Anarchism. What's stopping a small group of people systematically exploiting a large group with less in group preference and more individualistic nature? Answer Morality......But if people can't keep to the small things, how should the big things be any different. Let alone the cognitive strain of having to process ones own actions. Morality is at least in part, IQ dependent. All the above 3 are Idealistic. Where as Objectivism (Amoral) is not. "Complete". Edited June 6, 2018 by RichardY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofd Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 Rand took the basic concepts, changed a few words, glimpsed at a few books, started a cult and called that Objectivisim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
violet Posted June 6, 2018 Author Share Posted June 6, 2018 I think Ayn Rand didn’t like libertarian movements (of her time anyway). I guess I was just confused because they line up a lot from my point of view. Maybe my definitions have been too simplistic though. Perhaps she was referring to the left-libertarian movements. I’m mostly thinking about it in terms of how a society is governed. From what I know, Ayn Rand believed that government should be involved in dispensing justice, policing, and national defense. All three areas were meant to provide the groundwork for capitalism/voluntarism to thrive, i.e. protection of right to life and property. Does right-libertarianism greatly differ from that? Obviously, I could read more and inform myself that way, but I felt like looking for simple answers on here if I could find them :). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 On 06/06/2018 at 10:08 PM, violet said: I think Ayn Rand didn’t like libertarian movements (of her time anyway). I guess I was just confused because they line up a lot from my point of view. Maybe my definitions have been too simplistic though. Perhaps she was referring to the left-libertarian movements. I’m mostly thinking about it in terms of how a society is governed. From what I know, Ayn Rand believed that government should be involved in dispensing justice, policing, and national defense. All three areas were meant to provide the groundwork for capitalism/voluntarism to thrive, i.e. protection of right to life and property. Does right-libertarianism greatly differ from that? Obviously, I could read more and inform myself that way, but I felt like looking for simple answers on here if I could find them :). That looks like an honest reply ... Yeah, reading and processing on your own is always a good idea for starters, I did it myself too. I also wondered, if you chose not to look into it on your own, but opted for a more convenient route... isn't it fair to assume the answer is rather on the 'meh' side of things? Certainty correct me if I'm miss-characterising the appearance of the ask. My hyper-simplified and limited view on objectivism is that the most it can achieve is to be a supplementary&additional framework for starting to understand what could be more beneficial to the individual other than any centralised type governance. It lacks the stuff that undeniably we humans respond to/affected by and for many more generations won't be able to deny... irrationality and emotional susceptibility besides the intellectual and logical. I also think, Ayrn Rand was an outsider most of her life, don't see her as someone who's been able to connect with the zeitgeist nor the people around her. In my opinion she didn't face her demons and lacked any consistential self-knowledge to see who herself really was, which is always bad when you are an influence on others. Important to mention, I do think she was brilliant and for that, I raise my imaginary hat. She also loved taking drugs (and a lot) which is opposite to brilliant or virtuous... (full picture stuff) Voluntarism and government being involved in dispersing greater liberties? Isn't that a contradictory stance? Self ownership... Doesn't that exclude any government from the get-go, in principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
violet Posted June 6, 2018 Author Share Posted June 6, 2018 The main reason I made a topic was to start a discussion. I’m interested, but might not be interested enough to spend twenty hours reading about it in the near future. This forum is quite inactive and I think the reason might be that it is a bit intimidating to post here. It just seems a shame because Stefan has a lot of listeners, and I feel I could discuss things better with a listener than the average person. Yes, it’s true that there is a contradiction in the idea of promoting freedom while maintaining some level of government. But there are different degrees of what is considered ideal. I don’t think Ayn Rand approved of complete anarchism. By the way, I don’t necessarily think of her as a virtuous person. I just find her ideas about the organizing of government interesting. I was particularly influenced by her distiguishing between true altruism and forced altruism. Helping others can be moral, but it is corrupted when force is added to the equation. When there are elections, I tend to be drawn to the libertarian party - not that they have any chance of winning. I just don’t know if I should consider myself a libertarian or not... I know Stefan prefers anarchism, but I don’t fully understand how it would work (more reading to do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 Ayn Rand voiced the idea of Selfish Egoism. she said that today’s society values altruism and that this value system is horribly flawed and leads to systems like Communism. The idea is for each individual person to morally seek to better oneself, not at any other’s expense, but thru Capitalism and Free Trade. She loved Capitalism and championed it as the greatest system for society. She was born in collapsing Russia and watch her father harmed by Communism. She supports limited government, courts and police, paid by tax dollars. She supports the military and thinks the government should seek its own benefit and destroy anyone who challenges our country with violence. But trade freely in general and not seek to annex other land or resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) Hi @violet Would you like to quote me directly in the future(I am having difficulty sometimes relating things you mention) ? On 06/06/2018 at 11:21 PM, violet said: The main reason I made a topic was to start a discussion. I’m interested, but might not be interested enough to spend twenty hours reading about it in the near future. Thanks for your honesty, again. (expect reciprocity) Maybe it's just me but I got the sensation that you'd spent a lot less than 'reasonably sufficient' time to approach your own supposed basis for your own question... while I know this isn't an argument, nor objective... (except your initial vague-ish/too broad ask supports the notion, in my estimation, that the topics were quite distant for you from the start... that's why I asked initially what you'd meant, by saying this to you ->) -> On 06/06/2018 at 3:37 PM, barn said: Hi @violet I'm not sure that's an answerable question. Which ideas? Could you provide context? Could you be more specific? As of the On 06/06/2018 at 11:21 PM, violet said: I’m interested, but might not be interested enough to spend twenty hours reading [...] Sure, spend as little time researching a topic you (seemed to have/) showed to have some interest in... my mistake, I fully accept your preferences for your use of your time. (genuinely, not mocking or being 'difficult'... etc.) Do as you wish. On 06/06/2018 at 11:21 PM, violet said: This forum is quite inactive and I think the reason might be that it is a bit intimidating to post here. I beg your pardon? Wha... Erm... Intimidating?! (Hmm...) Are you serious or am I not getting a playful joke here that everyone else does? (puzzled) This philosophy forum is intimidating for you? Why? (I'm sorry that you feel that way. Is it ok if we examine it objectively?) Ok, let me ask you then the following... Is it true: that this is a subjective assessment of yours, (from) someone who's not been posting much during her (<-name/'her', can I also assume that you are a female too?<-) membership on the board? (~2 years, 40 posts in total, am I right?) (I'm fine/neutral with that, nor do I say you should've done more/less, just and only asking if it's true or not.) also, May I ask who are you comparing the board and its members to, your standard for comparison? (maybe you just forgot to mention, it's ok, no 'biggie' but I'm curious to know compared to what other board&people) (if you wanted to know my take to compare it with yours: I think, this is a public philosophy forum with all that comes with it. I'm here because I want to, hopefully share&contribute useful stuff constructively, learn things I can use in the process. So far, I'm very happy I discovered and stayed, I think I made a very good choice.) On 06/06/2018 at 11:21 PM, violet said: It just seems a shame because Stefan has a lot of listeners, and I feel I could discuss things better with a listener than the average person. I think I can grasp that. (Is it like: 'In general, the listenership/callers sound more genuine and open-minded than what I generally see the majority of people around are like.') Well, the good news is that by being yourself in a conversation, acting pro-actively, you'll get to incentivise it for others too. Naturally, that means the 'pro-actively' part is essential. (instead of... when people are acting passively and await others to kick-start a community for them without having to move a finger... no pun intended. I'm not suggesting anything, just providing the counter example.) On 06/06/2018 at 11:21 PM, violet said: Yes, it’s true that there is a contradiction in the idea of promoting freedom while maintaining some level of government. But there are different degrees of what is considered ideal. Without trying to exaggerate, does that mean you're ok with some coercion, something like a minarchist? i. e: a little bit &/ hard to notice contaminated drinking water vs. clean water? On 06/06/2018 at 11:21 PM, violet said: I don’t think Ayn Rand approved of complete anarchism. By the way, I don’t necessarily think of her as a virtuous person. I just find her ideas about the organizing of government interesting. I was particularly influenced by her distiguishing between true altruism and forced altruism. Helping others can be moral, but it is corrupted when force is added to the equation. Gotcha. ('understand') There's nothing though about morals in objectivism, right?! (Altruism never made sense to me. Maybe in a 100-1000 generations or more, once we aren't irrational, tribalistic...until then, altruism will always loose to, well everyone maybe not the Buddhists but they're quite inconsequential anyway. Except for the territorial, the militarised mass murderer types amongst them.) On 06/06/2018 at 11:21 PM, violet said: When there are elections, I tend to be drawn to the libertarian party - not that they have any chance of winning. I just don’t know if I should consider myself a libertarian or not... I know Stefan prefers anarchism, but I don’t fully understand how it would work (smirk) If you asked me, 'labels' are for the 'superficial' I'm definitely certain about that... Principles however! Now, that's something different. The good thing about principles is that they tend to hold true even when seen through different glasses, objectively stay the same. Labels such as 'skeptic' ('sit in front of') and many others must be messed-up/with lately it seems, to suit the wielders of the most dominant cultural influence of the time... you can't say that about principles. i. e What does it mean to be a Libertarian nowadays? 20yrs ago? To the westerner? To a women?... they all are quite free to interpretation today, for most people it seems they can conveniently 'shape-shift'. So yeah, no labels for me, don't recommend it to anyone neither. Also, doesn't it look like to you, the libertarians are usually not much action compared to the amount of talk and talk and more talk they produce? That's why they don't really attract my sympathy for their content. We're living quite a violent times for all that chit-chat to be had, freedoms being ripped to pieces then flamed to ashes left and right... again, no pun intended. On 06/06/2018 at 11:21 PM, violet said: [...] but I don’t fully understand how it would work (more reading to do). Careful, not to accidentally reach the '20 hours' mark, that would be too much. Hahaha (Ok, I admit. I'm being cheeky with this last one, couldn't resist.) Edited June 12, 2018 by barn visual update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizbaeth Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 On 6/6/2018 at 5:21 PM, violet said: This forum is quite inactive and I think the reason might be that it is a bit intimidating to post here. It just seems a shame because Stefan has a lot of listeners, and I feel I could discuss things better with a listener than the average person. Hahah yes it can be! I think it's because it's such a masculine place. Everybody's ripping into each other with their analyses, and the tone can get very biting and sharp. It does not feel all the inviting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 I'd down-vote that if I could, (as) it's missing the core elements of this forum: reason & evidence p. s. (Is it just me or there's a pattern emerging: Violet, Elizbaeth + Elizabeth's latest statement = (if I'm correctly assuming they're both women) women in general, prefer less involvement in strictly regulated systems and introduce feelings where should be none?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said: Hahah yes it can be! I think it's because it's such a masculine place. Everybody's ripping into each other with their analyses, and the tone can get very biting and sharp. It does not feel all the inviting. My biggest beef is that the conversations can be very boring and repetitive at times. Some of them are interesting and inviting and I love talking to wise, or at least knowledgable, folks seeking to become wiser but other times it's the same thing over and over and the folks are set in their ways without the possibility for change. How many topics have to be devoted to "is God evil", "is God real", "is --insert here-- child abuse?", "is my obviously abusive family abusive?" or "is the State immoral or super immoral?". All this might be interesting at first but after a while it gets really bland and predictable. Given the philosophical nature of this site, I'd hope to see some more intellectually interesting debates like monarchism vs. republicanism, socialism vs. capitalism (admittedly a bit stale, especially with so few if any socialists around to argue with), is Stalin really all that bad?, was Hitler actually not that bad?, etc. Even if I totally disagree with the topic creator, I'm much more engaged in debating people that think Hitler is cool or Stalin is cool than I am debating flat earthers, atheists, or sex addicts. In short: there's not enough starkly opposing view points and stuff I, at least, find personally interesting. The economic stuff is interesting but unfortunately for me often over-my-head and hard to comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts