“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.

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.

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?

For example. Communist Russia and America are in a stalemate war. There are Russian companies selling things in America. Or Americans are buying Russian products. Is there grounds to step in and stop this? Because any money given to these companies will in a way promote the enemy. Which I would think is almost treason.

This is just a step removed from an even bigger problem of what if an organization like say the Taliban. OWNS the company selling the product? Then IT IS going directly to them. Which I would think is even worse.

I’ve heard that no this isn’t something government should step in and do but I can’t see how it wouldn’t if people are willingly supplying the enemy with the resources to use against you. I see that as a clear and objective threat. So to step in and atleast make it difficult for the money to be given to them seems reasonable to me

So, as a disclaimer, I am neither objectivist nor strictly libertarian (I'm a religious conservative who supports free markets when it comes to economics) however in light of the recent online resurgence of libertarian popularity I'll give my best shot at why libertarianism is wrong according to most objectivists. The first thing is that libertarians politically claim to advocate for liberty but in reality the term is such a family resemblance thing that it can include everyone from genuine laissez fair capitalists to pro Hamas/jew hating conspiracy theorists anti Americans (many of whom apologize for Russia, China etc.) as their opposition is not to rights violations but the government (which is necessary to exist to protect individual rights). The second, beyond the anarchism question is that libertarians unlike objectivists generally have no philosophical defense of liberty, so when somebody advocates for religious conservatism, socialism, mixed economy, anarchism, nationalism etc. which objectivists oppose a libertarian doesn't have a coherent philosophical (with metaphysics, epistemology and ethics integrated) opposition to it, often resorting to the non agression principle as if it's a self evident axiom.

Rand stated in this interview fragment that someone who plans out by conscious, deliberate intention a murder, forfeits his life by that decision. Unfortunately, Rand doesn't really clarifies this opinion here.

Because every human being is an end in himself, every individual deserves freedom to the extent that he doesn't limit the freedom of others. It seems to follow that the only legal purposes of punishment are protection and compensation. Is the rationale behind deserving to die that you're a lost cause, because you're an guaranteed danger to society?

My main question is: What is the rationale behind deserving to die? I can also vaguely remember Yaron Brook saying that convicted pedophiles deserve to die, so I'm also curious what the bottom line is of 'deserving to die'. Do you deserve to die when you robbed a bank, for instance?

So I grew up in india and went to states for grad school. When I went to uS I would have thought everyone there would love objectivism and celebrate US constitution but from my experience it was soo hard to find any people who gel with objective instead of passing snide remarks about Ayn rand. But my experience in india has been so different. I feel there is so much philosophical stuff that already exists within India that it has not created the kind of philosophical vacuum that lack of religion had left in the west, which has eventually been taken over by left/nihilism/existentialism/hedonism etc. But this hasn't happened in india. As there hasn't been this philosophical vaccum. And somehow there has been a lot of room for debate and discussion within hindu and Buddhist religions. So here I don't see people clinging to left the way I see in US. And they are so much more open to objectivism based right wing, individual rights based ideas, which I am loving it.

Ok just curious if 100% convicted people have rights. And if the 8th amendment (specifically that of excessive “punishment”) is a good law.

Cause it seems to me if you are a criminal you have forfeited your rights. So while doing your time you have no rights.

And relating to excessive punishment. I believe I’ve heard it on multiple occasions where yaron and others have sanctified torture in war and for information. So war I can see but say a kidnapper has a child. Is it legitimate to torture this person to find out where the child is? But yet the 8th amendment says no. But I would think it would be legitimate.

I don’t see how this can be true. As having a “right” to an attorney means you must be provided one. And what if no one wants to do the providing? I’ll let you take it from there.

But I’m willing to be wrong or maybe I’m not seeing something here so I don’t see how you could have a right to an attorney

I recently finished reading the book “The Psychology of Self-Esteem” by Nathaniel Branden, a book written in 1969, whose innovative approach treats psychology in a way “outside the standards” so widespread in academies in this field.

Among the various insights that the book, in a slow and careful reading, can provide the reader, I would like to share something focused on living with people who have difficult relationships, whether within the family, at work or in any social environment.

Branden emphasizes the importance of self-esteem as a fundamental pillar for emotional and psychological well-being. According to him, the way we deal with others directly reflects the level of respect and self-confidence we have in ourselves. People with low self-esteem often allow themselves to be dominated by toxic relationships, accepting abusive behavior out of fear of rejection or loneliness. In this sense, when dealing with difficult people, whether within the family or in other relationships, it is essential to recognize the impact of self-esteem in the process. Self-worth must be the basis of the stance we adopt, protecting our integrity without giving in to the destructive behavior of others.

Dealing with difficult people requires a stance of firmness and rationality, central elements of objectivist ethics and the psychology of self-esteem. Branden argues that "self-esteem is the willingness to consider oneself competent to deal with life's challenges and worthy of success and happiness." Applying this principle means that when faced with disrespectful or irrational behavior, we must keep our dignity intact without compromising our values.

We can “link” this understanding to what Ayn Rand explains in her philosophy that “the mind (reason) is man’s only means of survival” (Atlas Shrugged). This means that in moments of tension, we must act based on the facts, seeking to discuss in a logical and objective manner, without giving in to emotional impulses. When we deal with people who insist on being irrational, regardless of the social cycle, it is essential to stay focused on the principles of logic and reason, instead of being drawn into unproductive discussions.

Another practice of self-esteem and a virtue is integrity. Rand states that integrity involves fidelity to reason and one's principles. Therefore, it is necessary to set clear limits and not allow someone else's actions to make us compromise our values. As Branden points out, “living with integrity means living in line with what you know to be true” (Psychology of Self-Esteem).

Finally, independence also plays a vital role. Instead of seeking approval or change from others, our focus should be on our own actions while maintaining our emotional and intellectual independence. This reflects the search for autonomy. “The man who lives for others is trapped in a fruitless search for acceptance” (The Fountainhead).

By applying these insights as well as these virtues, responding to difficult people becomes an opportunity to strengthen our self-esteem and defend our values ​​with rationality and respect for ourselves.

In order to become knowledgeable, you need to judge what sources give a comprehensive, true (and intelligable) account of real facts in the field you want to become knowledgeable in. A proper understanding of basic epistemology comes a long way: It gives one the knowledge to dismiss floating abstractions and unsubstantiated generalizations at the outset.

Some fields, mostly the hard sciences, are for the most part undisturbed by bad philosophy: It's easy to maneuver one's mind in order to come to know real facts. Fields such as nutrition, history & psychology are philosophically consensually less united, depend less on individual experimentation and more on testimony.

Which methods can be used to find out what the best sources are amidst the gamut of literature within a scientific field? The consensual theory within a field might not always be the most accurate description of reality, so how does one circumvent the 'appeal to authority' fallacy?

I've already watched Salmieri's lecture series Objective Thinking, which has some intersection with my question. I'm primarily interested in the methods you yourself have come across (heuristic methods and cognitive 'rules' are also welcome), which keeps your scientifically cautious and precise.

Questions for objectivists:

Someone at the edge of our town breeds hundreds of dogs and cats, only to subject each of them to extreme and drawn out torture. He doesn't eat them or otherwise put them to productive use. He tortures them because he gets a sick enjoyment out of it. He does this on his own property and inside a barn, so the sound does not carry to his far away neighbors. However, the practice is well known and he readily admits it to whoever asks him about it.

1. Does the government have a right to intervene to stop the man from doing this, or would that be a violation of his rights?
2. Is the man commiting a moral evil against the animals? Surely he's harming his character and reputation, etc. But is a moral wrong being done to the animals themselves, apart from how the man is effected?

Objectivists please respond, and explain how objectivist principles apply to these cases.

My view is clear from the post title. If objectivism cannot recognize that animals have some moral value, I consider that a reductio ad absurdum of objectivism.

UPDATE: I'm very sympathetic to much of objectivism, but this thread reminds me how ultimately shallow and incomplete objectivist philosophy is, particularly its ethics. Rand loves touting Aristotle, but he had a much richer and more satisfying account of ethics than that of Rand. Y'all should read some other thinkers.

This doesn’t seem to make much sense to me with seeing how long objectivism has been around (1930’s. Almost a 100 years). You would think with that much time there would be more than a couple hundred people in this Reddit and 18 thousand in the main one. So what gives?

Why are there so few objectivists? What is the problem?

https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/electric-motors-are-about-to-get-a-major-upgrade-thanks-to-benjamin-franklin-e96f339d

"Out of the lab in Wisconsin"

This seems to make no sense to me and on its face completely subjective and rights violating.

In the U.S age restrictions of congressmen, senators and president exist. 25 for congressmen. 30 for senators. And 35 for president. Now I know the why in the great wisdom of the founders but like other decisions the founders made this seems to be a violation of rights.

Why can’t a person at 20 run for president. Etc etc etc.

Hi there,

I would like suggestions for good books, articles, essays, videos, or other content written from an Objectivist (or "Randian") point of view which is relevant to the law, particularly American law. The content can describe and comment on a particular law, it can be about philosophy of law, or it can describe some episode of interest from American legal history.

Here are some examples of good work along these lines that I am familiar with:

• Tara Smith's chapter on philosophy of law in the Companion to Ayn Rand (published by Blackwell)

• C. Bradley Thompson's book America's Revolutionary Mind is not about law per se, but it provides crucial historical background for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

• James Valliant has some good videos on YouTube about how he believes the founders viewed the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as opposed to contemporary liberal and conservative judges.

You can assume I am familiar with the Objectivist canon and OPAR, but there's probably at least some later work in the Randian tradition that I have not heard of. If you know of such work, I would appreciate your input, particularly if you personally read it and found it interesting or useful.

Thank you.

Today I had a town hall meeting where there was a lot of discussion about creating an ordinance to not only have a 200ft set back from the property line but also a “buffer” required of planted vegetation for a camp ground

But the cause of this ordinance was an argument of sound. That the camp ground was creating sound that was disturbing and thus should be contained and nullified.

Now I’m not sure what to think of this. On some level I do think sound can violate rights. Case in point if I yell into your ear and shatter your eardrum clearly that violence and property damage. But on the level of “annoyance” I’m not sure you can make the claim that you have a right to not be annoyed.

HOWEVER. I can see the argument that extended periods of noise production could stop someone from sleeping or the like. That could cause real damage. I mean there are torture systems designed to not let people fall asleep for a reason.

But what do you guys think about this? Cause I’m not entirely sure what to conclude about this problem

I read The Fountainead late in life, last year in my early 30s and feel like it completely changed the way I think, and was a vindication of so much. I read Atlas and didn't like it as much honestly (maybe because it's female protagonist) but have been trying to model my life on Howard Roarke while also being authentic to my own life and path.

I don't have any friends or family and find loneliness to be something that is tough to deal with. While Roarke seemed a borderline Schizoid until he met a friend worthy to be a friend, he also had a romantic partner. He had quite a bit of support even though for most of his life he did not.

While reading The Fountainhead I felt as if I let everything go and just didn't care anymore about unimportant things, and also had my first foray with a woman who threw herself at me (who was in a relationship with another man). The rape scene in the book and Dominiques obvious BPD frankly made me loath her character and I found her completely not worthy of Roarke (while in Atlas Dagney WAS worthy of her 3 lovers). That level of sexual violence I am uncomfortable with if not only for the lack of self preservation let alone any moral issues which I do not abide by, especially with them already being with someone else. Anyways as I stumbled from inexperience, and they pulled back and played the let's just be friends I am with someone (I now feel as if they 'baited' me) so I have cut things off with them.

But the issue is now I feel an intense loneliness that I never did before especially as the season turns colder and darker. I work remotely and so do not interact with anybody outside of professional work emails. Roarke never sought out a partner and friends however I find myself craving them. Is this a contradiction I need to resolve, need to focus more on my work, or what? The main thing is I want to experience is real companionship and intimacy both with friends and a lover. But does this not contradict what it means to be a staunch Individualist?

First of all Im not an expert on ethics and the only ethics Ive really concerned myself with were ethical egoism, natural rights based ethics and the utilitarianism vs deontology debate. I like to think about moral philosophy in two categories: one for the day to day use in personal matters and one for the organization of a polities/commonwealths and its laws.

I understand the virtue ethics + ethical egoism (for simplicity sake) combo for personal day to day use, but I dont understand how one can translate virtue ethics and ethical egoism to run a government and set up ethical laws without it collapsing into natural rights (or individual rights in case of Ayn Rand)-based deontology.

Im a classical liberal and I dont mean natural rights as in "rights from god" (I think this is a very antiquated and poor definition), but natural rights which can be derived from reason and such thought experiments as the state of nature - the basic belief is that the government should serve to protect natural rights which are life, property, liberty - from that you can get other principles like the idea of self-ownership, harm principle, voluntaryism etc. I read stuff from Nozick, Mises, Auberon Herbert, Stuart Mill, Hayek, Locke, Bob Murphy etc

I think the concept of natural rights is pretty much the same (if not literally the same) as individual rights from Ayn Rand - feel free to correct me here. But even if Im wrong the question still stands, does it not collapse into "individual rights" based deontology?

TLDR: Do Objectivist virtue ethics not collapse into "individual rights" deontology when applied in the polity/government setting?