Poor spelling, poor education, and assaults on my knowledge
It's Peikoff, not "Piekoff" and it's Caesar not ceaser.
To use your own condescending language, and ad hominem assault:
I accept that you're probably not well versed in spelling, and I encourage you to read the dictionary and discover it for yourself-- discover the collectively agreed upon means of spelling that it shows you.
Furthermore, I gave my name: Morgan. You may use it, or you may use my username: CaesarI and I might tolerate Caesar, but ceaser is incorrect.
I am very well versed in Objectivism, thanks. I've read Atlas, and most of her other works as well. I note you failed to read any of the links I gave you, had you; you would have found I had articles by Rand herself expressing support for the US Military. So lemme get this one straight... not even RAND had Objectivism right?
"Objectivism" isn't in the dictionaries I possess. However, it was the name that Rand gave to her philosophy. As the creator of that philosophy, it is her right to define it as she so chose, not yours. She also has the right to determine who gets to define it at a later date, by naming an "intellectual heir".
Rand defined it on several occasions:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
- Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged
Introducing Objectivism
By Ayn Rand
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won’t make it so." 2. "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency -- to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them -- requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot -- nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute -- facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. Copyright ©1962 by Times-Mirror Co.
She fails to mention your glorious NAP, however, she does follow it, but this does not lead to Libertarianism, she didn't think very highly of Libertarianism at all:
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
[Ayn Rand, "Brief Summary," The Objectivist, September 1971]
For more on her definition click
here
As for your definition of Libertarianism... well you can define it as you like, just as you spell as you like (how very individualistic of you!), but the rest of us have a much more complicated definition of Libertarianism. The
Libertarian Party doesn't define it as simply as you do, neither does Websters:
Main Entry: lib·er·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: "li-b&r-'ter-E-&n
Function: noun
Date: 1789
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
- libertarian adjective
How about you do us all a great big favor, and start supporting some of your definitions, instead of assuming all of us mindless collectivists automatically agree with yours.
Unfortunately, Peikoff with his blessings and purges wants to be pope,
Rand never purged anyone... nope, never, oh wait... except Nethaniel Branden, and...
Nothing could be more offensive to an objectivist than appeal to authority, unless its a self-deified authority that demands ones supplication!
::ahem:: what is offensive to some, may not be offensive to all. Feeling "offended" is an emotional response, thus, and therefore, it is not a "fact" which, according to objectivism, can objectively exist. I for example, may find the most offensive thing in the world to be people who presume they talk for other people, especially when those people for whom their talking have previously published their opinions. Other Objectivists are free to feel more offended by whatever they like. You for example really, really don't like the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" nevermind that you can't correctly identify its use.
you will see that demands that people join a collective (Whether it be ARI or TOC) are anti-objectivist. Objectivism requires you to reject such collectivism.
She called her little organization of friends "The Collective" jokingly. They discussed ideas, and allowed Rand to correct their poor logic, and show them the light. I am not a member of TOC, or ARI, or the Libertarian party. I follow her admonition to not join such. I think the split of TOC, and ARI was poor, and Rand's decision to not back Libertarianism is a poor political decision.
**Libertarianism may not agree entirely with Objectivism, however it beats the opposition, and is a step in our direction.**
The same argument is used by those Objectivists who support the war. Objectivists look at the big picture, rather than vetoing the whole effort on grounds that the entire military is funded by stolen tax dollars. They totally sidestep the whole argument about the system itself being flawed (if they believe it is, and while they oppose the draft, they've no objections to a standing army, or tax dollars used for defense). I for example, am fully aware that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and feel it should be repealed. For this reason, I would say that the war is being fought unconstitutionally. I still support the war.
If we use *your* *perfect* definition of what *you* think an objectivist is, then there aren't too many objectivists. Ignoring who is, and who is not a "REAL" Objectivist, the vast, vast majority of people calling themselves "Objectivists" support the war.
Your argument that the war should not be supported because it is financed by stolen tax dollars is tantamount to saying that: "That guy holding that gun wants to kill me, but my salary, with which I paid for my firearm, and my training, was derived from stolen tax dollars, because I am a federal employee. Therefore, I don't have a right to defend myself, unless every dollar I earned is absolutely pure in the Libertarian NAP sense."
This is different than "We don't have a right to declare war on the Muslim nations that sponsor terrorism because we initiated the use of force against THEM when we did X" which an Objectivist *would* agree with. The fact of the matter, as laid out by Peikoff, is that they stole OUR oil, they blew up OUR citizens. Therefore, we have a right to attack them.
The ultimate reason for ANY of my posts was in response to the initial assertion that Rand was a pacifist, she was not, and on this I believe we agree.
-Morgan
