Freedomain Radio

Hey everyone,

I have been listening to Freedomain radio and watching Stefan's videos on YouTube for nearly a year now.  My girlfriend (sw33tlibery) recently joined this message board in hopes of finding similar minded people to help her with some issues she is dealing with.  I have to thank all of you who have participated in her intro post.  That post plus Stefan's book have helped her organize her thoughts and get started on the path to healthier relationships.  It's a tough and painful start, but I think it will be very positive in the long run.

At the suggestion of my girlfriend I purchased a copy of On Truth.  I haven't read a book since Atlas Shrugged that I have become so immersed in.  It has started to open up some wounds that I have been avoiding for awhile.  Before I read this book, I think I consciously made a lot of decisions about my friendships that have helped me to keep only the friends who share my core values, and get away from my parents who discouraged some of my values.  Despite my conscious efforts in the past, I am realizing that I never really faced all of my anxieties and fears that were fueled by bad teachers, friends, and mistakes that my parents made.  Both of my parents are fairly good people, and love me for the right reasons (and express those reasons), but they did make some crucial mistakes while I was growing up.  My mom was controlling and used many intimidating techniques to make sure she was always "right".  To this day (I am 25) she still says, "Just wait until you are my age and see if you thought you were more right than me."  She does it in such a mocking, condescending tone that I realize that she is still insecure and unable to accept that I do know more than her, and that I am right.  It's painful to experience that, but I have been able to deal with it better now that I understand why she behaves that way.  So, the next crucial step in my life is to learn more about all of my anxieties and fears and make sure I never transfer them onto my relationships with others, especially my girlfriend, who I love and respect more than anyone on earth.

Guess I should get to introducing myself some, although the above does give you some insight into my character.  I am a 25 year old entrepreneur.  I own my own web design and marketing company and pride myself on running a company that is ethical and works only with rational individuals who hold similar business ideals (private message me if you'd like more info).  I started my philosophical life as a confused atheist, moral relativist, libertarian.  When I met my girlfriend I read Atlas Shrugged and eventually began to call myself an Objectivist.  VERY recently I have started to realize the inherent contradiction with Objectivism's support of the state and no longer consider myself an Objectivist.  I do hold Ayn Rand as one of the greatest philosophers ever, however I think she made a crucial, dangerous, destructive error when she called for the necessity of a state.  I am happy to see emerging philosophers like Stefan who are not afraid to challenge all ideas.

I look forward to participating more on these boards.  Since I have broken free of the Objectivist mindset, I do have a lot of questions and plan on posting them here since this community seems a lot friendlier than Objectivist communities. 

I also have a blog if you are interested in reading more about my philosophical views.  PM me if you are interested. 

Look forward to some good discussions!

MAF 

Thanks for your kind words about my book - and welcome aboard!

What goes on in the Objectivist communities? Are they really that volatile? We just had an Objectivist filmmaker come by here and he seemed, well, just a little bit tense...

Objectivist communities tend to treat you like a blasphemer for challenging any idea of their philosophy.  I think it comes from a few, vocal Objectivists being insecure about themselves and their philosophy.  They are so afraid to have no philosophical label to hold onto that they try to discredit your arguments with blatant fallacies (fallacies they claim to abhor).  They don't seem interested in discussing ideas, but rather destroying any ideas that are not aligned with their own.  I hate this way of thinking and am disheartened by the behavior of what I think is a vocal minority of Objectivists that give the philosophy a bad name.  Like I said before, I think Ayn Rand was a great philosopher and I think her philosophy is the stepping stone to better philosophies...  but I just wish there were more philosophers who thought actively and were not afraid to shed labels that supported contradictions.

...and honestly, I used to have a similar mindset.  When I first came across your podcast I had a lot of problems listening to you because your ideas were in, what I thought, contradiction with my own.  But fortunately my lovely girlfriend encouraged me to look outside of the philosophy and challenge all ideas.  Now I agree with you, as far as what I know about your philosophy.  I hope you write a book that encompasses your entire philosophy.  I would love to read it.  How much has Ayn Rand influenced you?

Oh, Rand was by far the biggest influence on me, she was amazing philosophically; the Fountainhead got me started on this whole journey...

Hey MAF ;-)

?

sw33tLiberty:

Hey MAF ;-)

Hi sweetie ;-)

Stefan Molyneux:

?

My online name is MAF, because it is an acronym for Miniature American Flags, which is the name of my blog.  I think she meant to reply to the entire thread, rather than your part of the thread.

Hi guys.

 This thread seems an appropriate place to start.

I have great respect for Objectivist epistemology, but I'm not always on the same page with other Objectivists regarding other issues, usually political.

I favour a benevolent rational dictatorship, but I'm interested in discussing the basics of anarchy.

It must be noted that my NWO would require the creation and implemention of "Objective ethics", otherwise the notion of benevolent becomes a mockery.

 

 

Welcome David. You bring an interesting perspective to the table.

 Questions: what is your definition of a rational dictatorship? How does this fit with your definitions of ethics and morality?

 Thanks.

jimmy:

Welcome David. You bring an interesting perspective to the table.

 Questions: what is your definition of a rational dictatorship? How does this fit with your definitions of ethics and morality?

 Thanks.

Hi Jimmy, thanks for the welcome,

A rational dictatorship would simply be x amount of genuine experts and Objective scientist's who've created and are monitoring Objective ethics.

Science is provisional, {but still superior to guesswork}, so it's more than likely the ethical codes would require revision relative to our state of knowledge+ other factors.....but at any given point in time, Objective ethics will be the best, even though they're not always absolute.

One could argue that we already have this type of system, yet in reality, we have all sorts of ethics, ie business ethics, medical ethics, political ethics, etc, and these so called ethical decisions often clash with common decency.

My definitions of ethics and morality are the basis of a benevolent rational dictatorship....ethics should always underlie politics.

As for me, I could play any role in this NWO, but as long as the framework is understood, there's actually no need for me to do anything other than stay informed, IOW, this isn't about me and my ego, it's about what's best for mankind.

So people would have these ethics forced upon them from the top down? I guess that's what dictatorship means, huh?

What do you think of the non-aggression axiom?

jimmy:

So people would have these ethics forced upon them from the top down? I guess that's what dictatorship means, huh?

What do you think of the non-aggression axiom?

 "The people" could actually play a role in developing the ethics....granted it would require knowledge of science and Objectivism.

Like most people, you have no idea of what an objective ethic looks like, so you immediately imply I'm a control freak....the truth is, ethics are a contract between 2 or more people, but it's not my fault that people are both philosophically and scientifically illiterate and subsequently consider any objectively formulated ethics an act of evil via decree.

Btw, I would also have to abide by these ethics, it's not one law for me, and a different set for others.

David Henry:

Btw, I would also have to abide by these ethics, it's not one law for me, and a different set for others.

Would the dictator also have to abide by the same ethics?  If so, how will I be able to tell which one of you is the dictator, if you stand side-by-side?

Tenderfoot:

David Henry:

Btw, I would also have to abide by these ethics, it's not one law for me, and a different set for others.

Would the dictator also have to abide by the same ethics?  If so, how will I be able to tell which one of you is the dictator, if you stand side-by-side?

Yes...objective ethics would apply to everyone within the society.

What difference does it make who is who.....the dictator=a team of experts, ie, if you understand anything about science, you'll know that it's a sizeable body of knowledge, and is beyond the comprehension of one individual, although any specific discipline or disciplines can be properly understood.