Topic: Portion of Bitcoin enthusiasts who are into Ayn Rand? - page 3. (Read 4875 times)

Why do we need a video of what this would look like? We have empirical examples of the way businesses organize themselves when they have no court system to fall back on to handle disputes: drug cartels and street gangs. Gee, wouldn't it be better if Coca-Cola and Pepsi could just shoot at each other and blow up each other's factories to determine their market share?

What happens when multiple law-creation firms disagree on their verdicts or their sets of standards? What, do we only do business with customers who have subscribed to the same law-creation firm? Oh wait, we know what THAT looks like too: we have that situation and have for thousands of years. When law-creation firms disagree with one another, they kill each other until they come to some sort of agreement. Great. And when Jack assassinates Joe what do we do? Oh, well, Jack didn't subscribe to any law-creation firm so I guess there is no way to sanction that behavior. Carry on, Jack.

Or maybe it's my opinion that since Jack killed Joe he might kill me too, so I'm justified in killing Jack. Which means you're justified in killing me. Or hey, why am I even using the word "justified?" It doesn't matter whether my idea of right and wrong agrees with anyone else's idea of right or wrong. It's a sociopath's paradise!

But anyway, you're right about one thing: you don't know what it would look like. And you seem to agree that there have to be some standards for behavior and some form of recourse against violation of those standards in order to have a free market. So come up with a better system and I'll be happy to have a conversation about working toward it. In the meantime, Ayn Rand said that the proper role of government was to preserve individual rights. She and I may not agree on the best ways for government to go about it, but that's a starting point I'm comfortable with and I think my energy is best spent working toward that rather than overthrowing all forms of statism.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government

My own take on Ayn Rand, she was absolutely right as far as she goes, but there is a larger picture she did not paint. The "more to the picture" does not contradict what she wrote, but it's wrong to think there isn't more to it. And the majority of people I've encountered that think she was wrong have a malformed idea of what she wrote. She wrote that someone who earns it deserves money. Her detractors seem to think she said that if you have money it means you must have deserved it. In fact, Atlas Shrugged has more despicable wealthy characters than admirable ones, and more admirable characters of modest means than despicable ones. If you think she idolized the rich, you haven't read what she wrote.

I don't believe the existence of force negates freedom; rather, the freedom to use force when force is used against you is the only way to achieve freedom, as the man who initiates force for his own interest is always at the expense of another; neither does this man believe in freedom in himself, but more importantly, he does not believe in freedom in you.  If society functions at its best when people are not taking from one another, but rather cooperating and competing fairly with one another, then it would be in our greatest interest to encourage freedom between people; to achieve freedom, we must be free ourselves, for only then do we instill freedom in others (and behold, the golden rule).  However, there will always be those who either miss or refute this idea; once a person decides your freedom is not as valuable as their own, they negate both.  For all rights are granted only between those who grant rights to others, he who initiates force is no longer free, not to himself, nor any others.  At this point, to simply roll over and let what will would only lead to exactly what we already have, that being, those who do not grant freedom calling the shots as if they invented the concept.  Therefore, to ensure a society's freedom, the society in question must identify those who would deny them of those freedoms, whether it be in the form of trespassing, robbery, or even organized government, and seek recourse for freedom lost; if it is the individual who was robbed (initiation of force), one would have to resort to force to make amends, if the robber does not willingly do so; if it is all of society who was robbed, so must society use force to make amends, if government does not willingly disappear.  The reality is, we cannot escape force, for there are always those who do not believe you have the right to be free; we can only agree that initiating force is detrimental to us all, and focus violent measures against those violent.

Freedom goes two ways, when occurring in society; the person who wants to do something, and the people who will be affected by it.  The free market does not mean, "Well Jack can assassinate Joe because he has all the freedom he wants," because that would likely be detrimental to Joe's health, something he doesn't want; what we should seek is to disburse freedom, I suppose you could say, from a completely omnipotent and centralized entity, and moreso into the hands of the individual.  When it comes to property, it depends on what the society believes; if we believe the land we live on is ours, then so would we all agree not to take another person's land, which gets tricky because we would be taking it from government which took it from another society etc. etc...  Plus, we would have to consider entering private property as initiation of force, which, as explained above, would be justly met with retaliation.  And others believe all land should be openly available to anyone.  To be frank, I have no idea how it would work, and what any specific society would consider an offense or not, for it would be different in different parts of the world.  But anyway, so long as there are multiple arbitration businesses, as opposed to any nation's just one, we see a less likely chance of being subject to serve in a system which pretends to work for its people but, as we know, serves only its own best interests at a global scale.

Here's a little video of what this would look like, to have multiple law-creation firms under one roof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0  Because there is no coerced monopoly, not in security nor law, businesses which provide these services would be forced to serve their customers as best as possible if they want to stay in business (I hope they do).

What means does anyone have to protect their own property except by force? And what does it mean when two parties have different ideas about the division of property (eg how much profit each partner keeps in a profitable venture, where property boundaries lie, etc)? What recourse does an individual have against fraud? This hypothetical freest of free markets is not free at all—whoever has the best guns simply takes everything. Even honest disputes can be resolved only by bloodshed.

Rules against fraud and force need to have an impartial arbiter, and that arbiter needs to have the means to enforce rulings as to the outcome of disputes. I don't see any other way unless you can suddenly guarantee some way for no one to ever let their self-interest override their morality. Even honest people develop blind spots when it comes to potential threats to livelihood.

rand younger, working w Cecil demil, definitely one hot babe

Oops now I feel stupid O_O Kristin Davis was the name of the woman LOL

u thinking someone else, rand died 1988 iirc

Check youtube ...

Rand Donahue

For an interview

I don't even know who she is, all I saw was her appearing on the daily show because of her apparently running for New York Comptroller, I will admit I was mesmerized by her boobs though.

because Rand was a leading supporter of many of these viewpoints.

Likely the best known.

I might have been a bit quick off the gun so I apologize if I sounded a bit short.   There have been many times where freedom loving people (for lack of a better term) have been referred to in disparaging terms as Randians and the like and I think I read that into your poll and attempted to jump the gun, so apologies as it doesn't seem the angle you were approaching it from.  It's true that personally I have little knowledge of her.


Title's are so difficult.  Anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, etc.  Many people who can think critically and are for liberty don't refer to themselves as any of these.  There are many that don't like the anarchist term.  I am fine with all 3 personally although quick to point out it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with everything said by anyone who fits these categories.  For example there is a wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism and identifying myself as anarcho-capitalist doesn't mean I necessarily agree with everything on it.   

I guess the best thing to say is that I'm against coercion.  However, people want to arrange and organise their lives is fine with me as long as no coercion is involved.

Sounds like a case of semantics   It has always bugged me that we talk about anarcho-capitalism, but never talk about capital, the main feature of capitalism.  So it's not that Joe Schmoe can't protect his property, it's that Richguy Bill who saves a fortune by using the state as his free-of-charge protection for all the property that he owns.  Without state authority to protect the billionaire's property, the billionaire would be forced to spend a whole lot of money on private security to ensure his property is left unharmed; considering a lifestyle in which one begins at the bottom, such an exponential growth in spending cash to protect absent property would discourage people from amassing all that property in the first place--rather, people would be more inclined to own very few businesses, if more than one, thus completely thwarting wage slavery, nearly blurring the line between the rich and the poor.

So really, most of us are anarchists, who want to make a distinction from the anarcho-communists et al, but in reality, the anarcho-capitalist is just someone who believes in money over sharing.  Very very interesting, thank you for that link.  I'm gonna just relate to anarchism from now on, since anarcho-capitalism as most of us (and I say this but I have no idea if I'm the only one who actually thinks this way) know it, isn't actually very related to real capitalism.

Thanks to all of you for the responses.


No offense taken.
Although I can't admit complete ignorance I have at best a general concept of what objectivism is, having never read any of Rand's nonfiction. I certainly don't subscribe to her ism, but I have found the perspectives she shares through her novels are interesting and insightful.

That's the ticket.

I did not know that. 

I basically agree with you.  "ism's" always focus so sharply on single aspects of reality that they miss the true complexity of how every thing works together, and fail to provide a real view of the whole.

I would, however, recommend reading the work of others, even if they are "ism's". and even if you know going in that you disagree with the author.  There is a lot of value in seeing things from a different perspective, even if it is just to help you frame your own beliefs more solidly.

Yes, she wrote fiction, except for the numerous non fiction books ....

Question of scale. 

http://c4ss.org/content/4043

I don't wanna derail the thread but, why is Joe Schmoe incapable of protecting his own property?

I think it is important to remember that she writes fiction. The question in the thread is a little like asking if it was a good idea for Luke and Han Solo to join the rebellion.

I have only read Atlas Shrugged, so I don't know about all her work. In that book she re-envisions the gilded age as a happy time when the economic elites were the good guys and consume protection was an evil cabal.  I found the book well written, but completely divorced from the reality she is vaguely comparing it to.

I agree with hawkeye.

No offence, but this is a stupid poll.

Why do people so readily associate libertarians with Ayn Rand?  I haven't read any of her works or writings and barely know anything about her.  I also have no idea what objectivism is, beyond knowing that Rand coined it, nor do I care. 

I simply use logic and evidence to divine the truth of things which leads me to the freedom viewpoint.   

ism's of any kind don't matter at the end of the day.  Critical thinking is what you need.

I see her kinda like the polar opposite to Karl Marx, but it's a false dichotomy. Both imply a very authoritarian and elitist view on society. At least unlike most market-libertarians here she understands that capitalism is not possible without a (minimal) state, because it is the state who protects property.

It seems to me her work brainwashed generations of US-Americans, especially about what the word "socialism" really means.

Socialism originally means workers to be in control of the means of production, and not welfare state or anything like that.

Which is not a contradiction to a state-less, (truly) freed market that thrives on bottom-up self-organization.

I've already said in another thread that Bitcoin rather fits Max Stirner's philosophies than Ayn Rand's or US market-libertarianism.