Ayn Rand thinks Similarly to Sklansky?

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second, as a preemptive strike on the haters (preemptive strikes being something that followers of Rand fully support to my knowledge)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, re-read Rand please. Your knowledge is lacking.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
ZOMG i am getting called out (and i intended to post from a sympathetic position in the first place!), i am going to have to go do some digging. I remember specifically reading that Rand believes that defending corporate interests can be just cause for war. kind of like how she says america shouldn't have allowed these countries to nationalize their oil production. i guess objectivists wouldn't consider that a truly preemptive strike, since its a violent retaliation after harm (but not really violent harm) has been imposed on a country.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the broad strokes of Rand's philosophy is pretty inoffensive are almost universally followed by the average joe. She gets a really bad rap because his books aren't that well written (though the underlying claims are compelling).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you confusing Ayn Rand with someone else? Ayn Rand is a female.



[/ QUOTE ]
So i am a border-line dyslexic retard, i make dumb mistakes with grammar all the time, particularly when i am multitasking when posting. so if you are a grammar nit, just call me an idiot and move on i guess.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
this is why i take out the trash when my roommate is sick, we both want the trash out, we both rather have someone else do it in a vacuum, but the guy is sick and i care about his welfare and i would like to take some burden off his shoulders because frankly that would make me happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch the video.




Follow [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]done.

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People don't actually act altruistic, rather their Utility function factors in the utility of other people and thus often increase other people's utility in an effort to maximize their own.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree with the rest, at least the parts that I have an opinion on, just want to nitpick this. This is a very popular notion now a days. However I think this model is possibly flawed. Maximizing might only be one rational strategy of the larger set of strategies encompassed by avoiding actions that produce a negative utility. Rational people don't harm themselves. This definition of rational might produce a better model of human behavior. I'm not sold yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea that may very well be a better model for human behavior. i don't think it is the ideal strategy though, so there is reason to have both models around. IE a corporation should probably attempt to have its behavior conform to a utility maximizing model rather than a "first, do no harm" model.

[Follow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whoa, re-read Rand please. Your knowledge is lacking.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMG i am getting called out (and i intended to post from a sympathetic position in the first place!), i am going to have to go do some digging. I remember specifically reading that Rand believes that defending corporate interests can be just cause for war. kind of like how she says america shouldn't have allowed these countries to nationalize their oil production. i guess objectivists wouldn't consider that a truly preemptive strike, since its a violent retaliation after harm (but not really violent harm) has been imposed on a country.

[/ QUOTE ]

You call that getting called out?

A citation for your belief up there would be in order. Rand doesn't strike me as an interventionist as you're portraying her here.

Also, I wouldn't call foreign policy a part of the greater Objectivist philosophy. Generally, foreign policy/philosophy requires a different mindset than personal or domestic policy/philosophy.




Follow [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[threeonefour]

caps ZOMG usually indicates sarcasm, at least for me when i am posting in a philosophy forum. yes, my initial statement probably does mischaracterizes her somewhat.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the proper role of government is limited to placing retaliatory force under objective control, so that legitimized force is used only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, such as criminals and foreign aggressors.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_politics best i can do for now. anyway, given the quote and what i know about objectivism (which probably isn't as much as you), Rand would be in favor of going to war to defend national interests if perhaps China was committing massive copyright infringement/stealing patents from American companies. calling that a preemptive strike is inaccurate though, at least in the eyes of Rand and her followers, since China has already acted and as the quote suggests the government is acting in a retaliatory manner.

i guess my point is that Rand sees all aggression as similar, so to fight the breaking of a trade treaty you could go to war. whereas many other people would say going to war over such things is immoral and you should deal with the breaking of a treaty with an embargo or tariffs or something.

however, you can see how a non-objectivist would consider American the aggressor in such scenarios, right or wrong.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Ayn Rand is a female.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is as open to debate as any of her philosophical claims.

[Follow]

[ QUOTE ]
caps ZOMG usually indicates sarcasm, at least for me when i am posting in a philosophy forum. yes, my initial statement probably does mischaracterizes her somewhat.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the proper role of government is limited to placing retaliatory force under objective control, so that legitimized force is used only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, such as criminals and foreign aggressors.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_politics best i can do for now. anyway, given the quote and what i know about objectivism (which probably isn't as much as you), Rand would be in favor of going to war to defend national interests if perhaps China was committing massive copyright infringement/stealing patents from American companies. calling that a preemptive strike is inaccurate though, at least in the eyes of Rand and her followers, since China has already acted and as the quote suggests the government is acting in a retaliatory manner.

i guess my point is that Rand sees all aggression as similar, so to fight the breaking of a trade treaty you could go to war. whereas many other people would say going to war over such things is immoral and you should deal with the breaking of a treaty with an embargo or tariffs or something.

however, you can see how a non-objectivist would consider American the aggressor in such scenarios, right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

"legitimized force is used only in retaliation against those who initiate its use"

I think that phrase pretty much covers it. Force is used only in retaliation against those who initiate its (referring to force) use. Someone must initiate violence in order for a violent response to be appropriate. It in no way advocates a violent reaction to a non-violent transgression. It advocates a return of force in recognition of it.

I'm not saying that Rand wouldn't get violent about copyright infringement, but I would give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she would use reason first and violence last. Her philosophy encompasses non-violence and considers violence a very last resort that will hopefully never be reached.




Follow [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[threeonefour]

follow

yea i agree pretty much.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ayn Rand is a female.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is as open to debate as any of her philosophical claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure how long you have been around here on SMP, Alaw; but dang, welcome to the forum. What a grand entrance. NH.

[Peter666]

Phil Donahue's rant at 7:29 of part 3 is awesome; and so is Colbert's "The right to quote" video.

[SNOWBALL]

Ayn Rand has more in common with internet trolls than she has in common with people she would like to compare herself to, like Nietzsche. Nietzsche would laugh at her. So would any legitimate AC theorists.

Yeah, we should invade the middle east to secure oil concessions. Sounds like small government to me!