objectiveMan

I like this idea. It doesn't matter where you came from, but where you are going.

You are right, I don't know how people are feeling about Obamacare. My experience is though, that a large number of people will stick to their camp (e.g. political party), even if their living condition is objectively getting worse. For people who support "big government", if things don't work out, the solution usually is even more government.

I'm going to predict Hillary is the next president. It would be a logical continuation that the same people who voted for Obama twice will vote for Hillary. Additionally she will get a lot of votes from women. Bernie Sanders is too far left for America still, but Hillary will advance the socialism agenda much more covertly. On the republican side, lets say it is Trump, he will be too far "right" for most people. So most people in the "middle" will choose Hillary over Trump. He has some opinions which appear too extreme for the "middle" person when it comes to immigrants or climate change. Carson appears to have more moderate views than Trump, so I think he would do better. But I still put Hillary ahead of him.

Very interesting topic. The word "evil" is pretty problematic, as it is somewhat subjective and doesn't really have a specific objective meaning. It would be helpful to first define what makes a person evil, and then continue from there. As far as villains go, I don't think Hannibal Lecter is particularly bad. Usually the other killers in the Hannibal movies are much worse.

Thank you for the post. 2001 is definitely one of my favorite movies. The movie definitely has some interesting symbolism in it, like most of Kubrick's movies.

Thanks for this. It is a lesson which I am slowly learning myself.

I would agree that WWII was a case where it was probably in the self-interest of Americans to fight. But even that is unknown, as we cannot know what an alternative history might look like. The later wars are much less certain. Donald Trump, for example, has said that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes. A foreign policy that I advocate is non-interventionism. Here is a wikipedia definition: I consider myself in good company, as Wikipedia lists names like Ron Paul, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as other supporters. I don't think the concept of a "good guy" has any clear definition. It represents some vague idea, rather than anything concrete and objective. It seems to me like you are saying that those who sacrifice themselves for others are the "good guys", when Objectivism specifically holds self-sacrifice as particularly evil?

I have no idea what this means. Are you saying Objectivism is some theoretical construct that doesn't work in practice? Thanks, I will read that book at some point. Maybe even order a copy of it.

Pekka, Rand didn't see such a dirty hint. I rarely channel Rand, but I imagine had you suggested something like that to her in a Q&A, you would have witnessed one of her famous withering scorched-earth blasts against the questioner. (btw - I, also, don't see such a dirty hint. Maybe we are talking about a different James Bond? ) Michael What are you saying then, precisely? That Bond is a good example of an Objectivist?

Because we have a culture which promotes altruism and sacrifice. Why do people go to fight wars? Because they are told it is their duty. Whether it serves their rational self-interest or not, is a completely different matter. I would argue that it very rarely does. So here in the US where we have a voluntary military, the only reason that they enlist is because they are told it is their duty? Is that your position relating specifically to the US volunteer? A... One could maybe argue that going to a war is in person's rational self-interest in the best case. Say, for example, if your own country was invaded directly. But to argue that it is in a person's self-interest to go die in some obscure country at the other side of the globe, for some vague "national interest", is crazy. Incidentally, the concept of a "national interest" is a collectivist construct, or just another way of saying men should serve the "society". Also, this discussion seems to presume that men on average make decisions based on reason or their rational self-interest.

Pekka, If you are going to go the "deduce reality from principles" route, then you probably think Ayn Rand doesn't know what she's talking about re James Bond and Objectivism. Ayn Rand was one of Bond's biggest fans, especially the Bond in Ian Fleming's books. Read The Romantic Manifesto. She didn't like what she perceived as Bond mocking himself in films after the earlier ones, though. That really pissed her off. I have not read any Bond books, just seen the movies, and I haven't even read The Romantic Manifesto (though I have read some other non-fiction books by Rand). I am not really qualified to comment on details at that level. Don't get me wrong, I like many things about James Bond. I can see that Ayn Rand found a lot to like in Bond. I have no problem with that, but I don't like the idea of Bond as some example of an Objectivist. If we need to hold up some people (fictional or not) as examples of Objectivism, then lets hold up people who truly act for their self-interest, without the dirty hint of altruism/sacrifice/duty that is implied in Bond's job? Well, an international spy is not the same as a police officer working in their own country. Law enforcement is necessary, but I would not describe it as productive directly. I would say rather, that it allows other members of society to be productive.

Because we have a culture which promotes altruism and sacrifice. Why do people go to fight wars? Because they are told it is their duty. Whether it serves their rational self-interest or not, is a completely different matter. I would argue that it very rarely does.

If my memory serves me correctly, did not Galt state that he would kill himself rather than see the tyrants torture what he loved - Dagny? Sure, but that is completely different. Passionate love for a person is one of the above mentioned exceptions. Do you presume that James Bond loved UK (the country) as passionately as Galt loved Dagny?

I understand this concept very well, but it still doesn't add up for me. An Objectivist would value their own life above almost anything else. Only something truly exceptional would be more valuable to an Objectivist than their life. I can see an Objectivist dying for his country, but only if that country was based on Objectivist philosophy and values. Also, Ayn Rand said that "productive achievement" is man's noblest activity. I don't regard James Bond's job being a particularly productive one.

It seems to me that James Bond primarily served his country, and did not pursue his selfish interest. That is not Objectivism but altruism. How could it be in his objective self-interest to constantly put his life in danger? More generally with regard to fiction, I would argue it is almost always the hero who is ready to sacrifice himself for the "greater good", and almost always the villain who is portrayed as acting selfishly. James Bond is no exception in this regard.