James Bond: Objectivist Assassin


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tell that to a person like Ayn Rand who watched an entire civilization almost go down the tubes, not just once, but twice (WWI and WWII) and, to get started, saw the communist revolution take everything her family had.

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:

Non-interventionism or non-intervention is a foreign policy that holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations but still retain diplomacy and avoid all wars unless related to direct self-defense. An original more formal definition is that non-interventionism is a policy characterized by the absence of interference by a state or states in the external affairs of another state without its consent, or in its internal affairs with or without its consent.

I consider myself in good company, as Wikipedia lists names like Ron Paul, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as other supporters. :smile:

Being a good guy sometimes comes with a price. Those who refuse to pay it are not necessarily bad guys. They're not good guys, either. They're just parasites living off the efforts and payments of the good guys.

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Objectivist esthetics is not part of Objectivism except as an add-on.

Brant,

I stand in awe.

:smile:

(Isn't an add-on a "part"? :smile: )

Michael

EDIT: Granted, Ayn Rand stood on one leg and did not mention aesthetics. But that was not exclusionary. She was merely giving a shortcut to the fundamentals.

.

A barnacle is an add-on.

--Brant

I thought posting after your name was just for me on OL (sniff)

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Galt can be considered a proto-Objectivist. That's a dead end for him and his speech essentially the end of the novel. There was then no where for that Objectivist to go just as the classical Objectivist, a la Rand and Branden (Peikoff?) had no where to go (so Branden took a dog leg).

--Brant

if you're going to be an Objectivist know what kind of Objectivist that's going to be so your wheels will get proper traction on the highway of life (and you're pointed in the right direction)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now