ThomasHägg

Literally yes. But King or Queen, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. By deliberately exposing your King, it would be truly said that you sacrificed the game. Which shows up "sacrificing the Queen" in order to win for what it is, metaphorical chess parlance with not much reference to reality. The chess analogy shouldn't even come up but it usually does, to blur the issue seemingly.

Chess is win- or- lose. Rational values in hierarchy hardly ever need to be.

Tony: when you say that chess is "win or lose", you are saying that there is an objective outcome to the choice(s) at hand.

There is a philosophy that makes more or less the same claim: it goes by the name of Objectivism.

Nobody "deliberately" exposes his king in chess: the king's exposure is inherent to the game. There are only 64 squares, after all. It thus occasionally becomes necessary to "sacrifice" your queen now and then.

. . . and this is not the kind of "sacrifice" that Ayn Rand and Objectivism is opposed to. "Sacrifice", as very well explained by Rand, is done at an absolute loss and is not a matter of giving up something in order that one might win something that would objectively be worth more, or required by mans nature, but rather it consists of choosing what rationally is worth less to oneself when a choice is avaible or giving up what one rationally values the most.

In the exact words of Rand, from "The Virtue of Selfishness";

"Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.

On the topic of love, it feels like this thread has already been answered as well as it could. But anything quoted from this page or its original sources should be quiet enough. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.html)

" (transitive) To trade (a value of higher worth) for one of lesser worth in order to gain something else valued more . . . or to avoid an even greater loss "

This is the part that is problematic and why Ayn Rand reconstructed, but never changed the essentials of the definition and still opposed it. Sacrifice is something which can be immediately physically beneficial in the short term, such as under a serious external threat, but never "moral", "good" or beneficial in the long term, according to objectivism.

It should be very clear (at least other than possibly in the quoted definition above) that to "sacrifice" is not at all the same or part of a rational trade, where you only trade in order to gain what you value more than your expected cost. As in the case of love, it doesn't need to be a strictly monetary gain or cost of course.

It seems a lot of people in this thread hold strong opinions of Rands writing either without having read it or without fully comprehending its implications.

To claim her philosophy clashes with reality is one thing, but to do so on simple anecdotals when one can not show one has even understood why she chose her definitions is riddicilus. You are starting to "philosophize mid stream", just like she warned you not to do. Not that this actually proves her writing.

Question; Do you whom oppose her definitions also disagree with the implications that her philosophy would have in the context of if her definitions were accepted? Do you find there to be logical coherence then ?

whyNOT makes several good points I think.

from the grave, on topic:

I'm not speaking of love, which is the sacrifice we willing make for another, or duty, which opens the heart to dignity and bequeaths a kinder, safer world to those who follow, if they have enough courage and perspicacity to earn it. Happiness is neither shared nor teachable, can't be bought or sold on the market. It resides in one heart at a time and only for the time remaining. It may be fleeting indeed, if one has outlived his welcome. I think this is part of the formula, that happiness costs nothing and not less than everything. Add equal parts of honesty, daring, and randomness. Indeed, it's a crapshoot that feels like a trainwreck. I mention this to put paid to all miscellany. Happiness is not mass-produced. It does not arise safely and securely, the cheery product of prudence. Your best interests, individual or collective, most certainly lay elsewhere in the lap of luxury, of certainty and shame. No happy man bows his head or knows what tomorrow may bring. Tomorrow is irrelevant. The old business of life goes on, but with a subtext that nothing can alter hereafter. Enemies have no power to steal it, however harrowing their threat of retribution. For it has always been exactly so, that happiness is a rebuke of some sort, a whole selfishness that sees no other good except Mine.

[excerpt, 'The Practical Problems of Happiness']

Interesting quote, who wrote that book? ;) Sorry, but I don't agree with it. Objectivism shows very clearly that love is almost the precise opposite of sacrifice; Valueing and keeping something at a gain. "Sacrifice" as you define it, can in your chosen context not be anything close to how it is defined by objectivists / students of objectivists or else your definition of "love" would be very irresponsible and indeed sad.

If rationality meant never taking a chance, thinking with complete knowledge, having prescience about outcomes, trying and never failing - then we'd be perfect, or logical robots. Dominique did show signs of irrationality, deliberately by the author, Thomas. Mixed premises, it is often called. Bringing herself to her full potential (under her own steam) was Rand's portrayal of the heroine who didn't start out "perfect".

I agree.

And just like you say, Dominique is probably not a perfectly rational woman at all times.

And Ayn was?

No. I didn't intend that sentence to be taken literal. My point was that Dominique showed signs of irrationality. Ayn Rand was more rational than Dominique though. At least seemingly.

I will suppress a chuckle...

So you think is was "more rational" to have the husband and wife of the respective parties openly condone and agree with an arrangement that was probably destructive to all of the parties involved?

A...

Go ahead and chuckle, that's why I edited my comment just before you replied ;) I don't have the insight to judge Ayn Rands life with such detail.

At least she was incredibly productive. Was dominique productive "to her ability" as well? I don't know.

And just like you say, Dominique is probably not a perfectly rational woman at all times.

And Ayn was?

No. I didn't intend that sentence to be taken literal. My main point was that Dominique showed signs of irrationality.

Rand would advocate "wanting to be "broken, trampled, ordered, dominated ..." as a full expression of love! Taking it, or giving it?

C'mon fellas.

And if not Wynand's error, certainly Dominique's.

This was what I thought at first, but then again the "broken, trampled" doesn't necessarily mean absolutely broken or fataly hurt. It can just be a way of illustrating selfishness and the acceptance of selfishness on the part of her lover. Not even necessarily rational such. (And just like you say, Dominique is probably not a perfectly rational woman at all times. Allthough if I remember it correctly, Rand did say that Dominique was "like [her] on a bad day".)

If enterpreted as a rational statement I propose it could mean, then it can absolutely not be supposed to "hurt" you more than you gain from it, so it is not quiet a sacrificial form. This is of course the only reason why it being "self-chosen" or not even matters.

Sigh.

“Why have you been staring at me ever since we met? Because I’m not the Gail Wynand you’d heard about. You see, I love you. And love is exception-making. If you were in love you’d want to be broken, trampled, ordered, dominated, because that’s the impossible, the inconceivable for you in your relations with people. That would be the one gift, the great exception you’d want to offer the man you loved.”

Being "broken, trampled" etc, all of those things may of course be ok to some degre, if by it there is also some gain and it is self-chosen. On the other hand, if it leads to ones total destruction, including if it leads to the destruction of ones morality in general, it is clearly immoral.

So, the problem here is not calling love an "exception-making", even if the exception is accepting a treatment such as she describes, but rather doing it as a "sacrifice".

- “Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men.

In one sentence: Love is the sacrifice we willing make for another. [Laissez Faire Law, p.150]

-- or as Miss Rand said, love is the exception-making.

I disagree. To quote Rand, real love is this

- To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.

- One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of [what or whom] one loves.

Of course "love" in a much more general traditional sense or rather "a feeling of love" is due to appreciation as well, but is not necessarily accompanied by apreciation of rational qualities. In this more much more general sense, one can be said to "love" a drug or a poison.

Real "love" can be a source of "exception-making", but never as a sacrifice, only as the best available choice in order to keep or protect what one loves.

- Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness

Kindly, Thomas

Oh, don't be sorry for using "we." I use it frequently myself. I was simply trying to jar thinking.

--Brant

Right, that's what I thought.

By the way, does anyone have a suggestion for which browser this website is viewed best on? I'm currently using Chrome for most things, but there seems to be quiet a few gifs/java pieces missing for me. I'm not a programmer so I couldn't provide you the specifics of what is missing more precisely, only for example I can't preview most smileys and there seems to be a missing picture below profile pictures in threads.

If "we" have problems what happens to "we" if you immigrate to another country?

--Brant

not sayin' you should--only sayin' "we" is more in our heads than not so "we" are encouraged to elect an elite who will--drum roll please--do our bidding, but what is our bidding?--rule us: rule us so we can rue about the rule while "we" ask for more rule to assuage our rues with wars of various sorts as sport

the United States is supposedly built on an individualistic ethos, but the government caught up with and ran over that a long time ago (but "we" still got our guns [if everybody packed heat the gangs--the one in Washington too--would soon be meek])

Sorry, not sure I understand, but if this was meant for me then my answer would be that the I use the word "we" for many different groups of which I can be said to be a part, wether I like being part of said group or not.

For example, I am a "Swede" wether I like it or not. It doesn't mean that I define myself as "Swede" first and foremost, but that the word "Swede" is defined as such a person that I am.

I "belong" to said group, yet I don't "belong" to anyone. - Nonetheless, "we" (the swedes) have a political problem on our hands here.

So, as Michael will agree with, I am a mega Trump supporter and that is part of the "branding" that I do with anyone that I speak with or meet, in terms of advancing the vote for Trump. Same way I still do to this day about Ayn.

Are you familiar with "Twisted Sister?" Dee Snider?

Twisted Sister frontman Dee Snider talks about how to feel confident when pitching, how to grab an audience’s attention and keep it, and what he learned from Donald Trump about branding:

http://www.deesnider...ret-to-branding

I'd like to hear more about your sight into Swedish society...and, of course, you can ask anything about America you may be curious about.

Have you ever been here?

Trump, I see.

Many "libertarians" and others seem to like him. I can see why, but I also know that I personally would not support him given the conditions surrounding him.

I think he could very well make a mess for you that you would come to regret; Like sucessfully making all his bad qualities law and all of his good qualities not making it past the senate and /or the opinion of the majority of americans.

He is more of an egotist, than an egoist of course and this might cause him to do some things no matter what the majority says, but I'm not sure that is necessarily a good thing...

Twisted Sister, of course. Legends all over the world. "Dee Snider"? Didn't remember that was his name, but now that you mention him... Yeah, when I get through my huge(!) pile of books, that I have ordered such that the most important topics are the ones closes to the top, the first book I will read should be one of Trumps business books I think. I better order it now and place it under the rest of those books, just so I don't forget My place is actually much more ordered than it probably sounds like at this point.

I might write a few things about Sweden here/other thread in the future, if asked to or if anything I feel could be of interest should happen. Not promising anything, because I have a tight schedule at the moment, but I sure would like to.

I will remember to ask about the U.S. (/America means the U.S. in everyday conversations I guess?) if there should be anything!

I've never visited, but I've got some relatives over there like everyother Swede of course. And I'm also very active online when it comes to content from The U.S; watching video, live broadcasts, reading news, looking into statistics & studies, reading message boards, watching and discussing on Youtube and so on.

Welcome to OL...are you a student, business person, or, worker?

It may be an assumptive problem that you're creating about framing it as a "lasting" anarcho-capitalism.

By the very nature of groups of folks banding together in reality implies a changing dynamic.

Nothing lasts forever.

A...

I would like to answer that I'm all of those things of course Right now I'm studying on my own outside of the public education system (which is normally the only accepted one here in Sweden). But I'm expecting to set up my new business in the coming months.

.........................

My upbringing in Scandinavia has taught me that there are things we do bad here, but there are also some things which while they should not be done by government, our government does better than most governments on this earth. (And this is objective fact, not some partiotic nonsense that we all get to hear about our greeat great mother lands.) The numbers don't lie. Long term poverty in countries like the US is hurting society at large. In contrast the lack of long term poverty in Sweden is good for society. (Poverty here not to be confused with "inequality", which will always be needed) If a society at large is not functioning properly this increases the risk of harm to the individual sooner or later. That of course doesn't mean that we shouldn't be selfish, but that we need to take care enough about the world we live in, in order that we may live more well.

/Thomas

Thomas:

Great points.

This last summer allowed me to spend ten days at the NJ shore and we had a young Swedish girl stay with us since she was the girlfriend of one of the family's adopted young Vietnamese boy, who I have gotten to know quite well over the last two years.

Therefore, I got to talk with her quite a bit about Sweden, school and life there. She comes from well to do folks in Sweden, as does her boyfriend.

So, it appears that there are two distinct Sweden's, one that is the settled society you speak about and the other is the one we "see" in our media which appears to have an "immigrant" problem.

Now I know that I could do that easily in any state in this country because we have a very diverse and sparsely populated country with pockets of concentrated humanity that are amazing beehives of energy and constantly in flux.

However, we have a serious problem with the invasion of our nation.

Is the same change occurring in Sweden?

A...

Thank you. That's interesting.

Sure, "immigration", or rather the socialized version of it, is a huge problem, especially now with a lot of people coming from Syria etc. Though I don't want to negate your "invasion" I think that is a rather harsh term, if talked of an "invasion of immigrants" etc. This wording makes the hordes of people already living in a country think that what is to be feared are the bulk of the immigrants themselves.

When comparing The US to Sweden, we actually have much higher immigration and usually take better care of them in general even though the state handles this. States rights, Federal budgeting and the specifically American fear of "socialism" as being total Stalinism confuses and makes your sittuation much worse of course. But just meassuring the ammount of immigration, we have a much more serious issue at our hands.

The city that suffer the most from the problems associated with immigration today is probably Malmö. The law is not constructed to handle immigration on this scale and the politicians, nationally and locally, handle the issue very badly. Not to mention they of course grab for power much in the same way that US politicians do after any terror attack or other catastrophic event. But theres been nothing like indefinite detention here so far. I think politicians are not that stressed out. After all, almost noone even reacted when EU membership was written into the constitution, despite a rather large percentage of Swedes at the time objecting to much of what the EU stands for. It simply didn't make enough headlines, so it passed us by.

I remember back when most folks here thought "Sweden Democrats" (their name sounding much like the always very popular party "Social Democrats") wouldn't be able to get into parlament. I used to tell people that thought they were just another racist party that "there are in fact problems with immigration right now, that we need to fix before they get into parlament. Otherwise they will continue to grow even after that. And while the party heads are seemingly not explicitly racist but rather condemn it in very general terms, their core members and voters are and this could cause all kinds of problems!".

Well, what do you think happened? Did anyone listen? No. Of course not. And people still don't.

They think constantly attacking and trying to riddicule these new "underdogs" will make their voters feel ashamed, stop them from voting and force the party into submission. And no other party wants to work with them of course, because that would so far be political suicide. But isolation from other parties and their constant failures, just keeps the Sweden Democrats growing stronger and stronger. They are now polled at 20 (!) percent of all votes! This would make them the 3rd largest party and, as you can see in this link, puts them very close to both of the 2 larger parties.

Also, a lot of previously immigrated vote for The Sweden Democrats as well, mostly due to their own hatred of muslims/fear of islam that usually doesn't come from any deeper intellectual work, but rather from their own Christian roots.

So now we have a party that while it is constantly called "far-right" is equally socialist to everyone else, only they demand "tougher" laws on "crime" and other things. They want to ban the burka etc. (may not be their openly stated policy anymore, but that is just a front) They are rather "French" in their thinking I would say.

It could be a lot worse of course; The party used to be openly racist back in the days, complete with some party members wearing Nazi uniforms and saluting during party meetings. The current party leader was a member at the time.

Today their existence spurs on more socialist thinking in all parties, in the German/Italian style, while at the same time openly denouncing "socialism" and "the left" for destroying "our great country". The social "liberal" parties follow, but still don't want to be associated with the Sweden Democrats. It's a farce.

Just now the government stopped "all" immigration (not really all to be honest), but because of the this year already arrived 150 000 seeking asylum, we now have at least 30 000 and counting that are currently hiding from the authorities. - I wonder what line of work they will be in? What kind of living conditions they will have apart from being wanted, and due to the strict regulation of bussinesses we have here, almost fully unable to participate in the legal economy? And if they would report a violent crime if they saw it?

Meanwhile it seems (Marxist) Anarchists are making the news more and more often. Though their waving flags never gets mentioned because the news achors of course have got no clue what they actually mean, they are clearly visible at rallies against Nazis as well as Sweden Democrat's rallies. Things seem to be heating up for the moment.

Well anyhow, I guess rant complete. I'm going to stop whining for now. I know we all have got our problems to deal with. But this I think is a very fair assessment of Sweden in it's current state, in regards to the ongoing politics. Everything is influenced by immigration right now.

I hope my text is readable and this answers your question well, despite any bad grammar that might have creept in there. Spell check marks almost every word for me because it is not Swedish...

What if Clem, right on the streets of River City is whipping his horse? What if he beats his kids on Main Street with a belt? What if Clem pees in the reservoir? Thomas, and all of you decent people, do you think River City would REMAIN a good place without a sheriff, and human rights guaranteed in a constitution?

I guess this is where it gets really (and I mean very) hard to explain my exact thinking. I am still struggling to put it down on paper for my own sake in any spare time I get. My ideas are slightly different from most anarcho-capitalists I have yet to encounter. I don't think there is any way so far today to produce a lasting anarcho-capitalism.

Welcome to OL...are you a student, business person, or, worker?

It may be an assumptive problem that you're creating about framing it as a "lasting" anarcho-capitalism.

By the very nature of groups of folks banding together in reality implies a changing dynamic.

Nothing lasts forever.

A...

I would like to answer that I'm all of those things of course Right now I'm studying on my own outside of the public education system (which is normally the only accepted one here in Sweden). But I'm expecting to set up my new business in the coming months.

Thomas,

Welcome to OL.

Irrespective of any freedom-based social system, I am convinced that freedom only can exist if people want to be good and try to be. Freedom among a bunch of scumbags does not really mean much. In fact, it goes away and gangs form.

Thus freedom in practice is based more on the activity of intellectuals and artists--especially the morality based folks--than it is on any politician or political theory.

I include religious people in this argument. When they spread the desire to be good, they enhance freedom. When they get cult-like or put a huge focus on scapegoating, they work against freedom.

As to technology, there are great things coming. But there are bad things, too. Our society is turning into a snitching society (electronic snitching by algorithms) and I definitely don't see freedom arising from that. A snitching culture is one of the characteristics of all dictatorships.

Michael

Thanks Michael! Good to be here

There certainly are obstacles. But the main obstacle is immorality itself and I think there comes a point with every form of technology when people have to choose what they want.

"Nuclear power won't go away because I want it to. So do I also want global nuclear catastrophy or would a global nuclear stalemate be a better choice?"

- If such a stalemate never arives or there is no apparent reason to avoid "snitching" and similar cultural problems, then well, we could experiene something really bad. There is no denying that. But there is also no denying that we will not be able and we should not seek to stop technological development.

Theoreticals out of theoreticals creating even more theoreticals.

--Brant

brains gone wild

I will admit to that. But I think even theoreticals can be of huge benefits. These days I think it is mostly just the style I am the most comfortable writing in, but I will try to resolve this in the future and make more arguments from objective knowledge in the actual text. For someone that made it from Christianity and a few different Socialist views to (at least a more than previously) Rational Selfishness, I still remain mighty proud of my achievment. It took a lot of work and it is clearly an improvement. I also think I might have made other "minor" errors in my claims, but I will be choosing wisely how to spend my time here and put it to use elsewhere than correcting and rewriting. My post was made to encourage further discussion and make my overall thinking clear, both of which I am happy to see succeeded.

Thomas wrote:

The main obstacle in/with/too Anarcho-Capitalist (free market policing, -courts and -defense) I think is actually slowly going away. As long as we can keep some capitalist element alive in our current world society, we will be outgrowing it. Technology in all areas is actually starting to catch up to political philosophy.

end quote

Brant responded:

Theoreticals out of theoreticals creating even more theoreticals.

end quote

Everyone knows of a home town neighborhood, where the people are civil and decent, as in a certain Iowa musical . . .

Seventy six trombones led the big parade . . . With a hundred and ten cornets close at hand . . .

And as you may remember, Professor Harold Hill, in "The Music Man," is a scam artist: Anarcho Capitalism. The town council members are naïve idiots: Government. But the folks are people you would like living in your ideal home town. Now a person might argue that the scam artist is less of a problem than government encroachment. On the other hand a LOSS of government as in a major catastrophe can lead to a desolate landscape full of murder and theft. How would that Iowan towns people react if the town council and the sheriff disappeared? Would they adjust to it, but remain decent folk? For how long? Weeks? Years? Centuries?

What if Clem, right on the streets of River City is whipping his horse? What if he beats his kids on Main Street with a belt? What if Clem pees in the reservoir? Thomas, and all of you decent people, do you think River City would REMAIN a good place without a sheriff, and human rights guaranteed in a constitution?

I guess this is where it gets really (and I mean very) hard to explain my exact thinking. I am still struggling to put it down on paper for my own sake in any spare time I get. My ideas are slightly different from most anarcho-capitalists I have yet to encounter. I don't think there is any way so far today to produce a lasting anarcho-capitalism.

It is theoretically possible to achieve it momentarily, but that doesn't exactly make me want to get rid of the state right now as you might see. The question is what it would take to produce an enviroment where anarcho-capitalism would be enough of an obvious choice for how we conduct society. I don't have any exact answers and I don't pretend to. When there is an "objectivist" laissez-faire government, we might know more.

My primary argument for anarcho-capitalism remains the moral. If we want to take another example from Rand her self, it should be obvious for anyone who read Atlas Shrugged (not really a favourite of mine) that Galt's Gulch was in direct defiance of the socialist government. But we don't need to.

Who knows... I might be able to revive this thread. =)

I hold that the idea of getting every new generaltion to consent to a form of government is just as flawed in the human nature premise as in telling people they don't choose the families they are born into, so toddlers have the right to seek another family to raise them.

After having read your post, I decided I would create an account so I could answer it. First of all of course, the government is nothing close to a family, but let's leave that aside for a moment because there actually are some similarities between the two and so this enables us to use the family as an example.

I would argue, when any person (such as the child you speak of) mature to the point that they become capable of providing for themselves unless actually prevented by others, if they then would rather choose to work for their own income, leave their (perhaps unloving) family behind or choose to start their own family, they should be absolutely allowed to do so. There is no magic age where all of this is supposed to happen and so naturally it currently differs even between western nations.

In the same way, if an individual born into a state or otherwise, should want to choose to create new courts, police and defense against an invasion without changing the basic premise of working for his own income and without breaking ethical code, he should be absolutely allowed to do so. The basic code of Objectivism empowers you to do so.

"But then by whom should he be allowed to do this?" you may ask and "Who would protect the right to do so?"

This is a great question. In fact, I might even call it "the perfect question". Of course, as Rand herself emphasized, a liberty is not a liberty (even though it might be the only moral option) unless it is protected as such.

This right should be protected by whom ever is currently superior, be it

1. A single individual - This would probably be an absolute dictatorship and the dictator would obviously be highly unlikely to ever accept this new right. In such a case, such liberty might have to be taken by force in retaliation against the current tyranny if the dictator can not be tricked or played.
2. A group of individuals - This would be a) A government (for example a democracy) - The above may still apply, but voting may be better if it can be done without risk for ones life.

   b) An already established network of such private defense agencies. Could such a systems exist? Actually, Yes. (Science and History)

The main obstacle in/with/too Anarcho-Capitalist (free market policing, -courts and -defence) I think is actually slowly going away. As long as we can keep some capitalist element alive in our current world society, we will be outgrowing it. Technology in all areas is actually starting to catch up to political philosophy.

(Worldwide communication in less than a second is possible. Even to people within absolute dictatorships, though it may be risky. Medicine moves forward, IT moves forward, (Civilian-)Robotics move forward. Few people these days are actually able to keep up with the development that occurs because of the speed it is now reaching. It is monstrous. It is riskfull. It is almost unavoidable. It will be used for both good and bad of course. But mostly it is absolutely beautiful.

In a few years perhaps, there can begin to be made available computer simulations of how and to what degree different kinds of societies would actually work.

Then perhaps, purely theoreticaly, in the next 5 decades or so, smaller "experimental" societies can be created all over the world, in part still perhaps within the already existing boundaries of the dominant nation states... But still!)

I will cut my message short here for time saving purposes.

Kindly,

Thomas