I am, therefore I must think...
The purpose of this blog is similar to many blogs out there: to spread ideas. Particularly my ideas. I consider myself a rational, active minded person. I love the discussion of ideas but if you use any logical fallacies, prepare to be called out on them. I am interested in individual liberty and the philosophies involved with liberty. I refuse to label myself as this type of philosopher or that, because I think broad labels lead to dogmatism and regression of ideas. Respect begets respect, so keep that in mind when commenting.
Please feel free to browse through my public posts to get a feel for who I am and what I think. If you are not a member, I have just recently made it so you can comment on my public posts, however the comment will first need to be approved by me, so please be patient. If you wish to view the rest of my writings (70% of this blog is only viewable to members) please register or login. If you like what I have to say, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed as well: 
MAF
A “homeless” guy was going around the gas station asking for money from every car at the pump. He came up to my mom’s SUV, looked at the “Who is John Galt?” bumper sticker on the tailgate for a few seconds, and went out of his way to avoid her car to ask the next person for change. What’s interesting to me is that he knew to avoid asking for change from someone who knows the answer to that question.
Being (somewhat) on the other side of Objectivism has given me a new perspective. It’s given me the perspective of those who write off Objectivists as assholes. Although I almost fully agree with Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I have been treated like a traitor to the cause because of my questioning of her politics. Some have been more accommodating to my exploration of ideas than others, but I have received quite a few messages with a condescending tone, as has my girlfriend Dominique.
What I have learned more than anything in the past few weeks is that there are a few vocal Objectivists are not interested in exploring ideas. They are just interested in spreading their ideas, and making sure that your ideas are squelched by use of ad hominem, argument from intimidation and strawman fallacies. If I have responded to your arguments, you can count yourselves out of this criticism, but those of you who have not received a response from me, you need to understand that you are hurting the spread of of your ideas and that I will not respond to fallacious or condescending arguments. You are not interested in ideas, you are only interested in being automatons who protect an ideal that you put no active thought into.
If I was new to philosophy I would probably write Objectivism off due to the responses I have received so far. Fortunately I know enough about Objectivism to understand that it is not the snarky assholes that make up the the philosophy, it is the ideas.
Thinking back on my actions, I have to say that in the past I have been guilty of quite a few ad hominem attacks, and probably a straw man here or there. I am going to make sure I never do this again, because I am truly interested in spreading the ideas of this philosophy. Although I have come to differ with parts of the philosophy I still think the core axioms are the most important ideas that have ever been presented and must be spread to ensure that mankind can flourish and live free.
Please think about the spread of ideas and how easy it is to turn someone off to your ideas because of common fallacies like ad hominem. If you are truly an active thinker, you should approach all ideas in a rational manner. If you see a flaw, point it out, but don’t ruin your argument with a condescending tone, a fallacy or anything else that will make the person with an alternative idea write you off.
Thanks to people like Dominique, Stefan Molyneux and Paul McKeever, for encouraging an exploration of ideas. Without people willing to explore ideas in a rational manner, I would have to give up trying to spread ideas.
I’m off to D.C. for a business meeting. While I’m gone, check this guy out. Very interesting perspective.
I am back from my vacation in California, sorry for the lack of posts lately. There’s a debate raging on my last post, so be sure to contribute if you haven’t already. I’m super busy catching up with business, but I wanted to make a quick note about a video game that I had the pleasure of briefly playing before my flight yesterday.
Bioshock has the best graphics and gameplay I have seen in my life. But, that’s not what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about is that this game (which will probably be game of the year) is heavily influenced by Ayn Rand. Unfortunately it seems to be one of those lame criticisms of her philosophy, but it still makes for an interesting story line. I haven’t played more than a level of the game yet, so I am not going to say much about the criticism, but if you watch any of the video reviews you’ll see what I am talking about. I just find it interesting how Ayn Rand is being referenced more and more in pop culture. Possibly a sign of a surge in the spread of her ideas? I think so. Anecdotal evidence: A friend of a friend decided to start reading Atlas Shrugged due to the references in this video game.
I have been doing some reading into market anarchy and have been comparing it to Ayn Rand’s explanation of why we need a government to protect individual rights. The market anarchy explanation is more compatible with the non-aggression principle from what I have read so far.
This is just a preliminary exploration for me, so don’t freak out my Objectivist peers. Rather, I’d like to hear why you think that we should trust the government to protect our rights, when we don’t trust them to control any other aspect of our lives.
*EDIT* I am adding this video to this post, as I think it is a fairly solid argument against a state of any form.
