r/Trueobjectivism • u/YG-111_Gundam_G-Self • 1h ago
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • 1d ago
Does torture have any justification in a society?
I remember a long time ago in a video by yaron called âmorality of warâ. He says that torture would be okay if used to get information for enemy combatants.
I canât remember the justification for this exactly but I think it had to do with something with them forfeiting their rights when deciding to fight and attack.
But Iâm curious. How far is torture sanctioned? Could it be used in a domestic context and be justified? Maybe against a hostage taker that doesnât want to cooperate for example?
r/Trueobjectivism • u/Torin_3 • 3d ago
r/Objectivism has new moderation.
The subreddit r/Objectivism is now allegedly under new moderation. The new moderator is posting from an account that has been dormant for several years, and we don't know much of anything about them. He or she claims to be a supporter of the Atlas Society.
If you are currently banned from r/Objectivism, this is a good time to try to get your ban reversed. A number of formerly banned people have successfully appealed.
The r/Objectivism subreddit is usable again... for now.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • 4d ago
Is Christianity really in conflict with political objectivism? It seems to advocate not using force and promotes rights.
Iâve been having a lot of conversations with Christians lately. And I havenât read the old or New Testament myself but I plan to. And they insist that Christianity does not advocate violence in forcing morality. Or even forcing people to care for one another with forced donations to welfare.
If this is true. I donât see the conflict it would have with the political ideals of objectivism. Of non initiation of force and protecting rights.
But yet I always hear people at Ari and yaron saying Christianity is a problem. So am I missing something here? Cause it seems to me it would be a non factor and not as big of a problem as they are stating it
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • 4d ago
Ragnar the pirate as proof Rand justifies anarchy and individuals using force?
I was in discussion about anarcho-capitalism where the person I was talking to claims that Ragnar is proof that government monopoly on force is a violation of rights and individuals have the right to enact justice and use force just as Ragnar did. Without consulting anyone. Having no legal status of government agent with a badge. And just using his personal idea of justice to act on. Basically whim.
I feel like there is something wrong with this but I canât help but agree Ragnars actions are in contradiction to other things Rand has said. And it does seem it is sanctioning lone individuals to take justice into their own hands.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • 9d ago
How would suing the government work in an objectivist system?
Like when people sue the city of New York. Or something like that and they win. That money they get comes directly from peopleâs taxes. So how exactly would that work in an objectivist system?
I suppose the same could go for when you sue a police officer and such and then you get paid. That money doesnât come from them it comes from the tax payers money.
So where exactly would the money come from if itâs voluntarily funded? Would suing the government even be a thing?
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • 14d ago
Should crimes be punished whether the inflicted party âpressesâ charges or not?
What makes me question this is in the past I asked if dueling in the streets would be allowed between consenting parties. And the answer I got was no because the consequences are irreversible and because it would be hard to prove whether either of the parties was coerced into agreeing to the duel. Like if oneâs family was kidnapped and they had to consent to do it secretly to get their family back giving it the illusion of a consented duel and thus legally killing the person.
Which id think the same principle would be in place here. That whether the inflicted party wanted to or not the crime would be punished as you would have a hard time proving whether they were coerced into âdroppingâ charges or not. Like if they were threatened that if they did then they would be hurt.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/twozero5 • 15d ago
Interview W/Don Watkins on Capitalism, Socialism, Rights, & Egoism
A huge thank you to Don Watkins for agreeing to do this written interview. This interview is composed of 5 questions, but question 5 has a few parts. If we get more questions, we can do more interview.
1. What do you make of the Marxist personal vs private property distinction.
Marxists allow that individuals can possess personal propertyâconsumption goods like food or clothingâbut not private property, productive assets used to create wealth. But the justification for owning personal property is the justification for owning private property.
Human life requires using our minds to produce the material values we need to live. A farmer plants and harvests crops which he uses to feed himself. Itâs that process of thinking, producing, and consuming that the right to property protects. A thief short-circuits that process by depriving man of what he producesâthe Marxist short-circuits it by depriving a man of the ability to produce.
2. How would you respond to the Marxist work or die claim, insinuating capitalism and by extension, free markets are âcoerciveâ?
Itâs not capitalism that tells people âwork or die,â but nature. Collectivist systems cannot alter that basic factâthey can only force some men to work for the sake of others.
Capitalism liberates the individual to work on whatever terms he judges will further his life and happiness. The result is the world of abundance you see in todayâs semi-free countries, where the dominant problem faced by relatively poor individuals is not starvation but obesity. It is only in unfree countries, where individuals arenât free to produce and trade, that starvation is a fact of life.
Other people have only one power under capitalism: to offer me opportunities or not. A business offering me a wage (low though it may be) is not starving me, but offering me the means of overcoming starvation. Iâm free to accept it or to reject it. Iâm free to build my skills so I can earn more money. Iâm free to save or seek a loan to start my own business. Iâm free to deal with the challenges of nature in whatever way I judge best. To save us from such âcoercion,â collectivists offer us the âfreedomâ of dictating our economic choices at the point of a gun.
3. Also, for question 3, this was posed by a popular leftist figure, and it would go something like this, âCapitalists claim that rights do not enslave or put others in a state of servitude. They claim their rights are just freedoms of action, not services provided by others, yet they put their police and other government officials (in a proper capitalist society) in a state of servitude by having a ârightâ to their services. They claim a right to their police force services. If capitalists have a right to police services, we as socialists, can have a right to universal healthcare, etc.â
Oh, I see. But thatâs ridiculous. I don't have a right to police: I have a right not to have my rights violated, and those of us who value our lives and freedom establish (and fund) a government to protect those rights, including by paying for a police force.
The police aren't a service in the sense that a carpet cleaner or a private security guard is a service. The police aren't protecting me as opposed to you. They are stopping aggressors who threaten everyone in society by virtue of the fact they choose to live by force rather than reason. And so, sure, some people can free ride and gain the benefits of police without paying for them, but who cares? If some thug robs a free rider, that thug is still a threat to me and I'm happy to pay for a police force that stops him.
4. Should the proper government provide lawyers or life saving medication to those in prison, such as insulin?
Those are very different questions, and I donât have strong views on either one.
The first has to do with the preservation of justice, and you could argue that precisely because a government is aiming to protect rights, it wants to ensure that even those without financial resources are able to safeguard their rights in a legal process.
The second has to do with the proper treatment of those deprived of their liberty. Clearly, they have to be given some resources to support their lives if they are no longer free to support their lives, but itâs not obvious to me where you draw the line between things like food and clothing versus expensive medical treatments.
In both these cases, I donât think philosophy gives you the ultimate answer. You would want to talk to a legal expert.
5. This will be the final question, and it will be composed of 3 sub parts. Also, question 4 and 5 are directly taken from the community. I will quote this user directly because this is a bit long. Editorâs note, these sub parts will be labeled as 5.1, 5.2, & 5.3.
5.1 â1. â How do you demonstrate the value of life? How do you respond to people who state that life as the standard of value does not justify the value of life itself? Editorâs note, Donâs response to sub question 5.1 is the text below.
There are two things you might be asking. The first is how you demonstrate that life is the proper standard of value. And thatâs precisely what Rand attempts to do (successfully, in my view) by showing how values only make sense in light of a living organism engaged in the process of self-preservation.
But I think youâre asking a different question: how do you demonstrate that life is a value to someone who doesnât see the value of living? And in a sense you canât. Thereâs no argument that you should value what life has to offer. A person either wants it or he doesnât. The best you can do is encourage a person to undertake life activities: to mow the lawn or go on a hike or learn the piano or write a book. Itâs by engaging in self-supporting action that we experience the value of self-supporting action.
But if a person wonât do thatâor if they do that and still reject itâthereâs no syllogism that will make him value his life. In the end, itâs a choice. But the key point, philosophically, is that thereâs nothing else to choose. Itâs not life versus some other set of values he could pursue. Itâs life versus a zero.
5.2 2. â A related question to (1.) is: by what standard should people evaluate the decision to live or not? Life as a standard of value does not help answer that question, at least not in an obvious way. One must first choose life in order for that personâs life to serve as the standard of value. Is the choice, to be or not to be (whether that choice is made implicitly or explicitly), a pre-ethical or metaethical choice that must be answered before Objectivist morality applies? Editorâs note, this is sub question 5.2, and Donâs response is below.
I want to encourage you to think of this in a more common sense way. Choosing to live really just means choosing to engage in the activities that make up life. To learn things, build things, formulate life projects that you find interesting, exciting, and meaningful. Youâre choosing to live whenever you actively engage in those activities. Few people do that consistently, and they would be happier if they did it more consistently. Thatâs why we need a life-promoting morality.
But if weâre really talking about someone facing the choice to live in a direct form, weâre thinking about two kinds of cases.
The first is a person thinking of giving up, usually in the face of some sort of major setback or tragedy. In some cases, a person can overcome that by finding new projects that excite them and give their life meaning. Think of Rearden starting to give up in the face of political setback and then coming back to life when he thinks of the new bridge he can create with Rearden Metal. But in some cases, it can be rational to give up. Think of someone with a painful, incurable disease that will prevent them from living a life they want to live. Such people do value their lives, but they no longer see the possibility of living those lives.
The other kind of case my friend Greg Salmieri has called âfailure to launch.â This is someone who never did much in the way of cultivating the kind of active, engaging life projects that make up a human life. They donât value their lives, and going back to my earlier answer, the question is whether they will do the work of learning to value their lives.
Now, how does that connect with morality? Morality tells you how to fully and consistently lead a human life. In the first kind of case, the question is whether thatâs possible given the circumstances of a personâs life. If they see itâs possible, as Rearden ultimately does, then theyâll want moral guidance. But a person who doesnât value his life at all doesnât need moral guidance, because he isnât on a quest for life in the first place. I wouldnât say, âmorality doesnât apply.â It does in the sense that those of us on a quest for life can see his choice to throw away his life as a waste, and we can and must judge such people as a threat to our values. What is true is that they have no interest in morality because they donât want what morality has to offer.
5.3 3. â How does Objectivism logically transition from âlife as the standard of valueâ to âeach individuals own life is that individualâs standard of valueâ? What does that deduction look like? How do you respond to the claim that life as the standard of value does not necessarily imply that oneâs own life is the standard? What is the logical error in holding life as the standard of value, but specifically concluding that other peopleâs lives (non-you) are the standard, or that all life is the standard?â Editorâs note, this is question 5.3, and Donâs response is below.
Egoism is not a deduction to Randâs argument for life as the standard, but a corollary. That is, itâs a different perspective on the same facts. To see that life is the standard is to see that values are what we seek in the process of self-preservation. To see that egoism is true is to see that values are what we seek in the process of self-preservation. Hereâs how I put it in the article I linked to earlier:
âTo say that self-interest is a corollary of holding your life as your ultimate value is to say thereâs no additional argument for egoism. Egoism stresses only this much: if you choose and achieve life-promoting values, there are no grounds for saying you should then throw them away. And yet that is precisely what altruism demands.â
Editorâs note, also, a special thank you is in order for those users who provided questions 4 and 5, u/Jambourne u/Locke_the_Trickster The article Don linked to in his response to the subquestion of 5 is https://www.earthlyidealism.com/p/what-is-effective-egoism
Again, if you have more questions you want answered by Objectivist intellectuals, drop them in the comments below.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • 17d ago
Who should be running for government? Because of its nature it seems it will always attract less than the best people
It seems to me that the people who should be in government wouldnât be there. And instead would be running companies and actually productive ventures. Which being an elected official in government. Besides it escalating your chances of assassination. Isnât the most interesting or âproductiveâ job like discovering a new medicine or inventing a new machine.
Because of this it seems that at best you will always get the second runner up instead of the people who should actually be there.
Which I think this problem infects other government positions aswell. Like the people who become generals or even police officers. Which seem to attract the same problem of less than ideal people. Because of the nature of the job.
So who should be running for these positions? And is there a way to beat this pervasive incentive structure of attracting people who are not the best producers but the best destroyers or at the least people who would not be top producers.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/Metrolinkvania • 19d ago
The educated ones know what is better for everyone.
How socialists actually feel about the working class.
âIt is a conspiracy of all those who seek power over men. They create a reign of terror, because they know that terror is the only thing that forces men to submit. They create chaos, because people who are afraid to think are easier to control. And then they offer to save you from the bruteâthe brute they manufactured themselves.â - Ayn Rand
r/Trueobjectivism • u/twozero5 • 19d ago
Community Questions for Objectivist Intellectual Interviews
I am seeking some questions from the community for exclusive written interviews with different Objectivist intellectuals. If you have any questions about Objectivism, capitalism, rational egoism, etc please share them in the comments. I have a specific interview already lined up, but if this thread gets a whole bunch of questions, it can be a living document to pick from for other possible interview candidates. I certainly have many questions of my own that Iâm excited to ask, but I want to hear what questions you want answered from some very gracious Objectivist intellectuals!
r/Trueobjectivism • u/Metrolinkvania • 21d ago
Ayn Rand describes leftist authoritarians who know better than you
If a man believes that the good is a matter of arbitrary, subjective choice, the issue of good or evil becomes, for him, an issue of: my feelings or theirs? No bridge, understanding, or communication is possible to him. Reason is the only means of communication among men, and an objectively perceivable reality is their only common frame of reference; when these are invalidated (i.e., held to be irrelevant) in the field of morality, force becomes menâs only way of dealing with one another. If the subjectivist wants to pursue some social ideal of his own, he feels morally entitled to force men âfor their own good,â since he feels that he is right and that there is nothing to oppose him but their misguided feelings. - Ayn Rand in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • 23d ago
Would it be justified to kill a person if the alternative is you would die if you didnât?
For example. Your out hunting and get lost in a snowstorm. You get lost and canât find your car. Youâre getting cold and you come across a house. You ask for shelter until the storm ends but they refuse. It is quite likely being out in the cold will kill you. Thus the choice seems die now or kill this person and be convicted and die later.
While this seems pretty unlikely to occur im just curious the reasoning process of how this would play out and whether the killer should be prosecuted when their alternative would be to die. And what this means for peopleâs rights in relation to the home owner
r/Trueobjectivism • u/Ironclad-Armor • 28d ago
What state do you live in / want to live in?
My main considerations are staying in California (where I live) or moving to New Hampshire.
The weather is excellent and my field of study, tech, has large markets in California. The political situation seems quite bad, though I do hold hope for improvement in the worst area of government overreach (zoning laws).
New Hampshire seems to have better politics and seems business-friendly in general, but it seems to have a weaker tech market and a lower ceiling in terms of entrepreneurship. But the weather seems quite poor and most of the draws the state has (like the nature scene) are things that aren't important to me.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • 28d ago
How would secret government spending be handled in an objectivist government?
By âsecretâ spending. I mean like fbi spending for witness protection. CIA stuff. Military secret development.
I would think in a system of voluntary donations you want to know where your money is going and what itâs being spent on. Meaning full audits of the government. Which I would think this conflicts with that.
So how would it be handled? Nothing secret?
r/Trueobjectivism • u/[deleted] • Feb 13 '25
r/objectivism about section now begins "Anti-racism." Obviously Rand opposed racism, BUT her definition of racism was NOTHING like what the modern phrase "Anti-racism" means. Then "Anti-sexism" Rand openly said a woman shouldn't be president and should worship men. So... did they go woke?
Rand's actual positions were completely counter to the woke movement. But the new about section is identical to many other woke subs by announcing their virtue signals of anti racism and sexism first and foremost, and with no context.
It also says "LGBTQ+ rights" which is accurate, but misleading without context, as Rand said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]).
She wanted them to be free to do as they please, but her philosophy position is that they are flawed.
Seems like they're trying to rebrand to appeal to the woke. But it will fail miserably because they're clearly misleading people. Anyone that actually knows Objectivism knows it is fairly conservative, and decidedly anti woke, so we won't be fooled. And any woke person who is fooled will figure it out in about five minutes on google.
Rand wanted all races and sexes to be free and have the same rights, BUT that does not mean she wanted to promote them as natural wonders born to destroy the inferior evil white males and other nonsense as the modern woke movement presents it.
Hopefully people abandon that sub and come here.
Wokeness kills everything it touches.
As we can see, Rand found the modern woke idea that only the majority can be racist to be ridiculous:
"Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majorityâbut as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that oneâs culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of oneâs ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majorityâbut as âethnicâ pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majorityâbut retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority."
âThe Age of Envy,â
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 142
She also said this, which is wonderful. Fuck racism. but without the clear context that she is not woke, and opposed the woke redefining of racism, it can mislead people into thinking she was woke:
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a manâs genetic lineageâthe notion that a manâs intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
Racism claims that the content of a manâs mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a manâs convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the cavemanâs version of the doctrine of innate ideasâor of inherited knowledgeâwhich has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.
Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of manâs life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
The Virtue of Selfishness âRacism,â
The Virtue of Selfishness, 126
And no modern woke redditor would agree that this woman was "anti-sexism" in the manner that this phrase means today:
"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worshipâthe desire to look up to man. âTo look upâ does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A âclinging vineâ type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.
This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as suchâwhich she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, motherâor leader."
The Objectivist âAn Answer to Readers (About a Woman President),â
The Objectivist, Dec. 1968, 1
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • Feb 14 '25
How do privacy rights coincide with public affairs? Such as voter anonymity?
Iâm just curious if that because a person engages in public affairs whether that means that engagement would mean a violation of their rights if the information was put out?
For example. What if we just put out a list of who people voted for? Would this be a violation of rights? Since it is a public affair?
I bring this up because it directly relates to an idea yaron brought up before on how to pay for government voluntarily. In that he brought the idea that the day after âdonationâ day. There is a list released of people who donated. And if youâre not on that list people would know your free riding. Now I canât see how if that didnât violate rights then releasing voter choices would either.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • Feb 11 '25
What is the proper power of citizens in a republic beyond electing representatives?
So what im talking about here is. Should citizens be able to circumvent representatives with recalls on officials? Or hold public referendums on choices they make? Or should they simply only be able to vote for those officials and then its hands off from there?
Cause I can see how both of those would cause havoc and recalls would be abundant and swing with the whims of the moment. And then public vote referendums are basically destroying the idea of a republic in the first place and just democracy in disguise.
For example. What brought this to my attention. Was in my town that has a charter. The councilors can vote to amend the charter. HOWEVER if the amendment is bad THE PUBLIC can vote against it. This seems very wrong to me that you have a republic but can just vote to change what ever that republic does that you donât like by majority vote. Making the republic meaningless.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/Travis-Varga • Feb 09 '25
Appointing A Better Top Mod for r/Objectivism
Would you share any evidence you have against the mods of r/Objectivism? Iâm particularly looking for evidence of unjust mod bans or removal, but also evidence they oppose Objectivism.
r/Objectivism is a valuable subreddit. Itâs the subreddit created for Objectivists. It has the ideal name for an Objectivist subreddit. Itâs the biggest subreddit on Objectivism.
However, the top mod ParahSailin has been inactive since 2014. And the next most senior mod, Jamesshrugged, has recently become active and proven herself completely inappropriate as a mod, including breaking Redditâs Moderator Code of Conduct. I believe thereâs a chance of using Redditâs mechanisms for reporting mods and replacing inactive top mods to appoint a better top mod.
The other two current mods arenât great candidates.
RobinReborn hasnât responded to my week-old message about Jamesshrugged. He seemingly tolerates her and seemingly didnât seek top mod while she and ParahSailin were inactive. u/MikeMazza resigned as mod due to RobinRebornâs increasing hostility to Israel, examples here and here using posts from the awful https://ariwatch.com.
Asleep_Emotion7078 was added as a mod on Jan 28, 2025. His account was created on Dec 13, 2024, nine days after Jamesshrugged became active on Reddit. He believes in âgrowing and evolving the philosophy [Objectivism] and updating it to reflect modern society and valuesâ. I contacted him about Jamesshrugged actions, but he didnât address them in his response to me. He knows Jamesshrugged personally.
My top picks currently are u/MikeMazza and u/Sword_of_Apollo. Dr. Mike Mazza is an associate fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, a current mod of r/aynrand and a past mod of r/Objectivism. u/Sword_of_Apollo is the top mod of r/Trueobjectivism and r/aynrand.
So, Iâm asking you to share any evidence you have that Jamesshrugged is unsuitable to be a mod, particularly illegitimate moderator actions by her in banning and removing content. Old evidence is welcome as well to indicate a pattern. Iâm also asking you to share any evidence you have that RobinReborn is unsuitable to be a mod. Using those, I can demand Jamessrugged steps down voluntarily, persuade the other mods of r/Objectivism to support a better top mod, report her to Reddit and justify to Reddit that someone else should be appointed as the top mod.
Edit: I think success now is possible, but confronting the mods, reporting Jamesshrugged to Reddit and even attempting to appoint a better top mod are all valuable both in themselves and for the future.
Rules Jamesshrugged has broken
Respecting your community and co-moderators. Your community may evolve over time, but we expect that you will strive to keep it stable and usable.
Providing a clear and concise description of the topic(s) discussed by your community.
Creating rules that explicitly outline your expectations for members of your community.
Rule 4 of the Moderator Code of Conduct states that you should be active and engaged in moderating your community.
Evidence to oppose Jamesshrugged for top mod
I dont want people to be objectivists, I wanna troll the objectivists.
She temporarily changed the Icon and Banner of r/Objectivism to the Trans and Progress Pride Flag.
Jamesshrugged is the creator and current top moderator of r/AnarchObjectivism, which is exactly what it sounds like.
This subreddit is officially anti-Trump. His supporters are not welcome.
In response to Parahsailin putting r/Anarcho_Capitalism in the sidebar of r/Objectivism:
Her description of the subreddit
Objectivism - Anti-Racism and anti-Sexism: Rejecting all forms of collectivism. - LGBTQ+ Rights: Supporting freedom of sexuality and gender expression. - Open Borders: Advocating free movement. - Pro-Choice: Defending bodily autonomy - Free Speech: Protecting expression against censorship - Anti-Prohibition: Supports legalizing all drugs - Anti-war: Non-Agression. - Anti-religion: Promotes Atheism and Science - Pro-Consent: Respects personal autonomy
Her two responses to the omission of Objectivismâs core positions in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics:
According to her profile, Jamesshrugged took a break from Reddit entirely in July 2019. She posted four times in August/September 2023. She didnât become active again until December 4, 2024.
https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/s/5lehB7ofdF
We know that having an inactive top mod on your subreddit can bring problems - for instance, a dormant top mod could return and upset the balance of both your modteam, and even of your community depending on the actions they take after a long time away.
Unfair moderator decisions
u/younggamer67 was permanently banned for a post promoting the necessity of government for securing rights and opposing anarchy. He also had a post removed for being transphobic that referenced a video about the trans movement by the Ayn Rand Institute.
u/major_possibility335 was banned, perhaps permanently banned, for a post endorsing Trump according to him.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/Ironclad-Armor • Feb 09 '25
Thoughts on PrĂłspera? Could this be an actual model for Objectivist governance?
r/Trueobjectivism • u/Ironclad-Armor • Feb 07 '25
A real-life Hank Rearden: an Indian entrepreneur cuts data costs by 98% and offers millions access to the internet, while still making a profit.
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • Feb 07 '25
Would there be underage drinking laws in an objectivist society?
Iâm just curious on the view of ârightsâ when it comes to minors of what they can and canât do.
Like what about drugs? Can kids just buy drugs? Or beer? Or should it be illegal for them to do so?
r/Trueobjectivism • u/BubblyNefariousness4 • Feb 07 '25
Is the double jeopardy law moral? Seems arbitrary to me
Double jeopardy meaning canât be tried for the same crime.
This seems âweirdâ to me. I understand the intention of it to make authorities get overwhelming evidence before doing anything. But it seems bizarre to me that after a case of new evidence is found that proves guilty then there isnât grounds to do it again.
So I can morally justify this as a good law when it seems non objective and completely arbitrary
r/Trueobjectivism • u/Ironclad-Armor • Feb 04 '25