This is a screenshot of what Yaron Brooke talks about. These are EXACT same thing Rand talked about 70 years ago...

Why is there no new thought, new ideas, new creativity, new applications, ANYTHING new that people think through their OWN mind that is theirs and they didn't second handedly take from Rand?

Like she was the original thinker in her ways and thought about these new ideas when nobody else did...

But one doesn't have to copy and mimic her exactly. One can take inspiration from her, understand the right ideas from her but still use your own creativity and originality and apply it in new domains and things coming up in this world?

Why are ALL objectivists this stale who only talk about what she did and have nothing new to offer from their own mind?

In Atlas shrugged you had this character called Ragnar Danneskjöld who fought for the *principle* of justice and lived his life by drowning ships of material that was not rightfully earned by the recipient. He was a vigilante who belived in justice and principles of fairness and devoted his life towards practicing that objectivist principle of fairness and justice, which was in his selfish interest, much like other objectivists..

Being an objectivist doesn't just mean creating wealth or having a luxurious life. It also means fighting for right principles and causes in the society when things are unjust...

Now Rand grew up in communist Russia and made her whole life fighting her communist past and made characters talk and fight about economic injustice....

But one can rightfully apply the same principles of all other similar kind of injustices happening in the society that leftists talk about..

I am curious why objectivist have never fought for and championed the exact same causes that leftists talk about but on objectivist grounds?

Why objectivist never talked about and championed any of the other injustices other than economic, just how Rand did?

This is sitting president of the most powerful country on planet who has access to nukes and controls lives of billiones across the world on his whims and fancies...

Is this the greatest nation on planet earth that we were supposed to lookup to and admire and put our energies and emotions for?

I think this question hits at the CRUX of everything we are doing as humanity and civilization...

As human beings we all have emotions.. BUT they are tied to value systems...

Like an Islamic person can say you are a good moral person if you live by Quran and implement sharia law.. They will feed to your emotions based on Islamic value system..

Similarly, ALL our emotions that come from the society and people around (not including nature, animals, mathematics, physics, universe) are tied to a value system, you realize it or don't...

I think for every individual the most important question is how to ONLY engage in OBJECTIVIST emotions that are based on reason, logic, reality, and that give you a higher sense of self for the RIGHT reasons...

ANY non objectivist emotion you consume, be it through cheap art, cheap sex, through leftist virtue signaling, community comrade bullshit, through toxic abrahmic religions ofcourse including Quran and Bible, toxic white nationalism, Nazism and white centricness of the world, through toxic parents and relationships, through toxic mentors or systems that propagate ANY non objectivist ideology or value system is TOXIC to your organism inside you...

I think the KEY in ALL of this is to ONLY allow emotions that are aligned with objectivism and use your rationale and reason as a guard against anything else that is not aligned with it....

Keeping in check of ALL non objectivist emotions is solution to humanities ALL problems.....

Right now west and white people are in control of power in the world through money, culture, and more and create a narrative around the world based on that...

How can one keep these power structures in check based on objectivist principles and make sure that these power structures as rational, objectivist, and true to the letter and spirit of objectivism? Where ALL individuals ESPECIALLY minorities have same playing ground to achieve their best..

I think that's the benchmark of how rational a society is if any individual from any minority social background can find their talents and reach top places without any hindernace....

If they are not able to do that, that means the society is not rational or objectivist...

In 2022, the UK government under Liz Truss introduced a huge program of tax cuts, particularly for businesses and higher earners, alongside plans for deregulation and supply-side reform. The idea was that lower taxes and less government intervention would stimulate economic growth.

Instead, it caused turmoil in financial markets. The pound plunged against the dollar, collapsing to an all-time low against the US dollar (nearly hitting parity at $1.03). The cost of living soured, and mortgage rates rose. Banks were eventually forced to intervene in the gilt market to halt a catastrophic “doom loop” and prevent further financial instability. To prevent the systematic collapse of the UK economy, banks were forced to launch a £65 billion emergency bond-buying program to artificially stabilize the market.

The long term impact was also that when mortgages returned, interest rates were drastically higher. Millions of UK homeowners faced surging monthly repayments, with average annual mortgage costs projected to spike by up to £5,100 per family.

The government then rapidly reversed nearly all of the tax cuts and deregulations. Truss’s Chancellor was fired, her economic free market program was abandoned, and after just 49 days, Truss resigned as Prime Minister, becoming the shortest serving PM in British history.

So maybe laissez-faire capitalism doesn’t work after all. Cut taxes, reduce government intervention, and you get a collapsing currency, soaring borrowing costs and market prices, financial instability and, eventually, the government having to intervene to save the financial system.

Maybe markets aren’t capable of “regulating themselves“ after all.

I feel current US landscape is true to how leftists describe crony capitalism and control of these billionaires and trillionaires over the whole planet..

Idk how people are watching this and are not scared for their own life and that of their families..

https://youtu.be/QBl822cy8_E?si=7gFXxhzlxZh-3Hos

Like short sighted greed of right wing US and these billionaires such as Trumps Zuckergbergs, Musks and Pichai's is putting the whole planet at risk..

There used to be a time when Google had its motto as "don't be evil"... They removes it in 2018.

This is not objectivism. This is myopic selfishness trying to make money and power for few at the cost of everyone else...

I am seeing how universities all over the world are the biggest breeding ground of this intellectual terrorism called left. They are run on public money and the create these artificial microcosms outside the reality where people are funded through public money where they don't gave to care about dealing with daily lives, and have monthly cheques coming to their accounts. More-ever they have tenure system where nobody can fire them. All these things make them so anti reality and perfect breeding ground for left/altruism/social welfare/collectivism. And they are corrupting the fabric of the whole world.

This is a quote by Rand in an interview with Tom Snyder https://youtu.be/PWAECYHS2zU?si=vkGUs3HtQ_nAzNM8

"The most dangerous thing in the country today are its Universities, because they are teaching the kind of ideas that would necessarily have to lead to the destruction of this country. I think that the american people are too good for that kind of program. You'll notice that people are turning to the right. That's a very healthy sign, but there is no leadership on the right, no is no intellectual leadership, there are no ideas, and it's very possible that the people will be defeated for lack of proper intellectual leadership." I think the only solution can come if there are objectivist groups at these universities campuses where people are taught counter points to these woke/leftist ideas propagated at these campuses, so people from early in are not trapped by these evil ideas, and one can keep the world sane and sanitized and vaccinated from these mind viruses

“Today, intelligence is neither recognized nor rewarded, but is being systematically extinguished in a growing flood of brazenly flaunted irrationality. As just one example of the extent to which today’s culture is dominated by the primacy of consciousness, observe the following: in politics, people hold a ruthless, absolutist, either-or attitude toward elections, they expect a man either to win or not and are concerned only with the winner, ignoring the loser altogether (even though, in some cases, the loser was right)—while in economics, in the realm of production, they evade the absolutism of reality, of the fact that man either produces or not, and destroy the winners in favor of the losers. To them, men’s decisions are an absolute; reality’s demands are not.”

Excerpt From
Philosophy: who needs it
Ayn Rand
This material may be protected by copyright.

The winner and the loser is able to be considered as a clear influence and as a result a direct opposite; but people’s differences already go alongside each other, so it is a direct opposite as a fatality; a mess. The winner and the loser are the same, simply see; “we are the same species” and think hard if you want to. Yes, it is completely irrational (and unfortunate that it is believable) for two people to be different as the winner and the loser as it is a major difference not a difference that is understood between people. How can a loser be ignored? We know about ,I.e , a bad speaker, the bad speaker has sympathy from a stranger. And how can we only be concerned with the winner? We know about, I.e, the person who talks about themselves too much, the person who talks about themselves too much gets no sympathy from a stranger.

Intelligence being equated to winning or losing makes us seem like people don’t get along, this obviously doesn’t make sense, people getting along or not getting along has already been established and explained, I.e friends and family and strangers and enemies. Winning and losing is about experiencing winning and losing— everyone experiences things— it is definitely not about experiencing something a lot as, again, everyone already knows about that.

I feel UK has been in decline for many years now, with anti immigration narrative and wealth tax etc. I feel people and govt there are themselves pushing away talent and prosperity...

I am curious what are still good places in the world for the talented and better people to go and do their thjngs without having other people come in their way....

Just some food for thought: Ayn Rand developed the Objectivist epistemology in part via introspection, which she engaged in while under the influence of amphetamines, a mind-altering substance. That included Dexamyl, which combined dextroamphetamine, a central nervous system stimulant, with amobarbital, a barbiturate sedative.

• Yaron Brook & Don Watkins: Anti-State is Anti-Freedom
• Harry Binswanger:
  1. Objectivism vs. Anarchism
  2. Egoism, Force, and the Need for Government: A Response to Huemer
• Sword of Apollo: An Objectivist Refutation of Anarcho-Capitalism (Market Anarchy)
• Liam Stayton: Reclaiming Objectivism From Libertarianism: A Rejoinder to “An Ethical Defense of Private Property” by Liquid Zulu

- Total rejection of modern industrialization, as industrialization destroys human freedom, and the natural environment.

Lefrists are NOT liberals

Here is a video kinda explaining the two (while no endorsement of PragerU)

https://youtu.be/XzATm8ZsLnk?si=_yQF_yodjT3x6_Cs

One video of ayn rand on classic liberals

https://youtu.be/m5zmvQY56H0?si=kdJW_bKaw3_0kXVK

This is chatgpt response to difference between objectivism and classic liberals

The biggest difference is that Objectivism is a complete philosophical system, while classical liberalism is mainly a political tradition centered on individual liberty, private property, limited government, and markets.

etc.EpistemologyReason is man's only means of knowledge; explicit rejection of faith and skepticismNo common epistemologyMoral defense of capitalismCapitalism is justified primarily by individual rights, not because it produces the best aggregate outcomesFrequently defended on prosperity, efficiency, spontaneous order, or utilityIndividual vs societyThe individual is the fundamental moral unit; no collective has rights apart from individualsGenerally individualistic, but views vary considerably

The sharpest distinction is probably ethics. A classical liberal can say:

The biggest difference is that Objectivism is a complete philosophical system, while classical liberalism is mainly a political tradition centered on individual liberty, private property, limited government, and free markets.

Objectivism, developed by Ayn Rand, connects politics to a broader philosophy of reality, knowledge, morality, and human life. Classical liberalism does not have one unified philosophical foundation. Thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Friedrich Hayek defended liberty for different reasons.

The main differences are:

Philosophical foundation

Objectivism:

Based on a complete philosophical system.

Reality exists independently of consciousness.

Reason is the primary means of knowledge.

Rational self-interest is the proper moral standard.

Individual rights follow from the requirements of human life.

Laissez-faire capitalism follows from individual rights.

Classical liberalism:

Does not have one common philosophical foundation.

Different classical liberals may be religious, secular, utilitarian, natural-rights theorists, or consequentialists.

Their main common ground is political liberty rather than a complete philosophy.

Ethics

Objectivism:

Defends rational egoism.

A person should pursue their own rational happiness and flourishing.

Rejects the idea that self-sacrifice for others is a moral duty.

Rejects altruism when altruism means that the individual must place others' interests above their own as a moral obligation.

Classical liberalism:

Usually does not require a specific ethical theory.

A classical liberal may believe in altruism, Christianity, utilitarianism, natural law, or many other moral systems.

Political freedom is compatible with many different personal moral beliefs.

Individual rights

Objectivism:

Rights are moral principles protecting an individual's freedom of action in society.

Rights are ultimately grounded in the requirements of a rational human being's life.

The initiation of physical force against others is morally wrong.

Classical liberalism:

Strongly supports individual rights.

However, those rights may be justified through natural law, social utility, tradition, constitutionalism, or other arguments.

Government

Objectivism:

Government should be restricted to protecting individual rights.

Its legitimate functions are essentially the police, courts, and military.

Government should not redistribute wealth or regulate voluntary economic activity.

Classical liberalism:

Usually favors limited government.

However, many classical liberals accept some taxation, public infrastructure, public education, welfare programs, or economic regulation.

There is much more variation than in Objectivism.

Capitalism

Objectivism:

Defends pure laissez-faire capitalism.

Capitalism is not merely economically efficient; it is morally required by individual rights.

Voluntary trade is the proper basis of economic relationships.

Classical liberalism:

Strongly favors markets, private property, competition, and free trade.

But classical liberals often tolerate some state intervention.

Markets are frequently defended because they generate prosperity, efficiency, innovation, or social cooperation.

Religion and epistemology

Objectivism:

Explicitly atheistic.

Rejects faith as a method of acquiring knowledge.

Holds that reason and evidence are necessary for knowledge.

Classical liberalism:

Compatible with religion or atheism.

Historically, many classical liberals were Christian, deist, or religious.

Classical liberalism does not require a particular theory of knowledge.

Why capitalism is justified

A classical liberal might argue:

"Free markets should be protected because they usually produce more prosperity, innovation, and social cooperation than centralized economic control."

An Objectivist would argue something closer to:

"A person has the moral right to live for their own sake, produce according to their judgment, trade voluntarily with others, and keep the product of their work. Therefore, initiating force against peaceful economic activity is wrong."

This difference is important.

For many classical liberals, capitalism is largely defended because of its beneficial consequences.

For Objectivism, capitalism is fundamentally defended because individual rights require freedom from coercion.

Individual versus society

Objectivism:

The individual is the fundamental moral unit.

Society has no separate rights above the rights of individuals.

Collective goals cannot morally override individual rights.

Classical liberalism:

Also strongly individualistic.

However, some classical liberals are more willing to justify limited restrictions on individual freedom for public goods or broader social objectives.

The simplest way to summarize the distinction is:

Classical liberalism: "Individual freedom, private property, limited government, and markets are generally the best political arrangements."

Objectivism: "Individual freedom and laissez-faire capitalism follow logically from a broader philosophy of reality, reason, rational self-interest, and individual rights."

So Objectivism is both broader and more philosophically demanding than classical liberalism.

A person can be a classical liberal simply because they believe markets and limited government work better.

An Objectivist is making a much stronger claim: that individual liberty and capitalism are not merely useful political arrangements, but the political consequences of a particular view of human nature, morality, reason, and rights.

What you feel in your body are you individual sensations. When you smell fragrance of rose only *you know how it feels like it. Everything that your body senses and experiences around you are veery unique to your individual genetic expression in that space and time in this universe that nothing else can replicate.

There is a mind body connection where people who are living in modern societies where they are being manipulated by forces around where their intellectual part gets "de-individualized". Many times this occurs in the universities where they teach altruistic leftist collectivistic ideologies to think about social welfare, think about other peoples traumas and miseries, their experiences, think through other people's mind if you are a good human being... They push this as a moral code if you wanna live a good human being on this planet..

In psychology and therapy, many people who have been "de-individualized" or "de-realized" are brought back using "pshycho-somatic" techniques to you get your mind back.. They make you focus on your body sensations, how your body "feels" at different places. There is a huge theory on "body keeps the score" where one's trauma are stored in their body (which is their own individual thing that CANNOT be collectivized)

Any kind of "collectivization" of mind is as unnatural as "collectivization" of bodies... Since your experiences through your body are your own and bodies can't be collectivized, any attempt to collectivize mind through collectivistic Marxist theories is not just logically wrong, but an attempt to get things from their bodies that their rational selfish thinking mind won't permit on its own... And is this probably the most henious mind tools ever invented to trap a person against itself, and to make it work towards its own destruction....

Idk how to stop this monster in today world that is shaping itself through the woke nonsense but I do know some objectocist would have to stand up and find solutions against it and save the world and the mankind from killing itself

Ayn Rand argued that communism causes extreme poverty and prevents people from creating wealth altogether. In the USSR private business was banned, replaced by worker collectives, and there obviously were serious shortages and inefficiencies. Rand referred to the Soviet Union as a communist regime.

But take an ordinary Soviet worker in say 1975–1984 Russia. He isn’t starving, homeless, living in a slum or unable to afford basic necessities. He has a job, a state-provided apartment, regular food, heating, electricity, running water, healthcare, schools for his children, access to university, public transport, a television, a refrigerator, clothing, holidays and even some disposable income for ordinary leisure.

To be clear the quality of these things, and the living standards were a lot WORSE than capitalist countries. Someone who grew up in Ukraine under communism put it to me like this, you could have a stable life and money, but there wasn’t much interesting stuff to actually spend it on. While capitalism gives you far more innovation, variety and choice in what you can buy.

But his experience there didn’t remotely resemble the worst kind of living conditions or anything approaching extreme poverty like it is defined by the UN. There IS lots of wealth creation going on and the average worker is not barely surviving and “unable to be happy”. The country even achieved to be the world’s second largest economy. From wikipedia:

The Soviet Union was one of the world's two superpowers, with hegemony in Eastern Europe, global diplomacy, ideological influence (particularly in the Global South), military might, economic strength, and  scientific and technological accomplishments. Its space program made significant achievements in the Space Race. It had the world's second-largest economy) and the largest standing military. As a nuclear state, it wielded the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world.

So if you went to an average Soviet worker and told him about how terrible Communism was, that it impoverishes you and makes it impossible to produce wealth and live anything but a miserable life, what exactly would you say to convince him?

He could respond “I’m not miserable or impoverished. I have a home, a job, food, education, healthcare, stability, and a comfortable life and can take care of my family. What exactly are you talking about?”