Should objectivism be adopted by more free societies?

  • Objectivism Has Been Adopted By No "Free" Societies

    The objectivism of Ayn Rand accepted what many are reluctant to admit. Politicians write polices under the guise of promoting the self interest of others, Rand understood that everyone acts in their own self-interest, whether they are aware of it or not. Objectivism is a somewhat solipsistic ideology only existing in a pure for within the mind of Rand, it would interesting to see it put into practice.

  • Objectivism is the goal of free societies.

    Ayn Rand would say that all societies aim for some level of objectivity. While some countries may favor one religion or another, a general lesson of most religions is to keep personal bias from interfering with a deity's intention. Whatever force is moving the planet is the one with full scope of the situation, and one humans personal views are typically seen as a lesser value. This leans towards objectivity even in some of the most religious societies. Free societies in particular are prone to wanting objectivity in order to maintain equality. Judgment without assumed guilt or innocence based on irrelevant factors.

  • Objectivism is great

    Yes, objectivism should be embraced by all and especially adopted by more free societies. Objectivism is the ultimate way to keep your mind open to other people and other ideas, and also teaches you how to be a self-reflective person. To do so from an early age is particularly important.

  • No Objectivism Should Not Be Adopted by More Free Societies

    Not everyone can be born free, white and over 21. Objectivism is a cruel, greedy, and selfish way to live. It makes people grow into adult children. They want for themselves. Anyone who is disabled, abandoned, or not well enough to take care of themselves are thought of as useless. That is simply not true. Everyone needs help once in awhile. In a mobile society where family are far away or disenfranchised, the people who cannot take care of themselves would end up in the street begging and/or dying. Witness the callous disregard for Third World Country citizens if they cannot take care of themselves. Witness the deep cuts in all the social programs in America in the beginning of the 21st century. The Party mostly responsible for the the cut and slash budgets quote Ayn Rand constantly. Ayn Rand's writing is the epitome of objectivism. It is not hard to see where that type of policy goes. The citizens lose. Even the ones who would momentarily gain. Sooner or later they would have to deal with a class war of have and have nots. If you study history you will see civilizations who have fought that battle. A corrupt government run for the benefit of the haves. A downtrodden citizenry who can no longer be treated as have nots. Warriors who have nothing also have nothing to lose. They do not intend to lose. Their hatred would become momentum to win. Objectivism would then take on a whole new meaning.

  • Not at all

    No, i think that free societies should not adopt objectivism at all, and I think that it will cause a whole lot of problems for these countries if they do. I think that free societies should keep running just like they are today, and no new programs should be used.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.