Is Objectivism an Alpha philosophy?

[tcaudilllg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29

Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality; that individuals are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that humans gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest;" that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual human rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form - a work of art - that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness.[4]

Actually this captures my beliefs almost perfectly. It seems very and .

[Logos]

Some people believe that Ayn Rand is an ENTp, which would stand to reason then that Objectivism would be and , but I am neither a fan of Ayn Rand nor her work, so I am reluctant to try make any sort of objective claim about the prevalent functions of Objectivism.

[Luke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29

Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality; that individuals are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that humans gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest;" that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual human rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form - a work of art - that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness.[4]

Actually this captures my beliefs almost perfectly. It seems very and .

You seem very and . I think Ayn Rand along with most MBTI-INTJ people are ILI.

Note how complexly phrased the intuitive associations in that quote are, one right after the other. As if you're expected to read the whole thing first, evaluate it for a while, then come up with the result, like a batch-job in a computer, instead of seeing and evaluating each point seperately and in sequence. However the basic premise is a simple one logically, almost boringly so for an LII. There's no deep logical questions being asked, only a simple and obvious assertion that there is a reality that is an objective phenomenon, and we are in contact with it through our senses. But this begs the question, of why anyone would seriously think otherwise, and if they did seriously think otherwise, what would that entail exactly? (See how I turned that simple logical question into two different ones? The introverted trait asks a lot of questions and notices a lot of angles on a given thought.)

Just something to consider.

[tcaudilllg]

Actually the objectivist views on art seem very, very Alpha. For example, an artistic work by an INFp is a great resource for INTjs, as are artistic creations by ENFjs for ENTps. Also, there seem to be very strong parallels between the objectivist philosophy and the philosophy Augusta used to create Model-A. Especially, the concept that the universe exists apart from human knowledge. That belief is mirrored in the information aspect-element postulate, that observer-independent aspects are processed by the elements of the observer's perception.

Note how complexly phrased the intuitive associations in that quote are, one right after the other. As if you're expected to read the whole thing first, evaluate it for a while, then come up with the result, like a batch-job in a computer, instead of seeing and evaluating each point seperately and in sequence. However the basic premise is a simple one logically, almost boringly so for an LII. There's no deep logical questions being asked, only a simple and obvious assertion that there is a reality that is an objective phenomenon, and we are in contact with it through our senses. But this begs the question, of why anyone would seriously think otherwise, and if they did seriously think otherwise, what would that entail exactly? (See how I turned that simple logical question into two different ones? The introverted trait asks a lot of questions and notices a lot of angles on a given thought.)

But that quote was from wikipedia. Also, remember that a philosopher must defend their PoV.

Yes, you see a lot of especially in my posts, especially when I'm trying to belittle somebody for stupid arguments! Gotta love that id!

Sarcasm aside, consider this:

The key tenets of the Objectivist metaphysics are (1) the Primacy of Existence, (2) the Law of Identity ("A is A"), and (3) the Axiom of Consciousness.

as the factor of existential perception is absolute; identity, a function of intuition, is a law; and consciousness is an a-priori postulate. Extremely ENTp.

There is also evidence that Rand produced bad feelings in the academic community, which is easily argued as PoLR. I don't see how she could be anything but ENTp.

I suspect that objectivism = (political) progressive alpha.

[Hitta]

I think that subjectivity is more - + / + - . There is no proof of an objective reality, nor will there ever be.

[Logos]

I think that subjectivity is more - + / + - . There is no proof of an objective reality, nor will there ever be.

Well, you should look past the name of her philosophy of Objectivism. It is called objectivism because her first choice of names for her philosophy, existentialism, happened to be taken. So do not think of Objectivism in the sense of objective/subjective, but in its own terminology, sense and meaning of the word in how it relates to her philosophy.

[Hitta]

I think that subjectivity is more - + / + - . There is no proof of an objective reality, nor will there ever be.

Well, you should look past the name of her philosophy of Objectivism. It is called objectivism because her first choice of names for her philosophy, existentialism, happened to be taken. So do not think of Objectivism in the sense of objective/subjective, but in its own terminology, sense and meaning of the word in how it relates to her philosophy.

There is a strong correlation between Objectivism and Objectivity.

[tcaudilllg]

As regards the ISTj hypothesis, I offer this quote from the Objectivist politics article:

"A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing (in his or her official capacity) except that which is legally permitted."[11]

This corresponds exactly to the exertion pairing I discussed earlier today in General Discussion. (in thread "Exertion element pairings") She is an ENTP with ISTj exertion.

[tcaudilllg]

The man of superior character is not (conscious of his) character.
Hence he has character.
The man of inferior character (is intent on) not losing character.
Hence he is devoid of character.

I actually thought not to dignify that with a response, but that is inflammatory opinion against liberalism in general. Yes I am very scrupulous about my morality, but that just means I have principles. Man, that's so rediculous, I don't need to respond to it further. All it means is that you have no character at all.

Rand is ENTp. By the way, just because it does not concurr with your opinion does not mean it is or is not alpha. Type may shape a manifestation of opinion, but opinion itself is totally irrelevant to type. Shut off your infected opinion for a moment, and look at the situation objectively for once.

[tcaudilllg]

i don't know very much about eastern philosophy. some of it was imported into existentialism and european idealism after the Enlightenment and i've assumed that what i've gotten of it from there is enough for my purposes for now. also what i've gotten through jung. (i don't study this stuff for a living after all. time is limited.)

..

but there's an important qualification i need to make to my last post. i'm not saying Te types are necessarily in tune with modern empirical subjects, or that only Te types are so. what i am saying is that for Ayn Rand to make it her job to be in tune with these things (as they relate to economic philosophy and phil of the mind for example) and then to largely overlook them is significant. even more so when you consider that during her own time period lots of her colleagues were taking notice of new empirical discoveries in those fields. that stuff was really taking off then.

also i think significant: Rand's philosophy seem very disconnected from any other "school" of philosophy, both in style and in substance. this could be the mark of someone brilliant enough to see beyond most every presently available resource. it could also indicate that someone is weak in digesting and appraising other sources of data than his or her own thoughts and anecdotes.

Rand is ENTp.

yeah and so is Gilly. or is he ENFj? or ENFp? etc. it's difficult to type people we can communicate with and observe directly, let alone this eccentric woman from eastern European who's been dead for decades and didn't even speak our native language very well. (you're American, right?) ok ENTp is a possibility but you state is like tautology almost! i don't even know if you mean the same thing i do when you say ENTp. and i'm not just referring to type description ambiguities (or the ambiguity of socionics in general). i'm also referring to this exotic "exertion type" theory you're always speaking to, that hardly anyone else around here seems to take seriously. there are times for confident declaration and there are times for speculative new theories, but where do you think you are going to get yourself by mixing the two?

Actually some 50% of this forum takes it at least semi-seriously. ...Before we talk any further, I require that you read my primer thread series in the Non-socionics type theories forum. That goes for you, too, hmmkr.

I consider ENTp as what Aushra Augusta described, and Ann Rand fits the bill.

Gilly is ENTp, of course. Reform as a whole is taking a type-ambivalent stance because it is wary of implementing the reforms a full acceptance of type's existence would imply. (Of course there are a few reformers who are taking consistent positions with regard to their types, but even they are prone to debate it every few months) Thus they are taking the "reality is what you make it" position as political cover. Also, the determination by the traditionalist crowd here to settle on their types seems to have set reform's position in opposition.

Note that "using" as referred to by reform may reflect a focus on 's content throughout the function cycle, and not the initial observation of the content itself. But there is no doubt the function order is itself set in stone for all practical purposes.

[Creepy-bg]

no way in hell do 50% of this forum take you or your dual type theory serriously Tcaud. let's say 10% take you semi-serriously (and that's being very generous I think seeing how really only one or two people even respond to your various "dual type hypothesis" threads besides to argue and try to get you to talk like a human being instead of some wannabe Jung simaelcrum :wink: )

[tcaudilllg]

And the same back at you, Mr. Pathetic.

The question may not be how many people take me seriously, but rather how many take you seriously, because you are the critic. You cannot level a charge against me without providing evidence of your own, and expect it to be anything more than opinion.

In my estimation there is little difference between you and mikemex: both of you worship your weaknesses and squander your strengths. The question is not whether or not dual-type theory (which labcoat also believes in) is accurate, but rather if your opinion passes the muster of fact. (and obviously the opinion of the resident jester does not count) Society does not demand respect to those who do not pay it, nor do INTjs in general.

If we are to call dual-type theory into question, then I call your reasoning into question also.

[Creepy-bg]

And the same back at you, Mr. Pathetic.

The question may not be how many people take me seriously, but rather how many take you seriously, because you are the critic. You cannot level a charge against me without providing evidence of your own, and expect it to be anything more than opinion.

no... the question was how many people take you (and you dual type thingy) serriously. Read ifmd95s post.

In my estimation there is little difference between you and mikemex: both of you worship your weaknesses and squander your strengths. The question is not whether or not dual-type theory (which labcoat also believes in) is accurate, but rather if your opinion passes the muster of fact. (and obviously the opinion of the resident jester does not count) Society does not demand respect to those who do not pay it, nor do INTjs in general.

If we are to call dual-type theory into question, then I call your reasoning into question also.

So Labcoat believing in your theory means 50% of the forum takes it serriously? lol. Nice data gathering Mr Scientist/Psychologist

also once again it needs to pointed out to you that you DO NOT speak for society or for the INTjs of the world. You speak for Tcaud. You'd think somebody as intelligent as you seem to think you are would get this.

BTW I respect and am respected by many people (in the real world and on this forum). Just because you don't like me doesn't mean you're right in that respect.

[Creepy-bg]

I think he was ranting about me in that post, not you... :wink:

[Creepy-bg]

lol i think i was born in the wrong generation or something. i can never work these forums right. then again i'm multitasking and sleep deprived..

i'm going to do a dissapearing act with those posts to save myself the trouble. although i still think a lot of what i said applies. and i'd still trust a bionicgoat typing over his anyday.

nah... leave what you said it's good stuff

[tcaudilllg]

BTW I respect and am respected by many people (in the real world and on this forum). Just because you don't like me doesn't mean you're right in that respect.

Yes but it would be foolish of them to respect an INFj's recognition of structure, given they naturally have no confidence in it.

my "time" comment wasn't meant to bash you or your choice of philosophy though. if anything it was more of a "self-check" to remind myself not to spend too much time typing Ayn Rand!

I spent only a little time typing Ayn Rand, but a regrettable amount of time unnecessarily arguing with you, and I have nothing to show for it.

[Creepy-bg]

BTW I respect and am respected by many people (in the real world and on this forum). Just because you don't like me doesn't mean you're right in that respect.

Yes but it would be foolish of them to respect an INFj's recognition of structure, given they naturally have no confidence in it.

1. I never said anything about structure

2. I'm not an INFj

What I said was that the claim that 50% of the forum takes you serriously or semi-serriously was bullshit... your response (besides getting all defensive and insulting) was to say that Labcoat believes in your theory... 1/993 ~ .1% of the forum... if we instead go by the "regular" posters (lets say that there are 50) 1/50=2%. Now if we're kind about this and say that 10 people here take you serriously or semi-serriously (I think that's a pretty fair and accurate number) we still only get 1% or at most 20% (but then I can see where those calculations would be too hard for your supperior intellect to process. )

[Creepy-bg]

how would you differentiate personality from "Personality"?

a capital P and two quotes

[tcaudilllg]

But a understanding of Taoism may lead to another understanding of Personality.

Hmm... you act as though your interpretation of Taoism is the only one. How naive. I agree that your view does represent Taoism from a certain angle, but it thoroughly avoids other people's points of view. Ah, I was once equally naive... I thought I could have everyone's love... if only I tried hard enough. But it was not to be, due to the differences in opinion that exist and the strict rules of their governance.

But the reality is this particular INFj position on the subject.

Darn, he looks an awful lot like Jesus, doesn't he? Aww... it must be COINCIDENCE! EVERYTHING, JUST, RANDOMNESS! RANDOMNESS IS KING, THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING!

(lol, what a stupid position. Actually, Gavin is INFj-ISTp, the same dual-type as Jesus itself. And guess what: it may have indeed been possible for Jesus to work those miracles; in fact, that theory of "Personality" you just hawked (which originated from the very thought stream that has to this date birthed the dual-type theory) doesn't work without those miracles being at the very least plausible. Chew on that.

It is clear to me, BTW, that you are one such "Personality". And I myself am one also. ...Try tracing the progression of the IM order in dialogue scripts; you'll see that a person's critics are always two steps ahead of them in the ring of model-A. You will also notice that one's allies are always either in the same positions, or 4 steps ahead/behind (given it's an eight-point ring). Oh and you are... what was it... 3 steps ahead of me, or five behind depending on your pleasure! I know this because it's the timing of the progressions that gives rise to the division of psyche into respective domains, as attested to by function 7.)

Interesting, I suspect that your fate will be similar to that of George Bush's: your hopes will be frustrated by your ignorance of the rules of information exchange. That will be your price for derailing my intentions, if you continue.

So regrettable. Augusta knew better. You know I'm a gifted teacher due to my exertion type; if you would relax your determination to prove your brilliance, we could work together. What you mistake for my determination to prove my own brilliance is actually a determination to demonstrate my competence by means of the best available PoV.)

Wait a second. Ah I know what to do!

I take everything I said back. You are, undoutably, the greatest genius to ever live. You stand the highest pillar, and non will ever compare to you. I am stupid in the face of your abject, eternal GOD GIVEN brilliance. Similarly, all others are dirt before you.

Enough time wasted today. I had best continue my preparations to reframe individual perceptions of talent as manifestations of exertion type, which one would think would lead to reforms of capitalism in general and an overall increase in human productivity, corresponding to an increase in the quality of life for most people. This is my ultimate goal, everything else will follow from this as the rule of ego collapses in favor of objective progress. To make this happen, I'm studying psychology as a university student as a means of acquiring the necessary authority. (the authority is necessary because institutions are framed in the intention of supressing the influx of pathological thought; imagine a shadow form of your "Personality" and you'll understand what I mean) I have a professor sympathetic to your position with whom I get along well, and I would prefer to work with you if you think you can lift yourself above the Al-Qaeda influence that is infecting your position unawares....

[Logos]

You ramble too much.

[Gilly]

I used to read TC's posts and get pissed off and pray to god that nobody took him seriously. These days I mostly just chuckle.

[Gilly]

Rand's philosophy itself is somewhat Alpha (based on own personal pleasure and happiness, seeing relationships as simply a source of mutual benefit[this, of course, being an objective viewpoint]), but what's more Alpha is her reasons for holding said philosophy.

Watch and enjoy:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pHxlwFgOc&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wsr768hdk4&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5poUSQ4L8pY&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

IMO these videos also make a good case for her being Alpha NT (I'm thinking lately that LII might be more likely; she VIs similarly to my boss). Not to mention they show how astonishingly brilliant she is.

[krieger]

Especially, the concept that the universe exists apart from human knowledge.

Who the hell are these dolts that don't believe in a universe apart from human knowledge anyway? Is it even possible to live like that?

[Hitta]

She looks INTp to me.

[Exodus]

I can't see much of an argument for ENTp, I'd say INTj or ISTj. Her philosophy is mostly valid (even trivial), but she falsely assumes that humans are entirely rational. Exactly where Ti goes wrong.

[krieger]

The question is not whether or not dual-type theory (which labcoat also believes in) is accurate,

Believe is a big word. I'm testing the theories because I believe more expansive models of the personality are needed to make sense of soiconics and yours are to my knowledge the only ones available. The fact that Gulenko advocates similar expansions of socionics is a strong determinant in why I take the risk of possibly being wrong in doing this.

[Gilly]

She actually has really similar expressions, especially eye and head movements, to Manny Ramirez, a baseball player for the Boston Red Sox who is quite blatantly ILE, IMO. Still, I think both Alpha NTs are possible; I see no reason to think any one more than the other.

[Gilly]

You think her logic is poorly developed? If that's the case, it's your logic that is flawed and underdeveloped; this woman is absolutely brilliant.

[Gilly]

Where do you see Fe? She may have "opinions" that are justified by her beliefs, but that doesn't make her logic any less sound.

[Logos]

You think her logic is poorly developed? If that's the case, it's your logic that is flawed and underdeveloped; this woman is absolutely brilliant.

So if someone were to believe her logic is poorly developed then it actually means that their logic is poorly developed? How developed is that line of logic? :wink:

[Gilly]

You think her logic is poorly developed? If that's the case, it's your logic that is flawed and underdeveloped; this woman is absolutely brilliant.

So if someone were to believe her logic is poorly developed then it actually means that their logic is poorly developed? How developed is that line of logic? :wink:

It's pretty simple. Nothing she says is illogical, so if you think it is, then your logic is flawed. That's not too developed for you, I hope, Logos? :wink:

What do you think is illogical about her views? What makes her logic "poorly developed?"

Yay we're debating Objectivism! the16types.info has officially become a collegiate microcosm!

[Creepy-bg]

poopy

[Logos]

You think her logic is poorly developed? If that's the case, it's your logic that is flawed and underdeveloped; this woman is absolutely brilliant.

So if someone were to believe her logic is poorly developed then it actually means that their logic is poorly developed? How developed is that line of logic? :wink:

It's pretty simple. Nothing she says is illogical, so if you think it is, then your logic is flawed. That's not too developed for you, I hope, Logos? :wink:

That is still quite poor logic. Nothing Karl Marx says is illogical, so if you think it is, then your logic is flawed. Nothing Immanuel Kant says is illogical, so if you think it is, then your logic is flawed. Nothing Albert Einstein says is illogical, so if you think it is, then your logic is flawed. Nothing David Deutsch, Stephen Hawking, or Richard Dawkins say is illogical, so if you think it is, then your logic is flawed. Obviously between all these logical people there are many points of non-agreement, so I guess that most likely all of their logic is flawed.

What do you think is illogical about her views? What makes her logic "poorly developed?"

Yay we're debating Objectivism! the16types.info has officially become a collegiate microcosm!

What makes her illogical? The jump in logic in which she assumes that the best form of government is embodied in consensual laissez-faire capitalism. That is because, in truth, the jump in logic is illusionary; she begged-the-question and worked backward, as her entire system amounts to the justification of a system and not a series of logical steps in which she reached the system.

[Logos]

It's not what she says, it's how she says it. She speaks as if what she is saying is objectively true, as if it was dogma. Watch David Deutsch video, it is very different. Watch George Soros, it is very different.

It's the difference between I know the truth... vs I seek the truth...

Ayn Rand is having a interview by herself. She does not engage Mike Wallace at all, she dictates to him.

David Deutsch is having a interview with himself, he's supplying the questions, the banter, a few inconclusive answers. The answers are not a end, but means

An astute observation actually. Richard Dawkins too has a great resemblance to Deutsch's style.

[tcaudilllg]

i think Objectivism is entirely contigent upon Rand's differentiation of "rational self-interest" and "selfishness without a self". the maxim of Objectivism is naturalistic egoism: individual utility maximization in this life. and to distinguish Objectivism from simple amorality Rand trys to position utility derived from "human" reason (and applying it within a morally purposeful system such as her own) above utility from "animal" hedonism. but i think there's a lot of empirical evidence in economics and cognitive science against that.

i think Rand's biases in this department instead were rooted in her theatrical pursuit of "heroic" personalities. "hedonists" probably didn't strike her (or most people) as particularly heroic. although empirically, i think it's entirely possible for the hedonist to win her game: for example given what is known about the brain, a new medical procedure that doubles positive neurotransmitter performance may be a better bet than following Rand's heroic philosophy, if all you consider is maximizing utility in this life. (remember the naturalistic Rand disavowed even considering the possibility of any other life.)

there are infinite many demonstratable economic circumstances where amorality wins, assuming as John Maynard Keynes once quipped "in the long run, we're all dead."

Actually, amorality usually doesn't get that far. Although some early gains may be made, a reckoning is inevitable as justice claims its vengence.

I'm quite confident that the medical procedure will be revealed as a source of serious side effects. (if not already) Nothing is free, effort must be expended for everything.

The trick is creating conditions for yourself where your effort will be best spent.

[tcaudilllg]

The question is not whether or not dual-type theory (which labcoat also believes in) is accurate,

Believe is a big word. I'm testing the theories because I believe more expansive models of the personality are needed to make sense of soiconics and yours are to my knowledge the only ones available. The fact that Gulenko advocates similar expansions of socionics is a strong determinant in why I take the risk of possibly being wrong in doing this.

Risk? What risk? Are you powerless?

[tcaudilllg]

The question is not whether or not dual-type theory (which labcoat also believes in) is accurate,

Believe is a big word. I'm testing the theories because I believe more expansive models of the personality are needed to make sense of soiconics and yours are to my knowledge the only ones available. The fact that Gulenko advocates similar expansions of socionics is a strong determinant in why I take the risk of possibly being wrong in doing this.

From my PoV, belief = intuition.

I could well be wrong about Rand as an ENTp. She VIs with Kant, who is an INTj of some exertion type.... (we've discussed this at length)

[Logos]

ignore information asymmetries, market imperfections, imperfect law enforcement, human irrationality all for a moment, (which doing so i would consider more so empirical obliviousness, rather than poor logic. Te in the superego?)

then i don't see how laissez-faire capitalism doesn't purely satisfy Rand's condition of having man make "rational self-interested" choices. isn't a rational self-interested choice exactly what a free market transaction is (ignoring the aforementioned empirical factors)?

Yes and no. No because laissez-faire capitalism assumes the presence of governments to act as contract arbitrators. Therefore, it is not laissez-faire capitalism which would not purely satisfy Rand's diction of having man make "rational self-interested" choice, but anarchism, which I believe she hated almost as much as she hated communism. Of course, as a free standing human being, who exists apart (and a the same time a part) of government, I should be able to make a rational self-interested choice no matter where I am or the form of government present. And of course there is also the problem when your rational self-interested choice conflicts with my self-interested rational choice where scarcity is an issue, which according to economists is everywhere.

And yes that is true, because as I said, Ayn Rand worked backwards in her logic by begging-the-question and working towards a desire result rather than from a purely bottom-up approach. She came from Soviet Russia, and she hated it there, and because of it, she modeled her views to be something of an antithesis of Soviet Russia's Stalinism (authoritarian communism - a contradiction of ideas if there ever was one), which is why Americans at the time loved her stuff, as what she advocated was good old laissez-faire capitalism. So according to Rand, of course laissez-faire would satisfy her conditions of rational self-interested choices. Her philosophy was the attempt to justify a system and not to construct a system.

[tcaudilllg]

Well if we're going to get into the side of it, Kant's position of altruism seems does seem to stand apart from Rand's philosophy of mutual self-interest.

What Rand means by self-interest, is the pursuit of one's own needs while respecting the rights of others to pursue the same. Obviously this is easier said than done, and suffice it to say that this is the struggle which defines a progressive's life. Ideally the two could cooperate toward their mutual ends, if only the needs are correctly understood and a systematic approach formulated by which they can be met in all cases.

I think dual-type theory can go very far in this direction, because we can use it to calculate people's needs and ambitions on a general level; that is, we can help them reach self-actualization. ...But I doubt even that will ultimately create peace, because I suspect that some people are fated to die young.... The determination to survive against all odds will make these people ultimately irrepressable and driven to violence, even if they are otherwise psychologically healthy. They will project the mental disturbance that they cannot repress, the change that will ultimately lead to a final, terminal neurotic condition, onto those they disagree with. ...History cannot be stopped.

[Logos]

just because something cannot exist perfectly (a laissez-faire government) can we rule it out as something to strive towards asymptotically? realistically yes probably, but make someone oblivious to the Te practical limitations of governments' political economy, and someone might instead focus on the "why not?" .. "why can't we galvanize the public into demanding strict constitutional interpretation? into being tougher on politicians who rent seek?" etc.

In which case, pure Utopian communism would be the most ideal thing to strive for and not Ayn Rand's objectivism. :wink:

Of course, as a free standing human being, who exists apart (and a the same time a part) of government, I should be able to make a rational self-interested choice no matter where I am or the form of government present. And of course there is also the problem when your rational self-interested choice conflicts with my self-interested rational choice where scarcity is an issue, which according to economists is everywhere.

but remember Rand's own definition of rational self-interest. allegedly we degenerate into an undesirable state of "selfishness without a self" if we lack "a morally purposeful system" for our choices beyond hedonism. this is how she addresses scarcity in anarchy and i think it applies the same to non laissez-faire government.

It is not a system which makes one moral and nor are systems in themselves necessarily moral, so again this is a case of Ayn Rand leading the cart before the horse.

if i allow my fellow man to rent seeking through the mixed market government to cope with scarcity, i am accepting hedonism in institutional form. this is not so if instead i cope with scarcity by accepting simple laissez-faire property rights (realistic limitations of them aside.) isn't the later case more virtuous by her criteria?

By her criteria? Should we not be questioning her criteria? That is the whole point, her criteria amounts to whatever best justifies to laissez-faire capitalism. And part of the problem is that your choice of the phrase, coping with scarcity. I should just cope with scarcity? Great. How about you coping with me rationally taking advantage of the scarcity that you are coping with and then rationally screwing your life into the ground? But I suppose it is more virtuous according to her criteria, but that would still imply that communism would be the most virtuous system as it does not even require property rights and assumes that people will act virtuous without it, much in the same manner as Ayn Rand assumes the virtue from her system.

the system is internally consistent if you accept the "selfishness without self" premise, as far as i can tell.

Wow, that's great. The system is internally consistent if I accept the false and illogical premise which the system is based upon?

and i don't see any reason she could not have earnestly reasoned to it from her hero worship of men "above" hedonists rather than rationalizing laissez-faire top-down. of course laissez-faire is an incredibly convenient deduction given her anti-Soviet sentiments.

Of course not, but her hero worship actually came from the Nietzsche premise of the ubermensch. The Ayn Rand ubermensch is essentially embodied in the laissez-faire capitalist hero.

but couldn't she have just as easily become a Trotskyist or some "third way" advocate instead of laissez-faire? her Soviet Union was Stalinist, and laissez-faire isn't the only alternative to Stalinism.

Because laissez-faire capitalism is a greater opposite extreme of what she came from.

Nietzsche: Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.

furthermore she initially struggled in American capitalism before breaking her first major book deal as well.

Well 1) American capitalism is not pure laissez-faire capitalism nor is it the extent of laissez-faire capitalism which Ayn Rand advocated, and 2) just because you advocate a system does not necessarily mean that you will succeed in the system you advocate.

i think anti-Objectivists often rationalize their assessment of Ayn Rand top-down from the assumption that Ayn Rand was rationalizing laissez-faire top-down. as much as Ayn Rand hated the Soviet Union, there are a lot of anti-Objectivists who hate American capitalism and Ayn Rand.

That is all I can say to that.