Here is a previous post I made

on my philosophy.

Perhaps it is unclear what I mean by "variations of egoism, objectivism and libertarianism". It should be clear by my other posts that I consider one philosophy to predominate over the others. Yet, I do enjoy examining the possible variations of ideas which may be mistaken for my own. It's important to be able to correct potential misunderstandings when attempting to persuade others of the Objectivist point of view.

Leonard Peikoff, Robert Mayhew and Ayn Rand herself have dealt with Plato and Kant--great thinkers who, unfortunately, took their ideas (and followers) in the wrong direction. Platonic "Realism" stated that ideas existed in perfect form...somewhere, and that what we experience as reality is the sensation of the imperfect recreation of these "forms" in our lowly dimension. Kant stated that objective reality does indeed exist, it's just impossible for us to know if our senses perceive it correctly. I don't remember if Kant stated openly that he intended to save Christianity by rationalizing a "scientific" understanding of the "other world", but it certainly appears that that is what he was up to.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which owes its original ideas to Ayn Rand; particularly the Non-Initiation of Force Principle: just behavior is either refraining from initiating the use of force against innocent people or using force only upon and in response to those who initiate the use of force. Libertarianism was originally, however, the doctrine of Free Will--the belief that our will to act is not determined by causality.

Objectivism is the belief that reality is what it is whether we perceive it, or believe it, but that we are capable of perceiving and understanding reality, either with the senses we were born with or tools we create.

Let me revive this other old post, made before I knew how to use the Blogger tools well. I'll do a bit of editing.

The following link may not work as I'd like. I wanted to link to the Ayn Rand Bookstore, but I bought the book via this link to Amazon.com which I got at Capitalism Magazine when I read their review and exerpts.

Craig Biddle, in his book Loving Life: the Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It (Glen Allen Press, 2002), says

In a laissez-faire society, people are free to do what they choose with their own lives and property; they are forbidden to physically harm others or their property; and they are required to support their allegations with evidence. Laissez-faire capitalism is the system of individual rights, private property, and objective law. Objective laws are laws that are grounded in the factual requirements of human life and that uphold the principles of logic; thus, they protect individual rights, including property rights, and they recognize that the burden of proof is on he who asserts that rights have been violated.

Accordingly, if a person (or company or corporation) does violate an individual's rights--and if this is shown to be the case in a court of law--then the government takes action against the perpetrator as necessary on two counts: first, to provide his victim with recompense when and as appropriate; second, to punish the rights-violator for and in proportion to any crime he has committed.

Forgive the extended quote.

Capital is any surplus material or money which is saved for future production; seed corn for example. This is why we capitalists refuse to eschew the term. There is absolutely nothing dishonorable about saving and investing and persuading others to help you achieve your productive ends. However, if what you're doing doesn't fit the description in the previous sentence, it doesn't qualify as capitalism. Not in our book, in which the term laissez-faire is really a redundancy.

We don't accept any other qualifications of the term as valid: Corporatism is Mussolinian Fascism, Crony Capitalism is the same as Kleptocracy (rule by thieves) which just fancying up dictatorship--plain old tyranny, whether autocratic or oligarchic--by stating them in terms of more respectable and more sophistocated systems. The purpose of these new terms is to slander Capitalism by lumping it in with these vile tyrannies. Capitalism with a human face is another term for Socialism (which means, in practice, that bureaucrats direct the use of supposedly private property), and public-private partnerships are more of the same with a bit extra backslapping by politicians.

I use the term "we" in the belief that Mr. Biddle and I are allies in this matter.

The other thing that occurs to me about this passage I cited is the question, "What is the purpose of punishment?" It has been said that there are three purposes for punishment: 1. revenge, 2. rehabilitation, and 3. prevention of a recurrence.
People often ask what our goal is. The goal is a peaceful, happy society in which people may be allowed to peacefully pursue their happiness. Revenge is the emotion you feel when you know someone who hurt you got "the lesson that was comin' to 'em". If that lesson is just, if it's objective then you are right to feel that way. Vengeance is not always evil; sometimes it's just.

Rehabilitation: isn't that just teaching somebody how to live so that harming others isn't necessary?
Rehabbing an injury is building strength and skills sufficient to carry on with life. A fine way to spend your time in prison, but, chances are, you're there, not because you were injured, but because you injured another person's life, liberty, person or property.

Prevention of crime: people usually think that it is the fear of punishment (swift and certain justice) which deters crime, and I suppose it does. Or would, I wouldn't know, I've never seen any. Except for poetic justice. "God gets 'em" sometimes. Not often enough, though. He'd get 'em a lot more, if good people would stand up to the bastards.

But, the prevention that really works is prevention of recidivism by keeping criminals locked up. And, by the way, well supervised, so all these assaults, rapes and murders that people think are so funny couldn't happen. They happen because the prisoners aren't guarded well enough. A petty thief or a minor dope-dealer who gets raped in prison, isn't going to be an improved asset to society.