re: #20 vidugavia

Yes. First principles as axioms is a well known concept for logical reasoning but it doesn’t learn us anything about the origin of the assumptions that we use as axioms. No assumptions develops from thin air. Each assumption regarding the world has a origin in a reaction to it. Ayn Rand was, by the way, rather fond of at least trying to use the law of identity as her first principle.

I think it’s cool the way that you weirdly attacked me for using the phrase ‘first principle’ and then started using it yourself.

Monarchist isn’t much of a category? I think Thomas Paine would disagree as he saw monarchy more or less as a poison that threatens the good of society. Much of his thought is centered around his opposition to monarchy which he saw as antithetical to the republic.

But monarchy can cover anything between an absolute rule to an executive head strongly hedged by parliament— as George III was. Sure, Paine was anti-monarchist, but ‘monarchist’ isn’t coherent enough so that an inverse of it maxes sense; Marxism is a much more coherent thing.

Regarding finding an answer to the question if Paine was an inverted monarchist I don’t see what importance the form of George III:s rule has. He loathed the British monarchy. Read “Common Sense”.

Gee, thanks for telling me to read Common Sense. I certainly wouldn’t have done that before. See, it’s really freaking rude to just command someone to go read something, espeically something I’ve read plenty before.

My point is simple, and easily understood: There is such a vast gulf between an absolute monarchy and a monarchy with a parliment, that monarchism is not nearly as well-defined a political system as Marxism— not that Marxism is even that well defined.

In my recollection I don’t know about any great marxist interest in the correct interpretation of language. Marxists have generally seen language just as a tool for analyzing the world and propagating their ideas. The randian obsession with defining the true objective concepts and their hierarchy is foreign to the general marxist tradition.

What Randian obsession with defining true objective concepts and their hierarchy?

Both marxists and randians share the notion that there exists problems in society that must be removed in order to ensure peoples freedom and prosperity. But this notion they share with most post-enlightenment western traditions and among others Thomas Paine.

Specifically, they both believe that the economic system needs to be changed to end the exploitation of certain members of it— for Marx, the proletariat, for Rand, the hard-working and the ubermesch geniuses.

Marxists in general doesn’t say that abolishing capitalism will make human society and nature perfect. They only claim that a socialist society would better conform to human nature.

They also very much think that such a system would improve the way that humans interact with each other. Very much.

Your tone is really, really patronizing.