re: #22 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

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

I might be a bit lacking in expressing myself as English isn’t my first language. What I wanted to attack was the notion I read into your post that ideas that originated as reactions to other ideas somehow was disqualified av “first principles”.

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.

The monarchism Paine was facing and formulated his arguments against was in its core, at least as Paine saw it, rather coherent. It was supported by centuries of christian european theories and traditions of the monarchs hereditary and divine right to rule. He saw the British system as sort of a chimera but didn’t distinguish it’s monarchy part from the badness of monarchies in general. His critique is, in all its biblical glory, a point by point, reversal of the doctrines of divine right of kings. Does’t that make him a clear inverse 18th century monarchist?

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.

Marxism is, and was at Rands time, at least as diversified as the main scholarly theories supporting kingship in the 18th century Europe but that isn’t really important. The important thing is what Rand and Paine themselves saw and defined as their intellectual adversaries.

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

Based mostly on a conversation with two self identified objectivists. They seemed to propose that there was a true objective way to define humans and other concept. But this might be a result of a misunderstanding of mine or that they themselves were confused about the true randian way. What did you mean by correct interpretation of language?

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.

Well sort of. Marx saw the struggle of the proletariat as the only ones able to free all humanity by abolishing social classes.

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

Exactly. Abolishing the things that oppress people and hinders their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Both derives from rather classical enlightenment thinking.

Your tone is really, really patronizing.

People that categorizes Ayn Rand as a marxist might be i need of some patronage.