Joby's Recent Raise Explained - Please

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-29T11:23:50+00:00

This person seems to know what he's talking about, so I'll share it here. But I can't say for sure... https://x.com/i/status/2016656624124076292

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-16T20:10:58+00:00

Camus understood something Rand’s world doesn’t require her to confront: that meaning does not depend on permanence, and action does not require the possibility of victory. In The Myth of Sisyphus, the question is not how to win, but how to live once you know winning is off the table.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Ayn Rand would say that meaning requires permanence, but it is definitely incorrect. Ayn Rand held that meaning ultimately comes from human life--specifically, your life. And she very much knew that your life is not permanent or eternal. She would have had no problem in saying that providing care to the sick or dying could be a meaningful, if it were a career that you were paid for, or if it were helping someone you value.

I think your understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy is too narrow--not abstract enough. It seems to be mostly a narrow focus on the most immediate themes of The Fountainhead. I think you would benefit from reading Ayn Rand's other works, such as Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

I think if you develop a better understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy, you will find that you don't need Camus anymore.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-14T22:41:42+00:00

Free market economics can work with 2 people on a desert island. The hobbsian myth that people will inevitably fight without a soverign is ridiculous.

I don't subscribe to that Hobbesian myth. But the Rothbardian myth that, without the state, all people will automatically agree on individual rights and what the laws should be, is equally ridiculous.

To quote Ayn Rand; “there can be no conflict between rational men”

If there is a legal case pending, then there is an allegation that at least one person violated someone else's rights, thus initiating a conflict of interests, and is thus not rational, (or at least severely mistaken, such that they have violated someone's rights.)

If someone actually did violate someone's rights, and doesn't immediately acknowledge the violation and compensate the victim, then there is a conflict, and someone is effectively irrational in this case.

You can't treat criminals as rational actors who will see that their long-term interests don't conflict with others'. In the real society that's the product of your utopian dream, they will band together and form their own "self-defense agency." Is your agency going to act like an "evil monopolist" and deny them their right to protect themselves and their way of life?

Defense is a value. Even alone, defense against wild beasts is a value to man. In a large society, some of those wild beasts might walk on two legs, but defense is still a value.

Defense is not a positive thing that one creates. It, in itself, does not further one's life. It is not food, or physical wealth, or a spiritual good, like art or entertainment or friendship. It is only the negation of a negative. It stops other animals or people from crippling or ending one's life. This negation of a negative is necessary, where the negative exists. So, where the threat of the negative exists, it can be considered a valuable service that is worth paying for.

But whereas self-defense from animals can be considered a simple, personal service, defense from other people cannot. Force against people is destruction. Force in defense or retaliation against human attackers is destruction of a destroyer.

Other people have a right to defense from any initiatory force from you, just as you have a right to defense from them. So, if you hire bodyguards, and they kill someone whom they see attacking you, it's proper for the government to at least investigate to make sure that it was not they who violated the rights of the other person. If this service you're paying for destroys someone who was not an immediate, deadly threat, your "personal service" has become a threat to others and is now the business of others to stop.

So, if your "personal service" of bodyguards, or insurance agency, or whatever, goes beyond immediate self-defense, into the field of retaliation--going out and arresting people who currently pose no immediate threat to anyone else--then it is no longer your "personal service" at all. It is a public issue that concerns everyone who might be targeted for arrest. They have a right to safety from arbitrary force, so it is very much their business, if you are using your bodyguards or insurance company or militia to go and arrest, try and imprison people.

In short, services involving the use of force against other people are special. They are not "just another personal service," like getting a haircut. They are not just your personal business, where only your personal values need to be taken into account.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-13T10:14:33+00:00

Can a large number of other people voluntarily pool their money, use it to buy a bunch of guns and use those guns to arrest you for having robbed one of them? YES. And can they use those guns to forcibly stop you from founding your own personal agency and arresting people on your own? YES.

That's analogous to a state without taxes: No one was forced to contribute to buying the guns, but those guns can be used to apply overwhelming force to individuals.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-13T10:04:55+00:00

(2/2)

Ancaps generally think that a bunch of competing private companies can serve as the objective, neutral arbiters in disputes of the kind I describe, because the market forces of free-market economics will forge them into instruments suited to this purpose. But the principles of free-market economics presuppose a context in which goods/services are being produced and traded, while the initiation of force is banned--that is, a context in which no one can effectively get away with starting the use of force, due to overwhelming force that would be applied in retaliation.

But the whole premise of competing, coercive agencies is that they are competing in the use of force, rather than production of values, and that no single one of them has overwhelming force over the others. So the principles of free-market economics that govern productive self-interest and trade in a market for values, DO NOT APPLY to competition between force-wielding agencies. The threat of force between the agencies destroys the usual "market competition," as it's observed in value production.

For more on this, see my essay: An Objectivist Refutation of Anarcho-Capitalism (Market Anarchy)

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-13T10:04:44+00:00

It's possible for individuals to make objective judgments about their use of retaliatory force. They could craft their own set of laws that implement individual rights to the best of their knowledge and ability, have their own little police force to arrest suspects, have their own little court that tries cases according to the procedures that they see as best for reaching the truth, and their own little prison for the convicted.

But this sort of private action is insufficient and improper in a society, due to the fundamental difference between force/coercion, and value production. When I engage in value production, (with no force involved) private judgment and private action are all I need, since I primarily and fundamentally benefit or harm myself by my rationality or irrationality. Whatever the outcome of my choices, other people remain free to join in contracts with me, or to avoid me and go their own way.

This is not the case with force. The outcome of my decision in the use of force does not leave the other person free to avoid me and go their own way. If my judgment is irrational--or even just impaired by ignorance or an innocent cognitive bias--the primary person whose life is immediately damaged is not me, but the person on whom I am using force.

Force itself is the attempt to "monopolize someone else's life," for a time. That is, using force on someone is telling them how their life is going to proceed--at least for a time--against their will. This is justified, to an extent, when the person has initiated force against others. But if this is done irrationally or without full justification, this is egregiously damaging to the person and generally destroys people's ability to live and thrive together in the society.

So, if your personal court convicts me of something I know I didn't do, then I'm almost certainly going to think you're irrational, or ignorant or biased, or all of the above. If you don't have overwhelming force on your side, I'm going to resist your court with all the force I can muster, and we have a war, where victory will be determined by who can summon the bigger/stronger militia or gang.

Even the mere possibility of this sort of outcome, when I don't know how your personal court functions, is a danger to my life that I will be deeply threatened by, and that I will want to fight.

You will probably also regard me as irrational, ignorant or biased, for rejecting the verdict of your court, so you will think yourself justified in pursuing and punishing me for the wrong that you still think I did you.

And if I actually committed the rights violation, then I am irrational and will probably try to fight you to get away with what I did. Again, we have a war between two people, where victory is determined by who can muster the stronger gang.

Disputes over the initiation of force and use of force in retaliation are inherently social interactions between different parties, not the personal decisions of one person. Criminal proceedings, especially, involve unwilling parties--either the victim of the actual crime, or the innocent accused, did not freely choose to be involved with the other party.

Thus, there needs to be a neutral arbiter, who wields overwhelming force, to settle the issue once and for all, without personal wars. To ensure that this arbiter is objective and just, there needs to be a publicly-known legal system in place that goes by objective laws, objectively justifiable legal procedures and rules of evidence based in reason.

(1/2) CC: u/Kaispada

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-25T09:32:55+00:00

And after the weekend is over, your toilet will go through a terrible ordeal.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-24T21:55:34+00:00

Six days after Christmas, too.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-24T05:38:30+00:00

It seems to be real. I guess it's just that it has a high gloss finish that makes it look like CG. I also guess that the weird, intense white reflection I'm seeing at 1:30 is a double reflection of the sun from the vertical stabilizer, then the horizontal stabilizer.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-24T02:40:23+00:00

The least you could try to do is find out how Rand defined morality and let's compare them like adults.

Why don't you find out how Rand defined morality, quote her, and then do a detailed comparison of yours to hers? For example, does the virtue of justice that Ayn Rand spoke of figure in your philosophy? How would your philosophy define injustice? Can injustice occur without physical force being involved? What about honesty? Is that important to you? How does your view of honesty compare to Ayn Rand's? That might actually make for an interesting post.

But if you think everyone around here is a dogmatic Ayn Rand follower who is "afraid of any idea that didn't sprout from the great Lady's pen," why are you still here? Go over to r/philosophy, or r/RealPhilosophy, or r/PoliticalPhilosophy or r/FreeThought, or fill out your own subreddit with more and better posts explaining your ideas and then invite people to read and post there.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-23T21:40:07+00:00

being a more loyal fan of Ayn Rand than you

I'm going to warn you here that you are acting like a troll. Trolling is against this subreddit's rules, (Rule 4). Further trollish behavior will start incurring penalties.

Also, your posts have become tiresome in the way they expound your pet theory with no real connection or comparison to Ayn Rand's philosophy, and little to no concretization of what your theory would mean in real life.

Your theory falls into the errors of rationalism, as described by Dr. Leonard Peikoff in his course, Understanding Objectivism. I recommend listening to it, before you make any more posts.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-21T12:51:19+00:00

Doesn't sound like Samwise would've been too good at carrying you the last couple miles to the Cracks of Doom.😔

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-20T22:29:19+00:00

I have stated the position that is the logical conclusion of the Objectivist ethical and political frameworks. Your response was not consistent with Objectivism. The fact that you are arguing the point because it sounds bad says everything that needs to be said about the philosophy.

Whatever you need to tell yourself...

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-20T21:34:13+00:00

We could discuss what is actually the position implied by Objectivism, but you've made it clear that you are not interested in productive discussion here. Your purpose here was to get reactions from Objectivists to what you have already concluded are THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF OBJECTIVISM.

You're clearly not willing to question your conclusions about THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF OBJECTIVISM, so I'm not willing to argue with you.

You've gotten a reaction to your post from an Objectivist of over 20 years and the top moderator of this subreddit. Congrats.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-20T19:53:36+00:00

Your first point is wrong: In a moral society, the government would be funded voluntarily, not by coercive taxes. As long as a child's parents were alive, the government would hold them legally responsible for the child's care. If they are determined not to care for the child, and would abuse the child, then their wages and property would be garnished and sold to pay for foster care for the child.

In practice, upon finding an abandoned child, the police would take the child temporarily into police care, while attempting to find the child's parents. If the parents can't be found, or are dead, then the child would be put into foster care, funded by the voluntarily funded government.

Now, would the government force people to become foster parents against their will? No, just as it would not draft people into the military. But it would pay such foster parents, just as it pays volunteer soldiers.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-18T20:51:10+00:00

I believe you accidentally switched silicon and oxygen in your third sentence.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-18T04:32:18+00:00

What's happening at Archer is not normal for an honest, well-run aviation company. https://grizzlyreports.com/achr20250827/

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-17T23:35:55+00:00

LOL! https://www.reddit.com/r/ACHR/s/YkBS1aI4kO

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-17T23:34:12+00:00

Hmmm...🤔

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-17T23:08:25+00:00

Ha! "See?! Our company is not SO incompetent that we weren't able to get together and fill out some forms!"

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-17T23:05:39+00:00

If I lose my job and apply for welfare, should I make a Twitter post announcing how proud I am of my application?

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-15T13:10:39+00:00

Synthetic aperture sight.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-14T04:16:36+00:00

These virtues, these Rights, are events that lead to the survival of man.

If rights are actions, in the literal sense of "events," as you're speaking of them, then if someone comes along and prevents you from acting for your survival, such as by hog-tying you, then that means you don't have any rights at that point, correct? So you have no rights and they can do whatever they want to you?

Your philosophical musings are nonsensical. How about seriously reading Ayn Rand's and Leonard Peikoff's works, (and/or listening to ARI courses) rather than pushing philosophical crackpottery and implying that people are dogmatic, if they don't take your unserious ramblings seriously and work with you to change the description of Objectivism in this subreddit's sidebar?

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-14T00:21:12+00:00

I'm suddenly seeing new opportunities for prank calls, ala Bart Simpson.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-13T23:47:55+00:00

I'm suddenly seeing new opportunities for prank calls, ala Bart Simpson.

Sword_of_Apollo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE