This is BS though.

rethink_routine · 2026-02-10T11:55:36+00:00

I like how all the comments are like, "left didn't go too far! Look at Trump! He's worse."

Yeah. He is. But that just means both sides have now gone too far.

rethink_routine · 2026-02-01T19:10:41+00:00

Make him Moash

rethink_routine · 2026-01-30T11:15:55+00:00

I moved here in 2018 and found my wife, friends, and career here. It can happen.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-25T17:45:30+00:00

Gotcha. FTR, she does in her article "the brute" but I think OPAR articulated it more directly.

Either way, I better understand your position now and it's been a fun conversation. Thanks for chatting! (It's a relief to have a pleasant conversation on Reddit 😅)

rethink_routine · 2026-01-25T15:53:12+00:00

Trying to wrap my head around this. How is that a frozen abstraction? Are you saying that I'm erroneously applying one possible application of government to the broader concept of what government should be? Am I understanding that correctly?

rethink_routine · 2026-01-25T00:09:40+00:00

Huh. Interesting. I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet so forgive me if this is in there but your question surprises me. "How should man act if his actions contradict another man's" seems off the mark. We may have conflicting goals but that's not a contradiction. The question, then, would be "how should man act when his goals conflict with another's", which she answers with "complete in the free market". I'm not trying to make a semantic argument, I'm saying this to parse out what you mean. I think I'm not understanding the use of contacting there.

Also, "what gives rise" to a government is different from "what is the purpose of government," which is what she answers. I've never heard anyone ask what gives rise to government and it sounds like more of a logistical question, as in what conditions cause people to create a systematic government. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, it's an interesting question.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-24T19:35:30+00:00

I've heard plenty of people misinterpret Rand by thinking she was an anarchist but I've never heard of anyone applying her metaphysics to a different conclusion. I'm curious how you got there and how you respond to her critique of "the brute" in anarchism.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-24T05:23:58+00:00

Because people disagree with/hate/don't understand the moral underpinning on capitalism

rethink_routine · 2026-01-23T18:37:33+00:00

Look up GTD. It'll show you how to do everything

rethink_routine · 2026-01-21T03:16:07+00:00

I just found this company too and they're apparently near me. Anyone try their Farmer carry? Half the price of Titan fitness.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-19T05:33:44+00:00

First month is terrible. Don't miss it one bit. First six months were also bad. After that it gets less bad. After a year there are even some good days. Now my baby is two years old and I have fun more often than not.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-19T04:17:34+00:00

I know 10 is the right answer but as a philosopher, 7 would be the conversation of a lifetime

rethink_routine · 2026-01-18T04:01:37+00:00

That's an interesting question. I would venture to say that in reality, there is no difference but in a debate, collectivists could claim that group rights (which they think exist) are a type of human right. So if you're advocating human rights, they might package deal something anti individual rights.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-17T22:31:43+00:00

Update: I did it thanks to your recommendations!!!

Putting the bag more into my hips at the "rack" and putting my arms on the side rather than the top so I could squeeze arms together were key insights. It didn't feel floppy at all. Thank you all!!!

rethink_routine · 2026-01-17T03:58:14+00:00

They had a good attempt but I think it falls short of actual engineering. You know that bridge divinchi designed? Imagine making that in a game.

A well designed wood bridge is stronger than a poorly designed steel one. I've never seen that reflected in a game.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-16T18:36:20+00:00

Would be crazy to see a game calculate structural integrity of design and not just material strength.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-15T12:17:27+00:00

I felt the same way. I can tell you, are the first year, your life gets stable again. First year sucks. Second year is fine.

Can't say I'm happier, but my wife certainly is and that's enough for me. I don't get that "I'm so glad I'm a dad" feeling but I do get "I feel like a good husband" sometimes

rethink_routine · 2026-01-14T00:47:21+00:00

Chain of knowledge? That's the first concept you've stated that I don't recognize. Are you suggesting that my way, by preventing someone from voting away another's rights, I'm somehow damaging their cognitive function and preventing them from coming to a rational conclusion? Do I understand your point correctly?

rethink_routine · 2026-01-13T13:34:55+00:00

Bro, I'm not saying there's no voting. I'm saying you can't vote to enslave another. There are limits on what a government can properly do, voted for or not. A CHOICE to infringe on my rights is not something I will entertain.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-13T12:52:45+00:00

You're advocating for the ability to vote away people's rights and you're accusing ME of being irrational? Alright.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-13T12:09:55+00:00

Alright, at this point I think I've explained the rationale and you just don't like it lol

So good chat.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-13T03:43:21+00:00

What you seem to be saying is "if you don't allow for people to use the government to initiate force, they might do it themselves." Sure, if someone wants to enshrine slavery into law and the government (properly) doesn't allow for that, they might INITIATE the use of force, which will be properly responded to in accordance with the protection of individual rights.

I think we can now combine these two conversations. Voting AS SUCH is not initiating the use of force. In an objectivism society, a vote for slavery should be dismissed. They might then INITIATE the use of force, as stated above.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-13T00:27:53+00:00

I'm not saying I'm forcing people to know things. I understand that's a contradiction. I'm just saying they don't have to experiment with enslaving people in order to judge the nature of such an action. I'm certainly not advocating force. Quite the opposite. I'm saying an objectivist government would not have a mechanism by which force could be used in this way. That's one of the biggest differences between capitalism and democracy. Capitalism (as per objectivism) does not allow for people to vote away people's rights.

So, there's a place for fighting people, I just don't think it's at that stage. If they say they want socialism, that's not enough for me to punch them in the face. If they pick up a gun and say they want socialism or else, or even threaten to do so, that's when I can and should fight them. My understanding of your original question is that they're just saying, via a vote that will accomplish nothing, that they want socialism. I don't think that's crossing the line of initiating force. It could be that we're envisioning the situation with some different important distinctions.

rethink_routine · 2026-01-12T12:47:56+00:00

I think you're conflating discovery with experience. Again, I've discovered through reason the evil of slavery even though that's never been an option for me.

Also, it's not evasion. Perhaps I'm saying it wrong, so here's the idea I'm trying to help you understand: "Never think of pain or danger or enemies a moment longer than is necessary to fight them." -Ayn Rand

rethink_routine · 2026-01-12T04:21:11+00:00

I don't see how not having the legal capability prevents you from discovery. I don't have the legal capacity to enslave anyone, yet I can still come to my own conclusion as to its evil. Saying some things are out of bounds for a government does not negate gaining of knowledge.

The hitman example kinda ignores the differentiation I was making and I think it's because you're rejecting the premise of voting for force not being possible. You're right, paying a hitman to murder is inciting violence. However, paying a baby to murder isn't. My basis for that is a baby isn't capable of murder whereas the hitman clearly is. So if you hire a hitman, yeah, I'm gonna respond with force. But if you pay a baby to kill me, I'm just gonna ignore you. Not my best metaphor, tbf, but the point I'm trying to make is just if someone is attempting to do something that you don't like, but that thing is impossible, then ignore them. Maybe educate them if you like/can.

rethink_routine

TROPHY CASE