Adapt and Mold

      ​ After reading about the end of Ubuntu’s Unity and being a huge Unity fan, I’m not too happy, but I can’t say I’m not surprised either. Unity, to me was the perfect UI setup. The look and feel was just right. It had a launcher (of which I originally wanted on the bottom, but eventually got used to it on the left) for quick access to apps, simple key shortcuts for switching between virtual desktops, opening apps, etc; and a dash, which has to be my favorite feature. In my setup, everything just flowed. In addition, to a bright and shiny UI, the convergence dream was amazing. Since convergence is what everyone is racing to (Windows 10 w/ windows mobile, MacOS w/ios, Android w/chromeOS and Fuschia) the Ubuntu convergence gave the Linux Community a real contender in the race; especially with the demise of firefox OS and webOS. Now that dream, for the forseeable future, is dead or at least on lifesupport. Unfortunately, it’s not that surprising, though, since Unity hasn’t been getting much attention since Canonical entered the cloud and IoT rings. 

        I have also read that the Unity developers are banding together and continuing to work on Unity and possibly a Unity distro. And with that, I have to say, “this is the beauty of the Linux and FLOSS community.” Everyone can have a say, and everyone can have what they want. If it’s not available, write it and make it available. If I had to sum up our community in 5 words or less, it would be, “Adapt and Mold.” With new changes in software development, the emergence of IoT, as well as the change in direction of Linux Distributions; that’s what we do, adapt and mold. We adapt to the changes and mold them to our liking. That’s why Ubuntu has muliple flavors, and why there will be plenty more. For me, I’m probably the only person (or a part of a small few) who doesn’t like gnome. The layout just doesn’t feel right. Now I do understand Unity was built on gnome and that I could customize gnome to suit my liking, but I decided to switch to KDE Neon. Neon is Ubuntu based, so I still have the Ubuntu ecosystem , but KDE feels better. I’ve liked KDE since I started using it on my Fedora install on my iMac; but I thought of it as a number 2 to Unity. Now that I’ve played with it more, it seems more appealing; not to mention Plasma mobile seems to have picked up where Ubuntu Touch left off. 

       Since Unity is no more (for the time being) plus the way I’ve molded my KDE installation to mimic Unity, but in a Plasma shell, I think I’ve found my new home. And, again, that’s the beauty of our community; so I’ll continue to follow Canonical with vast curiosity, applaud the Unity developers, get to know the KDE realm, and to the rest our community I say, “Adapt and Mold.”

Is This The Best We Can Do?

It’s 2016; between jackasses and elephants competing for power, and clowns terrorizing neighborhoods; the circus is in town. How have we arrived at this point? We have a more divided nation than ever before.[1][2] Neither of the two major political parties honestly cares about ‘we the people,’ or our freedom. Both parties have advocated for more: war, surveillance, erosion of civil liberties, erosion of civil rights, increased debt/spending, and expanded corporatism. [3]

For over 50 years, but especially in the last 50 years, we have been ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel’ when it comes to our politicians in general, with an emphasis on our presidents. LBJ was involved with the deaths of tens of thousands of people, including a sitting president, and countless veterans in the Vietnam War; to which he escalated into a disaster after lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. In addition, since Rape and infidelity are hot topics today, Johnson had many mistresses. [4][5][6][7][8][9] Everybody and their mother knows Richard Nixon is, indeed, a crook. From Watergate, to removing the Gold Standard, to waging the failed ‘War on Drugs;’ Nixon was no saint.[10][11] Jerry Ford wasn’t in office long, but still did some damage. Ford, like his predecessor was a Rockefeller Republican, also known as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). This meant that like many republicans before and after him, he supported expanding the size and power of the monstrous conglomerate, known as the Federal Government. Not to mention the fact that he was a puppet for the Rockefeller Dynasty; a family who has no regard for human life, nor liberty.[12][13][14] Jimmy Carter supported numerous coups around the world, which only served to further the globalist interests of the ‘American’ Empire. Not to mention meddling with Iranian affairs, which led to the Iranian Hostage Situation.[15][16]

Then there’s Ronald Reagan, the actor, aka “Republican Jesus.” For some reason Republicans literally worship this crook. Reagan also staged coups, and increased government spending, and size, as well as helped to create ISIS, which morphed from Al-Qaeda, which morphed from the Mujahideen.[17][18][19] Mr. Reagan, you are correct when you said, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.” However, so are you, as you have done nothing to stop it. The Bush Dynasty, drastically, increased the power and size of the conglomerate. The Bushes helped to fund Nazi Germany, committed countless war crimes, and helped create the surveillance state with the Patriot Act, and the TSA. Bush Sr. was right on the money when he said to Sarah McLendon (a Texas journalist), “Sarah, if the American people were ever find out what we have done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.[20][21][22][23][24][25] William J. Clinton, “The Penis of the United States,” is undeniably a sexual predator, and rapist. Putting all of the women who came out during his presidency aside, Clinton also made numerous trips to what is known as, “Lolita Island,” where not only did he have sex with women, but also underage girls. During his presidency, naturally, Clinton fueled the war machine and conglomerate, but naturally as a Jackass, that’s what he does. Another Clinton disaster, is NAFTA, the reason there are so few jobs in this country.[26][27][28][29] Obama has increased the debt by over $9 Trillion, gave arms and ammunition to Mexican Drug cartels, signed the NDAA into law (allowing for the indefinite detention of citizens with no trial, nor reason), not to mention the continuation of Middle Eastern wars; to which he stated, “I’m really good at killing people.[30][31][32][33]

Economically, this country is in serious trouble. With the highest level of income inequality in the history of the United States.[34] To which both parties have done nothing over the years to fix. Over the past 50 years we’ve racked up more debt, more spending, more inflation, and more taxation than, again, in the history of the country. Once again, both parties are to blame. While it was a Republican congress that passed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, it was a Democrat president that signed it into law. No matter what they say, the Democrats are not going to close loopholes, or fix this problem as a whole. Nor will Republicans.

40 years ago, in 1976, the average life expectancy was 73. As of 2010, the average life expectancy is 79. How can 40 years of technological, medical, and nutritional advancements only give us 6 more years to live?[35] Is something affecting our health, causing us to suffer from more disease thus dying prematurely? You tell me.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] Most of our population is on some type of prescription drug.[44] It’s no reason we all need healthcare; the problem is, 17 out of the 23 co-ops for Obamacare have gone bankrupt.[45] Not to mention plans have increased and have become anything but affordable.[46] While it is true that for some, Obamacare is a blessing because they now have access to health insurance; most people are worse off.

This is the 21st century. We should have disease rates in check, poverty obliterated, education for all, and energy sources figured out. Whatever happened to “Good will towards your fellow man?

As a society and as a species, I ask, “Is this really the best we can do?” No matter where you live, where you came from, who/what you worship, what color your skin is, what gender you are, what gender you are attracted to, or how old you are; if your answer is not a two-letter word beginning with ‘N,’ you are part of the problem, and you probably think voting for a criminal, fascist is going to fix it.



P.S. I realize that some of my sources are a ‘deplorable’ website,; however if you were to actually read the articles, they link to real sources.

















































     Happy [early] Memorial Day! Not to mention, Happy 99th Birthday to John F. Kennedy! It is the fourth year in the cycle. This means that election season is in full swing, and the lunatics are out trying to coerce people into choosing a side. For this primary reason, I have decided to write this thesis on a new philosophical ideology that puts the lunacism to rest and promotes the benefit of everyone.
     If you choose to read this, you may think that I am too liberal, or too conservative, depending on your platform. It is your right to think that, and in fact you would be right. My rebuttle to this statement is that I'm too logical. Also, if you choose to read this, remember that YOU have voluntarily chosen of your own free will to read it, and therefore cannot be offended in any way, shape or form. You have a right to criticize however, I have a right to not care what you think. Here is my thesis:


(A libertatis based philosophy)
     Subjective-Objectivism sounds like an oxymoron, but it really isn’t. It’s less of a contradiction and more of a fusion of the two philosophies at hand: Objectivism[1] and Subjectivism[2]. As an Individualist[3] (which encompasses both philosophies), one doesn't conform to one specific ideology, but rather molds one’s own from a multitude of others[4]. What will be discussed in this thesis is an explanation of the theory in parallel of the parent two with differences explicitly stated.
    The purpose of this thesis is to state/present a new philosophy [stemmed from multiple priors] that maximizes individuality (personal freedom, knowledge, and spirituality); in addition to stimulate the reader’s ability to think and to reason. Citations are given for expansion upon each concept or thought. In most philosophies, there are five[5] basic areas of focus: Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics, and Epistemology. Therefore, these five areas shall be the focus of this thesis. The reader need not agree with this philosophy, nor any other, all the reader need do is think. “Think deeply about things. Don’t just go along because that’s the way things are or that’s what your friends say. Consider the effects, consider the alternatives, but most importantly, just think.” – Aaron Swartz


     The primary disagreement between Objectivism and Subjectivism is the belief of what is fact, and how that relates to reality. In Objectivism, reality, reason, and the perception of that reality is what is fact; and that reality exists independently of consciousness. Consciousness is but a tool used to deduce reality and reason. Subjectivism believes the opposite: Consciousness is the only true fact, and that reality, reason and the perception of that reality exists dependently on consciousness. Consciousness is but a tool used to create reality and reason. Essentially, the question is: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or in this case, consciousness or reality?
     The ultimate convention of Objectivism is ‘reason.’ Objectivism defines reason as: "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."[6] The epistemology of Objectivists maintains "The fundamental concept of method, the one on which all the others depend, is logic,” and that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. The form in which an organism perceives is determined by the physiology of its sensory systems. Whatever form the organism perceives it in, what it perceives—the object of perception—is reality. This belief is similarly shared by Subjectivism in which, your conscious perception, and sub sequent conscious beliefs, are your reality.
     Subjective-Objectivism agrees with both parents that, knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its sensory states but that, in order to obtain knowledge, both volition and adherence to a specific method of validation via observation, and concept formation are required. You must first have the will to learn, if you are going to learn anything at all. [Subjective]Objectivists hold that reason is the means of human knowledge and, sub sequentially, reason is each person's most fundamental means of survival; as such it is necessary to the establishment and practice of certain values. In agreement with Objectivism; Subjective-Objectivists believe, that philosophy is logically prior to psychology and is in no way dependent on it.[7][8] Likewise, the acknowledgement of the facts that human beings have limited knowledge, are vulnerable to error, and do not instantly understand all of the implications of their knowledge[9] is understood, and therefore humans should strive for more knowledge, empathy and compassion in order for self-improvement.

     As Subjectivism states, “Metaphysical Subjectivism is the theory that reality is what we perceive to be real, and that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception. One can also hold that it is consciousness rather than perception that is reality.” Subjective-Objectivism agrees with this approach. [10] Subjectivism goes on to say that, “The nature of reality as related to a given consciousness is dependent on that consciousness.” This means that what we perceive and apply our intention to, determines our individual reality. This belief is completely contrary to the deterministic model we’ve been taught. Our very being is not the result of set factors we can do very little about, but indeed the exact opposite. We are literally a projection of our own consciousness. The rest is up to us as to how much we let the illusory projection laid down before us determine our reality. [11] The old maxim, “Life is what you make it,” sums up this ideal.
     If you were to watch a video of an erupting volcano, you may perceive that the camera is rocking because the volcano is shaking the ground. Alternatively, you may perceive that the camera is rocking because the person holding the camera is shaking and not keeping steady. This is based on the perception of your consciousness. Objectivisim can be applied to this. According to Ayn Rand (the founder of Objectivism), it is entities that act/react, and [that] every action/reaction is the action of an entity. The way entities act/react is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different they would act differently. [12] It is the entity that acts/reacts however, each entity acts/reacts based upon its own conscious perception of its reality/situation. If a burglar were to rob a bank, one customer may hide under a table, or cooperate with the burglar in order to survive the situation. Another customer may try to tackle and disarm the burglar in order to save the other people in the bank. Each customer in the bank/situation are going to think differently, and thus act/react differently based on their conscious perception of the reality/situation at hand.
     While it is true that, “to be conscious is to be conscious of something," (for most Subjectivists, it is the Universal Consciousness that everyone/thing is connected) it is also true that, “our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience." As it is truly unique to each individual. Despite what you believe to be fact, it is your own mental activity that you know completely to be fact. Because you thought it, you know it, therefore that thought is fact. Now, this isn't to say if you think of pink elephants, pink elephants are fact. Rather, it is the thought of pink elephants that is fact because you [the individual] thought it. For instance, it was once believed as fact that the Earth was flat. We obviously know this is not fact. This belief has come back in recent times based on conscious perception of the Earth, and the individual in accordance. Because our mental activity or consciousness has determined this or anything else to be fact, that [mental activity and consciousness] is what truly is fact.
     “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – Nikola Tesla. “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” – Albert Einstein. “I am the electricity in the human form.” – Nikola Tesla. What these, brilliant, theorists are essentially saying, is that everything is energy or electricity. Subjectivism and Subjective-Objectivism take this concept one step further, with the Law of Vibration [13], as well as the other universal laws [14]. The 12 immutable laws of the universe are: Law of Divine Oneness, Vibration, Action, Correspondence, Cause and Effect, Compensation, Attraction, Perpetual Transmutation of Energy, Relativity, Polarity, Rhythm, and Gender. Each of these laws shall not be explained in depth in this thesis. However, in accordance with the subject at hand, the law of vibration concludes: anything that exists in our universe, whether seen or unseen, broken down into and analyzed in its purest and most basic form, consists of pure energy or light which resonates and exists as a vibratory frequency or pattern. If everything is energy, and has a frequency or vibration; then even our thoughts, feelings and intentions are energy and therefore also have a frequency or vibration. This leads into the 11 other universal laws.
     This concept of 'everything is energy,' including our thoughts, directly leads to the law of attraction. Put simply, the law of attraction states: we create the things, events and people that come into our lives. Our thoughts, feelings, words, and actions produce energies which, in turn attract like energies. A positive mental attitude attracts positive experiences and circumstances while a negative mental attitude attracts those conditions that we deem negative or unwanted. Stemming from this law, is the Objective-Subjective belief in reality creation. To consciously attract anything you want to experience into your life, you must need it, not simply desire, that which you want. To need something is to have a purpose for it and when something has a big enough purpose, it becomes a necessity rather than a luxury. You are able to attract anything you need to yourself because you are already connected to everything, seen and unseen. Nothing and no one is separate from you. [15] In Subjective-Objectivism, the epistemology of 'necessity' isn't ineluctably something one needs to live or a basic need such as food, water and shelter; necessity can also include the common definition of ‘want’ such as: a better job, a bigger house, or love (as some view love as a want vs. a need) so long as you have a concrete undeniable reason, and conviction, for needing it.
     All of this stems from the conscious mind. As such, there is a metaphysical war on for your mind. This 'war' involves outrageous concepts such as 'mind control.' While the realm of conspiracy fact/theory is outside the scope of this thesis, the theory of mind control is, indeed, inside this scope. It has been proven that world governments have invested large sums of time, effort, and money into the research and practice of mind control. [16][17][18] A more commonly known form of mind control is subliminal messaging. Subliminal messages are the presentation of short messages that tell us what to do, what to think, and what to feel; but that are flashed so briefly we aren’t even aware we have seen them. The conscious doesn't pay attention, but the subconscious, which is more impressionable, does. When subjected, day in and day out, with subliminal messaging, the mind is likely to trigger emotions, memories or feelings, without a person’s conscious recognition of why they feel a certain way. A person may not consciously realize why he/she is starting to be more attracted to certain behaviors, lifestyles or products, but they are more likely to succumb to the attraction. “..subliminal ads are used as a technique not only to increase sales but is also used to divert youth and involve them in such type of behavior which is only hazardous to the consumer.” Take, for instance, advertisements for women. If you look at multiple ads that are targeted at women between the ages 18-35, most, if not all, will personify that women and girls should be thin, wear excessive makeup, style their hair in certain ways, and look 'sexy.' It almost appears as though it is the advertisers’ job to make young women feel bad about themselves. [19]
     In 1958, Vance Packard, an American Journalist and author, uncovered that powerful corporations were constantly looking for, and in many cases already applying, a wide variety of techniques for controlling people without their knowledge. He described a kind of cabal in which marketers worked closely with social scientists to determine, among other things, how to get people to buy things they didn’t need and how to condition young children to be good consumers. Guided by social science or social engineering [20], marketers were quickly learning how to play upon people’s insecurities, frailties, unconscious fears, aggressive feelings and sexual desires to alter their thinking, emotions and behavior without any awareness that they were even being manipulated. By the early 1950s, politicians had also received the message and were beginning to merchandise themselves using the same subtle forces being used to sell soap. British economist Kenneth Boulding once said: “A world of unseen dictatorship is conceivable, still using the forms of democratic government.” The forces that Packard described have become more pervasive over the decades. The soothing music we all hear overhead in supermarkets causes us to walk more slowly and buy more food, whether we need it or not. Most of the vacuous thoughts and intense feelings our teenagers experience from morning till night are carefully orchestrated by highly skilled marketing professionals working in our fashion and entertainment industries. Politicians work with a wide range of consultants who test every aspect of what the politicians do in order to sway voters: clothing, intonations, facial expressions, makeup, hairstyles and speeches are all optimized, just like the packaging of a breakfast cereal. [21]
     In order to recognize and break free from this mind control, one must essentially 'unplug' and become aware, or objective in their subjectivity. Think of this whole concept in terms of computers and networking. There are two types of network communication systems: half-duplex, and full-duplex. In half-duplex, when two computers are connected, only one can connect or communicate at a time. Whereas in full-duplex, when two computers are connected, both computers can connect or communicate at the same time. People are generally half-duplexed, when it comes to consciousness. The average person's conscience, while half-duplexed, can only communicate or connect one way, at one time (mainly receiving). You are receiving these [and other] messages, and are being influenced by them. When one 'unplugs,' they become full-duplexed. Now, your conscience can communicate or connect both ways at the same time. Therefore, when you recognize and see the messages, you can put up a 'firewall' which can either accept or deny the message. In addition to this 'firewall,' one can also project messages into the universal consciousness, and onto others (reality creation). You have essentially become objective to your subjectivity. If you are not objective, you are subjective and therefore are influenced by these messages. A theory has risen in recent years that our universe, or moreover our reality, could be a computer simulation. [22] While this thesis is not advocating that we are all living in a computer program such as the matrix; what this thesis is advocating is that: if all of this truly is a simulation, it is a simulation stemmed from consciousness, and therefore can be manipulated (or hacked to use computer terms) by one's consciousness.


     In Objectivism, the purpose of moral code is to provide the principles by reference to which man can achieve the values that his/her survival requires. In short: If [man] chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. Reality confronts a wo/man with a great many "must's", but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: "you must, if – and only if -- you want to achieve a certain goal." [23] You must take action and work towards achieving a certain goal. For Subjectivism, one must first believe that the goal is possible, and attainable, (for consciousness to 'work its magic') in addition to taking action and working towards a certain goal. As previously stated, the epistemology of 'necessity' isn't ineluctably something one needs to live or a basic need such as food, water and shelter; necessity can also include the common definition of ‘want’ such as: a better job, a bigger house, or love (as some view love as a want vs. a need). In essence, if you believe you can achieve something (and stick to it through thick and thin), regardless of the status quo, then you can achieve it, and you have taken your first step towards achieving it. Another maxim, “anything is possible.
     Objectivists believe capital punishment is morally justifiable as retribution against a murderer, but dangerous due to the risk of mistakenly executing innocent people and opening the door to state murder. Rand therefore said she opposed capital punishment "on epistemological, rather than moral grounds."[24] Subjective-Objectivism does not believe capital punishment is morally justifiable as retribution against anyone, regardless of the crime. Not only does, as Objectivism states, capital punishment risk executing an innocent person; but (in a taxed society) it costs far more to pay for capital punishment (via the judicial, and execution processes) than it does for life in prison. It also does not apply as a deterrent for crimes, nor should any individual, in an individualist society, be given the right to take another individual’s life/consciousness. [25][26] This applies to Objectivism’s belief that the use or threat of force neutralizes the practical effect of an individual's reason, whether the force originates from the state or from a criminal. Rand stated, "man's mind will not function at the point of a gun."[27] The initiation of physical force against the will of another is immoral to an Objectivist (and Subjective-Objectivist), as are indirect initiations of force through threats, fraud, and/or breach of contract. The use of defensive or retaliatory force, on the other hand, is appropriate, when warranted. Whereas, the only method of organized human behavior coinciding with the operation of reason is that of voluntary cooperation. Persuasion is a method of reason. By its nature, the overtly irrational cannot rely on the use of persuasion and must ultimately resort to force to prevail. [28]
     The ethical and spiritual teachings of nonviolence apply to the Subjective-Objectivist. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” Matthew 5:9 “Love your enemies; bless those who persecute you.” Luke 6:27 The motto for the Ahmadiyya sect (one of the most outspoken Muslim groups regarding the message of Islam to be a peaceful one) is "Love for all, hatred for none." Ahimsa (not to injure; compassion) is one of the cardinal virtues of Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. In accordance with Objectivism, and many other Individualist theories, each being is a unique being, and as such offers some degree of value. It is therefore wrong, immoral, and unethical to use force against another being. Nonviolence, in terms of Civil Disobedience, is a sense of ‘moral high ground,’ not for the narcissist who views themselves as better than others, but for the rational mind who stands for what they believe in, (via conscious perception) what is right. Every act of civil disobedience, regardless of if the whole movement won or lost, is a ‘win’ because the individual stood for what he/she believes in.


     Because the opportunity to use reason without the initiation of force is necessary to achieve moral values, each individual has an unalienable moral right to act as his/her own judgment directs and to keep the product of his/her effort. "In content, as the founding fathers recognized, there is one fundamental right, which has several major derivatives. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its major derivatives are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness."[29] "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." Each individual must refrain from violating the rights of others goes without saying. Objectivists reject alternative notions to rights, such as positive rights, collective rights, or animal rights, since the basic principles of these are incorporated in Objectivism as ‘the individual in the collective, for example, has the basic right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.’
     [Subjective]Objectivists hold that the only socio-economic system which fully recognizes individual rights is Capitalism,[30] specifically what Rand described as "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism,"[31]  or Anarcho-Capitalism[32]. Objectivism regards Capitalism as the social system which is most beneficial to the poor, but that this isn't its primary justification.[33] Rather, it is the only moral socio-economic system. Objectivism maintains that only societies seeking to establish freedom (or free nations) have a right to self-determination.
     [Subjective]Objectivism views government as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws, or the rule of law;" thus, government is both legitimate and critically important[34] in order to protect individual rights.[35] Anarchism is inherently opposed by [Subjective]Objectivists because, as Rand saw, putting police and courts on the market is an inherent miscarriage of justice.[36] Objectivism holds that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the courts of law, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws," the executive – to enforce and follow the rule of law and legislatures – to develop reasonable laws.[37] Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens"[38] and it must act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.[39] In laymen’s terms: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends…it is their [the people’s] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”[40]
     Rand argued that limited intellectual property monopolies being granted to certain inventors and artists on a first-to-file basis are moral because she viewed all property as fundamentally intellectual. Furthermore, the value of a commercial product comes in part from the necessary work of its inventors. However, Rand viewed limits on patents and copyrights as important and held that if they were granted in perpetuity, it would completely lead to de facto collectivism. These limits should include a limited amount of time of propriety, after which the intellectual property should be placed in the public domain for individuals to build and expand upon. [41]
     Rand opposed racism and any legal application of racism. She considered affirmative action to be an example of legal racism.[42] Rand advocated the right to legal abortion; Subjective-Objectivsm holds that there should be no law, for or against, in regards to abortion, as it is a personal choice and therefore no government involvement and no compensation from taxation (should taxation exist) should be applied to it. Military conscription is an infringement upon individual rights. Censorship is also an infringement, including legal restrictions on pornography, opinion or worship. However, with regards to pornography, the Subjective-Objectivist mind views that one should not be adjudicated based on appearance but, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “by the contents of their character,” and their actions. Therefore, while censorship on pornography is an infringement, pornography, in general, should be frowned upon, as should instant gratification. Ayn Rand famously quipped; "In the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners.[43][44]
     Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly supported by both liberals and conservatives, including antitrust laws,[45] the minimum wage, public education,[46] and existing child labor laws.[47] Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives,[48] displaying religious symbols in government facilities,[49] and the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools.[50] Subjective-Objectivists agree with all but the opposition to antitrust laws (as long as true capitalism doesn’t exist), and faith-based initiatives. Since it has been proven that religious individuals are more generous [51] [52], faith-based initiatives should be allowed to thrive; as such it should be up the state, or local governments and the individuals in each community to decide if religious symbols are to be displayed at government facilities. Also it is up the individual parents to decide what kind of education the child receives (i.e., creationism, evolution, etc.).
     An explanation as to why the minimum wage is opposed is as follows: If true capitalism existed, (meaning if there were many competing businesses with many jobs open) the business would decide how much pay employees would receive. If the employees didn’t like the pay offered, they may resign and work for a competing business which would pay more. Businesses would by default have to pay a certain (reasonable) wage in order to invite individuals to work for them. If the business payed too low, no one would work for the business, nor would any individual be forced to as there would be no monopolies, and many competing businesses would be glad to hire more. This is similar to state backed financial aid for higher educational institutions. The cost of tuition wouldn’t be outrageous if the state didn’t ‘foot the bill.’ This would be because: if the institution charged a high tuition, no one would be able to pay to attend, therefore, if the institution wanted to remain relevant and in business, they would lower their tuition to a reasonable amount, allowing for individuals to be able to afford and attend. Taxation is another system opposed by Objectivists and Subjective-Objectivists as it is theft and an endorsement of force over reason,[53][54] and, therefore, should be replaced with voluntary donations.
      In coincidence with Rand’s Objectivist philosophies, Subjective-Objectivists believe in the Anarcho-Capitalistic society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (in sum, all relationships not caused by threats or violence, including exchanges of money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to minimize conflict while maximizing individual liberty and prosperity. However, charity and communal arrangements are also recognized as part of the same voluntary ethic.[55] Non-state public or community property can exist in an anarcho-capitalistic society; what is important is that the property is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.[56]
     With the rule of law and an informed population, the limited state is not an initiation of force because it could not use force against those who have not stolen private property, vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud, without intense repercussions. The Anarcho-Capitalist maxim: “Everyone is the proper owner of his/her own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he/she occupies and puts to use by means of his/her body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before them. This ownership of "originally appropriated" places and goods by a person implies his/her right to use and transform these places and goods in any way (s)he sees fit, provided only that (s)he does not change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in John Locke's phrase, 'mixing one's labor' with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary – contractual – transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner, [57]” reigns true for Subjective-Objectivism.
     The society envisioned by Anarcho-Capitalists, Objectivists and Subjective-Objectivists has been called the ‘Contractual Society’ – "... a society based purely on voluntary action, entirely unhampered by violence or threats of violence."[58] – in which the system relies on voluntary agreements (contracts) between individuals as the legal framework. One particular ramification is that transfer of property and services must be considered voluntarily on the part of both parties. No external entities can force an individual to accept or deny a particular transaction. An employer might offer insurance and death benefits to same-sex couples; another might refuse to recognize any union outside his or her own faith. Individuals are free to enter into or reject contractual agreements as they see fit.
     Anarcho-Capitalism founder, Murray Rothbard points out that corporations would exist in a free society, as they are simply the pooling of capital. Limited liability for corporations is also able to exist through contract: "Corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation...."[59] Any corporation created in this way would not, however, be able to replicate the limit on liabilities arising non-contractually, i.e., as liability in tort for environmental disasters or personal injury, which corporations currently enjoy. This means that if an oil company were to produce an oil spill, they would not be able to claim limited liability for the spill, in fact they would be fully liable for that or other similar torts. Likewise, if an individual is injured on corporate property, if the corporation doesn’t have “necessary” safety measures, the corporation is fully liable for that tort. Rothbard himself acknowledged that "limited liability for torts is the illegitimate conferring of a special privilege,"[60] which corporations should not have. Rothbard argued that the right to contract is based in unalienable human rights[61] and as a result, any contract that implicitly violates those rights can be voided at will, which would, for instance, prevent a person from permanently selling himself or herself into unindentured slavery.


     Art, according to Objectivism, serves a human cognitive need: it allows human beings to grasp concepts as though they were percepts. Objectivism defines "art" as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments"—that is, according to what the artist [consciously] believes to be ultimately true and important about the nature of reality and humanity. In this respect, [Subjective]Objectivism regards art as a way of presenting any abstraction concretely, in perceptual form.[62]
     The human need for art, on this view, stems from the need for cognitive economy. Art provides a perceptual, easy to understand means of communicating and thinking about multiple abstractions, including one's metaphysical value-judgments. Objectivism regards art as an effective way to communicate a moral or ethical ideal.[63] Moreover, art need not be, and usually is not, the outcome of a full-blown, explicit philosophy. Usually it stems from an artist's sense of life (which is preconceptual and largely emotional).[64]
     Rand held that Romanticism was the highest school of literary art, noting that Romanticism was "based on the recognition of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition," absent of this literature is robbed of dramatic power, “What the Romanticists brought to art was the primacy of values... Values are the source of emotions: a great deal of emotional intensity was projected in the work of the Romanticists and in the reactions of their audiences, as well as a great deal of color, imagination, originality, excitement, and all the other consequences of a value-oriented view of life.[65]
     The term "romanticism," is often affiliated with Emotionalism, to which Objectivism is completely opposed. Historically, many romantic artists were philosophically Subjectivist. Objectivists branch off Romanticism into what they call Romantic Realism.[66] Subjective-Objectivists stick with the original meaning of Romanticism and agree to a large degree with the Subjectivist philosophy of romantic artists.
     Objectivism rejects "feeling" as sources of knowledge. Objectivists acknowledge the importance of emotion for human beings, and maintain that emotions are a consequence of the conscious or subconscious ideas that a person already accepts, not a means of achieving awareness of reality. Objectivists also reject all forms of faith or mysticism. Under Objectivism, faith is defined as "the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and reason…” Mysticism is, “the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.'"[67]
     Subjectivism, on the other hand, embraces ‘Emotionalism.’ Subjectivists believe in utilizing the power of emotions, which one could say is what makes us “human.” Subjectivism also accepts faith and mysticism in varying degrees. This is where Subjective-Objectivism bridges the two: While logic and reason are necessary for reality perception; it is emotion and [sometimes] faith that allow us to be happy in our conscious perception of reality. Happiness is the ultimate strive for Objectivism, Subjectivism and Subjective-Objectivism. As Ayn Rand, stated “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”[68]
    Subjective-Objectivists, like Objectivists, appreciate art (values/emotions), and also mathematics and science (logic/knowledge). Therefore, Subjective-Objectivists regard Art Deco as the highest school of visual and logical art/architecture. What the art of Romanticism is to values/emotions, the art of Art Deco is to logic/knowledge. Art Deco is defined as "an assertively modern style [that] ran to symmetry rather than asymmetry, and to the rectilinear rather than the curvilinear; it responded to the demands of the machine and of new material [and] the requirements of mass production".[69] Art Deco represents luxury, glamor, exuberance, and faith in social, economic and technological progress. Being geometrically and mathematically precise, Art Deco expressed the perfect society, in which the individual has full freedom to embrace the technological, mathematical, and scientific advancements of the new world, while retaining the values/emotions and ‘ways’ of the old world. It brought law and order, mathematically through defined shapes and geometric expressions. The Art Deco era ushered in a spirit of frivolity, luxury and a sense of freedom and hopefulness. In this way, the Art Deco style expresses Subjective-Objectivism, as in freedom, luxury, and positivity for all.
     In a nutshell, Subjective-Objectivism is primarily original Objectivism, but with the atheistic aspects removed and replaced with theistic, in addition to a few other minor differences. While I am a big fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, especially in regards to Laissez-Faire Capitalism, I do disagree with certain aspects. One major differing belief I have with pure Objectivism is that reality is independent of consciousness. This is where the subjective comes in; reality is actually highly dependent on consciousness [70], (You [the individual] create your own reality). To sum the whole philosophy in five words, Subjective-Objectivism can be described as: “Create, Live and Let Live.

1. "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, n.d. Web. <>.
2. "Subjectivism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, n.d. Web. <>.
3."Individualism." WIkipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, n.d. Web. <>.
4.. From Wikipedia's Individualism page (“The individualist does not follow one particular philosophy, rather creates an amalgamation of elements of many, based on personal interests in particular aspects that she/he finds of use.”)
5. "Philosophy." WIkipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, n.d. Web. <>.
6. Rand 1964, p. 22
7. Rand 1990, p. 289
8. Campbell, R. L. (Fall 1999). "Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology". Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 1 (1): 107–134.
9. Lecture by Leonard Peikoff, cited in Sciabarra 1995.
10. Walia, Arjun. "Physicists Examine Consciousness & Conclude The Universe Is ‘Spiritual, Immaterial & Mental’." Collective Evolution. N.p., 25 Feb. 2016. Web. <>.
11. "Are You Awake? Or Just Informed." Waking Times. Waking Media, LLC, 5 Mar. 2016. Web. <>.
12. Rand 1992, p. 1037
13. "Law of Vibration." Laws of the Universe. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <>.
14. "Laws of the Universe." 12 Immutable Universal Laws -. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <>.
15. Kotsos, Tania. "The Law of Attraction Explained." Mind Your Reality. N.p., n.d. Web. <>.
16. "CIA Mind Control Experiments Declassified Documents Reveal Sex Abuse, More." Mind Control Experiments, CIA Hypnosis, Sex Abuse. PEERS, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <>.
17. "Project MKUltra." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <>.
18. "The USSR Spent $1B on Mind-control Programs." The New York Post. NYP Holdings, Inc, 28 Dec. 2013. Web. <>.
19. Pietrowski, Alex. "Filmmaker Reveals the Truth About Subliminal Messages." Waking Times. Waking Media LLC., 23 Feb. 2016. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.
20. "Social Engineering (Political Science)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. <>. <>.
21. Epstein, Robert. "Google Search Engine Rapidly Approaching Mind Control." Shift Frequency. N.p., 05 Mar. 2016. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <>.
22. Kuhn, Robert Lawrence. "Is Our Universe a Fake?" Purch, 31 July 2015. Web. <>.
24. Rand 2005, pp. 45–46
25. "10 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty." Death Penalty Focus. N.p., n.d. Web. <>.
26. "The Facts: 13 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty." Orgonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. <>.
28. Peikoff 1991, pp. 310–313
29. Quote [Leonard Peikoff]
30. Rand 1967, p. 19
31. Rand 1964, p. 37
32. "Anarcho-Capitalism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <>.
33. Peikoff 1991, pp. 392–395; Sciabarra 1995, p. 284
34. Peikoff 1991, p. 364
35. Rand 1964, pp. 125–128
36. Rand 1964, p. 112
37. Rand 1964, p. 131
38. Rand 1964, p. 129
39. Rand 1964, p. 128; Peikoff 1991, pp. 364–365
40. "United States Declaration of Independence." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <>.
41. "Public Domain." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <>.
42. Rand 1964, pp. 173–184; cf. Wortham, Anne (1981). The Other Side of Racism. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press. ISBN 0-8142-0318-3.
43. Rand 1982, pp. 173–184
44. "Free Speech." Ayn Rand Lexicon. N.p., n.d. Web. <>.
 45. Greenspan, Alan. "Antitrust" in Rand 1967, pp. 63–71
 46. Branden, Nathaniel. "Common Fallacies about Capitalism" in Rand 1967, pp. 89–92
 47. Hessen, Robert. "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children" in Rand 1967, pp. 110–113
 48. Epstein, Alex (February 4, 2003). "Faith-Based Initiatives Are an Assault on Secular Government". Ayn Rand Institute. Retrieved June 19, 2009.
 49. Binswanger, Harry (March 3, 2005). "The Ten Commandments vs. America". Ayn Rand Institute. Retrieved June 19, 2009.
 50. Lockitch, Keith (December 11, 2005). "'Intelligent Design' Is about Religion versus Reason". Orange County Register.
51. "Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds." The Chronicle of Philanthropy. N.p., 25 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <>.
52. "Skewed Study Claims Atheist Children Are More Altruistic than 'Religious' Children - Breitbart." Breitbart News. N.p., 08 Nov. 2015. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <>.
53. Peikoff 1991, pp. 368
54. Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A
55. Hess, Karl. The Death of Politics. Interview in Playboy Magazine, March 1969
56. Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
57. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2002) "Rothbardian Ethics" Retrieved 23 May 2005
58. Rothbard, Murray N. (1962) Ludwig von Mises Institute Man, Economy & State with Power and Market Ludwig von Mises Institute ISBN 978-0-945466-30-7 ch. 2 Retrieved 19 May 2005
59. Rothbard, Murray N. (1962) Man, Economy & State with Power and Market,
60. Rothbard, Murray N. (1982) The Ethics of Liberty Humanities Press ISBN 978-0-8147-7506-6 p. 162 Retrieved 20 May 2005
61. Peikoff 1991, p. 417
62. Peikoff 1991, p. 422
63. Peikoff 1991, p. 426
64. What is Romanticism?" in Rand 1971
65. Torres & Kamhi 2000, pp. 31–32; Holzer 2005, pp. 115–125
66. Rand 1982, pp. 62–63
67. "About the Author" in Rand 1992, pp. 1170–1171
68. Hillier, Bevis (1968). Art Deco of the 20s and 30s. Studio Vista. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-289-27788-1.
69. From Wikipedia's Objectivism Page (“Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness...”)
70. "Creative Visualization: Taking Dreams from Imagination to Reality." Love or Above. N.p., 27 June 2012. Web. <>.