Leaderboard

It's actually funny you should mention that. I was chewing on this a bit more when it occurred to me that I didn't have any hard evidence that you're basing your position on emotion. It is in the very least a fundamental misconception of how "rights" work (which I'll come back to) but I don't have any good reason to believe it isn't based on SOME legitimate process of thought. I guess I mainly concluded it because of the (EMOTIONAL) part of me that sympathizes with your arguments (which makes it doubly funny that you said "it usually says more about them than me"). I am sorry about that. My philosophical "chops" are very rusty right now, which is part of what I'm trying to do on this forum. I usually try not to psychologize anyone I actually respect (just because it's rude) but I really have never had anyone ask for it before. I'll respond to everything else in another hour or two. I just wanted to mention my mistake before anyone else could do it for me. I'm sorry.

Yes, and just to show that I meant what I said, I thank you for your invited opinion. I actually prefer when opponents try to psychologize me, because usually they offer zero evidence for their claim, and it reveals more about them than me. But I also occasionally find the rare observer-listener who really gets me, and then their fact-based insights are like treasure to me. There's nothing to address. If I actually believed what you say I believe, then I would be evil. But I don't believe in "thought-crime." I don't even believe that socialist activists on public street corners should go to jail. They should be warned or fined for unpermitted public speech-making. If they continue, only then should they be arrested for being a public disturbance. If you had read my argument on this thread starting from page four, you'd know this already. I have made the argument to end all Objectivist arguments for the right to travel. To nutshell it for you: If all property, including roads, were privatized, then you wouldn't have this so-called "right" to travel across jurisdictional boundaries at will. The property owners could all band together and exile you to your own property, if you had any--or to some country that would have you. So you're arguing for a "right" that you wouldn't even have in an Objectivist nation.

HD - You need to own and read the Golden Age trilogy by John C. Wright. DO IT. You WILL thank me later for suggesting it to you. DO not read any reviews or spoilers just buy it... (if you have to ... just buy the first book, used, paperback... less than 10 bucks now) The Golden Age The Pheonix Exultant The Golden Transcendence and please let me know what you think and feel after reading them.

Yes, and it was magnificent. Indeed. I don't know how else to square your responses in this thread. Do I really need to recap them? (Technically you should be able to read them over again for yourself, but I don't know that I can trust you to do that honestly, either.) You argued that people should not be allowed to advocate for socialism; I questioned whether that was consistent with Objectivism (or at least with Rand's views), and I provided quotes to demonstrate that Rand supported free speech, specifically including that for communists/socialists. In direct response, you claimed consistency with Rand and that you were not arguing against free speech. The implicit dishonesty involved in such a thing is just staggering. I don't know whether "Orwellian" or "Trumpian" would be more damning, but they both apply -- it is doublethink, pure and simple, on par with 1+1=3. A month on, fresh off of a vacation, and I'm still blown away by it. So I'll put it this way: perhaps it goes too far to say that you have zero respect for reason (how could I possibly know such a thing to such a degree?)... but if you do have any respect for it, that respect will drive you to understand your incredible error, and the disregard for reason and reality it conveys, make amends for it, and try to root it out from all future conversation -- because it is the kind of error that renders all such conversation worse than worthless (to say nothing of what it portends for your thinking).