MrSeagull

I was liking what I read up until he stated that pharmaceutical companies were a public service and "Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products." That's pretty much straight-up Teddy Roosevelt progressivism - You're free as long as you serve the public good.

Then I would have to say that you knowledge is flawed. I am an active member of the Tea Party, and atheist, and an Objectivist(in training.) What I saw in these protests was a mostly genuine push by the right against bigger government. I consider this a step in the right direction. As it stands now, you're going to find a wide assortment of viewpoints in the Tea Party - From fighters for economic freedom, to borderline anarchists. Of course, you'll find the type that support big government, when it comes to faith-based legislation, mixed in, but they do not define the whole of the movement. From your last few posts, I really can't help but feel you're actively searching for villains to point a finger at.

I'm still somewhat green in regards to this philosophy, of which I've chosen to now live by. If it helps at all, one of the reasons I argue against animal rights is that it opens the door to dangerous controls. What rights would they have? If they have a right to freedom, then we cannot morally own them as pets, or for labor. If they have a right to their property, then we cannot morally evict them from property we purchase for development. If they have a right to their life, then we cannot morally kill them for sustenance or clothing. Then, how far are we willing to go to protect animals from violating the rights of other animals? Some might say that, because they lack reason and survive on instinct, they are incapable of respecting rights, so it's okay for them to violate rights of other animals (or even humans, according to PETA). It's that reasoning why I say animals do not have rights, and we as humans do, because we possess a rational mind. Here is an example on an Objectivist stance on Human Rights: http://www.aynrand.o...m_animal_rights

I can't really see how you're coming to this conclusion, unless you're baseing is off of the users here trying to rationalize Rand's view of the immorality of homosexuality. Even in those cases, they're attempting to state that she was wrong based off of false information. I've never seen anywhere that Objectivisim is incompatable with being homosexual or hetrosexual. Now, if you're baseing it off that I don't support the notion of "gay rights" - That's not because I think gays should have no rights, but that I don't think any sort of "______ rights" are valid unless it's "Individual rights." To assign any group rights is at the expense of other's rights. Instead of trying to give rights to people based off their sexual orientation (or gender/race/hair style) efforts should be focused on stopping the violation of individual rights.

Well, I suppose it's somewhat of a compulsion for me - When I see someone misrepresent or demean something important to me I feel compelled to challenge them. As I stated above, it feels like some people see their view as justified when it’s unchallenged. I will say this – I’m beginning to develop a personal enjoyment from walking away from these discussions knowing my reason stood unchallenged by anything other than logical fallacies. On the subject of the more recent discussion, I decided to walk away, as the opposing voice was degrading into attacks and insults.

For some reason, I stopped getting email notifications on this topic. Thank you all for your input, I find it very helpful and educational. I guess the reason why I participate in these seemingly less-than meaningful discussions is a mix of pride and stubbornness, mixed in with a bit of idealism – That untruths will be seen as true by others without a challenge. I’ve lately delved into a discussion with a separate individual on that same page. This person seems to come from the premise that existence without force is impossible, that theft is necessary to provide for basic needs. Here is a sample… I would provide the long, convulted discussion in whole, but I would prefer to avoid posting a gigantic wall of text. I’m standing my ground in this discussion, and now the person is degrading into strawmen and ad hom attacks.

I can't seem to find any info on this that comes from a nuetral stand - I support protection of intellectual property, but I can't help but resist giving the government this much power.

Yes, all forms of religion were banned in Rapture. "Christianity - Belief in the Christian God and Christ as the savior of humanity. This is more of an underground cult in Rapture, as it is officially banned." http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Contraband http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Rapture

There were also failings in Ryan's foundation when he created Rapture. The three major failings in its creation was the prohibition of religion (Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, but prohibition creates black markets, which helped Fontain gain power,) complete isolationism (inflating black market opportunities,) and his emphasis on the "White collar" individuals. Ryan seemed to put little emphasis on dedicated, yet unskilled, labor, which also helped Fontain/Atlas gain power. I rather enjoyed both Bioshock games, though it seems that the creators are trying to put forth a message against “extremes.” The first game is lassie-faire capitalism (though they presented more of a parody than model,) collectivism in the second game, and (what appears to be) jingoism in the third.

Sadly, I missed the majority of these streams, is there a place I can watch recordings?

Hah, I love that.

I thought the same thing when I heard that sentance, my thought was that the maurading band would be the government.

I have to say, the contents of this speech and the reactions in the comments are frightening.

FTC Ready To Subpoena Google, Report Says

You have my sympathy, DA isn't the best bastion of capitalism. It's really sad, because in a communist society, artist are usually the first on the chopping block.

It's been a few years, but in truth I was never really a "true" republican. I was always left-of-center on social issues and right on economic. Originally I was enticed into Libertarianism because of the aspect of personal freedom on all fronts, but I was severely turned off by the anarchists. I never really took the step to official switch to the libertarian party. I would have to say that the past four or so years have been politically confusing for me, and after reading Atlas Shrugged, I finally found something I can whole heartedly embrace without reservation. I realized the faults with the previous parties, especially the veiled collectivist leanings of both Libertarian and Republican policies.

Just to trow my two cents into the subject of the Tea Party; I went from being a Republican, to a Tea Party Member (Like to think I still am one) to Libertarian, then to a student of Objectivism. I agree that the forming of Tea Party was an emotional response, but one that can lead to the rational conclusions of Objectivism. Can't be too bad, can it?

Yes, normally I would feel that way, but I see this as an attempt to cut my teeth when it comes to arguing my views. So far I'm feeling rather confident that my stance is set firm in reason, but I am always willing to learn from mistakes.

I would like to request a sort of critique from those who are more seasoned in Objectivism then I am. I'm at an early stage of learning myself. I'm attempting to reason with a fellow by the name of TheCrookedTimber on a Youtube post about the new Atlas Shrugged movie. Here, the fellow is likening Objectivism as a brainwashing cult. I'm trying to defeat his argument with reason, but I'd like to know if my approach is flawed. I have a feeling I'll be seeing alot of his type in the future, and I'm always willing to learn of mistakes I'm making. For the benefit of those who don't wish to wade through the comments section... Thanks ahead of time.

Forgive me for the 2nd post, I felt the need to add this because he may soon block me as he has done to others, but can't seem to find a way to edit the previous post. It seems the best way to argue with these types is to provide a single form of logic. They will stumble over themselves to prove how illogical and unreasonable they are.

Wow, this guy is a clown.Not a single bit of logic in his arguments.

After seeing the comments, I really feel that some in the Libertarian movement may be forever lost. Such irrational, hate-filled tirades.

Right, it reminds me of the Libertarian tendancy to fight for "Freedom of Ideas" which is more of a fight agaisnt intellectual property.

I recently saw this video from reason.tv about Bitcoin, some sort of P2P online currency as a substitute of our current monetary system (USA). While I like the fact that it's privatly controlled, I can't get past that it's not based off of any type of commodity. I'm new to Objectivism, so please forgive me if I'm making a mistake somwhere, but this almost has a collectivist bend to it. With actual gold, if everyone stops using it, I still have gold I could sell or trade. This seems like it suffers from some of the flaws the current American system.