Dominique

Positions of authority require higher standards, both of the people holding the authority, and of those who do not have equal or higher authority. They are not on a level playing ground, where as civilians of different colors or sexual persuasions are. Hate Crime laws are wrong because they attempt to elevate one group unfairly, and without grounds. They treat that class as the weaker child who needs extra protection. In the military, disobeying or certainly assaulting a superior officer is a greater offense than the same action taken against someone of the same rank. Police on the other hand, along with military and government officials, *are* in a different class by nature of the responsibilities of their professions. It is an *earned* distinction. Also, there is a neccessary decorum for weilding authority. Students get in more trouble if they assault a teacher than a student, a principle than a teacher, etc. This is necessary to maintain the heirarchy, for it to be understood and respected. However, I think the biggest distinction, is between the earned and unearned positions.

I'm curious about this as well. Who determines what is appropriate street attire? Objectively speaking, *should* there be any laws against, and fines for public indecency? What constitutes public decency? Is public nudity an initiation of force?

I agree. Objectivism gives each individual the ability to decide what is moral for himself based his own rational faculty. It doesn't list commandments about moral or immoral actions. It just provides the groundwork for how to decide, not what to decide.

Coincidentally I just moved here from VA, all my friends are still up there, I wonder if they know about this. What an utter outrage. But you see, they don't even know how to argue against it. Does this apply anywhere outside of your home? What if your pants slide down accidentally. What sort of nonsense is this, not only that they are going to fine taxpayers who violate a rule they don't agree with but paid for already, they are also wasting the police forces time, funds, etc. by having them actually follow up on this BS.

I was thinking about this movie just the other day, so it's funny you should mention it. I saw it a couple times a few years ago and was impressed at the time with the message. I haven't seen it in a while so when I thought of it I wondered how I would feel about it if I were to watch it again, knowing what I know now. I thought of renting it to watch again. I'm glad to hear your pleased with it. I remember it fondly and think it is a good theme.

Ok thank you That's what confuses me, is I get the basics of the message, but all the application and the seemingly smallest details are throwing me all of track. Hey, I guess that's what I'm here for right?

You're probably right about this. I am very new to this whole philosophy and way of thinking, having only picked up Ayn Rand for the very first time in November. I think I just need to think on it a bit more. I seem to be jumping a step. I'll come back to this if I think of more questions or need more clarification after giving it some time.

No problem, I get it now, and I apologize if my language or phrasing was harsh, it was my initial reaction but I have since been educated.

I don't think this meshes (sp?) I think this does, and is exactly what I'm going for. But how does a not mesh suddenly mesh? What are the steps?

Ok, in this manner I understand. If it's up to their choice. I understand Eddie making bad decisions, and Cheryl. I agree with that. One of the most redeeming things about Ayn Rand's philosophy is that anyone can be good, but the "burden of proof" so to speak, is on them. The ball is in their court. That's what I love about it, and why I do not want to see anyone deface it with some sort of deterministic elitism. (CF I don't have the ability to spell-check-you vill give me a break for a sec yes?)

But this is precisely my problem. This attitude right here. It borders on rational, but it reeks of subjectivism and eugenics. (Though I worry to criticize a moderator who I admittedly have less experience than) I want more clarity here. Why is this idea ok? Why is " If Galt invited them all in, the Gulch could not serve as a hiding place anymore. " a rational argument for this discussion? How does this explain the appropriate heirarchy of values. The issue I'm combatting here is: Try as you might, you'll never be good enough? Or, Try as you might, that makes you good enough.

Thanks my little spell checker I guess I ought to type slower, I've been a little hasty today. I'm sorry.

OK, but what does the "motor" run on? Only spark plugs? Or aren't gears integral? No, but what is the morality of people who would have purposefully not included him because he was "only a gear and not a spark plug". (hypothetically speaking- I'm only using Willers as an example of the larger issue) That's the question at hand. Was it in conflict to their values? So we agree, but you are not understanding that what bothers me is this lapse of continuous understanding of their motivation. No I meant The Voice Of Reason. And I'm not sure of your abbreviations. Sorry, can you spell them out for me?

Thank You, I think you got the point. There is still a little more discussing I want to do, but I'll come back to it when I can be clearer.

I was raised Catholic, but left the church at an early age because they couldn't answer my questions. I was more of a Deist at that time. I became obsessed with psychology and approached everything subjectively. At 17 I had a boyfriend of 2 years dump me when he became born again Christian and I wouldn't convert. It was a scary experience, because I was so close to him and it was like watching a loved one losing their mind. I guess I actually was. I turned solidly against religion at that time, and couldn't tell what I believed reality to be. I was afraid to go totally atheist, but figured god was whatever I wanted him to be (subjective). My brother is younger than I am, and smarter in alot of ways. We are both writers and both passionate about reading and about life in general. We almost always exchange books on every gift giving holiday. He gave me P:WNI and The Art of Fiction several years ago, and after reading the first few pages I initially blew them off as blatent propaganda. Then, after the last elections, I was so distraught (basically I had buried my head in the sand from all things outside of my smallest spere of influence-so I was caught off guard by not knowing how to vote, and feeling that it was dangerously important how I did) that initially I turned back to the Democrats (I've been moving to a more Conservative approach for years, but started as Democrat in High School). I finally got fed up, and at the same time I happened to pick up P:WNI. It spoke to me on such a profound level, I even told my best friend "I feel like someone's telling me the TRUTH for once, and treating me like an ADULT, and I think we have a MISSION(to study philosophy)" from then on I've been hooked. (edit-to fix age of boyfriend experience- I was 15 when I met him-17 went he went nuts)

But this is exactly what I mean. I think he was the "motor" He was just a gear perhaps and not the spark plug. This is the start of the kind of reasoning which leads to the ideas I mention above. Right, so you realize the final outcome, but what if he hadn't refused, would he have been allowed-in your opinion? I think I've read it, but I'll re-read it, with this in mind. Is it in TVOR? Is it the one that details "hatred of the good for being the good"? (Edit to fix boxes)

Thank you, I haven't gotten to that part yet. I will read it ASAP.

Both. I am asking if the attitudes I have seen accurately represent the logical consequence of Objectivism. I am asking what the logical end result of Objectivism is, and I want to dispel the misinterpretations, if in fact they are (misinterpretations). OK. But I have trouble separating them. Perhaps it is my subjectivist roots. It matters to me what people's attitudes are in the interpretation of Objectivism, because that is what they are spreading to those who have no idea of Objectivism, and who might reject it out of hand for this reason. Going solely on my own personal meaning of the term- I would (Edit)say "commonly held belief" (the word "pervasive"-comes to mind). I wonder if it is subconciously held, or if it is held conciously. It makes a difference to me as it does to you, but that's why I ask this question, I don't have the answer. I think it might be productive to flush out those that hold it conciously, and to get their reason, and for those who may hold it subconciously, to realize and question it. I understand that people have many interpretations of Objectivism, but I haven't seen any writing from ARI (yet) that addresses this. I do mean people of this forum, because I think we have some of the brightest up and coming"Objectivists" here, whatever their level of comprehension being (myself included, with an as of yet basic comprehension but not full integration) and I'd like to discuss this, for the purpose of dispelling myths, as I stated, and for clarifying the issue for myself. I personally have doubts as to whether "actual Objectivists" (meaning to me fully integrated) hold this belief. I don't think from my basic understanding that it is possible to be fully integrated and to hold this belief, but I am not experienced enough to be sure, so I would like to discuss it. Was that clearer? Or did I just say the same vague things all over again?

I want to start a new thread on this subject. Again, I have not found any other thread which addresses this, but of course if there is one I will be happy to move this there. This attitude, specifically showcased in discussions about Eddie, seem to me to be one of the things anti-Objectivists harp on, and rightfully so. I understand that in a meritocracy, some people are going to be naturally more able, and so they will be better able to produce, and better suited to "upper management" if you will of society. I do not however, think that this makes them more deserving as people of "Atlantis" so to speak. I think that a rational world would not condone envy of these more naturally gifted, but in order to do so, those who are as good as they are physically, naturally able to be must be regarded as such, and could not be deemed less important-or not-Atlases of this world. They are very much the Atlases, they are the support structure and buttresses on which the elite are better able to function. They are, in other words, just as indispensable. Is there something wrong with my reasoning here? Does anyone think that meritocracy=aristocracy of the more naturally gifted? Is this a prevalent attitude of Objectivism? Because it is certainly a widely held misconception of Objectivism, but comments like this make me wonder if that is the underlying thought of Objectivism. It makes me wonder if it is entirely a misconception, or an actual flaw of Objectivists, which I certainly hope it is not. What are your thoughts on this matter?

As I read the other thread I saw that. That makes a big difference. I did not read it that way initially, but taking the quotes from the section and analyzing them, I see that he stayed voluntarily, and believe that she would have taken him if he had been able/willing to go. There are several sections in the book where good people just couldn't take it anymore, and were unable to go on. I understand and I thank everyone for their responses. This was a touchy issue with me in regards to one of the best books I have ever read, but it has been settled in my mind, and it makes perfect sense in that manner. (EDIT: BTW I reject this: and this as being terrible representations of Objectivism, and the highly upsetting ideas which made this a touchy subject for me in the first place)

Thanks!! I can use some of that definitely. Thank you for finding it!

Just making sure I was being clear. I also forgot to thank you for responding. Thank you

Yes I know I should have said "to my blog" Yes, I caught that in my version on the blog but not on here in time But that doesn't change the tone of what I'm saying does it? It still points it out right? Yes, point taken, I changed it in my final article to read like that. Of course I say final carefully, I may edit it again, but it's on the blog now. Yes, the truth hurts. But it's a quick hurt, while evasion is slow torture.

I finally got around to this article, and I was going to post a little about it on my blog. My main purpose being to clarify what a second hander is, since the author lumps them as "ordinary workers like most of us". I didn't have my Lexicon handy when I wrote this to see if she had definitions I could quote, but I'm going to post what I have written so far here, and maybe you all can tell me if I am wrong about something or need to change or clarify before I post it to the web:

Ok, I have a deeper understanding of the term now. I feel silly, but I had only a superficial understanding of it I guess. I also have a better idea about passing moral judgement. But now, generosity wouldn't apply in a situation where say the transgression is clearly wrong, or clearly willful, would it? Only in these grey between areas? Haha, that happened to me just the other day. I felt so guilty after I gave him the money, but I did have it to spare and I was startled and feeling benevolent, but then after it happened I became positive he was just going to buy a drink, and I regretted the decision to give him the dollar. Was I just generous then, by your example? Or did I overdo the generosity in a moment of spontaneous benevolence to this man, and make a mistake?