Axil

DavidOdden what do you mean by "Schiavoism"?

On a side note, I like what happened to Hitchens, from Chomsky's lapdog to key neo-con in 5 years.

In AS and FH Rand seems to make the arguement that political action is not needed as the nature of political evil is illusory - it exists soley at our consent and is not self sustaining. How did Rand, and the early movement of the 60s see political/cultural action? Was a system like Marxism defined showing the enemy's nature, his end, and a utopia?

In AS, Franscisco D'Anconia gives a speech on the meaning of money. He seems to imply a direct relationship between productiveness (the cause) and money (the effect). My question is not whether this is correct (I believe it isn't) but on whether corruption can enter said relationship and what to do when it does. Can the pursuit of money become a harm to someone, even if the wealth is legal and benifits the material environment of a person moreso than if he/she had not made it their main goal? Can a leaf disconnect from a root and what happens when it does?

I'm 23 and nofearnolimits reminds me a hell of alot of my experiences at 17. The only reason I can see to justify such age based attacks is the tendency for teens (at least those in my old debating team) to adopt a veiw with great enthusiasm without any real knowledge of the issues. If I had a penny for every Marxist 18 year old who has never actually read Hegel, Christians who have never read their own Bible (cover to cover, even once), Objectivist who has never read... a readable summary of Kant, I would be a wealthy man. A further problem is that some philosophies (in my experience) have a stronger effect on some ages then others radical philosophies like Marxism and Objectivism appeal to the optimism and intelligence of the young while ideas like Christianity appeal to the older - this tendency does not help us. Keep in mind I'm talking about general tendencies not absolute rules here.

My (limited) understanding is in agreemenmt with what you have said and I would actually go one step further, in my mind the entire understanding of the "Law" ( the Commandments) has been distorted by Christianity causing the kind of moralising this nut was doing. In my mind the "Law" was about the steps mankind needed to take to reach a godly life where the possibility of sin would not be realised and mankind would be free to live a good life, free of theft, murder, etc. Christians (at least most of the Protestant variety) hold the veiw that the Jewish religion is bound by a set of commands that God has forced upon them and need to be obeyed, for no real reason other that God's Will and Power. This belief ties into the further distortion of "Grace" - the idea that no action is needed to make one moral (or counted as part of Christ's Church) as Jesus has cancelled out the "Legalism" of the "Law". Another distortion here is the idea of sin - in Christianity it is a state that can only be cured by Grace (ironically allowing the believer to cintinue to sin but still be counted amongst the "Saved") whereas in Judaism it is only a potential allowing for the redemptive power of human action. I see this causing a double problem in american christianity. On one hand more liberal groups stress the idea of Grace creating a valueless equelizer which does not demand any change (really) in the way one lives. This has allowed Christians to lie, cheat, steal, and murder knowing that "Salvation" covers them from punishment. Those who reject this then become forced into reviving the law as the source of reward and punishment - but distorted as the blind commands of law without its ethical function. Following the Law becomes much less about improving human lives and more about God's wrath. Given this is my first post I should clarify I am not religious, the christian ideas of sin and grace however happen to be one of my biggest problems with the world, one that I see pleasantly absent in Judaism and, to a lesser extrent, Islam. This post was edited numerous times in about fifteen mminutes to make it more intelligeble.