StrictlyLogical

Thinking you are "better than someone else" is unrelated to pride. You are correct that such a thought would be stupid.

Pride reflects something about the self otherwise it is merely admiration. I can be proud of a friend because of the connection I have and the possible role I play in who they are and what they achieve, I cannot be proud in how beautiful Saturn looks. Obviously, one can be proud about what one has done, what choices one has made, what one has become, what one possesses, etc. insofar as all of these are in some way caused by the one or reflect what the nature of the one is. Ancestry is a little different because the connection is not the one causing something but the presence of something in the one. The one shares the same genes, the one has the same "blood", physical, or mental or spiritual traits (to the extent they can be inherited biologically or are a result of lineage or culture of the family). So pride in ancestry is a pride in that bit of the self that is connected to or directly resulting from those ancestors. It can also be pride in a potential not yet exhibited but possibly latent. There is also the obvious fact that a person has a literal connection to their ancestors over space and time and causality, which connection is unavoidable. I do not know what "deserve" to be proud means. A person either is or is not proud, and is or is not correct/rational in having that pride or lack thereof. The concept of "desert" implies a reward... or hints at justice, as though it were intrinsically unfair for a person to erroneously feel pride...I am not certain the concept "deserve" is applicable here. Insofar as a person believes he has traits of his ancestors he can be proud of what they have done, but this comes at a price, if he himself has achieved less, he will be shameful of himself for not achieving what he has potential to achieve. Conversely, a person may feel shame if he believes he has vices inherited from his ancestors, but to the extent he has controlled or vanquished them, he can feel pride in himself. I think this is similar to the following: If a person is born with great agility and smarts and yet chooses to let his body go and never uses his mind, that person could feel proud of what they were, and possibly what they are or could be but feel shame in what they have not done. Conversely a person who is was never very agile or smart but who has achieved greatness by pushing their abilities should feel pride. Your ancestors are like a starting point... the root, base, origin of you and your life... feel pride but must be kept in context and perspective : it is not the end of the story.

HD: Perhaps "conservative use" of force when the effects/outcome and the justness of that outcome cannot be prejudged or predicted with sufficient certainty is what you are looking for. and by "conservative" I mean a level of force up to but no more than what is absolutely necessary given what IS known.

Today's world does not prove Objectivism wrong any more than the feudal system and tyrannical empires of 1000 years ago proves "communism" or "democracy" (of today) are "wrong". You have simply made the specific observation that no geographical area has yet adopted an Objectivist based ethics, and politics - i.e. society. If you believe this specific observation is evidence for the assertion that an Objectivist society will never occur or that if one were to occur it would fail, you are grossly overestimating the significance of that specific observation. Another implication of your post is that simply because people are not choosing to do something, it must be proof that the something really is not the best thing to do. All of history is a perfect example which rebuts any presumption that actual human/societal choices is the standard by which to measure the propriety of a social/political system. By your logic, Fascism of the Nazi's WAS proper because "it happened".

Good points HD. Careful about your use of the term "mercy". It normally means "unfair" or "unreasoned" leniency. I think you mean to use the term "justice" which is applicable in the case when speaking of innocents. Your conclusion alludes to immigration. The Objectivist position is consistent with essentially open borders (except for criminals, terrorists, etc.), and thus there would be no reason (hypothetically) for foreign citizens to try to abandon their tyrannical irrational regime and move to an Objectivist America https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights/

Laying out fundamentals and principles can help clarify a position, avoid unnecessary debate, and focus on the real particular issues which are at play or under discussion/debate. I am honestly curious.

Discoveryjoy: Are you proposing a tweaking the three Objectivist branches of government (justice system, police force, military) to include only two branches, Justice system and "world police". (no joke.. team America might be a good idea) for a hypothetical Objectivist America (OA). Why "World police"? The purpose to OA government to protect individual American citizens, from harm has no boundaries. Why distinguish between domestic and foreign jurisdictions. Investigate, use force, bring perpetrators to justice. This means individuals, and as need be any or all individuals of organizations or governments whether domestic or abroad. The issue remaining would be what is the nature of the force that can be brought to bear domestically and abroad, and should "collateral" harm be treated the same as regards to individuals domestic versus foreign. As long as there are Nation states, nationalism, and as long as and to the extent that "World police" are excluded from exercising jurisdiction in a foreign nation, all foreign nationals who live there are "responsible" for their own decision to support that regime who rejects justice and are responsible for their decision not to flee to an Objectivist America whose borders are wide open to innocent non-hostiles (remember this IS a hypothetical Objectivist society) It would be unreasonable to apply exactly the same standard to all innocents in all states but force should be directed as much as possible only in retaliation to those individuals directly responsible. Is this closer to something you would accept? Remember the proper role of government is the protection of individual rights of its citizens... the extent to which this can be done while protecting rights of foreigners must be a secondary consideration This is directed to Discoverjoy.

Jon: In your opinion, what is the Objectivist position, based on Objectivist ethical and political principles of 1. what property rights are and what gives rise to them, and 2. what kinds of concretes fall within the group of all concretes to which those rights can apply (and explain why with reference to the principles in your answer to 1) and what kinds of concretes fall within the group of all concretes to which those right cannot apply (and explain with reference to the principles in your answer to 1)

You asked : "How do you overcome your initial emotional response to a new idea?" If "overcome" means not to affect you at all, then ignoring the emotion is what I suggest. What did you mean by "overcome"?

Careful, we are not speaking of mere "selfish" morality... you cannot forget about the ends: "production" and "growth"... the almighty economic imperatives of society.

Your colleagues are either themselves irrational, or they believe "people" in general are. Ideas are not to be feared on the premise that life requires them. Ideas are only feared by those who see them as a threat to their ability to evade reality. Entrenched thinking would be an abdication of the mind if it means evasion or irrationality. To the extent new information or new argument or new ideas require a process of chewing and understanding to fully integrate any potential useful substance, any rejection of that process in favor of simply holding on to past, i.e. entrenched information, ideas, or argument is a failure of the cognitive rational process. This is to be distinguished from purported "new" ideas which in fact have already been dealt with by the thinker, implicitly or explicitly, at which point the thinker may dismiss the purportedly "new" out of hand. The best way to "overcome" an emotional response to anything is to ignore it, emotions are not tools of cognition or guides to action.

I don't think Jon gets Objectivism. He quotes from Rand but the core meaning eludes him. Jon, you focus too much on ends, effects, results which are divorced from the individual and his life. You speak of growth, in your title. Growth of WHAT? A community? A society? You speak about a great deal of economic outcomes. What of them? Rights are based on ethics/morality which is based on ... on what in your mind? Who is its beneficiary? What is the standard? The "economy" and "growth" be damned if it requires self-sacrifice. but you see it actually doesn't. Do you agree Jon? For a primer on what rights are see this article by Craig Biddle of the Objective Standard: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights/

"Rights" ARE the heart of the issue. If you don't know WHAT rights are you can't have a meaningful discussion about any class/subclass or particular right. See this article by Craig Biddle about Rights according to Objectivism: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights/

Thanks Plasmatic. Any claim that property rights (including land ownership) were and are not espoused and completely understood by Rand and her philosophy is a misguided one.

Ah... and I mistook you for an Objectivist... this removes all doubt that you are not. Someone with the time and patience can explain to you why this analysis of land ownership is wrong on so many levels.

No. Short version: "Protection of individual rights" is the only purpose and the positive duty on the government, to enact its delegated power from sovereign individuals to use retaliatory force in response to the initiation of force against those individuals. "Laissez-faire", although it follows logically from said only purpose of government, is a negative duty on the government NOT to commit *initiation* of force on individuals i.e. not to violate the individual rights of the individuals. To the extent a government fails at the second duty to NOT violate the rights of individuals it fails at its primary purpose, but a government CAN fulfill its negative second duty perfectly while failing (although attempting) to fulfill its main purpose. Laissez-faire CAN exist even if crime exists. Crime in fact would always exist as there always will be criminals, but this will be completely independent of governments chosen policy NOT to engage in the initiation of force on its citizens. Extended Version: Laissez-faire CAN exist whether or not every economic exchange is coerced by one party to the exchange, i.e. a theft (which I hold such as impossible), whether only some economic exchanges are coerced (some theft/crime) and some not, or whether every economic exchange is unforced, i.e. all exchanges are trades (probably not possible either, as crime will always exist) because the nature and kind of exchanges which actually occur is a separate concept from the government's policy not to interfere, i.e. the policy not to initiate force in the economic sphere which IS laissez-faire. Trade, sex, music, art, science, philosophy, sports, are all spheres of activity by sovereign individuals in which no proper government has any role to play whatever. Crime, initiation of force, will always exist amid conduct in every sphere of activity because there will always be criminals. Be careful though, the conduct constituting crime, although amid other activity, is not to be confused with the non-criminal activity. Theft is not trade. Rape is not "consensual sexual activity". The concept laissez-faire is restricted to the policy of government towards its citizens, in particular, by common and Objectivist usage, in the economic sphere, the non-initiation of force. This is a negative duty which in logic follows from its mandate to protect individual rights. Laissez-faire DOES NOT mean a mandate for the government to literally NEVER DO ANYTHING. This would be an abdication of the proper role of government which is to exercise the delegated authority to use retaliatory force in answer to initiation of force in any sphere. Laissez-faire means "leave alone" ALL activity (economic) which does not involve the initiation of force which means EXACTLY the same thing as "DO NOT initiate physical force i.e. do not VIOLATE rights of individuals". For laissez-faire to "exist" the government simply needs to leave alone, i.e. completely ignore all non-criminal activity in EVERY sphere of activity. Economic activity comes along for free. This is a moral duty of the government, a "negative" duty, to refrain from perpetrating crimes on its citizens. As a separate matter the role in protecting individual rights is a positive mandate on the government to protect individuals from each other and from foreign aggressors, its delegated authority to use retaliatory force in answer to the initiation of force. An effective government will be one which is laissez-faire (NOT violate individual rights, this logically follows from governments primary purpose) as well as one which has good justice, crime prevention, and military systems (PROTECT individual rights, government's primary purpose). Let us concretize this a little. Consider two men trading. This is not laissez-faire. This is trade. This is voluntary action by two sovereign individuals. That is all it is and it has nothing to do whatever with proper government action/jurisdiction. As far as the government is concerned (remember a proper government is not involved in social engineering, or fostering, or funding, or causing things, only protection of individual rights), this activity never happened, because it is literally NONE of its business. Consider a cop with a gun, telling the men how to trade. This is not laissez-faire; this is a crime being committed on the two men. Consider a cop observing one man engaging in the initiation of force on another. The cop intervenes with retaliatory force. THIS is the protection of individual rights. This is not an example of laissez-faire, but the exercise of proper government power to use retaliatory force. Now, consider a cop seated nearby two men trading (recall the definition of trade... it does not include crime, i.e. the initiation of force). The cop peacefully continues to look for something for which his mandate from government would require his intervention. He is blind to ANY non-criminal activity. He abstains from violating individual rights, in particular abstains from violating economic freedom. THIS is laissez-faire. Laissez-faire is NOTHING ELSE.

You are holding on to a concept which is out of context. In a non-Objectivist system, in a non-rational, immoral system, all arenas of conduct are proper for government regulation, interference, systems, social engineering etc. The assumption in this context is that government HAS a role in everything... to a lesser or a greater degree. In an Objectivist system government's only proper role IS the protection of individual rights. To the extent a purported government acts in any other way to interfere with citizen's activities it is no longer acting as government but as tyrant, thug, brute. So, when you say an effective justice system makes laissez-faire "possible" you seem to be saying government must be good at protecting rights BEFORE it should STOP VIOLATING RIGHTS. This comes from a place, an attitude which is clearly not Objectivist in origin.

Again I think you are slightly off in your statement. Laissez-faire is not something that possesses a prerequisite. Laissez-faire means non-initiation of force by government, i.e. non-violation of rights in the realm of economics. It does not have anything to do with justice other than the fact that its absence is in-and-of-itself a violation of justice. For example, imagine government interference in "social" , "relationship", "sexual" sphere, verses, a government policy of "staying out of personal relationships and bedrooms". In an Objectivist society with "social/sexual laissez-faire" people can be friends and lovers with who they want, how ever many people they want, etc. they can have consensual sexual relationships, stick their fingers in each others ears, perform homosexual or bisexual acts etc. with no interference by government. This is NOT directly related to anything to do with justice. This is socially/sexually laissez-faire which only means "hands -off" or "leave it alone". Justice and the protection of individual rights (a separate issue) only becomes invoked when there is the initiation of force or fraud (non-consensual actions). BUT that is a matter of justice, not to be conflated with freedom from interference in the social-sexual realm. Now IF the government had laws restricting or mandating proper "social" arrangements, "relationships", and "sexual" conduct (which objectively fell outside of realm of initiation of harm between the individuals), those laws would be a violation of individual rights. The same is exactly true for laissez-faire capitalism. A government may or may not fail to protect rights, that is a question of how effective the justice system is. But a government which does not ensure laissez-faire capitalism, i.e. does not adopt a non-interference policy with regard to economic relations between consenting adults (without initiation of force or fraud) is a government which IS VIOLATING individual rights. A government's ability to protect rights is not a prerequisite to laissez-faire, quite the opposite is true, laissez-faire is a precondition (a necessary, although not a sufficient one) for a government to claim it protects individual rights because if it adopts any other "system" it is in fact violating them.

Simple question: Universe configuration A1, includes person B, in the limit of just before time T1, when person B "chooses" something: At a later time T2 we have Universe configuration A2 IS there only one metaphysically possible A2 given the identity of A1 and B in the limit of (at) the decision at time T1? i.e. is there only one metaphysically possible "choice" that B can make given the law of identity (for at the instant at T1) for A1 and B? Your answer will determine whether you repudiate or validate volition.

Careful, rights are not protected in order to achieve an economic system. A non-Objectivist might be confused by your statement. Having the government's sole role the protection of individual rights IS EXACTLY the same system as laissez-faire capitalism. It is what it means, no mixed economy, no economic interference. Why ? Because economic interference is EXACTLY the violation of individual rights. So protecting individual rights does not somehow "lead" to the economic system "laissez-faire" it IS the system "laissez-faire". As for the justice system, it may not be easy to distinguish where the justice system begins and ends. Clearly the Objectivist government's sole role is the protection of individual rights. This is radically different from other existing models/societies, where rights are not absolutes there is purported "balancing of rights", person vs. person, person vs. state, etc. In an Objectivist society soldiers would be hired by Govt, police officers would be hired by government, Judges would be hired by Government. What is the status of a lawyer? Would there be something like an investigative lawyer working for the Judge? Surely people could hire lawyers to present their evidence and advocate their positions, but since the role of government is not so much resolution and balancing but Justice as such, there may be more of an emphasis on the decision/outcome and its Objective achievement of Justice and the protection of individual rights. Bottom line, no person would have to pay anyone for Justice and his rights to be protected, but he may pay an advisor or lawyer to present his case if he believes he stands to benefit. That said, if the Government is particularly effective at protecting individual's rights there may not be a need to seek such help.

Little of what you perceive is not what was. The light that hits your eyes let's you see things as they were when the light bounced off of them. The sound that hits your ears let's you hear things as they were when they produced the sound. Can you divorce the validity of the senses into two types due to the undeniable role played by time? I think not. You still directly perceive existents across time and space (sorry they are there), and you, I, or any Objectivist knows, any call or wish for sense perception absent the means of perception is fallacious. Part of the means involves the realities of time and space.

Only $11,000? I think the amount of money stolen from her in the form of taxes clearly covers this.

This may sound flippant... and hard to read... What is IS, and *only* what is is... BUT rest assured what was WAS, no less so than what is is.

Country A and B are likely self-contradictions. Many Objectivists here can argue why this is true. That aside. The choice would be country B. John does not care about "moral inferiority" of country A as if it were an intrinsic attribute of countrihoodness merely to "tisk" at out of disapproval. If, by moral inferiority John understand that living in country A is a disvalue to his life, then he must choose B. His freedoms are not something to view from afar, they are something he USES to live HIS life. If he is free he will find those of the society who think like himself and he can work towards a community with them. At the very least he can associate with like minded people... in a free society you choose your friends and where you live etc.

True immortality, as far as we know, is in reality absolutely impossible. The entire universe is dying a slow death of entropy. According to current physics, a true "eternity" of operation is impossible, it would require an infinitely replenishing energy source to balance the losses all living processes, movement, thought, etc. require. No such a source exists or is theorized to exist, everything will die, and come to a cold, static, end. That said, since any technology offering "immortality" would at most extend life, I would likely take it to the extent it actually extends my life (rather than end it : which would be the case if someone offered to make an exact replica based on me, then kill me, and let the replica live thinking it were me). The last billions of millennia where we fight against the forces of entropy to eek out the last heat and energies of the universe to support our very thoughts, may be the most productive and rewarding of our very long lives.