Max

Yes, from what I hear Krav Maga is a very practical, rational martial art. That and Brazilian JuJutsu are amoung the most combat effective martial arts though, at least from what I've heard, Krav Maga tends to be very brutal as oposed to Brazilian JuJutsu, which is extremely efective offensivly but focuses on forcing your oponents into submission more than it does on seriosuly (or permenantly) injuring them. I myself study Capoeira (I have been doing so for around four years now), another Brazillian martial art which is infinitly less effective but (in my opinion) much more pleasing to the eye. I also studied Kendo for awhile but I soon descovered it was far to ingrained in eastern mysticsim for my tastes.

Alright, It is no longer possible for me to further argue my point rationally, therefore I must be wrong. I thank everyone who took the time to answer me and I apologize once again for appearing confrontational, it was not my intent. I wished merely to see the reason behind the principle defended. As to the subject of the industrial revolution, I suppose it is possible my chronology is incorect, it has been a while since I last thought about it.

1: the American Industrial Revolution took place a long time after the one in Europe. The European initial industrial followed the comercial revolution which helped set up a monetery system and established a middle class. 2: Fair enough, you have convinced me. As to "Capitalism" I am already in the process of reading the book (it actually provoked my questions).

As to your first statment, I agree with you to a point. Yes those who had wealth certainly had earned it through the production of desireable goods. However, the blue color workers in thier employ were only nominally free to find different ways of making a living. If a person only makes enough money per month to (barely and for the most part inadiquatly) support his needs for that month then that person is financially in no position to quit his job and search for a new one. In this way the employ is bound inextricably to the employer, he lacks the monetary resources to leave and his employer sees no reason to provide him with any more money than is absolutly nessesary. As a result said person is forced to work rediculous hours at low wages. As to the alternatives, working conditions were for the most part universally poor as such there weren't really any "better" alternatives and if there were many people lacked the financial freedom to remain unemployed for a protracted period of time during which they could find better alternatives. True, it is imposible to actually force someone to work at a certain place but there circumstance made it so the majority of the alternatives were similar. Actually, I have read that book (and enjoyed it immensly) though I was refering to the American Industrial Revolution not the one in England.

Let me just preface this by apologizing in advance fore two things a. I am still a novice when it comes to Objectivism, and my knowledge on the subject is far from complete (though I have read her fiction and almost all of her non-fictional books). B. While the questions I am about to pose may appear to be assertive in nature (though I feel they are backed with sound logic) I do not intend to be standoffish. Please believe that I only ask these things to gain a better understanding of the Objectivist philosophy. Not so long ago I had a conversation with an old friend who had adopted the philosophy of Objectivism. I had previously only read a small amount of Ms. Rand’s work (namely Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, and Anthem) and as such was by and large ignorant with regards to the philosophy’s core principles. I argued with him for a few hours on the subject before he convinced me to take a deeper look at the Ms. Rand’s ideas. The very next day I purchased everything she had written and devoted myself to reading her work. Admittedly when I began reading I did so with the intention of finding loopholes in her arguments so that I might better argue with my friend. However, I found that for the most part she made a cogent, well supported argument which I could not help but agree with—for the most part anyway. There still remain one or two sticking points for me particularly on the subject of her economic ideas. Question #1: Ayn Rand points out that the closest the world ever came to true laissez faire capitalism was during the years of (and immediately following) the industrial revolution. While significant advancements were indeed made during this period (which was arguably one of the, if not the most, ridiculously prosperous eras in human history) the actual conditions under which the laborers lived was horrendous. In my understanding the wealth was controlled by an immensely small elite who treated the workers poorly, supplying them with scant salary and forcing them to work in poorly equipped and often dangerous areas. The massive lower class lived in cramped tenements under conditions which were scarcely better than those under which the serfs and debt-slaves of old lived. The factory owners forbid the workers from forming unions or in any way protesting their condition, and this lead to riots and outbreaks of violence. It was only when the plight of workers was recognized and labor laws were introduced that the discontented lower class was mollified. My question is this, why advocate a system which leads inevitably to such a gap between the classes. I do not mean to assail the capitalist system (of which I am a firm supporter) but is it not necessary to avoid such a disproportionate distribution of wealth if only for the sake of avoiding dissent? Question #2: (this one is shorter) In the event of absolute capitalistic freedom what is to prevent companies from selling extremely harmful products. (Ex: The placement of addictive narcotics in food or other such products, in order to create a more urgent demand. Or perhaps medicines and drugs, which have not yet been tested) Once again, I apologize and hope that I didn’t come across as belligerent (or as too idiotic either).