AmoProbos

Thanks for the article. I must say, most of my Russian history is late czar and early bolshevik in its scope. I was born in the nineties, and I was never steeped in eighties foreign policy. Blame it on ignorance. But great read. Still though, I think it would be appropriate to qualify your original statement by saying that the US helped or helped significantly to dismantle the USSR. Here I am, still riding this derailed topic-train. My affinity for digression is detestable =D

Of course, this is overwhelmingly off-topic. I have no idea why I pursued this line of discussion. My question has been resolved concisely and confidently, as they always are thanks to Objectivism, or more specifically, this community of Objectivists and Objectivist-enthusiasts. So thanks again folks.

understood. no obligation, but moral justification. I would consider that arguable. The US could even be said to have stimulated the USSR during the Cold War. Ultimately, the USSR consumed itself, as any communistic attempt will. Stalin's paranoid purges and gulags, his military strategy of throwing bodies at the enemy, his wasteful fiscal habits, these all set a precedent and a began a pattern that never really reversed itself. Doubtless the US aided in the fall of communism, but I find it hard to attribute the fall directly to the US.

Okay, that makes excellent sense. Practically though, what does this mean for a real country? Let's say the United States is the closest thing to an Objectivist nation (it's not even near that, I'm well aware). Arguably the rest of the world violates individual rights. Does that justify or neccesitate global war? Should we then be concerned with dismantling every other governement? If we did so, we couldn't establish our own government, as that would be imperialistic and a violation of the native individual's rights. So we would have to remove ourselves and hope that the next established government didn't violate individual rights. In the east? Tsk, unlikely. What then, should we do? I was always under the impression that isolationism was the way to go. Our country's individuals are all that our country's government should be concerned with, right? And only when a criminal attacks an individual on our soil and escapes to safety on another are we justified in dismantling their violating government, correct?

right, and on that point I think we can all agree. But would such an invasion violate the other country's rights?

Forgive me if this is incredibly simple to answer, but I'm on the fence about something. Imagine Galt's Gulch. Everyone is living ideally and no one is stomping on anyone else's inalienable rights. What if a shady interloper burst through the village's defenses and craftily succeeded in assassinating John Galt and escaping unharmed? This criminal would certainly be accountable for his actions. That is basic justice. But, this criminal has fled and has found asylum in another country. If the country refused to punish or extradite the criminal, would it be Objectively immoral to invade said country to bring the criminal to justice?

Interesting article. This area of the forum seems to be stagnating. Let's simulate it, shall we? What is your take on the article? Comments? Criticisms? Criticisms? Criticisms?

you are absolutely correct. I am a realist, I am aware that I can't convince them all. My original statement is not the one I'm subscribing to. I apologize for the miscommunication at my hands.

And my point, brian, is that I won't be satisfied until I have at least laid it out for them. If I convince one, excellent. If I convince none, which is likely the result, so be it. But my enthusiasm for the truth has gotten the better of me, and I will not idly and skeptically brood. ARI didn't do that, and that's why a copy of Atlas Shrugged arrived in my hands months ago, and that's why I'm here today. I have a selfish desire to convince these students of the error in their thinking, not through force, but through the presentation of the sexiest and most seamless logic around, cultivated and polished by the greatest minds of all time. Statistical probability will not persuade me otherwise. And that, sir, is why Zip received a clap and others did not. Mission accomplished.

We have a winner. Much appreciated Zip. It is that exact stream of logic that I was looking for. Of course, everyone's posts have been helpful. But I did want a concise argument to use, and now I have it.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. As for the Social Darwinism statement, I am almost positive I am unaware of its Objectivist definition. All I was trying to say through that was that those who choose not to succeed or are unable to succeed... will not succeed, and there is no reason to be forced to give to support them. That, I'm assuming, is not Social Darwinism. Enlighten me, guys. I love this forum =D

I am currently arguing certain Objectivist principles with two different groups and in two different ways. Both groups are intellectually stagnant, but both groups are capable of being persuaded. The first group: my first-period government class. We have been arguing incessantly over the pursuance of states' rights vs. national rights. Today, we touched upon discussion of federal aid, an idea which I vehemently opposed. My classmates seemed flabbergasted at the thought that federal aid wasn't necessary. I succeeded, alone, in convincing them that grants were not produced from thin air and that they were, in fact, supplied by the tax-paying American citizen, among other sources. This is where they uttered that oh-so-sinister phrase about the "good of the whole" and all of the nonsense that entails. It's okay to tax those who have more so that everyone can benefit, the usual collective dung. I mumbled that they were all communists under my breath, my teacher laughed, and we continued. But their skewed view on social morality still exists and has not been corrected. These kids are the future of America. I want desperately to teach every one of them that they are incorrect, and whether or not that is my place to do so, I plan on succeeding. What I need is a concise, simple, eloquent rebuttal to the "good of the whole" argument. How do I defend the American individual's image in a way that these children can understand? I am failing partly because the children are unfamiliar with morality as a whole, and also because I tend to become digressive with my arguments, at which point the argument loses its spear-like point and falls to pieces around me. I have the right weapon, but my ammunition keeps jamming. The second group: My grandmother. I'll make this one brief. I love my grandmother. She's a sweet woman who has always been there for me. She loves for me to talk to her about politics and philosophy, so I oblige. Today, during dinner, I defended the business man. I told her that Americans wrongly bastardize the businessman for "robbing" them of their money, when the robber is actually the one holding the gun. I explained to her how abolishing the public school system and removing stifling regulations from the private schools would solve our educational funding problems. She listened quietly and then timidly repudiated my statements with her usual standby. She tells of how she grew up with ten siblings all working as poverty-stricken sharecroppers, and how they never had enough to get by, and how the only way they succeeded was through the generosity and selflessness of others willing to help. This is an attempt to elicit pity as a substantial reason. This is grounds to blame the mother and father for foolishly deciding to create ten hungry individuals when they well knew they couldn't economically sustain such a community. This is a perfect opportunity to cite Social Darwinism as an answer. But all of these will hurt my grandmother and her pride. How do I argue Social Darwinism to her without upsetting her? Is it possible? Should I just bite my tongue here or what? In her case, she is not the future of America, and her ability to do damage to this system with her logic is minimal, if not non-existent. So much for brevity. Sorry. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

thoughts? reactions?

Which is precisely why I am on this forum. I attend public high school, and the word "philosophy" is scarcely uttered or even understood (by the students and even the damned faculty). My desire to understand the world around us led me to education, not the government giving it to me. If the government-provided system doesn't answer a question related to education that I want answered, I don't reduce myself to a sobbing and miserable mass asking for more money in the schools. I find the answer on my own.

I am not deleting my music as of yet, because I have not been significantly convinced of the immorality of downloading copies. My main point of contention here revolves around the idea that illegally downloaded music is unearned. It takes an act of labor for the artist to create music, yes. It, however, also takes an act of labor to acquire a copy of this music. An act of labor that does the artist no harm surely means that the copy acquired is earned, not monetarily, but through the very act of acquiring it. These copies aren't thrown at you or automatically dumped into your music folders. I am beyond sure that this point will be torn to pieces by some of the prominent Objectivists here, and that's what I am hoping for. Convince me of my error in logic

I interpreted skepticism to mean what I boldfaced. The revised definition is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. Thanks for clearing that up. I need more immersion in the lexicon, I'm afraid.

I was not aware. I've always considered a certain amount of skepticism important to rational progress. A little elaboration on why this is not the case would be appreciated. Don't be sorry, you are absolutely right. I'm a bit disappointed though. I thought there was some quality to be had on the website. Alas, no luck.

Merci Beaucoup for the tip. I don't think I would be impulsive enough to purchase it without doing a bit of research, but you never know

I don't feel that this is the proper category to discuss this in, but I can't find one that suits my needs precisely. A mod can adjust any mistakes accordingly. I recently stumbled upon a website called the RationalWiki. Some of you, maybe most of you, have heard of it. I was initially pleased with its dry and witty skepticism and beatings towards many conventional topics, but when I found its page on Objectivism, I was appalled. Admittedly, the page states that it is "horribly incomplete", but that doesn't excuse the trash that is written on it to begin with. There seems to be no argument to the philosophy, only a lofty and pompous disdain for it. Here is the page. I would expect this from an organization rooted in irrationality, but not from the opposite. I'm not saying that the website should embrace the philosophy with open arms, but it should receive the same level and quality of scrutiny as any of the other things discussed therein. Am I right or am I crazy?

Sorry, I didn't clearly state what I meant exactly. I am discussing a massive extreme, where the extent of overpopulation is such that all humanity is figuratively sardine-packed together. In hindsight, it is a ridiculous question. Ethical discussion is the last thing to think about in that scenario. How would life even sustain itself in that environment? Law and order? Property rights? All of that would dissipate should that scenario exist. And surely human beings would be reasonable enough to move planets in the event of overpopulation of that level. This also ignores nature's necessity of inducing plagues and illness to reduce population. I think I asked a question before even attempting to really answer it rationally myself. So disregard the last one =D I have not read The Population Bomb, but I'll give it a look. I have a lot of Rand and Peikoff to read, I know! Simply put, population can only be managed by reduction or increased space. Increased space = space colonization (or a more short-term fix would be the creation of artificial land in the ocean) and reduction obviously meaning death. The death can be induced by man, but if left alone, WILL be induced by nature. But I ramble! Not the point. My original question has been resolved.

Thanks for the replies guys. I myself am currently practicing the "do-nothing" technique. I've always said to people that we should be focusing on space colonization and extraterrestrial raw materials. Unfortunately, the world seems to have lost interest in the dazzle of space, and is instead focused on the impossible task of providing infinite energy to an exponentially expanding populace from a limited rock in space. Last Days didn't so much as mention overpopulation as a catastrophic threat to Earth's survival, but it seems as if it's the most obvious threat to me. So, practically, carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant. Because practically, we should be fearlessly voyaging into space to make more room for ourselves. This discussion has led me to a new question (my apologies, I'm very very new to Objectivism. I'm a high school student who was given a copy of AS and here I am =D). How can Objectivism sustain itself in an overpopulated world? Where every action taken by man infringes upon his fellow man, is there room for ethics at all?

I was watching the History Channel recently, and a show aired entitled Last Days or something similar. In this show, there is a countdown of the most catastrophic threats the world faces, from black holes and gamma ray bursts to nuclear war and mega earthquakes. Each threat is summarized and discussed by a panel of well-known experts, including Stephen Hawking and my personal favorite, Michio Kaku. The show was interesting. The number one threat was even more interesting: climate change. At this point, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not know whether climate change is man-made or not. The History Channel almost pompously claims that "all of the scientific community" is in agreement that climate change IS caused by man, but I've seen very convincing posts on this forum that say otherwise. Regardless, the question(s) I have is/are rooted in ethics, and ethics can be discussed hypothetically, rendering the validity of the claim pointless, at least as it relates to this discussion. SO, let's assume that climate change is caused primarily by man's actions on Earth. Due predominantly to Carbon Dioxide emissions, the Earth's atmosphere is holding more heat. Okay, with this assumption in place, I have arrived at a very difficult ethical question, or at least difficult enough for me to ask the community for assistance. If man's methods of production are directly harming the environment in which we all live, then what must be done? Obviously, controlling emission levels is an act of force, and that is frowned upon in Objectivist philosophy. On the other hand, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes damage (assumption!) to the environment in which we all live, which could be considered an act of assault on the rest of mankind, or some sort of forceful tarnishing of everyone else' property. So what is the answer? Is force ethical in this case? I'd like a concise Objectivist's response to this. Maybe someone knows of Dr. Peikoff discussing this. I would look myself but his radio clips are not organized and finding the answer to this would be like Googling "puppies" and finding an article on interplanetary mineral processing techniques. Again, maybe I have put too much faith in the History Channel's claim that there is even any substance to the above hypothetical, but even if this claim is false, humor me. If indeed we did affect climate change negatively with our actions, what's the proper course of action?

This actually makes me feel sick to my stomach. Is there nothing we can do? In a world bereft of Galt's Gulch, devoid of an Atlantis in the valley, what are our options?

I can personally testify to this. I received a copy from my teacher, who received it from the ARI. The only Rand I had read before Atlas was Anthem.

It is apparent that the OP is eager to shrug away the idea of unity in favor of individualism, but I feel that gathering together in open acknowledgment of a shared ideal does not violate the function of Objectivism. Agreeing with one another does not spit in the face of Individualism. If you want a common culture to crop up around this philosophy, it requires a dose of exactly what you are shunning: agreement. Most of us here are in agreement with the basic principles of Objectivism, correct? Agreement can forge a bond, can build memories, and can change the established order of things. None of this is sacrificial or a relinquishment of individuality, it is simply the acknowledgment of similar beliefs.