Tanaka

First, if a crime is small enough to not warrant jail time, there is nothing the government can do to punish a violator that the road owner can't do better. The best punishment is the banning of the violator from the road system, or from an entire voluntary association of road systems. Fines, anger management, mandatory rehab, suspension of license etc. are just poor replacement solutions in our current, socialized system. Going through the justice system is also far more expensive than the streamlined decision making of a private company. Second, law enforcement resources would be limited by people's willingness to donate to that cause. There would be no reason for citizens to donate more, just to have it spent on something the road owner could do for cheaper. Road owners would recognize this immediately, and simply withhold some of their donations and turn the funds to private enforcement of the road rules instead.

No, of course not. But the notion that any road owner would stop them is unrealistic.

The Police are obligated to provide reasonable protection from trespassers. But that just means they must step in if the property owner's efforts to prevent trespassing fail. The Police are not obligated to stand by in movie theaters for instance, to make sure no one violates the no-talking rule. If someone does, the property owner must try to get them to leave, and may call on the Police if he fails. Similarly, the Police and legal system would only be needed when a speeding driver refuses to stop and leave the road, or when he tries to repeatedly come back despite being banned. An analogous real life example would be the case of the Muslim student group who's members were recently charged with a felony, for organizing to repeatedly disrupt the speeches of pro-Israeli speakers on various California campuses. While the legal system does not concern itself with individual hecklers who show up at events and are removed by the organizers, this group became too much for organizers to handle. The Police, and later the DA, had to step in. Similarly, the Police or the legal system would have to step in when someone cannot be prevented from speeding by reasonable measures on the part of the road's owner.

The property owner does not have the right to interfere with the Police doing its job. As long as their use of force is objectively justified, the property owner's wishes are irrelevant. In case the Police do destroy his property (or reduce its value) in the course of a justified action, the property owner's legal recourse would be against the criminal who caused the Police to act. If the Police action was not fully justified, then he would also have a case against the Police. As a (partially relevant) aside, I have to disagree with this part of your premise. A criminal act in his area ought to concern the property owner. His right to be irrational an unconcerned about it ends when he decides to get in the way of justice because of that. The principle of non-initiation of force, out of context, does not fully describe Capitalism. In its proper context, it is dependent on the principles of rights and justice. Initiation of force occurs when a person is interfered with, when his right to self defense is interfered with, or when the right to retaliation that he delegated to the government is interfered with. So, when initiation of force is not used as a floating abstraction, but is instead put in the context Ayn Rand used it in, a property owner which seeks to interfere with the just actions of the Police is helping the criminals, and is initiating force against the victims and against other potential victims (society). Property rights, in Objectivism (as opposed to Libertarianism) are actually a positive right: a right to action. The property owner has the right to all the actions involving his property, except those which interfere with others' rights. He does not have the right to put up barriers (physical or legal), in front of a justified action by the Police.

I don't agree that verificationism requires us to dismiss eye witness and expert testimony altogether. If coupled with their reputation or history, a person's testimony should be considered evidence (as long as it's a verifiable testimony, in the wider sense of the word - it's something that could have been witnessed, or determined by scientific study. So, if a witness says he saw a murderer, that is evidence; If he says God said the accused is guilty, that's not evidence.) As for your first question, verificationism isn't dead yet. It is pretty ill though.

The argument against ad hominem is a philosophical point. He didn't concede that one. I'm with Mister A. The guy was losing the argument, and jumped on the first excuse to flip the board. The only people who view Ayn Rand in a negative light without knowing her work are those who have been conditioned to do so by leftists or religious right wingers.

That's not what I said at all. The reason why I am discarding your premise is because it contains a vague, undefined term, not just because I assumed you're talking about the Christian God. And I am discarding it not because of my logic, but because of Aristotle's logic. It's Aristotle's Law of Identity which doesn't allow for unidentified assumptions, not some random rule I came up with. Stop it. We both know that Pantheism isn't just a bunch of people who got together and decided to redefine God to mean "the Universe". That would not be an expression of a philosophical viewpoint at all, it would be akin to me stating that I decided to call cats hitlers. I doubt that would earn me an entry in any philosophy books. Pantheists used the word God to express their views about the Universe. And, since the word God is undefined and thus meaningless, the Pantheists view of the Universe is also meaningless and warrants dismissal. If you have something to say about the Universe, I suggest you define your terms before expressing it. Until then, you're not going to communicate too well with people who like logic. If you really decided to redefine the word God to refer to something completely unrelated to the things people mean by it (be it 'the Universe', or a pink cow), and started a thread about it, there would be even fewer reasons for anyone to consider it. You'd probably be banned for spamming.

There's nothing sad about refusing to consider the undefined, the vague, or the impossible. Quite the opposite. What's sad is someone who lives his life by them. By the way, I would've happily stuck to the arguments and kept that last bit of editorializing to myself, if you had done the same.

The government has the right to use the appropriate level of force when responding to a crime. For instance, when a suspect runs through a store, church, or mosque (oh my God, the humanity), the Police have the right to follow without permission. If he runs into some strangers house (and he committed a serious crime, he's not just someone who let his dog poop on the sidewalk and failed to pick it up), the Police have the right to break down the door and go after him. If it's a terrorist with a bomb, the authorities even have the right to level whatever building he ran into, even if it's someone's property. Of course they would also have the right to use the private road, even against the owner's wishes. If the owner actively thwarts their efforts, he can be arrested for obstruction of justice. Property rights are not a meme, they are the application of the principle of rights, in various societies. In some contexts, the application of that principle often means someone doesn't get to draw a physical line in the sand and say: no one can cross this - because such a line might actually contribute to a violation of someone else's rights. The principle isn't the line in the sand, it is far more complex than that. It involves related concepts such as rationality, justice, etc.

You should live by your own values and principles, as you understand them. Following other people's rules, even if you don't understand where they come from, is pointless. It's definitely not Objectivism. Objectivism is not about rules, it's about values and principles. It's not about the laws of society, it's about who you are. Your concern (if you see Objectivism as the right philosophy) should not be to follow the perceived rules of Objectivism. Instead, it should be to become an Objectivist. There's a huge difference. For starters, and Objectivist has to understand the abstractions of the philosopy. But, beyond understanding, the most important thing an Objectivist has is integrity. His beliefs and values/actions are in sync. This youtube thing is pretty trivial, but are all your important actions and values in sync with beliefs you profess to hold? Do you always work as hard as you could, do you always treat others justly and with the kindness they deserve, do you always have the courage to claim what you believe is yours, to say what you believe should be said, to talk to the woman who's lover you believe you deserve to become, etc.? If the answer to all those questions becomes yes, then doing the right thing about some stupid youtube rule will not be tiring at all. Not living up to a principle you profess to hold (or one you have judged to be correct) would become the strenuous, intolerable action. Treating the owner of Youtube unfairly (and make no mistake about it, violating the terms of service of a private enterprise means treating the owner unfairly) will seem unconscionable to you. Look at it this way: if you were alone on an island, an no one could ever find out, would you kick a puppy (not hard, but enough to scare it away) just because it would be easier than actually picking it up and moving it out of the way? If the answer is "No, that would be horrible.", that's because you truly believe in a set of principles that prevent you from doing that, and that belief you accepted is entirely in sync with your values and actions. Once treating others fairly becomes just as much a part of who you are, you will be one step closer to being an Objectivist, and not acting like an Objectivist will become just as horrible as kicking a puppy.

Just to clarify my position on this whole fighting / disobeying the government thing: I don't want to do either at the moment (well, with small exceptions: there are laws I don't obey, because they are a violation of my rights and it suits me better to sometimes break them). But that doesn't mean I'm willing to commit to live by any contract in the future. I will live by the rules of society as long as it is in my rational self interest to do so, not a minute longer. The sole judge of what is and what isn't in my self interest is, and always will be, my own rational mind. I have never agreed to any contract stating otherwise, explicitly or implicitly. Everything I have ever done implies the exact opposite of your claim that I would sign my mind away to some government.

Is there a clause in this imaginary contract that states I am exempt from it if I wage war against the government? Or would waging war constitute an imaginary violation of the contract, making me dishonorable for going back on my imaginary consent to abide by it? What on Earth was Gandhi (by the way!!) thinking, consenting to a contract to be ruled by the British, and then changing his mind and refusing to live up to it.

The specific rules of the running of a corporation have nothing to do with the discussion. The point is that those rules were agreed to by all the owners of the corporation, their shares were sold to them on the condition that they agree to those rules. That's not true for all the people in a geographic region. They did not agree to any contract, and since you do not own the country, you do not have the right to force them to agree to anything before they enter (or when they are born). I can't think of a more clear and obvious way to refute your claims than this: whatever social contract you have in mind, I do not agree with it. You do not have my consent to hold me to any kind of contract. Before today, I wasn't aware of any contract, and now that you mentioned it I am refusing to agree to it. You do not have my consent. Is that a clear enough expression of my lack of consenting, or am I still a party to your imaginary contract?

The running of a corporation is done by the consent of the shareholders. The consent of every shareholder. A government is not run by the consent of every citizen, the government often uses force against people who never consented to its existence.

No, it was discerning. Sad and confused.

I disagree that the existence of a government depends on "the consent of the governed". The word consent has a specific meaning. "Consent of the governed" means everyone voluntarily approves of something. The existence of a government depends on sufficient support from the population, not everyone's consent. That doesn't even have to be consent from a majority, let alone "the governed" as a whole. It can for instance mean support from a strong minority and indifference or passivity from the rest. Their indifference or passivity does not constitute consent. The claim of "consent from the governed" is often used to justify abusive government actions against individuals. Such justifications can be refuted only by pointing out that consent is not the same as the refusal or inability to remove the government. Otherwise, there is no way to differentiate between a government acting on "consent from the population" and a corporation acting on actual consent from its shareholders, for instance.

And he's wrong on two counts. Rights are an objective fact, and so is the justness of a rights protecting government. Neither rights nor objective justice come from of any god or man's permission. Whether the governed consent to the powers of a government is entirely irrelevant to whether those powers are just or unjust.

For the love of God, think a little. This is ridiculous. You'd be better off bringing up Santa as your proof of immortality. Where do you think all these immortal creatures go, if they never die, but keep multiplying? Shouldn't they have filled the Earth many times over by now? What do you think happens to a single cell organism when a multi-cell organism eats it? Or if you cook one?

There is no immortal robot. Ayn Rand never suggested such a thing was possible, it was merely a mental exercise, with its only purpose to help explain something else. Taking it as an argument is pointless. Nothing can be inferred from it: not that men will stop caring about things if living longer, and definitely not that concepts like "pleasure" are just as valid as floating abstractions as they are when connected to the reality of mortal, living beings. Its only possible purpose was what it was used for in the original context: as a tool for explaining what the author meant.

Who cares? The question was about Rand's views, not yours. Stop spamming.

That's not a definition of what it is. You're just saying what it supposedly does. It doesn't get the concept any closer to being defined, it just turns your argument into begging the question. That at least explains what you're referring to. However, it's not the definition of a valid concept. A valid concept groups together concretes or lesser abstractions that are alike (have a common essential attribute). Honest self-reflection and getting high, for instance, are exact opposites, they have nothing in common. And, to get back to the purpose of this thread (the OP was asking about Miss Rand's views on the subject, not yours), Ayn Rand considered most of those things on your list as harmful to the development of a rational mind. Most therapy and meditation relies on mysticism, not knowledge of reality. As for getting high, that's the exact opposite of embracing knowledge of reality. It's escaping reality. So your answers to the OPs question are entirely misleading. Ayn Rand did not view your idea of transcendentalism as a positive at all.

And you should stick to using the word contract when talking about voluntary agreements between individuals.

What do you mean by epistemological value judgments?

If the contract was a legally binding one (at the time it was signed), then yes. Otherwise, no. That solves all the other questions too, as follows: Yes. No. No (unless the fee is exorbitant, and the money is used for a purpose other than paying for the functioning of those arms of government which are involved in contract enforcement - the Courts, Police, and the political hierarchy). It's not self-evident, but there are clear answers. In your contract example, charging for contract enforcement is clearly not initiation of force, and in Hotu Matua's example there's clearly initiation of force going on (forced taxation is force, even if the victim can move). The line isn't blurred in either case.

It's not. As evidenced by every single authoritarian dictatorship in history ending in failure, and most democracies succeeding by changing and adapting to the circumstances. Authoritarian tactics are in fact the most destructive thing you can do to your own cause, be that a good cause or an evil one. People will naturally come to resist it and embrace the most determined opposition. In Egypt's case, that opposition was the Muslim Brotherhood. Let's hope this revolution didn't come too late, and freedom of speech and democracy can still work.