Is it ethical anymore to join the military?

[Black Wolf]

Considering the recent trend towards Marxism and socialism, and forced redistribution of the wealth, is it ethical anymore to defend this country?

Would it be in your self-interest to fight for your country at this point? Would you be sending a message to your president that you are okay with the trend towards government expansion and humanitarianism? Are you looking after your own self-interest, or are you fighting for "democracy" in other countries?

[Weston]

Considering the recent trend towards Marxism and socialism, and forced redistribution of the wealth, is it ethical anymore to defend this country?

Yes, because I really want to. Pay is good, fun adventures, close friendships, challenging environment, that fulfills the rational self interest thing, so it's moral

[ZSorenson]

Considering the recent trend towards Marxism and socialism, and forced redistribution of the wealth, is it ethical anymore to defend this country?

Would it be in your self-interest to fight for your country at this point? Would you be sending a message to your president that you are okay with the trend towards government expansion and humanitarianism? Are you looking after your own self-interest, or are you fighting for "democracy" in other countries?

I think that it is still ethical to join the military because the government is still the only entity authorized to use force to protect individual rights in our society. It may stray far from that mandate, but overall primarily performs that function, and there is no other entity that ought to take its place.

There are still violent forces in the outer world that want to kill Americans quite literally. The military must stand against these threats, it is standing against them, and there is no proper entity for going oversees and disrupting terrorism. besides the military.

Moreover, putting short-term policies aside, the military acts a global deterrent. The day-to-day operations of the US Navy for example, serve to prevent potential threats to free and peaceful shipping from even arising (in terms of geopolitical powers, not Somalis with AK's in lifeboats). The military just being there, and being competant serves to preserve individual rights - and is in fact necessary.

As for the idea of being a 'global policeman' - if no other nations take it upon themselves to contain conflicts and preserve free trade in international areas (waters) - it is still in our interests to preserve for our citizens the ability to trade, and to protect them from injury due to said conflicts. Terrorism is an example of conflict spilling from a distant land onto our shores, organized crime could be another example, and in the case of the cold war, containment at least in principle was a way of maintaining a balance of power that preserved our national integrity in the long run.

In the case of containment, and 'democracy' building, and so forth, there are countless arguments for why these policies are irrational, but the case that they are blanket unethical I don't think can be made. More importantly, regardless of what policies are being pursued at a given time, the overall mission of the US military for better or worse, is necessary and ethical. We must have a well-prepared, effective military as a country. You still serve that purpose when you join, even if you are also serving other policies.

That's the unfortunate nature of government. At a certain point of no return, revolutions occur. Until that point, or perhaps even at that point, the government that is must be accepted as the proper authority of the land. Which is why one really effective way of resisting unethical policies is a strike - by the men of the mind. If the military is so turned, explicitly, against the rights of its citizens, or has strayed so far from its purpose, sure, one ought to refuse to serve it. But I don't think we're there, our country still needs the protection the military daily affords.

[Mrs. Chrisman]

I know personally it's in my, my husband's and my child's best interest.

My husband gets paid to do a job. In exchange we receive healthcare, vision and dental included, for free. We also receive money in his paycheck to pay for our housing (BAH). During his deployment we are not taxed in his paycheck. We were able to reduce the interest rate, thanks to the Soldiers' and Sailors Relief Act I believe, for our credit cards, vehicle financing, and many other things to 6% which allowed us to get out of debt. The GI Bill pays for my college tuition and books.

So insofar as selfishness and selfish motivations are moral, his service allows all three of us to further our own needs and interests moreso than other types of jobs might.

[andkore]

The replies that "it is moral for me to join the military because it is in my best interest because I get good pay and it's fun (or by extension, it is in my best interest because I want my family to have health insurance, etc.)" are extremely disturbing and reflect a total lack of understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

To make this very clear, and to do so in a concise manner, consider the hypothetical situation:

What if your family got great health insurance, you had a lot of fun, and you got paid well (all things that you consider to be in your self-interest, and might very well actually be in your self-interest) for your service in the military, but your service in the military required you to rape women and kill children.

Remember, the famous quote from Atlas Shrugged is: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." You can't forget the last part: "or ask another man to live for mine"!

If you knew that serving in the military would require you to violate the rights of others, then it would not be moral to serve in the military. That is the important question here.

[Mister A]

To make this very clear, and to do so in a concise manner, consider the hypothetical situation:

What if your family got great health insurance, you had a lot of fun, and you got paid well (all things that you consider to be in your self-interest, and might very well actually be in your self-interest) for your service in the military, but your service in the military required you to rape women and kill children.

We're talking about the US military not a viking horde. Jeez...

[Black Wolf]

The replies that "it is moral for me to join the military because it is in my best interest because I get good pay and it's fun (or by extension, it is in my best interest because I want my family to have health insurance, etc.)" are extremely disturbing and reflect a total lack of understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

To make this very clear, and to do so in a concise manner, consider the hypothetical situation:

What if your family got great health insurance, you had a lot of fun, and you got paid well (all things that you consider to be in your self-interest, and might very well actually be in your self-interest) for your service in the military, but your service in the military required you to rape women and kill children.

Remember, the famous quote from Atlas Shrugged is: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." You can't forget the last part: "or ask another man to live for mine"!

If you knew that serving in the military would require you to violate the rights of others, then it would not be moral to serve in the military. That is the important question here.

Uhh.. pretty sure the army does not only not require that you rape women and kill children, but does not allow or condone such behavior. The scenario we're discussing is: Our curreny military, which is acting less and less as a national defense, and more as a humanitarian police. In your hypothetical situation, yeah, it would pretty much be unethical.

I'm gonna break the ice a bit here and ask: Someone once said that the military is contrary to individuality in that the people must act as a team. I disagree. Surely, there is a need for teamwork, but to what extend can the military work without a collectivist mindset?

[RationalBiker]

The replies that "it is moral for me to join the military because it is in my best interest because I get good pay and it's fun (or by extension, it is in my best interest because I want my family to have health insurance, etc.)" are extremely disturbing and reflect a total lack of understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Not really. It's called "the Trader Principle". The give value through their service, and receive value in return. While I might agree that they could have been more specific about why the military in particular is of value to them, it is not necessary to spell that out given that they have offered valid self-interested reasons.

but your service in the military required you to rape women and kill children.

Are you saying that is part of the context of them joining the military? Are US soldiers required to rape women and kill children? Your hypothetical is pretty pointless unless it in some way parallels the scenario at hand.

[Zip]

The replies that "it is moral for me to join the military because it is in my best interest because I get good pay and it's fun (or by extension, it is in my best interest because I want my family to have health insurance, etc.)" are extremely disturbing and reflect a total lack of understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

To make this very clear, and to do so in a concise manner, consider the hypothetical situation:

What if your family got great health insurance, you had a lot of fun, and you got paid well (all things that you consider to be in your self-interest, and might very well actually be in your self-interest) for your service in the military, but your service in the military required you to rape women and kill children."

Remember, the famous quote from Atlas Shrugged is: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." You can't forget the last part: "or ask another man to live for mine"!

If you knew that serving in the military would require you to violate the rights of others, then it would not be moral to serve in the military. That is the important question here.

What an absolute crock of shit this post is.

Gee since we are being completely disingenuous lets see. Oh, I've got it!

"What if your family got great health insurance, you had a lot of fun, and you got paid well (all things that you consider to be in your self-interest, and might very well actually be in your self-interest) for your job as an engineer (just like John Galt!), but your service as an engineer required you to rape women and kill children...."

See how stupid that is?

My service in the military does not require me to violate anyones rights. I apply the retaliatory use of force to protect the people within a largely rights respecting and abiding nation that respects the rule of law and is not an aggressor.

I'm not asking any man to live for my sake and I won't let a man who allows the thief and the thug to rule him to prosper and perhaps even to live instead of the people I have sworn to protect.

You are not suggesting that you will "never live for the sake of another man" you are suggesting that in the right circumstances (like a terrorist hiding behind an innocent) that you would die for the sake of a stranger, that you would sacrifice yourself so that someone else, that you don't know and have never met, who could not possibly be of a greater value to you than your own life... lives.

Who is it that doesn't understand Ayn Rands philosophy?

[DavidOdden]

Surely, there is a need for teamwork, but to what extend can the military work without a collectivist mindset?

On the contrary, a military would fail with a collectivist mindset. A mindset that dictates "individual thought and initiative are bad, we must sense what the masses want and act accordingly" would be fatal to the military. The one thing that you have to get straight on, if you're in the military, is what your ultimate goal should be. It is not to rack up as many experience points as you can get in the shortest time; it is to make a lot of the other poor dumb bastards die for their country. What you have to recognize is that you probably do not have the knowledge necessary to do that properly, and therefore you have to operate in a hierarchical knowledge context where you do what the sergeant tells you to do, and he does what his lieutenant tells him to do, who is subordinate to some colonel who takes orders from a general. Where is this supposed "collectivism" in the military?

[gags]

...it is to make a lot of the other poor dumb bastards die for their country.

Patton did have a certain way with words, didn't he?

I think you've also nailed it. In the military, as with any large organization, you have many individuals working toward the same goal. This isn't collectivist any more than being an employee of a large corporation or a member of a sports team requires a collectivist mindset. For certain rather obvious reasons, sensitive details about a given military situation aren't distributed to everyone in the chain of command, so each individual needs to do what his/her superior tells him to do. Deviating from that disciplined approach puts the military's mission at risk and threatens your own life as well as the lives of one's fellow soldiers.

[A is A]

Considering the recent trend towards Marxism and socialism, and forced redistribution of the wealth, is it ethical anymore to defend this country?

How quickly would you like the barbarians to invade this country?

Would it be in your self-interest to fight for your country at this point? Would you be sending a message to your president that you are okay with the trend towards government expansion and humanitarianism? Are you looking after your own self-interest, or are you fighting for "democracy" in other countries?

Yes, No, Yes, Maybe.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Considering the irrational foreign policy of the US, would an individual not be sanctioning evil by joining the military today? Our country's military is underdeveloped as compared to how far along we could and should be. It does not come close to effectively protecting American blood and treasure. Anybody who involves themselves in the military today and obeys unlawful (or irrational) commands - as almost all do - are immediately guilty of contributing to the wasteland that is the American foreign policy of altruism. Any otherwise good soldiers receiving benefits of any kind from the military are earning income derived from the vices of others.

Ayn Rand famously said: "A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard."

Has America not, along with the rest of the planet, lost her claim to her rights? Because the right to self-defense is a natural consequence of man's right to life, and because all rights stem from the right to life, then it appears to me that Ayn Rand would be vehemently opposed to any involvement in the military today.

[Alexandros]

I think it depends on your personal desires/goals. As proof of this idea, I'll ask you if you think it would have been ethical for a person to join the Nazis in an effort to fight the party from the inside, perhaps by acting as a spy/informant/etc?

[Jake_Ellison]

Ayn Rand famously said: "A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard."

That's just a quote strategically yanked out of context to suggest the exact opposite of her intended message. As Ayn Rand actually (and apparently much less famously) wrote, in the context of an essay in defense of America's right to self defense:

"The citizens of a free nation may disagree about the specific legal procedures or methods of implementing their rights (which is a complex problem, the province of political science and of the philosophy of law), but they agree on the basic principle to be implemented: the principle of individual rights. When a country’s constitution places individual rights outside the reach of public authorities, the sphere of political power is severely delimited—and thus the citizens may, safely and properly, agree to abide by the decisions of a majority vote in this delimited sphere. The lives and property of minorities or dissenters are not at stake, are not subject to vote and are not endangered by any majority decision; no man or group holds a blank check on power over others.

Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.

But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard. A nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro."

it becomes clear that she vehemently disagreed with your premise that America is evil.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[aequalsa]

We're talking about the US military not a viking horde. Jeez...

His examples are extreme and unrealistic but his conceptualization seems more or less correct. If I rephrase his argument with a more realistic example it might make more sense.

Leaving aside the raping and pillaging, the question is whether or not personal gain and enjoyment is enough to make it an objectively proper occupation. Currently a great deal of money collected through taxation is used not directly for the protection of the country but for spreading democracy, humanitarian efforts, building infrastructure we had previously broken, and protecting the extremely nebulous "American interests."

It is certainly possible to make the case that our current break and rebuild methodology is the best way to protect American rights but I don't think that has been well established as an indisputable fact.

If someone viewed that as an ineffective way to defend the country, which I find to be a somewhat reasonable, then it would be as immoral to work for them as any other wealth redistributing bureaucratic office. A giant government organization which only redistributes wealth to poor countries or protects the interests of particular well connected corporations does not, I think, have legitimacy. It does not only do those things though because it also protects the country.

A chief negative that I see to a person's self-interest in this regard is that after a possible career in the military in which no defense of the country existed or was needed but many, many wealth redistributing activities were taken, he would feel some level of regret as to his efficaciousness in doing what he wanted, which is protect the rights of the citizens of his country. It would be a bit of a tragedy(in the greek sense) because he would have functionally harmed his truly desired goal through his actions, in that he ultimately would have, in actuality, worked for and supported the the removal of property rights and wealth redistribution while working for an organization theoretically designed to protect them.

The right answer likely depends on each individual and circumstance, but the idea is certainly worth considering.

[Jake_Ellison]

It would be a bit of a tragedy(in the greek sense) because he would have functionally harmed his truly desired goal through his actions, in that he ultimately would have, in actuality, worked for and supported the the removal of property rights and wealth redistribution while working for an organization theoretically designed to protect them.

Wow, that just about sums up why one would have second thoughts about enlisting. Very well said. However, andkore did not offer an argument against enlisting, the way you just did, he attacked a perfectly valid argument for doing so, and he claimed that being an American soldier causes one to violate people's rights.

[aequalsa]

Wow, that just about sums up why one would have second thoughts about enlisting. Very well said. However, andkore did not offer an argument against enlisting, the way you just did, he attacked a perfectly valid argument for doing so, and he claimed that being an American soldier causes one to violate people's rights.

Thanks.

I may be giving him too much benefit of the doubt, but I understood him to be saying, "If a job required you rape and pillage, then it would not be proper even if it paid well and accomplished your personal financial and entertainment needs."

If he was saying or implying that our military is currently required to actually do such things then I have no evidence for agreement and would wish to distance myself from his remarks as much as possible.

He's, of course, better qualified to say what he actually means so hopefully he will be willing to be more clear about his meaning.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

That's just a quote strategically yanked out of context to suggest the exact opposite of her intended message. As Ayn Rand actually (and apparently much less famously) wrote, in the context of an essay in defense of America's right to self defense:

"The citizens of a free nation may disagree about the specific legal procedures or methods of implementing their rights (which is a complex problem, the province of political science and of the philosophy of law), but they agree on the basic principle to be implemented: the principle of individual rights. When a country’s constitution places individual rights outside the reach of public authorities, the sphere of political power is severely delimited—and thus the citizens may, safely and properly, agree to abide by the decisions of a majority vote in this delimited sphere. The lives and property of minorities or dissenters are not at stake, are not subject to vote and are not endangered by any majority decision; no man or group holds a blank check on power over others.

Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.

But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard. A nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro."

it becomes clear that she vehemently disagreed with your premise that America is evil.

The first paragraph of your quote describes a country much greater than America. It describes a country whose government's political power is "severely delimited" and whose minorities and dissenters are not at stake. Does that sound like the America you live in, Jake?

The second paragraph states that this country has a right to its sovereignty. If a country is required to have a government whose political power is delimited and whose minorities are not at stake, then America no longer is deserving of having its sovereignty recognized. Ayn Rand said it in clear English in the very quote you've presented.

Rand wrote:

"If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right."

If you cannot think of an aspect of living in America where you must obtain the permission of society (such as government) to do something, then the America you know is probably no more than an internal hallucination.

Rand often wrote that if individual rights are violated by a government, then it does not constitute a free nation. Since all rights are ultimately derived from the right to life, and ultimately implemented by exercising property rights, it only takes one example of aggressive force from government against an individual to demonstrate that that government is not protecting individual rights. And a government that doesn't protect individual rights is not a free government - a government that is not free is not moral.

I do not find America to be evil - when I spoke of evil in the previous post, it was with regard to her foreign policy. I find my country to be the oasis among the desert. However, the oasis is running dry. It is undeniable that America is not the country that Ayn Rand describes as being a free nation. Denying this is a denial of reality. Hell, the US already satisfies three of the four qualities that, according to Rand, undeniably consist of a tyrannic state. It really shocks me how many so-called Objectivists refuse to judge America by the same criteria which they rightfully assign to all other nations on the planet.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Andrew Grathwohl

[Jake_Ellison]

The second paragraph states that this country has a right to its sovereignty. If a country is required to have a government whose political power is delimited and whose minorities are not at stake, then America no longer is deserving of having its sovereignty recognized. Ayn Rand said it in clear English in the very quote you've presented.

Actually, she is explicitly referring to a country that is not a dictatorship, and she has the United States in mind as exactly such a country. Besides, she also defines dictatorship, in the very same essay if I'm not mistaken, in a way that does only include actual dictatorships. But at this point you're likely the only one refusing to look into that in detail, so I'm not gonna do your reading for you.

Just read the damn thing, to se what she thought of America and why. Or, feel free to continue with out of context quotes, to feed your preconceptions. See if I care.

If you cannot think of an aspect of living in America where you must obtain the permission of society (such as government) to do something, then the America you know is probably no more than an internal hallucination.

Good one. Luckily, I don't need to contact the authorities before exercising my first amendment right to call that all sorts of names. I just won't because I'm such a nice guy.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Actually, she is explicitly referring to a country that is not a dictatorship, and she has the United States in mind as exactly such a country. Besides, she also defines dictatorship, in the very same essay if I'm not mistaken, in a way that does only include actual dictatorships. But at this point you're likely the only one refusing to look into that in detail, so I'm not gonna do your reading for you.

Just read the damn thing, to se what she thought of America and why. Or, feel free to continue with out of context quotes, to feed your preconceptions. See if I care.

Good one. Luckily, I don't need to contact the authorities before exercising my first amendment right to call that all sorts of names. I just won't because I'm such a nice guy.

You know, Jake - no Objectivist would ever say "take my word for it" like you just did. I have read the essay, and I quoted the appropriate sections from it. Telling me to take your word for it is asking me to engage in whimsical behavior. I would at least expect more consistency out of you than you've just exhibited.

America is not mentioned once in your quoted paragraphs. If anybody is grabbing out of context, it is you. Words have meanings that are not modulated by context, Jake. You can't tell me that I'm pulling quotes out of context, when they easily defend my argument - while you think it's OK to grab quotes out of context, and then not only require me to reread the entire essay in full to understand your quote's context, but also tell me that she implies something that she clearly doesn't within the quoted paragraphs! You're wrong, and it's rather obvious - all you're doing is trying to stall.

The clearest definition of dictatorship I've ever seen from Ayn Rand is this quote, from TVOS:

"There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw."

I mentioned this in the previous post. I find it disturbing that we already regularly engage in the latter two characteristics, and engage in a sort of semi-one-party rule on the national level.

I know what Ayn Rand thought about America. But you know what - her writings largely dealt with her criticisms of the United States, whether it be in terms of economics, education, foreign policy, social policy, etc. I have yet to find out why exactly my views on America are so distinct from Ayn Rand. Are we both not capable of loving a country despite its immense flaws?

[Jake_Ellison]

The clearest definition of dictatorship I've ever seen from Ayn Rand is this quote, from TVOS:

"There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw."

I mentioned this in the previous post. I find it disturbing that we already regularly engage in the latter two characteristics, and engage in a sort of semi-one-party rule on the national level.

I know what Ayn Rand thought about America. But you know what - her writings largely dealt with her criticisms of the United States, whether it be in terms of economics, education, foreign policy, social policy, etc. I have yet to find out why exactly my views on America are so distinct from Ayn Rand. Are we both not capable of loving a country despite its immense flaws?

Ayn Rand knew what one party rule, expropriation of private property and censorship look like in a dictatorship, and she loved America because it didn't have them to any significant degree. If you can't tell the difference, then your professed love for what you consider a 3/4 dictatorship does not make any sense. Is the absence of mock trials really cause for being enamored with the joint? You must love Antarctica like nobody's business then.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Andrew Grathwohl]

I don't know what you're capable of, but Ayn Rand knew what one party rule, expropriation of private property and censorship look like in a dictatorship, and she loved America because it didn't have them to any significant degree. If you can't tell the difference, then your professed love for what you consider a 3/4 dictatorship does not make any sense. Is the absence of mock trials really cause for being enamored with the joint? You must love Antarctica like nobody's business then.

And yet you continue to simply make claims without providing evidence. If my views on things are really so different from these basic Objectivist writings, then surely it would be easy to prove me wrong, rather than merely continue to insult me - right?

America, by nature, is capable of much more than it has achieved today. Its exhibitions of altruism are just as illegitimate as any other nation that exhibits them, as my quotations from Rand's own writing signifies. Why do I love this country? Because it exhibits those qualities of altruism less than any other on the planet. But that should not be a factor of America's greatness - that's a factor of America's failure. Unlike almost all other countries on the planet, America, by virtue of its founding documents, and its founding philosophies, has the potential to be the shining beacon of capitalism, but, sadly, the end of the 19th century was also the end of America actually exercising that potential.

It's time we stopped excusing America for its flaws, though. The longer we sanction this type of behavior on the part of the government - the very government that is said to exist by the citizens' permission - the more intrusive the government will be on our lives. It doesn't stop me from achieving what I want to achieve, but it sure as hell as made it more difficult. Am I not allowed to criticize my country for this, when around here, America gets almost exclusive praise?

Ayn Rand had an additional factor for loving this country, which involved her previous life in Soviet Russia. I cannot know what living in such a hellhole is like, but my knowledge of her and her writings tells me that she would be the first to criticize any immoral action on the part of both individuals in American society and its government. When Antarctica allows for the establishment of a government that protects individual rights, I'll see if I can love it more than the US.

[DavidOdden]

The clearest definition of dictatorship I've ever seen from Ayn Rand is this quote, from TVOS:

"There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw."

I mentioned this in the previous post. I find it disturbing that we already regularly engage in the latter two characteristics, and engage in a sort of semi-one-party rule on the national level.

I know what Ayn Rand thought about America.

So you would presumably admit that Rand did not hold that the US is a dictatorship.

I have a suggestion as to why your views on America are so dimetrically opposed to those of Objectivist: you are dropping context on a massive scale. Contrast the taking of property by the government in the US, versus in the Soviet Union. There exists taking of property in both cases -- and you don't look any further than that. You consider any amount of taking of property by the government to be proof of a dictatorship, and you do not take into consideration the substantial protection of individual property rights that exists in the US, and which existed in no amount in the USSR.

I don't know what form of censorship you are referring to. The fact that it is a crime to make and sell child pornography? Or perhaps you're referring to the 7 words that the FCC will not allow you to broadcast over the airwaves until after 11:00pm. We all know that that is wrong. It is utter hyperbolization to hold that the US is indistinguishable from Zimbabwe where journalists who criticise the government are shot.

In short, you fail to see that the fact that the US is the freest nation in the world is not negated by the fact that the US government is imperfect. You're ignoring Rand's point.

[Jake_Ellison]

And yet you continue to simply make claims without providing evidence. If my views on things are really so different from these basic Objectivist writings, then surely it would be easy to prove me wrong, rather than merely continue to insult me - right?

You live in America, and you think it is a dictatorship, despite the obvious. You think you're being censored despite being able to say whatever you want, you think you're in danger of having your land, house and business expropriated despite that never happening, and you think there's a two party rule in America despite there being dozens of political parties, and personally being able to both run for office and vote for any party or candidate you wish.

How am I gonna prove to you something you're experiencing every day, but are entirely ignoring when discussing politics? Not to mention, why should I? I'm not here to prove to you things to your satisfaction.