Leaderboard

So the land is the fruit of the state's labor?

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity". I dont know who said that, but I like it. There are no mystical "forces" affecting anyone, no cosmic scale to be balanced, just free will and causality. added on edit: Apparently it was Seneca, a 1st century Roman (stoic) Philosopher.

He'll no! He has no idea what he's talking about! He has to assume LI and all it's corollaries to even make the stupid mistake many physicist have made in not understnading the foundational nature of philosophy. Let's not waste any more time on such nonsense in this thread. Need more time to respond to your other posts....

Of course what you are saying is true. Where you are going wrong is that the OP, or at least as I understood, is that we are talking about a hypothetical already-existing Objectivist/capitalist government (thus you should pay attention to the following words after the part you bolded in my quote) being changed by socialist revolutionaries. Inded this formulates the basis of my critique. Now I feel like we have answered to the “letter” of the OP's objections, but perhaps not the “spirit.” It seems like the central concern is that, ultimately, under laissez-faire capitalism, if the legal code is thorough enough to prohibit almost every possible initiation of physical force known, then those who oppose the government will arbitrarily be declared traitors and the police power of the state brought down upon them, until no one will dare object to the government's actions, and tyranny will become possible. But this is a misguided objection. (If all initiations of force are banned, then this would presumably include initiations of force by the government against dissenters as well.) Under the Objectivist politics, dissent and disagreement with the government is not banned. Criticism of the government is not presumed to disappear with the implementation of laissez-faire. Indeed for the government to be maintained as limited, dissent from the government is absolutely necessary. Socialists, democrats, interventionists, etc. are not, however, without hope for their preferred political goals. Their only way to achieve them, however, is by 1. convincing and persuading enough people that it will work or 2. by making war against the government, winning, and having the majority of the people passively accept the socialist victory. Even privately, of course, you may be as socialistic as you desire, as there is absolutely nothing preventing socialism from being maintained by voluntary associations of free men (except maybe the laws of economics, but that has to do with the nature of man and the world, not government.) They simply have the right to take what belongs to them, and leave the arrangement. But politically, they can still implement a totalitarian government, if enough of the population is deceived to this goal. This is not unique to Objectivism or a capitalist government. Ultimately, every political system remains subject to public opinion. If the mass of the people become convinced to socialism, then no police power in the world can stop it. Even totalitarian dictatorships are subject to this, e.g. the fall of the USSR, monarchist Iran, etc. Then, the capitalist government will fall and be relegated to history, until such a time that enough people become convinced for a second (or I guess in this case, third) American Revolution. The only difference then, will be that if a hypothetical Objectivist government is put into place, it will be that much harder to convince the public of the merits of statism. Most socialists will likely (and rightfully) be ostracized out of the communities as sociopaths, much like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi organizations today are regarded. The idea that socialists are just well-intentioned people of good-will intending to help the proletariat is what is responsible for most of the horrors wrought on its victims. Socialists are dangerous people, and should be regarded as potential criminals, and their leaders as potential terrorists and mass murderers. Another reason why it would be more difficult is that after the first American Revolution, the foot, so to speak, of interventionism was already in the door. (This is what you are referencing, Grames.) But in this hypothetical Objectivist society, there is nothing but private property and the rule of law. There are no public parliaments and popular government, which fortunately makes depredation against person and property that much harder by any would-be socialist revolutionaries. A socialist take-over would then almost require an open war, e.g. Chile's Allende. My point is, the response to protect freedom, in this hypothetical case, would look different than the first American Revolution, insofar as that government (the current one in real life) was corrupted in the beginning from the inside by contradictions in the legal code and moral code in society. But this hypothetical Objectivist/capitalist government would be besieged from without by socialist conspirators. Therefore, in this case of open warfare, they will have to be shot down without mercy, and justly so. In this case, calling the resulting spectacle (government soldiers and militia putting down guerrilla fighters claiming the mantle of “the people,” instead of the other way around) “totalitarian” is a mistaken view based on the aforementioned context-dropping. Once it is understood who is killing in the name of totalitarianism and who is resisting totalitarianism, then it is clear that the government is obligated to resist with retaliatory force. And you should support that.

I've wondered about this too, one of the things that surprises me is that it is very difficult to find ARI-sponsored lectures in any format other than CD or Cassette. Most people these days have long since thrown away their cassette players, and CDs for me are just clutter. To have to pay (a lot) for a CD, wait for it to come in the mail, then rip it and put it on my iPod to listen to is just too much of a hassle for me. I guess I'm like those people that Rand criticized who would be put off going to a public library if there were too many stairs I'm sure ARI is worried about putting up mp3 or DRM-protected versions of their lectures on itunes, because of piracy, but I also think most people who would be that interested in Objectivism wouldn't be sharing their downloads. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic..

Nobody has claimed Dr. Peikoff lacks an invalid argument.

As Ayn Rand's heir, Dr. Peikoff makes his living, in part, by the sales of Ayn Rand's work, so they are effectively stealing from him personally. These people doing this are evil, and they need to be stopped, if possible. But at least the Pirate Bay has the right name for it's evilness. I assume that they are making money from their ads, and that they would not want people coming in and stealing their revenue. However, they should turn a large portion of that advertising over to the Estate of Ayn Rand for their theft, and they should also go to jail. Objectivists ought to definitely be against this type of copyright thievery. After all, it was part of the protest of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged going on strike in the first place.

I'm a troll, and I don't understand Objectivism. If these are your debating tactics then you'll never convince anyone of your ideas. This discussion is over.

In short, this is Peikoff's argument as I understand it from his email: 1. Evidence: An ARI board member is denouncing an ARI-sponsored book that is being championed by the founder of ARI. 2. Premise: One of ARI's and the founder's greatest values is under attack from within the Institute itself at the highest level. 3. Conclusion: If there was a Hell, this board member would go there, and ARI needs to decide which side to take: either remove the board member or watch the founder of ARI disassociate himself from the Institute. You can disagree with Peikoff's entire argument, but you can't claim that he lacks one, because it is essentially all right there in the email. Obviously we got the short version of his thinking process, but I don't see how more elaboration is going to change Peikoff's essential argument. You can also demand that Peikoff and Harriman publicly respond in detail to McCaskey's criticisms, but you can't deny that they have written an entire book explaining their views to you. And if they think the book speaks for itself, then that's that. You'll have to judge for yourself who is correct on the history and the philosophy.