Leaderboard

Since a lot of the responses are directed towards me, I will attempt to answer all of them. The contradiction does not bother me because I am new to Objectivism (not really the ideas but new to Rand)and I do like her books. Before reading her books, she was just a face to me that Libertarians liked to use to say they have a female philosopher who "agrees" with them. I have met other self-proclaimed Objectivists through YAL who feel the same way. They found the article on their own, and it doesn't bother them. I also initially stated why in my first post, because I educated myself on her background and I wouldn't blame her. I think people are entitled to their own opinions for grounded reasons, and that it doesn't tarnish the work they have done. She has grounded reasons. Regardless, this does pose a contradiction, and I can see why this would bother Objectivists. But it also would bother Rand if people think that is what she meant and they don't take the time to figure out what really meant and speak for her, regardless of what stance they take. For this, I am grateful for all the explanations because it has made me more grounded in my own understanding. Rand said that Nations have no rights, she didn't say that the people of such nations have no rights. In fact, her point was that the people are the ones with the rights, not the nation. A holy war is a war over morals. This is regardless of Religion. To invade a country for no other reason then that you believe you are more right than they are is for moral reasons, and therefore a holy war. If such a nation is threatening the rights of the individual citizens (by declaring war), then that is a different story. Even in that case, representatives of citizens need to vote for such intervention on their behalf. Not only did citizens not vote for Vietnam, but they also did not vote when it came to intervention with Afghanistan. I mean the 1980's intervention, not the 2001 invasion. Our own CIA trained Osama Bin Laden, so Afghanistan could win their freedom war against the Soviet Union. Not even 10 years later, Osama Bin Laden waged a terrorist attack against the United States which killed many innocent civilians. Could he have pulled this off without the 1980's intervention? There are some who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I know Osama Bin Laden is a real person who was in charge of the Freedom Fighters who waged a war against the Soviet Union during the 80's and our own CIA trained him. I have seen videos and the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" is based off of this. If we left things alone, there is no way Osama Bin Laden would have had the resources or training to pull of a terrorist attack against the US. That is the thanks we get. They come and try to blow us up. Who pays for wars and aid to foreign countries? How does the US get this money? The same way they get it to pay out welfare checks and social security. By borrowing from other countries and charging taxes. At least the welfare laws passed a vote through congress, even though it was a bad idea. Representatives of citizens did not vote on these wars. They did not vote for many of the agencies and programs either. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is the biggest welfare recipient of American money in the world! 70 BILLION DOLLARS! He may not be the leader anymore, but he is a very rich man and your children are going to pay the interest on money given to him by the US government for a long time. Who helped set Egypt free? Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. American Innovations. Not money stolen from the future children of America. I just saw the Facebook movie too, and I don't know if the real Mark is like that, but fictional Mark is such a great example of an Objectivist that he could have been a character in an Ayn Rand novel. But she did not write that story, that is a true story. The lone guy with an attitude problem with this great idea for a social network and second handers thinking that they deserve something from him. It revolves around a court case, and they used the transcript. He wrote the code, and he kept control of his company. He stood up for himself in court, making comments like, "If you invented Facebook, then you would have invented Facebook." Maybe not as long winded as Roark, but the same idea. He lost, but he still won because kept control of his company. And the Egyptions won too, not because of money stolen from American Citizens, but because of innovations from specific "self-centered" American Citizens like Mark. Facebook was created for entirely selfish reasons, but this is what helped set Egypt free. Our foreign aid is an act of altruism on the belief that Democracy is best and it is our responsibility to free the world. The brotherhood may not be the best leaders, but they only supported the revolution. They did not start it. The kids started it. The whole situation is against anything Rand might have stood for anyway, even when only taking the article in consideration, because our money and intervention did not establish a free nation for them. She said in her article that was the only way such intervention could be justified. Innovations by so called "selfish" Americans is what helped set them free, not interventions. It is happening. I have never seen people so happy. Thousands of people on the streets lighting off fireworks. A young man said, "Our revolution, our Facebook." Freedom earned is freedom wanted. <object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc11d7c2" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=41540624&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc11d7c2" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=41540624&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p> <object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc476c58" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=41540477&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc476c58" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=41540477&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

This is a contradiction. "Free" to any extent at all in any respect whatever as you describe it is acausal. No, you can't have even a little bit of magic. It is not the case that "the mind is embodied in a physical form". Let me translate that for your theist mentality: The soul is not imprisoned by chains of causality. This fantasy is not improved by insisting the chains must be a little loose.

Your problem is with your definition of sacrifice. It is entirely unhelpful. According to this definition, every single action I take is a sacrifice, because every single action takes time and effort. In economics, the concept of the "opportunity cost" of an action refers to the next-best thing you could have done with the resources it took to take that action. The salient point here is, every single action or purchase has an opportunity cost. Thus, by your definition, every single action taken by everyone is a sacrifice. Can you see why this is an invalid and unhelpful definition? Rand was very clear with her definition: giving up a greater value for a lesser one. This definition isolates a real and important phenomenon for study and discussion. I don't see why you'd want to redefine it in the way you have.

Does anyone else find that "If you double cross me, I will destroy you." line more fit for an Oliver Stone villain than an AR hero?

Well, I consider myself an average lefty (who is well versed in ayn rand's books - read them all more than once) and I don't jump to all those conclusions. But based on the 5 videos on the shooter's youtube account, he appears to be a strict constitutionalist, which, as you well know, the Right argues the Left are not. Couple that with the fact that Gifford voted for the health care bill and her office was the target of vandalism at the time. And she just won re-election in her district, taking away that spot from a tea party candidate. I don't think a Left wing extremist would target her, if that's what you're suggesting with your accusation of "propaganda". By that assertion, do you claim it would be more accurate reporting to conclude the shooter was Left wing? I mean. let's look what we have so far about the shooter: 1. Possibly strict constitutionalist (except of course his violating of human rights) 2. Seems to advocate a return to the gold standard suggesting he is in favor of pure Capitalism. 3. His target was a dem who voted for the health care bill and recently won re-election, taking away that district spot from her tea party opponent. 4. His reading list, while it includes, The Communist Manifesto, is varied and also includes a title by Ayn Rand - We The Living - as well as mein kampf and Siddhartha. So let's just say the reading material cancels out. 5. It is possibly him burning the american flag in a video he favorited on youtube. However, that is easily because of his disillusion and dissatisfaction with the nation not moving in his preferred direction of a "strict" application of the constitution, and not from any leftist agenda. So the question should not be : Was he a tea party advocate? But, What made him go nuts and what did he shoot people over? The answer to that seems to be because politicians weren't conforming to his strict interpretation of the constitution and that made him crazy. It was ideas, strict constitutionalist ideas that weren't being acted on fast enough for him, that drove him nuts enough to kill. Based, on who he shot and his videos, are you going to suggest he shot people because the government was applying the principles of the constitution too well?