Atlas-

Trying to prevent force by the initiation of force is just you being the initiator. Taxes are a from of force so by "protecting" you're citizens from force you are using it against them. If the country desperately needs the money then they could take loans out from the banks using the money earned from business contracts. Force is only to be used against those who initiate it, not against a third part to provide you're defense, you wouldn't take slaves to build you're weapons, taxes are just another form of force.

There should be restrictions on speech, for instance in music using someone else's lyrics would be theft. But in terms of threats, no I do not think it should be censored as it is actions that are the problem, threats is to broad a term to censor as "threats to the establishments" could then be censored and we all know what that leads to.

If an employer runs his comapny like that it will never truly succed. If you look at all the great industrys and buisness's they all our founded on great minds. A mind can olny show it's greatness if it is allowed to work free of constraint. If an employer expects you to do what he says just because he "told you to" without any reason then any men of intelligence will quickly leave him behind.

Money is the currency of mans mind, it allows him to trade the product of his mind with that of someone else's . By trying to take the mans money without providing anything in return it makes you're company no better than con artists and grifters. In other words it is immoral. If you sit by and let immoral things happen then you are know better than those committing them. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" A promotion is worth nothing in a company of parasites, and money unearned is not worth having no matter how much you have.

Happy to help, it's always nice to find a kindred spirit.

He never prohibited religion a public announcment in neptunes bounty actually says "The freedom to chose a god requires the freedom to reject it, keep your religion to yourself." And I think his avoidence of the surface was crucial to Rapture's survival as it kept away the parasites.

@Minarchist It is not "free of morality" it's "free of petty morality" there is a major diffrence. It was actualy Bioshock that introduced me to objectivism. It is the only truly great game I've played. It was a perfect example of waht an objectivist utopia could look like. It's fall due to the parasite of fontaine and ryan comprimising a perfect example of the pitfalls to be avoided in objectivism.

People are made by the choices they make, it is their choice to build a railroad, their choice to construct a skysracper. I never said that you should base your personal prefrences on others, infact being the same and not being an individual is being a second hander. It is ones will that makes one different, it is their will which allows them to choose rationality over irationality. It is ones reason which makes them different.

Happieness is the ultimate goal of live. Happieness comes from the use of you're mind to produce. That is the rational conclusion of pleasure. What people produce and what they like producing is personal prefrence, if we were all the same then we would lose our that which makes us unqie and without us being unique we are no better than animals.

Rights exist to protect the minority from the majority and the individual is the smalest minority on earth. As such individual rights can never be subject to public vote as that is violating the very premises of them. If they can be taken away a right is not a right it is a liberty. When someone is sentanced their rights are not violated unless it is the death penalty, as all they are doing is paying back what they unrightfuly took. On the subject of jurys. I can't see how it is that 12 randomly picked men and women who know nothing about law can possibly make such descions. In a case recently a jurer told the court she was threatened by the defnedant. This was a complete lie that she concuted to be able to go home. She got three years. How does this person get to decided whether one man murdered another.

The right to life entails a right to porperty (as man can not live without keeping that which he produced) The right to property means the right to keep that property and to have full and unfettered use of it which is in turn privacy, in or on your property. This does not however mean that you have the right to be secret in a public place as it is not violating your property to identify you.

If you all share the same orange pitcher then there's going to be one guy who drinks everyone elses orange juice, and beacuse he's the biggest there's nothing you can do about it. Well if he owns the lake there is no problem. He can do what he wants with the lake, he doesn't own it for other peoples enjoyment he probably bought it to dump in it infact. No is the simple answer. You do not own any of the houses around it and therefore have no right to change them. If you try to keep the house price up in any other way then you are merely attacking the free market. They are not directly reducing the price of you're house but changing the area it is situated in, it is then up to the buyer on how much he spends. Like I said on another thread it's like abandoning a skyscraper to preserve the view.

Ofcourse, the way to keep up with global competiteros is to pay the company a lot of money for the same amount of work despite the fact that no one wants to buy their prroduct. There's no flaw in that argument at all.

In answer to the original question of "Pollution as a Rights violation" I would say unless it's being pumped inot you're house then no. Complaining about a factory because it lowers the value of you're porperty is like stopping the building of a skyscrpaer to preserve you're view. And the prize for pointless post of the week goes to...

You have said that he is not making a point but rather asking a question. But looking at te languge it can be interpreted in another way entirely. The phrase "would you agree" can either be seen as "do you think..." or "This is what I think do you..." in the case it is a question and so has no premises, in the case of the second it is a statement of what he or others belive and asking you if you agree, this means that it does include premises. Even saying this you're argument is infact invalid as you are basing it on a false premises, that being that a question does not infact have a premises. This is of course false, a question is asking whether a fact or idea is true or false, to do this you must propose an idea to evaluate it. An idea is based on premises and therefore premises must be included in a question. In reply to the question, No, as you can not take without the use of force whether through physical force or that of depriving people of their land and the thought that it is their's. It is all force and thereofre is unlawful, the only proper and logical option is to sell the land to the highest bidders and using the money earned to fund the courts/police/army.

It all depends on the meaning behind the words. Black men are allowed to say the N word without being offensive to each other, if a white man was to say it he would normaly recive a slap. Wrods do have a specific meaning but the context thoe words are said in is everything. If in a conversation it would be appropriate to tell someone to fuck off, I'm not going to ask them to go away. The impact of the two is significantly different and so it is appropriate and necessary to have both.

No one would control it, thats the whole point. Trade and money existed before formulised government. If their are goods to trade people will trade them. If people are trading then it helps to have a common trade method, nothing would be forced on anyone. The common currency would merely evolve, paypal is a private store of money which can be used to pay for goods all over the world for example. Why do we say it? Because it's true. To a non-absaloute as you seem to be it is hard to explain, but truth is an absaloute. Objectivism works on a rational basis with all those who 'follow' it using their rational mind. Logicly there can only be one right answer, this can only be found through the procces of a logical mind. Objectivism is based on logic and therefore all premise set down by it are true. Also comparing Objectivism to religion is incredibly foolish as one is based on faith while the other rationality, see the difference? For a start finding one thread does not classify as 'some'. Reading between the lines does not mean "I cannot accept facts" it means that "I do not know how to word my argument in the correct way to put across my argument." It is perfect, if you don't think so you're not an objectivist. It is not a bible, the bible tells you what to belive, Ayn Rands books talk about WHY you should belive some things. It also encourages you to work things out for yourself rather than telling you to dismiss you're own rational judgement in place for faith.