human_murda

"A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved.... A trader does not expect to be paid for defaults, only for his achievements." -Rand If that means anything.

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.” -Galt Yes, survival is the fundamental and the question is between life and death [as Rand says]. "Growth", "Flourishment" etc is a measurement of the capability of survival, which has been accepted as a fundamental. Sure a pulse is not enough : its the ability to keep the pulse going for as long as possible. A pulse is momentary. Survival is not. Rand was going for survival, not pulse [every living creature, even the brutes Rand spoke of, had a pulse, but their capability of survival was pretty low]. You must understand that "growth" and "productivity" [as considered by Rand], is only to further survival. They are not beyond survival. They are just means to achieve survival, the fundamental. "Productivity", "Growth", "Flourishing",etc is a derivative of this fundamental by applying reason and therefore cannot be used to justify the original argument [as stated earlier]. More of what Rand's quotes: "It does not mean a momentary or merely physical survival. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a mindless brute, waiting for another brute to crush his skull. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a crawling aggregate of muscles who is willing to accept any terms, obey any thug, and surrender any values for the sake of what is known as survival at any price, which may or may not last a week or a year." (Its obvious from Rand's words that she thinks a being's standard is based on how long the organism survives [forgetting that death is inevitable]) “An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means - and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.”(Again, Rand's establishment that survival [which cannot be equated to a pulse] is the fundamental, the ultimate) "The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man's mind sustains his life" (basically, Rand's assertion that productive work ["productivity", "flourishing", etc] is the means for survival, the fundamental) "Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values." (productive work, the only means of survival, is the ultimate purpose of living, Rand feels) "To lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live" (again, the assertion that values are derived from the desire to survive). "You must, if - and the if stands for man'schoice: - if you want to achieve a certain goal. You must eat, if you want to survive. You must work, if you want to eat. You must think, if you want to work. You must look at reality, if you want to think -- if you want to know what to do -- if you want to know what goals to choose -- if you want to know how to achieve them." (Note how all other values are derived from survival, the fundamental) "Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course." (survival again) “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.” (Galt; simple life or death again) "If life -- existence is not accepted as one's standard, then only one alternative standard remains: non-existence. But non-existence -- death -- is not a standard of value: it is the negation of values." But you must know that a being's identity, its nature, is judged based on its capability to survive, which is the standard of value. The mere fact that something exists does not enable us to judge that something. But the fact that its [an organism's] existence can be furthered gives the values, which can be used to understand, using a being's consciousness, its identity. "man’s survival qua man" means the values required for human survival, such as growth, productivity etc, which are derivatives of the fundamental guiding principle of survival [which is different from a pulse, which is momentary], after applying reason . By "qua man", i.e what is proper for man, Rand was talking about reason, which is used to further his survival (look at above quotes). It is through the application of reason that man can achieve the ultimate ideal of survival, if he chooses to live [so Rand says]. Productive work is the manifestation of the said application of man's mind [and is derived from survival]. I am not really contesting free will, but why survival is the basic standard for exercising that free will. I am contesting the morality of "survival as the ultimate aim" ideal.

My first thread made me realize my mistake : I thought my own sense of morality was consistent with Objectivism. I just discovered that there is a fundamental difference between my own morality and Rand's and it just made me realize how much of a Potter fan I am. (I'll be quoting Dumbledore , Rowling's equivalent of Galt, here). The post is sufficiently long. Anyone who does not want to consider even the possibility that my argument can be true can move along. So, the fundamental problem I have with Rand's philosophy is the assumption that survival is the ultimate purpose of a living being and the sole measure of the worth of existence. The problem is that an individual's survival is impossible given a long enough time frame. Every living thing (and consequently all species including us) must cease to exist at some time in the very distant future due to the increasing entropy of the Universe ("Thermal death" or "Heat death" of the Universe), assuming some "Big Crunch" hasn't happened already. So the point is : life cannot exist for eternity. So I asked myself the question : 'If I am going to die anyway, why don't I [or any body] just kill myself [or themselves] and be done with it?'. The answer came as quickly as I had asked it [a testament to how much I used to like the Potter series] : 'The question is not about how long you live, but what you did while you where alive'. There is a simple analogy to computers ; Someone may ask : 'If I am going to shut down down my computer anyway, why should I switch it on in the first place'. The conclusion is similar : 'The purpose of switching on a computer is not to shut it down, but to do whatever you want with it, although it must necessarily to come to an end'. The effect of these simple questions made me realize the root cause of my disparity [Yes, everything I said in the previous thread was ultimately a derivative of these ideas. Simple difference, really, but far-fetching consequences] with the Objectivist philosophy [although there is much in common]. Basically, morality is not based on a question of life and death. Survival is not a fundamental. The question is not about how long you survive [as even the most moral person must die], but what you do so long as you are alive (such as aquiring knowledge 'additionally' as a matter of curiosity rather than as a means for survival. It is this additional part that matters. Knowledge used for survival is only like the electricity used to run a computer. Both are only the pemises, not the main feast). Rand's morality is based on an unachievable dream [survival], finally giving no incentive to the practitioner [DD : " Time is making fools of us again " & "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live"]. A hint of such existence where survival is the only concern is hinted at in the third HP book, probably the only reason for introducing the dementors : ["You can exist without your soul, you know, as long as your brain and heart are still working. But you'll have no sense of self anymore, no memory, no ... anything. There's no chance at all of recovery. You'll just exist. As an empty shell. And your soul is gone forever ... lost" -Lupin]. Before I state more, I shall say : Survival is important. But it is only a premise to achieving something else : positive emotions. There, I said it [a crime, isn't it?]. This was also the moral foundation for the Harry Potter series - this was something that Voldemort ignored : he went in search of immortality while he slighted the importance of love [positive emotion] and the message is this : the preference goes to positive emotions over survival . Voldemort had additional evils, which where shared by many characters, such as Dumbledore himself and countless others. But it was only he who despised love [so don't go assuming his problems lie elsewhere]. Harry's mother sacrificed herself out of love for Harry. Harry sacrificed himself out of love for everybody. Even Rand said something about self-sacrifice for a loved one [superiority of positive emotions, which might have lead me to believe that our beliefs overlapped]. Basically employing reason is a means to achieve survival, a premise for achieving positive emotions [knowledge, love, curiosity, even sadness, what are poems for?]. The desire to survive ceases immediately when it is to be achieved at the cost of positive emotions [which happens often, if you apply the principle to everything you come across], taking "surival" off the pedestal as a fundamental. Do not confuse positive emotions with Rand's concepts of "happiness" & "love", which are basically physical manifestations of the mind's pursuit of survival [which can never be achieved, but only a false assurance] and which gives a sense of selfishness [in case of pleasure], or productivity [drinking, smoking, etc - they used to hint productivity]. My case of morality is where positive emotions are a fundamental and although survival is necessary to achieve it [you can't feel anything if you're dead], our survival upto now has no effect on it [the same reason why every living person, although obviously surviving, experience different emotions], making positive emotions more fundamental than survival itself [even Rand's evil characters had negative emotions while the good characters had positive emotions]. These are achievable while survival is not. Before people start bashing, try to see from this perspective [and allow a few days to get used to it]. And don't assume I am one of the "altruists", just because I am not an objectivist. Actually I hate altruists more than anything [another thing that convinced me that my morality may be similar to Rand's]. You will see that the Harry Potter series retains some of the best aspects of Objectivism : Rational self-interest [Harry, Hermione], fight against altruists [in the form of slytherins], individualism [Dumbledore, Hermione], free will [courage is emphisised as a means to make individual choices; for gryffindors], second chances [which death does not give], protection of minorities [house elves] and majorities [muggles] through reasoning, rejection of mysticism [divination] etc. Sure, both philosophies deal with death. But Rowling accepts that death is inevitable and trying to conquer it is an unrealistic motivation, which must end sooner or later. Young people are more prone to the convicton that death can be somehow overcome, through power, popularity, etc (DD - "Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels, but old men are guilty, if they forget what it was to be young.") Rand claimed that emotions are not reality. Well, negative emotions are not a reality [it does not allow any kind of suvival, which is a premise to experiencing positive emotions]. Long term survival is also unrealistic, a foolish motive to base your life on if you ask me. Consider a similar analogy to reproduction: Sure food is important, but it is foolish to consider food more fundamental than reproduction. Food is only the premise to achieve reproduction, the ultimate aim : this is also because group survival is more attainable than individual survival. [but survival of any type is unattainable. What I presented is only an analogy]. One of the things that Objectivism allows is power [see my previous thread]. Although it allows survival [strictly because the kind of power I am speaking of does not involve force, but rather the lack of it, which is actually quite dangerous], it stifles up positive emotions. Some DD quotes: “We both know there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom,…Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit—” “There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!” (voldemort) “You are quite wrong,…Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness—” “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (meaning, death is inevitable. Although death is contradictory to our will to survive, there is no way around it. So by accepting death, by accepting the fact that it is impossible for you to survive, you shall have conquered death - a major theme in the book) "You are the true master of death, because the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying" "Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him." (emotions can be used as a means to pretend that survival can be achieved, although it cannot be truly achieved) “Its our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities” (suggesting that there are non-altruists, who have the ability, but go out of their way to achieve an unattainable ideal - survival). "It's the unknown we fear when looking upon death and darkness. Nothing more" "Numbing the pain for a while will make it worse when you finally feel it." (Putting all your energy on survival can numb the pain for a while, but death is inevitable) I have one theory why Rand considered survival so important (and this influence can't be neglected) : her experience with Russia. She could have had a great fear for death, basically convincing her of the existence of only two entities : survival vs. death; intelligence vs. stupidity; selfishness vs. altruism; America vs. Russia. She then constructed an entire philosophy based on this assumption and made a crude mistake : she forgot that electricity is not merely enough to justify the existence of a computer. Survival is not merely enough to justify the existence of life. I'll reply when someone actually considers/understands my argument [that survival is not fundamental] objectively and then replies. If anyone intends to quote Rand, justify how it relates to the topic and the basic argument [as I have already considered that Rand if fundamentally wrong, you should attempt to directly tackle the fundamental problem. Avoid using derivatives of her philosophy which are based on this fundamental assumption. Using derivatives of an argument to prove the original argument is a flaw in logic].

Before I say good-bye to all I would like to say one more thing : (To everyone:) You people exaggerate your rights. Pull down your egos and stop pretending that every great thing in history is associated with you (This was actually a problem with Rand and she got blinded by it, especially with the capitalism she promoted, which had lots of flaws which she overlooked. This process becomes almost unnoticeable when people start congregating. So maintaining a forum could actually contribute to this. This has been the problem with every culture in history and I am afraid 'Objectivism' is becoming more and more of a culture [and don't pretend you are free from the ill-effects of culture]). Every one of you need to learn the difference between freedom and power (and freedom can never be abused but power can. Abusing power is not your right). I've been browsing the internet and observe the same trends (and it is only due to fear). I'll rejoin the forum when people actually man up [and not just pretend to be]. So there's one final thing to do : how do I delete my account?

@Nicky : I have the same thing to say to you : You are failing to differentiate between words and concepts. Concepts are based on objective reality. Words are made by people to communicate. Its existence is arbitrary. I was just going around the 'Harry Potter' Related forums and found this: (a surprising coincidence too) and this [by another person on the same page]: Care to explain? The link: http://forum.objecti...pic=10054&st=25 (2nd page) That's exactly the reason why Rand had to choose a new word. The word 'selfishness' had that same bad, stupid meaning before Rand was even born. It was just tactless [except for the shock factor] for her to gave a different meaning for this same word. The 'right' meaning is the old meaning because words are human constructs and are only used for communication. That is the only reality for 'words'. Sure, 'selfishness' may take a different meaning in the future, but that is only because the language would have changed, but there is nothing fundamental that changes [You claim words are 'objective', implying that there is something fundamental about it when there isn't]. Don't make random claims and then use it against me. I only said that words [and not concepts] are arbitrarily accepted means for communication. Suppose I give you some random words you never heard before. You cannot figure out their meaning because there is nothing real or fundamental about them. Sure you may make some associations with words you may already know, but the fact remains that words are arbitrary entities. Your assumptions are immediately nullified when they contradict with generally accepted definitions. When more people accept the new definition for 'selfishness', then that gives the word a new meaning. But the original definition stands [and may be the only definition, say, for people who have never heard of Rand]. This leads to superficial contradictions which was tactless on the part of Rand. @ other posters : For the record I would like them to give their take on any kind of discrimination. Also explain the difference between freedom and power [and explain this from the point of view of the biased seller].

One more thing. How do you guys propose to solve (1) The patenting type issue (2) Discrimination at the market If your answer is : "do nothing", I'll just assume that Objectivism (as you people see it) has no solutions for these real issues. I'll construct my own morality then as 'Objectivism' doesn't seem to be all about rights and reason as you pretend it to be (I also sense a fear among the people who commented here of going against what Rand said even if it is regarding doing a right thing).

Justice. & Ragnar Danneskjöld. That's all I am going to say (in addition to what I've said before : a person can use force to do what is right and force, even in justified situations, occur in the absence of consent of person against whom it is used & objectivism says nothing against using it to achieve justice). If you can't figure out the rest by yourself, I see no point it explaining any further.

His full voluntary consent to doing fair business. The punishment for not doing so is out of his control. Looters don't give consent for themselves being punished for anything bad they did. They actually consider it an achievement. The only way to correct this is by force [i guess you agree with me that his trade was unfair?]. Of course he never gave any consent for this particular scenario. He just wanted to get away with it [as he thought no one would stop him]., But he knew that what he was doing is wrong and so assuming he isn't mentally retarded, he deserves punishment. Objectivity The only case where sex is trade is prostitution and the prostitute has to have sex with "any man who applies". The seller cannot choose her partner as the business is open to all but the buyer can. There is no trade involved when a woman chooses her partner; she doesn't even advertise herself as a product so the situation is irrelevant here [she can never be a victim here as the choice is fully hers. She would never lose money to an unfair trade]. But he has to carry out his job to the limit of his ability. There is no theft. The consumer is only responding to injustice by force (like any proper legal system should). As to the fairness of enforcing justice, there is actually no debate. The only issue here is about the fairness of trade and not the use of force as you claim. My analysis isn't subjective. There are no emotional values in trade [from the perspective of the seller]. The only job of a seller is to make a product and market it at a fair price. The only job of the consumer is to choose a product and pay the price. It is the customers who choose the seller and not the other way around. Sure the seller can stop working but when he is doing business, he cannot discriminate between customers based on their whim. [You almost make sound as though an unjust trade is the right way to do business]. A trade is only fair when it is balanced. Any trade where one gains [by money] more than he offers is theft [The owner (and you) would be a thief for carrying out an obviously unjust, so called, trade]. Thus there exists an objectively defined price following which a trade won't be a theft. The question is not whether or not it exists or whether it is objective. It is not I who deem the value fair. A fair value exists and anything out of it is theft [and you are the thief if you support a thief's moral code]. This brings me back it my original question : how do you determine this value? or to quote myself : "Basically how is the money value for work determined?". Sure you can't have a beam balance to determine it but the "fair price" exists, nevertheless. And my original statement stands : "there is one thing he has no right to do : keep the door open for people who are "acceptable" to him [God knows, good or bad], while keeping away fair traders : this is unjust." Consent is not merely enough for a trade : there also the factor of fairness [otherwise it wouldn't be free trade]. Even a looters trading system could flourish by mere consent. We have to bring an objective standard here : fairness. I actually am surprised that nobody is considering it here. Actually some of the comments sound as though I am being unjustly "selfish" here, as though fairness is my 'need' that doesn't have to be enforced. Basically some of your statements go like this : "The motel owner deserves the money he gets unfairly because it is his 'need' and because the majority sanctions his moral code, the couple have no right to claim fairness. The owner deserves the money because he needs it. It doesn't matter if he he is doing fair business so long as the majority approve of it and are comfortable with the arrangements". Seriously isn't this exactly what Rand was against? When somebody gains unfairly somebody else [most likely a producer] will lose unfairly. Isn't this the looter-producer principle? Maybe this isn't my forum and I will no longer reply if no one makes any decent arguments [The only argument you provided me is regarding the choice of the owner. If he is a criminal there is no reason to pay any attention to his "choice". He made his choice and should be punished for it. The consent of majority can't decide on that. Only an objective standard can. You are not arguing in terms of fairness but rather on your wishes which are the wishes of the majority. Your unfair wishes are simply your needs and you can't vote to decide whether you are right or wrong]. Why do you think law exists? It exists exactly for the purpose of forcing people to manage everything by fair means. What you are suggesting is anarchy. The only force used in the described situation is what is proper for just functioning of society [and punishment is no doubt a part of it]

Actually, the owner gave his full voluntary consent when he opened his motel to the general public and it should be assumed that he wanted to do it by fair means. Now when he closed the doors on these two, it means that the owner was incapable of doing fair trade [which isn't discriminatory. The only question after the owner gave consent to make a fair trade is whether or not the buyers are capable of paying. Other unnecessary imaginary (emotional) values don't come into play. But the owner obviously is allowing these imaginary standards (entirely subjective) to become part of the trade, which is unfair]. Now the couple would be doing him a favour by forcing him to make fair trade [which he is incapable of doing by himself] and one of the ways of doing it is by shutting him up in a basement and paying him afterward. [This would actually be punishment for being unfair]. Language is an artificial construction. There is no 'fundamental' meaning to a word other than what people choose to give it. Now, an idea is fundamental and the publicly accepted idea behind 'selfishness' somewhat overlaps with a looter's way of living [gaining things while violating the rights of others]. Rand had another idea regarding what 'selfishness' means. Maybe she should have coined a new word for it so that we wouldn't confuse the two. Using the same word for two conflicting meanings is a bad idea. [she probably kept the word for the 'shock' factor. This would be akin to telling a religious guy that you worship the devil, when in fact, you may be too-much in love with Science. Basically the love for Science would be compared to devil-worship. This is just another case where the true meaning of an idea is lost by choosing inappropriate words for it]. The publicly accepted meaning of 'selfishness' is bad, even from an objectivist perspective [They comprise the bad-rich in the books. The word 'selfishness' was originally meant for them, and this is the people's understanding of the word 'selfishness' - those who gain by harming others]. The problem here is not smearing. English has a lot of words which have meanings that seem to contradict what you can make out by dissecting the words. But the only thing that matters is the association of a meaning of a word. Here, there is the problem of two conflicting ideas associated with the same word.

The standard here is objectivism, which is outside the subjective perceptions of the two traders involved and this is exactly a case of who deserves what. Just because two people agree on a trade doesn't mean that it is fair (and unfair trade happens all the time). More often than not, it is the sellers that set the "minimum" price for a commodity and the consumer is off to seek this minimum. Other than that they don't have much of a choice. Suppose there are limited number of rooms available for being rent to customers and suppose the owners of the place shoot up the price. Of course consumers have to pay this price and if they did, it was because they "agreed" to the price [as they had no other choice], but that doesn't make it a fair trade. The owner could even set different prices for different people or even unreasonably for different sex and customers have to pay what is asked of them [and if they pay, we'll assume that they agreed on the price]. There needs to be an objective regulator outside the traders. This is actually a case of considering one single trade as part of a whole and that is both rational and non-emotional. I'm not talking about acceptability here. I don't care if a product is pricier than the moon [not to be taken seriously]. Consider the case of Rearden here. The only money he deserves is for his work on the metal. The workers deserve the money for producing the product. The market price of the metal is roughly the sum of these two. Now once an adequate no. of the product is bought so that Readen receives the money he deserves, all subsequent collections should go the workers as now Rearden is out of the equation. Any money made is that deserved by the workers and if Rearden presumes to claim it as his, he becomes a looter to the workers [basically the boss who does nothing and makes profit]. The only profit which Rearden deserved was for his own work which has been fulfilled. His work was finite and he can't get away with more than his work allowed. On the other hand, the workers work regularly and all money should therefore flow to them. It is not "working" that becomes "immoral", but making money out of work you didn't do.If Readen kept making money we would have the simple scenario of "rich getting richer" (unfairly, that is). I guess Rand just missed this detail. I was talking about patents not allowing others to produce. So the seller can set whatever high price they want and buyers have no choice but to "agree" to the trade. My basic question is this : how do we make sure people get exactly what they deserve for their work? Patents nearly always make sure that the "inventor" [think Rearden] gets too much money while its absence does not ensure the inventor enough money [in comparison to the exact amount he deserves]. I'm not saying there is a contradiction. I think there are problems with wordings, that's all. For eg., when Rand goes on about selfishness, she does not use the word like most people do [who think it means it is an achievement of that which they are jealous of, mostly status-related] but rather, she is mostly referring to self-respect and self-loving. I feel there may be a fundamental difference in what Rand actually meant by need [as you can see here it applies in different ways for different contexts], leading to superficial contradictions. I think I understand quite a bit of what self destruction means, thank you. The only reason the strike worked [did it? I have yet to read the last part] is because every producer took part it. Mass bunks can't work with a single person. Now if you took the plunge, you would be destroying yourselves [Even worse, there could be people to replace you]. You would just grow old and die and that's the end of the story : it would not effect the change you wished to make. Even Dagny had great trouble allowing any producer to destroy themselves by not working. But she finally agreed to it [did she?] when she realised that they had a fighting chance [which you don't have] to effect a change [as every producer agreed to do it, collectively] and then refusal to work becomes more productive in the long run than working presently. You [Greebo] also have the added disadvantage of being in a world where the looters are not as dumb as in the books and constantly evolving as well. They may even replace you and it's "nonsense" to believe that something like that may actually work. I was talking about around the time when Rearden and Dagny reached the 'Twentieth Century Motor Company', when they say a couple of guys making off with loots. I can't seem to find it ; may be I just imagined it? Why not? It is fair trade. They could just lock the owner in the basement [if he isn't willing] until their holiday ends and just remember to pay him afterward. You can use force for what is rightfully yours [as property or by fair payment]. The owner had no right to keep away a fair customer [he should be fined if you as me]. Sure he could close his doors to villains but not a fair trader. Sure he has rights to close his motel if there are only bad customers ; he can even close the motel to keep off all customers, good or bad, out of his own; but there is one thing he has no right to do : keep the door open for people who are "acceptable" to him [God knows, good or bad], while keeping away fair traders : this is unjust. It doesn't matter if force is used to ratify this so long as it is reasonable.

We could be going off-topic here, but, @Greebo: I think I get your first scenario, here. Of course, the gay couple couldn't do anything if they couldn't find a room and we are, in a manner of speaking, not forcing them out. But I dont agree with your analysis on two respects : (1) In the first scenario, you assumed that the gay couple needed to be kept out for whatever reason, so closing the motel is the only way to rightfully keep them out. But you are also assuming that you had accumulated enough money before you went on strike. You cannot survive if you go on strike (and in reality you would be the only one to go on strike, so the prospects dont look good). Basically what I am saying is, going on strike is not an option, you will only destroy yourselves in the process. The only other way is for others to change [which 'your' need], so that you can make money. Even in the book world most objectivists had inherited capital to work on, so they both maintained and took it forward and could afford to go on strike. There was even a case where Rearden and Dagny look at a young person and wonder if he could have been great : but he couldn't because he had no capital - he actually 'neened' the society to be different for him to achieve anything [and in order to achieve, he 'needed' a proper environment in which his mind could grow, which needs capital] and this guy certainly couldn't go on strike. We 'need' the society to change [only then can people with low capital achieve anything] and the only other way to make money [which you need to survive] is by becoming, at least partially, a looter. Even if the objectivists go on strike, I doubt the society would go into total chaos as it does in the book : there would be people to replace the strikers [people aren't that dumb, at least in terms of ability] (2) I don't agree with you on the second scenario at all. The couple are the victim here. The motel owner is a worker who is basically holding others to his 'wishes' because he built a motel in a high-demand area (kind of like patenting). The only reason he makes money is because his original choice to build the motel here proved a boon and not because he is a hard worker. He is receiving cash he doesn't deserve (because of the patenting scenario) : kind of reminds me of what Rand said about how native americans did not hold a right to land they did not know how to use. The motel owner here is the looter because he makes money out of previlege rather than ability [As he doesn't/cannot trade properly, for whatever reason]. If you ask me, the couple had every right to be in that motel and if they 'get their way', nobody's right is broken. A room is not their previlege, but their right [because they have money to pay the owner like everybody else], and they could use force if they wanted to, as they are seeking their freedom. Basically, it is the motel owner's need that the couple stay out : based on his skewed assumptions, letting in the couple is bad for business [when in fact, it is only bad for his ego]. Hypothetical situation : Suppose the only country in the world is Russia [which exists as Rand describes it] and Rand is living in it. Obviously, she wouldn't sell as much as she would have sold in [real-world] America. Her work would have amounted to nothing. In such a case it would be her 'need' for the society to change, which would then increase the perceived value of her work. She would then have to exist at the whim of the people if she is to survive and obviously, she couldn't go on strike. Actually going on strike in the present world conditions are only possible for the conditions encountered by the objectivists in the book [to the advantage of these objectivists]: (1) Everybody else is too stupid (2)You already had enough capital to start working independently (3)All achievers are objectivists who are ready to take the plunge with you. (4)You are financially well-off at present. Actually all four are only slightly correct if you compare it to a non-hypothetical world. So a strike could not work. The only thing that would work is social change [Your 'need']. So how would you bring it about (without initiating force in an already socialism dominated society [and I'm not talking about the government but rather, the people who refuse to change]).

Well, I'm new here and of course, I have some questions. (I've only just begun the 3rd part of 'Atlas Shrugged') First, in an ideal society how is the free market regulated? Hypothetical Situation : Suppose there is great demand for a commodity that has not yet been invented but is being actively researched. One team finds the answer (while others are close), patents the product and sets an exorbitant price for it as well. Now the problem is, is it ethical for them to do so? They would get a lot of money but do they deserve it? Even though they worked for it, aren't they making more than should have? (I have the same questions regarding the patenting of 'Rearden Metal'. Sure, he should have been the only person collecting money for it in the beginning, but after he received a specific sum for his achievents, the patent should have expired [it seemed Rearden had no intention of it]). In such a case, where competition is effectively eliminated, how is money regulated? When patents are absent the situation gets worse, the original inventor would get little or no money. (Basically how is the money value for work determined?) Secondly, from the point of view of an objectivist, it is our 'need' that the rest of the society functions according to our moral code (because an individual cannot make any money in a rogue society by just means and would probably not survive if he follows his own ideals). So we 'need' others to change as per our requirement. So this would mean we are holding others based on our needs, aren't we? (I know I am wrong but I dont know how to put it) Also how do we change others anyway?