Repairman

Reason Man, you bring out some valid points. But I am not going to patronize you. The ethic/race problem in the US is a subject best discussed in the brightest of light cast upon the volumes of history, making it the most challenging problem present-day and future Americans face. Equating every African-American with "DDVB of P" is absurd. As far as doing time in a ghetto, I have done mine, and found that a significant number of my fellow caucasians substantiate the welfare case loads, and constitute some of the most voracious bottom-feeders. As an individualist, I do not ingore this subject, and often take up the topic, admittedly, only when I am confident that emotions woun't go ballistic. If it were up to me, there would be no publicly funded schools, perhaps only charitably funded recreation centers. Only the willing can be educated. I don't believe there ever was a completely united United States, and I agree that democracy is a very flawed form of government. Our crisis, as you seem to frame it, is one of a lack of intellectual leadership. The majority of Americans prefer trivia and style to any substantial form of debate. When Christianity enters the debate, reason is at risk. Any solution worthy of pursuit must be founded on reason.

I have The Fountainhead in my DVD collection, and it is a convenient devise for discussion among the those unfamiliar with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I happen to have a great fondness for films of this era. My opinion of this film is, of course, one of approval. However, the viewer ought to be familiar with this classic era of noir film, and it is noir fiction, (especially the suggested sexual violence, flogging, and the demise of Gail Wynand.) Raymond Massey was the only character perfectly cast for his part, although Patricia Neal was excellent. Gary Cooper was a bit too old for his part, (as was Jimmy Stewart for his parts in The Spirit of Saint Louis and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), but that was typical of those days. (I would have loved to have seen Vincent Price cast as Toohey.) Rand was supposedly thrilled to have her big screen idol, Cooper, cast in the part; so Roark's age was one of those elements that deviated from the book. I can't expect to have friends read the whole book, although some have, at my urging. The critical points made through Roark's example were intact, and that makes it worth watching again, and sharing with a friend. The virtue of individualism is portrayed as Rand insisted it must be in the medium of film, which is an art form created collectively. It holds up much better than the current attempts to portray Atlas Shrugged on film.

I couldn't think of a better way to create more animosity toward the US than a pre-emptive war on Iran. Or maybe we should start a war with Pakistan for their support of the Taliban, while we're at it.

I would be far more concerned of the revolutionaries likely to take over Syria. "Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss." Sure, every rational person can agree that Assad is an A******. Nonetheless, he reigns in a neighborhood so completely irrational, Byzantine in the nearly literal sense, and utterly unmanagable by any other means than dicatorial power. Can we realistically expect any form of leadership to emerge from this mess that won't be a threat to its own people? And what of international law, or the power of collective security? There is some useless international agreement, signed in the '90s, that "obligates" nations to stop chemical warfare. When enforcement of these laws presents the problems such as the present Syrian Crisis, selective enforcement usually becomes the option, and Assad gets a pass. The same applies with collective security. Governments tried to outlaw war in the 1920s; how did that work out? We are rational people talking about a region of extremely irrational populations, tribal in nature. It will be generations before they abandon the tribalism, and the religious fananticism, so common to people of this unfortunate region. If change is to happen there, let them save themselves, take pride in it, and our "moral obligations" of protection should be reserved for those societies who deserve it.

I will concede that conscription cannot apply in a truly free nation. (The United States may qualify as quasi-free nation.) But what about quarantines or forced innoculations? Suppose there is an epidemic of devastating proportions, and a minority of your population refuse to cooperate with the official emergency measure?

War, that is, national defense, is an explicit function of government. Defense of a nation's border is a matter that would unify a nation to meet the challenge, when the threat is recognized. Milton Friedman debated Pentagon leaders over this subject, and shortly thereafter, the conscription army of the United States became a "mercenary" army. As far as I understand, the United States conscripted soldiers only during the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. While the draft ended in 1971, the Cold War continued for another 20 years without a draft. The reliance on technological systems and specialization were sufficient for our national defense, and continues to be so. As for the Civil War, and the two World Wars, we amateur historians can debate the necessity of conscription, but in the future, human lives (and, of course, deaths) on the field of battle will dwindle, as they have dwindled for decades. For this optimistic forecast, we may thank the pioneers of defense technologies. War, it should be noted, is an external threat; diseases are an internal and very personal threat. It is to Mushroom's other subject that I have yet answered for myself: Does government have the right to innoculate citizens against diseases that pose a public health risk? In times past, many people resisted forced innoculations from officials, because of their mistrust of the governmnents they had left in the "Old Country."

jefftk, I strongly recommend that you start your introduction to Objective through the actual books of Ayn Rand. Most of the questions I see can be answered simply by reading The Virtue of Selfishness. While I understand that these are situations supposed for the sake of argument only, and many of the afore mentioned arguments are well-reasoned, allow me to offer this perspective: The asteroid scenerio: man is a helpless entity. First, this is not true. You derive great value from giving endlessly of your earnings, paid for with honest and strenuous labor, to multitudes of strangers, while you subject yourself to abject poverty. This is quite nearly the definition of altruism. If you gave the significant volume of your wealth to organizations that insisted they could spend it more effectively for you, how would you rest assured that they (the organization) are spending it wisely? Maybe the team of scientists saves themselves and their families, and leaves you to die, in the asteriod scenio? Would that fulfill your highest values? If you wish the multitudes to survive or florish, while you parish, how does this equate to your "pursuit of happiness"?

Mushroom, it is a helpful to have someone with your background as a contributor. I have only recently discovered this forum, and immediately found it entertaining and worthwhile reading. As for myself, I arrived at many of the same conclusions put forth in Ayn Rand's writings, and found that I have been in aggreement with Objectivist disciplines for all of my life, with the exception of those unfortunate and misspent episodes that too frequently happen to many of us. These "episodes" may be explained by the fact that I've only discovered the writings of Ayn Rand in 2007, rather late in my life. Your background in science and philosophy is no small accomplishment. As a young man, you'll do well. As for integrating Objectivism into your personal lifestyle, no problem. What are your objections to Objectivism?

This is my first entry to any online forum, so I will begin by saying that small talk is only worth pursuing when it doesn't seem small to either parties. This is entirely a matter of freedom to associate. I have chosen to associate with contributors to this forum based on the self-interest that some worth-while commentary is generated among us. In the case of ppw, I empathize with his work-place situation. I don't talk football. As for those who recommend taking an interest in subjects unworthy of consideration, such as football, life-styles of the rich and famous, or favorite beers, I cannot agree with you. If you are at work, it is likely that you do not choose the "team" with which you're a member. I would never try to talk football, a subject that has nearly mystical powers over many people, because they would know I don't care about football within the first ten words out of my mouth. When someone talks about a non-work related subject, as a means of personal interaction, wouldn't it be more sensible to simply admit that you're no expert, and let the subject fade out, or allow someone else to answer. I prefer to remain silent and look like a fool, over opening up my mouth and proving that I am one. Of course, if you find someone at work that shares even a part of your Objectivist outlook, natually you have found an ally. But no one bothers the quiet guy, so long as he does his job. Always be real.