Fostruh

I don't see myself in that statement. What is "the state"? It's other men. Why should one man live for another and why or what conditions would any man need another man to live for him? Men exist and the resources for their lives exist in the context they are in. They each and all have to work to obtain these, each one independently. So, my question back to you is under what normal circumstances in an adult's normal life does he need others to live for him? Is the individual incapable of acting for himself by nature, as a mature adult? My answer then is that men do not need other men to live for them because the individual is not congenitally incompetent. For "man to live for the state" presupposes some unrealistic factor or circumstance where the individual on principle is fundamentally incapable of acting for his own sake. The problem with men "living for the state" is always the same: it's the productive working for the non-productive as if other men whom you live for have some excuse why they cannot act for their own sake and need your sacrifice. However, I also do not call myself and "Objectivist", but just objective. I understand Ayn Rand's view of the role of objectivity in man's life, but I just think "objectivism" is redundant about it. So that's my answer, not from an "objecitvist", but just from an advocate of objectivity. http://www.fostruh.com