theestevearnold

Mercy is an injustice because it lessons a man's deserved sentence without objective reasons. AR spoke of this.

Someday getting myself killed for something worth dying for could be my highest value. But it will still imply that my life was the highest value until that moment...I can't imagine what could be worth dying for other than retaining the life of one I couldn't bear to live without.

This was old draft I started before I read all the posts and realized there was nothing I could add. You and You, etc. had said it all. But maybe my concrete ending might be of value to this great thread. If a type of food is delicious, it's a value to me. If that food is healthy it's a greater value. If it's unhealthy, it's a lesser value. If it's so unhealthy that the pleasure of eating it is outweighed by the physical harm, then, overall, it becomes a non-value. [i'm not sure if "non-value" in the Objectivist lexicon was the right word; I pawned my Lexicon for rent money...I give the lefty book buyer credit for allowing it onto their shelves. Maybe Capitalism is stronger nowadays than I thought, My point is that even the things that can lead to an earlier death (than would've been had I not done them) can still be a value, because they make my lifetime greater. Though maybe shorter. Example: My dad was a great man who fought in the Korean War off air craft carriers as a lieutenant commander and was then one of the world's best interior designers since 1967 where he founded his business in Waikiki (knowing there was gonna be a boom there) and did hotels--all around the world-- a cruise ship, and an airplane until the day he died suddenly of a rare disease. He love to drink. He was an alcoholic but not in the "our lives had become unmanageable" doctrine of the flawed AA; he "Walked the Line" like the Johnny Cash movie I quoted meant. What I mean to say is that when I saw his medical records, my dad was given a year to live due to scirrocis (sorry no spell check) of the liver attributable to alcohol abuse since his days in the Navy till the morning he was taken to the emergency room for Hemachromatosis. Here's my point: We can die tomorrow on our way to work, in a car crash. My dad's liver held all the way to his "car crash." So the physical damage I do to my body, might not even matter if I never make it that far, so the enjoyment of life must be weighed with the prolongment. Tying it back to the ultimate end: a full life specific to man is NOT me on life-support. If that's all it is, with nurses wiping my ass, I'll pull the plugs outta my arms like my dad did when he came to in the hospital. That's not what Miss Rand meant when she referred to Life. Though I'm sure she wasn't saying that if you're an old folk in a hospice you should kill yourself; please don't get me wrong.....there are still things worth living for when the pain is unbearable. Music. Film. Literature. Sex (Cialis can wake the dead).

Great thread. I'm sorry I have nothing to add. I just wanted my applause to be heard.

Amen, Brother

I voted in a recent local primary in which GOP canditates faced no challenger. If anybody knows of an Objectivist seeking office, please tell me so I can give my support.

The evidence is in the industrial revolution; a time when government intervention was much less than now while prosperity was greater. The evidence is the historical fact that the closer economies are to laissez faire, the more prosperous they are. And vice versa. So although no nation has ever had true capitalism, the US in its early days came close, & that was the most prosperous tIme In the hIstory of Earth.

I was persuaded to learn more about Objectivism (and eventually became an Objectivist) because when I read the Fountainhead, it matched my sense-of-life. This wasn't done by the usual Aristotelian rhetoric methods; it was done by presenting me with an ideal. It was an ideal that I had always held, but never saw manifested in the form of a man. Roark showed me what I had always wanted. Objectivism explained how to get it.

[quote name="VECT" post="326292" timestamp="1403118 While I don't have a problem with people interested in knowing my premise for my views, I find your hypocrisy funny that you would accuse me lacking evidence while your own assertion is just as barren. 1. I POLITELY ASKED FOR EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR ASSERTION. YOU CALLED ME A HIPOCRIT BECAUSE I THEN MADE AN ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. I DID NOT SAY "People who make assertions without supporting evidence are douchebags." I was interested in learning about the way you came to your conclusion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was not an arbitrary postulate. Now, sInce you dIdn't offer a sIngle sentence to defend your statement, I suspect it was. Since you asked me to provide evidence defending my assertion, I will: I didn't always use my rational faculty. Drugs alcohol and a deathwish allowed me to act on my emotions, without filtering them through logic. My actions landed me in prison, in and out for the past 20 years (in for 16 of that). My emotions (unchecked by rationality) got me in a lot of fights--most of which I lost. Nowadays I employ my rational mind to calibrate my value system so that my emotions are in synch with reality. It works. And since I am fallible, I also use my rational mind to double check my emotions before I act on them. I don't suppress my emotions, my feelings are stronger and my passions are greater than ever. I am willing to read your evidence to back your statement. The only reason (asIde from the fact that I type all thIs on a tIny phone, whIch Is tedIous) Is I didn't assume you were interested in reading more about my assertion.

Do you have evidence to support your assertion? I say rationality makes it possible for me to safely exist with a much more powerful emotional capacity.

Seeing as though Miss Rand created a philosophy that explicitly opposed anarchism, why don't you create your own corrected philosophy (based on the things you agree with) and give it its own name? When you meet men who show a sincere interest in AR's philosophy, and you explain the part about Objectivist politics, do you present your politics as representative of Objectivism, or do you tell them that your politics differ?

Dearest Harry, Unless I misread you, you said you're an anarchist. Do you think that AR's philosophy supported anarchy? Of course not. Even if it weren't for the fact that irrationality will always exist among men, there will always be honest misunderstandings regarding contractual agreements that require civil courts to arbitrate. You accuse me of misapplying Objectivist principles. Please tell me exactly what you're referring to.

Clearly defined objective IP laws must be established. I know that sounds obvious, but I mean that IP laws must be very specific. Like songwriting; a melody can be copyrighted but a chord progression can't, because there are a limited amount of progressions but melodies are less finite. It takes experts in each field to work with the lawmakers. In a brand new field it becomes easier (not harder) to secure IP rights due to the absence of infingement risks. It's the worry of being infringed upon (as a creator) that requires government.

Prophet was the wrong word. AR predicted (based on Reasoning) that price fixing would occur (AS), which Nixon did with petrol. There's so many instances where she saw things coming, all I can say is she was a genius. But Reidy has a point, the price fixing was already in progress in WW 2. Hey Skylab, did you meet her as you claim? Tell me more...........

First off, in your correction to Objectivism you're mistaken: AR clearly stated the necessity of government. Unless you meant that govt is unnessecary, which makes you some sort of anarchist. AR proved why anarchy results in gang warfare Dearest Harry, I've read the crow epist many times and it showed me why dice shouldn't go beyond sixxes. I don't see your point. Every change you proferred to AR's philosophy aren't changes, they're applications of her principles. The open-systemers are those who feel it's okay to change the principles. I don't know what you meant (in your earlier post) when you asserted that there are degrees of truth but it seems shady. Please clarify why you are willing to make Truth a non-absolute. I say A is A. If you say a is B, are you saying it's not as bad as if you said A is Z?