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 l

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

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)