Sebastien

At least this is true for me. I am willing to risk my life for the citizens of my nation to live in peace and happiness. Note, joining the military does not mean you are sacrificing your life. It means you are possibly "risking" your life, which is a different thing altogether.

I think Dream_Weaver has the right idea. Ms. Rand validates risking one's own life if not risking one's own life implicates adherence to a lesser value or if it would be an unhappy life. This is true for risking one's life to save a loved one, and it is true for risking one's life to protect the lives and liberties of national citizens. The people who join the armed forces value life a little bit more than civilians do, and they are willing to risk their lives because they value other people's lives.

RationalEgoist, The anarchist argument only stands up in theory, but not in reality, whereas the Objectivist theory of government is robust in theory and also in reality. The reason there is a conflict is because anarchism is logically sound, however you can never put it into practice. Objectivism, on the other hand, is meant to provide satisfaction to the mind (resolute soundness), and also to the natural needs of a rational man and a free society.

The only Universal Basic Income we need is: 1. Police protection of our life and property. 2. Military protection from foreign intruders. 3. Law courts to enforce contracts. As long as we have these things, we will feel safe conducting business to further our own lives.

True capitalism competes with other ideas in the marketplace, which is where the battleground should be.

True capitalism exists within spheres of influence of true capitalists.

Easy Truth, It is not true that true capitalism never existed. Pure capitalism exists in the hearts of those who defend its principles and its ends, and work towards achieving those principles and ends in their own lives. (See "Can a rational man live in an irrational society.")

"We objectivists are not conservatives... we are radicals for capitalism." Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal I would like to open up discussion on what it means to each of us to be a radical for capitalism. I have some ideas of my own, which I am willing to share if others take interest in this conversation.

Kant, on the other hand, allows us to get inside the mind of soldiers by deducing truths from a priori principles, much like the method of Austrian Economics. Let me know if I should elaborate to make this more clear.

Normally, I would use Hegel's method of phenomenology, but phenomenology requires access to cultural artifacts as a means of getting inside the minds of others.

In my view, Kant may offer some tools for understanding Germany's attitudes prior to and during WWI.

Boydstun, Thank you for the thorough analysis. I've come away from reading your article with an understanding of why Germany's militarism cannot be attributed to Kant's (or other thinkers') influential ideas.

Hi Jonathan, The one thing that is missing from the man in example 2 is pride. The man may have made amends and might feel good about that, but he will never be proud of the wrong that he did. A man who always lives according to rational principles will always be able to take the sum of his choices and actions and experience the virtue of pride.

Jonathan, The reason courage is necessary to act on one's judgment is because we rational people live in an irrational society. When some people in society act irrationally, we cannot always predict their response to our act of integrity. It especially requires courage to confront the persecution that comes from being a rational agent. See "Can a rational man live in an irrational society." and "America's Persecuted Minority."

Jonathan, Philosophy is very helpful training for leadership. Training with concepts allows you to "see the self." You can witness your thoughts as they occur, classify them, work with them, and execute on them.

Ms. Rand alludes to heuristics in the main chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness, entitled "The Objectivist Ethics." She says that once our emotions are programmed by the values of our mind, they serve as "lightning calculators" of our interests. Emotion is quicker than reason. As long as our emotions are properly programmed by our values, they can be useful for quick answers.

You're right, Merjet.

Capitalism has proven throughout it's history to be an originator of abundance. How do we make sense of this in terms of the bible? Deuteronomy Chapter 28 begins with blessings for obedience, and ends with curses for disobedience. If capitalism produces abundance, that might be a sign that it is the correct system. If communism was a failure, and is not a source of abundance, that might be a sign that it is the incorrect system. If you are an Objectivist, you might not like the bible. However there is nothing wrong with finding truth in the bible even if you are an Objectivist. Just a thought.

Hi friends, So does Laissez-Faire Capitalism work? I think it could, but what do you all think?

Why is Ayn Rand right? Weak but interesting argument. Let us prove this with regard to her Epistemology. Many people begin with existence exists. But I'm going to start with measurement. Rand says that measurement requires a standard, but the standard of measurement is not the substance of the measurement. Consider if we were to make the measure of value of US coins based on substance (their relative copper and nickel content). Pennies would be worth more than dimes, because they weigh more. Half Dollars would be worth only a little bit more than a quarter. Or how about paper money? A one hundred dollar bill would be worth nothing, because it is made of paper. The reason Ayn Rand is right is because her epistemology corresponds, not just to reality, but to currently existing reality. Ayn Rand is the voice of the United States, and the institution of money in the US corresponds to her epistemology. The reason this is profound: If the value of actual money was based on its composition, rather than its denomination, we would have to pay for everything with coins. Paper money would have no value. If the standard of measurement for money was also it's substance, the US monetary system would be relying on the intrinsic value theory, rather than the Objectivist value theory. Let me make this clear. If the standard of measurement of money was also the substance of the measurement, the US would have to declare that copper had intrinsic value, and and everyone would be forced to agree. But if the US monetary system was based on the Objectivist theory of value, it would say that money is guaranteed the value of its denomination. This means that money is both objectively valuable, and also subjectively valuable. In other words, the money is guaranteed to have its value, but if you want to spend two hundred dollars on a game console at the game store, that is what your money is worth to you. Basing a currency on the substance of copper in it would be disasterous because not everybody likes copper. Many would be unhappy paying for all of their purchases with unlimited amounts of copper coin. But if the government backs the currency, paper money is possible, and people can carry large amounts of money on their person. A weak argument, but an interesting one.

Furthermore, if money was silver, everyone would have more money, when compared to how much gold they would own. If $2500 can only buy you one gold coin, but can buy you 50 silver coins, if you have 50 silver coins, in terms of pure abundance, you have more money.

Here I will argue that a silver standard is superior to a gold standard. Ayn Rand is silent regarding the gold standard. It is Greenspan who advocates gold as a protection of laissez-faire economics, in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. Both gold and silver serve the same purpose: to increase the soundness, stability, and confidence in the dollar. But given the current price of gold, and given the general range of prices of commodities, a little bit of gold goes a long way, but a little bit of money does not. Imagine if we had to pay for a Danielle Steel book using gold. We would have to trade a fraction of a gram. Most people do not have enough wealth to deposit gold against which to draw checks. If gold is desirable for Laissez-Faire, it certainly is not universal. Silver, on the other hand is cheap, but it is highly desirable. Under a silver standard, it would be possible to go to the bank with fifty dollars and acquire a beautiful silver one ounce coin. The general price of commodities reflect a compatibility with silver. And this will continue to be true, so long as the price of gold remains so high. Gold makes sense for international trade. But not for everyday use. Imagine how happy everyone would be if they could all own perhaps ten beautiful silver coins. Imagine how happy investors would be if they knew that their money was based on a sound, and highly liquid currency that meets the needs of everyday purchases. Silver is superior to gold. Even Ayn Rand's new books are colored with silver.

Yes, Strictly Logical, subjective pleasure and happiness are objective values. That is why Jefferson said we have a right to the pursuit of happiness. The objectification of happiness is the basis of this principle.

I would probably agree with you, Strictly Logical. Actually, the idea of the primacy of consciousness is more important to Marxism than it is to Objectivism. If you are a Marxist, and you believe that consciousness is primary, this means that your consciousness can change reality, i.e. the world. This can be a disasterous mode of thinking. However, taken by itself, Hegel's account of the primacy of consciousness over the external world, doesn't need to be problematic. It might be incompatible with Objectivism, that much is possibly clear. However let us take into account quotations and proverbs that are meant to be empowering: "You are the master of your existence." "You can accomplish anything if you set your mind to it." "No obstacle is too difficult for you to overcome." If we want a theoretical basis to support these proverbs, Hegel is a good basis. Ultimately, I argue that Hegel and Ayn Rand have moderate compatibility. Both agree that reality is knowable, in contrast with Kant, and both celebrate human freedom. Thanks.

So public ownership and public control are nebulous concepts. Every control that is designed to protect more than one individual is a public control. If there is no entity called the public, other than the totality of individual members of that public, then we cannot use the concept of the public to designate the difference between mixed economy and laissez-faire.