studentofobjectivism

So in effect, this law was made because we have no right to burn the government's property.

Exactly, exactly, exactly! Fair market value is what the buyer and seller both willingly decide. If one of the parties does not like the terms, he can refuse the contract. But one of the parties - the private citizen - in this situation cannot refuse the contract. Do you know why? I ask you do you know why?! Because the government is holding a gun to his head. One more question: When does this collectivist trend end? I can see more and more socialist tendencies in America each day.

This is a good point. Before any economics and politics can be discussed, one must first discuss the premises behind it. (i.e. dialectical materialism, altruism, etc.) Discuss how these dichtomies are false and will ultimately lead to a person's (and a country's) spiritual death and eventually lead to it's physical death.

I do not understand how the government can decide the market value of a home? Isn't this a conflict of interest? If you ever wondered why the world is descending into lower rungs of hell each day...

But it may be essential to understanding how the philosophy can affect different people. For example, some turn Objectivism into some sort of religion. Ever read "The Ayn Rand Cult"?

It's Branden, not Brandon. <<<Please don't quote an entire post just to make a one line correction--Jennifer>>>

Once someone gets hired by Stop and Shop, they are forced to belong to the union (and in the process pay a $100 initiation fee and $8 dues weekly).

I know I'm not a 'supreme pragmatist', how 'bout you?

I work for Stop and Shop as a cashier. I get paid $7.05 an hour (minus taxes and union dues). I belong to the UFCW - United Food & Commercial Workers International Union. I just got their quarterly journal that denounces any business (this time it's Wal-Mart) and any man trying to make a profit - the profit motive is evil. I think it may be immoral to belong to a union because I choose to work at Stop and Shop, and thus choose (indirectly) to belong to the union that initiates the use of force against Stop and Shop. Ultimately the question is: Is it immoral for me to belong to a union? Note: Changed 'amoral' to immoral' and added clarity.

What he presents is not an Objectivist society, but some sort of Nietzschean hedonistic society where the Ubermensch rules. In an Objectivist society murder would be OK only in self-defense - if force was initiated against an individual. Objectivism does not preach altruism - sacrificing others to our own gain - but this is the whim-worshipping society your friend presents. It sounds like your friend is setting up a straw-man of Objectivism (but hardly even that!).

But, from an Objectivist's percpective, who hears Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff continually talk about the most "evil philosophers" who ever existed, to find out what they actually stand for (Kant really is evil by the way - he believes that actions are only good if they are done altruistically - and even then one should not find joy in helping others, for that is selfish ) and then eventually to find out why they are evil.

So then I can assume that if a person punches you a couple of times then you have a moral right to kill the person since it is "impossible" to know if he intended to kill you?

Another question: Is it amoral to kill someone who initiated the use of force against you but had no intent to kill you? Example: You are in a fist fight and you pull out a glock and kill the guy initiating force against you. Would this be amoral?

But isn't a contract an agreement between two people that transfer goods to each other? If one party does not deliver the goods and recieved his part of the deal, wouldn't this be a violation of the second party's right to the first party's goods? What circumstance would there not be a violation of property rights?

Not directly. I am suggesting that instead of just reading a passing comment about Kant in one of Ayn Rand's works, you can learn why he is evil. However, I hope that you are not suggesting that to hate these evil men is evil in itself. It is not evil to pass judgment. "Judge, and be prepared to be judged." - Ayn Rand

Have you ever heard of the book called "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant? It offers not only a (comprehendible) summation of Aristotle's philosophy, but also of all of the major philosophers in their chronological order. From Plato to Dewey. You can learn why to hate Plato, Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer instead of just getting second-hand information from Ayn Rand. Just a suggestion.

I will refer you to the essay "The Nature of Government" in Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism".

I am a HUGE Rush fan. It is weird, however, how they place the song "Passage to Bangkok" right after "2112". 2112 espouses Reason while Passage to Bangkok is just about looking for the best weed to get stoned off of. And isn't it ironic, don't ya think?

I know this question may seem superfluous, but will Mr. Peikoff decide to have an 'intellectual heir' as Ayn Rand did? Who will be the 'official voice' of Objectivism after he passes? He better make a decision soon.

Thank you for correcting what I meant to say. Another example would be her view on homosexuality (Which I don't think is right to begin with. If the person thinks that the other person is attractive and has a good spirit and sense of life, why can't he marry the guy?) So you're right. Persons agreeing with her every word is what created dogmatists and books such as "The Ayn Rand Cult".

No problem. And I did think you were just ignoring me.

I ask, what is the underlying theme behind the books? Yes they are just kids books, but Harry Potter seems to have Objectivist related themes? I am sure you wouldn't feed your kids mysticist rubbish.

This first part is true. Miss Rand can be questioned. However, one should not call oneself an Objectivist if they do not fully agree with every statement Ayn Rand made. You may call yourself a "sympathizer of Objectivism" or whatnot, but you may not call yourself an Objectivist. Peikoff may be honest in what he writes and believes, but because it is not Ayn Rand herself writing, he needs to be looked at extra carefully. I agree with everything he has written so far, but I do look at it with a critical eye.

Here it is. And thanks for the comments, I really appreciate it from fellow Objectivist high school students (I thought I was the only one!). Egoist_Manifesto__Rough_Draft_.doc

Be wary of so-called 'Objectivists' such as Kelley from the TOC. STAY AWAY FROM "THE OBJECTIVIST CENTER!!!". They are not true Objectivists as they do not agree with some major issues that Miss Rand brought up in Objectivism (Kelley claims Objectivism is an open-system and it is not). Kelley is a psuedo-pragmatist/Objectivist if there can even be such a thing! Stick to Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff (Even he cannot be read without question, as he is not Ayn Rand herself) and other ARI scholars. Other Objectivists (Such as those at TOC and SOLO) are just wanna-bes and phonies.